```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23413-23886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06954]

[[Page 23413]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 81

April 28, 2014

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; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 23414]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042, 1048, 
1054, 1065, and 1066

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135; FRL 9906-86-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ86

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes more stringent vehicle emissions 
standards and will reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 
2017, as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor 
vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The gasoline 
sulfur standard will make emission control systems more effective for 
both existing and new vehicles, and will enable more stringent vehicle 
emissions standards. The vehicle standards will reduce both tailpipe 
and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, 
medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. This will 
result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, 
particulate matter, and air toxics across the country and help state 
and local agencies in their efforts to attain and maintain health-based 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Motor vehicles are an important 
source of exposure to air pollution both regionally and near roads. 
These vehicle standards are intended to harmonize with California's Low 
Emission Vehicle program, thus creating a federal vehicle emissions 
program that will allow automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 
states. The vehicle standards will be implemented over the same 
timeframe as the greenhouse gas/fuel efficiency standards for light-
duty vehicles (promulgated by EPA and the National Highway Safety 
Administration in 2012), as part of a comprehensive approach toward 
regulating emissions from motor vehicles.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 27, 2014. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in this regulation is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at 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 rule include gasoline 
refiners and importers, ethanol producers, ethanol denaturant 
producers, butane and pentane producers, gasoline additive 
manufacturers, transmix processors, terminals and fuel distributors, 
light-duty vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers, 
alternative fuel converters, and manufacturers and converters of 
vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR).
    Potentially regulated categories include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Examples of potentially
           Category                  NAICS\a\ Code              SIC\b\ Code              affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................  324110..................  2911....................  Petroleum refineries
                                                                                    (including importers).
Industry.....................  325110..................  2869....................  Butane and pentane
                                                                                    manufacturers.
Industry.....................  325193..................  2869....................  Ethyl alcohol manufacturing.
Industry.....................  324110, 211112..........  2911, 1321..............  Ethanol denaturant
                                                                                    manufacturers.
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.
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,   3621, 3714, 3519, 3599,   Alternative fuel converters.
                                336399, 811198.           7534.
Industry.....................  333618, 336120, 336211,   3699, 3711, 3713, 3714..  On-highway heavy-duty engine
                                336312.                                             & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR)
                                                                                    manufacturers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC).

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your activities are regulated by this action, you should carefully 
examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 79,

[[Page 23415]]

80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1065, and 1066 and the referenced regulations. 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Did EPA conduct a peer review before issuing this action?

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

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary and Program Overview
    A. Introduction
    B. Overview of the Tier 3 Program
    1. Major Public Comments and Key Changes From the Proposal
    2. Key Components of the Tier 3 Program
    C. What will the impacts of the standards be?
II. Why is EPA taking this action?
    A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act
    1. Clean Air Act Section 202
    2. Clean Air Act Section 211
    B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
    1. Ozone
    2. Particulate Matter
    3. Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur
    4. Carbon Monoxide
    5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
    6. Near-Roadway Pollution
    7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
III. How would this rule reduce emissions and air pollution?
    A. Effects of the Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile Source 
Emissions
    1. How do vehicles produce the emissions addressed in this 
action?
    2. How will the changes to gasoline sulfur content affect 
vehicle emissions?
    B. How will emissions be reduced?
    1. NOX
    2. VOC
    3. CO
    4. Direct PM2.5
    5. Air Toxics
    6. SO2
    7. Greenhouse Gases
    C. How will air pollution be reduced?
    1. Ozone
    2. Particulate Matter
    3. Nitrogen Dioxide
    4. Air Toxics
    5. Visibility
    6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
    7. Environmental Justice
IV. Vehicle Emissions Program
    A. Tier 3 Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, 
Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
    1. How the Tier 3 Program is harmonized with the California LEV 
III Program
    2. Summary of the Tier 3 FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards
    3. FTP Standards
    4. SFTP Standards
    5. Feasibility of the NMOG+NOX and PM Standards
    6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Effectiveness of the 
Vehicle Emission Standards
    7. Other Provisions
    B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
    1. Overview and Scope of Vehicles Regulated
    2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
    3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs
    4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
    5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
    6. Other HDV Provisions
    C. Evaporative Emissions Standards
    1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
    2. Program Structure and Implementation Flexibilities
    3. Technological Feasibility
    4. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements
    5. Evaporative Emission Requirements for FFVs
    6. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
    D. Improvements to In-Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control 
Systems
    1. Reasons for Adding a Leak Test Standard
    2. Nature, Scope and Timing of Leak Standard
    3. Leak Standard Test Procedure
    4. Certification and Compliance
    a. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements for the Leak 
Standard
    E. Onboard Diagnostic System Requirements
    1. Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System Regulation Changes--Timing
    2. Revisions to EPA OBD Regulatory Requirements
    3. Provisions for Emergency Vehicles
    4. Future Considerations
    F. Emissions Test Fuel
    1. Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel: Ethanol Content and Volatility
    2. Other Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel Specifications
    3. Flexible Fuel Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Test Fuel
    4. Implementation Schedule
    5. Implications of Emission Test Fuel Changes on CAFE Standards, 
GHG Standards, and Fuel Economy Labels
    6. Consideration of Test Fuel for Nonroad Engines and Highway 
Motorcycles
    7. CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel Specifications
    G. Small Business Provisions
    1. Lead Time and Relaxed Interim Standards
    2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
    3. Reduced Testing Burden and OBD Requirements
    4. Hardship Relief
    5. Eligibility for the Flexibilities
    H. Compliance Provisions
    1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
    2. Reduced Test Burden
    3. Miscellaneous Provisions
    4. Manufacturer In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements
    V. Fuel Program
    A. Overview
    1. Background
    2. Summary of Final Tier 3 Fuel Program Standards
    B. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
    C. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
    1. Standards
    2. Requirements for Gasoline Additives
    D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program
    1. How will the ABT Program assist with compliance?
    2. ABT Modeling
    3. Eligibility
    4. Credit Generation and Use
    5. Credit Trading Provisions
    6. ABT Provisions for Small Refiners and Small Volume Refineries
    7. Deficit Carryforward
    E. Additional Program Flexibilities
    1. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
    2. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
    F. Compliance Provisions
    1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
    3. Small Refiner Compliance
    4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance
    5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties
    6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions
    G. Standards for Oxygenates (Including Denatured Fuel Ethanol) 
and Certified Ethanol Denaturants
    H. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles
    I. Sulfur Standards for Purity Butane and Purity Pentane Streams 
Blended into Gasoline
    J. Standards for CNG and LPG
    K. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions
    1. Proposal
    2. Updated Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting 
Implications
    3. Comments and Responses
    L. Refinery Feasibility
    1. Comments Received
    2. Is it feasible for refiners to comply with a 10 ppm average 
sulfur standard?
    3. Can refiners meet the January 1, 2017 start date?
    M. Statutory Authority for Tier 3 Fuel Controls
    1. Section 211(c)(1)(A)
    2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
    3. Section 211(c)(2)(B)
    4. Section 211(c)(2)(C)
VI. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining
    A. Fuel Program Amendments
    1. Fuels Program Regulatory Streamlining
    2. Performance-Based Measurement Systems (PBMS)
    3. Downstream Pentane Blending

[[Page 23416]]

    4. Acceptance of Top Tier Deposit Control Test Data
    5. Potential Broader Regulatory Streamlining Through Program 
Restructuring
    B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs Amendments
    1. Fuel Economy Labeling
    2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text
    3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules
    4. Updating Reference Procedures
VII. What are the cost impacts of the rule?
    A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle Standards
    1. What changes have been made to vehicle program costs since 
proposal?
    2. Summary of Vehicle Program Costs
    B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program
    1. Overview
    2. Methodology
    3. Fuel Program Costs
    4. Other Cost Estimates
    C. Summary of Program Costs
VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the rule?
    A. Overview
    B. Quantified Human Health Impacts
    C. Monetized Benefits
    D. What are the limitations of the benefits analysis?
    E. Illustrative Analysis of Estimated Monetized Impacts 
Associated With the Rule in 2018
    IX. Alternatives Analysis
    A. Vehicle Emission Standards
    1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-in
    2. NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-in and Early Tier 3 
Credits
    3. NMOG+NOX Standards
    4. PM Standards
    5. Higher Ethanol Content of Emissions Test Fuel
    B. Fuel Sulfur Standards
    1. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
    2. Refinery Gate Sulfur Cap
    C. Program Start Date
X. Economic Impact Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Vehicle Sales Impacts
    C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production
    D. Employment Impacts
    1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector
    2. Refinery Employment Impacts
XI. Public Participation
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Overview
    2. Background
    3. Reason for Today's Rule
    4. Legal Basis for Agency Action
    5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
    6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance
    7. Related Federal Rules
    8. Steps Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Entities
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
XIII. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Executive Summary and Program Overview

A. Introduction

    In this action, EPA is finalizing a major program designed to 
reduce air pollution from passenger cars and trucks. This program 
includes new standards for both vehicle emissions and the sulfur 
content of gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an 
integrated system. We refer to this program as the ``Tier 3'' vehicle 
and fuel standards.
    This rule is part of a comprehensive approach to address the 
impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. Over 149 
million Americans are currently experiencing unhealthy levels of air 
pollution, which are linked with respiratory and cardiovascular 
problems and other adverse health impacts that lead to increased 
medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and 
premature mortality.\1\ Motor vehicles are a particularly important 
source of exposure to air pollution, especially in urban areas. By 
2018, we project that in many areas that are not attaining health-based 
ambient air quality standards (i.e., ``nonattainment areas''), 
passenger cars and light trucks will contribute 10-25 percent of total 
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, 15-30 percent of total 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and 5-10 percent of total 
direct particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions.\2\ These 
compounds form ozone, PM, and other air pollutants, whose health and 
environmental effects are described in more detail in Section II. Cars 
and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor to air 
pollution directly near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting for 
more than 50 percent of near-road concentrations of some criteria and 
toxic pollutants.\3\ More than 50 million people live, work, or go to 
school in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, and the average 
American spends more than one hour traveling along roads each 
day.4 5 Over 80 percent of daily trips use personal 
vehicles.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 149 million represents people living in O3, 
PM2.5, PM10, and SO2 nonattainment 
areas. Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure 
Report, current as of December 5, 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135.
    \2\ Mobile source contributions derived from inventories 
developed for this rule. For more information on these inventories 
see the Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 
final Tier 3 Rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    \3\ For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.; 
Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in 
Motor Vehicle-Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute 
Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org.
    \4\ U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series 
H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html. (Note that 
this survey includes estimates of homes within 300 feet of highways 
with four or more lanes, railroads, and airports.)
    \5\ Drago, R. (2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American 
Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. 
Available at http://www.bls.gov.
    \6\ Santos, A.; McGuckin, N, Yukiko Nakamoto, H.; Gray, D.; 
Liss, S. (2011) Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household 
Travel Survey. Federal Highway Administration report no FHWA-PL-11-
022. Available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standards set forth in this rule will significantly reduce 
levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of ozone, PM, 
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and mobile source air toxics 
(MSATs)) across the country, with immediate benefits from the gasoline 
sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These reductions will help 
state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain health-
based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Few other 
national strategies exist that will deliver the same magnitude of 
multi-pollutant reductions and associated public health protection that 
is projected to result from the Tier 3 standards. Without this action 
to reduce nationwide motor vehicle emissions, areas would have to adopt 
other, less cost-effective measures to reduce emissions from other 
sources under their state or local authority. In the absence of 
additional controls, certain areas would continue to have ambient ozone 
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. See Section III.C for 
more details.
    The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards 
for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

[[Page 23417]]

(section 202). EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to 
address such air pollution (section 211). These statutory authorities 
are described in Section II.A.
    The vehicle and gasoline sulfur standards we are finalizing 
represent a ``systems approach'' to reducing vehicle exhaust and 
evaporative emissions by addressing the vehicle and fuel as a system. 
The systems approach enables emission reductions that are both 
technologically feasible and cost-effective beyond what would be 
possible looking at vehicle and fuel standards in isolation. We first 
applied such an approach with our Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur 
standards (finalized in 2000).\7\ We believe that a similar approach 
for the Tier 3 standards is a cost-effective way to achieve substantial 
additional emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Tier 3 standards include new light- and heavy-duty vehicle 
emission standards for exhaust emissions of VOC (specifically, non-
methane organic gases, or NMOG), NOX, and PM, as well as new 
evaporative emissions standards. The fully phased-in standards for 
light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck, and medium-duty passenger vehicle 
tailpipe emissions are an 80 percent reduction in fleet average 
NMOG+NOX compared to current standards, and a 70 percent 
reduction in per-vehicle PM standards. The fully phased-in Tier 3 
heavy-duty vehicle tailpipe emissions standards for NMOG+NOX 
and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than current standards. 
Finally, the fully phased-in evaporative emissions standards represent 
a 50 percent reduction from current standards.
    The vehicle emission standards, combined with the reduction of 
gasoline sulfur content from the current 30 parts per million (ppm) 
average down to a 10 ppm average, will result in dramatic emissions 
reductions for NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5, carbon 
monoxide (CO) and air toxics. For example, in 2030, when Tier 3 
vehicles will make up the majority of the fleet as well as vehicle 
miles traveled, NOX and VOC emissions from on-highway 
vehicles will be reduced by about 21 percent, and CO emissions will be 
reduced by about 24 percent. National emissions of many air toxics from 
on-highway vehicles will also be reduced by 10 to nearly 30 percent. 
Reductions will continue beyond 2030 as more of the fleet is composed 
of vehicles meeting the fully phased-in Tier 3 standards. For example, 
the Tier 3 program will reduce on-highway emissions of NOX 
and VOC nearly 31 percent by 2050, when vehicles meeting the fully 
phased-in Tier 3 standards will comprise almost the entire fleet.
    Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on catalytic converters 
to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and 
NOX, as well as PM (specifically, the volatile hydrocarbon 
fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The catalytic converters become 
significantly less efficient when exposed to sulfur. The Tier 2 
rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in 
gasoline by approximately 90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. As 
discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling 
case that even this level of sulfur not only degrades the emission 
performance of vehicles on the road today, but also inhibits necessary 
further reductions in vehicle emissions performance to reach the Tier 3 
standards. Thus, the 10 ppm average sulfur standard for Tier 3 is 
significant in two ways: it enables vehicles designed to the Tier 3 
tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards in-use for the 
duration of their useful life, and it facilitates immediate emission 
reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the fuel 
sulfur controls are implemented. EPA is not the first regulatory agency 
to recognize the need for lower-sulfur gasoline. Agencies in Europe and 
Japan have already imposed gasoline sulfur caps of 10 ppm, and the 
State of California is already averaging 10 ppm sulfur with a per 
gallon cap of 20 ppm. Other states are preempted by the Clean Air Act 
from adopting new fuel programs to meet air quality objectives. 
Consequently, they could not receive the air quality benefits of lower 
sulfur gasoline without federal action.
    This action is one aspect of a comprehensive national program 
regulating emissions from motor vehicles. EPA's final rule for reducing 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty (LD) vehicles starting 
with model year (MY) 2017 (referred to here as the ``2017 LD GHG'' 
standards) is another aspect of this comprehensive program.\8\ The Tier 
3 program addresses interactions with the 2017 LD GHG rule in a manner 
that aligns implementation of the two actions, to achieve significant 
criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions while providing 
regulatory certainty and compliance efficiency. As vehicle 
manufacturers introduce new vehicle platforms for compliance with the 
GHG standards, they will be able to design them for compliance with the 
Tier 3 standards at the same time. The Tier 3 standards are also 
closely coordinated with California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) III 
program to create a vehicle emissions program that will allow 
automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states. (In December 
2012 EPA approved a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for the 
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) LEV III program with 
compliance beginning in 2015. Twelve states adopted the LEV III program 
under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act.\9\) We have worked closely with 
individual vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations, who have 
emphasized the importance of a harmonized national program. Together, 
the Tier 3, 2017 LD GHG, and LEV III standards will provide significant 
reductions in GHGs, criteria pollutants and air toxics from motor 
vehicles while streamlining programs and enabling manufacturers to 
design a single vehicle for nationwide sales, thus reducing their costs 
of compliance. In this way, the Tier 3 program responds to the May 21, 
2010 Presidential Memorandum that requested that EPA develop a 
comprehensive approach toward regulating motor vehicles, including 
consideration of non-GHG emissions standards.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA's GHG standards are part of a joint National Program 
with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which also 
set coordinated standards for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). 
77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
    \9\ These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Maine, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Washington, and Vermont.
    \10\ The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the systems approach to this program, we have considered 
the types of fuels on which vehicles will be operating in the future. 
In particular, the renewable fuels mandate that was revised by the 
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and is being implemented 
through the Renewable Fuel Standards program (RFS2) \11\ is resulting 
in the use of significant amounts of ethanol-blended gasoline. We are 
updating the specifications of the emissions test fuel with which 
vehicles demonstrate compliance with emissions standards, in order to 
better reflect the ethanol content and other properties of gasoline 
that is in use today and is expected in future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Section I provides an overview of the vehicle and fuel standards we 
are finalizing as well as the impacts of the standards. The public 
health issues and statutory requirements that have prompted this action 
are described in Section II, and our discussion of how

[[Page 23418]]

the Tier 3 standards will reduce emissions and air pollution is 
presented in Section III. Details of the standards and how they will be 
implemented can be found in Sections IV through VI. Sections VII 
through X contain our discussion of the standards' technological 
feasibility and costs, benefits, and economic impacts. Sections XI 
through XIII address public participation, statutory and executive 
orders, and statutory provisions and legal authority under the Clean 
Air Act covered in this rulemaking.
    This final rule is based on extensive public input received in 
response to EPA's Tier 3 proposal. The proposal was signed and posted 
on the EPA Web site on March 29, 2013, and published in the Federal 
Register on May 21, 2013. EPA held two public hearings in Philadelphia 
and Chicago in April 2013. In response to stakeholder requests, EPA 
extended the public comment period to July 1, 2013. We received more 
than 200,000 public comments. A broad range of stakeholders provided 
comments, including state and local governments, auto manufacturers, 
emissions control suppliers, refiners, fuel distributors and others in 
the petroleum industry, renewable fuels providers, environmental 
organizations, consumer groups, labor groups, private citizens, and 
others. Some of the issues raised in comments included lead time and 
the program's start date, the vehicle manufacturers' support for a 50-
state program harmonized with California, the need for and degree of 
gasoline sulfur control (including the level of the sulfur cap), the 
ethanol content of vehicle certification test fuel, and various details 
on the flexibilities and other program design features of both the 
vehicle and fuels standards.

B. Overview of the Tier 3 Program

    In the 14 years since EPA established the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, 
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles and automotive technology 
suppliers have continued to develop a wide range of improved 
technologies capable of reducing vehicle emissions. The California LEV 
II program has been instrumental in the continuous technology 
improvements by requiring year after year reductions in fleet average 
hydrocarbon levels, in addition to requiring the introduction of 
advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero 
emission vehicles (PZEVs). This technological progress has made it 
possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions well beyond 
the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels are 
lowered further.
    As a result, in conjunction with lower gasoline sulfur standards, 
we are establishing new Tier 3 standards for exhaust emissions of NMOG, 
NOX, and PM, as well as for evaporative hydrocarbon 
emissions. These vehicle emissions standards will phase in beginning 
with MY 2017. The structure of the Tier 3 standards is very similar to 
that of the existing Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the 
standards will apply to all light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger 
cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs). We also are establishing separate but 
closely related standards for heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs 
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).\12\ We have concluded that the 
vehicle emissions standards, in conjunction with the reductions in fuel 
sulfur also required by this action, are feasible across the fleet in 
the timeframe provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These heavy-duty vehicles were not included in the Tier 2 
program but were subject to standards in a subsequent rule covering 
the heavy-duty sector (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Auto manufacturers have stressed the importance of being able to 
design, produce, and sell a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states 
that complies with both the Tier 3 and California LEV III programs, as 
well as the greenhouse gas (GHG)/Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) 
programs in the same timeframe. To that end, we worked closely with the 
California Air Resources Board and vehicle manufacturers to align the 
two programs as closely as possible. This consistency among the federal 
and California programs means that manufacturers do not need to design 
unique versions of vehicles with different emission control hardware 
and calibrations for different geographic areas. This allows 
manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, 
development, calibration, and manufacturing. We also have designed the 
Tier 3 program to be implemented in the same timeframe as the GHG 
emissions and fuel economy standards for model years 2017-2025. We 
expect that in response to these programs, manufacturers will be 
developing entirely new powertrains for most of their vehicles. Because 
the Tier 3 standards will phase in over the same timeframe, 
manufacturers are in a better position to simultaneously respond to all 
of these requirements.
    Overall, the final Tier 3 program is very similar to the program we 
proposed. As discussed below and throughout this preamble, the program 
phases in over several years--with the primary vehicle emission 
standards starting in Model Year (MY) 2017 (2018 for heavier vehicles) 
and the gasoline sulfur control provisions beginning in 2017.
    As discussed above, we received a large number and wide range of 
comments on the proposed rule. Several comments raise particularly 
significant issues concerning some fundamental components of the Tier 3 
program, including when the vehicle-related and fuel-related 
requirements begin. We briefly discuss these key issues in this 
section, and in more detail later in this preamble. The Summary and 
Analysis of Comments document provides our responses to the comments we 
received; it is located in the docket for this rulemaking and also on 
EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm.
1. Major Public Comments and Key Changes From the Proposal
a. Start Date and Lead Time Issues
(1) Gasoline Sulfur Control Program
    Many stakeholders commented on the proposed 2017 start date of the 
Tier 3 program, with state and NGO organizations supporting finalizing 
the standards as proposed. Conversely, refiners, importers, and others 
in the fuel industry commented that they believed the proposed start 
date would not provide a sufficient amount of lead time to meet the 
requirements of the Tier 3 program, and that EPA has historically 
provided at least four years of lead time in previous fuels 
rulemakings. These commenters noted that five years of lead time is 
needed to allow for necessary refinery changes to be made during a 
refinery's normal turnaround/shutdown schedule (these occur every four 
years, on average) and to allow adequate time for the permitting 
process. These commenters also stated that, given the proposed 
flexibility provisions for vehicles, that a 2017 fuel program start 
date was not truly needed to enable the vehicle technology. Further, 
these commenters stated that they believed insufficient lead time would 
drive up the costs for regulated entities as they would need to do 
unscheduled shutdowns to install and/or revamp equipment to meet the 
proposed standards. Lastly, they stated that the uncertainty regarding 
the potential availability of credits would make meeting a 2017 start 
date more challenging.
    As discussed in greater detail in Section V below, we are 
finalizing the proposed start date of January 1, 2017. We understand 
refiners' concerns,

[[Page 23419]]

including their concerns over the necessary capital investments and 
potential off-cycle turnarounds/shutdowns to make refinery 
modifications for Tier 3. In light of these concerns, we are finalizing 
additional flexibilities beyond those already in the proposal and we 
are confident that the program being finalized today addresses these 
concerns. Considering all the flexibilities offered to regulated 
parties, there is, in effect, nearly 6 years of time to comply provided 
for those refineries that may need it. As discussed in Section V.D, we 
are finalizing a credit averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program 
that will allow for a smooth transition from the Tier 2 to Tier 3 ABT 
programs (including provisions for early credit generation beginning in 
2014). These early credit provisions, coupled with the ability to carry 
over credits from Tier 2 into Tier 3 (an additional flexibility being 
finalized today that was not part of the proposal), will allow for 
early actions to reduce sulfur levels by some refineries to be used to 
delay the need for actions at other refineries until 2020. This 
structure of the ABT program allows refiners and importers the 
flexibility to choose the most economical compliance strategy--
investment in technology, use of credits, or both--for meeting the Tier 
3 average gasoline sulfur standard. In addition, approved small 
refiners and small volume refineries are given an additional three 
years from the January 1, 2017, Tier 3 program start date to comply 
(January 1, 2020).
    We proposed that the Tier 2 ABT program would not only be separate 
from the Tier 3 ABT program, but that it would also end at the start of 
the Tier 3 program in 2017. The implications of this meant that any 
Tier 2 credits generated after 2012 would run the risk of expiring 
before the end of their full five-year life if they were not used 
before January 1, 2017. Commenters requested that EPA consider allowing 
such Tier 2 ``banked'' credits to receive their full five-year life. 
This would eliminate any incentive refiners may have to use these 
credits prior to the end of the Tier 2 program to raise their in-use 
sulfur levels. The ABT program that we are finalizing today enables a 
seamless transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3, including an allowance for 
Tier 2 banked credits to be used for their full five-year life or 
through December 31, 2019, whichever is earlier. Not only does this 
provision effectively provide more lead time and flexibility for 
refiners and importers, but we believe these banked credits will help 
to provide certainty of the availability of credits for refiners and 
importers who may want to rely on them for compliance.
    Finally, as discussed in Section V.E.2, we are also finalizing 
hardship provisions that allow refiners to petition for delayed 
compliance, on a case-by-case basis, for situations of extreme hardship 
or extreme unforeseen circumstances. These provisions, similar to those 
implemented in past fuel rulemakings, provide a safety valve should all 
the other flexibilities provided prove insufficient. As part of these 
hardship provisions, we are finalizing the ability for refiners to 
carry a deficit for up to 3 years, providing them with yet additional 
flexibility during the transition to Tier 3 should it prove necessary.
(2) Vehicle Emission Control Program
    There were no major concerns raised for the proposed MY 2017 start 
date for lighter light-duty vehicles, although commenters from the auto 
manufacturing industry raised concerns about the lead time we proposed 
for heavier light-duty vehicles. Specifically, commenters pointed to 
Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(C) that, for vehicles over 6,000 lbs 
GVWR, requires that EPA emission standards provide at least four years 
of lead time and three years of regulatory stability.
    In light of this statutory requirement, in addition to the primary 
declining fleet average standards starting in MY 2018 for heavier 
vehicles, EPA proposed an alternative phase-in schedule for any 
manufacturer that prefers a longer lead time and annual stability for 
these vehicles in lieu of the declining fleet average standards option. 
The commenters stated that the proposed alternative pathway would be 
too difficult to take advantage of in comparison to the primary program 
and thereby failed to comply with the Clean Air Act.
    In considering these comments, EPA also considered that during the 
development of the Tier 3 program and in their comments, the same auto 
industry commenters consistently urged EPA to design the Tier 3 program 
to harmonize with the California LEV III standards as closely and as 
early as possible. As discussed in detail below in Section IV.A, 
extensive data that EPA has generated or received continue to support 
the conclusion that the primary fleet-average standards provide a 
compliance path that is feasible across the industry and that closely 
harmonizes with LEV III. EPA believes that we have reasonably resolved 
these somewhat competing concerns--early harmonization vs. additional 
lead time--by finalizing the primary declining fleet average standards 
as proposed while also finalizing revised alternative phase-in 
compliance schedules (see Section IV.A.2.c). In response to the 
comments on this topic, we have revised the alternative phase-in 
schedules to reduce their associated burden for manufacturers, while 
still maintaining environmental benefits that are equivalent to the 
primary program. We also include provisions in the percent-of-sales 
phase-in alternatives that allow manufacturers to exclude vehicle 
models that begin their 2019 model year production early in 2018, in 
order to provide four years of lead time.
b. Emissions Test Fuel
    In-use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA last revised 
specifications for the test gasoline used in emissions testing of 
light- and heavy-duty vehicles. Perhaps most importantly, gasoline 
containing 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced non-
oxygenated gasoline (E0) across the country. As a result, we are 
updating federal emissions test fuel specifications to better match in-
use fuel.
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the specified gasoline for emissions 
testing be changed from E0 to E15 as a forward-looking approach. Since 
then, several factors have led EPA to reconsider that approach, 
including minimal proliferation on a national scale of stations 
offering E15 and the complexities that E15 would introduce for long-
term harmonization with California's use of E10 in their LEVIII 
program. We received comments from a broad set of stakeholders 
including the auto and oil industries, states, and NGOs with a general 
consensus that E15 would not be appropriate as the official test fuel 
at this time. Ethanol industry commenters supported E15 certification 
fuel, but provided no timeline by which this blend level would be 
representative of in-use fuel. In light of the comments received and 
EPA's assessment of the current and projected levels of ethanol in 
gasoline in use, we are finalizing E10 as the new emissions test fuel.
    In deciding to finalize E10 test fuel, EPA considered whether to 
change the volatility of the test fuel, typically expressed as pounds 
per square inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). As discussed in detail 
in Section IV.F, after considering technical and policy implications as 
well as stakeholder comments, we have concluded that the most 
appropriate approach is to maintain an RVP of 9 psi for the E10 
emissions test fuel at this time. EPA considered raising test fuel RVP 
to 10

[[Page 23420]]

psi, but decided to leave it unchanged at 9 psi based on what would 
have been the associated increase in stringency of the Tier 3 
evaporative standard with 10 psi and the loss of regulatory harmony on 
evaporative emissions with California's LEV III program.
    As a result, after reassessing market trends and considering 
comments, EPA concludes that the most appropriate approach is to 
finalize an ethanol content of 10 percent and an RVP of 9 psi for 
emissions test gasoline. We will continue to monitor ethanol trends in 
the gasoline market, as discussed later in this preamble.
c. Gasoline Sulfur Caps
    As described in more detail in Section V.C. we proposed two options 
for the Tier 3 per-gallon sulfur caps--maintaining the Tier 2 refinery 
gate sulfur cap of 80 ppm (with a 95 ppm downstream sulfur cap), and 
lowering to a 50 ppm refinery gate sulfur cap beginning January 1, 2020 
(with a 65 ppm downstream cap). We received comments supporting lower 
per-gallon caps which noted potential environmental benefits, greater 
certainty that vehicles would see lower and more uniform gasoline 
sulfur levels, and the ability to enable new vehicle technologies 
requiring very low sulfur levels. Conversely, comments received in 
support of maintaining the Tier 2 per-gallon caps cited concerns on 
cost, flexibility for turnarounds/unplanned shutdowns (due to refinery 
fires, natural disasters, etc.), and gasoline supply and/or price 
impacts.
    Analysis performed since the time of the proposal found that a 
lower refinery gate cap would likely result in higher costs to the 
fuels industry and a decreased ability to handle off-spec product 
(potentially impacting gasoline supply and pricing), without any 
significant increase in the nationwide emissions reductions provided by 
the Tier 3 program. Thus, in today's action we are retaining the Tier 2 
per-gallon sulfur caps. The 80 ppm refinery gate cap will provide 
refiners needed flexibility in allowing for naturally-occurring fuel 
batch variability, as well as more certainty that they will be able to 
continue producing and distributing gasoline during turnarounds/upsets 
to avoid a total shutdown. It will also provide more certainty for 
transmix processors, additive manufacturers, and other downstream 
parties in producing gasoline.
    However, we do understand commenters' concerns that retaining the 
Tier 2 sulfur caps might create regional differences in the benefits of 
the Tier 3 program. Therefore we will continue to monitor in-use sulfur 
levels and their impact on vehicle emissions to ascertain whether a 
future reduction in the per-gallon cap may be necessary.
d. Effect of Gasoline Sulfur on Tier 3 Vehicle Emissions
    The need for and level of gasoline sulfur control was a key issue 
raised in public comments. The petroleum industry raised concerns that 
there was insufficient basis for the proposed 10 ppm average sulfur 
level, while auto manufacturers and emissions control equipment 
manufacturers stressed that the feasibility of the Tier 3 vehicle 
standards was dependent on near-zero gasoline sulfur levels. This issue 
is discussed in detail below in Section IV.A.6. In sum, EPA believes 
that the range of studies conducted by EPA and others in recent years, 
along with the comments submitted by the auto industry and emissions 
control manufacturers during the comment period and more recently, 
strongly reinforce our conclusion that the impact of gasoline sulfur 
poisoning on exhaust catalyst performance is significant.
    Sulfur is a well-known catalyst poison. The nature of sulfur's 
interactions with active catalytic materials is complex and varies with 
catalyst composition, exhaust gas composition, and exhaust temperature. 
Thus, even if a manufacturer were able to certify a new vehicle to the 
new stringent standards, the manufacturer's ability to maintain the 
emission performance of that vehicle in-use is greatly jeopardized if 
the vehicle is being operated on gasoline sulfur levels greater than 10 
ppm. In fact, due to the variation in actual vehicle operation, any 
amount of gasoline sulfur will deteriorate catalyst efficiency. Vehicle 
manufacturers and suppliers, both individually and through their trade 
associations, stressed the need for gasoline sulfur to be reduced to 
near zero levels in order for them to meet the proposed standards. 
However, we believe that a 10 ppm average sulfur level is sufficiently 
low to enable compliance with the Tier 3 vehicle standards, and as 
described below and in Section V, reducing sulfur levels further would 
cause sulfur control costs to quickly escalate.
    Taken together, this information provides a compelling argument 
that the fleetwide Tier 3 vehicle standards are achievable only with a 
reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the current 30 ppm average 
down to a 10 ppm average.
e. SFTP (US06) PM Standard for Light-Duty Vehicles
    The final Tier 3 vehicle standards are largely unchanged from their 
proposed levels. One change from the proposal is the PM emissions 
standards as measured on the US06 test cycle. The US06 cycle is part of 
the composite Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) and simulates 
aggressive driving. The US06 PM standards are part of the suite of Tier 
3 tailpipe standards that limit emissions under a wide range of common 
vehicle driving conditions. Newer emissions test data presented in the 
NPRM, as well as more recent additional test data submitted in public 
comments, show that a numerically lower US06 PM standard is feasible 
and appropriately reflects the actual emissions performance achieved by 
many vehicles in the fleet today while preventing increased emissions 
in the future.
    Taken together, the test results clearly show that most current 
light-duty vehicles--regardless of engine technology, emission control 
strategy, or vehicle size--are performing at much lower US06 emission 
levels than previously documented. Based on these newer data, we 
believe that it is appropriate to finalize a numerically lower US06 PM 
emission standard for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, and to set a single 
standard for both lighter and heavier vehicles in this vehicle segment. 
In general, the final US06 PM standard for these vehicles begins to 
phase in at a level of 10 mg/mi in MYs 2017 and 2018, stepping down to 
a level of 6 mg/mi in MY2019. See Section IV.A.4.b for additional 
discussion of the US06 standards and how they will phase in.
2. Key Components of the Tier 3 Program
a. Tailpipe Standards for Light-Duty Vehicle, Light-Duty Truck, and 
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions
    We are establishing a comprehensive program that includes new 
fleet-average standards for the sum of NMOG and NOX tailpipe 
emissions (presented as NMOG+NOX) as well as new per-vehicle 
standards for PM.\13\ These standards, when applied in conjunction with 
reduced gasoline sulfur content, will result in very significant 
improvements in vehicle emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 
program. For these pollutants, the standards are measured on test 
procedures that represent a range of

[[Page 23421]]

vehicle operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (or FTP, 
simulating typical driving) and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure 
(or SFTP, a composite test simulating higher ambient temperatures, 
higher vehicle speeds, and quicker accelerations). In addition to the 
standards, we are extending the regulatory useful life period during 
which the standards apply (see Section IV.A.7.b below) and making test 
fuel more representative of expected real-world fuel (see Section 
I.B.2.e below). The final standards are in most cases identical to 
those of California's LEVIII program, which provides the 50-state 
harmonization strongly supported by the auto industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A discussion of the reasons for combining NMOG and 
NOX for this purpose is in Section IV.A.3.a below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the new Tier 3 FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX 
standards are fleet-average standards, meaning that a manufacturer 
calculates the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model 
year and compares that average to the applicable standard for that 
model year. The manufacturer certifies each of its vehicles to a per-
vehicle ``bin'' standard (see Section IV.A.2) and sales-weights these 
values to calculate its fleet-average NMOG+NOX emissions for 
each model year. Table I-1 summarizes the fleet average standards for 
NMOG+NOX evaluated over the FTP. The standards for light-
duty vehicles begin in MY 2017 at a level representing a 46 percent 
reduction from the Tier 2 requirements. For the light-duty fleet over 
6000 lbs GVWR, and MDPVs, the standards apply beginning in MY 2018. As 
shown, these fleet-average standards decline during the first several 
years of the program, becoming increasingly stringent until ultimately 
reaching an 81 percent reduction when the transition is complete. The 
FTP NMOG+NOX program includes two separate sets of declining 
fleet-average standards, with LDVs and small light trucks in one 
grouping and heavier light trucks and MDPVs in a second grouping, that 
converge at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and later. As 
mentioned above, we are also providing alternative percent phase-in 
schedules for this and the other light-duty standards.

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

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

                                       Table I-2--Tier 3 LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Model year
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                               2025 and
                                               2017 \a\      2018        2019        2020        2021        2022        2023        2024        later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG + NOX..................................        103          97          90          83          77          70          63          57          50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For LDVs and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the fleet average standards apply beginning in MY 2018.

    As proposed, manufacturers can also earn credits if their fleet 
average NMOG+NOX performance is better than the applicable 
standard in any model year. Credits that have been previously banked or 
obtained from other manufacturers can be used, or credits can be traded 
to other manufacturers. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry 
forward deficits in their credit balance. (See Sections IV.A.7.a and 
IV.A.7.m).
    We are also establishing PM standards as part of the Tier 3 
program, for both the FTP and US06 cycles (as described above, US06 is 
a component of the SFTP test). Research has demonstrated that the level 
of PM from gasoline light-duty vehicles is more significant than 
previously thought.\14\ Although many vehicles today are performing at 
or near the levels of the new standards, the data indicate that 
improvements, especially in high-load fuel control and in the 
durability of engine components, are possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Nam, E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.; 
Baldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarbro, C. (2008). Analysis of 
Particulate Matter Emissions from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles in 
Kansas City, EPA420-R-08-010. Assessment and Standards Division 
Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under typical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of 
most current-technology gasoline vehicles are fairly low at 
certification and in use, well below the Tier 2 PM standards. At the 
same time we see considerable variation in PM emissions among vehicles 
of various makes, models, and designs. As a result, as proposed, we are 
setting the new FTP PM standard at a level that will ensure that all 
new vehicles perform at the level already being achieved by well-
designed Tier 2 vehicles. The PM standards apply to each vehicle 
separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to the 
declining NMOG+NOX standards, the

[[Page 23422]]

PM standard on the FTP for certification testing is 3 mg/mi for all 
vehicles and for all model years. As for the NMOG+NOX 
standards, for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, the FTP PM standard applies 
beginning in MY 2018. Manufacturers can phase in their vehicle models 
as a percent of U.S. sales through MY 2022. Most vehicles are already 
performing at this stringent PM level, and the primary intent of the 
standard is to bring all light-duty vehicles to the typical level of PM 
performance being demonstrated by many of today's vehicles.
    As proposed, the Tier 3 program also includes a temporary in-use 
FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in-use vehicles that 
applies during the percent phase-in period only. This in-use standard 
will address the in-use variability and durability uncertainties that 
accompany the introduction of new technologies. Table I-3 presents the 
FTP certification and in-use PM standards and the phase-in percentages.

                                 Table I-3--Phase-In for Tier 3 FTP PM Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        2022 and
                                                 2017 \a\     2018       2019       2020       2021      later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-In (percent of U.S. sales)..............     \b\ 20         20         40         70        100        100
Certification Standard (mg/mi)................          3          3          3          3          3          3
In-Use Standard (mg/mi).......................          6          6          6          6          6          3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For LDVs and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the FTP PM standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ Manufacturers comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or
  alternatively with 10 percent of their total LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet.

    Finally, as discussed in Section I.B.1.e above, the Tier 3 program 
includes PM standards evaluated over the US06 driving cycle (the US06 
is one part of the SFTP procedure) of 10 mg/mi through MY 2018 and of 6 
mg/mi for 2019 and later model years, for light-duty vehicles. As in 
the case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the US06 PM standard is 
to bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being 
demonstrated by many vehicles in the current light-duty fleet.
b. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards
    As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, we are setting Tier 3 
exhaust emissions standards for complete heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) 
between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. Vehicles in this GVWR range are 
often referred to as Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001-
14,000 lbs) vehicles, and are typically heavy-duty pickup trucks and 
work or shuttle vans. Most are built by companies with even larger 
light-duty truck markets, and as such they frequently share major 
design characteristics and emissions control technologies with their 
LDT counterparts. However, in contrast to the largely gasoline-fueled 
LDT fleet, roughly half of the heavy-duty pickup and van fleet in the 
U.S. is diesel-fueled. This is an important consideration in setting 
emissions standards, as diesel engine emissions control strategies 
differ from those of gasoline engines.
    As proposed, the key elements of the Tier 3 program for HDVs 
parallel those being adopted for passenger cars and LDTs, with 
adjustments in standard levels, emission test requirements, and 
implementation schedules appropriate to this sector. These key elements 
include combined NMOG+NOX declining fleet average standards, 
a phase-in of PM standards, adoption of a new emissions test fuel for 
gasoline-fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 
150,000 miles or 15 years (whichever occurs first), and a first-ever 
requirement for HDVs to meet standards over an SFTP drive cycle that 
addresses real-world driving modes not well-represented by the FTP 
cycles.
    We are adopting the Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average 
NMOG+NOX standards shown in Table I-4, as proposed. The 
standards become more stringent in successive model years from 2018 to 
2022, with voluntary standards made available in 2016 and 2017, all of 
which are set at levels that match those of California's LEV III 
program for these classes of vehicles. Each covered HDV sold by a 
manufacturer in each model year contributes to this fleet average based 
on the mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard level of the ``bin'' declared 
for it by the manufacturer, who chooses from a set of seven discrete 
Tier 3 bins specified in the regulations. These bin standards then 
become the compliance standards for the vehicle over its useful life, 
with some adjustment provided for in-use testing in the early model 
years of the program.
    As proposed, manufacturers can also earn credits for fleet average 
NMOG+NOX levels below the standard in any model year. Tier 3 
credits that were previously banked, obtained from other manufacturers, 
or transferred across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories can be used to 
help demonstrate compliance. Unused credits expire after 5 model years. 
Manufacturers will also be allowed to carry forward deficits in their 
credit balance for up to 3 model years.

                                               Table I-4--Tier 3 HDV Fleet Average FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Voluntary
                                                                   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 adopting the proposed FTP PM standards of 8 mg/mi and 10 mg/
mi for Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs, respectively, phasing in as an 
increasing percentage of a manufacturer's sales per year. We are 
adopting the same phase-in schedule as 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 adopted. Tier 3 HDVs will

[[Page 23423]]

also be subject to CO and formaldehyde exhaust emissions standards that 
are more stringent than the existing standards.
    Finally, we are setting first-ever nationwide SFTP standards for 
HDVs to ensure a robust overall control program that precludes high 
off-FTP cycle emissions by having vehicle designers consider them in 
their choice of compliance strategies. As for light-duty vehicles, we 
are requiring that SFTP compliance be based on a weighted composite of 
measured emissions from testing over the FTP cycle, the SC03 cycle, and 
an aggressive driving cycle, with the latter tailored to various HDV 
sub-categories: the US06 cycle for most HDVs, the highway portion of 
the US06 cycle for low power-to-weight Class 2b HDVs, and the LA-92 (or 
``Unified'') cycle for Class 3 HDVs. The SFTP standards are the same as 
those adopted for California LEV III vehicles, and apply to 
NMOG+NOX, PM, and CO emissions.
    The HDV program outlined above and described in detail in Section 
IV.B is substantially what we proposed. Commenters generally supported 
the scope, stringency, and implementation phase-in of this program. 
However, some industry commenters requested changes to some specific 
provisions of the proposal, and the program we are adopting reflects 
improvements we have made in response. These are: (1) A limited 
allowance for engine certification of Class 3 complete diesel vehicles 
to avoid a potential need for dual chassis- and engine-based 
certification and to better harmonize with LEV III, (2) relaxed interim 
in-use testing standards to facilitate a smooth transition to the Tier 
3 standards and to better harmonize with LEV III, (3) adoption of 
combined NMOG+NOX standards for the two highest (interim) 
bins, with a restriction placed on NOX levels in 
certification testing, to enhance the utility of these bins and to 
better harmonize with LEV III, and (4) a provision in the percent-of-
sales phase-in alternative to allow manufacturers to exclude vehicle 
models that begin their 2019 model year production early in 2018, in 
order to provide four years of lead time. Commenters also requested 
relaxed standards for testing at high altitudes and changes to the 
credits program structure for generation of early credits and use of 
LEV III-based ``vehicle emission credits'', but we did not adopt these 
for reasons explained in Section IV.B.
    Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program we are adopting for HDVs to 
result in substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large 
fleet of work trucks and vans. The fully-phased in Tier 3 standards 
levels for NMOG+NOX and PM are on the order of 60 percent 
lower than the current standards that took full effect in the 2009 
model year.
c. Evaporative Emission Standards
    Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel systems occur when a 
vehicle is in operation, when it is parked, and when it is being 
refueled. These evaporative emissions, which occur on a daily basis 
from gasoline-powered vehicles, are primarily functions of temperature, 
fuel vapor pressure, and activity. EPA first instituted evaporative 
emission standards in the early 1970s to address emissions when 
vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly referred to 
as hot soak plus diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test 
procedures have been modified and improved and the standards have 
become more numerically stringent. We have addressed emissions which 
arose from new fuel system designs by putting in place new requirements 
such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions 
to address permeation emissions. Subsequently standards were put in 
place to control refueling emissions from all classes of gasoline-
powered motor vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. Evaporative and refueling 
emission control systems have been in place for most of these vehicles 
for many years. These controls have led to significant reductions, but 
evaporative and refueling emissions still constitute 30-40 percent of 
the summer on-highway mobile source hydrocarbon inventory. These fuel 
vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also contain air 
toxics such as benzene.
    To control evaporative emissions, EPA is establishing more 
stringent standards that will require covered vehicles to have 
essentially zero fuel vapor emissions in use. These include more 
stringent evaporative emissions standards, new test procedures, and a 
new fuel/evaporative system leak emission standard. The program also 
includes refueling emission standards for all complete heavy-duty 
gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is including phase-
in flexibilities as well as credit and allowance programs. The 
standards, harmonized with California's ``zero evap'' standards, are 
designed to allow for a use of common technology in vehicle models sold 
throughout the U.S. The level of the standard remains above zero to 
account for nonfuel background emissions from the vehicle hardware.
    Requirements to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations 
phase in over a six model year period. We are finalizing three options 
for the 2017 model year, but after that the sales percentage 
requirements are 60 percent for MYs 2018 and 2019, 80 percent for model 
years 2020 and 2021, and 100 percent for model years 2022 and later. In 
Table I-5 we present the Tier 3 evaporative hot soak plus diurnal 
emission standards by vehicle class. The standards are approximately a 
50 percent reduction from the existing standards. To enhance 
flexibility and reduce costs, EPA is finalizing provisions that allow 
manufacturers to generate allowances through early certifications 
(basically before the 2017 model year) and to demonstrate compliance 
using averaging concepts. Manufacturers may comply on average within 
each of the four vehicle categories, but not across these categories. 
EPA is not making any changes to the existing light-duty running loss 
or refueling emission standards, with the exception of the 
certification test fuel requirement discussed in Section I.B.2 below.

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

    Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) must meet the same evaporative 
emission standards as non-FFVs using Tier 3 emissions certification 
test fuel. However, FFVs must meet the refueling emission standards 
using 10 psi RVP fuel to account for emissions resulting from 
commingling with non-E85 blends that may be in the vehicle's fuel tank.
    EPA is establishing the canister bleed emission test procedure and 
emission standard to help ensure fuel vapor emissions are eliminated. 
Under this provision, manufacturers are required to measure diurnal 
emissions over the 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 is 
0.030 g/test. The Tier 3 evaporative emission standards will be phased 
in over a period of six model years between MY 2017 and MY

[[Page 23424]]

2022, with the leak test phasing in beginning in 2018.
    Data from in-use evaporative emissions testing indicates that vapor 
leaks from vehicle fuel/evaporative systems are found in the fleet and 
that even very small leaks have the potential to make significant 
contributions to the mobile source VOC inventory. To help address this 
issue, we are also adding a new standard and test procedure to control 
vapor leaks from vehicle fuel and vapor control systems. The standard 
will prohibit leaks with a cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.02 
inches or greater. We are adding this simple and inexpensive test and 
emission standard to help ensure vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor 
emissions over their full useful life. New LDV, LDT, MDPV, and HDGV 
equal to or less than 14.000 lbs GVWR meeting the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission regulations are also required to meet the leak standard 
beginning in the 2018 model year. Manufacturers must comply with the 
leak standard phase-in on the same percentage of sales schedule as that 
for the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Manufacturers will 
comply with the leak emission standard during certification and in use. 
The leak emission standard does not apply to HDGVs above 14,000 lbs 
GVWR.
    EPA is also establishing new refueling emission control 
requirements for all complete HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs 
GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3 HDGVs), starting in the 2018 model year, and for 
all larger complete HDGVs by the 2022 model year. The existing 
refueling emission control requirements apply to complete Class 2b 
HDGVs, and EPA is extending those requirements to other complete HDGVs, 
since the fuel and evaporative control systems on these vehicles are 
very similar to those on their lighter-weight Class 2b counterparts.
d. Onboard Diagnostic Systems (OBD)
    EPA and CARB both have OBD regulations applicable to the vehicle 
classes covered by the Tier 3 emission standards. In the past the 
requirements have been very similar, so most manufacturers have met 
CARB OBD requirements and, as permitted in our regulations, EPA has 
generally accepted compliance with CARB's OBD requirements as 
satisfying EPA's OBD requirements. Over the past several years CARB has 
upgraded its requirements to help improve the effectiveness of OBD in 
ensuring good in-use exhaust and evaporative system emissions 
performance. We have reviewed these provisions and agree with CARB that 
these revisions will help to improve in-use emissions performance, 
while at the same time harmonizing with the CARB program. Toward that 
end, we are adopting and incorporating by reference the current CARB 
OBD regulations, effective for the 2017 MY, with a few minor 
differences including phase-in flexibility provisions and specific 
additions to enhance the implementation of the leak standard. EPA is 
retaining the provision that certifying with CARB's program would 
permit manufacturers to seek a separate EPA certificate on that basis.
e. Emissions Test Fuel
    As described above, after reassessing market trends and considering 
comments, EPA is finalizing E10 as the ethanol blend level in emissions 
test gasoline for Tier 3 light-duty and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. 
We will continue to monitor the in-use gasoline supply and based on 
such review may initiate rulemaking action to revise the specifications 
for emissions test fuel to include a higher ethanol blend level. EPA is 
also making additional changes that are consistent with CARB's LEV III 
emissions test fuel specifications, including new specifications for 
octane, distillation temperatures, aromatics, olefins, sulfur and 
benzene. (See Section IV.F below for a detailed discussion of all the 
revised emission test fuel parameters.)
    As discussed in Sections IV.A.7.d (tailpipe emission testing) and 
IV.C.5.b (evaporative emission testing), we are requiring certification 
of all Tier 3 light-duty and chassis-certified heavy-duty gasoline 
vehicles on federal E10 test fuel. The new test fuel specifications 
will apply to new vehicle certification, assembly line, and in-use 
testing.
    With a change in the ethanol content of the test fuel, EPA also 
needed to consider whether a change is warranted in the volatility of 
the test fuel, typically expressed as pounds per square inch (psi) Reid 
Vapor Pressure (RVP). As discussed in detail in Section IV.F below, 
after considering several technical and policy implications as well as 
stakeholder comments, EPA has concluded that the most appropriate 
approach is to maintain an RVP of 9 psi for the E10 certification fuel 
at this time.
    In addition to finalizing a new E10 emissions test fuel, we are 
also finalizing detailed specifications for the E85 emissions test fuel 
used for flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) certification, as discussed in 
Section IV.F.3.\15\ This will resolve uncertainty and confusion in the 
certification of FFVs designed to operate on ethanol levels up to 83 
percent. Furthermore, we allow vehicle manufacturers to request 
approval for an alternative certification fuel such as a high-octane 30 
percent ethanol by volume blend (E30) for vehicles that may be 
optimized for such fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to meet 
emissions certification requirements using both E0 and E85 test 
fuels. However, there were no detailed regulatory specifications 
regarding the composition of E85 test fuels before those finalized 
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Fuel Standards
    Under the Tier 3 fuel program, gasoline must contain no more than 
10 ppm sulfur on an annual average basis beginning January 1, 2017. 
Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, the Tier 3 program will apply 
to gasoline in the U.S. and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands, excluding California. The program will result in 
gasoline that contains, on average, two-thirds less sulfur than it does 
today. In addition, following discussions with numerous refiners and 
other segments of the fuel market (e.g., pipelines, terminals, 
marketers, ethanol industry representatives, transmix processors, 
additive manufacturers, etc.), the Tier 3 fuel program contains 
considerable flexibility to ease both initial and long-term 
implementation of the program. The program that we are finalizing today 
includes an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program that allows 
refiners and importers to spread out their investments over nearly a 6-
year period through the use of an early credit program and then rely on 
ongoing nationwide averaging to meet the 10 ppm sulfur standard. In 
addition there is a three-year delay for small refiners and ``small 
volume refineries''. As a result of the early credit program, we 
anticipate considerable reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 
2017, with a complete transition to the 10 ppm average occurring by 
January 1, 2020. For more information on the gasoline sulfur program 
flexibilities, refer to Section V.E.
    Under today's Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we are maintaining 
the current 80 ppm refinery gate and 95 ppm downstream per-gallon caps. 
We also evaluated and sought comment on the potential of lowering the 
per-gallon caps. While there are advantages and disadvantages with each 
of the sulfur cap options that we proposed, we believe that retaining 
the current Tier 2 sulfur caps is prudent at this time, as explained in 
more detail in Section V.C. Further, the stringency of the 10 ppm 
annual average standard will result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels 
nationwide. Today's program requires

[[Page 23425]]

that manufacturers of gasoline additives that are used downstream of 
the refinery at less than 1 volume percent must limit the sulfur 
contribution to the finished gasoline from the use of their additive to 
less than 3 ppm when the additive is used at the maximum recommended 
treatment rate (see Section V.C.2). This requirement will preclude the 
unnecessary use of high sulfur content additives in gasoline.
    The vehicle emissions standards finalized today are fuel-neutral 
(i.e., they are applicable regardless of the type of fuel that the 
vehicle is designed to use). There currently are no sulfur standards 
for the fuel used in compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane 
gas (LPG) vehicles. We requested comment on whether it is necessary for 
EPA to establish sulfur standards for CNG and LPG to enable them 
meeting more stringent vehicle emissions standards. EPA is deferring 
finalizing in-use sulfur requirements for CNG/LPG in this final rule to 
provide additional time to work with stakeholders to collect data on 
current CNG/LPG sulfur content, to determine whether additional control 
of in-use CNG/LPG sulfur content is needed, and to evaluate the 
feasibility and costs associated with potential additional sulfur 
controls (see Section V.J). Given that the information provided 
suggests that CNG/LPG sulfur levels tend to be low already, the vehicle 
emissions standards finalized today will apply to CNG/LPG vehicles in 
addition to vehicles fueled on gasoline, diesel fuel, or any other 
fuel. The sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is already required to 
meet a 15 ppm sulfur cap, which is sufficient for diesel fuel vehicles 
to meet the Tier 3 emissions standards.
    As the number of flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the in-use fleet 
increases, it is becoming increasingly important that all fuels used in 
FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A lack of clarity 
regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in FFVs could also act 
to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels with 
concentrations greater than 15 volume percent, which is important to 
satisfying the requirements of the RFS2 program. Hence, we sought 
comment on appropriate regulatory mechanisms to implement in-use 
quality standards for E51-83 and E16-50 in the Tier 3 proposal. 
Additional work is needed on some issues that could not be accommodated 
within the timeline for this Tier 3 final rule. Therefore, we are 
choosing not to finalize these provisions at this time. We intend to 
finalize in-use fuel quality standards for E51-83 and perhaps E16-50 as 
well in a follow-up final rule.
g. Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
    This action also includes a number of items to help streamline the 
in-use fuels regulations at 40 CFR parts 79 and 80. The majority of 
these items involve clarifying vague or inconsistent language, removal 
or updating of outdated provisions, and decreasing 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 will reduce the burden on industry and allow the 
standards and resulting environmental benefits to be achieved 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 finalizing for the 
in-use fuels regulations are changes that we believe are 
straightforward and should be made quickly.
    This action also includes a variety of technical amendments to 
certification-related requirements for engine and vehicle emission 
standards; adjusting the fuel economy label provisions to correspond to 
the new Tier 3 standards, removing obsolete regulatory text, and making 
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 will the impacts of the standards be?

    The final Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards together will reduce 
dramatically emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5, and 
air toxics. The gasoline sulfur standards, which will take effect in 
2017, will provide large immediate reductions in emissions from 
existing gasoline vehicles and engines. NOX emissions are 
projected to be reduced by about 260,000 tons, or about 10 percent of 
emissions from on-highway vehicles, in 2018, and these emission 
reductions will increase over time as newer vehicles become a larger 
percentage of the fleet. In 2030, when 70 percent of the miles 
travelled are projected to be from vehicles that meet the fully phased-
in Tier 3 standards, we expect the NOX and VOC emissions to 
be reduced by about 330,000 tons and 170,000 tons, respectively, or 25 
percent and 16 percent of emissions from on-highway vehicles compared 
to their 2030 levels without the Tier 3 program. Emissions of CO are 
projected to decrease by almost 3.5 million tons, or 24 percent of 
emissions from on-highway vehicles. Emissions of many air toxics will 
also be reduced, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, 
formaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol, with reductions projected to range 
from 10 to nearly 30 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 will have turned over to vehicles 
meeting the fully phased-in Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 
program will reduce on-highway emissions of NOX and VOC 
nearly 31 percent from the level of emissions projected without Tier 3 
controls.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ To estimate the benefits of the final Tier 3 rule, we 
performed air quality modeling for the year 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC, 
PM2.5 and air toxics from the 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 will immediately 
reduce ozone in 2017 when the sulfur controls take effect. Additional 
information on the emission and air quality impacts of the final Tier 3 
program is presented in Sections III.B and C.
    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 final Tier 3 standards are expected to 
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 emission reductions of the Tier 3 standards will 
annually prevent between 660 and 1,500 PM-related premature deaths, 
between 110 and 500 ozone-related premature deaths, 81,000 work days 
lost, 210,000 school absence days, and approximately 1.1 million minor 
restricted-activity days. The estimated annual monetized health 
benefits of the Tier 3 standards in 2030 (2011$) is between $7.4 and 
$19 billion, assuming a 3-percent discount rate (or between $6.7 
billion and $18 billion assuming a 7-percent discount rate). We project 
the final fuel standards to cost on average 0.65 cent (i.e., less than 
a penny) per gallon of gasoline, and the final vehicle standards to 
have an

[[Page 23426]]

average cost that increases in proportion to the increase in stringency 
during the phase-in period, from $28 per vehicle in 2017 to $72 per 
vehicle in 2025, when the standards are fully phased in. We estimate 
the annual cost of the overall program in 2030 will be approximately 
$1.5 billion, and the 2030 benefits will be between 4.5 and 13 times 
the costs of the program.
    The estimated benefits in Table I-6 include all of the human health 
impacts we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the 
full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM, 
ozone and air toxics remain unquantified because of current limitations 
in methods and/or available data. As a result, the health benefits 
quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the total 
benefits attributable to the final standards. See Sections VII and VIII 
for detailed descriptions of the costs and benefits of this action.

  Table I-6--Summary of Estimated Annual Benefits and Costs Associated
                      With the Final Tier 3 Program
                          [Billions, 2011$] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Description                              2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Program Costs........................................      $0.76
Fuels Program Costs..........................................      $0.70
Total Estimated Costs \b\....................................       $1.5
Total Estimated Health Benefits: \c\ \d\ \e\ \f\
    3 percent discount rate..................................   $7.4-$19
    7 percent discount rate..................................   $6.7-$18
Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits-Total Costs):
    3 percent discount rate..................................   $5.9-$18
    7 percent discount rate..................................   $5.2-$17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ All estimates represent annual benefits and costs anticipated for
  the year 2030. Totals are rounded to two significant digits and may
  not sum due to rounding.
\b\ The calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of
  costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of annual cost do not
  include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Section VII
  of the preamble for more information on vehicle and fuel costs).
\c\ Total includes ozone and PM[ihel2].[ihel5] estimated benefits. Range
  was developed by adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2004 ozone
  premature mortality function to PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-related premature
  mortality derived from the American Cancer Society cohort study
  (Krewski et al., 2009) for the low estimate and ozone premature
  mortality derived from the Levy et al., 2005 study to
  PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-related premature mortality derived from the Six-
  Cities (Lepeule et al., 2012) study for the high estimate.
\d\ Annual benefits analysis results reflect the use of a 3 percent and
  7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and
  nonfatal myocardial infarctions, consistent with EPA and OMB
  guidelines for preparing economic analyses.
\e\ Valuation of premature mortality based on long-term PM exposure
  assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20-year segmented lag
  structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2012 PM
  National Ambient Air Quality Standards (December, 2012).
\f\ Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized in this
  analysis; the total monetized benefits presented here may therefore be
  underestimated. Potential benefit categories that have not been
  quantified and monetized, due to current limitations in methods and/or
  data availability, are listed in Table VIII-2. For example, we have
  not quantified a number of known or suspected health and welfare
  effects linked with reductions in ozone and PM (e.g., reductions in
  heart rate variability, reduced material damage to structures and
  cultural monuments, and reduced eutrophication in coastal areas). We
  are also unable to quantify health and welfare benefits associated
  with reductions in air toxics.

II. Why is EPA taking this action?

    The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards 
for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA also has 
authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution. 
These statutory requirements are described in Section II.A.
    Emissions from motor vehicles and their fuels contribute to ambient 
levels of ozone, PM, NO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
and CO, which are all pollutants for which EPA has established health-
based NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or 
cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to 
increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department 
visits, and premature mortality. Over 149 million people currently live 
in areas designated nonattainment for one or more of the current NAAQS 
for ozone, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of December 5, 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the most recent available 
data indicate that the majority of Americans continue to be exposed to 
ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential 
to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune system 
damage, and neurological, reproductive, developmental, respiratory, and 
other health problems.\18\ A more detailed discussion of the health and 
environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cars and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor 
to air pollution directly near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting 
for more than 50 percent of near-road concentrations of some criteria 
and toxic pollutants.\19\ More than 50 million people live, work, or go 
to school in close proximity to high-traffic roadways, and the average 
American spends more than one hour traveling each day, with over 80 
percent of daily trips occurring by personal vehicle.\20\ \21\ \22\ 
\23\ \24\ Exposure to traffic-related pollutants has been linked with 
adverse health impacts such as respiratory problems (particularly in 
asthmatic children) and cardiovascular problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, 
B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow, J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in 
Motor Vehicle-Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute 
Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org.
    \20\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the US near-roadway 
population: public health and environmental justice considerations. 
Transportation Research Part D 25: 59-67.
    \21\ U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series 
H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html.
    \22\ Drago, R.(2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American 
Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. 
Available at http://www.bls.gov.
    \23\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics. (2003) National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights 
Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at 
http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/.
    \24\ Santos, A.; McGuckin, N, Yukiko Nakamoto, H.; Gray, D.; 
Liss, S. (2011) Summary of Travel Trends: 2009 National Household 
Travel Survey. Federal Highway Administration report no FHWA-PL-11-
022. Available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, 
many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM2.5 
concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. States and local 
areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and, 
once attained, to demonstrate that control measures are in place 
sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten years (and eight years later, 
a similar demonstration is required for another ten-year period). The 
Tier 3 standards will be a critical part of many areas' strategies to 
attain and maintain the NAAQS. Maintaining the NAAQS has been 
challenging for some areas in the past, particularly those where high 
population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle 
trips and vehicle miles traveled. Our air quality modeling for this 
final rule, which is described in more detail in Section III.C, 
projects that in 2018 a significant number of counties outside

[[Page 23427]]

CA will be within 10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of 
additional controls. These counties in particular will benefit from the 
Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long-term maintenance of the 
NAAQS.
    Section III provides more detail on how we expect this action will 
reduce motor vehicle emissions and ambient levels of pollution. We 
project that the Tier 3 program will meaningfully reduce ozone 
concentrations as early as 2017 (the first year of the program), and 
even more significantly in 2030. The estimated reductions are of 
significant enough magnitude to bring ozone levels in some counties 
from above the standard to below the standard, even without any 
additional controls. We also project that the Tier 3 standards will 
reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
    Without this action to reduce nationwide motor vehicle emissions, 
areas would have to adopt other measures to reduce emissions from other 
sources under their state or local authority. Few other measures exist 
for providing multi-pollutant reductions of the same magnitude and 
cost-effectiveness as those expected from the Tier 3 standards. 
Furthermore, most states do not have the authority to lower the sulfur 
in gasoline, which is needed to immediately reduce emissions from the 
existing fleet and also enable new vehicles to meet the Tier 3 
emissions standards throughout their useful life.
    The projected reductions in ambient ozone and PM2.5 that 
will result from the Tier 3 standards will provide significant health 
benefits. We estimate that by 2030, the standards will annually prevent 
between 660 and 1,500 PM-related premature deaths, between 110 and 500 
ozone-related premature deaths, 81,000 work days lost, 210,000 school 
absence days, and approximately 1.1 million minor restricted-activity 
days (see Section VIII for more details). This action will also reduce 
air toxics; for example, we project that in 2030, the Tier 3 standards 
will decrease ambient benzene concentrations by 10-25 percent in some 
urban areas. Furthermore, the Tier 3 standards will reduce traffic-
associated pollution near major roads.
    EPA is finalizing Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards as part of a 
comprehensive nationwide program for regulating all types of air 
pollution from motor vehicles. EPA recently finalized standards to 
reduce GHG emissions from light-duty vehicles, starting with model year 
2017.\25\ The Tier 3 standards in this final rule, which address non-
GHGs, will be implemented on the same timeframe, thus allowing 
manufacturers to optimize their vehicle redesigns over both sets of 
standards. Furthermore, the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards are also 
closely aligned with California's LEV III program, in such a way that 
manufacturers will be able to design a single vehicle for nationwide 
sales. This reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Tier 3 rulemaking responds to the President's request in his 
May 2010 memorandum for EPA to review the adequacy of its existing non-
GHG standards for new motor vehicles and fuels, and to promulgate new 
standards, if necessary, as part of a comprehensive approach to 
regulating motor vehicles.\26\ Based on our review, we have concluded 
that improved vehicle technology, combined with lower sulfur gasoline, 
make it feasible and cost-effective to reduce emissions well below the 
current Tier 2 levels. These emission reductions are necessary to 
reduce air pollution that is (and projected to continue to be) at 
levels that endanger public health and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act

1. Clean Air Act Section 202
    We are setting motor vehicle emission standards under the authority 
of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Section 202(a) provides EPA with 
general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to any 
specific limitations elsewhere in the Act. EPA is setting standards for 
larger light-duty trucks and MDPVs under the general authority of 
section 202(a)(1) and under section 202(a)(3), which requires that 
standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO 
and PM from heavy-duty vehicles \27\ reflect the greatest degree of 
emission reduction available for the model year to which such standards 
apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety. In 
addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and 
revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons 
from all gasoline-fueled motor vehicles during: (1) Operation, and (2) 
over 2 or more days of nonuse; under ozone-prone summertime conditions. 
Regulations under section 202(k) shall take effect as expeditiously as 
possible and shall require the greatest degree of emission reduction 
achievable by means reasonably expected to be available for production 
during any model year to which the regulations apply, giving 
appropriate consideration to fuel volatility, and to cost, energy, and 
safety factors associated with the application of the appropriate 
technology. Further, section 206 and in particular section 206(d) of 
the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures 
for testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms 
with section 202 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings above 6000 lbs 
and all MDPVs are considered ``heavy-duty vehicles'' under the CAA. 
See section 202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory purposes, we generally 
refer to those LDTs which are above 6000 lbs GVWR and at or below 
8500 lbs GVWR as ``heavy light-duty trucks'' made up of LDT3s and 
LDT4s, and we have defined MDPVs primarily as vehicles between 8500 
and 10000 lbs GVWR designed primarily for the transportation of 
persons. See 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Motor vehicles emit pollutants that contribute to ambient 
concentrations of ozone, PM, NO2, SO2, CO, and 
air toxics. Motor vehicles are significant contributors to emissions of 
VOC and NOX, which contribute to the formation of both ozone 
and PM2.5. Over 149 million people currently live in 
counties designated nonattainment for one or more of the NAAQS, and 
this figure does not include the people living in areas with a risk of 
exceeding the

[[Page 23428]]

NAAQS in the future.\28\ The majority of Americans continue to be 
exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have 
the potential to cause adverse health effects.\29\ In addition, 
populations who live, work, or attend school near major roads 
experience elevated exposure concentrations to a wide range of air 
pollutants.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of December 5, 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    \29\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    \30\ Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of 
Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010) Traffic-related air pollution: 
a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and 
health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are 
expected to reduce ambient pollution concentrations. As a result of 
these programs, the number of areas that continue to violate the ozone 
and PM2.5 NAAQS or have high levels of air toxics is 
expected to continue to decrease. However, the baseline air quality 
modeling completed for this rule predicts that without additional 
controls there will continue to be a need for reductions in ozone, 
PM2.5 and air toxics concentrations in some locations in the 
future. Section III.C of this preamble presents the air quality 
modeling results for this action.
1. Ozone
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
    This section provides a summary of the health effects associated 
with exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone.\31\ The information 
in this section is based on the information and conclusions in the 
February 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone (Ozone ISA) 
prepared by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).\32\ The 
Ozone ISA concludes that human exposures to ambient concentrations of 
ozone are associated with a number of adverse health effects and 
characterizes the weight of evidence for these health effects.\33\ The 
discussion below highlights the Ozone ISA's conclusions pertaining to 
health effects associated with both short-term and long-term periods of 
exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Human exposure to ozone varies over time due to changes in 
ambient ozone concentration and because people move between 
locations which have notable different ozone concentrations. Also, 
the amount of ozone delivered to the lung is not only influenced by 
the ambient concentrations but also by the individuals breathing 
route and rate.
    \32\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/076F, 2013. The ISA 
is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download.
    \33\ The ISA evaluates evidence and draws conclusions on the 
causal relationship between relevant pollutant exposures and 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 more information on these levels of evidence, 
please refer to Table II in the Preamble of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For short-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that 
respiratory effects, including lung function decrements, pulmonary 
inflammation, exacerbation of asthma, respiratory-related hospital 
admissions, and mortality, are causally associated with ozone exposure. 
It also concludes that cardiovascular effects, including decreased 
cardiac function and increased vascular disease, and total mortality 
are likely to be causally associated with short-term exposure to ozone 
and that evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between 
central nervous system effects and short-term exposure to ozone.
    For long-term exposure to ozone, the Ozone ISA concludes that 
respiratory effects, including new onset asthma, pulmonary inflammation 
and injury, are likely to be a causally related with ozone exposure. 
The Ozone ISA characterizes the evidence as suggestive of a causal 
relationship for associations between long-term ozone exposure and 
cardiovascular effects, reproductive and developmental effects, central 
nervous system effects and total mortality. The evidence is inadequate 
to infer a causal relationship between chronic ozone exposure and 
increased risk of lung cancer.
    Finally, interindividual variation in human responses to ozone 
exposure can result in some groups being at increased risk for 
detrimental effects in response to exposure. The Ozone ISA identified 
several groups that are at increased risk for ozone-related health 
effects. These groups are people with asthma, children and older 
adults, individuals with reduced intake of certain nutrients (i.e., 
Vitamins C and E), outdoor workers, and individuals having certain 
genetic variants related to oxidative metabolism or inflammation. Ozone 
exposure during childhood can have lasting effects through adulthood. 
Such effects include altered function of the respiratory and immune 
systems. Children absorb higher doses (normalized to lung surface area) 
of ambient ozone, compared to adults, due to their increased time spent 
outdoors, higher ventilation rates relative to body size, and a 
tendency to breathe a greater fraction of air through the mouth. 
Children also have a higher asthma prevalence compared to adults. 
Additional children's vulnerability and susceptibility factors are 
listed in Section XII.G.
c. Current and Projected Concentrations of Ozone
    Concentrations that exceed the level of the ozone NAAQS occur in 
many parts of the country, including major population centers such as 
Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, New York, Philadelphia, 
and Washington, DC. In addition, our modeling without the Tier 3 
controls projects that in the future we will continue to have many 
counties 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 time frame for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The emission 
reductions and significant ambient ozone improvements from this rule, 
which will take effect starting in 2017, will 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

[[Page 23429]]

designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\34\ 
\35\ As of December 5, 2013, there were 39 ozone nonattainment areas 
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS composed of 216 full or partial counties with 
a total population of over 112 million. Nonattainment designations for 
the 2008 ozone standard were finalized on April 30, 2012 and May 31, 
2012.\36\ As of December 5, 2013, there were 46 ozone nonattainment 
areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, composed of 227 full or partial 
counties, with a population of over 123 million. As of December 5, 
2013, over 135 million people are living in ozone nonattainment 
areas.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004).
    \35\ A nonattainment area is defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
as an area that is violating an ambient standard or is contributing 
to a nearby area that is violating the standard.
    \36\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) and 77 FR 34221 (June 11, 2012).
    \37\ The 135 million total is calculated by summing, without 
double counting, the 1997 and 2008 ozone nonattainment populations 
contained in the Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure 
report (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html). If there 
is a population associated with both the 1997 and 2008 nonattainment 
areas, and they are not the same, then the larger of the two 
populations is included in the sum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action 
to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to 
an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area's classification. Most 
ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then to maintain it 
thereafter.\38\ The attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, 
depending on the severity of the problem in each area. In addition, EPA 
is currently working on a review of the ozone NAAQS. If EPA revises the 
ozone standards pursuant to that review, the attainment dates 
associated with areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS would be 
5 or more years after the final rule is promulgated, depending on the 
severity of the problem in each area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area are designated as Extreme and will have to attain 
before June 15, 2024. The Sacramento, Coachella Valley, Western 
Mojave and Houston 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are designated 
as Severe and will have to attain by June 15, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2018 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable and may relieve areas with already 
stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with 
adopting additional local controls.
2. Particulate Matter
a. Background
    Particulate matter is a highly complex mixture of solid particles 
and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which 
interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from 
those smaller than 1 nanometer (10-\9\ meter) to over 100 
micrometer ([mu]m, or 10-\6\ meter) in diameter (for 
reference, a typical strand of human hair is 70 [mu]m in diameter and a 
grain of salt is about 100 [mu]m). Atmospheric particles can be grouped 
into several classes according to their aerodynamic and physical sizes, 
including ultrafine particles (1 to 3 [mu]m).\39\ 
For regulatory purposes, fine particles are measured as 
PM2.5 and inhalable or thoracic coarse particles are 
measured as PM10-2.5, corresponding to their size (diameter) 
range in micrometers. The EPA currently has standards that measure 
PM2.5 and PM10.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Figure 3-1.
    \40\ Regulatory definitions of PM size fractions, and 
information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in 
ambient air, are provided in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58. With 
regard to national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) which 
provide protection against health and welfare effects, the 24-hour 
PM10 standard provides protection against effects 
associated with short-term exposure to thoracic coarse particles 
(i.e., PM10-2.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particles span many sizes and shapes and may consist of hundreds of 
different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and 
are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are 
often referred to as ``primary'' particles, and the latter as 
``secondary'' particles. Particle concentration and composition varies 
by time of year and location, and in addition to differences in source 
emissions, is affected by several weather-related factors, such as 
temperature, clouds, humidity, and wind. A further layer of complexity 
comes from particles' ability to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous 
phases, which is influenced by concentration and meteorology, 
especially temperature.
    Fine particles are produced primarily by combustion processes and 
by transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides 
(SOX), oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds 
(VOC)) in the atmosphere. The chemical and physical properties of 
PM2.5 may vary greatly with time, region, meteorology, and 
source category. Thus, PM2.5 may include a complex mixture 
of different components including sulfates, nitrates, organic 
compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These particles can 
remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks and travel hundreds to 
thousands of kilometers.
b. Health Effects of PM
    Scientific studies show ambient PM is associated with a broad range 
of health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in the 
December 2009 Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (PM 
ISA).\41\ The PM ISA summarizes health effects evidence associated with 
both short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5, 
PM10-2.5, and ultrafine particles. The PM ISA concludes that 
human exposures to ambient PM2.5 concentrations are 
associated with a number of adverse health effects and characterizes 
the weight of evidence for these health outcomes.\42\ The discussion 
below highlights the PM ISA's conclusions pertaining to health effects 
associated with both short- and long-term PM exposures. Further 
discussion of health effects associated with PM2.5 can also 
be found in the rulemaking documents for the most recent review of the 
PM NAAQS completed in 2012.43 44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
    \42\ The causal framework draws upon the assessment and 
integration of evidence from across epidemiological, controlled 
human exposure, and toxicological studies, and the related 
uncertainties that ultimately influence our understanding of the 
evidence. This framework employs a five-level hierarchy that 
classifies the overall weight of evidence and causality using the 
following categorizations: causal relationship, likely to be causal 
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to 
infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal 
relationship (U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, Table 1-3).
    \43\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013), pages 3103-3104.
    \44\ 77 FR 38890 (June 29, 2012), pages 38906-38911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA concludes that a causal relationship exists between both 
long-

[[Page 23430]]

and short-term exposures to PM2.5 and premature mortality 
and cardiovascular effects and a likely causal relationship exists 
between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory 
effects. Further, there is evidence suggestive of a causal relationship 
between long-term PM2.5 exposures and other health effects, 
including developmental and reproductive effects (e.g., low birth 
weight, infant mortality) and carcinogenic, mutagenic, and genotoxic 
effects (e.g., lung cancer mortality).\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ These causal inferences are based not only on the more 
expansive epidemiological evidence available in this review but also 
reflect consideration of important progress that has been made to 
advance our understanding of a number of potential biologic modes of 
action or pathways for PM-related cardiovascular and respiratory 
effects (U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, chapter 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As summarized in the Final PM NAAQS rule, and discussed extensively 
in the 2009 PM ISA, the scientific evidence available since the 
completion of the 2006 PM NAAQS review significantly strengthens the 
link between long- and short-term exposure to PM2.5 and 
premature mortality, while providing indications that the magnitude of 
the PM2.5- mortality association with long-term exposures 
may be larger than previously estimated.46 47 The strongest 
evidence comes from recent studies investigating long-term exposure to 
PM2.5 and cardiovascular-related mortality. The evidence 
supporting a causal relationship between long-term PM2.5 
exposure and mortality also includes consideration of new studies that 
demonstrated an improvement in community health following reductions in 
ambient fine particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 78 FR 3103-3104 (January 15, 2013).
    \47\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, chapter 6 (Section 6.5) 
and chapter 7 (Section 7.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several studies evaluated in the 2009 PM ISA have examined the 
association between cardiovascular effects and long-term 
PM2.5 exposures in multi-city studies conducted in the U.S. 
and Europe. While studies were not available in the 2006 PM NAAQS 
review with regard to long-term exposure and cardiovascular-related 
morbidity, studies published since then have provided new evidence 
linking long-term exposure to PM2.5 with an array of 
cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks, congestive heart failure, 
stroke, and mortality. This evidence is coherent with studies of short-
term exposure to PM2.5 that have observed associations with 
a continuum of effects ranging from subtle changes in indicators of 
cardiovascular health to serious clinical events, such as increased 
hospitalizations and emergency department visits due to cardiovascular 
disease and cardiovascular mortality.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, chapter 2 (section 2.3.1 
and 2.3.2) and chapter 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed in the 2009 PM ISA, extended analyses of studies 
available in the 2006 PM NAAQS review as well as epidemiological 
studies conducted in the U.S. and abroad published since then provide 
stronger evidence of respiratory-related morbidity effects associated 
with long-term PM2.5 exposure. The strongest evidence for 
respiratory-related effects is from studies that evaluated decrements 
in lung function growth (in children), increased respiratory symptoms, 
and asthma development. The strongest evidence from short-term 
PM2.5 exposure studies has been observed for increased 
respiratory-related emergency department visits and hospital admissions 
for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory 
infections.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, chapter 2 (section 2.3.1 
and 2.3.2) and chapter 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The body of scientific evidence detailed in the 2009 PM ISA is 
still limited with respect to associations between long-term 
PM2.5 exposures and developmental and reproductive effects 
as well as cancer, mutagenic, and genotoxic effects, but is somewhat 
expanded from the 2006 review. The strongest evidence for an 
association between PM2.5 and developmental and reproductive 
effects comes from epidemiological studies of low birth weight and 
infant mortality, especially due to respiratory causes during the post-
neonatal period (i.e., 1 month to 12 months of age).\50\ With regard to 
cancer effects, ``[m]ultiple epidemiologic studies have shown a 
consistent positive association between PM2.5 and lung 
cancer mortality, but studies have generally not reported associations 
between PM2.5 and lung cancer incidence.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F, chapter 2 (section 2.3.1 
and 2.3.2) and chapter 7.
    \51\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. pg 2-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specific groups within the general population are at increased risk 
for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM 
exposures.52 53 54 55 The evidence detailed in the 2009 PM 
ISA expands our understanding of previously identified at-risk 
populations and lifestages (i.e., children, older adults, and 
individuals with pre-existing heart and lung disease) and supports the 
identification of additional at-risk populations (e.g., persons with 
lower socioeconomic status, genetic differences). Additionally, there 
is emerging, though still limited, evidence for additional potentially 
at-risk populations and lifestages, such as those with diabetes, people 
who are obese, pregnant women, and the developing fetus.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Chapter 8 and Chapter 2.
    \53\ 77 FR 38890 (June 29, 2012).
    \54\ 78 FR 3104 (January 15, 2013).
    \55\ U.S. EPA. (2011). Policy Assessment for the Review of the 
PM NAAQS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
452/R-11-003. section 2.2.1.
    \56\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Chapter 8 and Chapter 2 
(Section 2.4.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For PM10-2.5, the 2009 PM ISA concluded that available 
evidence was suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term 
exposures to PM10-2.5 and cardiovascular effects (e.g., 
hospital admissions and ED visits, changes in cardiovascular function), 
respiratory effects (e.g, ED visits and hospital admissions, increase 
in markers of pulmonary inflammation), and premature mortality. Data 
were inadequate to draw conclusions regarding the relationships between 
long-term exposure to PM10-2.5 and various health 
effects.57 58 59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.4 and Table 
2-6.
    \58\ 78 FR 3167-8 (January 15, 2013).
    \59\ 77 FR 38947-51 (June 29, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For ultrafine particles, the 2009 PM ISA concluded that the 
evidence was suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term 
exposures and cardiovascular effects, including changes in heart rhythm 
and vasomotor function (the ability of blood vessels to expand and 
contract). It also concluded that there was evidence suggestive of a 
causal relationship between short-term exposure to ultrafine particles 
and respiratory effects, including lung function and pulmonary 
inflammation,

[[Page 23431]]

with limited and inconsistent evidence for increases in ED visits and 
hospital admissions. Data were inadequate to draw conclusions regarding 
the relationship between short-term exposure to ultrafine particle and 
additional health effects including premature mortality as well as 
long-term exposure to ultrafine particles and all health outcomes 
evaluated.60 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F. Section 2.3.5 and Table 
2-6.
    \61\ 78 FR 3121 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Current and Projected Concentrations of PM2.5
    There are two primary NAAQS for PM2.5: an annual 
standard (12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)) and a 24-hour 
standard (35 [mu]g/m\3\), and two secondary NAAQS for PM2.5: 
an annual standard (15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard (35 [mu]g/
m\3\). The initial PM2.5 standards were set in 1997 and 
revisions to the standards were finalized in 2006 and in December 2012. 
The December 2012 rule revised the level of the primary annual 
PM2.5 standard from 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf. 78 FR 
3164.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are many areas of the country that are currently in 
nonattainment for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Our 
modeling without the Tier 3 controls projects that in the future we 
will continue to have many areas that will have ambient 
PM2.5 concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see 
Section III.C.2). States will need to meet the 2006 24-hour standards 
in the 2015-2019 timeframe and the 2012 primary annual standard in the 
2021-2025 timeframe. The emission reductions and improvements in 
ambient PM2.5 concentrations from this action, which will 
take effect starting in 2017, will be helpful to states as they work to 
attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In 2005 the EPA designated 39 nonattainment areas for the 1997 
PM2.5 NAAQS.\63\ As of December 5, 2013, over 68 million 
people lived in the 24 areas that are still designated as nonattainment 
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. These PM2.5 
nonattainment areas are comprised of 135 full or partial counties. EPA 
anticipates making initial area designation decisions for the 2012 
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2014, with those 
designations likely becoming effective in early 2015.\64\ On November 
13, 2009 and February 3, 2011, the EPA designated 32 nonattainment 
areas for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\65\ As of December 
5, 2013, 28 of these areas remain designated as nonattainment, and they 
are composed of 104 full or partial counties with a population of over 
65 million. In total, there are currently 39 PM2.5 
nonattainment areas with a population of over 84 million people.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005).
    \64\ U.S. EPA (2012). Fact Sheet: Implementing the Standards. 
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/2012/decfsimp.pdf.
    \65\ 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009) and 76 FR 6056 (February 3, 
2011).
    \66\ Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population 
Exposure Report, current as of July 31, 2013 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States with PM2.5 nonattainment areas will be required 
to take action to bring those areas into attainment in the future. 
Designated nonattainment areas not currently attaining the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS are required to attain the NAAQS by 2015 and 
will be required to maintain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
thereafter. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 nonattainment areas are 
required to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 2015 
to 2019 time frame and will be required to maintain the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS thereafter. Areas to be designated nonattainment 
for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS will likely be 
required to attain the 2012 NAAQS in the 2021 to 2025 time frame. The 
Tier 3 standards finalized here begin taking effect in 2017.
    The EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control 
programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM concentrations. As a 
result of these and other federal, state and local programs, the number 
of areas that fail to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS in the future is 
expected to decrease. However, even with the implementation of all 
current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be 
counties violating the PM2.5 NAAQS well into the future. 
Thus additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist 
areas with attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS 
as expeditiously as practicable and may relieve areas with already 
stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with 
adopting additional local controls.
d. Current Concentrations of PM10
    In the December 2012 action in which the EPA promulgated the 
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA also retained 
the existing primary and secondary 24-hour PM10 standards at 
150 [micro]g/m\3\. As of December 5, 2013, over 11 million people live 
in the 40 areas that are designated as nonattainment for the 
PM10 NAAQS. There are 33 full or partial counties that make 
up the PM10 nonattainment areas.
3. Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur
a. Background
    Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a member of the NOX 
family of gases. Most NO2 is formed in the air through the 
oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high 
temperature. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), a member of the sulfur 
oxide (SOX) family of gases, is formed from burning fuels 
containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from 
oil, or extracting metals from ore.
    SO2 and NO2 and their gas phase oxidation 
products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form 
sulfuric and nitric acid which react with ammonia to form sulfates and 
nitrates, both of which are important components of ambient PM. The 
health effects of ambient PM are discussed in Section II.B.2.b of this 
preamble. NOX and VOC are the two major precursors of ozone. 
The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II.B.2.1.b.
b. Health Effects of NO2
    The most recent review of the health effects of oxides of nitrogen 
completed by the EPA can be found in the 2008 Integrated Science 
Assessment for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX ISA).\67\ The EPA 
concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled human 
exposure, and animal toxicological studies provide evidence that is 
sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory 
effects and short-term NO2 exposure. The 2008 NOX 
ISA concluded that the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes 
from epidemiologic studies of respiratory effects including increased 
respiratory symptoms, emergency department visits, and hospital 
admissions. Based on both short- and long-term exposure studies, the 
2008 NOX ISA concluded that individuals with preexisting 
pulmonary conditions (e.g., asthma or COPD), children, and older adults 
are potentially at greater risk of NO2-related respiratory 
effects. Based on findings from controlled human exposure studies, the 
2008 NOX ISA also drew two broad conclusions regarding 
airway responsiveness following NO2 exposure. First, the 
NOX

[[Page 23432]]

ISA concluded 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 asthmatic adults to NO2 concentrations as low 
as 260 ppb. Second, exposure to NO2 has been found to 
enhance the inherent responsiveness of the airway to subsequent 
nonspecific challenges in controlled human exposure studies of healthy 
and asthmatic adults. Small but statistically significant increases in 
nonspecific airway hyperresponsiveness were reported for asthmatic 
adults following 30-minute exposures to 200-300 ppb NO2 and 
following 1-hour exposures of asthmatics to 100 ppb NO2. 
Enhanced airway responsiveness could have important clinical 
implications for asthmatics since transient increases in airway 
responsiveness following NO2 exposure have the potential to 
increase symptoms and worsen asthma control. Together, the 
epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a plausible, consistent, 
and coherent description of a relationship between NO2 
exposures and an array of adverse health effects that range from the 
onset of respiratory symptoms to hospital admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides 
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071. 
Washington, DC: U.S.EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating a broader range of health effects, the 2008 
NOX ISA concluded evidence was ``suggestive but not 
sufficient to infer a causal relationship'' between short-term 
NO2 exposure and premature mortality and between long-term 
NO2 exposure and respiratory effects. The latter was based 
largely on associations observed between long-term NO2 
exposure and decreases in lung function growth in children. 
Furthermore, the 2008 NOX ISA concluded that evidence was 
``inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal 
relationship'' between short-term NO2 exposure and 
cardiovascular effects as well as between long-term NO2 
exposure and cardiovascular effects, reproductive and developmental 
effects, premature mortality, and cancer.\68\ The conclusions for these 
health effect categories were informed by uncertainties in the evidence 
base such as the independent effects of NO2 exposure within 
the broader mixture of traffic-related pollutants, limited evidence 
from experimental studies, and/or an overall limited literature base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides 
of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/071. 
Washington, DC: U.S.EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Health Effects of SO2
    Information on the health effects of SO2 can be found in 
the 2008 Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides 
(SO2 ISA).\69\ Short-term peaks of SO2 have long 
been known to cause adverse respiratory health effects, particularly 
among individuals with asthma. In addition to those with asthma (both 
children and adults), potentially sensitive groups include all children 
and the elderly. During periods of elevated ventilation, asthmatics may 
experience symptomatic bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. 
Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic 
and laboratory studies, the EPA concluded that there is a causal 
relationship between respiratory health effects and short-term exposure 
to SO2. Separately, based on an evaluation of the 
epidemiologic evidence of associations between short-term exposure to 
SO2 and mortality, the EPA concluded that the overall 
evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term 
exposure to SO2 and mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for 
Sulfur Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R-08/047F. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Current Concentrations of NO2
    The EPA most recently completed a review of the primary NAAQS for 
NO2 in January 2010. There are two primary NAAQS for 
NO2: an annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1-hour standard (100 
ppb). The EPA promulgated area designations in the Federal Register on 
February 17, 2012. In this initial round of designations, all areas of 
the country were designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 
2010 NO2 NAAQS based on data from the existing air quality 
monitoring network. The EPA and state agencies are working to establish 
an expanded network of NO2 monitors, expected to be deployed 
in the 2014-2017 time frame. Once three years of air quality data have 
been collected from the expanded network, the EPA will be able to 
evaluate NO2 air quality in additional 
locations.70 71
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ U.S. EPA. (2012). Fact Sheet--Air Quality Designations for 
the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/designations/pdfs/20120120FS.pdf.
    \71\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Revision to 
Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Requirements. March 7, 2013. 
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20130307fr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Current Concentrations of SO2
    The EPA most recently completed a review of the primary 
SO2 NAAQS in June 2010. The current primary NAAQS for 
SO2 is a 1-hour standard of 75 ppb. The EPA finalized the 
initial area designations for 29 nonattainment areas in 16 states in a 
notice published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2013. In this 
first round of designations, EPA only designated nonattainment areas 
that were violating the standard based on existing air quality 
monitoring data provided by the states. The Agency did not have 
sufficient information to designate any area as ``attainment'' or make 
final decisions about areas for which additional modeling or monitoring 
is needed (78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013). EPA anticipates designating 
areas for the revised SO2 standard in multiple rounds.
4. Carbon Monoxide
    Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from 
combustion processes. Nationally and, particularly in urban areas, the 
majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile sources.
a. Health Effects of Carbon Monoxide
    Information on the health effects of CO can be found in the January 
2010 Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (CO ISA).\72\ 
The CO ISA concludes that ambient concentrations of CO are associated 
with a number of adverse health effects.\73\ This section provides a 
summary of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient 
concentrations of CO.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon 
Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, 2010. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
    \73\ The ISA evaluates the health evidence associated with 
different health effects, assigning one of five ``weight of 
evidence'' determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a 
causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate 
to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal 
relationship. For definitions of these levels of evidence, please 
refer to Section 1.6 of the ISA.
    \74\ Personal exposure includes contributions from many sources, 
and in many different environments. Total personal exposure to CO 
includes both ambient and nonambient components; and both components 
may contribute to adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Controlled human exposure studies of subjects with coronary artery 
disease show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise-induced angina 
(chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In 
addition, epidemiologic studies show associations between short-term CO 
exposure and cardiovascular morbidity, particularly increased emergency 
room visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart

[[Page 23433]]

disease (including ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and 
angina). Some epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased 
hospital admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart 
failure and cardiovascular disease as a whole. The CO ISA concludes 
that a causal relationship is likely to exist between short-term 
exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity. It also concludes that 
available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship 
exists between long-term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity.
    Animal studies show various neurological effects with in-utero CO 
exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report central nervous 
system and behavioral effects following low-level CO exposures, 
although the findings have not been consistent across all studies. The 
CO ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship 
with both short- and long-term exposure to CO and central nervous 
system effects.
    A number of studies cited in the CO ISA have evaluated the role of 
CO exposure in birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth 
defects. The epidemiologic studies provide limited evidence of a CO-
induced effect on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence 
for a decrease in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found 
perinatal CO exposure to affect birth weight, as well as other 
developmental outcomes. The CO ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive 
of a causal relationship between long-term exposures to CO and 
developmental effects and birth outcomes.
    Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of associations between 
ambient CO concentrations and respiratory morbidity such as changes in 
pulmonary function, respiratory symptoms, and hospital admissions. A 
limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as 
ozone, SO2, and PM in two-pollutant models and found that CO 
risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence 
makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from 
those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human 
exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on 
respiratory morbidity. Animal studies at levels of 50-100 ppm CO show 
preliminary evidence of altered pulmonary vascular remodeling and 
oxidative injury. The CO ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive 
of a causal relationship between short-term CO exposure and respiratory 
morbidity, and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists 
between long-term exposure and respiratory morbidity.
    Finally, the CO ISA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is 
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term concentrations 
of CO and mortality. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of an 
association between short-term exposure to CO and mortality, but 
limited evidence is available to evaluate cause-specific mortality 
outcomes associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of 
CO risk estimates which was often observed in copollutant models 
contributes to the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as 
an indicator for other combustion-related pollutants. The CO ISA also 
concludes that there is not likely to be a causal relationship between 
relevant long-term exposures to CO and mortality.
b. Current Concentrations of CO
    There are two NAAQS for CO: an 8-hour standard (9 ppm) and a 1-hour 
standard (35 ppm). The primary NAAQS for CO were retained in August 
2011. There are currently no CO nonattainment areas; as of September 
27, 2010, all CO nonattainment areas were redesignated to maintenance 
areas. The designations were based on the existing community-wide 
monitoring network. EPA is making changes to the ambient air monitoring 
requirements for CO. The new requirements are expected to result in 
approximately 52 CO monitors operating near roads within 52 urban areas 
by January 2015 (76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011).
5. Mobile Source Air Toxics
    Light-duty vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air 
toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have 
noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk 
of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class 
of pollutants known collectively as ``air toxics.'' \75\ These 
compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, 
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and 
naphthalene. These compounds were identified as national or regional 
risk drivers or contributors in the 2005 National-scale Air Toxics 
Assessment and have significant inventory contributions from mobile 
sources.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    \76\ U.S. EPA (2011) 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Health Effects of Air Toxics
i. Benzene
    The EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database lists 
benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) by all routes of 
exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional 
health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals 
and increased proliferation of bone marrow cells in 
mice.77 78 79 EPA states in its IRIS database that data 
indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute 
lymphocytic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene 
exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic 
leukemia. EPA's IRIS documentation for benzene also lists a range of 
2.2 x 10-6 to 7.8 x 10-6 as the unit risk 
estimate (URE) for benzene.80 81 The International Agency 
for Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that benzene is a 
human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
(DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human 
carcinogen.82 83
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File 
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
    \78\ International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC 
monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to 
humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, 
International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health 
Organization, Lyon, France 1982.
    \79\ Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, 
V.A. (1992). Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite 
hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/
macrophage colony-stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. 
Sci. 89:3691-3695.
    \80\ A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the 
lifetime risk of an individual who is exposed for a lifetime to 1 
[mu]g/m3 benzene in air.
    \81\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File 
for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
    \82\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1987). 
Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to 
humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and 
dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
    \83\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National 
Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report on Carcinogens. Available 
at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood 
disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been 
associated with

[[Page 23434]]

long-term exposure to benzene.84 85 The most sensitive 
noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data, is the 
depression of the absolute lymphocyte count in blood.86 87 
EPA's inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for benzene is 30 [mu]g/
m\3\. The RfC is based on suppressed absolute lymphocyte counts seen in 
humans under occupational exposure conditions. In addition, recent 
work, including studies sponsored by the Health Effects Institute, 
provides evidence that biochemical responses are occurring at lower 
levels of benzene exposure than previously known.88 89 90 91 
EPA's IRIS program has not yet evaluated these new data. EPA does not 
currently have an acute reference concentration for benzene. The Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level 
(MRL) for acute exposure to benzene is 29 [mu]g/m\3\ for 1-14 days 
exposure.92 93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of 
benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193-197.
    \85\ Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational 
medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541-554.
    \86\ Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E. 
Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko-
Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes. (1996). 
Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am. 
J. Ind. Med. 29: 236-246.
    \87\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Toxicological Review of Benzene 
(Noncancer Effects). Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated 
Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National 
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is 
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm.
    \88\ Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; Cohen, B.; 
Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; 
Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok, 
E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report 
115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to 
Benzene in China.
    \89\ Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et 
al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad 
range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275-285.
    \90\ Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004). 
Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science 
306: 1774-1776.
    \91\ Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism in 
rodents at doses relevant to human exposure from Urban Air. Research 
Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113.
    \92\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA: 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf.
    \93\ A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of the 
daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be 
without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a 
specified duration of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Formaldehyde
    In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldehyde is a carcinogen based on 
nasal tumors in animal bioassays.\94\ An Inhalation Unit Risk for 
cancer and a Reference Dose for oral noncancer effects were developed 
by the Agency and posted on the IRIS database. Since that time, the 
National Toxicology Program (NTP) and International Agency for Research 
on Cancer (IARC) have concluded that formaldehyde is a known human 
carcinogen.95 96 97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde 
(CASRN 50-00-0) http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm.
    \95\ National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011.
    \96\ IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to 
Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-
Butoxypropan-2-ol.
    \97\ IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to 
Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The conclusions by IARC and NTP reflect the results of 
epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with 
previous animal, human and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted by 
the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of 
nasopharyngeal cancer and specific lymphohematopoietic malignancies 
among workers exposed to formaldehyde.98 99 100 A National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study of garment workers 
also reported increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers 
exposed to formaldehyde.\101\ Extended follow-up of a cohort of British 
chemical workers did not report evidence of an increase in 
nasopharyngeal or lymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing 
statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported.\102\ 
Finally, a study of embalmers reported formaldehyde exposures to be 
associated with an increased risk of myeloid leukemia but not brain 
cancer.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; 
Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among 
workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute 95: 1615-1623.
    \99\ Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; 
Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in 
formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117-
1130.
    \100\ Beane Freeman, L. E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. 
A.; Hayes, R. B.; Hoover, R. N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from 
lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde 
industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer 
Inst. 101: 751-761.
    \101\ Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment 
workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 
193-200.
    \102\ Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended 
follow-up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to 
formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608-1615.
    \103\ Hauptmann, M,; Stewart P. A.; Lubin J. H.; Beane Freeman, 
L. E.; Hornung, R. W.; Herrick, R. F.; Hoover, R. N.; Fraumeni, J. 
F.; Hayes, R. B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic 
malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to 
formaldehyde. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101:1696-
1708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed 
by the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999 \104\ 
and supplemented in 2010,\105\ and by the World Health 
Organization.\106\ These organizations reviewed the literature 
concerning effects on the eyes and respiratory system, the primary 
point of contact for inhaled formaldehyde, including sensory irritation 
of eyes and respiratory tract, pulmonary function, nasal 
histopathology, and immune system effects. In addition, research on 
reproductive and developmental effects and neurological effects were 
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ ATSDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999.
    \105\ ATSDR. 2010. Addendum to theToxicological Profile for 
Formaldehyde. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 
October 2010.
    \106\ IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment 
Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--
Inhalation Assessment through the IRIS program for peer review by the 
National Research Council (NRC) and public comment in June 2010.\107\ 
The draft assessment reviewed more recent research from animal and 
human studies on cancer and other health effects. The NRC released 
their review report in April 2011.\108\ The EPA is currently revising 
the draft assessment in response to this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. 
Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50-00-0)--Inhalation 
Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R-10/002A. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC [online]. 
Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/irs_drats/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
    \108\ NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS Assessment of 
Formaldehyde. Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Acetaldehyde
    Acetaldehyde is classified in EPA's IRIS database as a probable 
human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered 
toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes.\109\ The URE in 
IRIS for

[[Page 23435]]

acetaldehyde is 2.2 x 10-6 per [mu]g/m\3\.\110\ Acetaldehyde 
is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. DHHS in 
the 12th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as possibly 
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the IARC.111 112 EPA is 
currently conducting a reassessment of cancer risk from inhalation 
exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
    \110\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
    \111\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 
pp.
    \112\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(1999). Re-evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and 
hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic 
Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors 
include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract.\113\ In 
short-term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium 
was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldehyde 
exposure.114 115 Data from these studies were used by EPA to 
develop an inhalation reference concentration of 9 [mu]g/m\3\. Some 
asthmatics have been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to 
decrements in functional expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and 
bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde inhalation.\116\ The agency is 
currently conducting a reassessment of the health hazards from 
inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.
    \114\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
    \115\ Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982). 
Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute 
studies. Toxicology. 23: 293-297.
    \116\ Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda, 
T. (1993) Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine-mediated 
bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1): 
940-943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\117\ The IARC determined in 
1995 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in 
humans.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
    \118\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(1995). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 
chemicals to humans, Volume 63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated 
solvents and other industrial chemicals, World Health Organization, 
Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, 
and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to 
acrolein.\119\ The Agency has developed an RfC for acrolein of 0.02 
[mu]g/m\3\ and an RfD of 0.5 [mu]g/kg-day.\120\ EPA is considering 
updating the acrolein assessment with data that have become available 
since the 2003 assessment was completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
    \120\ U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acrolein is extremely acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, 
with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, 
mucus hypersecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this 
carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human 
subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory 
reactions within minutes of exposure.\121\ These data and additional 
studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are 
summarized in EPA's 2003 IRIS Human Health Assessment for 
acrolein.\122\ Studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09 
ppm (0.21 mg/m\3\) for five minutes may elicit subjective complaints of 
eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more extensive 
eye, nose and respiratory symptoms. Acute exposures in animal studies 
report bronchial hyper-responsiveness. Based on animal data (more 
pronounced respiratory irritancy in mice with allergic airway disease 
in comparison to non-diseased mice \123\) and demonstration of similar 
effects in humans (e.g., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals 
with compromised respiratory function (e.g., emphysema, asthma) are 
expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to 
strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. EPA does not currently 
have an acute reference concentration for acrolein. The available 
health effect reference values for acrolein have been summarized by EPA 
and include an ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to acrolein of 7 [mu]g/m\3\ 
for 1-14 days exposure; and Reference Exposure Level (REL) values from 
the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 
for one-hour and 8-hour exposures of 2.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and 0.7 [mu]g/m\3\, 
respectively.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in 
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 
EPA/635/R-03/003. p. 10. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
    \122\ U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in 
support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. 
EPA/635/R-03/003. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf.
    \123\ Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. (2003). 
Immediate sensory nerve-mediated respiratory responses to irritants 
in healthy and allergic airway-diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 
94(4):1563-1571.
    \124\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific 
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. 1,3-Butadiene
    EPA has characterized 1,3-butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by 
inhalation.125 126 The IARC has determined that 1,3-
butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized 
1,3-butadiene as a known human carcinogen.127 128 129

[[Page 23436]]

There are numerous studies consistently demonstrating that 1,3-
butadiene is metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental 
animals and humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced 
carcinogenesis are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly 
suggests that the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic 
metabolites. Animal data suggest that females may be more sensitive 
than males for cancer effects associated with 1,3-butadiene exposure; 
there are insufficient data in humans from which to draw conclusions 
about sensitive subpopulations. The URE for 1,3-butadiene is 3 x 
10-5 per [mu]g/m\3\.\130\ 1,3-butadiene also causes a 
variety of reproductive and developmental effects in mice; no human 
data on these effects are available. The most sensitive effect was 
ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime bioassay of female mice.\131\ 
Based on this critical effect and the benchmark concentration 
methodology, an RfC for chronic health effects was calculated at 0.9 
ppb (approximately 2 [mu]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene. 
Office of Research and Development, National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report 
No. EPA600-P-98-001F. This document is available electronically at 
http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta-sup.pdf.
    \126\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene 
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
    \127\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(1999). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 
chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re-evaluation of some organic 
chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in 
preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
    \128\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of 
chemicals to humans, 1,3-Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides 
(Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World 
Health Organization, Lyon, France.
    \129\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 
pp.
    \130\ U.S. EPA. (2002). ``Full IRIS Summary for 1,3-butadiene 
(CASRN 106-99-0)'' Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm.
    \131\ Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996). 
Subchronic toxicity of 4-vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by 
inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.132 133 Animal studies 
have reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to 
benzo[a]pyrene and alimentary tract and liver tumors from oral exposure 
to benzo[a]pyrene.\134\ In 1997 EPA classified seven PAHs 
(benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, 
benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-
cd]pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens.\135\ Since that 
time, studies have found that maternal exposures to PAHs in a 
population of pregnant women were associated with several adverse birth 
outcomes, including low birth weight and reduced length at birth, as 
well as impaired cognitive development in preschool children (3 years 
of age).136 137 These and similar studies are being 
evaluated as a part of the ongoing IRIS assessment of health effects 
associated with exposure to benzo[a]pyrene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
(1995). Toxicological profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 
(PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Public Health Service. Available electronically at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25.
    \133\ U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel 
Engine Exhaust. EPA/600/8-90/057F Office of Research and 
Development, Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060.
    \134\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(2012). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of 
Chemicals for Humans, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. Vol. 
100F. Lyon, France.
    \135\ U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System File 
of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Research and Development, National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is 
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm.
    \136\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W-Y.; et al. (2002). Effect 
of transplacental exposure to environmental pollutants on birth 
outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 
201-205.
    \137\ Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Tang, 
D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney, 
P. (2006). Effect of prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of 
life among inner-city children. Environ Health Perspect 114: 1287-
1292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

viii. Naphthalene
    Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel 
fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in 
both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions 
from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of 
combustion. Acute (short-term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by 
inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemolytic 
anemia and damage to the liver and the nervous system.\138\ Chronic 
(long term) exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been 
reported to cause cataracts and retinal damage.\139\ EPA released an 
external review draft of a reassessment of the inhalation 
carcinogenicity of naphthalene based on a number of recent animal 
carcinogenicity studies.\140\ The draft reassessment completed external 
peer review.\141\ Based on external peer review comments received, a 
revised draft assessment that considers all routes of exposure, as well 
as cancer and noncancer effects, is under development. The external 
review draft does not represent official agency opinion and was 
released solely for the purposes of external peer review and public 
comment. The National Toxicology Program listed naphthalene as 
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen'' in 2004 on the 
basis of bioassays reporting clear evidence of carcinogenicity in rats 
and some evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.\142\ California EPA has 
released a new risk assessment for naphthalene, and the IARC has 
reevaluated naphthalene and re-classified it as Group 2B: possibly 
carcinogenic to humans.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene 
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and 
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
    \139\ U.S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene 
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and 
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
    \140\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene 
(Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and 
Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 
Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
    \141\ Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004). 
External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation 
Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403.
    \142\ NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. 
Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 
pp.
    \143\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 
(2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of 
Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non-cancer effects in 
animals,

[[Page 23437]]

including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory and nasal 
tissues.\144\ The current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer data 
on hyperplasia and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis of 
the inhalation RfC of 3 [mu]g/m\3\.\145\ The ATSDR MRL for acute 
exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, 
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available 
electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
    \145\ U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental 
Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ix. Other Air Toxics
    In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in 
gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from motor vehicles will be 
affected by this action. Mobile source air toxic compounds that will 
potentially be impacted include ethylbenzene, propionaldehyde, toluene, 
and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds 
can be found in EPA's IRIS database.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Current Concentrations of Air Toxics
    The most recent available data indicate that the majority of 
Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air 
toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health 
effects.\147\ The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary 
depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in 
which they engage, as discussed in detail in U.S. EPA's most recent 
Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule.\148\ According to the National Air Toxic 
Assessment (NATA) for 2005,\149\ mobile sources were responsible for 43 
percent of outdoor toxic emissions and over 50 percent of the cancer 
risk and noncancer hazard associated with primary emissions. Mobile 
sources are also large contributors to precursor emissions which react 
to form secondary concentrations of air toxics. Formaldehyde is the 
largest contributor to cancer risk of all 80 pollutants 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
    \148\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 
8434, February 26, 2007.
    \149\ U.S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics 
Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Near-Roadway Pollution
    Locations in close proximity to major roadways generally have 
elevated concentrations of many air pollutants emitted from motor 
vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer-reviewed 
journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, NO, NO2, 
benzene, aldehydes, particulate matter, black carbon, and many other 
compounds are elevated in ambient air within approximately 300-600 
meters (about 1,000-2,000 feet) of major roadways. Highest 
concentrations of most pollutants emitted directly by motor vehicles 
are found at locations within 50 meters (about 165 feet) of the edge of 
a roadway's traffic lanes.
    A recent large-scale review of air quality measurements in vicinity 
of major roadways between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants 
with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadways 
were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, 
NOX, and several VOCs.\150\ These pollutants showed a large 
reduction in concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway. 
Pollutants that showed more gradual reductions with distance from 
roadways included benzene, NO2, PM2.5, and 
PM10. In the review article, results varied based on the 
method of statistical analysis used to determine the trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010). Near-
roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world data. 
Environ Sci Technol 44: 5334-5344.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\151, 152\ These findings suggest a substantial roadway 
source of these carbonyls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et al. (2006). 
Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl 
compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage 
Assoc 56: 1196-1204.
    \152\ Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J.; Seaman, V.Y. (2010). 
Development and application of a sensitive method to determine 
concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air. 
Health Effects Institute Research Report 149. Available at http://dx.doi.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results 
reporting that populations who live, work, or go to school near high-
traffic roadways experience higher rates of numerous adverse health 
effects, compared to populations far away from major roads.\153\ In 
addition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated 
with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high-
traffic roadways.\154\ \155\ \156\ \157\ The health outcomes with the 
strongest evidence linking them with traffic-associated air pollutants 
are respiratory effects, particularly in asthmatic children, and 
cardiovascular effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ In the widely-used PubMed database of health publications, 
between January 1, 1990 and August 18, 2011, 605 publications 
contained the keywords ``traffic, pollution, epidemiology,'' with 
approximately half the studies published after 2007.
    \154\ Laden, F.; Hart, J.E.; Smith, T.J.; Davis, M.E.; Garshick, 
E. (2007) Cause-specific mortality in the unionized U.S. trucking 
industry. Environmental Health Perspect 115:1192-1196.
    \155\ Peters, A.; von Klot, S.; Heier, M.; Trentinaglia, I.; 
H[ouml]rmann, A.; Wichmann, H.E.; L[ouml]wel, H. (2004) Exposure to 
traffic and the onset of myocardial infarction. New England J Med 
351: 1721-1730.
    \156\ Zanobetti, A.; Stone, P.H.; Spelzer, F.E.; Schwartz, J.D.; 
Coull, B.A.; Suh, H.H.; Nearling, B.D.; Mittleman, M.A.; Verrier, 
R.L.; Gold, D.R. (2009) T-wave alternans, air pollution and traffic 
in high-risk subjects. Am J Cardiol 104: 665-670.
    \157\ Dubowsky Adar, S.; Adamkiewicz, G.; Gold, D.R.; Schwartz, 
J.; Coull, B.A.; Suh, H. (2007) Ambient and microenvironmental 
particles and exhaled nitric oxide before and after a group bus 
trip. Environ Health Perspect 115: 507-512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been 
published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects 
Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure, 
epidemiology, and toxicology studies.\158\ The panel rated how the 
evidence for each type of health outcome supported a conclusion of a 
causal association with traffic-associated air pollution as either 
``sufficient,'' ``suggestive but not sufficient,'' or ``inadequate and

[[Page 23438]]

insufficient.'' The panel categorized evidence of a causal association 
for exacerbation of childhood asthma as ``sufficient.'' The panel 
categorized evidence of a causal association for new onset asthma as 
between ``sufficient'' and as ``suggestive but not sufficient.'' 
``Suggestive of a causal association'' was how the panel categorized 
evidence linking traffic-associated air pollutants with exacerbation of 
adult respiratory symptoms and lung function decrement. It categorized 
as ``inadequate and insufficient'' evidence of a causal relationship 
between traffic-related air pollution and health care utilization for 
respiratory problems, new onset adult asthma, chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease (COPD), nonasthmatic respiratory allergy, and cancer 
in adults and children. Other literature reviews have been published 
with conclusions similar to the HEI panel's.\159\ \160\ \161\ Health 
outcomes with few publications suggest the possibility of other effects 
still lacking sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among 
these outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological 
impacts (e.g., autism and reduced cognitive function) and reproductive 
outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth weight).\162\ \163\ \164\ 
\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of 
Traffic-Related Air Pollution. (2010). Traffic-related air 
pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, 
exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at 
http://www.healtheffects.org.
    \159\ Boothe, V.L.; Shendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health 
effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primay 
roads: review of scientific literature, 1999-2006. J Environ Health 
70: 33-41.
    \160\ Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent 
evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic 
sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3-8.
    \161\ Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution 
and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature. 
Int J Cancer 118: 2920-9.
    \162\ Volk, H.E.; Hertz-Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al. 
(2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE 
study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873-877.
    \163\ Franco-Suglia, S.; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al. 
(2007). Association of black carbon with cognition among children in 
a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/
kwm308. [Online at http://dx.doi.org]
    \164\ Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, SE.; et al. (2011). 
Traffic-related air pollution and cognitive function in a cohort of 
older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682-687.
    \165\ Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). Comparing 
exposure assessment methods for traffic-related air pollution in an 
adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685-6692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to health outcomes, particularly cardiopulmonary 
effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which 
traffic-related air pollution affects health. Numerous studies indicate 
that near-roadway exposures may increase systemic inflammation, 
affecting organ systems, including blood vessels and lungs.\166\ \167\ 
\168\ \169\ Long-term exposures in near-road environments have been 
associated with inflammation-associated conditions, such as 
atherosclerosis and asthma.\170\ \171\ \172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine 
particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal 
Toxicol 19: 99-105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238 Available at 
http://dx.doi.org.
    \167\ Alexeef, SE.; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011). 
Medium-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution and markers of 
inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119: 
481-486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560 Available at http://dx.doi.org.
    \168\ Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011). 
Traffic-related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric oxide in the 
Children's Health Study. Environ Health Perspect (IN PRESS). 
doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516. Available at http://dx.doi.org.
    \169\ Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. (2009). 
Health effects of real-world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with 
asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org.]
    \170\ Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air 
pollution and the microvasculatory: a cross-sectional assessment of 
in vivo retinal images in the population-based Multi-Ethnic Study of 
Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/
journal.pmed.1000372. Available at http://dx.doi.org.
    \171\ Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). Proxpective 
analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary 
heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. 
Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463-1468. doi:10.1289/ehp.11290. 
Available at http://dx.doi.org.
    \172\ McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010). 
Childhood incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home 
and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021-1026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several studies suggest that some factors may increase 
susceptibility to the effects of traffic-associated air pollution. 
Several studies have found stronger respiratory associations in 
children experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent 
neighborhoods or in homes with high family stress.\173\ \174\ \175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011). 
Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure 
on children's lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (In press).
    \174\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; et al. 
(2007). Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and 
exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health 
Perspect 115: 1140-1146.
    \175\ Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008). 
Chronic traffic-related air pollution and stress interact to predict 
biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect 
116: 970-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Based on 2010 Census data, a 2013 
publication estimated that 19 percent of the U.S. population (over 59 
million people) lived within 500 meters of roads with at least 25,000 
annual average daily traffic (AADT), while about 3.2 percent of the 
population lived within 100 meters (about 300 feet) of such roads.\176\ 
Another 2013 study estimated that 3.7 percent of the U.S. population 
(about 11.3 million people) lived within 150 meters (about 500 feet) of 
interstate highways, or other freeways and expressways.\177\ As 
discussed in Section III, on average, populations near major roads have 
higher fractions of minority residents and lower socioeconomic status. 
Furthermore, on average, Americans spend more than an hour traveling 
each day, bringing nearly all residents into a high-exposure 
microenvironment for part of the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the U.S. near-roadway 
population: public health and environmental justice considerations. 
Transportation Research Part D 25: 59-67.
    \177\ Boehmer, T.K.; Foster, S.L.; Henry, J.R.; Woghiren-
Akinnifesi, E.L.; Yip, F.Y. (2013) Residential proximity to major 
highways--United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 
62(3);46-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these concerns, EPA has required and is working with 
states to ensure that air quality monitors be placed near high-traffic 
roadways for determining NAAQS compliance for CO, NO2, and 
PM2.5 (in addition to those existing monitors located in 
neighborhoods and other locations farther away from pollution sources). 
Near-roadway monitors for NO2 begin operation between 2014 
and 2017 in Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) with population of at 
least 500,000. Monitors for CO and PM2.5 begin operation 
between 2015 and 2017. These monitors will further our understanding of 
exposure in these locations.
    EPA continues to research near-road air quality, including the 
types of pollutants found in high concentrations near major roads and 
health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads.
7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
a. Plant and Ecosystem Effects of Ozone
    The welfare effects of ozone can be observed across a variety of 
scales, i.e. subcellular, cellular, leaf, whole plant, population and 
ecosystem. Ozone effects that begin at small spatial scales, such as 
the leaf of an individual plant, when they occur at sufficient

[[Page 23439]]

magnitudes (or to a sufficient degree) can result in effects being 
propagated along a continuum to larger and larger spatial scales. For 
example, effects at the individual plant level, such as altered rates 
of leaf gas exchange, growth and reproduction can, when widespread, 
result in broad changes in ecosystems, such as productivity, carbon 
storage, water cycling, nutrient cycling, and community composition.
    Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive 
species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the 
exposure.\178\ In those sensitive species, \179\ effects from repeated 
exposure to ozone throughout the growing season of the plant tend to 
accumulate, so that even low concentrations experienced for a longer 
duration have the potential to create chronic stress on 
vegetation.\180\ Ozone damage to sensitive species includes impaired 
photosynthesis and visible injury to leaves. The impairment of 
photosynthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its 
source of energy and food), can lead to reduced crop yields, timber 
production, and plant productivity and growth. Impaired photosynthesis 
can also lead to a reduction in root growth and carbohydrate storage 
below ground, resulting in other, more subtle plant and ecosystems 
impacts.\181\ These latter impacts include increased susceptibility of 
plants to insect attack, disease, harsh weather, interspecies 
competition and overall decreased plant vigor. The adverse effects of 
ozone on areas with sensitive species could potentially lead to species 
shifts and loss from the affected ecosystems,\182\ resulting in a loss 
or reduction in associated ecosystem goods and services. Additionally, 
visible ozone injury to leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value 
in areas of special scenic significance like national parks and 
wilderness areas and reduced use of sensitive ornamentals in 
landscaping.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 73 FR 16486 (March 27, 2008).
    \179\ 73 FR 16491 (March 27, 2008). Only a small percentage of 
all the plant species growing within the U.S. (over 43,000 species 
have been catalogued in the USDA PLANTS database) have been studied 
with respect to ozone sensitivity.
    \180\ The concentration at which ozone levels overwhelm a 
plant's ability to detoxify or compensate for oxidant exposure 
varies. Thus, whether a plant is classified as sensitive or tolerant 
depends in part on the exposure levels being considered. Chapter 9, 
section 9.3.4 of U.S. EPA, 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for 
Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. Office of Research and 
Development/National Center for Environmental Assessment. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 600/R-10/076F.
    \181\ 73 FR 16492 (March 27, 2008).
    \182\ 73 FR 16493/16494 (March 27, 2008), Per footnote 2 above, 
ozone impacts could be occurring in areas where plant species 
sensitive to ozone have not yet been studied or identified.
    \183\ 73 FR 16490/16497 (March 27, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Ozone presents more 
detailed information on how ozone affects vegetation and 
ecosystems.\184\ The ISA concludes that ambient concentrations of ozone 
are associated with a number of adverse welfare effects and 
characterizes the weight of evidence for different effects associated 
with ozone.\185\ The ISA concludes that visible foliar injury effects 
on vegetation, reduced vegetation growth, reduced productivity in 
terrestrial ecosystems, reduced yield and quality of agricultural 
crops, and alteration of below-ground biogeochemical cycles are 
causally associated with exposure to ozone. It also concludes that 
reduced carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, alteration of 
terrestrial ecosystem water cycling, and alteration of terrestrial 
community composition are likely to be causally associated with 
exposure to ozone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report). U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/076F, 2013. The ISA 
is available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=247492#Download.
    \185\ The Ozone ISA evaluates the evidence associated with 
different ozone related health and welfare effects, assigning one of 
five ``weight of evidence'' determinations: Causal relationship, 
likely to be a causal relationship, suggestive of a causal 
relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not 
likely to be a causal relationship. For more information on these 
levels of evidence, please refer to Table II of the ISA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Visibility
    Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is 
transparent to visible light.\186\ Visibility impairment is caused by 
light scattering and absorption by suspended particles and gases. 
Visibility is important because it has direct significance to people's 
enjoyment of daily activities in all parts of the country. Individuals 
value good visibility for the well-being it provides them directly, 
where they live and work, and in places where they enjoy recreational 
opportunities. Visibility is also highly valued in significant natural 
areas, such as national parks and wilderness areas, and special 
emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these areas. For more 
information on visibility see the final 2009 PM ISA.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ National Research Council, (1993). Protecting Visibility 
in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences 
Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National 
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This book can be viewed on the 
National Academy Press Web site at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/.
    \187\ U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for 
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/139F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is working to address visibility impairment. In 1999, EPA 
finalized the regional haze program to protect the visibility in 
Mandatory Class I Federal areas.\188\ There are 156 national parks, 
forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal 
areas.\189\ These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those 
national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial 
parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in 
existence on August 7, 1977. EPA has also concluded that 
PM2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas 
that are not protected by the Regional Haze Rule, depending on 
PM2.5 concentrations and other factors that control their 
visibility impact effectiveness such as dry chemical composition and 
relative humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the 
particles). EPA revised the PM2.5 standards in December 2012 
and established a target level of protection that is expected to be met 
through attainment of the existing secondary standards for 
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
    \189\ 62 FR 38680-38681 (July 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 23440]]

transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and 
potential toxicity of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been 
identified as a key component of the environmental and human health 
hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury, dioxin and 
PCBs.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \190\ U.S. EPA. (2000). Deposition of Air Pollutants to the 
Great Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards. EPA-453/R-00-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric 
contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on 
the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of 
atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both 
nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effects to human health and welfare 
can occur from the addition of excess nitrogen via atmospheric 
deposition. The nitrogen-nutrient enrichment contributes to toxic algae 
blooms and zones of depleted oxygen, which can lead to fish kills, 
frequently in coastal waters. Deposition of heavy metals or other 
toxics may lead to the human ingestion of contaminated fish, impairment 
of drinking water, damage to freshwater and marine ecosystem 
components, and limits to recreational uses. Several studies have been 
conducted in U.S. coastal waters and in the Great Lakes Region in which 
the role of ambient PM deposition and runoff is 
investigated.191 192 193 194 195
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ U.S. EPA. (2004). National Coastal Condition Report II. 
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. EPA-620/R-03/
002.
    \192\ Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. (2002). 
Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on PM2.5 
particulate matter over the New York-New Jersey harbor estuary. 
Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077-1086.
    \193\ Kim, G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. 
(2000). Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of 
stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 
65-79.
    \194\ Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. (2003). Dry 
deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and 
adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11-1 to 
11-24.
    \195\ Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al. (2002). 
Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A 
comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437-450.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 19 
years.\196\ The data show that reductions were more substantial for 
sulfur compounds than for nitrogen compounds. In the eastern U.S., 
where data are most abundant, total sulfur deposition decreased by 
about 44 percent between 1990 and 2007, while total nitrogen deposition 
decreased by 25 percent over the same time frame.\197\ These numbers 
are generated by the U.S. national monitoring network and they likely 
underestimate nitrogen deposition because neither ammonia nor organic 
nitrogen is measured. Although total nitrogen and sulfur deposition has 
decreased over time, many areas continue to be negatively impacted by 
deposition. Deposition of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species 
routinely measured in the U.S. between 2005 and 2007 were as high as 
9.6 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three 
years and 20.8 kilograms of sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over 
three years.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ U.S. EPA. (2013). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. 
Data accessed online November 25, 2013 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewInd&lv=list.listBySubTopic&r=216610&subtop=341&ch=46.
    \197\ U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. 
Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
    \198\ U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. 
Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Environmental Effects of Air Toxics
    Emissions from producing, transporting and combusting fuel 
contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse 
effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are 
considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in 
vegetation damage.\199\ In laboratory experiments, a wide range of 
tolerance to VOCs has been observed.\200\ Decreases in harvested seed 
pod weight have been reported for the more sensitive plants, and some 
studies have reported effects on seed germination, flowering and fruit 
ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or

[[Page 23441]]

their role in conjunction with other stressors (e.g., acidification, 
drought, temperature extremes) have not been well studied. In a recent 
study of a mixture of VOCs including ethanol and toluene on herbaceous 
plants, significant effects on seed production, leaf water content and 
photosynthetic efficiency were reported for some plant species.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the 
atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3-91/001.
    \200\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M 
Skewes, DN Price, AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on 
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ. 
Pollut. 124:341-343.
    \201\ Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M 
Skewes, DN Price, AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on 
herbaceous plants in an open-top chamber experiment. Environ. 
Pollut. 124:341-343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants, 
which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in 
other cases to nitrogen oxides.202 203 204
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Viskari E-L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce 
needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air, 
and Soil Pollut. 121:327-337.
    \203\ Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and 
transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox. 
Environ. Safety 37:24-29.
    \204\ Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler-Jons, D 
Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emissions 
for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235-243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards will significantly reduce the 
tailpipe and evaporative emissions of light- and heavy-duty vehicles in 
several ways, as described in this section. In addition, the gasoline 
sulfur standard will reduce emissions of SO2 from existing 
gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. As described in Section II, 
all of these emission reductions will in turn improve air quality 
nationwide and reduce the health effects associated with air pollution 
from mobile sources.
    As with the Tier 2 program, EPA is implementing closely-coordinated 
requirements for both automakers and refiners in the same rulemaking 
action. The Tier 3 vehicle emission standards and gasoline sulfur 
standards represent a ``systems approach'' to reducing vehicle-related 
exhaust and evaporative emissions. By recognizing the relationships 
among the various sources of emissions addressed by this action, we 
have been able to integrate the provisions into a single, coordinated 
program.
1. How do vehicles produce the emissions addressed in this action?
    The degree to which vehicles produce exhaust and evaporative 
emissions depends on the design and functionality of the engine and the 
associated exhaust and evaporative emission controls, in concert with 
the properties of the fuel on which the vehicle is operating. In the 
following paragraphs, we discuss how light- and heavy-duty vehicles 
produce each of these types of emissions, both from the tailpipe and 
from the fuel system.
a. Tailpipe (Exhaust) Emissions
    The pollutants emitted at the vehicle's tailpipe and their 
quantities depend on how the fuel is combusted in the engine and how 
the resulting gases are treated in the exhaust system. Historically, 
much of tailpipe emission control has focused on hydrocarbon compounds 
(HC) and NOX. The portion of hydrocarbons that is methane is 
minimally reactive in forming ozone. Thus, for emission control 
purposes, the focus is generally on non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), 
which are also expressed as non-methane organic gases (NMOG) in order 
to account for oxygenates (usually ethanol) now usually present in the 
fuel.
    Tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions also include several toxic 
pollutants, including benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. To 
varying degrees, the mass emissions of these pollutants are reduced 
along with other hydrocarbons by the catalytic converter and improved 
engine controls.
    Light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM 
forms directly as a combustion product (as elemental carbon or soot) 
and indirectly as semi-volatile hydrocarbon compounds that form 
particles in the exhaust system or soon after exiting the tailpipe. CO 
is a product of incomplete fuel combustion.
    When operating properly, modern exhaust emission controls 
(centering on the catalytic convertor) can reduce much of the HC 
(including toxics), NOX and CO exiting the engine. However, 
tailpipe emissions are increased during periods of vehicle startup, as 
catalytic convertors must warm up to be effective; during subsequent 
operation due to the interference of sulfur in the gasoline; during 
high load operating events, as the catalyst is overwhelmed or its 
operation is modified to protect against permanent damage; and as a 
vehicle ages, as the catalyst degrades in performance due to the 
effects of high temperature operation and contaminants in the fuel and 
lubricating oil.
b. Evaporative Emissions
    Gasoline vehicles also produce vapors in the fuel tank and fuel 
system that can be released as evaporative emissions. These vapors are 
primarily the lighter, more volatile hydrocarbon compounds in gasoline. 
As discussed in Section IV below, vehicle evaporative (``evap'') 
control systems are designed to block or capture vapors as they are 
generated. Vapors are generated in the vehicle fuel tank and fuel 
system (and released to the atmosphere if not adequately controlled) as 
fuel heats up due to ambient temperature increase and/or vehicle 
operation. Fuel vapors are also released when they permeate through 
elastomers in the fuel system, when they leak at connections or due to 
damaged components, and during refueling events.
    In general, the evap emission controls on current vehicles (and 
that will be improved under this action) consist of a canister filled 
with activated charcoal and connected by hoses to the fuel system. The 
hoses direct generated vapors to the canister, which collects the 
vapors on the carbon and stores them until the system experiences a 
``purge'' event. During purge, the engine draws fresh air through the 
canister, carrying vapors released by the carbon to the engine to be 
combusted and restoring the capacity of the canister. Evaporative 
emissions occur when vapors are emitted to the atmosphere because the 
evap system is compromised, the carbon canister is overwhelmed, or 
vapors permeate or leak. As such, evaporative emission controls also 
involve proper material selection for fuel system components, careful 
design of these components, and onboard diagnostics to check the system 
for failure.
2. How will the changes to gasoline sulfur content affect vehicle 
emissions?
    Gasoline vehicles rely on highly efficient aftertreatment catalysts 
to control tailpipe emissions of harmful pollutants like CO and 
NOX, as well as VOCs that include air toxics and precursor 
compounds to ozone and secondary PM in the atmosphere. These catalysts 
utilize finely-dispersed precious metals that are susceptible to 
deactivation by sulfur compounds in the exhaust. Studies have 
repeatedly demonstrated that the presence of even a tiny amount of 
sulfur in fuel has a measurable impact on the ability of the catalyst 
to control emissions, and that emission levels of most pollutants, 
especially NOX, are very sensitive to fuel 
sulfur.205 206
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
    \206\ Durbin, T., ``The Effect of Fuel Sulfur on NH3 and Other 
Emissions from 2000-2001 Model Year Vehicles'', May 2003. Published 
as Report E-60 by the Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, GA.

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

[[Page 23442]]

    Sulfur naturally occurs in crude oil and is carried through the 
refining process into gasoline. EPA's Tier 2 rulemaking for light-duty 
vehicles, published in 2000, required refiners to reduce sulfur levels 
in gasoline to an average of 30 ppm, a reduction of about 90 percent 
from the in-use baseline. At the time, there were indications that 
sulfur reductions below 30 ppm may provide additional emission 
benefits. However, the data was insufficient to quantify the benefits 
to the existing fleet, and the Tier 2 vehicle standards could be 
achieved without lowering sulfur below 30 ppm.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a 
compelling case that even this level of sulfur degrades the emission 
performance of vehicles on the road today and inhibits necessary 
further reductions in vehicle emissions performance, which depend on 
optimum catalyst performance to reach emission targets. A study 
conducted by EPA and the auto industry in support of the Mobile Source 
Air Toxics (MSAT) rule found significant reductions in NOX, 
CO and total HC when nine Tier 2 vehicles were tested on ultra-low 
sulfur fuel.\208\ In particular, the study found a 32 percent decrease 
in NOX when sulfur was reduced from 32 ppm to 6 ppm 
(equivalent to a 25 percent decrease if sulfur levels were reduced from 
30 to 10 ppm, assuming a linear effect). Another recent study by 
Umicore showed reductions of 41 percent for NOX and 17 
percent for hydrocarbons on a PZEV operating on fuel with 33 ppm and 3 
ppm fuel (equivalent to reductions of 27 percent and 11 percent, 
respectively, if sulfur levels were reduced from 30 to 10 ppm, assuming 
a linear effect).\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous 
Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420-R-07-002, 
Chapter 6.
    \209\ Ball D., Clark D., Moser D. (2011), Effects of Fuel Sulfur 
on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. 
SAE 2011 World Congress Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A larger study of Tier 2 vehicles recently completed by EPA 
confirmed these results, showing significant reductions in FTP-
composite NOX (14 percent), CO (10 percent) and total HC (15 
percent) on the 5 ppm fuel, relative to 28 ppm fuel (equivalent to 12 
percent, 9 percent, and 13 percent reduction, respectively, if sulfur 
levels were reduced from 30 to 10 ppm, assuming a linear effect).\210\ 
For NOX, the majority of overall reductions were driven by 
large reductions on warmed-up periods of the test cycle (Bag 2), which 
showed a 52 percent reduction using 5 ppm fuel relative to 28 ppm fuel 
(equivalent to 45 percent reduction if sulfur levels were reduced from 
30 to 10 ppm, assuming a linear effect), consistent with the role of 
sulfur in catalyst degradation discussed above. For additional details 
regarding these results, please see Section IV.A.6.c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our application of these study results assumes a linear effect of 
sulfur level on catalyst efficiency between the high and low sulfur 
test fuels. This is reasonable given that the mass flow rate of sulfur 
in exhaust gas changes in proportion to its concentration in the fuel, 
and that the chemical kinetics of adsorption of sulfur to the precious 
metal sites is approximately first order. Linearity of effect is also 
supported by past studies with multiple fuel sulfur levels such as the 
CRC E-60 and 2000 AAM/AIAM/Oil Industry emission test 
programs.211 212
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ Durbin, T., ``The Effect of Fuel Sulfur on NH3 and Other 
Emissions from 2000-2001 Model Year Vehicles'', May 2003. Published 
as Report E-60 by the Coordinating Research Council, Alpharetta, GA.
    \212\ ``AAM/AIAM/Oil Industry Low Sulfur & Oxygenate Test 
Program'', 2000, last accessed on 01/15/14 at the following URL: 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/carfg3/aam_prstn.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these analyses, the benefits of the Tier 3 sulfur standard 
are significant in two ways: They enable vehicles designed to the Tier 
3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards for the duration 
of their useful life, and they facilitate immediate emission reductions 
from all the vehicles on the road at the time the sulfur controls are 
implemented.

B. How will emissions be reduced?

    The Tier 3 standards will reduce emissions of VOC, NOX 
(including NO2), direct PM2.5, CO, 
SO2, and air toxics. The sulfur standards will reduce 
emissions from the on-road fleet immediately upon implementation in 
calendar year 2017. The vehicle standards will begin to reduce 
emissions as the cleaner cars and trucks begin to enter the fleet in 
model year 2017 and model year 2018, respectively. The magnitude of 
reduction will grow as more Tier 3 vehicles enter the fleet. We present 
emission reductions in calendar year 2018 to reflect the early 
reductions expected from the Tier 3 standards, and in calendar year 
2030, when 70 percent of the miles travelled are from vehicles that 
meet the fully phased-in Tier 3 standards. Although 2030 is the 
farthest year that is feasible for air quality modeling, the full 
reduction of the vehicle program will be realized after 2030, when the 
fleet has fully turned over to vehicles that meet the fully phased-in 
Tier 3 standards; thus we present emission reductions projected in 2050 
as well (see Chapter 7 of the RIA).
    Emission reductions are estimated on an annual basis, for all 50 
U.S. states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. The reductions were estimated using a version of EPA's 
MOVES model updated for this analysis, as described in detail in 
Chapter 7 of the RIA. This version of MOVES includes our most recent 
data on how vehicle emissions are affected by changes in sulfur, 
ethanol, RVP, and other fuel properties. We estimated emission 
reductions compared to a reference case that assumed renewable fuel 
volumes and ethanol blends based on the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013).\213\ As 
described in Chapter 7 of the RIA, the reference and control scenarios 
based on AEO2013 reflect a mix of E10, E15, and E85 in both 2018 and 
2030. The reference case assumed an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 
ppm in California) and continuation of the Tier 2 vehicle program 
indefinitely, with the exception of California and Section 177 states 
that have adopted the LEV III program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy 
Outlook (April 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis described here accounts for the following national 
onroad rules:

 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur 
Control Requirements (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)
 Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel 
Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001)
 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007)
 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable 
Fuel Standard Program (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010)
 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for 2012-2016 (75 FR 25324, 
May 7, 2010)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (76 FR 57106, 
September 15, 2011)
 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy

[[Page 23443]]

Standards (77 FR 62623, October 15, 2012)

The analysis also accounts for many other national rules and standards. 
In addition, the modeling accounts for state and local rules including 
California's most recent Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program adopted 
in California and twelve other states (also referred to as Section 177 
states),\214\ local fuel standards, Inspection/Maintenance programs, 
Stage II refueling controls, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program 
(NLEV), and the Section 177 states LEV and LEV II programs. See the 
Tier 3 emissions modeling TSD for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ These states include Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, 
Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of emission reductions projected to result from Tier 3, 
relative to the reference case, is shown in calendar years 2018 and 
2030 for NOX, VOC, direct PM2.5, CO, 
SO2, and total air toxics in Table III-1. For many 
pollutants, the immediate reductions in 2018 are significant; for 
example, combined NOX and VOC emissions will be reduced by 
over 300,000 tons. By 2030, combined NOX and VOC emissions 
will be reduced by roughly 500,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad 
inventory. Many of the modeled air toxics will be significantly reduced 
as well, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein and 
ethanol (ranging from 10 to nearly 30 percent of the national onroad 
inventory by 2030). The relative reduction in overall emissions will 
continue to increase beyond 2030 as more of the fleet continues to turn 
over to Tier 3 vehicles; for example, by 2050, when nearly all of the 
fleet will have turned over to vehicles meeting the fully phased-in 
Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program will reduce onroad 
emissions of NOX and VOC nearly 31 percent from the level of 
emissions projected without Tier 3 controls.

                      Table III-1--Estimated Emission Reductions From the Tier 3 Standards
                                            [Annual U.S. short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2018                            2030
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    % of Onroad                     % of Onroad
                                                       Tons          inventory         Tons          inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.............................................         264,369              10         328,509              25
VOC.............................................          47,504               3         167,591              16
CO..............................................         278,879               2       3,458,041              24
Direct PM2.5....................................             130             0.1           7,892              10
Benzene.........................................           1,916               6           4,762              26
SO2.............................................          14,813              56          12,399              56
1,3-Butadiene...................................             257               5             677              29
Formaldehyde....................................             513               2           1,277              10
Acetaldehyde....................................             600               3           2,067              21
Acrolein........................................              40               3             127              15
Ethanol.........................................           2,704               2          19,950              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reductions for each pollutant are discussed in the following 
sections, focusing on the contribution of program elements to the total 
reductions summarized above.
1. NOX
    The Tier 3 sulfur standards will significantly reduce 
NOX emissions immediately upon implementation of the 
program. As discussed above, recent research on the impact of sulfur on 
Tier 2 technology vehicles shows the potential for significant 
reductions in NOX emissions from the existing fleet of Tier 
2 vehicles by lowering sulfur levels to 10 ppm. Prior research shows 
that NOX emissions will also be expected to decrease from 
the fleet of older (pre-Tier 2) light-duty vehicles as well as heavy-
duty gasoline vehicles,\215\ although to a lesser extent than for Tier 
2 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ Rao, V. (2001), Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust Emissions: 
Recommendations for MOBILE6, EPA-420-R-01-039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table III-2 shows the reduction in NOX emissions, in 
annual short tons, projected in calendar years 2018 and 2030. The 
reductions are split into those attributable to the introduction of low 
sulfur fuel in the pre-Tier 3 fleet (defined for this analysis as model 
years prior to 2017); and reductions attributable to vehicle standards 
enabled by low sulfur fuel (model year 2017 and later). As shown, upon 
implementation of the Tier 3 sulfur standards, total onroad 
NOX emissions are projected to drop 10 percent. This is 
primarily due to large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline vehicles, which 
contribute about one-quarter of the NOX emissions from the 
on-road fleet in 2018. The relative reduction grows as cleaner vehicles 
turn over into the fleet. By 2030, we project that the reduction in 
overall onroad NOX inventory will be 25 percent.

        Table III-2--Projected NOX Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                           [Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018               2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction...................            264,369            328,509
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet               242,434             56,324
 due to sulfur standard...........
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to             21,934            272,185
 vehicle and sulfur standards.....
Percent reduction in onroad NOX                   10%                25%
 emissions........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23444]]

2. VOC
    Table III-3 shows the reduction in VOC emissions, in annual short 
tons, projected in calendar years 2018 and 2030 resulting from the Tier 
3 standards. In 2018, as with NOX, we project reductions 
from the pre-Tier 3 fleet with the fuel standards. By 2030, the 
reduction in overall onroad VOC emissions will be 16 percent, the 
majority of this from the vehicles meeting the fully phased-in Tier 3 
standards. The evaporative standards are projected to account for 
roughly one third of the overall vehicle program reduction in 2030.

        Table III-3--Projected VOC Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                           [Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018               2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction...................             47,504            167,591
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet                38,786             11,249
 due to sulfur standard...........
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to              8,718            156,343
 vehicle and sulfur standards.....
Exhaust...........................             43,009            105,253
Evaporative.......................              4,495             62,339
Percent reduction in onroad VOC                    3%                16%
 emissions........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. CO
    Table III-4 shows the reductions for CO, broken down by pre- and 
post-Tier 3 in the manner described for NOX and VOC above. 
In contrast to NOX and VOC, the immediate CO reductions in 
the onroad fleet from sulfur control in 2018 are small, based on 
research showing that fuel sulfur level has a minimal impact on CO 
emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. The CO exhaust standards are projected 
to reduce onroad CO emissions by 24 percent in 2030.

        Table III-4--Projected CO Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                           [Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018               2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction...................            278,879          3,458,041
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet               122,171             17,734
 due to sulfur standard...........
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to            156,708          3,440,307
 vehicle and sulfur standards.....
Percent reduction in onroad CO                     2%                24%
 emissions........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Direct PM2.5
    Reductions in direct emissions of PM2.5 are projected to 
result solely from the vehicle tailpipe standards, so meaningful 
reductions are realized mainly as the fleet turns over. By 2030, we 
project a reduction of about 7,900 tons annually, which represents 
approximately 10 percent of the onroad direct PM2.5 
inventory. The relative reduction in onroad emissions is projected to 
grow to 28 percent in 2050, when nearly all of the fleet will have 
turned over to vehicles meeting the fully phased-in Tier 3 standards. 
Reductions in NOX and VOC emissions will also reduce 
secondary PM formation, which is quantified as part of the air quality 
analysis described in Section III.C.
5. Air Toxics
    Emissions of air toxics also will be reduced by the sulfur, exhaust 
and evaporative standards. Air toxics are generally a subset of 
compounds making up VOC, so the reduction trends tend to track the VOC 
reductions presented above, for most air toxics. Table III-5 presents 
reductions for certain key air toxics, and Table III-6 presents 
reductions for the sum of 71 different toxic compounds.

                            Table III-5--Reductions for Certain Individual Compounds
                                               [Annual U.S. tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  % Reduction in                  % Reduction in
                                                   Tons reduced       onroad       Tons reduced       onroad
                                                      in 2018        emissions        in 2030        emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene.........................................           1,916               6           4,762              26
Acetaldehyde....................................             600               3           2,067              21
Formaldehyde....................................             513               2           1,277              10
1,3-Butadiene...................................             257               5             677              29
Acrolein........................................              40               3             127              15
Naphthalene.....................................              99               3             269              15
Ethanol.........................................           2,704               2          19,950              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (see Appendix 7A of the 
RIA). As shown, in 2030, the overall onroad inventory of total toxics 
will be reduced by 15 percent, with nearly one

[[Page 23445]]

half of the vehicle program reductions coming from the evaporative 
standards.

        Table III-6--Reductions in Total Mobile Source Air Toxics
                           [Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018               2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction...................             15,583             64,558
Reduction from pre-Tier 3 fleet                11,981              3,517
 due to sulfur standard...........
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to              3,602             61,041
 vehicle and sulfur standards.....
Exhaust...........................             13,340             34,595
Evaporative.......................              2,243             29,963
Percent reduction in onroad toxics                 3%                15%
 emissions........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. SO2
    SO2 emissions from mobile sources are a direct function 
of sulfur in the fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline will result in 
immediate reductions in SO2 from the on and off-road fleet. 
The reductions, shown in Table III-7, are a function of the sulfur 
level and fuel consumption. This is reflected in the relative 
contribution of on-road vehicles and off-road equipment, where off-road 
gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 5 percent of overall 
gasoline use.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy 
Outlook 2013 (April 15, 2013).

        Table III-7--Projected SO2 Reductions From Tier 3 Program
                           [Annual U.S. tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2018               2030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total reduction...................             15,565             13,261
Reduction from onroad vehicles due             14,813             12,399
 to sulfur standard...............
Reduction from off-road equipment                 752                862
 due to sulfur standard...........
Percent reduction in onroad SO2                   56%                56%
 emissions........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Greenhouse Gases
    Reductions in nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and methane 
(CH4) emissions, both potent greenhouse gas emissions, are 
projected for gasoline cars and trucks as a result of the sulfur and 
tailpipe standards. A study conducted by the University of California-
Riverside found a 29 percent reduction in N2O emissions over 
the FTP when sulfur was reduced from 30 to 5 ppm,\217\ while EPA 
research described in Section IV.A.6 on sulfur effects found a 26 
percent reduction in CH4 emissions when sulfur was reduced 
from 28 to 5 ppm.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ Huai, et al. (2004), Estimates of the emission rates of 
nitrous oxide from light-duty vehicles using different chassis 
dynamometer test cycles, Atmospheric Environment 6621-6629
    \218\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several studies have established correlations between reductions in 
tailpipe NOX emissions and reductions in N2O from 
gasoline cars and trucks,219 220 221 222 as well as 
correlations between reductions in tailpipe HC emissions and reductions 
in CH4.223 224 Studies by Winer, et al (2005) and 
Behrentz et al (2004) reported N2O: NOX ratios of 
0.06 and 0.095, respectively, and supported the application of 
N2O: NOX ratios to NOX emissions as a 
reasonable method for estimating N2O emission inventories. 
CARB has also used N2O: NOX ratio to develop the 
N2O emissions inventories for the LEV III program, based on 
a regression analysis suggesting N2O: NOX ratio 
of 0.04, on average.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \219\ Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from 
Highway Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA EPA420-R-98-009.
    \220\ Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of nitrous oxide 
emissions from light-duty motor vehicles: A pilot study, Atmospheric 
Environment 4291-4303.
    \221\ Meffert, et. al (2000) Analysis of Nitrous Oxide Emissions 
from Light Duty Passenger Cars, SAE 2000-01-1952.
    \222\ Winer, et al. (2005) Estimates of Nitrous Oxide Emissions 
and the Effects of Catalyst Composition and Aging, State of 
California Air Resources Board 02-313.
    \223\ Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle Methane and Nitrous 
Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse Gas Impacts, Study for Northeast States 
Center for a Clean Air Future.
    \224\ Graham, L., Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 1997-2005 Model 
Year Light Duty Vehicles, Environment Canada ERMD Report 
04-44.
    \225\ LEV III Moblie Source Emissions Inventory Technical 
Support Document--Appendix T, January 2012, last accessed on 01/15/
14 at the following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed in Chapter 7.3 of the RIA, the N2O 
reductions are estimated by employing two different methodologies, 
resulting in a range of reductions. The first method applies the 
relationship between N2O and NOX from a 
regression model \226\ to NOX inventories from both Tier 3 
and pre-Tier 3 vehicles. The second method applies the regression of 
N2O and NOX only to Tier 3 vehicles and uses the 
UC Riverside sulfur results to estimate the N2O reductions 
from pre-Tier 3 vehicles. Using a 100-year global warming potential of 
298 for N2O according to the 2007 IPCC AR4,\227\ the 
estimated N2O reduction is 2.2 million metric tons of carbon 
dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2018, growing to the range 
between 3.8 to 4.0 MMTCO 2e in 2030. For 2018, there was an 
agreement between the two methodologies described above, resulting in a 
single estimate. MOVES can be used to directly estimate CH4 
reductions from the sulfur and vehicle standards, estimating an 
additional 0.1 MMTCO2e

[[Page 23446]]

reduction in 2018, growing to 0.3 MMTCO2e in 2030. The total 
GHG reduction from the Tier 3 rule is 2.3 MMTCO2e in 2018, 
and between 4.1 and 4.3 MMTCO2e in 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \226\ U.S. EPA, 2014, Memorandum to Docket: Regression Analysis 
of Nitrous Oxide and Oxides of Nitrogen from Motor Vehicles.
    \227\ The global warming potentials (GWP) used in this rule are 
consistent with the 100-year time frame values in the 2007 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment 
Report (AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report 
(SAR) 100-year GWP values are used in the official U.S. greenhouse 
gas inventory submission to the United Nations Framework Convention 
on Climate Change (per the reporting requirements under that 
international convention, which were last updated in 2006). 
N2O has a 100-year GWP of 298 and CH4 has a 
100-year GWP of 25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These reductions will be partially offset by CO2 
emissions associated with higher energy use required in the process of 
removing sulfur within the refinery. As an extension of our refinery-
by-refinery cost modeling described in Section VII.B., we calculated 
the CO2 emission impacts of Tier 3 gasoline sulfur control. 
We estimated refinery-specific changes in process energy and then 
applied emission factors that correspond to those changes, on a 
refinery-by-refinery basis. As described in Chapter 4.5 of the RIA, the 
results showed an increase of up to 1.9 MMTCO2e in 2018 and 
1.6 MMTCO2e in 2030 for all U.S. refineries complying with 
the lower sulfur standards assuming that the sulfur standards are fully 
phased-in. In 2018, the combined impact of CH4 and 
N2O emission reductions from the vehicles and CO2 
emission increases from the refineries shows a slight net decrease on a 
CO2 equivalent basis. While still small, this net decrease 
grows to a range between 2.5 to 2.7 MMTCO2e by 2030.
    We do not expect the Tier 3 vehicle standards to result in any 
discernible changes in vehicle CO2 emissions or fuel 
economy. Emissions of the pollutants that are controlled by the Tier 3 
program--NMOG, NOX, and PM--are not a function of the amount 
of fuel consumed, since manufacturers need to design their catalytic 
emission control systems to reduce these emissions regardless of their 
engine-out levels.

C. How will air pollution be reduced?

    Reductions in emissions of NOX, VOC, PM2.5 
and air toxics expected as a result of the Tier 3 standards are 
projected to lead to significant improvements in air quality. The air 
quality modeling predicts significant improvements in ozone 
concentrations due to the Tier 3 standards. Ambient PM2.5 
and NO2 concentrations are also expected to improve as a 
result of the Tier 3 program. Decreases in ambient concentrations of 
air toxics are projected with the Tier 3 standards, including notable 
nationwide reductions in benzene concentrations. Our air quality 
modeling also predicts improvements in visibility and sulfur 
deposition, as well as substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as 
a result of the Tier 3 standards. The results of our air quality 
modeling of the impacts of the Tier 3 rule are summarized in the 
following section.
1. Ozone
    The air quality modeling done for this action projects that in 
2018, with all current and required controls in effect but excluding 
the emissions changes expected to occur as a result of the Tier 3 
standards or any other additional controls, at least 19 counties, with 
a projected population of over 37 million people, would have projected 
design values above the level of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 
ppb. In 2030 the modeling projects that in the absence of Tier 3 
standards or any other additional controls there will be 6 counties 
with a population of over 19 million people with projected design 
values above the level of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. An 
additional 37 million people will be living in the 43 counties that 
will be close to (within 10 percent of) the level of the ozone 
standard.
    Air quality modeling indicates that this action will meaningfully 
decrease ozone design value concentrations in many areas of the 
country, including those that are projected to be exceeding, or close 
to exceeding, the ozone standard. In 2018, the majority of the design 
value decreases are between 0.5 and 1.0 ppb. In 2030, the Tier 3 rule 
will result in larger decreases in ozone design values, with the 
majority of counties projecting decreases of between 0.5 and 1.0 ppb, 
and over 250 more counties with decreases greater than 1.0 ppb. Since 
the Tier 3 standards go into effect during the period when some areas 
are still working to attain the ozone NAAQS, the projected air quality 
changes will help state and local agencies in their effort to attain 
and maintain the ozone standard.
2. Particulate Matter
    The air quality modeling conducted for this action projects that in 
2018, with all current controls in effect but excluding the emissions 
changes expected to occur as a result of Tier 3 standards or any other 
additional controls, at least 14 counties, with a projected population 
of over 20 million people, would have projected design values above the 
level of the annual standard of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and at least 24 counties, 
with a projected population of over 18 million people, would have 
projected design values above the level of the 24-hour standard of 35 
[mu]g/m\3\. In 2030, the modeling projects that in the absence of Tier 
3 standards or any other additional controls there will be 13 counties, 
with a projected population of over 21 million people, with projected 
design values above the level of the annual standard of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ 
and 18 counties, with a projected population of over 12 million people, 
with projected design values above the level of the 24-hour standard of 
35 [mu]g/m\3\. Since the Tier 3 standards go into effect during the 
period when some areas are still working to attain the 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, the projected air quality changes will be 
useful to state and local agencies in their effort to attain and 
maintain the PM2.5 standards.
    The Tier 3 standards will reduce 24-hour and annual 
PM2.5 design values due to projected tailpipe reductions in 
primary PM2.5, SO2, NOX and VOCs from 
reductions in fuel sulfur and engine controls. In 2018 the standards 
will have a small impact on annual PM2.5 design values in 
the majority of modeled counties. However, in over 200 counties annual 
PM2.5 design values are projected to decrease by greater 
than 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\. In 2030 annual PM2.5 design values in 
the majority of modeled counties will decrease by between 0.01 and 0.05 
[mu]g/m\3\ and in over 140 additional counties design values are 
projected to decrease by greater than 0.05 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition, in 
2018 24-hour PM2.5 design values in over 200 counties are 
projected to decrease by between 0.05 and 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ and in 2030 
24-hour PM2.5 design values in over 180 counties decrease by 
at least 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\.
3. Nitrogen Dioxide
    Although our modeling indicates that by 2030 the majority of the 
country will experience decreases of less than 0.1 ppb in their annual 
NO2 concentrations due to this rule, annual NO2 
concentrations are projected to decrease by more than 0.3 ppb in most 
urban areas. These emissions reductions would also likely decrease 1-
hour NO2 concentrations and help any potential nonattainment 
areas to attain and maintain the standard. Additional information on 
the emissions reductions that are projected with this rule is available 
in Section 7.2.1 of the RIA.
4. Air Toxics
    Our modeling indicates that the impacts of final Tier 3 standards 
include notable nationwide reductions in benzene and generally small 
decreases in ambient concentrations of other air toxics, mainly in 
urban areas. Although reductions are greater in 2030 (when 70 percent 
of the miles travelled are from vehicles that meet the fully phased-in 
Tier 3 standards) than in 2017 (the first year of the final program), 
our modeling projects there will be small immediate reductions in 
ambient concentrations of air toxics due to the Tier 3 sulfur controls. 
Furthermore, the full reduction of the vehicle program will be realized

[[Page 23447]]

after 2030, when the fleet has fully turned over to vehicles meeting 
the fully phased-in Tier 3 standards. Air toxics pollutants dominated 
by primary emissions (or a decay product of a directly emitted 
pollutant), such as benzene, are impacted more than air toxics that 
primarily result from photochemical transformation.
    Specifically, in 2030, our modeling projects that the Tier 3 rule 
will decrease ambient benzene concentrations across much of the country 
on the order of 1 to 5 percent, with reductions ranging from 10 to 25 
percent in some urban areas. Our modeling also shows reductions of 1,3-
butadiene and acrolein concentrations in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25 
percent and 1 and 10 percent respectively, with 1,3-butadiene decreases 
of at least 0.005 [mu]g/m\3\ in urban areas. These toxics are national 
risk drivers and the reductions in ambient concentrations from this 
rule will result in reductions in risks from cancer and noncancer 
health effects. In some parts of the country (mainly urban areas), 
ethanol and formaldehyde concentrations are projected to decrease on 
the order of 1 to 10 percent and 1 to 2.5 percent respectively in 2030 
as a result of the Tier 3 rule. Decreases in ethanol concentrations are 
expected due to reductions in VOC as a result of the Tier 3 standards. 
Changes in ambient acetaldehyde concentrations are generally less than 
1 percent across the U.S., although the Tier 3 rule may decrease 
acetaldehyde concentrations in some urban areas by 1 to 2.5 percent in 
2030. Changes in ambient naphthalene concentrations are generally 
between 1 and 10 percent in 2030 with absolute decreases of up to 0.005 
[mu]g/m\3\.
    Although the reductions in ambient air toxics concentrations 
expected from the Tier 3 standards are generally small, they are 
projected to benefit the majority of the U.S. population. As shown in 
Table III-8, over 75 percent of the total U.S. population is projected 
to experience a decrease in ambient benzene and 1,3-butadiene 
concentrations of at least 1 percent. Over 60 percent of the U.S 
population is projected to experience at least a 1 percent decrease in 
ambient ethanol and acrolein concentrations, and over 35 percent would 
experience a similar decrease in ambient formaldehyde concentrations 
with the Tier 3 standards.

  Table III-8--Percent of Total Population Experiencing Changes in Annual Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in 2030 as a Result of the Tier 3
                                                                        Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Benzene        Acrolein      1,3-Butadiene   Formaldehyde       Ethanol      Acetaldehyde     Naphthalene
        Percent change (percent)             (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)       (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-50 to -25 to -10 to -5 to -2.5 to -1 to =1 to =2.5 to =5 to =10 to =25 to =50....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as described in Section 7.2.4.4.2 of the RIA, our 
modeling projects that acrolein concentrations would decrease to levels 
below the inhalation reference concentration for acrolein (0.02 [mu]g/
m\3\) for over 5 million people in 2030, meaning that as a result of 
the Tier 3 standards, 5 million fewer Americans will be exposed to 
ambient levels of acrolein high enough to present a potential for 
adverse health effects.
5. Visibility
    Air quality modeling conducted for this final action was used to 
project visibility conditions in 137 mandatory class I federal areas 
across the U.S. The results show that in 2030 all the modeled areas 
will continue to have annual average deciview levels above background 
and the Tier 3 rule will improve visibility in all these areas.\228\ 
The average visibility at all modeled mandatory class I federal areas 
on the 20 percent worst days is projected to improve by 0.02 deciviews, 
or 0.16 percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 of the RIA contains more 
detail on the visibility portion of the air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on 
the light-extinction coefficient and a unitless visibility index, 
called a ``deciview,'' which is used in the valuation of visibility. 
The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes 
over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many 
scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a 
change of one deciview. The higher the deciview value, the worse the 
visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is a decrease in 
deciview value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition
    Our air quality modeling projects substantial decreases in nitrogen 
deposition as a result of the Tier 3 standards. The standards will 
result in annual percent decreases of greater than 2.5 percent in most 
major urban areas and greater than 5 percent in a few areas. In 
addition, smaller decreases, in the 1 to 2.5 percent range, will occur 
over much of the rest of the country. The impacts of the Tier 3 
standards on sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging from no change to 
decreases of over 2.5 percent in some areas. For maps of 2030 
deposition impacts and additional information on these impacts see 
Section 7.2.5.6 of the RIA.
7. Environmental Justice
    Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people 
deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to 
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the 
same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all 
people. As referenced below, numerous studies have found that some 
environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas with high population 
fractions of racial/ethnic minorities and people with low socioeconomic 
status (SES), as would be expected on the basis of those areas' share 
of the general population.
    As discussed in Section II of this document, concentrations of many 
air pollutants are elevated near high-traffic

[[Page 23448]]

roadways. If minority populations and low-income populations 
disproportionately live near such roads, then an issue of EJ may be 
present. Such disparities may be due to multiple factors.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental 
equity: Do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? 
North Caroline State University Center for Environmental and 
Resource Economic Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple 
stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance 
coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to 
fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of 
obesity and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart 
disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger 
associations between air pollution and health in locations with such 
chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas 
may be more susceptible to the effects of air 
pollution.230 231 232 233 Household-level stressors such as 
parental smoking and relationship stress also may increase 
susceptibility to the adverse effects of air 
pollution.234 235
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for 
examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in 
respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351-1358. 
Doi:10.1289/ehp.0900612 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \231\ Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan, P.B.; 
Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007) 
Synergistic effects of traffic-related air pollution and exposure to 
violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115: 
1140-1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \232\ Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein, 
N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation between 
income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med 
Assn J 169: 397-402.
    \233\ Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.; 
Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the 
effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma 
incidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406-12411. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0812910106 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \234\ Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L (2011) 
Non-chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: An overview 
of current initiatives and potential air pollutant interactions. Int 
J Environ Res Public Health 8: 2020-2073. Doi:10.3390/ijerph8062020 
[Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \235\ Rosa, M.J.; Jung, K.H.; Perzanowski, M.S.; Kelvin, E.A.; 
Darling, K.W.; Camann, D.E.; Chillrud, S.N.; Whyatt, R.M.; Kinney, 
P.L.; Perera, F.P.; Miller, R.L (2010) Prenatal exposure to 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, environmental tobacco smoke and 
asthma. Respir Med (In press). doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2010.11.022 
[Online at http://dx.doi.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
236 237 238 239 240 241
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \236\ Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: Air 
pollution exposures in California's South Coast Air Basin.
    \237\ Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M. 
(2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice: 
Vancouver and Seattle compared. GeoJournal 57: 595-608. doi:10.1007/
s10708-009-9269-6 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \238\ Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at risk: 
Measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air 
pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 1074-
1079. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.054130 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \239\ Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.; 
Ostro, B. (2003) Proximity of California public schools to busy 
roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61-66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566 
[http://dx.doi.org].
    \240\ Wu, Y; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in 
Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci & 
Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484 [Online at http://dx.doi.org].
    \241\ Su, J.G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011) 
Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic, 
racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319-328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, three publications report nationwide analyses that 
compare the demographic patterns of people who do or do not live near 
major roadways.242 243 244 All three of these studies found 
that people living near major roadways are more likely to be minorities 
or low in SES. They also found that the outcomes of their analyses 
varied between regions within the U.S. However, only one such study 
looked at whether such conclusions were confounded by living in a 
location with higher population density and how demographics differ 
between locations nationwide. In general, it found that higher density 
areas have higher proportions of low income and minority residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ Rowangould, G.M. (2013) A census of the US near-roadway 
population: Public health and environmental justice considerations. 
Transportation Research Part D; 59-67.
    \243\ Tian, N.; Xue, J.; Barzyk. T.M. (2013) Evaluating 
socioeconomic and racial differences in traffic-related metrics in 
the United States using a GIS approach. J Exposure Sci Environ 
Epidemiol 23: 215-222.
    \244\ Boehmer, T.K.; Foster, S.L.; Henry, J.R.; Woghiren-
Akinnifesi, E.L.; Yip, F.Y. (2013) Residential proximity to major 
highways--United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 
62(3): 46-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \245\ We analyzed whether there were differences between 
houses and householders in such locations and those not in them.\246\ 
We included other variables, such as land use category, region of 
country, and housing type. We found that homes with a nonwhite 
householder were 22-34 percent more likely to be located within 300 
feet of these large transportation facilities, while homes with a 
Hispanic householder were 17-33 percent more likely. Households near 
large transportation facilities were, on average, lower in income and 
educational attainment, more likely to be a rental property and located 
in an urban area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ This variable primarily represents roadway proximity. 
According to the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook, in 
2010, the United States had 6,506,204 km or roadways, 224,792 km of 
railways, and 15,079 airports. Highways thus represent the 
overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this 
factor in the AHS.
    \246\ Bailey, C. (2011) Demographic and Social Patterns in 
Housing Units Near Large Highways and other Transportation Sources. 
Memorandum to docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In examining schools near major roadways, we examined the Common 
Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which 
includes information on all public elementary and secondary schools and 
school districts nationwide.\247\ To determine school proximities to 
major roadways, we used a geographic

[[Page 23449]]

information system (GIS) to map each school and roadways based on the 
U.S. Census's TIGER roadway file.\248\ We found that minority students 
were overrepresented at schools within 200 meters of the largest 
roadways, and that schools within 200 meters of the largest roadways 
also had higher than expected numbers of students eligible for free or 
reduced-price lunches. For example, Black students represent 21.57 
percent of students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary 
road, whereas Black students represent 16.62 percent of students in all 
U.S. schools. Hispanic students represent 30.13 percent of students at 
schools located within 200 meters of a primary road, whereas Hispanic 
students represent 21.93 percent of students in all U.S. schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
    \248\ Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of Schools 
within 200 Meters of U.S. Primary and Secondary Roads. Memorandum to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or 
attend school near major roadways are more likely to be of a minority 
race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. The emission reductions from 
this rule are projected to result in widespread air quality 
improvements, but the impact on pollution levels in close proximity to 
roadways is expected to be most direct. Thus, this rule is likely to 
help in mitigating the disparity in racial, ethnic, and economically-
based exposures.

IV. Vehicle Emissions Program

    In the 14 years since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, 
manufacturers of light-duty vehicles have continued to develop a wide 
range of improved technologies capable of reducing emissions, 
especially exhaust hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and 
particulate matter (PM), and evaporative hydrocarbons. The California 
LEV II program has been instrumental in the auto industry's continuous 
technology improvements by requiring year after year reductions in 
fleet average exhaust hydrocarbon levels. In addition, California set 
performance standards that have resulted in the introduction of 
advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero 
emission vehicles (PZEVs). Overall, this progress in vehicle technology 
has made it possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions 
with a number of today's vehicles that go well beyond the requirements 
of the Tier 2 program.
    Extensive data from existing Tier 2 (and California LEV II) 
vehicles presented in the NPRM and received since the proposal have 
demonstrated the potential for further significant reductions. For 
exhaust emissions, these opportunities include addressing: Emissions 
produced at start-up; emissions under high-speed, high-load conditions; 
the effects of sulfur in gasoline; the effects of increased oil 
consumption; and the effects of age on vehicles and control systems. In 
addition, technologies now exist that have inherently low evaporative 
emission characteristics and demonstrate improved in-use durability. 
Based on this body of data, we are adopting more stringent standards 
designed to reduce emissions, primarily exhaust non-methane organic 
gases (NMOG), NOX, and PM and evaporative hydrocarbon 
emissions from new vehicles. As discussed in detail below and in the 
final RIA, we have concluded that, in conjunction with the reductions 
in fuel sulfur also required in this action, the new vehicle emissions 
standards are feasible, accounting for costs, across the fleet in the 
timeframe of the program. We believe that simultaneous reductions in 
fuel sulfur will be a key factor in enabling the entire fleet of 
vehicles subject to Tier 3 to meet the new emission standards in-use, 
throughout the life of the vehicles (see Section IV.A.6 below).
    We received a large number and wide range of comments on the 
proposed vehicle emission program, and we have carefully considered all 
of them. (The Summary and Analysis of Comments document addresses the 
comments received; it is located in the docket for this rulemaking and 
also on EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm.) With very few 
exceptions, we are finalizing the Tier 3 vehicle emission program as 
proposed, including the levels of the new emission standards and the 
phase-in schedules. In several cases, as discussed in detail below, the 
comments and/or newer technical information have resulted in 
adjustments to the proposed program, including when the requirements 
begin, what fuel is used for vehicle compliance testing, and what the 
PM standard level is for testing under aggressive driving conditions. 
The final Tier 3 vehicle provisions, like the proposal, also harmonize 
closely with California's LEV III program.
    This section describes in detail the program for reducing tailpipe 
and evaporative emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger 
cars), light-duty trucks (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s), Medium-Duty Passenger 
Vehicles (MDPVs), and certain heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). Sections IV.A 
and IV.B discuss the tailpipe emission standards and time lines, and 
other provisions for new LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and for new heavy-duty 
vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). Section 
IV.C presents the new Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards and 
program and Section IV.D describes the new evaporative emissions leak 
test. Section IV.E presents improvements to the existing Onboard 
Diagnostics (OBD) provisions. In Section IV.F, we describe new 
provisions to update our federal certification fuel to better match 
today's in-use fuel. We also discuss in this section the compliance 
flexibilities for small auto manufacturing companies and small-volume 
manufacturers (IV.G) as well as new testing and test procedure 
provisions and other compliance provisions (IV.H).

A. Tier 3 Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles, Light-
Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles

1. How the Tier 3 Program Is Harmonized With the California LEV III 
Program
    In describing the Tier 3 program for light- and heavy-duty vehicles 
in this preamble, we discuss how the provisions are consistent with the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program.\249\ During the 
development of the proposed rule and in their comments, auto 
manufacturers stressed to us the importance of their being able to 
design and produce a single fleet of vehicles for all 50 states that 
simultaneously complies with requirements under the Tier 3 program and 
the LEV III program, as well as greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements they 
are facing in the same timeframe. To the extent that the federal and 
California programs are consistent, special versions of vehicles with 
different emission control hardware and calibrations for different 
geographic areas will be unnecessary. This will allow manufacturers to 
avoid the additional costs of parallel design, development, 
calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency among programs also 
eliminates the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of multiple 
versions of a vehicle. We believe that the most effective and efficient 
national program will result from close coordination between CARB LEV 
III and federal Tier 3 program elements and their implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \249\ See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 
regulations adopted by the State of California Air Resources Board, 
March 22, 2012, Resolution 12-21 incorporating by reference 
Resolution 12-11, which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm 
(last accessed December 2, 2013).

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

[[Page 23450]]

    To that end, we worked closely with CARB and the vehicle 
manufacturers, the latter both individually and through their trade 
associations, to align the two programs. The Tier 3 program is 
identical to LEV III in most major respects for light-duty vehicles 
(and heavy-duty vehicles, as described in sections below). The levels 
and the timing of the declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX 
standards are identical to those in LEV III. The Tier 3 emissions bins 
to which manufacturers will certify individual vehicle models in order 
to comply with the fleet-average standards, are also identical to those 
in LEV III. Similarly, the light-duty Tier 3 FTP PM standards and 
percent phase-in match those for LEV III through MY 2024.
    We note there are a few light-duty Tier 3 and LEV III provisions 
that are different, for reasons discussed below. For example, the LEV 
III program and the Tier 3 program have different light-duty PM 
requirements late in the program (i.e., after MY 2024 (IV.A.3.b.)), and 
the two programs have different final NMOG+NOX standards for 
small volume manufacturers (IV.G.1). As also discussed below, we are 
finalizing a revised SFTP (US06) PM standard, and CARB has commented 
that it plans to take similar action in near future. CARB also 
indicated in their comments that they intend to consider several 
additional actions to further align several minor aspects of LEV III 
with the Tier 3 program once Tier 3 is finalized.
    Beyond the provisions mentioned above, the differences between the 
programs are not major and most will exist only in the transitional 
years of the Tier 3 program. These additional differences result from 
the fact that the LEV III requirements begin slightly earlier and that 
a limited phase-in of some provisions is necessary for a smooth 
transition to overall aligned programs. These temporary differences 
include the process for how early compliance credits are generated and 
used (e.g., Section IV.A.7.a); how quickly manufacturers will need to 
move toward certifying all of their vehicle models to longer useful-
life values (e.g., Section IV.A.7.c) and on the new test fuel (e.g., 
Section IV.A.7.d); and transitional emissions bins to facilitate the 
transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3 (Section IV.A.7.n).
2. Summary of the Tier 3 FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards
a. Major Comments on and Significant Changes to the Proposal
    As mentioned above, we are finalizing most aspects of the 
comprehensive Tier 3 vehicle program as we proposed them. The levels of 
the FTP and SFTP standards for the key tailpipe pollutants of concern--
the sum of NMOG and NOX emissions, expressed as 
NMOG+NOX, and PM--are the same as proposed (except for the 
numerically lower final PM SFTP (US06) standard, as discussed below). 
In addition, the timing of the requirements remains the same as in the 
NPRM, starting with MY2017 and MY2018 and phasing in according to the 
same declining fleet-average schedule for the NMOG+NOX 
standards and the same percent-of-sales phase-in schedule for the PM 
standards. We continue to believe that these elements form a robust 
framework for the Tier 3 vehicle program and closely harmonize with the 
respective elements of California's LEV III program.
    There are several important provisions of the light-duty Tier 3 
program that we have revised from the proposal, based on further 
consideration and information that we received from commenters. We 
discuss each of these in detail later in this section and summarize 
them here.
     As described below in Section IV.A.2.c, each of the four 
primary Tier 3 emission standards has an associated alternative phase-
in option for heavier light-duty vehicles that a manufacturer can 
choose if it prefers a later start date (to provide 4 years of lead 
time) and a stable standard.\250\ We proposed that a manufacturer 
choosing these options be required to apply the alternative phase-in 
schedule to its entire light-duty fleet. In response to comments from 
automakers that this restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome, we 
reconsidered this provision. For the reasons discussed below, we are 
allowing a manufacturer to apply the alternative phase-in schedules to 
only their heavier light-duty vehicles, instead of their entire light-
duty fleet. However, manufacturers have largely indicated that they 
plan on adopting the primary program which is harmonized with LEV III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ In this preamble, ``heavier light-duty vehicles'' refers 
to LDVs and LDTs greater than 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, and 
``lighter light-duty vehicles'' refers to LDVs and LDTs up to 6,000 
lbs GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     This Tier 3 rule provides an opportunity for EPA to 
reassess the degree to which the gasoline used for vehicle emissions 
testing and certification reflects in-use gasoline around the country. 
In the case of ethanol content, we proposed that the emissions test 
fuel contain 15 percent ethanol (E15), anticipating a significant shift 
to higher ethanol content in use in the near future. For several 
reasons described below (Section IV.F.1), this shift in in-use fuel is 
not materializing as quickly as expected, and E10 continues to be 
almost universal today. We received a near consensus among comments 
from stakeholders that E10 test fuel is more appropriate. We agree that 
E10 most appropriately reflects in-use gasoline around the country 
today and into the foreseeable future, and thus we are finalizing E10 
for the test fuel. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.F.1, we are 
finalizing a fuel volatility specification for test fuel of 9 psi RVP, 
as proposed.
     We are finalizing a set of standards for PM as measured on 
the aggressive-driving segment of the SFTP test cycle (the US06 cycle) 
based on US06 PM test data that we published as part of the NPRM, along 
with more recent test data developed by California. Our review of these 
data has led us to finalize numerically lower levels for the US06 PM 
standards than we proposed. The data presented in the NPRM as well as 
the data provided by California clearly show that the proposed US06 PM 
standards were inappropriately high, that US06 PM emissions are not 
closely related to vehicle weight, and that lower values for the 
standards would achieve the goal of the program to bring all vehicles 
in the light-duty fleet to the US06 PM levels that are being met by 
many vehicles today. Based on the body of available data, we are 
establishing 6 mg/mi as the long-term US06 PM standard. (This compares 
to the proposed standards of 10 and 20 mg/mi for lighter and heavier 
light-duty vehicles, respectively.) However, because there remains some 
uncertainty about how manufacturers will achieve this level in the 
early years of the program, we are setting the standard at 10 mg/mi for 
the early years of the program, for MYs 2017 and 2018. Similarly, we 
are providing a less-stringent standard of 10 mg/mi for testing of in-
use vehicles in recognition of the challenges of the requirements as 
vehicles age.
     In the Tier 3 program, as for vehicle emission control 
programs in the past, manufacturers are responsible for the emissions 
performance of the vehicle for a specified ``useful life'' of the 
vehicle. EPA proposed that vehicles meet the Tier 3 standards for 
150,000 miles or 15 years, identical to the LEV III program's approach. 
We proposed an option for lighter light-duty vehicles to certify to a 
shorter useful life of 120,000 miles or 10 (or 11, as applicable) 
years, as set in the Tier 2 program. We proposed that manufacturers 
certifying to the shorter useful life would need to meet numerically 
lower NMOG+NOX standards (85 percent of the respective

[[Page 23451]]

150,000-mile NMOG+NOX standards). We also proposed that a 
manufacturer choosing the shorter useful life for one vehicle model 
would need to use that useful life and associated standards for all of 
its lighter vehicles. Auto industry commenters stated that applying the 
provision across a manufacturer's fleet would create an onerous 
compliance burden. We have reconsidered our proposed approach, and as 
discussed in Section IV.A.7.c below, we will allow a manufacturer to 
split its lighter light-duty fleet among models certified for either 
the 150,000 mile or 120,000 mile useful life and associated standards.
     Another area of substantial comment, primarily from the 
petroleum refining industry, questioned the technological need of auto 
manufacturers for lower in-use sulfur levels in order to meet the Tier 
3 vehicle emission standards. In contrast, auto manufacturers and 
emissions control system manufacturers commented that lower sulfur 
gasoline is critical to meet the Tier 3 standards. After careful 
consideration of the comments, we continue to believe that the large 
body of data presented in the NPRM, supplemented by newer data that 
consistently reinforces the earlier conclusions, strongly supports our 
determination of the need for average in-use gasoline sulfur levels to 
be at 10 ppm sulfur or lower for manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 
vehicle standards across their fleets for the useful life of the 
vehicles. See Section IV.A.6 below for a detailed discussion of the 
need for gasoline sulfur control.
b. Structure of the Primary Tier 3 Tailpipe Standards
    As proposed, compliance with the standards is based on vehicle 
testing using test procedures that represent a range of vehicle 
operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the 
Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). The Tier 3 FTP and SFTP 
NMOG+NOX standards are fleet-average standards, meaning that 
the manufacturer calculates the sales-weighted average emissions of the 
vehicles it sells in each model year, accounting for any Tier 3 
emissions credits or deficits, and compares that average to the 
applicable standard for that model year. The fleet average standards 
for NMOG+NOX evaluated over the FTP are the same values as 
proposed and are summarized in Table IV-2 and discussed in detail 
below. For lighter light-duty vehicles, the standards begin in MY 2017 
at a level representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2 
requirements for lighter vehicles and then become increasingly 
stringent, culminating in an 81 percent reduction in MY 2025. The FTP 
NMOG+NOX program includes separate fleet average standards 
for heavier vehicles that begin in MY 2018 and then converge with the 
standards for lighter vehicles at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 
2025 and later, as proposed.251 252
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ The declining NMOG+NOX fleet-average standards 
consist of one set of declining standards that applies to light-duty 
vehicles (LDVs) and small light trucks (LDT1s) and a second set of 
declining standards that applies to heavier light trucks (LDT2s, 
LDT3s. LDT4s), and MDPVs.
    \252\ This preamble presents the new Tier 3 standards in terms 
of milligrams per mile (mg/mi) for convenience. Throughout the 
associated Tier 3 regulatory language we continue to present the 
standards in terms of grams per mile (g/mi) for consistency with 
earlier programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers will determine their fleet average FTP 
NMOG+NOX emission values as we proposed, based on the per-
vehicle ``bin standards'' to which they certify each vehicle model. 
Manufacturers will be free to certify vehicles to any of the bins, so 
long as the sales-weighted average of the NMOG+NOX values 
from the selected bins meets the fleet average standard for that model 
year. Table IV-1 presents the per-vehicle bin standards. Similarly, the 
fleet average NMOG+NOX standards measured over the SFTP are 
summarized in Table IV-4 and discussed in detail below. The SFTP 
NMOG+NOX fleet average standards decline from MY 2017 until 
MY 2025. In this case, the same standards apply to both lighter and 
heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP NMOG+NOX standard 
reaches its fully phased-in fleet average level of 50 mg/mi.
    Also as proposed, the new Tier 3 PM standards apply to each vehicle 
separately. The PM standards are per-vehicle cap standards and not 
fleet-average standards. Also, in contrast to the declining 
NMOG+NOX standards, the PM standard on the FTP is a constant 
3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for all model years, phasing in to an 
increasing percentage of vehicle sales beginning in MY 2017 for 
vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and 
in MY 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. As discussed in Section 
IV.A.3.b above, based on data generated by EPA and CARB test programs, 
most current light-duty vehicles are already performing at or below the 
3 mg/mi level. However, some vehicles are emitting above this level, 
due to such factors as excessive fueling during cold start and 
combustion chamber and fuel system designs that are not optimized for 
low PM emissions. The intent of the 3 mg/mi standard is to bring all 
light-duty vehicles to the PM level typical of that being demonstrated 
by most light-duty vehicles today. To address the uncertainties that 
will accompany the introduction of new technologies, the program 
includes a separate in-use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing 
of in-use vehicles during the phase-in period, as proposed, as 
described in more detail below.
    As presented in Table IV-3, for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR, 
these FTP PM certification and in-use standards phase in over several 
years, beginning with a requirement that at least 20 percent of a 
company's U.S. sales of these vehicles comply with the Tier 3 standards 
in MY 2017. We are also finalizing an option for a manufacturer to 
choose to certify 10 percent of its total light-duty fleet sales--
including LDVs and LDT over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs--to the Tier 3 FTP 
PM standards in MY 2017. Manufacturers would reach a 100 percent 
compliance requirement in MY 2021.
    Finally, the Tier 3 program includes PM standards evaluated over 
the US06 cycle (a component of the SFTP test that captures higher 
speeds and accelerations). Based on emissions test data presented in 
the NPRM and additional data submitted in public comments, and as 
presented in Table IV-5 and further discussed in Section IV.A.4.b 
below, we are establishing a single long-term US06 PM standard of 6 mg/
mi for both lighter and heavier vehicles, a level that is numerically 
lower than what we proposed. However, because there remains some 
uncertainty about how manufacturers will decide to achieve this level 
in the early years of the program, we are setting the standard through 
MY 2018 at 10 mg/mi. The US06 PM standards phase in using the same 20-
20-40-70-100 percent schedule, and on the same vehicles, as the new FTP 
PM standards. The 10 mg/mi standard applies in MYs 2017 and 2018 (at a 
percent-of-sales requirement of 20 percent, and the long-term 6 mg/mi 
standard applies in MYs 2019 and later, increasing from 40 to 100 
percent of sales. This US06 standard will apply to the same vehicle 
models that a manufacturer chooses to certify to the FTP PM standard 
during the percent phase-in period. As in the case of the FTP PM 
standards, the intent of the standard is to bring the emission 
performance of all vehicles to that already being demonstrated by many 
vehicles in the current light-duty fleet. As proposed, we include a 
separate in-use US06 PM standard during in the middle years of the 
program, but at a different numerical level and during

[[Page 23452]]

different years than proposed (as discussed in Section IV.A.4.b below).
    We did not propose new emission requirements for any vehicle or 
fuel over the cold temperature test cycles (i.e., the 20 [deg]F cold 
carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) tests), but 
requested comment on that decision. Only the automakers commented on 
this topic, agreeing with EPA's approach of not changing its cold 
temperature requirements. As indicated in the proposal, we are not 
establishing any new cold temperature requirements in this rule.
c. Alternate Phase-In Schedules
    For heavier light-duty vehicles (i.e., LDVs and LDTs greater than 
6,000 lbs GVWR, plus MDPVs), EPA is also finalizing alternative phase-
in schedules for each of the four primary vehicle emission standards: 
FTP NMOG+NOX, FTP PM, SFTP NMOG+NOX, and US06 
PM.\253\ These alternative phase-ins are available if a manufacturer 
prefers stable standards and four full years of lead time, as specified 
in the Clean Air Act for heavier vehicles. We describe each of the 
alternative phase-ins in more detail below, including several ways in 
which we have revised the proposed provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ Tier 3 standards for CO and HCHO phase in with the 
NMOG+NOX standards, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received comment on the proposed alternative phase-in 
provisions, primarily from automakers and their trade associations. 
These comments questioned whether the proposed structure of and 
restrictions on the use of the alternative phase-ins were so onerous as 
to unduly restrict a manufacturer from choosing the alternative phase-
ins and their lead time and stability provisions as set forth in the 
Clean Air Act. The commenters criticized the proposed requirement that 
a manufacturer using the alternative phase-ins apply the alternative 
schedules to its entire light-duty fleet, both below and above 6,000 
lbs GVWR. EPA had proposed this provision to minimize the complexity of 
complying with the alternative phase-in if a manufacturer's heavier and 
lighter light-duty vehicles had different compliance structures.
    In consideration of these concerns, we have removed from the 
alternative phase-in provisions the requirement that a manufacturer 
apply the alternative schedules to its entire light-duty fleet 
including vehicles below 6,000 lbs GVWR. For the practical functioning 
of the program, the final rule requires that any manufacturer choosing 
to use the alternative phase-in apply all four alternative phase-in 
schedules to its entire light-duty fleet above 6,000 lbs GVWR. We 
believe that the alternative phase-ins allow manufacturers to comply 
with emission standards in a time frame that is clearly feasible and 
fully compliant with the CAA requirements for lead time and regulatory 
stability. To the extent that manufacturers choose to use them, the 
alternative would result in overall emission reductions essentially 
identical to those of the primary program.
    The alternative phase-in schedules would begin to apply to each 
vehicle for either MY 2019 or MY 2020, depending on exactly when the 
manufacturer begins production of the vehicle. (See Section 86.1811-
17(b)(8)(i) for how we implement this provision.) For models that begin 
MY 2019 production after the fourth anniversary of the signing of this 
final rule, the alternative phase-in would provide four full years of 
lead time and would first apply for MY 2019. The phase-in obligation 
would be calculated based only on those vehicles beginning production 
after the fourth anniversary date. For models beginning production 
before that date, the alternative phase-in would first apply for MY 
2020, and the phase-in percentage for MY 2020 would be based on the 
manufacturer's entire fleet of heavier light-duty vehicles. Based on 
historical certification patterns, few models begin production before 
mid-calendar-year, so we expect that the vast majority of MY 2019 
vehicles will begin production after the 4-year anniversary and thus 
the alternative phase-ins, if chosen, will typically apply beginning in 
MY 2019.
    At the time of certification for MY 2018, a manufacturer must 
declare whether it intends to apply the alternative phase-in schedules 
to its heavier light-duty vehicles. A manufacturer choosing the 
alternative phase-ins would be committed to this phase-in approach for 
the duration of the phase-ins, and could not later choose the fleet-
average approach for NMOG+NOX standards. For all vehicles 
below 6,000 lbs GVWR, the primary program will apply, beginning in MY 
2017. For a manufacture's vehicles subject to the alternative phase-
ins, there would be no new tailpipe emissions requirements beyond the 
Tier 2 program until the beginning of the alternative phase-in 
schedules; that is, MY 2019 or 2020, as explained above.
    As discussed above, a manufacturer choosing the alternative phase-
in approach for its heavier light-duty vehicles would be required to 
use all four phase-ins together. The next paragraphs explain how each 
of the alternative phase-ins requires an increasing percent of the 
manufacturer's sales to comply with the alternative standards. Thus, 
until the end of the phase-ins, some percent of a manufacturer's 
affected vehicles will meet the new standard and the remainder of that 
year's sales will not yet comply with Tier 3. For the practical 
functioning of the program, a manufacturer choosing the alternative 
phase-ins would be required to comply with exactly the same segment of 
their fleet in each model year for all four alternative phase-ins. For 
example, a manufacturer that complies with the 70 percent MY 2020 
requirement for the FTP NMOG+NOX standard with a segment of 
its vehicle fleet must meet the 70 percent MY 2020 requirement for the 
FTP PM standard with the same set of vehicles. Vehicles covered by the 
alternative phase-in programs would be considered ``Final Tier 3'' 
vehicles and thus would also need to comply with the Tier 3 
certification fuel and full useful life provisions.
    For the FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX alternative phase-in 
schedules, once the phase-in is complete for a segment of a 
manufacturer's fleet, the standards continue for that set of vehicles 
through MY 2024, after which the full Tier 3 program applies regardless 
of the phase-in strategy. Thus, the fleet-average standards that 
decline through MY 2024 do not apply for these vehicles.
    Although manufacturers would implement all four alternative phase-
in schedules together, as discussed above, each alternative phase-in 
has unique characteristics. The following paragraphs explain the unique 
provisions of each.
(1) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for the FTP NMOG+NOX 
Standard
    Instead of the primary FTP NMOG+NOX declining fleet 
average standards, a manufacturer choosing the alternative phase-ins 
would comply with a stable fleet average FTP NMOG+NOX 
standard of 30 mg/mi that would apply to an increasing percentage of a 
manufacturer's combined sales of LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and 
MDPVs. This percent phase-in would match the percentages in the primary 
PM percent phase-in schedule, as discussed above--specifically, 40 
percent of MY 2019 heavier light-duty vehicles (excluding those 
vehicles with production beginning before the 4-year anniversary), 70 
percent of all of its heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020, and 100 
percent compliance in MY 2021 and later model years.

[[Page 23453]]

(2) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for the FTP PM Standard
    Instead of the primary FTP PM percent phase-in schedule, a 
manufacturer choosing the alternative phase-ins would postpone the 
beginning of its FTP PM phase-in for its LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs 
GVWR and MDPVs until MY 2019 or 2020 (depending on the dates production 
begins for its vehicle models, as discussed above). The manufacturer 
would then comply with the 3 mg/mi per-vehicle FTP PM standard (and the 
6 mg/mi in-use standard) on an increasing percentage of these vehicles, 
following the 40-70-100 percentage phase-in of the primary PM program--
specifically, 40 percent of MY 2019 heavier light-duty vehicles 
(excluding those vehicles with production beginning before the 4-year 
anniversary), 70 percent of all of its heavier light-duty vehicles in 
MY 2020, and 100 percent compliance in MY 2021 and later model years.
(3) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for the SFTP NMOG+NOX 
Standard
    As with the other alternative phase-ins, instead of the primary 
SFTP NMOG+NOX declining fleet average standards, a 
manufacturer choosing the alternative phase-ins would comply with a 
stable fleet average SFTP NMOG+NOX standard of 50 mg/mi that 
would apply to an increasing percentage of a manufacturer's combined 
sales of LDVs and LDTs above 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. This percent 
phase-in again would match the percentages in the primary PM percent 
phase-in schedule, as discussed above--specifically, 40 percent of MY 
2019 heavier light-duty vehicles (excluding those vehicles with 
production beginning before the 4-year anniversary), 70 percent of all 
of its heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020, and 100 percent 
compliance in MY 2021 and later model years.
(4) Alternative Phase-In Schedule for the US06 PM Standard
    Finally, instead of the primary US06 PM percent phase-in schedule, 
a manufacturer choosing the alternative phase-ins would postpone the 
beginning of the US06 phase-in for its LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs 
GVWR and MDPVs until MY 2019 or 2020 (depending on the dates production 
begins for its vehicle models, as discussed above). The manufacturer 
would then comply with the 10 mg/mi US06 PM standard for 40 percent of 
MY 2019 heavier light-duty vehicles (excluding those vehicles with 
production beginning before the 4-year anniversary), 70 percent of all 
of its heavier light-duty vehicles in MY 2020, with 100 percent 
compliance in MY 2021, and then 100 percent compliance with the 6 mg/mi 
standard in MY 2022 and later model years.
    The next sections describe in more detail the new Tier 3 standards, 
how they will be implemented over time, and the technological 
approaches that we believe are or will be available to manufacturers in 
order to comply.
3. FTP Standards
    As summarized above, we are finalizing, largely as proposed, new 
standards for the primary pollutants of concern for this rule (NMOG, 
NOX, and PM) as measured on the FTP. The following 
paragraphs describe in more detail these FTP standards for 
NMOG+NOX and PM, as well as for carbon monoxide (CO) and 
formaldehyde (HCHO).
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    The Tier 3 NMOG and NOX standards are expressed in terms 
of the sum of the two pollutants--NMOG+NOX in mg/mi.\254\ We 
received no comments recommending a different approach. The California 
LEV III standards are also expressed as NMOG+NOX; aligning 
Tier 3 with LEV III is an important element of facilitating a national 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 
regulations adopted by the State of California Air Resources Board, 
March 22, 2012, Resolution 12-21 incorporating by reference 
Resolution 12-11, which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm 
(last accessed December 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received a number of comments about how the proposed 
NMOG+NOX standards transition from the existing Tier 2 
standards, but there was little comment recommending different levels 
of the standards themselves, especially later in the program. Based on 
our extensive evaluation of existing and emerging vehicle technologies 
(see Section IV.A.5) and the level of sulfur in gasoline that will be 
available during the implementation timeframe of this rule, and 
considering the comments we received, we continue to believe that the 
fully phased-in level for the fleet-average FTP NMOG+NOX 
standard of 30 mg/mi is the most stringent level that we can reasonably 
establish. As discussed in Sections IV.A.5 and IV.A.6 below, when 
necessary margins of compliance and the demonstrated effects of fuel 
sulfur on emissions performance are considered, the 30 mg/mi standard 
is effectively very close to zero. The 30 mg/mi Tier 3 
NMOG+NOX standard is also consistent with the final LEV III 
standard.
    A key compliance mechanism adapted from the Tier 2 program is a 
``bin'' structure for the FTP emission standards. For these purposes, a 
bin is a set of several standards that must be complied with as a 
group. Thus, as proposed, each FTP Tier 3 bin has an 
NMOG+NOX standard and a PM standard, as well as CO and HCHO 
standards.
    We intend for the Tier 3 CO and HCHO standards to prevent new 
engine and emission control designs that result in increases in CO and 
HCHO emissions, compared to levels being achieved today. The standards 
are based on the comparable current LEV II and Tier 2 bin standards for 
these pollutants, which we believe are sufficiently protective at this 
time. There were no comments on the proposed CO and HCHO standards. The 
current standards are not technology-forcing, and we believe that this 
will continue to be the case as Tier 3 technologies are developed.
    Table IV-1 presents the bin structure for light-duty vehicle, 
light-duty truck, and MDPV FTP standards.

                            Table IV-1--Tier 3 FTP Standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs
                                                     [mg/mi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      NMOG+NOX   PM\a\ (mg/            HCHO (mg/
                                Bin                                   (mg/mi)       mi)     CO (g/mi)     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

[[Page 23454]]

 
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, the same Tier 3 standards apply to all LDVs, LDTs, or 
MDPVs, regardless of the fuel they use, as proposed. That is, vehicles 
certified to operate on any fuel (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, E85, 
CNG, LNG, hydrogen, and methanol) are all subject to the same 
standards.
    The Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards as measured on the FTP 
will reduce the combined fleet-average emissions gradually from MY 2017 
through 2025, as shown in Table IV-2 below. Beginning in MY 2017, there 
are two separate sets of fleet-average standards for, first, LDVs and 
LDT1s and, second, all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and MDPVs. 
Both fleet-average standards decline annually, converging in MY 2025. 
These declining average standards are identical to CARB's LEV III 
standards.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \255\ See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 
regulations adopted by the State of California Air Resources Board, 
March 22, 2012, Resolution 12-21 incorporating by reference 
Resolution 12-11, which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm 
(last accessed January 14, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed and as discussed above (Section IV.A.2.a), the 
declining fleet-average NMOG+NOX FTP standards begin in MY 
2017 for light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks with a GVWR up to 
and including 6,000 lbs and in MY 2018 for light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks with a GVWR greater than 6,000 lbs and MDPVs. The 
standards apply to the heavier vehicles a year later to facilitate the 
transition to a 50-state program for all manufacturers. During this 
transition period, as described above, there will be two fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX standards for each model year, one for LDVs and 
LDT1s and one for all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and for 
MDPVs that decline essentially linearly from MY 2017 through MY 2025. 
At that point, the two fleet-average standards converge and stabilize 
for all later model years at the same level, 30 mg/mi, as shown in 
Table IV-2.

                   Table IV-2--Tier 3 LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                     [mg/mi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Model year
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           2025
                                           2017    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023    2024     and
                                            \a\                                                            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  ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For LDVs and LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the fleet average standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ These standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers can choose to certify their LDVs and
  LDV1s to a useful life of 120,000 miles. If a vehicle model is certified to the shorter useful life, a
  proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard applies, calculated by multiplying the respective
  150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg/mi. See Section IV.A.7.c.

    As discussed above (Section IV.A.2.c), for LDVs and LDTs above 
6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is also providing an alternative phase-in 
of the fleet-average 30 mg/mi FTP NMOG+NOX standard.
b. FTP PM Standards
    We are establishing new FTP standards for PM emissions at the 
proposed levels--3 mg/mi, with a temporary standard of 6 mg/mi for in-
use vehicle testing--as summarized in Table IV-3 below. These levels 
are intended to ensure that all new vehicles will perform at a level 
representing what is already being achieved by well-designed emission 
control technologies today.
    Many commenters were either silent on or supportive of the proposed 
FTP PM standard levels. However, some commenters--including CARB and 
several NGOs and auto industry suppliers--supported a more stringent 
standard of 1 mg/mi, which the California LEV III program phases in 
beginning in MY 2025. After detailed consideration of these comments 
and information available at this time, we continue to believe that the 
PM standards that we are finalizing for the federal Tier 3 program are 
the most stringent technically feasible standards within the 
implementation timeframe of this rule. (See Section 1.5.1 of the RIA.) 
We will continue to work closely with CARB in this area. Specifically, 
our agencies will continue our parallel evaluations of how improved 
gravimetric PM measurement methods can reduce PM mass measurement 
variability at very low PM levels and how this relates to the evolving 
technological capabilities of automakers to reach very low PM levels 
with sufficient compliance margins.
    PM emissions over the FTP are generally attributed to the cold 
start, when PM formation from combustion of the fuel is facilitated by 
the operating conditions, including a cold combustion chamber and fuel 
enrichment. During cold-start operation, PM control is less effective, 
especially the oxidation by the catalytic converter of semi-volatile 
organic compounds from the lubricating oil. We believe that for 
vehicles that are not already at the Tier 3 levels, the new

[[Page 23455]]

standards can be achieved with improvements to the fuel controls during 
the cold start, without the need for any new technology or hardware. We 
also expect that manufacturers will pay close attention to maintaining 
low PM emissions during the implementation of newer technologies like 
gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines. Improvements 
in cold-start exhaust catalyst performance for NMOG+NOX 
control will also reduce emissions of semi-volatile organic PM. For 
these reasons, cold start PM levels are relatively independent of 
vehicle application and therefore we are finalizing a single FTP PM 
standard for all light-duty vehicles, as proposed.
    Unlike the NMOG+NOX FTP standard, it is not necessary 
for the FTP PM standard to phase in on a declining curve over time, 
since most manufacturers are already producing vehicles that meet the 
new standards. We are finalizing the proposed PM FTP percent-of-sales 
phase-in during the first 5 years of the Tier 3 program in response to 
concerns expressed by automakers about logistical, facilities, and 
compliance challenges with a standard in the range of 3 mg/mi in the 
early years of the program. Beginning in MY 2017 (and in MY 2018 for 
LDVs and LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs), manufacturers will need 
to comply with the PM standard with a minimum of 20 percent of their 
U.S. sales. As shown in Table IV-3, the percentage of the 
manufacturer's sales that need to comply increases each year, reaching 
100 percent in MY 2021. In addition to this percent phase-in, we are 
also establishing, as proposed, a separate PM standard of 6 mg/mi that 
will apply only for in-use testing of vehicles certified to the new 
standards, and only during the percent phase-in period.
    Due to the MY 2018 start date for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR, 
manufacturers that have few or no vehicle models over 6,000 lbs GVWR 
will be required to certify a larger percentage of their total light-
duty sales in MY 2017 than full line manufacturers. While we believe 
that most manufacturers will likely choose a single large-volume 
durability group to meet the 2017 requirements, we are also including 
an option that a manufacturer could use to comply with the MY 2017 PM 
requirements. Under this option, a manufacturer may choose to certify 
10 percent of its total light-duty vehicle sales in MY 2017 to the new 
PM standards, including light-duty vehicles over 6,000 lbs. This 
approach is consistent with the CARB LEV III program, which requires 
that 10 percent of all light-duty vehicle sales meet the new PM 
standards in MY 2017.
    Because of the expected time and expense of performing emission 
tests on the improved PM test procedures, we are limiting the number of 
tests using the new procedures that a manufacturer needs to perform at 
certification and during in-use testing, as proposed. Specifically, 
manufacturers will only be required to test vehicles representing a 
minimum of 25 percent of a model's durability test groups during 
certification each model year (and a minimum of 2 durability 
groups).\256\ Manufacturers may select which durability groups to test, 
but will need to rotate the groups tested each year to eventually cover 
their whole fleet. Similarly, manufacturers performing in-use testing 
under the In-Use Verification Program can limit their testing to 50 
percent of their low- and high-mileage test vehicles. Again, 
manufacturers will need to rotate their vehicle models so that each 
model will be tested every other year. Overall, we believe that the 
flexibility that these provisions provide will facilitate the 
expeditious implementation of the Tier 3 program, with no significant 
impact on the benefits of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \256\ Durability groups are a subset of engine families. Several 
engine families may have the same durability group.

                         Table IV-3--Summary of Tier 3 LDV, LDT, and MDPV FTP Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Model year
                                            --------------------------------------------------------
        Program element            Units      2017                                                      Notes
                                               \a\    2018    2019    2020    2021    2022    2023+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX Standard (fleet        mg/mi......           Per declining fleet averages (see Table IV-2) \b\
 average).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-in......................  %..........   20\c\      20      40      70     100     100     100  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP:
    Certification.............  mg/mi......       3       3       3       3       3       3       3  Note d.
    In-use....................  mg/mi......       6       6       6       6       6       3       3  Note e.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the FTP PM standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ The percent phase-in does not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
\c\ Manufacturers comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or
  alternatively with 10 percent of their total LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet.
\d\ Manufacturers must test 25 percent of each model year's durability groups, and a minimum of 2.
\e\ Manufacturers must test 50 percent of their combined low- and high- mileage in-use vehicles.

    As discussed in Section IV.A.2.c above, for LDVs and LDTs above 
6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is providing an alternative phase-in of 
the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard.
4. SFTP Standards
    In addition to addressing vehicle emissions during typical driving, 
as addressed by the FTP standards presented above, the Tier 3 program 
also addresses emissions during more severe driving conditions. Thus, 
we are finalizing NMOG+NOX and PM standards as measured on 
the SFTP. The SFTP (and specifically the US06 component of the test) is 
designed to simulate, among other conditions, higher speeds and higher 
acceleration rates, and thus higher loads. As described below, most 
commenters were supportive of or silent on the proposed SFTP 
NMOG+NOX standards and the associated declining fleet-
average phase-in schedule, but several commenters stated that the level 
of the standards should be more stringent than proposed. Based on our 
analysis of the stringency

[[Page 23456]]

of the program, discussed in Section IV.A.5 below and in Chapter 1 of 
the RIA, we disagree that more stringent SFTP NMOG+NOX 
standards are necessary or appropriate at this time, and we are 
finalizing the standards and phase-in schedule as proposed. However, we 
are finalizing more stringent SFTP standards for PM, which focus on the 
US06 test component, based on newer data and public comments. These are 
also described below.
    The Tier 3 SFTP standards are necessary to address emissions during 
high-load conditions, when engines can go into a fuel ``enrichment'' 
mode and the engine's controls may temporarily create a rich air/fuel 
mixture to protect exhaust components from thermal damage. Enrichment 
can increase emissions of NMOG+NOX and PM, primarily due to 
the incomplete combustion that occurs under rich conditions and the 
diminished effectiveness of the catalyst in these circumstances. 
However, enrichment can be minimized or eliminated in current and 
future engines, where components can be thermally protected even under 
high-load conditions by careful electronic management of the air/fuel 
mixture and the combustion process. We are finalizing these SFTP 
standards, as well as limitations on the amount of enrichment that 
drivers can command (see Section IV.A.4.c below) to address this 
important source of vehicle emission.
    We are also finalizing an SFTP composite CO standard of 4.2 g/mi 
for all model years 2017 (or 2018 for LDVs and LDTs over 6000 lbs GVWR 
and MDPVs) and later. This standard represents no effective change from 
the current Tier 2 SFTP CO standard, which we believe is already at a 
level that is sufficiently stringent.
a. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    We are finalizing the Tier 3 SFTP NMOG+NOX standards and 
declining fleet-average phase-in schedule as proposed and as presented 
in Table IV-5 below. Most commenters were generally supportive of these 
standards or silent about them. However, several commenters stated that 
the proposed standards are too lenient, based on their evaluation of 
vehicle emission test data we presented in the NPRM. We have considered 
these comments and have reviewed the data from the NPRM. Our conclusion 
from that data continues to be that the SFTP NMOG+NOX 
emission levels that we are finalizing ensure that manufacturers 
essentially eliminate fuel enrichment events and their emissions 
consequences, thereby resulting in important emissions reductions. See 
Chapter 1 of the RIA for an analysis of this data. We do not believe 
that significant additional reductions would result from SFTP weighted 
NMOG+NOX standards more stringent than the 50 mg/mi fully 
phased-in level. In addition, we believe that the 50 mg/mi standard 
will ensure that the SFTP performance of future vehicles with future 
technologies continues to be comparable to that of the current fleet. 
The SFTP emissions value for certification of gaseous pollutants will 
continue to be calculated as a weighted composite value of emissions on 
three cycles (0.35 x FTP + 0.28 x US06 + 0.37 x SC03), as is done for 
the Tier 2 SFTP standards.
    To provide flexibility in meeting the fleet-average standards, 
manufacturers will, as proposed, determine the specific SFTP composite 
standard for each individual vehicle family and report that self-
selected standard and the measured emission performance. (These self-
selected standards are analogous to ``family emission limits,'' or 
``FELs,'' used in other programs (e.g., heavy-duty highway engine 
standards).) For each family, a manufacturer will choose any composite 
NMOG+NOX standard, up to 180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/mi 
increments. The manufacturer will then calculate the sales-weighted 
average of all the selected standards of the families across its fleet 
and compare that emissions value to the applicable fleet-average 
standards for that model year. Table IV-4 presents the declining fleet-
average SFTP NMOG+NOX standards.
    As discussed in Section IV.A.2.c above, for LDVs and LDTs above 
6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is providing an alternative phase-in of 
the 50 mg/mi SFTP NMOG+NOX standard.
b. US06 PM Standards
    We are finalizing a single short-term US06 PM standard of 10 mg/mi 
for MYs 2017 and 2018 (or only for MY 2018 for LDVs and LDTs over 6,000 
lbs GVWR and MDPVs) and a single long-term standard of 6 mg/mi for MY 
2019 and later. These standards are numerically lower than those we 
proposed, and less complex in their structure. As discussed below and 
in Chapter 1 of the RIA, a substantial body of more recent PM data from 
a variety of vehicles tested on the US06 cycle has given us greater 
understanding of the feasible level of control of these emissions, both 
currently and in the timeframe of the Tier 3 standards, including what 
level of control we may reasonably require for the light-duty fleet. 
The standards we are finalizing reflect this review. Much of the more 
recent data was developed late in the development of the NPRM and, 
although we made it available in the rulemaking docket to inform 
potential commenters, the proposed standards did not reflect 
consideration of the newer data. Since the NPRM, additional data from 
CARB have become available, and we have considered all of this 
information in finalizing the US06 PM standards.
    We believe that the fully phased-in US06 PM standard of 6 mg/mi 
will achieve the goal that we presented in the NPRM--to maintain the 
performance being achieved by current well-performing vehicles taking 
into account reasonable compliance margins. Comments from stakeholders 
representing states, including CARB, and several NGOs urged EPA to 
finalize more stringent standards than those proposed, in some cases 
advocating for standards below 6 mg/mi. Conversely, auto industry 
commenters generally supported the proposed standards. We have 
concluded that the body of recent data clearly shows that the long-term 
6 mg/mi standard, is the appropriate level to prevent any significant 
``backsliding'' in US06 PM emissions as new vehicles and technologies 
enter the fleet. At the same time, the 6 mg/mi standard provides a 
reasonable compliance margin--about 50% above the average levels of 
current vehicles, which are averaging about 4 mg/mi. A long-term 
standard numerically lower than 6 mg/mi would run counter to our intent 
to bring the emissions performance of all vehicles to that already 
being demonstrated by many vehicles in the current light-duty fleet. We 
believe the long-term US06 PM standard we are finalizing is appropriate 
based on all of the information available at this time and will not 
hinder introduction of new technologies manufacturers may choose for 
compliance with the other Tier 3 standards or other rules.

[[Page 23457]]

    The short-term, less-stringent US06 standard of 10 mg/mi 
(applicable in MYs 2017 and 2018) responds to automaker concerns about 
uncertainties stemming from simultaneous regulatory requirements and 
rapidly evolving exhaust and engine technologies in the coming years. 
We recognize that vehicle control technologies for both criteria and 
GHG emissions are evolving and will continue to do so, including an 
expected expansion of gasoline direct injection (GDI) technologies (see 
IV.A.5.c and the RIA). Also, the transition to lower sulfur in-use 
gasoline required by this rule may create temporary additional 
challenges in consistently achieving lower US06 PM emissions (see 
IV.A.6 and the RIA). We believe that most manufacturers will implement 
similar if not identical emission control strategies to comply (or, 
more often, to continue to comply with) with both the 10 mg/mi and the 
6 mg/mi standards. In so doing, we expect them to use the temporary 
additional compliance margin provided by the 10 mg/mi standard to 
reduce uncertainties about potential variability in performance (in use 
and, in particular, later in vehicle life) during the early years of 
developing and commercializing their control technologies.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ We note that the purpose of the percent phase-in schedule 
for the FTP and US06 PM standards is to facilitate the expansion of 
manufacturers' PM testing facilities, which have been relatively 
limited in their availability prior to these new emission standards. 
While effectively providing more time for technology development as 
well as for expansion of facilities, we believe that the PM 
standards are designed to be fully feasible in the early years of 
the program and do not themselves require the phase-in relief, 
especially given the short-term 10 mg/mi standard and the temporary 
relaxed in-use testing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 10 mg/mi standard will expire after MY 2018, and the long-term 
standard of 6 mg/mi will take effect. As the implementation of the 
program continues, we believe a limited degree of relief for testing of 
in-use vehicles is appropriate. Manufacturers commented that because of 
the industry's general lack of experience with stringent PM standards, 
especially as the newly-designed vehicles age, less stringent standards 
for in-use testing would reduce near-term concerns about performance 
variability early in the program. We agree, and we are finalizing a 
separate standard of 10 mg/mi for in-use vehicle testing for the 
intermediate years of the program, MYs 2019 through MY 2023. This 
standard is numerically lower than the proposed in-use standards--again 
because of the availability of improved US06 test data as described 
above--but the purpose of providing an in-use standard remains the 
same. The in-use standard, in conjunction with the short-term 10 mg/mi 
standard represents a longer duration for the in-use standard than we 
had proposed, again based on comments from the industry about their 
compliance concerns with new US06 standards. For MY 2024 and later, 
there will be no separate in-use standard and all vehicles will need to 
meet the long-term standard at certification and in use.
    EPA proposed that different US06 PM standards apply to lighter and 
heavier vehicles. The newer US06 PM test data discussed above also make 
clear that the US06 PM performance of current vehicles is not closely 
related to vehicle weight, although the earlier data had indicated that 
this might be the case. Several commenters urged EPA to finalize a 
single standard for vehicles above and below 6,000 lbs GVWR based on 
the newer data. At the same time, auto manufacturers generally 
supported the proposed vehicle weight distinction, asserting a higher 
degree of uncertainty about the emission performance of their larger 
vehicles, especially in the early years of the program and in light of 
simultaneous technology challenges. The newer data clearly show that 
larger vehicles today are generally achieving US06 PM levels very 
similar to smaller vehicles, and well below the proposed standards. We 
are not finalizing separate US06 standards for heavier and lighter 
vehicles because separate standards are unwarranted based on a review 
of the newer data. However, we believe that the short-term 10 mg/mi 
standard, as well as the temporary in-use vehicle testing standard, 
will significantly reduce manufacturer compliance uncertainties in the 
early years of the program for all vehicles, as discussed above.
    As with the FTP PM standards, manufacturers will comply with the 
US06 PM standards with the same increasing minimum percentage of their 
vehicles, as shown in Table IV.5. Also as with the FTP PM phase-in, we 
are providing the option for a manufacturer to choose to certify 10 
percent of its total light-duty vehicle sales in MY 2017 to the new 
US06 PM standards, including light-duty vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR.
    As discussed in Section IV.A.2.c above, for LDVs and LDTs more than 
6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, EPA is also providing an alternative phase-in 
of the US06 PM standards.
    All of the SFTP/US06 standards are shown in Table IV-4 and Table 
IV-5.

                                      Table IV-4--Tier 3 LDV, LDT, and MDPV SFTP Composite Fleet Average Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Model year
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2017 \a\     2018       2019       2020       2021       2022       2023       2024        2025 and later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMOG+NOX (mg/mi)........................        103         97         90         83         77         70         63         57  50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO (g/mi)...............................                                                      4.2 \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the NMOG+NOX and CO standards apply beginning in MY 2018.

                                             Table IV-5--Summary of LDV, LDT, and MDPV Tier 3 SFTP Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Model year
                                                            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Program element                    Units           2017                                                                         Notes
                                                               \a\      2018     2019     2020     2021     2022     2023    2024+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 \c\       20       40       70      100      100      100      100  ...................

[[Page 23458]]

 
US06:
    LDV, LDT, MDPV: Certification.....  mg/mi..............       10       10        6        6        6        6        6        6  Note d.
    LDV, LDT, MDPV: In-Use............                                              10       10       10       10       10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For LDVs and LDTs above 6,000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs, the standards apply beginning in MY 2018.
\b\ The percent phase-in does not apply to the declining fleet average standards.
\c\ Manufacturers comply in MY 2017 with 20 percent of their LDV and LDT fleet under 6,000 lbs GVWR, or alternatively with 10 percent of their total
  LDV, LDT, and MDPV fleet.
\d\ Manufacturers must test 25 percent of each model year's durability groups, minimum of 2.

c. Enrichment Limitation for Spark-Ignition Engines
    To prevent emissions that result from excessive enrichment from 
auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) that are substantially 
present during the SFTP cycles, we are finalizing limitations on the 
magnitude of enrichment that can be commanded, including enrichment 
episodes encountered during in-use operation. During conditions where 
enrichment is demonstrated to be present on the SFTP, the nominal air-
to-fuel ratio cannot be richer at any time than the leanest 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 will be allowed in actual vehicle testing to protect for any 
in-use variance in the air-to-fuel ratio from the nominal LBT air-to-
fuel determination, for such reasons as air or fuel distribution 
differences from production variances or aging.
    LBT is defined as the leanest air-to-fuel ratio required at a speed 
and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque. 
Specifically, an increase in fuel will not result in an increase in 
torque while maintaining a fixed spark advance. LBT is determined by 
setting the spark advance to a setting that is less than or equal to 
the spark advance required for best torque (MBT) and maintaining that 
spark advance when sweeping the air-to-fuel ratio. This fixed spark 
advance requirement is intended to prevent torque changes related to 
spark changes masking true LBT. One manufacturer commented that there 
is no universally accepted definition or procedure to determine LBT so 
we should retain the Tier 2 LBT requirements. We believe that the 
proposed definition provides sufficient clarity and will generally 
agree with most manufacturers' internal definition of LBT. 
Additionally, we are finalizing the flexibility that manufacturers may 
request approval of an alternative LBT definition for a unique 
technology or control strategy. The Agency may determine that an 
enrichment amount is excessive or not necessary and therefore deem that 
the approach does not meet the air-to-fuel ratio requirements.
    Enrichment required for thermal protection will continue to be 
allowed upon demonstration of necessity to the Agency, based upon 
temperature limitations of the engine or exhaust components. 
Manufacturers will be required to provide descriptions of all 
components requiring thermal protection, temperature limitations of the 
components, how the enrichment strategy will detect over-temperature 
conditions and correct them, and a justification regarding why the 
enrichment is the minimum necessary to protect the specific components. 
The Agency may determine that the enrichment is not justified or is not 
the minimum necessary based on the use of engineering judgment using 
industry-reported thermal protection requirements.
    A manufacturer commented that this requirement to report enrichment 
requirements for component protection for every application is 
burdensome and unnecessary. EPA believes that closer review of off-
cycle enrichment by the agency, including enrichment for component 
protection, is necessary to ensure emissions are well controlled under 
all operating conditions. While this requirement may in some cases 
require additional resources at certification, this information has 
generally been required to be maintained by manufactures to support use 
of enrichment as an auxiliary emission control device (AECD) and 
therefore should be an exercise of reporting existing records for most 
manufacturers.
    The requirements described in this section apply for vehicles 
certified to any of the Tier 3 standards.
5. Feasibility of the NMOG+NOX and PM Standards
    In the proposal, we concluded that all of the Tier 3 emissions 
standards are technologically feasible in the time frame of the 
program. The technical conclusions we reached at that time have been 
further reinforced by information we received in the public comments or 
has otherwise become available and placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking. After considering the comments received and with additional 
supporting information in Chapter 1 of the RIA, we conclude that the 
Tier 3 standards are feasible and reasonable, considering lead-time 
provided and expected compliance costs.
    For each of the emission standards, the lead time provided by the 
program is more than sufficient for all manufacturers to comply. First, 
manufacturers in many cases are already adopting complying technologies 
for reasons other than this rulemaking. For example, many of the 
technologies that manufacturers have begun to develop for model years 
as early as MY 2014 in response to the CARB LEV III FTP and SFTP 
NMOG+NOX standards for the California market will likely 
represent steps toward compliance with this national program. 
Similarly, manufacturers have been producing some limited vehicle 
offerings since as early as MY 2000 that comply with our final MY 2025 
standards in response to the CARB PZEV requirements. In addition, as 
described above, our program incorporates a number of phase-in 
provisions that will ease the transition to compliance, including time 
some manufacturers may need to install PM testing capability and to 
ramp up production on a national scale. This feasibility assessment is 
based on a variety of complementary technical data, studies, and 
analyses. As described below, these include our analysis of the 
stringency of the standards as compared to current Tier 2 emission 
levels. We also discuss below our observation that manufacturers are 
currently certifying several vehicle models under the California LEV II 
program that could likely achieve the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX and PM 
standards or similar levels. EPA has assessed the

[[Page 23459]]

emissions control challenges manufacturers will generally face (e.g., 
cold start NMOG reductions and running (warmed-up) NOX 
emissions under typical and more aggressive driving conditions) and the 
corresponding technologies that we expect to be available to 
manufacturers to meet these challenges. Our feasibility assessment 
accounts for the fact that the Tier 3 program will apply to all types 
of new vehicles, ranging from small cars to large pick-up trucks and 
MDPVs and representing a wide diversity in applications and in specific 
engine designs.
    It is important to note that our primary assessment of the 
feasibility of engine and emission control technologies is based on the 
assumption that vehicles will be certified on gasoline with a fuel 
sulfur content of 10 ppm and operated on in-use gasoline with an 
average of 10 ppm sulfur.\258\ Therefore, our primary assessment does 
not incorporate the degradation of emission control system caused by 
higher levels of sulfur content, as is discussed in Section IV.A.6 
below and further discussed in the RIA. This assessment reinforces the 
critical role of gasoline sulfur control in making it possible for EPA 
to establish emission standards at these very stringent levels. See 
Section IV.6 below for a full discussion of our current knowledge of 
the effects of gasoline sulfur on current Tier 2 vehicle emissions as 
well as our projections of how we expect that sulfur will affect 
compliance on vehicles with standards in the range of the Tier 3 
standards. The projections are based on extensive EPA testing of Tier 2 
vehicles as well as targeted evaluation of passenger cars and heavier 
trucks performing at or near the Tier 3 Bin 30 (30 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX) including manufacturer supplied data of a 
prototype Tier 3 light-duty truck as discussed in Section IV.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ Our technology, feasibility, and cost assessments are also 
consistent with an assumption that certification fuel will contain 
10 percent ethanol and will have other properties as specified in 
Section IV.F below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since there are multiple aspects to the Tier 3 program, it is 
necessary to consider technical feasibility in light of the different 
program requirements and their interactions with each other. In many 
cases, manufacturers will be able to address more than one requirement 
with the same general technological approach (e.g., faster catalyst 
light-off can improve both FTP NMOG+NOX and PM emissions). 
At the same time, the feasibility assessment must consider that 
different technologies may be needed on different types of vehicle 
applications (e.g., cars versus trucks) and must consider the relative 
effectiveness of these technologies in reducing emissions for the full 
useful life of the vehicle while operating on expected in-use fuel. For 
example, certain smaller vehicles with correspondingly small engines 
may be less challenged to meet FTP standards than larger vehicles with 
larger engines. Conversely, these smaller vehicles may have more 
difficulty meeting the more aggressive SFTP requirements than vehicles 
with larger and more powerful engines. Additionally, the ability to 
meet the SFTP emission requirements can also be impacted by the path 
taken to meet the FTP requirements (e.g., larger volume catalysts for 
US06 emissions control vs. smaller catalysts for improved FTP cold-
start emissions control). Throughout the following discussion, we 
address how these factors, individually and in interaction with each 
other, affect the feasibility of the final program.
a. FTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    The Tier 3 emission requirements include stringent 
NMOG+NOX standards on the FTP that will require new vehicle 
hardware in order to achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet average level in MY 
2025. The type of new hardware that will be required will vary 
depending on the specific application and emission challenges. Smaller 
vehicles with corresponding smaller engines will generally need less 
new hardware while larger vehicles may need additional hardware and 
improvements beyond what will be needed for the smaller vehicles. While 
some vehicles, especially larger light trucks, may face higher costs in 
meeting the standards, it is important to remember that not every 
vehicle needs to meet the standard. The program has been structured to 
provide higher emission standard ``bins'' (see Table IV-1 above) to 
which manufacturers may certify more challenged vehicles, so long as 
these vehicles are offset with vehicles certified in lower emission 
bins such that the fleet-wide average meets the standards. We believe 
that the availability of the less-stringent bins will allow for the 
balancing of feasibility and cost considerations of compliance 
strategies for all vehicles. In the Tier 2 program, manufacturers took 
advantage of this flexibility, especially in the early years of the 
program. Then, as technologies improved and/or became less expensive 
and the need for averaging diminished, manufacturers began certifying 
all or most of their fleets to the average bin (Tier 2 Bin 5). We 
anticipate that manufacturers will follow a similar trend with the Tier 
3 standards, relying on fleet averaging more significantly in the 
transitional years but certifying increasing numbers of their vehicles 
to the final fleet average standard of 30 mg/mi in the later years of 
the program.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 30 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX national fleet average FTP standard, EPA conducted 
two supporting analyses. The initial analyses performed were of the 
current Tier 2 and LEV II fleets. This provided a baseline for the 
current federal fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions 
performance of the California LEV II fleet. The second consideration 
was a modal analysis of typical vehicle emissions under certain 
operating conditions. In this way EPA determined the specific emissions 
performance challenges that vehicle manufacturers will face in meeting 
the lower fleet average emission standards. Each of these 
considerations is described in greater detail below.
    The current Tier 2 federal fleet is certified to an average of Tier 
2 Bin 5, equivalent to 160 mg/mi NMOG+NOX.\259\ As an 
example, for MY 2009 when the Tier 2 program was fully implemented 
across all vehicle types, 92 percent of LDVs and LDT1s were certified 
to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 91 percent of LDT2s through LDT4s were certified to 
Tier 2 Bin 5. This trend has generally continued through MY 2013 as the 
most recent certification results indicate that manufacturers are 
continuing to certify primarily to Tier 2 Bin 5 standards for the 
federal fleet however there has been a shift to more certifications 
using the cleaner bins as discussed in the RIA. This is not an 
unexpected result as there is no motivation prior to implementation of 
the Tier 3 rulemaking for vehicle manufacturers to produce a federal 
fleet that over-complies with respect to the existing Tier 2 standards. 
By comparison, in the California fleet where compliance with the 
declining fleet average NMOG requirement and the ``PZEV'' program 
requires manufacturers to certify vehicles to cleaner levels, only 30 
percent of the LDVs and LDT1s are certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 60 
percent are certified to cleaner bins such as Tier 2 Bin 3 and 4. The 
situation regarding the truck fleet in California is similarly 
stratified, with 37 percent of the LDT2s through LDT4s being certified 
to Tier 2

[[Page 23460]]

Bin 5 and 55 percent being certified to the cleaner Tier 2 Bin 3 and 4. 
In many cases identical vehicles are being certified to a lower 
standard in California and a higher standard federally simply because 
there is no incentive to over perform to the federal standards. We note 
that vehicles certified to a lower standard in California are operated 
on gasoline with an average sulfur content of 10 ppm and thereby are 
able to maintain their emissions performance in-use. Based on these 
patterns of federal and California certification, EPA believes that 
much of the existing Tier 2 fleet could currently be certified to a 
lower federal fleet average immediately, with no significant 
feasibility concerns, if lower sulfur gasoline were made available 
nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ The Tier 2 program does not combine NMOG and 
NOX emissions into one fleet-average standard. The fleet-
average standard in that program is for NOX emissions 
alone. The NOX fleet-average requirement of .07 gm/mi is 
the same level as the Bin 5 NOX standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    For MY 2009 thru MY 2013, the compliance margin for a Tier 2 Bin 5 
vehicle averaged approximately 60 percent. In other words, actual 
vehicle emissions performance was on average about 40 percent of a 160 
mg/mi NMOG+NOX standard, or about 64 mg/mi. By comparison, 
for 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 will design for in order to comply with the 
Tier 3 FTP standards. Thus, a typical Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle, performing 
at 40 percent of the current standard (i.e., at about 64 mg/mi) will 
need improvements sufficient to reach about 15 mg/mi (50 percent of a 
30 mg/mi standard).
    To understand how the several currently-used technologies described 
below could be used by manufacturers to reach the stringent Tier 3-
NMOG+NOX standards, it is helpful to consider emissions 
formation in common modes of operation for gasoline engines, or modal 
analysis.\260\ The primary challenge faced by manufacturers for 
producing Tier 3 compliant light-duty gasoline vehicle powertrains will 
be keeping warmed-up running emissions at effectively zero emissions 
levels while reducing the emissions during cold-start operation which, 
based on modal analysis of a gasoline-powered vehicle being operated on 
the FTP cycle, occurs during about the first 50 seconds after engine 
start. Thus, we believe that to comply with the Tier 3 FTP standards, 
manufacturers will focus on effective control of these cold-start 
emissions while maintaining zero running emissions; this is only 
possible when sulfur levels in the fuel do not degrade catalyst 
performance. As discussed below, light-duty manufacturers are already 
applying several technologies capable of significant reductions in 
these cold start emissions to vehicles currently on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ A modal analysis provides a second-by-second view of the 
total amount of emissions over the entire cycle being considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the analysis of current vehicles certified to the cleanest 
emission levels (Tier 2 Bin 2 and LEV II SULEV) it was noted that no 
large pick-ups equipped with their application specific engines were 
performing at the 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX level. We believe that 
these applications may be the most challenging due to the fact that the 
design criteria required to provide the utility aspect may have direct 
impact on their ability to implement some of the technologies described 
in section IV.A.5.d below. Since these vehicles represent a substantial 
and important part of the light- duty fleet, EPA performed a technical 
feasibility study directly targeting this class of vehicles.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 30 mg/mi FTP 
NMOG+NOX standard, EPA purchased a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 
heavy-light-duty (LDT4) pickup truck with a developmental goal of 
modifying the truck to achieve exhaust emission levels in compliance 
with the Tier 3 Bin 30 emissions standards including a reasonable 
compliance margin. The truck was equipped with a 5.3L V8 with General 
Motors' ``Active Fuel Management'' cylinder deactivation system. This 
particular truck was chosen as an example of a Tier 3 prototype in part 
because cylinder deactivation is a key technology for light-truck 
compliance with future GHG standards and in part because it achieved 
very low emissions in the OEM, Tier 2-compliant configuration 
(certified to Tier 2 Bin 4). A prototype exhaust system was obtained 
from MECA consisting of high-cell-density (900 cpsi) thin-wall (2.5 
mil), high-PGM, close-coupled Pd-Rh catalysts with an additional under-
body Pd-Rh catalyst. The total catalyst volume was approximately 116 
in\3\ with a specific PGM loading of 125 g/ft\3\ and approximate 
loading ratio of 0:80:5 (Pt:Pd:Rh). Third-party (non-OEM) EMS 
calibration tools were used to modify the powertrain calibration in an 
effort to improve catalyst light-off performance. The final test 
configuration used approximately 4 degrees of timing retard and 
approximately 200 rpm higher idle speed relative to the OEM 
configuration during and immediately following cold-start. The exhaust 
catalyst system and HEGO sensors were bench aged to an equivalent 
150,000 miles using standard EPA accelerated catalyst bench-aging 
procedures. The truck was tested on California LEV III E10 
certification fuel at 9 ppm gasoline sulfur levels.
    The EPA Tier 3 prototype Silverado achieved NMOG+NOX 
emissions of 18 mg/mi on the 9 ppm S fuel. The NMOG+NOX 
emissions were approximately 60% of the Bin 30 standard and thus are 
consistent with meeting the Tier 3 Bin 30 exhaust emissions standard 
with a moderate compliance margin. The technologies used on the 
prototype Silverado to achieve these emission levels are common 
approaches used today on smaller vehicles. They do not compromise any 
of the design utility of this vehicle class and are some of the same 
approaches we expect manufacturers to use to meet the Tier 3 Bin 30 
exhaust emissions standards.
b. SFTP NMOG+NOX Standards
    The increase in the stringency of the SFTP NMOG+NOX 
standards, specifically across the US06 cycle, will generally only 
require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and diligent 
implementation of new technologies that manufacturers are already 
introducing or are likely to introduce in response to the current and 
2017 LD GHG emission standards. These include downsized gasoline direct 
injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines, which may also include

[[Page 23461]]

improvements to the engine and emission control hardware to tolerate 
higher combustion and exhaust temperatures expected in these future 
GHG-oriented engine designs when under higher loads. The upgraded 
materials or components will enable manufacturers to rely less on fuel 
enrichment during high-speed/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, the primary method available to 
manufacturers to protect the catalyst and other exhaust components from 
over-temperature conditions has been changes to the fuel/air mixture by 
increasing the fuel fraction, but this is no longer the only tool 
available to manufacturers for this purpose. With the application of 
electronic throttle controls, variable valve timing, exhaust gas 
recirculation and other exhaust temperature influencing technologies on 
nearly every light-duty vehicle, the manufacturer has the ability to 
systematically control the operation and combustion processes of the 
engine to minimize or altogether avoid areas and modes of operation 
where thermal issues can occur. While some of these solutions could in 
some cases result in a small and temporary reduction in vehicle 
performance (absolute power levels), we believe that it could be an 
effective way to reduce NMOG+NOX emissions over the SFTP 
test.
    Additionally, some components, especially catalysts, can experience 
accelerated thermal deterioration that occurs when operating at higher 
temperatures for more time than expected under normal operation (e.g., 
trailer towing, mountain grades). Some upgrades of existing vehicle 
emission control technology, like catalyst substrates and washcoats may 
be required to limit thermal deterioration and ensure vehicle emissions 
compliance throughout the useful life of the vehicle.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 50 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX national fleet average SFTP standard, EPA conducted 
an analysis of SFTP levels of Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles. The analysis 
was performed on the US06 results from current Tier 2 and LEV II 
vehicles tested in the in-use verification program (IUVP) by 
manufacturers and submitted to EPA. This analysis provided a baseline 
for the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleet emissions performance, as well 
as the SFTP emissions performance capability of the cleanest vehicles 
meeting the Tier 3 FTP standards. The analysis concluded that most 
vehicles in the IUVP testing program are already capable of meeting the 
composite SFTP standard of 50 mg/mi when the Tier 3 FTP standard levels 
are factored into the composite calculation. With the technological 
improvements already underway as discussed above, we believe all MY 
2017 and later vehicles will be able to comply with the SFTP standards, 
either directly or through the flexibility of the averaging, banking 
and trading program. For further information on the analysis see 
Chapter 1 of the RIA.
c. FTP and SFTP PM Standards
    As described above for NMOG+NOX over the SFTP, the 
increase in the stringency of the FTP and SFTP PM standards will 
generally also only require additional focus on fuel control of the 
engines and attention to PM emissions during the implementation of new 
technologies like gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged 
engines. Some upgrades of existing vehicle emission control technology 
may be required to ensure vehicle emissions performance is maintained 
throughout the useful life of the vehicle. These upgrades may include 
improvements to the engine to control wear that could result in 
increased PM from oil consumption and selection of GDI systems that 
will be capable of continuing to perform optimally even as the systems 
age.
    We based our conclusions about the ability of manufacturers to meet 
the PM standards largely on the PM performance of the existing fleet, 
both on the FTP and SFTP. In the case of FTP testing of current 
vehicles, data on both low and high mileage light-duty vehicles 
demonstrate that the majority of vehicles are currently achieving 
levels at or below the Tier 3 FTP PM standards.
    The testing results can be found in Chapter 1 of the RIA. A small 
number of vehicles are at or just over the Tier 3 FTP PM standard at 
low mileage and could require calibration changes and/or catalyst 
changes to meet the new standards. It is our expectation that the same 
calibration and catalyst changes required to address NMOG will also 
provide the necessary PM control. Vehicles that currently have higher 
PM emissions over the FTP or SFTP at higher mileages will likely be 
required to control oil consumption and combustion chamber deposits.
    We also analyzed PM test data results on the US06 test cycle from 
Tier 2 vehicles. The data show that many vehicles are already at or 
below the Tier 3 standards on the US06 test cycle. Vehicles that have 
high PM emission rates on the US06 will likely need to control 
enrichment and oil consumption, particularly later in life. As 
described above for SFTP NMOG+NOX control, enrichment can be 
more accurately managed through available electronic engine controls. 
The strategies for reducing oil consumption are similar to those 
described above for controlling oil consumption on the FTP. However, 
given the higher engine speeds experienced on the US06 and the increase 
in oil consumption that can accompany this kind of operation, 
manufacturers will most likely focus on oil sources stemming from the 
piston to cylinder interface and positive crankcase ventilation (PCV).
    Manufacturers have informed us that they have already reduced or 
are planning to reduce the oil consumption of their engines by improved 
sealing of the paths of oil into the combustion chamber and improved 
piston-to-cylinder interfaces. Auto manufacturers have stated that they 
are already taking or considering these actions to address issues of 
customer satisfaction and cost of ownership. In addition, many vehicle 
manufacturers acknowledge the relationship between combustion chamber 
deposits and PM formation and are actively pursuing design changes to 
mitigate fuel impingement within the combustion chamber and its 
commensurate PM effects. Both types of controls are being widely 
applied by manufacturers today.
d. Technologies Manufacturers Are Likely To Apply
    Most of the technologies expected to be applied to light-duty 
vehicles to meet the stringent Tier 3 standards will address the 
emissions control system's ability to reduce emission during cold start 
while maintaining zero or near zero running emissions. The 
effectiveness of current vehicle emissions control systems at reducing 
cold start emissions depends in large part on the time it takes for the 
catalyst to light off, which is typically defined as the catalyst 
reaching a temperature of 250 [deg]C. In order to improve catalyst 
light-off, we expect that manufacturers will add technologies that 
provide heat from combustion more readily to the catalyst or improve 
the catalyst efficiency at lower temperatures. These technologies 
include calibration changes, catalyst platinum group metals (PGM) 
loading and strategy, thermal management, close-coupled catalysts, and 
secondary air injection, all which generally improve emission 
performance of all pollutants. In some cases where the catalyst light-
off and efficiency are not

[[Page 23462]]

enough to address the cold start NMOG emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers 
may be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catalyst 
is lit off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each 
of these technologies addresses NMOG, NOX, and PM 
performance. The technologies are described in greater detail below. 
Additional information on these technologies can also be found in 
Chapter 1 of the RIA.
     Engine Control Calibration Changes--These include changes 
to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more 
combustion heat is created during the cold start. Control changes may 
include injection strategies in GDI applications, unique cold-start 
variable valve timing and lift, and other available engine parameters. 
Engine calibration changes can affect NMOG, NOX and PM 
emissions.
     Catalyst PGM Loading--Additional PGM loading, increased 
loading of other active materials, and improved dispersion of PGM and 
other active materials in the catalyst provide a greater number of 
sites available to catalyze emissions and addresses NMOG, 
NOX and PM emissions. Catalyst PGM loading, when implemented 
in conjunction with low sulfur gasoline, will effectively eliminate 
NOX emissions under warmed-up conditions.
     Thermal Management--This category of technologies includes 
all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the 
catalyst with minimal cooling. This includes insulating the exhaust 
piping between the engine and the catalyst, reducing the wetted area of 
the exhaust path, reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust system, and/
or using close-coupled catalysts (i.e., the catalysts are packaged as 
close as possible to the engine's cylinder head to mitigate the cooling 
effects of longer exhaust piping). Thermal management technologies 
primarily address NMOG emissions, but also affect NOX and PM 
emissions.
     Secondary Air Injection--By injecting air directly into 
the exhaust stream, close to the exhaust valve, combustion can be 
maintained within the exhaust, creating additional heat by which to 
increase the catalyst temperature. The air/fuel mixture must be 
adjusted to provide a richer exhaust gas for the secondary air to be 
effective. There can be a NOX emissions disbenefit to use of 
secondary air injection since it can impact the ability of oxygen 
storage components (OSC) within the catalyst to take up excess oxygen 
as necessary to promote NOX reduction reactions immediately 
following cold start conditions.
     Hydrocarbon Adsorber--Traps hydrocarbons during a cold 
start until the catalyst lights off, and then releases the hydrocarbons 
to be converted by the catalyst.
     Gasoline Sulfur--The relative effectiveness for NMOG and 
NOX control of the exhaust-catalyst related technologies is 
constrained by gasoline fuel sulfur levels. Thus, reduced sulfur in 
gasoline is an enabling technology to achieve the standards and 
maintain this performance during in-use operation. We discuss the 
relationship between gasoline sulfur and emissions in greater detail in 
Section IV.6 below and in the RIA.
    Several commenters indicated that large light-duty trucks (e.g., 
pickups and full-size sport utility vehicles (SUVs) in the LDT3 and 
LDT4 categories) will be the most challenging light-duty vehicles to 
bring into compliance with the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards at 
the 30 mg/mi corporate average emissions level. A similar challenge was 
addressed when large light-duty trucks were brought into compliance 
with the Tier 2 standards over the past decade. Figure IV-1 provides a 
graphical representation of the effectiveness of Tier 3 technologies 
for large light-duty truck applications. A compliance margin is shown 
in both cases. Note that the graphical representation of the 
effectiveness of catalyst technologies on NOX and NMOG when 
going from Tier 2 to Tier 3 levels also includes a reduction in 
gasoline sulfur levels from 30 ppm to 10 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ The technologies and levels of control in this figure are 
based on a combination of confidential business information 
submitted by auto manufacturers and suppliers, public data, and EPA 
staff engineering judgment.

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

[[Page 23463]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.000

6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Effectiveness of the 
Vehicle Emission Standards
    In this section, we discuss the impact of gasoline sulfur control 
on the feasibility of the Tier 3 vehicle emissions standards and on the 
exhaust emissions of the existing in-use vehicle fleet. Section 
IV.A.6.a describes the chemistry and physics of the impacts of gasoline 
sulfur compounds on exhaust catalysts. Sections IV.A.6.b, c and d 
summarize research on the impacts of gasoline sulfur on vehicles 
utilizing various degrees of emission control technology, with Section 
IV.A.6.b summarizing historical studies on the impact of gasoline 
sulfur on vehicle emissions, Section IV.A.6.c describing impacts on 
Tier 2 vehicles and the existing light-duty vehicle fleet, and Section 
IV.A.6.d describing impacts on vehicles using technology consistent 
with what we expect to see in the future Tier 3 vehicle fleet. Section 
IV.A.6.e provides EPA's assessment of the level of gasoline sulfur 
control necessary for light-duty vehicles to comply with Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards.
    EPA's primary findings are:
     Reducing gasoline sulfur content to a 10 ppm average will 
provide immediate and significant exhaust emissions reductions to the 
current, in-use fleet of light-duty vehicles.
     Reducing gasoline sulfur content to an average of 10 ppm 
will enable vehicle manufacturers to certify their entire product lines 
of new light-duty vehicles to the final Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet average 
standards. Without such sulfur control it would not be possible for 
vehicle manufacturers to reduce emissions sufficiently below Tier 2 
levels to meet the new Tier 3 standards because it would require 
offsetting significantly higher exhaust emissions resulting from the 
higher sulfur levels. EPA has not identified any existing or developing 
technologies that would compensate for or offset the higher exhaust 
emissions resulting from higher fuel sulfur levels.
a. Gasoline Sulfur Impacts on Exhaust Catalysts
    Modern three-way catalytic exhaust systems utilize platinum group 
metals (PGM), metal oxides and other active materials to selectively 
oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases. 
These systems simultaneously reduce NOX 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.262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271

[[Page 23464]]

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

    \262\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.L. (1994). Impact 
of sulfur on model palladium-only catalysts under simulated three-
way operation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 3, 205-227.
    \263\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995). Impact of sulfur on the 
performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths.'' Applied Catalysis 
B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
    \264\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.I. (1997). Axial 
characterization of oxygen storage capacity in close coupled 
lightoff and underfloor catalytic converters and impact of sulfur. 
Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11, 273-290.
    \265\ Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, 
G., Touret, O. (1997), Study of ceria sulfation. Applied Catalysis 
B: Environmental 11, 193-205.
    \266\ Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., 
Visciglio, V., Touret, O. (1997). ``Influence of platinum on ceria 
sulfation.'' Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 13, 265-274.
    \267\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines. 
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2019.
    \268\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2001). ``Fuel properties for advanced engines.'' Automotive 
Engineering International 109 12, 117-120.
    \269\ Kubsh, J.E., Anthony, J.W. (2007). The Potential for 
Achieving Low Hydrocarbon and NOX Exhaust Emissions from 
Large Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-
1261.
    \270\ Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008). Effects of 
Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine Performance. SAE Technical Paper 
2008-01-0628.
    \271\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sulfur from gasoline is oxidized during spark-ignition engine 
combustion primarily to SO2 and, to a much lesser extent, 
SO3-\2\. Sulfur oxides selectively chemically 
bind (chemisorb) with, and in some cases react with, active sites and 
coating materials within the catalyst, thus inhibiting the intended 
catalytic reactions. Sulfur oxides inhibit pollutant catalysis chiefly 
by selective poisoning of active PGM, ceria sites, and the alumina 
washcoating material (see Figure IV-2).\272\ The amount of sulfur 
retained by an exhaust catalyst system is primarily a function of the 
concentration of sulfur oxides in the incoming exhaust gases, air-to-
fuel ratio feedback and control by the engine management system, the 
operating temperature of the catalyst and the active materials and 
coatings used within the catalyst.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: Catalyst 
Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John 
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their supplemental comments to the Tier 3 proposal, API 
criticized the use of emissions data generated using gasoline with 
sulfur content outside of the range of 10 ppm to 30 ppm within EPA and 
other analyses of the impacts of gasoline sulfur on exhaust emissions 
from current in-use (Tier 2) and future (Tier 3) light-duty vehicles. 
Specific examples include:

 Comparisons of exhaust emissions at 5 ppm and 28 ppm gasoline 
sulfur levels within the recent EPA study of emissions from Tier 2 
vehicles \273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Comparison of exhaust emissions of a SULEV vehicle at 8 ppm 
and 33 ppm gasoline sulfur levels within the Takei et al. study \274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines. 
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Comparison of exhaust emissions of a PZEV vehicle at 3 ppm and 
33 ppm gasoline sulfur levels within the Ball et al. study.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.

    The relationship between changes in gasoline sulfur content and 
NOX, HC, NMHC and NMOG emissions is typically linear. The 
linearity of sulfur impacts on NOX, NMHC and NMOG emissions 
is supported by past studies with multiple fuel sulfur levels all of 
which compare gasoline with differing sulfur levels that are below 
approximately 100 ppm (e.g., CRC E-60 and 2001 AAM/AIAM programs as 
well as comments on this rulemaking submitted by 
MECA).276 277 278 An assumption of linearity of the effect 
of gasoline sulfur level on catalyst efficiency between any two test 
fuels with differing sulfur levels is reasonable given that the mass 
flow rate of sulfur in exhaust gas changes in proportion to its 
concentration in the fuel, and that the chemistry of adsorption of 
sulfur on the active catalyst sites is an approximately-first-order 
chemisorption until all active sites within a catalyst reach an 
equilibrium state relative to further input of sulfur compounds. The 
relative linearity of the effect of gasoline sulfur level on NMOG and 
NOX emissions allows exhaust emissions results generated 
within EPA and other studies of gasoline sulfur at levels immediately 
above or below either 10 ppm or 30 ppm to be normalized to either 10 
ppm sulfur (Tier 3 gasoline) or to 30 ppm sulfur (Tier 2 gasoline, 
which are used in the analysis of the impacts of the Tier 3 gasoline 
standards on existing in-use vehicles and future Tier 3 vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ Coordinating Research Council. 2003. ``The Effect of Fuel 
Sulfur on NH3 and Other Emissions from 2000-2001 Model 
Year Vehicles.'' CRC Project No. E-60 Final Report. Accessed on the 
Internet on 12/4/2013 at the following URL: http://www.crcao.com/reports/recentstudies2003/E-60%20Final%20Report.pdf.
    \277\ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 2001. ``AAM-AIAM 
Industry Low Sulfur Test Program.''
    \278\ Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association. 2013. 
``The Impact of Gasoline Fuel Sulfur on Catalytic Emission Control 
Systems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their supplemental comments to the Tier 3 proposal, API also 
commented that EPA did not show the sulfur impact on exhaust emissions 
at intermediate sulfur levels between 10 ppm and 30 ppm. In response, 
based on the relative linearity of the effect of gasoline sulfur level 
on NMOG and NOX emissions allowing exhaust emissions to be 
estimated for gasoline sulfur levels between 10 and 30 ppm, data in 
EPA's analysis shows increases NMOG+NOX emissions (as fuel 
sulfur increases) that become more severe (i.e., higher percentage 
increase in NMOG+NOX emissions) for vehicles with extremely 
low \279\ exhaust emission (SULEV, PZEV, LEV III, Tier 3) as described 
in further detail in Sections IV.A.6.d and e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \279\ Vehicles that meet the cleanest emission standards by 
demonstrate very low cold start NMOG and NOX emissions 
and zero or near-zero running NMOG and NOX emissions.

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

[[Page 23465]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.001

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

    \280\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: Catalyst 
Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John 
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selective sulfur poisoning of platinum (Pt) and rhodium (Rh) is 
primarily from surface-layer chemisorption. Sulfur poisoning of 
palladium (Pd) and ceria appears to be via chemisorption combined with 
formation of more stable metallic sulfur compounds, e.g. PdS and 
Ce2O2S, present in both surface and bulk form 
(i.e., below the surface layer).281 282 283 284 Ceria, 
zirconia and other oxygen storage components (OSC) play an important 
role that is crucial to NOX reduction over Rh as the engine 
air-to-fuel ratio oscillates about the stoichiometric closed-loop 
control point. \285\ Ceria sulfation interferes with OSC functionality 
within the catalyst and thus can have a detrimental impact on the 
catalyst's ability to effectively reduce NOX emissions. 
Water-gas-shift reactions are important for NOX reduction 
over catalysts combining Pd and ceria. This reaction can be blocked by 
sulfur poisoning and may be responsible for observations of reduced 
NOX activity over Pd/ceria catalysts even with exposure to 
fairly low levels of sulfur (equivalent to 15 ppm in 
gasoline).286 287 Pd is also of increased importance for 
meeting Tier 3 standards due to its unique application in the close-
coupled-catalyst location required for vehicles certifying to very 
stringent emission standards. Close-coupling means that the exhaust 
catalyst is moved as close as possible to the engine's exhaust ports 
within the packaging constraints of an engine compartment. This ensures 
that the catalyst reaches its minimal operational, or ``light-off'', 
temperature as quickly as possible after the vehicle is started. It 
also means, however, that the exhaust catalyst(s) in the close-coupled 
location(s) are subject to higher exhaust temperatures during fully-
warmed up operation. Pd is required in closed-coupled catalysts due to 
its resistance to high-temperature thermal sintering thereby 
maintaining sufficient durability of the emissions control system over 
the useful life of a vehicle. Sulfur removal from Pd requires rich 
operation at higher temperatures than required for sulfur removal from 
other PGM catalysts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ Luo, T., Gorte, R.J. (2003). A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur 
Poisoning of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria.'' Catalysis 
Letters, 85, Issues 3-4, pg. 139-146.
    \282\ Li-Dun, A., Quan, D.Y. (1990). ``Mechanism of sulfur 
poisoning of supported Pd(Pt)/Al2O3 catalysts 
for H2-O2 reaction.'' Applied Catalysis 61, 
Issue 1, pg. 219-234.
    \283\ Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O., Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, 
G., Touret, O. ``Study of ceria sulfation.'' Applied Catalysis B: 
Environmental 11 (1997) 193-205.
    \284\ Bazin, P., Saur, O., Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., 
Visciglio, V., Touret, O. ``Influence of platinum on ceria 
sulfation.'' Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 13 (1997) 265-274.
    \285\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive 
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley 
and Sons, Inc.
    \286\ Luo, T., Gorte, R.J. (2003) A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur 
Poisoning of the Water-Gas-Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria. Catalysis 
Letters, 85, Issues 3-4, pg. 139-146.
    \287\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995) Impact of sulfur on the 
performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths. Applied Catalysis 
B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its interaction with catalyst materials, sulfur can 
also react with the wash-coating itself to form alumina sulfate, which 
in turn can block coating pores and reduce gaseous diffusion to active 
materials below the coating surface (see Figure IV-2).\288\ This may be 
a significant mechanism for the observed storage of sulfur compounds at 
light and moderate load operation with subsequent, rapid release as 
sulfate particulate matter emissions

[[Page 23466]]

when high-load, high-temperature conditions are encountered.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995) Impact of sulfur on the 
performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths. Applied Catalysis 
B: Environmental 6, 185-200.
    \289\ Maricq, M. M., Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. 
(2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level 
on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.'' 
Environmental Science and Technology, 36, No. 2 pg. 276-282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Operating the catalyst at a sufficiently high temperature under net 
reducing conditions (e.g., air-to-fuel equivalence that is net fuel-
rich of stoichiometry) can effectively release the sulfur oxides from 
catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently high 
temperatures at net fuel-rich air-to-fuel ratios can minimize the 
effects of fuel sulfur levels on catalyst active materials and catalyst 
efficiency; however, it cannot completely eliminate the effects of 
sulfur poisoning. In current vehicles, desulfurization conditions occur 
typically at high loads when there is a degree of commanded enrichment 
(i.e., fuel enrichment commanded by the engine management system 
primarily for protection of engine and/or exhaust system components). A 
study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in-use fleet recently completed by 
EPA\290\ shows that emission levels immediately following high speed/
load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur level for the 
gasoline used following desulfurization. If a vehicle operates on 
gasoline with less than 10 ppm sulfur, exhaust emissions stabilize over 
repeat FTP tests at emissions near those of the first FTP that follows 
the high speed/load operation and catalyst desulfurization. If the 
vehicle continues to operate on higher sulfur gasoline following 
desulfurization, exhaust emissions creep upward until a new equilibrium 
exhaust emissions level is established. This suggests that lower fuel 
sulfur levels achieve emission benefits unachievable by catalyst 
desulfurization procedures alone. Continued operation on gasoline with 
a 10 ppm average sulfur content or lower is necessary after catalyst 
desulfurization in order to achieve emissions reductions with the 
current in-use fleet.\291\ Furthermore, regular operation at the high 
exhaust temperatures and rich air-to-fuel ratios necessary for catalyst 
desulfurization is not desirable and may not be possible for future 
Tier 3 vehicles for several reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \290\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
    \291\ See Preamble Section IV.A.6.c and Chapter 1 of the RIA 
(Section 1.2.3.2) for more details on this study and its results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Thermal sintering and resultant catalyst degradation: 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 and thus reduces the overall effectiveness of 
the catalyst.
     Operational conditions: It is not always possible to 
maintain fuel-rich operational conditions and exhaust catalyst 
temperatures that are high enough for sulfur removal because of cold 
weather, idle conditions and light-load operation.
     Increased emissions: In order to achieve greater emission 
reductions across a fuller range of in-use driving conditions, vehicle 
manufacturers' use of commanded enrichment, which has been beneficial 
for sulfur removal, will be greatly reduced or eliminated under Tier 3. 
Additionally, the fuel-rich air-to-fuel ratios necessary for sulfur 
removal from active catalytic surfaces would result in increased PM, 
NMOG, CO and air toxic emissions, particularly at the high-temperature, 
high load conditions (e.g., US06 or comparable) necessary for sulfur 
removal. Previously used levels of commanded enrichment (e.g., under 
Tier 2) would interfere with the strategies necessary to comply with 
more stringent Tier 3 SFTP exhaust emissions standards. There are also 
additional provisions within the Tier 3 standards that further restrict 
the use of US06 and off-cycle commanded enrichment in an effort to 
reduce high-load and off-cycle PM, NMOG, CO and air toxic 
emissions.\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \292\ See Sec.  86.1811-17 (LD) within the Tier 3 regulations. 
Tier 3 restrictions to commanded enrichment are also discussed in 
further detail within section IV.A.4.c of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Expected changes to engine performance necessary to reduce 
fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions will improve the thermal 
efficiency of engines and may result in reduced exhaust temperatures.
b. Previous Studies of Gasoline Sulfur Impacts
    This section summarizes studies to provide historical context 
regarding what is known about the direct impacts of gasoline sulfur on 
vehicle exhaust emissions. Reducing fuel sulfur levels has been the 
primary regulatory mechanism EPA has used to minimize sulfur 
contamination of exhaust catalysts and to ensure optimum emissions 
performance over the useful life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline 
sulfur on exhaust catalyst systems has become even more important as 
vehicle emission standards have become more stringent. Studies have 
suggested a progressive increase in catalyst sensitivity to sulfur when 
standards increase in stringency and emissions levels decrease. 
Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 program 
(Tier 0, Tier 1, and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the 
impact of sulfur was considered of little importance. The Tier 2 
program recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur 
levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunction with 
the new emission standards.\293\ At that time, very little work had 
been done to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel sulfur, 
especially on in-use vehicles that may have some degree of catalyst 
deterioration due to real-world operation or on vehicles with extremely 
low tailpipe emissions as described earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \293\ Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA 420-R-99-023, 
December 22, 1999, last accessed on the Internet on 12/04/2013 at 
the following URL: http://epa.gov/tier2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a research 
program, the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Study that examined the 
effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties such as benzene and 
volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2 compliant 
vehicles.\294\ The study found significant reductions in 
NOX, CO and total hydrocarbons (HC) when the vehicles were 
tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32 ppm fuel. In particular, the 
study found a 48 percent increase in NOX over the FTP when 
gasoline sulfur was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given the 
preparatory procedures related to catalyst clean-out and loading used 
by these studies, these results may represent a ``best case'' scenario 
relative to what would be expected under more typical driving 
conditions. Nonetheless, these data suggested the effect of in-use 
sulfur loading was largely reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, and that 
there were likely to be significant emission reductions possible with 
further reductions in gasoline sulfur level. More recently, EPA 
completed a comprehensive study on the effects of gasoline sulfur on 
the exhaust emissions of Tier 2 vehicles at low to moderate mileage 
levels.\295\ Further details of this study are summarized in Section 
IV.A.6.c of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, 
EPA 420-R-07-002, February 2007, last accessed on the Internet on 
12/04/2013 at the following URL: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1004LNN.PDF.
    \295\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, we summarized the limited data available regarding the

[[Page 23467]]

impact of gasoline sulfur on the near-zero exhaust emission vehicle 
technologies that will be necessary for Tier 3 compliance. Vehicles 
certified to California LEV II SULEV and PZEV standards and federal 
Tier 2 Bin 2 standards achieve levels of exhaust emissions control 
consistent with the levels of control that will be necessary for Tier 3 
compliance. While these vehicles represent only a relatively small 
subset (e.g., typically small light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks 
with limited GVWR or towing utility) of the broad range of vehicles 
that will need to comply with Tier 3 standards as part of a fleet-wide 
average, data on these vehicles provide an opportunity to study the 
impact of gasoline sulfur on near-zero exhaust emission technologies 
and is generally representative of technology that are expected to be 
used with mid-size and smaller light-duty vehicles for Tier 3 
compliance. Vehicle testing by Toyota (Takei et al.) of LEV I, LEV II 
ULEV and prototype SULEV vehicles showed larger percentage increases in 
NOX and HC emissions for SULEV vehicles as gasoline sulfur 
increased from 8 ppm to 30 ppm, as compared to other LEV vehicles they 
tested.\296\ Ball et al. of Umicore Autocat USA, Inc. studied the 
impact of gasoline fuel sulfur levels of 3 ppm and 33 ppm on the 
emissions of a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu PZEV.\297\ Umicore's testing of 
the Malibu PZEV vehicle showed a pronounced and progressive trend of 
increasing NOX emissions (referred to as ``NOX 
creep'') when switching from a 3 ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, back-
to-back FTP tests using 33 ppm sulfur gasoline. The PZEV Chevrolet 
Malibu, after being aged to an equivalent of 150,000 miles, 
demonstrated emissions at a level consistent with the Tier 3 Bin 30 
NMOG+NOX standards when operated on 3 ppm sulfur fuel and 
for at least one FTP test after switching to 33 ppm certification fuel. 
Following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel, 
NOX emissions alone were more than double the Tier 3 30 mg/
mi NMOG+NOX standard.\271\ This represents a 70% 
NOX increase between 3 ppm sulfur and 33 ppm sulfur 
gasolines, approximately 2-3 times of what has been previously reported 
for similar changes in fuel sulfur level for Tier 2 and older 
vehicles.298 299
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \296\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines. 
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2019.
    \297\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
    \298\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
    \299\ Shapiro, E. (2009). National Clean Gasoline--An 
Investigation of Costs and Benefits. Published by the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the Umicore and Toyota studies suggest that the emissions from 
vehicles using near-zero exhaust emissions control technology similar 
to what is expected for compliance with the Tier 3 standards are more 
sensitive to changes in gasoline sulfur content at low (sub-30 ppm) 
sulfur concentrations than technology used to meet the higher Federal 
Tier 2 and California LEV II standards. The Umicore and Toyota studies 
clearly indicate that a progressive increase in catalyst sensitivity to 
sulfur continues as exhaust emissions decrease from levels required by 
federal Tier 2 and California LEV II emissions standards to the lower 
levels required by Tier 3 emissions standards. In addition, although 
vehicles with Tier 2 technology have somewhat less sulfur sensitivity 
compared to future Tier 3 vehicles, there is still significant 
opportunity for further emissions reductions from the existing in-use 
fleet by reducing gasoline sulfur content from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The 
results of recent testing demonstrating the potential for in-use 
emissions reductions from further gasoline sulfur control are 
summarized in Section IV.A.6.c. Recent data on the impact of gasoline 
sulfur on vehicles with exhaust emission control technologies that we 
expect to be used with Tier 3 vehicles is summarized in Sections 
IV.A.6.d and e.
c. EPA Testing of Gasoline Sulfur Effects on Tier 2 Vehicles and the 
In-Use Fleet
    Both the MSAT \300\ and Umicore \301\ studies showed the emission 
reduction potential of lower sulfur fuel on Tier 2 and later technology 
vehicles over the FTP cycle. However, assessing the potential for 
reduction on the in-use fleet requires understanding how sulfur 
exposure over time impacts emissions, and what the state of catalyst 
sulfur loading is for the typical vehicle in the field. In response to 
these data needs, EPA conducted a new study to assess the emission 
reductions expected from the in-use Tier 2 fleet with a reduction in 
fuel sulfur level from current levels.\302\ It was designed to take 
into consideration what was known from prior studies on sulfur build-up 
in catalysts over time and the effect of periodic regeneration events 
that may result from higher speed and load operation over the course of 
day-to-day driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, 
EPA 420-R-07-002, February 2007, last accessed on the Internet on 
12/04/2013 at the following URL: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1004LNN.PDF.
    \301\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
    \302\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study sample described in this analysis consisted of 93 cars 
and light trucks recruited from owners in southeast Michigan, covering 
model years 2007-9 with approximately 20,000-40,000 odometer 
miles.\303\ The makes and models targeted for recruitment were chosen 
to be representative of high sales vehicles covering a range of types 
and sizes. Test fuels were two non-ethanol gasolines with properties 
typical of certification test fuel, one at a sulfur level of 5 ppm and 
the other at 28 ppm. All emissions data was collected using the FTP 
cycle at a nominal temperature of 75 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ The NPRM modeling was based on analysis of 81 passenger 
cars and trucks. Since the NPRM, twelve additional Tier 2 vehicles 
were tested and included in the statistical analysis described in 
the docketed final report, examining the effect of sulfur on 
emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. The analysis based on the complete 
set of 93 Tier 2 vehicles is reflected in the results presented in 
this section and the emissions modeling for FRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the 28 ppm test fuel, emissions data were collected from 
vehicles in their as-received state as well as following a high-speed/
load ``clean-out'' procedure consisting of two back-to-back US06 cycles 
intended to reduce sulfur loading in the catalyst. A statistical 
analysis of this data showed highly significant reductions in several 
pollutants including NOX and hydrocarbons, demonstrating 
that sulfur loadings have a large effect on exhaust catalyst 
performance, and that Tier 2 vehicles can achieve significant 
reductions based on removing, at least in part, the negative impact of 
the sulfur loading on catalyst efficiency (Table IV-6). For example, 
Bag 2 NOX emissions dropped 31 percent between the pre- and 
post-cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel.

[[Page 23468]]

                            Table IV-6--Percent Reduction in In-Use Emissions After the Clean-Out Using 28 ppm Test Fuel \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX (p-value)   THC (p-value)   CO (p-value)   NMHC (p-value)   CH4 (p-value)   PM (p-value)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1...................................................  ..............  ..............   6.0% (0.0151)  ..............  ..............           15.4%
                                                                                                                                              (X emissions were 34 percent lower on the 5 
ppm fuel vs. the 28 ppm fuel. This indicates that the catalyst is not 
fully desulfurized, even after a clean out procedure, as long as there 
is sulfur in the fuel. This further indicates that current sulfur 
levels in gasoline continue to have a long-term, adverse effect on 
exhaust emissions control that is not fully removed by intermittent 
clean-out procedures that can occur in day-to-day operation of a 
vehicle and demonstrates that lowering sulfur levels to 10 ppm on 
average will significantly reduce the effects of sulfur impairment on 
emissions control technology.

   Table IV-7--Percent Reduction in Exhaust Emissions When Going From 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline for the First Three Repeat FTP Tests Immediately
                                                                   Following Clean-Out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX (p-value)   THC (p-value)   CO (p-value)   NMHC (p-value)   CH4 (p-value)      PM \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1...................................................            5.3%            6.8%            6.2%            5.7%           14.0%  ..............
                                                                (0.0513)        (0.0053)        (0.0083)        (0.0276)       (X were particularly high, 
estimated at 52 percent between 28 ppm and 5 ppm overall. For all 
pollutants, the model fitting did not find a significant miles-by-
sulfur interaction, suggesting the relative differences were not 
dependent on miles driven after clean-out.

                          Table IV-8--Percent Reduction in Emissions From 28 ppm to 5 ppm Fuel Sulfur on In-Use Tier 2 Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           NOX+NMOG (p-
                                           NOX (p-value)   THC (p-value)   CO (p-value)   NMHC (p-value)   CH4 (p-value)      value)          PM \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bag 1...................................            7.1%            9.2%            6.7%            8.1%           16.6%             N/A  ..............
                                                (0.0216)        (0.0002)        (0.0131)        (0.0017)      (A  ..............
                                              (A  ..............
                                              (A  ..............
                                                                (0.0074)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Sulfur level not significant at [alpha] = 0.10.
\b\ Inconclusive because the mixed model did not converge.

[[Page 23469]]

    Major findings from this study include:
     Largely reversible sulfur loading is occurring in the in-
use fleet of Tier 2 vehicles and has a measureable effect on emissions 
of NOX, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest.
     The effectiveness of high speed/load procedures in 
restoring catalyst efficiency is limited when operating on higher 
sulfur fuel.
     Reducing fuel sulfur levels from current levels to levels 
in the range of the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards is expected to 
achieve significant reductions in emissions of NOX, 
hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest in the current in-use 
fleet.
     Assuming that the emissions impacts vs. gasoline sulfur 
content are approximately linear, changing gasoline sulfur content from 
30 ppm to 10 ppm would result in NMOG+NOX emissions 
decreasing from 52 mg/mi to 45 mg/mi, respectively (a 13% decrease), 
and NOX emissions decreasing from 19 mg/mi to 16 mg/mi, 
respectively (a 16% decrease), for the vehicles in the study.
    To evaluate the robustness of the statistical analyses assessing 
the overall in-use emissions reduction between operation on high and 
low sulfur fuel (Table IV-8), a series of sensitivity analyses were 
performed to assess the impacts on study results of measurements from 
low-emitting vehicles and influential vehicles, as documented in detail 
in the report.\304\ The sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude 
and the statistical significance of the results were not impacted and 
thus demonstrated that the results are statistically robust. We also 
subjected the design of the experiment and data analysis to a 
contractor-led independent peer-review process in accordance with EPA's 
peer review guidance. The results of the peer review \305\ \306\ 
largely supported the study design, statistical analyses, and the 
conclusions from the program and raised only minor concerns that have 
not changed the overall conclusions and have subsequently been 
addressed in the final version of the report.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \304\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
    \305\ Peer Review of the Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level on 
Emissions from the In-Use Tier 2 Vehicles, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-
1847.
    \306\ EPA In-Use Sulfur Report--Response to Peer-Review 
Comments, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-1848.
    \307\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the reductions found in this study are in agreement with 
other low sulfur studies conducted on Tier 2 vehicles, namely MSAT and 
Umicore studies mentioned above, in terms of the magnitude of 
NOX and HC reductions when switching from 28 ppm to 5 ppm 
fuel.\308\ We have reviewed the results of the emission effects study 
performed by SGS, which was included with API's comments on the Tier 3 
proposal, and have concluded that these results are also consistent 
with the findings of EPA's Tier 2 in-use study, specifically that 
exhaust emissions performance is sensitive to fuel sulfur level.\309\ 
The SGS study also suggests that negative effects of exposure to a 
somewhat higher sulfur level (80 ppm in this case) are largely 
reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, meaning that reducing fuel sulfur 
levels nationwide will bring significant immediate benefits by reducing 
emissions of the existing fleet. For further details regarding the Tier 
2 In-Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects Study, see the final report.\310\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
    \309\ American Petroleum Institute. 2013. Supplemental Comments 
of the American Petroleum Institute. Available in the docket for 
this final rule, docket no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    \310\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a follow-on phase to the Tier 2 in-use study, EPA analyzed five 
vehicles \311\ certified to Tier 2 Bin 4, LEV II ULEV and LEV II SULEV 
exhaust emissions standards to assess the gasoline sulfur sensitivity 
of Tier 2 and California LEV II vehicles with emission levels 
approaching or comparable to the Tier 3 standards. The analysis found 
that these low-emitting Tier 2 vehicles showed similar or greater 
sensitivity to fuel sulfur levels compared to the original Tier 2 test 
fleet--for example, a 24 percent reduction in FTP composite 
NOX emissions when sulfur is reduced from 28 ppm to 5 
ppm.\312\ Test results discussed below in section IV.A.6.d also confirm 
that there is significantly increased sensitivity of exhaust emissions 
to gasoline sulfur as vehicle technologies advance towards exhaust 
emissions approaching near-zero emissions (e.g., Tier 3 Bin 50 and 
lower). The impact of fuel sulfur on vehicles with exhaust emission 
control technologies that we expect to be used with Tier 3 vehicles is 
summarized in the next two sections (Preamble IV.A.6.d and e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ The make and model of the tested vehicles are Honda 
Crosstour, Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet Silverado, Ford Focus and 
Subaru Outback.
    \312\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the studies by EPA and others described in this 
section strongly support our conclusion that reducing gasoline sulfur 
content to a 10 ppm average will result in significant exhaust 
emissions reductions from the current in-use fleet. However, some 
commenters have expressed concerns about the relevance and 
appropriateness of the data, as well as the conclusions drawn from 
them. The Summary and Analysis of Comments document, available in the 
docket for this rulemaking, provides our responses to those comments.
d. Testing of Gasoline Sulfur Effects on Vehicles With Tier 3/LEV III 
Technology
    The Tier 3 fleet average exhaust emissions standards of 30 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX will require large reductions of emissions across a 
broad range of light-duty vehicles and trucks with differing degrees of 
utility. Previous studies of sulfur impacts on extremely low exhaust 
emission vehicles (e.g., Toyota, Umicore) were limited to mid-size or 
smaller light-duty vehicles. There are currently no LDT3 or any LDT4 
vehicles certified at or below Federal Tier 2 Bin 3 or to the 
California LEV II SULEV exhaust emission standards with the exception 
of a single hybrid electric SUV. At the time of the Tier 3 NPRM, EPA 
was not aware of any existing data demonstrating the impact of changes 
in gasoline sulfur content on larger vehicles with technology 
comparable to what would be expected for compliance with Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards. In their supplemental comments to the Tier 3 
proposal, API criticized EPA's reliance on emissions data from older 
vehicles that were not considered to be examples of future Tier-3-like 
vehicles. In order to further evaluate this issue, the Agency initiated 
a test program at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory 
(NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Agency obtained a heavy-light-duty 
truck and applied changes to the design and layout of the exhaust 
catalyst system and to the calibration of the engine management system 
consistent with our engineering analyses of technology necessary to 
meet Tier 3 Bin 30 emissions with a 20 to 40% compliance margin at 
150,000 miles. EPA also requested that Umicore loan the Agency the 
vehicle tested in their study to undergo further evaluation of gasoline 
sulfur impacts on exhaust emissions. In addition, Ford Motor Company 
completed testing of fuel sulfur effects on a Tier 3/LEV III 
developmental heavy-light-duty truck and submitted a summary report of 
their

[[Page 23470]]

findings as part of their supplemental comments to the Tier 3 NPRM. The 
results of these three test programs are summarized below.
i. Ford Motor Company Tier 3 Sulfur Test Program
    Ford Motor Company recently completed testing of a heavy-light-duty 
truck (i.e., between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR) under development to 
meet the Tier 3 Bin 50 standards on two different fuel sulfur levels 
and submitted the resulting data to EPA as part of its supplemental 
comments.313 314 The test results from this vehicle are 
particularly important when considering the following factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ Ford Motor Company. 2013. ``Quality Changes Needed to Meet 
Tier 3 Emission Standards and Future Greenhouse Gas Requirements.'' 
Attachment 2: ``Tier 3 Sulfur Test Program--Ford Motor Company 
Summary Report.'' Available within EPA Docket for this final rule, 
EPA-HQ-2011-0135.
    \314\ Dominic DiCicco, Ford Motor Company. 2013. ``Additional 
data as requested. RE: Ford Supplemental Comments on Tier 3.'' 
Available within EPA Docket for this final rule, EPA-HQ-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     These are the first detailed emissions data submitted by a 
vehicle manufacturer to the Agency demonstrating emissions of a heavy-
light-duty-truck consistent with Tier 3 Bin 50 or lower emissions 
levels.
     The truck tested uses a version of Ford's 2.0 L GTDI 
engine, an engine with high BMEP (approximately 23-bar) that can allow 
significant engine displacement downsizing while maintaining the 
truck's utility. This is a key enabling GHG reduction strategy analyzed 
by EPA in the 2017-2025 GHG Final Rule.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ See 77 FR 62840-62862, October 15, 2012; and Joint 
Technical Support Document: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-
Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy Standards (EPA-420-R-12-901), August 2012, Chapter 
3.4.1.7-3.4.1.8 (pages 3-88--3-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The vehicle was specifically under development by a 
vehicle manufacturer with an engineering target of meeting Tier 3 Bin 
50 and LEV III ULEV50 exhaust emissions standards.
Turbocharged, downsized engines are key technologies within Ford's 
strategy to reduce GHG emissions.\316\ EPA expects that trucks with 
configurations similar to this developmental Ford Explorer (downsized 
engines with reduced GHG emissions and very low emissions of 
NMOG+NOX) will become increasingly prevalent within the 
timeframe of the implementation of the Tier 3 regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \316\ Ford Motor Company, 2012. ``Sustainability 2011/2012--
Improving Fuel Economy.'' Accessed on the Internet on 11/21/2013 at: 
http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2011-12/environment-products-plan-economy. Available within EPA Docket for 
this final rule, EPA-HQ-2011-0135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The developmental truck used close-coupling of both catalyst 
substrates and relatively high PGM loading (150 g/ft\3\). Ford used 
accelerated aging of the catalysts and O2 sensors to an 
equivalent of 150,000 miles (the Tier 3 full useful life). The 
developmental hardware and engine management calibration configuration 
of this truck was designed to meet federal Tier 3 Bin 50 and California 
LEV III ULEV50 standards of 50 mg/mi NMOG+NOX at 150,000 
miles. The emissions data submitted by Ford included NOX and 
NMHC emissions during operation on E10 California LEV III certification 
fuel at two different sulfur levels, 10 ppm and 26.5 ppm. Ford did not 
provide NMOG emissions data but there was sufficient information for 
EPA to calculate NMOG emissions from the provided NMHC data using 
calculations from Title 40 CFR 1066.665.
    The truck demonstrated average FTP NMOG+NOX emissions of 
37 mg/mi on the 10 ppm E10 California LEV III fuel, emissions that are 
consistent with compliance with Bin 50 and ULEV50 standards with a 
reasonable margin of compliance (emissions at approximately 70% of the 
standard). Retesting of the same vehicle on LEV3 E10 blended \317\ to 
26.5 ppm S resulted in average NMOG+NOX emissions of 53 mg/
mi, 6% above the Tier 3 Bin 50 standard. Ford found a high level of 
statistical significance with respect to the increase of emissions with 
increasing fuel sulfur. Assuming a linear effect of sulfur on emissions 
performance, NMOG+NOX emissions would be approximately 56 
mg/mi at 30 ppm sulfur, which is approximately 12% above the Bin 50 
exhaust emissions standard. This also represents an increase in 
NMOG+NOX emissions of 53% with an approximate doubling of 
NOX emissions and a 13% increase in NMOG for 30 ppm sulfur 
gasoline vs. 10 ppm sulfur gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ Ford used the same tert-butyl sulfide fuel sulfur 
additives used within the EPA testing in IV.A.6.c and d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advanced technology Ford truck, which was shown to be capable 
of complying with the Tier 3 Bin 50 standard with a reasonable margin 
of compliance on 10 ppm sulfur gasoline, in effect reverted to 
approximately LEV II ULEV exhaust emissions levels when tested on 
higher sulfur gasoline, equivalent to the previous level of emissions 
control to which earlier models of this vehicle were certified for MY 
2013. The effect of increasing gasoline sulfur levels from 10 ppm to 30 
ppm \318\ on this vehicle essentially negated the entire benefit of the 
advances in emissions control technology that were applied by the 
vehicle manufacturer to meet developmental goals for compliance with 
Tier 3 standards. This clearly indicates, for this vehicle model using 
technology representative of what would be expected for compliance with 
Tier 3 Bin 50 and post 2017 GHG standards, reducing gasoline sulfur to 
10 ppm is needed for the advances in technology to achieve their 
intended effectiveness in reducing NMOG+NOX emissions. The 
advances in vehicle technology and the reduction in gasoline sulfur 
clearly are both needed to achieve the emissions reductions called for 
by Tier 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ Emissions at 30 ppm sulfur estimated assuming 
approximately linear emissions effects between 10, 26.5 and 30 ppm 
gasoline sulfur levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. EPA Re-Test of Umicore 2009 Chevrolet Malibu PZEV
    Ball et al. of Umicore Autocat USA, Inc. previously studied the 
impact of gasoline fuel sulfur levels of 3 ppm and 33 ppm on the 
emissions of a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu PZEV.\319\ In their supplemental 
comments, API commented that the composition of the two test fuels 
outside of sulfur content was not held constant and thus the exhaust 
emissions differences attributed to the difference in gasoline sulfur 
levels may have been due to other fuel property differences. For 
example, the 3 ppm fuel used by Ball et al. was nonoxygenated EEE Clear 
test fuel (essentially, Tier 2 Federal certification gasoline except 
with near-zero sulfur) while the 33 ppm fuel was an oxygenated 
California Phase 2 LEV II certification fuel. Thus it was not entirely 
clear if the changes in NOX emissions observed between tests 
with the two fuels were significantly impacted by fuel composition 
variables other than gasoline sulfur content. EPA obtained the same 
test vehicle from Umicore for retesting at the EPA NVFEL facility using 
the 5 ppm and 28 ppm sulfur E0 test fuels and vehicle test procedures 
used in EPA gasoline sulfur effects testing on Tier 2 vehicles (see 
Section IV.6.b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300. Available in the 
docket for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In EPA's retest of the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu PZEV, when sulfur was 
the only difference between the test fuels, the gasoline with higher 
sulfur resulted in significantly higher increases in NOX 
emissions with increasing fuel sulfur content than was observed in the

[[Page 23471]]

previous testing by Ball et al. at Umicore. Assuming emissions impacts 
vs. gasoline sulfur content are approximately linear, the original data 
from Ball et al. would have resulted in a predicted increase in 
NOX emissions of approximately 40% when increasing gasoline 
sulfur from 10 ppm to 30 ppm. The EPA re-testing of the same vehicle 
that controlled for other fuel composition differences resulted in a 
predicted increase in NOX emissions of 93% when increasing 
gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 30 ppm, with NOX emissions 
approximately doubling from 22 g/mi to 43 g/mi, with no statistically 
significant difference in NMOG emissions and with an increase in 
NMOG+NOX emissions of 56%. The approximate doubling in 
NOX emissions with the Malibu PZEV between 10 ppm and 30 ppm 
sulfur was nearly identical to the results found during testing of the 
Tier 3 Bin 50 developmental Ford Explorer discussed above. The results 
confirm that fuel compositional differences other than sulfur may have 
impacted exhaust emissions results in the Ball et al. study by 
underreporting a substantial portion of the effect of increased sulfur 
on NOX emissions. When controlling for other fuel 
composition differences, the resultant increase in NOX 
exhaust emissions due to increasing gasoline sulfur was more than 
double that observed in the original Ball et al. study. The observed 
increase in NMOG+NOX emissions during EPA testing of the 
Malibu PZEV was also comparable to results found with the developmental 
Tier 3 Bin 50 Ford Explorer. There was also a much higher increase in 
NOX and NMOG+NOX emissions for both the Malibu 
PZEV and the Tier 3 Bin 50 Explorer with increased gasoline sulfur than 
was observed with Tier 2 vehicles in the EPA Tier 2 in-use study. (See 
also Chapter 1.2.4 of the RIA)
iii. EPA Prototype Tier 3 Heavy-Light-Duty Truck Test Program
    EPA purchased a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado heavy-light-duty (LDT4) 
pickup truck with a developmental goal of modifying the truck to 
achieve exhaust emissions consistent with compliance with the Tier 3 
Bin 30 emissions standards. The truck was equipped with a 5.3L V8 with 
General Motors' ``Active Fuel Management'' cylinder deactivation 
system. This particular truck was chosen in part because cylinder 
deactivation is a key technology for light-truck compliance with future 
GHG standards and in part because it achieved very low emissions in its 
OEM, Tier 2-compliant configuration (certified to Tier 2 Bin 4). A 
prototype exhaust system was obtained from MECA consisting of high-
cell-density (900 cpsi) thin-wall (2.5 mil), high-PGM, close-coupled 
Pd-Rh catalysts with an additional under-body Pd-Rh catalyst. The total 
catalyst volume was approximately 116 in\3\ with a specific PGM loading 
of 125 g/ft\3\ and approximate loading ratio of 0:80:5 (Pt:Pd:Rh). 
Third-party (non-OEM) EMS calibration tools were used to modify the 
powertrain calibration in an effort to improve catalyst light-off 
performance. The final test configuration used approximately 4 degrees 
of timing retard and approximately 200 rpm higher idle speed relative 
to the OEM configuration during and immediately following cold-start. 
The exhaust catalyst system and HEGO sensors were bench aged to an 
equivalent 150,000 miles using standard EPA accelerated catalyst bench-
aging procedures.\320\ The truck was tested on California LEV III E10 
certification fuel at 9 and 29 ppm gasoline sulfur levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Sec.  86.1823-
08 ``Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust emissions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA Tier 3 prototype Silverado achieved NMOG+NOX 
emissions of 18 mg/mi on the 9 ppm S fuel. The NMOG+NOX 
emissions were approximately 60% of the Bin 30 standard and thus are 
consistent with meeting the Tier 3 Bin 30 exhaust emissions standard 
with a moderate compliance margin. NMOG+NOX emissions 
increased to 29 mg/mi on the 29 ppm S fuel and one out of four tests 
exceeded the Bin 30 exhaust emissions standards. NMOG+NOX 
emissions would be at 19 mg/mi and 30 mg/mi with 10 ppm and 30 ppm 
gasoline sulfur, respectively, assuming a linear effect of sulfur on 
emissions performance. This represents an increase in 
NMOG+NOX emissions of approximately 55%, comparable to 
increases observed with both the EPA-tested Chevrolet Malibu PZEV and 
the developmental Tier 3 Bin 50 Ford Explorer. The impact of increased 
gasoline sulfur on NMOG+NOX emissions was due to comparable 
increases (on a percentage basis) in both NMOG and NOX 
emissions. This effect of gasoline sulfur on the Prototype Silverado 
truck's emissions differed from the sulfur impacts observed on the 
developmental Ford Explorer, which primarily affected NOX 
emissions, and the Malibu PZEV, where the impact was entirely on 
NOX emissions.
e. Gasoline Sulfur Level Necessary for New Light-Duty Vehicles To 
Achieve Tier 3 Exhaust Emissions Standards
    Meeting Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards will require major 
reductions in exhaust emissions across the entire fleet of new light-
duty vehicles. As discussed in previous sections, the Tier 3 program 
will require reductions in fleet average NMOG+NOX emissions 
of over 80 percent for the entire fleet of light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks. This significant level of fleet average emission 
reduction will require reductions from all parts of the fleet, 
including vehicles models with exhaust emissions currently at or near 
the level of the fully phased-in Tier 3 FTP NMOG+NOX fleet 
average standard of 30 mg/mi.
    Compliance with the more stringent Tier 3 fleet average standards 
will require vehicle manufacturers to certify a significant amount of 
vehicles to bin standards that are below the Bin 30 fleet average 
standard to offset other vehicles that are certified to bin standards 
that remain somewhat above the Bin 30 fleet average even after 
significantly reducing their emissions. At the same time, the 
stringency of the Tier 3 standards will push almost all vehicle models 
to be close to or below the Bin 30 fleet average standard. There are 
only 2 compliance bins below Bin 30, i.e., Bin 20 and Bin 0, available 
to offset emissions of vehicles certifying above Bin 30. There is also 
very limited ability for vehicle manufacturers to certify vehicles 
below the stringent Tier 3 fleet average exhaust emissions standard 
since Bin 20 and Bin 30 standards for individual vehicle certification 
test groups are approaching the engineering limits of what can be 
achieved for vehicles using an internal combustion engine and Bin 0 can 
only be achieved by electric-only vehicle operation. The result is that 
there is a very limited ability to offset sales of vehicles certified 
above the 30 mg/mi fleet average emission standard. This means in 
general that vehicle models currently with higher emissions will have 
to achieve significant emissions reductions to minimize the gap, if 
any, between their certified bin levels under Tier 3 and the Tier 3 Bin 
30 fleet average standard, and vehicle models currently at or below Bin 
30 will also have to achieve further emissions reductions under Tier 3 
to offset the vehicles that remain certified to bin standards somewhat 
above Bin 30l. The end result is a need for major reductions from all 
types of vehicles in the light-duty fleet, including those above as 
well as most vehicles that are already near, at, or

[[Page 23472]]

below the Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet average standard.
    Achieving exhaust emissions reductions of over 80% for the fleet, 
with major reductions across all types of light-duty vehicles and 
light-duty trucks, will be a major technological challenge. Vehicles 
already have made significant advances in controlling cold start 
emissions and maximizing exhaust catalyst efficiency (e.g., improving 
warm-up and catalyst light-off after cold starts and maintaining very 
high catalyst efficiency once warmed up) in order to meet Tier 2 and 
LEV II emissions standards. There are no ``low-hanging fruit'' 
remaining for additional NMOG+NOX reductions from light-duty 
vehicles from a technology perspective, meaning that vehicle 
manufacturers cannot merely change one aspect of emissions control and 
thereby achieve all of the required reductions. Instead, compliance 
with light-duty Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards will require 
significant improvements in all areas of emissions control--with 
further improvements in fuel-system management and mixture preparation 
during cold start, improvements in achieving catalyst light-off 
immediately after cold start, and improved catalyst efficiency during 
stabilized, fully-warmed-up conditions. Manufacturers will need further 
improvements in each of these areas with nearly every vehicle in order 
to comply with the fleet-average Tier 3 standards.
    From a technology perspective, the most likely control strategies 
will involve using exhaust catalyst technologies and powertrain 
calibration primarily focused on reducing cold-start emissions of NMOG, 
and on reducing both cold-start and warmed-up (running) emissions of 
NOX. An important part of this strategy, particularly for 
larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving cold-start NMOG 
emissions control, will be to reduce NOX emissions to near-
zero levels. This will involve controlling engine-out NOX 
emissions during cold start, shortening the cold start period prior to 
catalyst light-off of NOX reduction reactions, and better 
controlling NOX emissions once the catalyst is fully warmed 
up. This is needed to allow a sufficient NMOG compliance margin so that 
vehicles can meet the combined NMOG+NOX emissions standards 
for their full useful life.
    While significant NMOG+NOX emissions reductions can be 
achieved from better control of cold start NMOG emissions, there are 
practical engineering limits to NMOG control for larger displacement 
vehicles (e.g., large light-duty trucks with significant payload and 
trailer towing capabilities). This is based in part on the impact on 
NMOG emissions of the larger engine surface-to-volume ratio and 
resultant heat conduction from the combustion chamber during warm-up. 
There are also tradeoffs between some cold-start NMOG controls and 
cold-start NOX control. For example, secondary air injection 
and/or leaner fueling strategies improve catalyst light-off for NMOG 
after a cold-start but also place OSC components in an oxidation state 
that limits potential for NOX reduction and thus often 
result in higher cold-start NOX emissions. Some applications 
achieve lower NMOG+NOX emissions without the use of 
secondary air injection by careful calibration, changes to the catalyst 
formulation and balancing of catalyst HC and NOX activity. 
The EPA Prototype Silverado and the developmental Ford Explorer are 
specific examples of this approach.
    Because of engineering limitations with large vehicles, heavy-
light-trucks and other vehicles with significant utility, we expect 
many applications will need close to 100% efficiency in NOX 
control under fully warmed-up conditions and very fast light-off of 
NOX reduction reactions over the exhaust catalyst almost 
immediately after cold-start for those applications. This will require 
significant improvements in catalytic and engine-out NOX 
reduction compared with Tier 2 vehicles and will be especially 
important for heavier vehicles due to the challenges of achieving low 
NMOG.
    These technology improvements--improving warm-up and catalyst 
light-off after cold starts and maintaining very high catalyst 
efficiency--once warmed up--all rely on 10 ppm average sulfur fuel to 
achieve the very significant emissions reductions required for the 
fleet to achieve the Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet average emissions standard. 
The evidence from the test results and specific vehicle examples 
discussed above clearly indicate that leaving the gasoline sulfur level 
at 30 ppm would largely negate the benefits of key technology 
improvements expected to be used for compliance with Tier 3 exhaust 
emissions standards. Without the lower 10 ppm gasoline sulfur content, 
the Tier 3 exhaust fleet average emissions standards would not be 
achievable across the broad range of vehicles that must achieve 
significant exhaust emissions reductions.
    One aspect of the need for sulfur levels of 10 ppm average stems 
from the fact that achieving the Tier 3 emission standards will require 
very careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures 
to ensure high catalyst efficiency. The impact of sulfur on OSC 
components in the catalyst makes this a challenge even at relatively 
low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels. NOX conversion by 
exhaust catalysts is strongly influenced by the OSC components like 
ceria. Ceria sulfation may play an important role in the large 
degradation of NOX emission control with increased fuel 
sulfur levels observed in the MSAT, Umicore and EPA Tier 2 In-Use 
Gasoline Sulfur Effects studies and the much more severe NOX 
emissions degradation observed in recent test data from PZEV and 
prototype/developmental Tier 3/LEV III vehicles.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \321\ Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive 
Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2nd Edition. John Wiley 
and Sons, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 23473]]

standards are numerically equivalent, the increased sulfur exposure of 
in-use vehicles certified under the federal Tier 2 program results in a 
need for a higher emissions compliance margin to take into account the 
impact of in-use gasoline sulfur on full useful life vehicle emissions. 
As a result, vehicles certified to California SULEV typically certify 
to emissions standards under the federal Tier 2 program that are 1-2 
certification bins higher (e.g., SULEV certified federally as Tier 2 
Bin 3 or Bin 4) in order to ensure in-use compliance with emissions 
standards out to the full useful life of the vehicle when operating on 
higher-sulfur gasoline.
    There are currently no LDTs larger than LDT2 with the exception of 
a single hybrid electric SUV certified to Tier 2 Bin 2 or SULEV 
emissions standards. We expect that additional catalyst technologies, 
for example increasing catalyst surface area (volume or substrate cell 
density) and/or increased PGM loading, will need to be applied to 
larger vehicles in order to achieve the catalyst efficiencies necessary 
to comply with the Tier 3 standards, and any sulfur impact on catalyst 
efficiency will have a larger impact on vehicles and trucks that rely 
more on very high catalyst efficiencies in order to achieve very low 
emissions. The vehicle emissions data referenced in Section IV.A.6.d 
represents the only known data on non-hybrid vehicles spanning a range 
from mid-size LDVs to heavy-light-trucks at the very low criteria 
pollutant emissions levels that will be needed to comply with the Tier 
3 exhaust emissions standards. The developmental Ford Explorer, 
Chevrolet Malibu PZEV and EPA prototype Chevrolet Silverado vehicles 
described in section IV.A.6.c also represent a range of different 
technology approaches to both criteria pollution control and GHG 
reduction (e.g., use of secondary air vs. emphasizing cold-start 
NOX control, use of engine downsizing via turbocharging vs. 
cylinder deactivation for GHG control, etc.) and represent a broad 
range of vehicle applications and utility (mid-size LDV, LDT3, LDT4). 
All of the vehicles with Tier 3/LEV III technology demonstrated greater 
than 50% increases in NMOG+NOX emissions when increasing 
gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 30 ppm. Two of the vehicles showed a 
doubling of NOX emissions when increasing gasoline sulfur 
from 10 ppm to 30 ppm. Both of the heavy-light-duty trucks with 
specific engineering targets of meeting Tier 3 emissions were capable 
of meeting their targeted emission standards with a sufficient 
compliance margin on 10 ppm sulfur gasoline and could not meet their 
targeted emissions standards or could not achieve a reasonable 
compliance margin when tested with 30 ppm sulfur gasoline.
    The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on catalytic activity and 
the resultant loss of exhaust catalyst effectiveness to chemically 
reduce NOX and oxidize NMOG occur across all vehicle 
categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur on the effectiveness 
of exhaust catalysts to control NOX emissions in the fully-
warmed-up condition is particularly of concern for larger vehicles (the 
largest LDVs and LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs). Manufacturers face the most 
significant challenges in reducing cold-start NMOG emissions for these 
vehicles. Because of the need to reach near-zero NOX 
emissions levels in order to offset engineering limitations on further 
NMOG exhaust emissions control with these vehicles, any significant 
degradation in NOX emissions control over the useful life of 
the vehicle would likely prevent some if not most larger vehicles from 
reaching a combined NMOG+NOX level low enough to comply with 
the 30 mg/mi fleet-average standard. Any degradation in catalyst 
performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin 
necessary to ensure in-use compliance with the Tier 3 emissions 
standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles versus the 
current 120,000 miles will further add to manufacturers' compliance 
challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (See Section IV.A.7.c below for 
more on the useful life requirements.) These vehicles represent a 
sufficiently large segment of light-duty vehicle sales now and for the 
foreseeable future such that their emissions could not be sufficiently 
offset (and thus the fleet-average standard could not be achieved) by 
certifying other vehicles to bins below the fleet average standard.
    As discussed above, achieving Tier 3 levels as an average across 
the light-duty fleet will require fleet wide reductions of 
approximately 80%. This will require significant reductions from all 
light duty vehicles, with the result that some models and types of 
vehicles will be at most somewhat above the Tier 3 level, and all other 
models will be at or somewhat below Tier 3 levels. Achieving these 
reductions presents a major technology challenge. The required 
reductions are of a magnitude that EPA expects manufacturers to employ 
advances in technology in all of the relevant areas of emissions 
control--reducing engine-out emissions, reducing the time to catalyst 
lightoff, improving exhaust catalyst durability at 120,000 or 150,000 
miles and improving efficiency of fully warmed up exhaust catalysts. 
All of these areas of emissions control need to be improved, and 
gasoline sulfur reduction to a 10 ppm average is a critical part of 
achieving Tier 3 levels through these emissions control technology 
improvements.
    The use of 10 ppm average sulfur fuel is an essential part of 
achieving Tier 3 levels while applying an array of advancements in 
emissions control technology to the light-duty fleet. The testing of 
Tier 2 and Tier 3 type technology vehicles, as well as other 
information, shows that sulfur has a very large impact on the 
effectiveness of the control technologies expected to be used in Tier 3 
vehicles. Without the reduction in sulfur to a 10 ppm average, the 
major technology improvements projected under Tier 3 would only result 
in a limited portion of the emissions reductions needed to achieve Tier 
3 levels. For example, without the reduction in sulfur from a 30 ppm to 
10 ppm average, the technology improvements would not come close to 
achieving Tier 3 levels. In some cases this may result in the same 
effectiveness as the current Tier 2 technology and achieve only 
approximately Tier 2 levels of exhaust emissions control.
    Achieving Tier 3 levels without a reduction in sulfur to 10 ppm 
levels would only be possible if there were technology improvements 
significantly above and beyond those discussed above. Theoretically, 
without reducing sulfur levels to 10 ppm average, emissions control 
technology improvements would need to provide upwards of twice as much, 
and in some cases significantly more than twice as much, emissions 
control effectiveness as the Tier 3 technology improvements discussed 
above in Section IV.A.6.d. EPA has not identified technology 
improvements that could provide such a large additional increase in 
emissions control effectiveness, across the light-duty fleet, above and 
beyond that provided by the major improvements in technology discussed 
above, without any additional gasoline reductions in gasoline sulfur 
content. The impact of sulfur reduction on the effectiveness of the 
available technology improvements plays such a large role in achieving 
the Tier 3 levels that there would be no reasonable basis to expect 
that technology would be available, at the 30 ppm sulfur level, to fill 
the emission control gap left from no sulfur reduction, and achieve the 
very significant fleetwide reductions needed to meet the Tier 3 fleet 
average standards. In effect reducing sulfur from

[[Page 23474]]

30 ppm to 10 ppm has such a large impact on the ability of the 
technology improvements to achieve Tier 3 emissions levels that absent 
these sulfur reductions there is not a suite of technology advancements 
available to fill the resulting gap in emissions reductions. We cannot 
identify a technology path for vehicles that would achieve the Tier 3 
Bin 30 average standard, across the fleet, with sulfur at 30 ppm 
levels, and as a result Tier 3 levels would not be technically feasible 
and achievable.
    This analysis also applies to gasoline sulfur levels between 10 and 
30 ppm, e.g., 20 ppm. The Tier 3 required emissions reductions are so 
large and widespread across the fleet, and the technology challenges 
are sufficiently high, especially for heavier vehicles, that the large 
increase in emissions that would occur from a higher average sulfur 
level compared to a 10 ppm average would lead to an inability for 
vehicle technologies to widely achieve Tier 3 levels as a fleet wide 
average in order to meet the Bin 30 fleet average standard.
    EPA acknowledges that some models in the light-duty fleet, when 
viewed in isolation, may be able to achieve Tier 3 levels at current 
sulfur levels of 30 ppm average. Under the Tier 3 fleet average 
standards, it is not sufficient for one or a few of a manufacturer's 
vehicle models to meet Tier 3 levels because the manufacturer's light-
duty vehicle fleet as a whole must achieve the Tier 3 30 mg/mi exhaust 
emissions standard as a fleet-wide average. As discussed above, all 
vehicle models will need to achieve further reductions and be either 
below or no more than somewhat above Tier 3 levels to achieve the Tier 
3 standard as a fleet wide average. Absent the reductions in sulfur 
levels to 10 ppm average, this is not achievable from a technology 
perspective.
    As discussed in Section V.B, the average 10 ppm gasoline sulfur 
standard is feasible and is the level that appropriately balances costs 
with the emission reductions that it provides and enables. Not only 
will a 10 ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to certify 
their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average 
standards, but reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will better enable 
these vehicles to maintain their emission performance in-use over their 
full useful life. Higher sulfur levels would make it impossible for 
vehicle manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards, and would forego 
the very large immediate reductions from the existing fleet. Reducing 
the sulfur level below 10 ppm would further reduce vehicle emissions 
and allow the Tier 3 vehicle standards to be achieved more easily. 
However, we believe that a 10 ppm average standard is sufficient to 
allow vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards. Further, as discussed in 
Sections V.B and IX.B there are significant challenges associated with 
reducing sulfur below 10 ppm.
7. Other Provisions
a. Early Credits
    The California LEV III program is scheduled to begin at least two 
model years earlier than the federal Tier 3 program.\322\ The Tier 3 
standards begin in MY 2017 for vehicles 6,000 lbs GVWR and less, and in 
MY 2018 for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR. As a result, LEV III vehicles 
sold in California beginning in MY 2015 will be required to meet a 
lower fleet average NMOG+NOX level than the federal fleet 
will be meeting at that time. In addition, the California 
NMOG+NOX standards will further decline before Tier 3 
begins, resulting in the gap growing between the current federal 
program and LEV III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ See California Low-Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 
regulations adopted by the State of California Air Resources Board, 
March 22, 2012, Resolution 12-21 incorporating by reference 
Resolution 12-11, which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm 
(last accessed December 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are finalizing an early credit program that with minor revisions 
is as we proposed. We have designed the early credit provisions to 
accomplish three goals: (1) To encourage manufacturers to produce a 
cleaner federal fleet earlier than otherwise required; (2) to provide 
valuable flexibility to the manufacturers to facilitate the significant 
``step down'' from the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average required in 
MY 2016 to the LEV III-based declining fleet average in MY 2017; and 
(3) to create an overall Tier 3 program that although starts later, is 
equivalent in stringency to the LEV III program such that manufacturers 
will be able to produce a 50-state fleet at the earliest opportunity. 
Commenters were generally supportive of or silent on the early credits 
program as proposed.
    The early credit program we are finalizing includes several 
distinct provisions. The first provision allows manufacturers to 
generate early federal credits against the current Tier 2 Bin 5 
requirement \323\ in MYs 2015 and 2016 for vehicles under 6,000 lbs 
GVWR and MYs 2016 and 2017 for vehicles greater than 6,000 lbs GVWR. 
Early credits will only be available to manufacturers that comply under 
the primary program (declining fleet average), not the alternative 
phase-in approach (Section IV.A.2.c above). In order to generate these 
credits, manufacturers sum the bin specific NMOG and NOX 
certification standards for each federally certified Tier 2 vehicle and 
the bin NMOG+NOX standards for any vehicle certified under 
the Early Tier 3 provision described below and calculate an 
NMOG+NOX fleet average for the entire manufacturers fleet 
sold in a model year. Credits are based on how far the fleet average is 
below the existing Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement (160 mg/mi total of NMOG 
and NOX). We expect that manufacturers will be able to 
achieve a fleetwide average below the Tier 2 Bin 5 level by several 
means, such as certifying LEV III vehicles either under Tier 2 or as 
Early Tier 3 vehicles under Tier 3 (discussed in the next section) to 
bin levels lower than Tier 2 Bin 5. Our analysis, presented in Section 
IV.A.5 above and Chapter 1 of the RIA, shows that manufacturers could 
certify many vehicles currently certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 to a lower 
bin--e.g., to Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4--by simply accepting a relatively 
small reduction in compliance margins. Many manufacturers certify Tier 
2 vehicles to Tier 2 Bin 5 but also certify the same vehicle to a 
cleaner emission standard under the LEV II program (e.g. ULEV) with 
only a compliance margin difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of 
NMOG+NOX. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in 
NMOG+NOX terms is equal to 160 mg/mi (90 mg/mi NMOG + 70 
mg/mi NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that the early credit provision will help us realize 
both our first and second goals presented above. For example, a 
manufacturer certifying their federal fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 will earn 
50 mg/mi of NMOG+NOX credits per vehicle (i.e., 160 mg/mi 
minus 110 mg/mi), which we believe will encourage manufacturers to 
certify a cleaner federal fleet and provide a reasonable opportunity 
for credit generation to facilitate the ``step down'' in stringency.
    At the same time, if we allowed manufacturers to generate excessive 
early credits, manufacturers might thereby delay their compliance with 
the Tier 3 program, and thus the harmonization with LEV III, for 
several years. This would be in direct conflict with our third goal of 
creating a program of equal stringency to the California program as 
early as possible. In order to address this concern, we proposed and 
are finalizing a provision limiting the application of the early Tier 3 
credits to the following conditions:
     Early Tier 3 credits generated as described above could be 
used without limitation in MY 2017 on the portion of

[[Page 23475]]

the fleet entering the Tier 3 program in that MY.
     Credits used for compliance in MY 2018 and beyond will be 
capped at an amount equal to the lesser of the manufacturer's federal 
credits as calculated above or the manufacturer's LEV III credits 
scaled up by the ratio of 50-state sales to California and LEV III 
required states sales. This limitation accounts for the fact that some 
LEV III credits may have begun to expire and will no longer be eligible 
as a basis for Tier 3 early credits.
    By capping the available federal Tier 3 early credits, we believe 
that the two programs, LEV III and Tier 3 will be at parity in terms of 
relative stringency starting in MY 2018. In addition, because the 
number of Tier 3 early credits that can be used is based on the number 
of LEV III credits that the manufacturer has generated, there may be 
additional motivation for manufacturers to over-perform in California 
during the initial model years, accelerating emission reduction 
benefits.
    Finally, we are adopting, as proposed, a limitation on the life of 
Tier 3 early credits to 5 years, with no discounting, consistent with 
the California LEV III program.
b. Early Tier 3 Compliance
    We are finalizing, as proposed, the requirement that manufacturers 
begin the Tier 3 program in MY 2017 for vehicles up to 6,000 lbs GVWR 
and MY 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR under the primary phase-
in. The only proposed compliance approach available prior to MY 2017 
was for manufacturers to continue to certify vehicles to the existing 
Tier 2 standards with the opportunity to earn early credits (see 
previous section) that could be used in MY 2017 and later.
    Several auto industry commenters suggested additional provisions 
that could facilitate earlier harmonization between Tier 3 and LEV III 
and streamlining of development and certification of vehicle models. 
Specifically, these commenters requested the ability to have vehicles 
certified to the Tier 3 standards in MYs 2015 and 2016. They commented 
that this would allow them to develop, certify and sell a vehicle model 
for all 50 states, reducing the complexity of potentially different 
federal and California requirements in MYs 2015 and 2016. Additionally, 
commenters noted that the Tier 3 program provides more flexibility in 
the certification bin structure compared with the existing Tier 2, 
providing them additional opportunities to generate early credits.
    To address this concern, we are finalizing a provision to allow 
manufacturers to certify to Tier 3 standards starting in MY 2015 as 
``Early Tier 3'' vehicles. Manufacturers will have the option to 
certify their vehicle models to meet the Tier 3 emission requirements 
in MY 2015 and 2016 for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, which would have 
been required to begin in MY 2017 under the primary program. As an 
example, a manufacturer choosing to certify a vehicle as Early Tier 3 
can bring the same vehicle models certified to LEV III standards \324\ 
in MY 2015 or 2016 into the Early Tier 3 program by meeting all the 
same requirements under the primary Tier 3 schedule. There would not be 
a Tier 3 fleet average requirement for FTP or SFTP in MY 2015 or 2016 
(and 2017 for vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR and up to 8,500 and MDPVs) 
if all the same vehicle models certified to LEV III are also certified 
as the Early Tier 3 vehicles meeting the same LEV III emission 
standards and also the Tier 3 additional requirements (high altitude, 
and cold CO and hydrocarbons). These Early Tier 3 vehicles would 
replace any Tier 2 offering of the vehicle model consistent with the 
LEV III offering replacing the LEV II models. If a manufacturer chooses 
to certify only a portion of their LEV III vehicle models as Early Tier 
3 vehicles in a given MY, they will be required to meet the LEV III 
fleet average requirements in that MY for those models certified as 
Early Tier 3 vehicles. All vehicles models not certified as Early Tier 
3 vehicles must meet all Tier 2 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ Including LEV III SFTP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Useful Life
    The ``useful life'' of a vehicle is the period of time, in terms of 
years and miles, during which a manufacturer is responsible for the 
vehicle's emissions performance. For the Tier 3 program, we are 
finalizing several changes to the existing useful life provisions that 
are appropriate to the new Tier 3 standards described above.
    The auto manufacturing industry has uniformly expressed the desire 
to produce and sell a single national vehicle fleet, including a 
general ability and willingness of the industry to certify their 
vehicles to a 150,000 mile, 15 year full useful life, as required by 
the LEV III program. However, the CAA, written at a time when vehicles 
did not last as long as they do today, precludes EPA from requiring a 
useful life value longer than 120,000 miles (and 10 or 11 years, 
depending on vehicle category and weight) for lighter light-duty 
vehicles (LDVs and LDTs up to 3,750 lbs loaded vehicle weight (LVW) and 
up to 6,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., LDT1s)).
    For heavier light-duty vehicles (i.e., LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as 
MDPVs, representing a large fraction of the light-duty fleet), this 
statutory restriction does not apply, and we are finalizing a 150,000 
mile, 15 year useful life value, as proposed. For the lighter vehicles, 
we are continuing to apply the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as 
applicable) useful life requirement from the Tier 2 program, also as 
proposed. For these lighter vehicles, manufacturers are allowed to 
choose to certify to either useful life value in complying with the 
fleet average.\325\ In order for the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX 
standards to represent the same level of stringency regardless of which 
useful life value manufacturers choose, we proposed and are finalizing 
proportionally lower numerical values (85 percent of the 
NMOG+NOX 150,000 mile standards based on a data analysis in 
Chapter 1 of the RIA) for the declining fleet average FTP 
NMOG+NOX standards when a manufacturer chooses the 120,000 
mile useful life. A manufacturer choosing the 120,000 mile useful life 
for any vehicle must maintain separate 120,000 mile and 150,000 mile 
useful life fleet averages for purposes of FTP NMOG+NOX 
fleet average compliance. Credits generated towards the required fleet 
averages are not transferable between the two useful life fleet 
averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \325\ CARB has stated that they do not expect to accept vehicles 
certified under the federal Tier 3 program to a 120,000 mile useful 
life value for California certification, and thus for meeting 
California's fleet average NMOG+NOX standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed that a manufacturer that certifies any vehicle model 
under the 120,000 mile provision be required to certify all their LDVs 
and LDT1s to the 120,000 mile useful life and associated numerically 
lower FTP NMOG+NOX fleet average standard. Comments from the 
auto industry expressed a concern that this approach would be 
inflexible to manufacturers' needs and unnecessarily burdensome. We 
have considered these comments, and we believe that the emission 
benefits of Tier 3 program will not be adversely affected if 
manufacturers are allowed to certify these lighter vehicles to the 
120,000 mile useful life standards on a test group basis, and therefore 
we are finalizing this approach. Standards for all other pollutants 
\326\ and all other test cycles such as SFTP remain the same regardless 
of whether manufacturers

[[Page 23476]]

choose the 120,000 mile or the 150,000 mile useful life periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ PM, CO, and HCHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For emission standards other than PM standards (e.g., 
NMOG+NOX standards), as proposed, manufacturers will be 
required to certify all vehicles to the 150,000 mile useful life 
beginning with the first model year that a vehicle model is certified 
to the FTP NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or lower (other than vehicles not 
yet required to meet a 150,000 mile useful life during the program 
phase in, and vehicles for which a manufacturer has the option and 
chooses to apply the 120,000 mile useful life value). This useful life 
requirement will apply as early as MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all 
vehicles will need to certify to the 150,000 mile useful life for all 
emissions, regardless of NMOG+NOX certification bin, unless 
they are eligible for, and the manufacturer has chosen the 120,000 mile 
useful life and associated standards. (Note that the timing of the 
requirement to certify on the new test fuel follows the same approach 
as for the useful life requirement for emission standards other than PM 
standards (i.e., based on the first year a model is certified to FTP 
NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or below) as described in the next section.) 
For FTP and SFTP PM useful life requirements, manufacturers will be 
required to certify to 150,000 mile useful life for PM all vehicles 
that are included in the manufacturer's phase-in percentage meeting the 
new PM standards (other than eligible vehicles for which a manufacturer 
chooses to apply the 120,000 miles useful life value).
d. Test Fuels for Exhaust Criteria Emissions Standards
    We recognize that test fuels are an important element of a national 
program. Vehicle manufacturers have emphasized in their comments the 
desire to reduce their test burdens by producing one vehicle that is 
tested on a single test procedure and on a single test fuel and that 
meets both California and federal requirements. Although we have been 
able to reasonably align the Tier 3 program with the LEV III program in 
most key respects, we recognize that the Tier 3 and LEV III test fuels 
are different, and that there may still exist some differences in 
emissions performance between vehicles tested on the two fuels. The 
largest difference between the two fuels is the Reid Vapor Pressure 
(RVP), and other differences in distillation properties and aromatic 
levels also exist (largely related to differences in actual in-use fuel 
nationally and in California). We are finalizing as proposed the 
requirement that manufacturers certify vehicles on the new Tier 3 E10 
test fuels \327\ beginning with the first model year that a vehicle 
model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NOX Bin 70 or lower.\328\ 
This requirement may apply as early as MY 2017 for vehicles up to 6000 
lbs GVWR and MY 2018 for vehicles greater than 6000 lbs GVWR.\329\ This 
requirement also applies to vehicles certified at Bin 70 and lower that 
are brought into the Tier 3 program under the Early Tier 3 option 
described in IV.A.7.b above, with the exception of the specific 
provision allowing the use of LEV III fuels discussed below. Beginning 
in MY 2020, all gasoline-fueled models will need to certify on the Tier 
3 test fuels for all exhaust emission requirements, regardless of their 
certification bin.\330\ As discussed in Section IV.A.7.c above, 
manufacturers must also meet the 150,000 mile useful life requirements 
for NMOG+NOX standards for these same vehicles as they are 
certified to Bin 70 and lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ This includes fuels used for cold temperature and high 
altitude testing and durability requirements. See Section IV.F 
below.
    \328\ The lower Bins are Bin 0, Bin 20, Bin 30 and Bin 50.
    \329\ Vehicles above 6000 lb GVWR choosing the alternative 
phase-in schedules described in Section IV.A.2.c above generally 
would begin using the Tier 3 test fuels for MY2019.
    \330\ Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles will 
continue to test on the fuels used under the Tier 2 program except 
for E85 fueled vehicles, for which we are finalizing new test fuel 
specifications (see Section IV.F below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the transition period from Tier 2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and 
LEV III E10 fuels, manufacturers have indicated that they face a 
substantial workload challenge of developing and certifying each 
vehicle model to the two new fuels simultaneously. We recognize this 
transitional challenge and are including an additional option. We are 
finalizing as proposed an option that vehicles certified in MYs 2015 
through 2019 to California LEV III standards using California LEV III 
E10 certification test fuels and test procedures can be used for 
certifying to EPA Tier 2 or Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, 
including PM. A manufacturer may submit LEV III test data on vehicles 
tested using the new LEV III E10 fuels for Tier 2 or Tier 3 
certifications. Consistent with existing Tier 2 policy, EPA may test 
vehicles certified to Tier 2 standards using LEV III test results on 
Tier 2 fuel for confirmatory or in-use exhaust testing. For vehicles 
certified in MY 2017 through 2019 to Tier 3 standards using LEV III E10 
fuels, EPA will only use LEV III E10 fuels for confirmatory and in-use 
testing (except for high altitude or cold CO and hydrocarbons testing, 
as described below). Vehicles certified to the provisions of Early Tier 
3 (Section IV.A.7.b above) will be treated the same as Tier 3 vehicles 
certified in MY 2017. For example, for MY 2015 and 2016, EPA will 
consider Early Tier 3 vehicles to be part of the Tier 3 program for 
purposes of fuel-related testing obligations. We will not accept test 
results using LEV II fuels for Tier 3 vehicle certification, including 
Early Tier 3 certifications, with the exception of the PZEV exhaust 
carry-over provision described below.
    California does not have fuel specifications for high altitude 
testing or cold CO and hydrocarbon testing. For this reason, we are 
finalizing that for vehicles that manufacturers choose to certify using 
LEV III fuel and test procedures, manufacturers must use program-
specific federal test fuels to comply with these federal-only 
requirements (i.e. Tier 2 vehicles will use Tier 2 fuel and Tier 3 
vehicles will use Tier 3 fuel). Similarly, high altitude and cold CO 
and hydrocarbon confirmatory and in-use testing for these vehicles will 
be performed on the federal fuel that the manufacturer is required to 
use at certification as specified above regardless of whether LEV III 
or federal fuel is used for other testing.
    We proposed the requirement that after MY 2019, all Tier 3 
certification, confirmatory and in-use emission testing be required to 
use only the proposed Tier 3 E15 test fuel because it was believed to 
be a worst case fuel for emissions. Because we are finalizing Tier 3 
E10 test fuels which are very similar as explained above to LEV III E10 
test fuels, and not considered a worst case fuel, we are not finalizing 
the requirement for all testing to be performed on Tier 3 E10 test 
fuel. Instead, for certifications after MY 2019, EPA will continue to 
allow LEV III test results to be submitted for certification to Tier 3 
standards, consistent with protocol under the Tier 2 program. However, 
if a manufacturer chooses to submit certification results for 
compliance with Tier 3 standards using the LEV III test fuel, then for 
confirmatory and in-use testing we will hold vehicles to the Tier 3 
standards while using the Tier 3 fuel in addition to the LEV III test 
fuel; we will not allow new or carry-over certifications using LEV II 
or Tier 2 certification test fuels after MY 2019. CARB has indicated 
that they will accept Tier 3 test data (on federal certification test 
fuels) to obtain a California certificate as early as MY 2015. In this 
manner manufacturers should be able to avoid compliance testing on more 
than one fuel, since vehicles certified to Interim or Final

[[Page 23477]]

Tier 3 status using federal certification test fuels could also obtain 
LEV III certification.
    Auto industry commenters noted that the LEV III program provides an 
allowance for manufacturers to carry over PZEV-certified vehicle 
exhaust data \331\ from the LEV II program into LEV III compliance in 
MY 2015 through MY 2019. Thus, CARB allows these PZEV vehicles to use 
emission testing results using LEV II fuel (i.e. California Phase II 
test fuel) to meet the LEV III obligations. The commenters suggested 
that EPA allow manufacturers to carry over such PZEV 150,000 mile 
useful life exhaust emission data to meet the Tier 3 standards. We 
agree that this approach is appropriate during the transition, and we 
are finalizing this provision for MY 2015 through MY 2019, including 
allowing Early Tier 3 compliance at the Bin 30 level as a combined 
NMOG+NOX standard. EPA will hold vehicles certified using 
this provision to the Tier 3 emission requirements when they are tested 
on the LEV II fuel for confirmatory and in-use. Compliance testing of 
these vehicles for all other Tier 3 obligations (i.e., high-altitude 
testing and Cold CO and hydrocarbons testing) must be performed using 
Tier 3 fuel, and these vehicles will be required to meet the Tier 3 
standards for Bin 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \331\ California's PZEV exhaust standards are the same as their 
SULEV standards and the Tier 3 Bin 30, and are certified to a 
150,000 mile useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. High Altitude Requirements
    FTP emission standards are historically designed to be applicable 
at all altitudes. Under Tier 2, the same FTP emission bin standards 
applied to vehicles tested at both low and high-altitude. However, 
fundamental physical challenges exist at high altitude resulting in 
typically higher emissions during cold starts compared with starts at 
lower altitudes (i.e., sea level), and these challenges become more 
pronounced as emission standards become more stringent. This expected 
increase in emissions is primarily due to the lower air density at 
higher altitudes. Due to the lower air density, the needed volume of 
the hot combustion exhaust required to quickly heat the catalyst in the 
first minute after a cold start is reduced. As a result, catalyst 
light-off is delayed and cold start emissions can increase. Vehicles 
under the Tier 2 program typically have had sufficient compliance 
margins to absorb this increase in emissions during testing under high-
altitude conditions. However, given the extremely low standards we are 
finalizing in Tier 3, manufacturers will have less compliance margin 
with which to address the issue.
    Under the Tier 3 program, we expect that the emission control 
technologies selected for low altitude performance will also provide 
very significant emission control at high altitude.\332\ However, as 
explained above, unique emission challenges exist with operation at 
higher altitude, often requiring manufacturers to design their emission 
controls specifically for higher altitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \332\ High-altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620 
meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude 
less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe that the impact of the fairly small fraction of 
overall U.S. driving that occurs in high altitude locations warrants a 
requirement for additional technologies to be applied specifically for 
high-altitude conditions. To avoid requiring manufacturers to use 
special high-altitude emission control technologies, we are allowing 
manufacturers limited relief for certification testing at high 
altitude, as proposed. Specifically, for sea-level certifications to 
Tier 3 Bins 20, 30, and 50, a manufacturer could comply with the next 
less-stringent bin for testing at high altitude. For example, a 
manufacturer can certify to Bin 50 for testing at high altitude versus 
Bin 30 at sea level). For vehicles certified at sea level to Bins 70 
and 125, manufacturers can comply with standards 35 mg/mi higher (e.g., 
105 mg/mi and 160 mg/mi, respectively. We are providing no high 
altitude relief for vehicles certified to Bin 160. This high altitude 
relief provision applies to all Final Tier 3 vehicles for the duration 
of the Tier 3 program.
    For intermediate altitudes that fall between the specified low and 
high altitude test conditions, the emission performance should continue 
to be representative of the controls implemented to meet standards at 
the required altitude test conditions, consistent with Tier 2 protocol. 
Any deviation in the use of these controls at the intermediate 
altitudes may be considered an AECD that must be reported by the 
manufacturer and justified as not being a defeat device.\333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ Sec.  86.1809-12 Prohibition of defeat devices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-9 presents the Tier 3 high altitude standards.

               Table IV-9--Tier 3 High Altitude Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Sea level FTP   Altitude FTP
                   Bin                     standard (mg/   standard (mg/
                                           mi NMOG+NOX)    mi NMOG+NOX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160.................................             160             160
Bin 125.................................             125             160
Bin 70..................................              70             105
Bin 50..................................              50              70
Bin 30..................................              30              50
Bin 20..................................              20              30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Highway Test Standards
    Sustained high-speed operation can result in NOX 
emissions that may not be represented on either the FTP or SFTP cycles. 
Although we are not aware of any serious issues with this mode of 
operation with current Tier 2 vehicles, we are interested in preventing 
increases in these NOX emissions as manufacturers develop 
new or improved engine and emission control technologies.
    For this reason, we are finalizing, as proposed, a provision that 
the Tier 3 FTP NMOG+NOX standards above also apply on the 
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), which is performed as a part of GHG 
and Fuel Economy compliance testing. Thus, the Tier 3 FTP 
NMOG+NOX standard for the bin at which a manufacturer has 
chosen to certify a vehicle will also apply on the HFET test. For 
example, if a manufacturer certifies a vehicle to Bin 70, the vehicle's 
NMOG+NOX performance over the HFET could not exceed 70 mg/
mi. Manufacturers will simply need to ensure that the same emission 
control strategies implemented for the FTP and SFTP cycles are also 
effective during the highway test cycle. We believe that this 
requirement will not require manufacturers to take any unique 
technological action, will not add technology costs, and will not add 
significantly to the certification burden.
g. Interim 4,000 Mile SFTP Standards
    During the period of the declining NMOG+NOX standards, 
we are finalizing the proposed requirement that interim Tier 3 vehicles 
meet 4,000 mile SFTP standards, consistent with the existing Tier 2 and 
LEV II program requirements. The 4,000 mile standards apply to each 
vehicle model individually and to each component of the SFTP composite 
cycle. This approach is designed to prevent excessive emission levels 
from individual vehicle models being masked by the averaging of the 
manufacturer's fleet emissions. Similarly, this approach also prevents 
poor performance on a

[[Page 23478]]

single cycle of the SFTP. We believe it is appropriate to require any 
individual Interim Tier 3 vehicle to at a minimum meet the existing 
requirements under the Tier 2 and LEV II programs. Table IV-10 below 
presents the 4,000 mile SFTP standards for interim Tier 3 vehicles.

                   Table IV-10--4,000 Mile SFTP Exhaust Standards for Interim Tier 3 Vehicles
                                                  [grams/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                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 vehicles 
(i.e., they meet the Tier 3 PM requirements, specifically the stringent 
SFTP PM standards) will have sufficiently robust designs that the 4,000 
mile SFTP standards will no longer be necessary and so will not apply 
to those vehicles. Additionally, once the program reaches the fully 
phased-in fleet average composite standard of 50 mg/mi in 2025, high 
SFTP emissions even on a limited portion of a manufacturer's fleet 
should be effectively mitigated, and the 4,000 mile SFTP standards will 
no longer apply.
h. Phase-In Schedule
    As proposed, the major provisions of the Tier 3 program phase in 
based on model year and on the emission levels to which manufacturers 
certify their vehicles. As described in Section IV.A.3, under the Tier 
3 program, manufacturers are required to certify each vehicle model to 
an FTP bin, which is then used to calculate the NMOG+NOX 
fleet average of all of its Tier 3 vehicles. Manufacturers must also 
determine the SFTP levels of each model and calculate the 
NMOG+NOX fleet average for the SFTP requirements as 
described in Section IV.A.4. These separate FTP and SFTP fleet average 
calculations satisfy one aspect of certification under the Tier 3 
program, specifically the standards associated with each model year.
    As described in Sections IV.A.7.c and IV.A.7.d above, the longer 
(150,000 mile) useful life value, as applicable, and the new Tier 3 
test fuel for exhaust testing will be implemented as manufacturers 
certify vehicles to more stringent NMOG+NOX standards, with 
the threshold to implement both of these provisions being Bin 70. 
Beginning in MY 2017, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lower will be 
required to be certified on Tier 3 test fuel. In addition, any vehicle 
certified to Bin 70 or lower that is required to meet the longer 
150,000 mile useful life will be required to do so at that point. 
Independent of the Tier 3 test fuel phase in schedule, the 150,000 mile 
useful life for PM standards will be required when the vehicle is 
certified to the new Tier 3 PM standards as described below in the PM 
phase-in schedules. Beginning in MY 2020, all gasoline-fueled vehicles 
will be required to be certified for exhaust emissions on the Tier 3 
test fuel, regardless of their certification bin or applicable useful 
life.
    Manufacturers must also comply with more stringent PM standards on 
a percent phase-in schedule. Compliance with the PM standards, which is 
consistent with the CARB LEV III program, is independent of the 
NMOG+NOX fleet average requirements described above. The PM 
emission standards for FTP and SFTP described in Section IV.A.3 and 4 
respectively will be implemented as a percent phase-in requirement as 
described below under a primary phase-in schedule or under an optional 
phase-in schedule.
    Vehicle models that a manufacturer certifies to a Tier 3 
NMOG+NOX bin, that meet the requirements of the PM phase-in 
schedule, and that comply with the other Tier 3 requirements (i.e., 
150,000 mile useful life and Tier 3 test fuel, as applicable) will be 
considered ``Final Tier 3'' compliant vehicles. All other vehicles 
certified to Tier 3 bins but not yet meeting the PM and other Tier 3 
requirements will be considered ``Interim Tier 3'' compliant vehicles. 
At the completion of the percent phase-in period for PM (2021 for the 
primary PM phase-in schedule and 2022 for the optional PM phase-in 
schedule, as described below), 100 percent of vehicles will need to 
meet all of the Tier 3 requirements and will be considered Final Tier 3 
vehicles.
    As proposed, for the PM requirements, each model year manufacturers 
must meet either the primary PM percent phase-in or the optional PM 
phase-in as described in the following subsections. The primary percent 
PM phase-in schedule is composed of fixed annual minimum phase-in 
percentages that we expect most manufacturers to choose in order to 
comply with the Tier 3 requirements. The optional PM phase-in schedule 
provides additional flexibility for manufacturers with too few product 
offerings to allow for a sufficiently gradual transition into the Final 
Tier 3 requirements, as described below. In either case, Interim Tier 3 
vehicles not yet meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must at a minimum meet 
the Tier 2 PM full useful life FTP PM standard of 10 mg/mi and the SFTP 
PM weighted composite standard of 70 mg/mi.
i. Primary PM Percent Phase-In Schedule
    It is important to note that the percent phase-in of the new Tier 3 
PM standards and the declining fleet average NMOG+NOX 
standards that we are finalizing are separate and independent elements 
of the Tier 3 program. ``Phase-in'' in the context of Tier 3 PM 
standards means the fraction of a manufacturer's fleet that is required 
to meet the new Tier 3 PM standards in a given model year. We expect 
that manufacturer fleets may consist of a mix of vehicle models 
certified to Tier 2, LEV II, LEV III and Tier 3 standards throughout 
the percent phase-in period.
    As discussed above, vehicles originally certified to Tier 2, LEV 
II, and LEV III may be carried over into the Tier 3 program as Interim 
Tier 3 vehicles. A vehicle will be considered a Final Tier 3 vehicle 
when it is certified to one of the Tier 3 bins, meets the new Tier 3 PM 
standards for FTP (3mg/mi) and US06 (10 or 6 mg/mi), certifies to the 
150,000 useful life value (as applicable), and certifies on the new 
Tier 3 test fuel. Table IV-11 below presents the PM phase-in schedule 
for Final Tier 3 vehicles.

[[Page 23479]]

                                               Table IV-11--PM Phase-In Schedule for Final Tier 3 Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Model year                              2017                      2018            2019            2020            2021       2022 and later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer's Fleet (%)............  20 a..............................              20              40              70             100             100
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Types.......................  X
    The Tier 3 emission standards will require a substantial migration 
of emission control technology historically used only on a small 
percent of the fleet and typically limited to smaller vehicles and 
engines. While we believe that these technologies can generally be used 
on any vehicle and are applicable to the entire fleet, manufacturers 
have less experience with the in-use performance of these technologies 
across the fleet. For example, technologies that accelerate catalyst 
warm-up such as catalyst location close to the engine exhaust ports and 
other advanced thermal management approaches will be new to certain 
vehicle types, particularly larger vehicles (i.e., LDT3/4s), which have 
historically not relied on these technologies to meet emission 
standards.
    As proposed, to help manufacturers address the lack of in-use 
experience and associated challenges with the expanded introduction of 
these technologies, particularly in the larger vehicles, we are 
finalizing temporarily-relaxed in-use NMOG+NOX standards 
that will apply to all vehicles certified to Bins 70 and cleaner as 
Interim or Final Tier 3 vehicles. The in-use standards will apply 
during the entire percent phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021). The 
in-use standards are 40 percent less stringent than the certification 
standards, providing a significant but reasonable temporary cushion for 
the uncertainties associated with new technologies (or new applications 
of existing technologies) over the life of the vehicles.
    The in-use NMOG+NOX standards are shown in Table IV-12.

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

ii. PM
    As with the NMOG+NOX standards, the introduction of new 
emission control technologies or new applications of existing 
technologies (e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized engines) will create 
significant uncertainties for manufacturers about in-use performance 
over the vehicle's useful life. We are finalizing as proposed a 
temporary in-use FTP standard for PM of 6 mg/mi for all light duty 
vehicles certified to the Tier 3 full useful life 3 mg/mi standard. 
Since the Tier 3 FTP PM standard has a percent phase-in schedule spread 
over several years, starting in 2017 with full phase-in completed in 
2022, we are finalizing the requirement that the in-use standard apply 
to all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire 
percent phase-in period (i.e., through MY 2021).
    We also proposed temporarily-relaxed in-use US06 PM standards. As 
described

[[Page 23480]]

in Section IV.A.4.b above, we are finalizing an in-use US06 PM standard 
of 10 mg/mi for the intermediate years of the program (MYs 2019 through 
2023) in response to industry concerns about emissions variability as 
the new standards become effective.
j. FFVs
    Because of the physical and chemical differences in how emissions 
are generated and controlled between vehicles operating on different 
blends of gasoline and ethanol, manufacturers of vehicles designed for 
high-percentage blends of ethanol (usually called Flexible Fuel 
Vehicles, or FFVs) may face unique compliance challenges under the Tier 
3 program. Historically, under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have only been 
required to meet all Tier 2 emission standards, FTP and SFTP, while 
operating on gasoline (E0); when operating on the alternative fuel 
(generally this means a blend that is nominally 85 percent ethanol, or 
E85), they have only been required to meet the FTP emission standards.
    However, E85 use may rise considerably in the future as ethanol use 
increases in response to the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Thus, as 
the Tier 3 program is implemented, it is increasingly important that 
FFVs maintain their emission performance when operating on E85 across 
different operating conditions.
    We believe that at standard test conditions, requiring 
manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards on any blend of gasoline and 
ethanol will not be significantly more challenging technologically than 
compliance on lower ethanol blends, including the E10 Tier 3 test fuel 
we are adopting. We are thus finalizing, as proposed, the requirement 
that in addition to complying with the Tier 3 requirements when 
operating on Tier 3 test fuel, FFVs also comply with both the FTP and 
the SFTP emission standards when operating on E85. This includes the 
requirement to meet emission standards for both Tier 3 test fuel and 
E85 for the FTP, highway test, and SFTP emission standards at standard 
test temperatures (i.e., 68 [deg]F to 86 [deg]F). Since FFVs can 
operate on any blend of gasoline and ethanol (up to a nominal 85 
percent ethanol), the emission requirements apply to operation at all 
levels of the alternative fuel that can be achieved with commercially 
available fuels. However, for exhaust emission compliance demonstration 
purposes, we will test on Tier 3 test fuel and on fuel with the highest 
available ethanol content.
k. Credit for Direct Ozone Reduction (DOR) Technology
    Since the late 1990s, technologies have been commercialized with 
which vehicles can remove ozone from the air that flows over the 
vehicle's coolant radiator. In such direct ozone reduction (DOR) 
technology, a catalytic coating on the radiator is designed to convert 
ambient ozone into gaseous oxygen, as a way of addressing the air 
quality concerns about ozone. Detailed technical analyses for the 
California LEV II and the federal Tier 2 programs showed that when 
properly designed these systems can remove sufficient ozone from the 
air to be equivalent to a quantifiable reduction in tailpipe NMOG 
emissions. In the earlier programs, both California and EPA provided 
methodologies through which a manufacturer could demonstrate the 
capability and effectiveness of the ozone-reducing technology and be 
granted an NMOG credit. A small number of vehicle models with DOR 
applications received credit under the LEV II program; no manufacturer 
formally applied for credits under the federal Tier 2 program.
    Some manufacturers have expressed an interest in the continued 
availability of a DOR credit as a part of their potential LEV III and 
Tier 3 compliance strategies. EPA believes that when a DOR system is 
shown to be effective in reducing ozone, a credit toward Tier 3 
compliance is warranted. We are finalizing a provision, as proposed, 
that manufacturers following the California methodology for 
demonstrating effectiveness and calculating a appropriate credit for a 
DOR system be granted a specific credit toward the NMOG portion of the 
NMOG+NOX standard.\334\ As with the California program, such 
a credit may not exceed 5 mg/mi NMOG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR methodology by 
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

l. Credit for Adopting a 150,000-Mile Emissions Warranty
    Under the Tier 3 standards, manufacturers are expected to design 
their emission control systems to continue to operate effectively for a 
useful life of 150,000 miles (120,000 miles for some smaller vehicles). 
However, manufacturers are only required to replace failed emission 
control components or systems on customers' vehicles for a limited time 
period, specified in the Clean Air Act (80,000 miles/8 years for key 
emission control components). EPA believes that voluntary extension of 
this warranty obligation by manufacturers would provide additional 
emission reductions by helping ensure that controls continue to operate 
effectively in actual operation through the full life of the vehicle.
    We are finalizing as proposed that a manufacturer providing its 
customers with a robust emission control system warranty of 15 years or 
150,000 miles be eligible for a modest credit of 5 mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX.\335\ Because of the significant liability that 
manufacturers would be accepting, we do not expect that the use of this 
credit opportunity will be widespread. However, based on our modeling 
of the expected deterioration of the emissions of future Tier 3 
vehicles absent repair/replacement of failed emission controls, we 
anticipate that the value to the environment of long emissions 
warranties in terms of reduced real-world emissions would significantly 
exceed the 5 mg/mi NMOG+NOX credit.\336\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \335\ Manufacturers choosing to comply with the standards for a 
120,000 mile useful life for their LDVs and LDT1s are not eligible 
for this extended warranty credit for those vehicles.
    \336\ Beardsley, M, et al. (2013, February). Updates to MOVES 
for the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will use the same criteria for approving such a credit as does 
the parallel California program.\337\ Thus, in addition to committing 
to customers that failing emission controls will be repaired or 
replaced for 15 years/150,000 miles, manufacturers will also need to 
accept the liability that in the event that a specific emissions 
control device fails on greater than 4 percent of a vehicle model's 
production, they will recall the entire production of that model for 
repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \337\ EPA is incorporating the CARB extended emission warranty 
provisions by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

m. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of Credits
    We proposed and are finalizing an averaging, banking, and trading 
(ABT) program similar to those that have historically been a part of 
most EPA emission control programs. For the Tier 3 final rule, the ABT 
program is consistent with the other Tier 3 program elements, the heavy 
duty exhaust emission standards and the evaporative emission standards 
programs, with the only exception being credit life during the longer 
phase in for the light duty program as described below. The ABT program 
is intended to provide an opportunity for manufacturers to deploy their 
Tier 3 vehicle models more efficiently, especially during the 
transition years, and to avoid excessive delays in the necessary 
technological improvements across the fleet. We have

[[Page 23481]]

designed the Tier 3 ABT program to provide for credits to be generated 
by certifying vehicles that perform better than the fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX standards. These credits may be used within a 
company to offset vehicles that perform worse than the standards, they 
may be banked for later use, or they may be traded to other 
manufacturers.
    We are also finalizing limitations on the use of credits for the 
light-duty fleet. We proposed that Tier 3 credits expire after 5 model 
years following the model year they are generated and solicited comment 
on the Tier 3 credit life. In communications regarding the proposed 
rule, representatives of the auto industry expressed to EPA that the 
value of the ABT program during the MY 2017-2025 phase-in of the 
primary program would be improved if credits had a longer credit 
life.\338\ We determined that, with certain restrictions, Tier 3 credit 
life can be temporarily extended with no adverse impacts on the overall 
emission reductions of the program. Specifically, we are finalizing a 
credit life of 8 years for credits generated in MYs 2017-2022 for the 
FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX fleet average standards for the 
primary program only. For the heavier light-duty vehicles, the 8-year 
credit life begins for credits generated in MY 2018. Note that, as 
proposed, credits generated under the Early Tier 3 Credit provision 
(Section IV.A.7.a) are limited to 5-year life, and are not affected by 
the longer credit life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ Passavant, G. (January 2014), Meetings with Chrysler--Tier 
3 NPRM Lead Time and ABT, Memorandum to Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For credits generated in MYs 2023-2025, the credit life declines by 
one year of credit life annually, with credit life stabilizing at 5 
years for credits generated in MYs 2025 and later. That is, credits 
generated in MY 2023 have a 7-year life, in MY 2024 a 6-year life, and 
in MY 2025 and later a 5-year life. However, while credits can be 
generated, banked, and used internally for the extended time periods, 
credits cannot be traded to other manufacturers after 5 years.
    After considering the views expressed by manufacturers as well as 
the implementation schedules of this Tier 3 rule and the 2017 light-
duty GHG rule, we believe that the temporary up-to-8-year credit life 
available to manufacturers during the phase-in period provides 
substantial flexibility to address manufacturer uncertainties about 
future technology development and product planning during 
implementation of the Tier 3 program. We also believe this longer 
credit life provision will alleviate most if not all concerns expressed 
by manufacturers with respect to the challenges they may encounter by 
simultaneous implementation of the two programs.
    As proposed, we are finalizing a provision for a manufacturer to 
create a credit deficit, at certification or at the end of the 
production year, if its fleet average emissions exceed the standard. A 
manufacturer would be required to use all of its banked credits, if 
any, before creating a credit deficit. A credit deficit would need to 
be resolved before the fourth model year after the deficit was created; 
that is, a manufacturer may not maintain a credit deficit more than 3 
consecutive model years.
n. Tier 3 Transitional Emissions Bins
    During the development of the proposed rule and in their comments, 
manufacturers pointed out that they may continue to produce some 
vehicles as late as MY 2019 that could be certified to Tier 2 Bin 3 or 
Bin 4 standards. In order to provide manufacturers flexibility in 
meeting the fleet average standards and to further facilitate the 
transition, we will allow manufacturers to certify to the combined 
NMOG+NOX levels of these Tier 2 bins through MY 2019. We are 
finalizing two transitional Tier 3 bins, Bin 110 and Bin 85, that have 
FTP NMOG+NOX standards of 110 mg/mi and 85 mg/mi, 
respectively (i.e., the sum of the NMOG and NOX values from 
the Tier 2 bins). The associated FTP standards for CO, PM, and HCHO 
corresponding to these bins are identical to those for vehicles 
certified to the Tier 3 Bin 125. Tier 3 SFTP standards will apply to 
these vehicles, and these vehicles will be included in the Tier 3 PM 
percent phase-in calculations.
o. Compliance Demonstration
    In general, we are finalizing requirements that manufacturers 
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 light-duty vehicle emission 
standards in a very similar manner to existing Tier 2 vehicle 
compliance (see Sec.  86.1860 of the regulatory language). However, for 
Tier 3, manufacturers must calculate their compliance with the fleet 
average standards and percent phase-in standards based on annual 
nationwide sales, including sales in California and Clean Air Act 
Section 177 states. We believe that this approach represents another 
step toward achieving the goal of an effectively nationwide program as 
early as possible, which has been a basic principle in EPA's 
development of this program and broadly supported by vehicle 
manufacturers. We also believe that basing compliance on nationwide 
sales may reduce the need for manufacturers to project future sales and 
track past years' sales in a disaggregated way. Because the Tier 3 
provisions become increasingly consistent with LEV III provisions as 
the Tier 3 program phases in, we believe that any disproportionate 
impacts of different mixes of vehicles in different states are unlikely 
to occur.
    This nationwide compliance calculation approach applies to vehicles 
as they become subject to the Tier 3 provisions, either the declining 
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.

B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles

1. Overview and Scope of Vehicles Regulated
    After considering the comments we received, we are adopting the 
Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards that we proposed for chassis-
certified heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) between 8501 and 14,000 lbs gross 
vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Vehicles in this GVWR range are often 
referred to as Class 2b (8501-10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001-14,000 
lbs) vehicles, and are typically full-size pickup trucks and work vans 
certified as complete vehicles.\339\ Medium-duty passenger vehicles 
(MDPVs), although in the Class 2b GVWR range, are subject to Tier 3 
standards discussed in Section IV.A. To a large extent, we are also 
adopting the Tier 3 certification testing and compliance provisions 
that we proposed for HDVs. There are, however, a number of improvements 
we are making in response to comments, as discussed in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \339\ 40 CFR 86.1803-01 defines HDVs to also include motor 
vehicles at or below 8,500 lbs GVWR that have a vehicle curb weight 
of more than 6,000 lbs or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 
45 square feet, and these vehicles will also be subject to the Tier 
3 standards and other provisions applicable to Class 2b vehicles 
discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Tier 3 program for HDVs will bring substantial reductions in 
harmful emissions from this large fleet of work trucks and vans, a 
fleet that is used extensively on every part of the nation's highway, 
rural, and urban roadway system. The fully-phased in Tier 3 standards 
levels for non-methane organic gas (NMOG) plus oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX), and for particulate matter (PM), are on the order of 
60 percent lower than the current standards levels.

[[Page 23482]]

    We proposed to require that diesel-fueled Class 2b and 3 complete 
vehicles, like their gasoline-fueled counterparts, be certified to the 
Tier 3 standards on the chassis test; we also proposed to include these 
vehicles in the Tier 3 HDV averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) 
program. Currently only gasoline-fueled Class 2b/3 complete HDVs are 
required to chassis certify.
    The International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) provided 
comments in support of this requirement, arguing that it is needed to 
stop manufacturers from making trucks marginally above 8500 lbs GVWR to 
avoid light-duty emission standards. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers 
Association (EMA) opposed mandatory chassis certification for any class 
of engines or vehicles over 8500 lbs GVWR, arguing that the existing 
flexibility is needed to minimize unnecessary costs and certification 
burdens. EMA commented that, at a minimum, EPA should maintain optional 
certification of diesel engines used in complete Class 3 vehicles. In 
their joint comments, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the 
Association of Global Automakers also requested that EPA retain the 
option for complete Class 3 diesel vehicles and engines, arguing that 
otherwise manufacturers may be required to dual certify vehicle models 
that include variants both under and over 14,000 lbs.
    We are sensitive to this issue but remain concerned that the fleet 
average standard program we are finalizing would not work well if a 
major fleet component, such as complete Class 3 diesel trucks, can be 
left in or taken out of the fleet calculation based on what each 
manufacturer considers to be most advantageous. We believe the 
resulting competitive issues and uncertainties would be problematic, 
given the wide variance in gasoline/diesel HDV sales among the 
manufacturers, our provision for averaging across each manufacturers' 
entire Class 2b/3 fleet, and the overwhelming preponderance of diesels 
in the Class 3 market. It would also create uncertainties in the Tier 3 
environmental benefits, given the pronounced difference between these 
Tier 3 standards and the heavy-duty diesel engine standards we set 13 
years ago, which we expect to remain in effect for the foreseeable 
future.
    As a result, we are finalizing these provisions as proposed, except 
that we are providing that manufacturers, instead of certifying 
complete diesel Class 3 HDVs, may install diesel engines that have been 
engine-certified for any model year that the engine family has less 
than half of its sales being installed in such non-chassis-certified 
complete Class 3 vehicles. For example, if a company has a certified 
diesel engine family with 10,001 sales in MY 2020, up to 5,000 of those 
engines may be installed in complete Class 3 HDVs that are not chassis-
certified for exhaust emissions. This provision is intended to help 
address manufacturers' concern about dual certification, while at the 
same time ensuring a coherent fleetwide standards regimen in this 
vehicle class. It also better harmonizes with California's low-emission 
vehicle (LEV) III program which does not mandate chassis certification 
for diesel Class 3 vehicles. By only allowing engine-certified vehicles 
in the case of engines that are primarily produced for other purposes, 
we believe this approach adequately guards against potential abuse. In 
the case of complete diesel Class 3 HDVs produced by a company other 
than the engine certifier, the responsibility for ensuring the sales 
limit is not exceeded remains with the vehicle manufacturer, who will 
need to coordinate with the engine supplier to ensure compliance.
    Manufacturers of incomplete HDVs that are sold to secondary 
manufacturers for subsequent completion (less than 10 percent of the 
Class 2b and 3 U.S. market) are also allowed under existing EPA 
regulations to certify via either the chassis or engine test, and those 
who choose to chassis-certify in the future will be subject to Tier 3 
requirements. We asked for comment on mandating chassis certification 
of incomplete Class 2b and 3 vehicles, noting that California's LEV III 
program includes such a requirement for Class 2b. Commenters expressed 
opposition to this extension of mandatory chassis certification, 
despite their general support for harmonization with LEV III; as a 
result, we are not mandating chassis certification for any incomplete 
HDVs.
    The key elements of the Tier 3 program for HDVs parallel those for 
passenger cars and light-duty trucks (LDTs), with adjustments in 
standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation 
schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key elements include:
     A combined NMOG+NOX declining fleet average 
standard beginning in 2018 and reaching the final, fully phased-in 
level in 2022,
     creation of a bin structure for standards, including 
standards for carbon monoxide (CO) and formaldehyde,
     PM standards phasing in separately on a percent-of-sales 
basis,
     changes to the test fuel for gasoline- and ethanol-fueled 
vehicles,
     extension of the regulatory useful life to 150,000 miles,
     a new requirement to meet standards over the supplemental 
federal test procedure (SFTP) that addresses real-world driving modes 
not well-represented by the federal test procedure (FTP) cycle alone, 
and
     special flexibility provisions for small businesses and 
small volume manufacturers described in Section IV.G.
    As in the light-duty Tier 3 program, we have put a strong emphasis 
on coordinating HDV Tier 3 program elements with California's LEV III 
program for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, referred to in LEV III as medium-
duty vehicles (MDVs). The goal is to create a coordinated ``national 
program'' in which California would accept compliance with Tier 3 
standards as sufficient to also satisfy LEV III requirements, thus 
allowing manufacturers to comply nationwide by marketing a single 
vehicle fleet. As part of this effort, we proposed that manufacturers 
of Tier 3 HDVs calculate compliance with the fleet average standards 
and percent phase-in standards based on annual nationwide sales, 
including sales in California and in states implementing California 
standards under Clean Air Act section 177. Commenters expressed 
emphatic support for this approach and we are finalizing it as a key 
element of the Tier 3 program.
2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
a. Bin Standards
    Manufacturers will certify HDVs to Tier 3 requirements by having 
them meet the standards for NMOG+NOX, PM, CO and 
formaldehyde for one of the bins listed in Table IV-13. Manufacturers 
choose bins for their vehicles based on their product plans and 
corporate strategy for compliance with the fleet average standards 
discussed in Section IV.B.2.b, and once a vehicle's bin is designated, 
those bin standards apply throughout its useful life. Because the fleet 
average standards become more stringent over time, the bin mix will 
gradually shift from higher to lower bins.
    As in the past, there are numerically higher standards levels for 
Class 3 vehicles than for Class 2b vehicles, reflective of the added 
challenge in reducing per-mile emissions from large work trucks 
designed to carry and tow heavier loads. Also, the standards levels for 
both Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs are significantly higher than those 
being adopted for light-duty trucks due to marked differences in 
vehicle size and

[[Page 23483]]

capability, and to our requirement to test HDVs in a loaded condition 
(at the adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW)). By conducting emissions 
testing with loaded vehicles, the heavy-duty program ensures that 
emissions controls are effective when these vehicles are performing one 
of their core functions: hauling heavy loads. This is a key difference 
between the heavy-duty and light-duty truck programs. The bin structure 
and standards levels are consistent with those in California's LEV III 
program. We requested comment on the usefulness of creating additional 
bins between Bin 0 and the next lowest bin in each vehicle class, as a 
means of encouraging clean technologies and adding flexibility, but 
commenters saw no need for these.

                                       Table IV-13 FTP Standards for HDVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   NMOG+NOX (mg/                                   Formaldehyde
                                                        mi)         PM (mg/mi)       CO (g/mi)        (mg/mi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Class 2b (8501-10,000 lbs GVWR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 395 (interim)...............................             395               8             6.4               6
Bin 340 (interim)...............................             340               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)...............................             630              10             7.3               6
Bin 570 (interim)...............................             570              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 NMOG+NOX standards levels for the highest bins in 
each class (Class 2b Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 630) are equal to the sum 
of the current non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NOX 
standards levels that took full effect in 2009, as well as to 
equivalent LEV standards in California's LEV II program. These bins are 
intended as carryover bins. That is, we expect them to be populated 
with vehicles that are designed to meet the current standards, and that 
are being phased out as new lower-emitting vehicle designs phase in to 
satisfy the Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NOX standard. We also 
consider the next highest bins (Class 2b Bin 340 and Class 3 Bin 570) 
to be carryover bins, because they likewise can be readily achieved by 
vehicles designed for today's EPA and California LEV II emissions 
programs. As the 2018-2022 phase-in progresses, it will become 
increasingly difficult to produce vehicles in these bins and still meet 
the fleet average standard. Therefore vehicles in these bins (as well 
as some others not yet designed to meet Tier 3 PM standards described 
in Section IV.B.2.d) will be considered ``interim Tier 3'' vehicles, 
and the bins themselves will be considered ``interim bins.''
    To facilitate their use in this carryover function, the interim 
bins do not require manufacturers to meet Tier 3 exhaust emissions 
standards on the SFTP, over the longer useful life, or with the new 
gasoline test fuel discussed in Section IV.F, although testing on this 
fuel will be allowed. These requirements do apply in all other bins.
    In the context of these relaxed requirements for the interim bins, 
we proposed two additional measures to help ensure these bins are 
focused on their function of helping manufacturers transition to the 
long-term Tier 3 emissions levels. First, we proposed that the interim 
bins would be available only in the phase-in years of the program; that 
is, through model year (MY) 2021, as is appropriate to their interim 
status. Second, vehicles in the interim bins would meet separate NMOG 
and NOX standards rather than combined NMOG+NOX 
standards. The goal was to ensure that a manufacturer does not redesign 
or recalibrate a vehicle model under combined NMOG+NOX Tier 
3 standards for such purposes as reducing fuel consumption, through 
means that result in higher NOX or NMOG emissions than 
exhibited by today's vehicles, contrary to the intended carryover 
function of the interim bins. Industry commenters objected to both the 
proposed sunsetting of the interim bins and the proposed separate 
NOX and NMOG standards, arguing that they overly restrict 
manufacturer flexibility and work against harmonization with LEV III. 
However, commenters did not address EPA's concern regarding increased 
NOX emissions at the interim bin levels.
    After considering the comments, we believe a modified approach to 
the interim bins can at least partly address the industry concerns 
regarding harmonization while still precluding backsliding on 
NOX levels. We are finalizing the interim bins with combined 
NMOG+NOX standards as requested by the commenters, but are 
adopting a restriction on deterioration-adjusted NOX levels 
in certification testing, to the levels allowed under the current 
standards in 40 CFR 86.1816-08. These are 0.2 and 0.4 g/mi for Class 2b 
and Class 3, respectively. This restriction will not apply to vehicles 
in use, and does not impose a parallel NMOG restriction. Given our 
continuing concerns about NOX increases that would be 
allowed by the combined standards at the interim bin levels, we believe 
that this approach and the associated certification burden are 
reasonable, noting that manufacturers already must obtain 
NOX test results in certifying to an NMOG+NOX 
standard, and the differing NOX and NMOG deterioration 
mechanisms will likely dictate that they be considered separately in 
obtaining deteriorated NMOG+NOX levels for certification.
    We believe that making the interim bins available indefinitely 
would run counter to their limited purpose as an aid to making the 
transition to Tier 3

[[Page 23484]]

emissions levels. Making these bins permanent would, we believe, 
necessitate that they take on other key elements of the Tier 3 program 
such as longer useful life, SFTP compliance, and the use of Tier 3 test 
fuel. These requirements in turn would negate the usefulness of these 
bins in helping to carry over some pre-Tier 3 vehicle designs during 
the transition years in which the declining fleet average standard 
levels are high enough to accommodate their continued sale. By MY 2022, 
the fleetwide standard will be stringent enough to effectively 
eliminate the ability of manufacturers to use interim bins while 
meeting the declining fleet average standard levels. We are therefore 
adopting the sunsetting of the interim bins as proposed, making them 
available only through MY 2021.
b. Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
    As in the light-duty Tier 3 program, a key element of the program 
we are finalizing for HDVs is a fleet average NMOG+NOX 
standard that becomes more stringent in successive model years: in the 
case of HDVs, from 2018 to 2022. Each HDV sold by a manufacturer in 
each model year contributes to this fleet average based on the mg/mi 
NMOG+NOX level of the bin declared for it by the 
manufacturer. Manufacturers may also earn or use credits for fleet 
average NMOG+NOX levels below or above the standard in any 
model year, as described in Section IV.B.4. As proposed, we are 
adopting the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average standards 
shown in Table IV-14, though a manufacturer can effectively average the 
two fleet classes using credits (see Section IV.B.4). We believe this 
split-curve approach is superior to a single phase-in covering all HDVs 
because it recognizes the different Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes among 
manufacturers and the differing challenge in meeting mg/mi standards 
for Class 3 vehicles compared to Class 2b vehicles, while still 
allowing for a corporate compliance strategy based on a combined HDV 
fleet through the use of credits.
    We are adopting the proposed fleet average NMOG+NOX 
standards. These are consistent with those set for the LEV III MDV 
program in model years 2018 and later. As proposed, we are also 
adopting provisions allowing manufacturers to voluntarily meet bin and 
fleet average standards in model years 2016 and 2017 that are 
consistent with the MDV LEV III standards in those years, for the 
purpose of generating credits that can be used later or traded to 
others. These voluntary standards are shown in Table IV-14. This 
voluntary opt-in program serves the important purpose of furthering 
consistency between the federal and California programs, such that 
manufacturers who wish to can produce a single vehicle fleet for sale 
nationwide, with the opportunity for reciprocal certification in 
affected model years. It further incentivizes pulling ahead of Tier 3 
technologies, with resulting environmental benefits, by providing for 
early compliance credits in this nationwide fleet. Commenters expressed 
support for this harmonized array of HDV emissions standards.
    Manufacturers choosing to opt into this early compliance program 
could start in either model year 2016 or 2017. They would have to meet 
the full complement of applicable bin standards and requirements for 
the bins they choose for their vehicles in meeting the 2016/2017 MY 
fleet average FTP NMOG+NOX standards, including SFTP 
standards in the bins that have SFTP standards. However, they do not 
need to meet the Tier 3 PM FTP and SFTP standards discussed in Sections 
IV.B.2.d and IV.B.3.a, or the evaporative emissions standards discussed 
in Section IV.C, because these requirements phase in on a later 
schedule. We are not extending the voluntary compliance opportunity to 
the 2015 model year, based on manufacturer comments indicating it would 
be of little value.

                                                    Table IV-14--HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                                         [mg/mi]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Voluntary
                                                                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 the voluntary program provisions will benefit the 
environment, the regulated industry, and vehicle purchasers, because it 
has potential to accomplish early emissions reductions while 
maintaining the goal of a cost-effective, nationwide vehicle program in 
every model year going forward.
    Although manufacturers will be allowed to meet the fleet average 
NMOG+NOX standard through whatever combination of bin-
specific vehicles they choose, it is instructive to note that the fully 
phased in fleet average standard for model years 2022 and later will be 
the equivalent of a Class 2b fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 170 and 10 
percent Bin 250 vehicles, and a Class 3 fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 230 
and 10 percent Bin 400 vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to 
consider Bin 170 Class 2b vehicles and Bin 230 Class 3 vehicles to be 
representative of Tier 3-compliant HDVs in the long term.
c. Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-In
    We believe the fleet average phase-in described above will be 
flexible, effective, and highly compatible with manufacturers' desire 
to market vehicles nationwide, because of its close alignment with 
California's LEV III program for medium-duty vehicles. However, for any 
HDV manufacturers seeking four years of lead time and three years of 
stability as specified in Clean Air Act section 202(a)(3)(C), we 
proposed an alternative compliance path.\340\ This alternative approach 
was crafted to be equivalent to the NMOG+NOX declining fleet 
average in the above-described LEV III-harmonized alternative in every 
model year, except that the period for the voluntary program in the 
alternative approach would extend an extra model year--through 2018. To 
ensure that this approach meets the Act's stability requirement, 
instead of being structured around an annually declining fleet average 
standard, the alternative approach requires a manufacturer to 
demonstrate compliance (including through use of credits) with a 
schedule of annually increasing percent-of-sales of HDVs certified to 
the fully phased in 178 mg/mi (Class 2b) and 247 mg/mi (Class 3) 
standards, as shown in Table

[[Page 23485]]

IV-15. We are adopting the alternative percent-of-sales phase-in 
largely as proposed, with limited changes described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ For vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, Clean Air Act section 
202(a)(3)(C) requires EPA to provide manufacturers with a minimum of 
4 years of lead time before mandatory changes to any standard 
applicable to hydrocarbon, NOX, carbon monoxide, or PM 
can be implemented, and 3 years of stability between changes to any 
such standard.

                                               Table IV-15--Percent-of-Sales Alternative NMOG+NOX Phase-In
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Voluntary
                                                        Required program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Year.....................            2016            2017            2018        \a\ 2019            2020            2021  2022 and later.
Class 2b.......................             29%             39%             54%             65%             77%             88%  100%.
Class 3........................             21%             32%             47%             60%             73%             87%  100%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Special provisions apply to models with an early-starting 2019 model year.

    The availability of emissions averaging under our alternative 
phase-in, discussed below, makes the two alternatives functionally 
equivalent, not just in the annual emissions reductions they achieve, 
but also in how manufacturers may design their mix of products to meet 
the phase-in standards. Commenters who disagreed with this assessment 
for HDVs did not provide their reasoning, beyond referring to similar 
comments they had on the parallel light-duty (above 6000 lbs GVWR) 
alternative phase-in. However, that proposed alternative differs from 
the one we proposed for HDVs, and the elements in it that were found 
objectionable by the manufacturers are not in the HDV alternative. (See 
Section IV.A.3 for discussion of comments on the light-duty 
alternative.)
    Commenters objected that the proposed percent-of-sales alternative 
has not been shown by EPA to be feasible, or in fact is infeasible 
because it mandates the early phase-in of low-emitting vehicles 
certified to the final standards. Such comments miss the fact that, 
with ABT, every manufacturer can produce the same mix of vehicles in 
any model year to comply with either HDV phase-in alternative, with the 
exception that MY 2018 is a voluntary phase-in year under the 
alternative phase-in and a required year under the LEV III-harmonized 
phase-in. The ABT provisions enable a manufacturer to adopt a fleet 
average compliance strategy while utilizing the percent-of-sales phase-
in that is identical to what would be required under the LEV III-
harmonized phase-in's fleet average standards. By no means are 
manufacturers forced to make only vehicles certified to the final 
standards. The percent-of-sales phase-in is thereby no more stringent 
than the LEV III-harmonized phase-in, and the feasibility analysis 
provided in Section IV.B.5, which expressly addresses the LEV III-
harmonized phase-in, serves to demonstrate the feasibility of both 
alternatives.
    Some comments seem to assert that the percent-of-sales framework 
for the alternative was chosen by EPA to make this alternative so 
stringent (by requiring some vehicles to meet final standards four 
years early) that no reasonable company would use it. This is 
incorrect, both in regard to its actual effect (which as explained 
above is not more stringent), and in regard to our intent. The percent-
of-sales framework for the alternative was proposed and is being 
adopted for the purpose of providing manufacturers with a phase-in 
alternative that explicitly meets the applicable Clean Air Act 
stability requirement.
    We are making one change to the percent-of-sales alternative, 
necessitated by the fact that this final rule is being signed in 2014, 
not 2013 as envisioned in the proposal. HDV models for which the 2019 
model year begins before the fourth anniversary of the signature date 
of this final rule may be excluded from the Tier 3 fleet average 
compliance calculations and all other Tier 3 requirements. These 
excluded vehicles would instead need to comply with the applicable pre-
Tier 3 standards and requirements for the entire production of these 
models throughout the 2019 MY. This limited allowance ensures that the 
alternative meets EPA's obligation for four years of lead time under 
the Clean Air Act. It is similar to a phase-in alternative we provided 
in the light-duty vehicle Tier 2 rule (see 65 FR 6747, February 10, 
2000). Note that 40 CFR 86.1803-01 defines ``model year'' as ``the 
manufacturer's annual production period (as determined by the 
Administrator) which includes January 1 of such calendar year: Provided 
that if the manufacturer has no annual production period, the term 
`model year' shall mean the calendar year.'' Additional regulations 
pertaining to the definition of a model year are in 40 CFR 85, subpart 
X.
    This allowance remains optional within the percent-of-sales 
alternative--a manufacturer may voluntarily include these early-
starting 2019 MY vehicles in the Tier 3 program, and in this case these 
vehicles would be treated no differently under the alternative than 
vehicles with a later-starting 2019 MY, including with regard to 
whether manufacturers choose to make them part of the ``phase-in'' 
fleet (vehicles counting toward the phase-in percentages) or the 
``phase-out'' fleet (vehicles not counting toward the phase-in 
percentages).
    Although it is conceivable that manufacturers would commence an 
early start of the 2019 model year specifically for the purpose of 
delaying Tier 3 obligations, we do not think this is likely, given the 
many important constraints and decisions that typically factor into 
setting this date, and the fact that signature of this final rule is 
occurring relatively early in the calendar year, well before typical 
model year start dates. We believe this is a reasonable way to provide 
a viable percent-of-sales phase-in alternative that has four years of 
lead time without making the 2019 model year voluntary for all vehicles 
or putting new constraints on the timing of a manufacturer's model 
year.
    To help ensure that the percent-of-sales alternative is fully 
equivalent to the LEV III-harmonized alternative in terms of fleet-wide 
emissions control and technology mix choices, we are including some 
additional provisions, as proposed. First, the Tier 3 vehicles being 
phased in under the percent-of-sales alternative, in addition to 
meeting the fully phased-in FTP NMOG+NOX standards, must 
also meet all other FTP and (as described below) SFTP standards 
required by the LEV III-harmonized alternative. These include the CO 
and formaldehyde FTP standards, the 150,000 mile (15 year) useful life 
requirement, exhaust emissions testing with the new test fuel for 
gasoline- and ethanol-fueled vehicles discussed in Section IV.F, and 
the NMOG+NOX and CO SFTP standards in Table IV-16. The 
specific standards are those for the bins in these tables closest to 
the fully phased-in NMOG+NOX standards: Bin 170 for Class 2b 
and Bin 230 for Class 3. (The PM and evaporative emissions standards 
phase in on separate schedules under both alternatives, as discussed in 
Sections IV.B.2.d and IV.C.)

[[Page 23486]]

    Second, we are making an ABT program available for the percent-of-
sales alternative, structured like the one created for the LEV III-
harmonized alternative. This involves certifying the vehicles in a 
manufacturer's HDV fleet to the bin standards, and demonstrating 
compliance with the fleet average standards for the LEV III-harmonized 
alternative in each model year, including through the use of ABT 
credits as in the LEV III-harmonized alternative. We are using the 
fleet average calculation method for purposes of ABT because, as 
explained above, we have determined that making this demonstration is 
equivalent to demonstrating compliance with the percent-of-sales 
requirement, and we see no value in complicating the program with 
another set of calculations.
    However, we are establishing one difference between the LEV III-
harmonized and percent-of-sales alternatives with respect to ABT 
provisions. Unlike in the LEV III-harmonized alternative, manufacturers 
will 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 will not be subject to the Tier 3 standards or 
other vehicle-specific elements of the Tier 3 compliance program. There 
were no comments on these specific compliance and ABT provisions 
associated with the percent-of-sales alternative.
d. Phase-In of PM Standards
    Consistent with the light-duty Tier 3 program discussed in Section 
IV.A, we are phasing in the PM standards for HDVs as an increasing 
percentage of a manufacturer's production of chassis-certified HDVs 
(combined Class 2b and 3) per year. In addition to concerns regarding 
the availability and required upgrades of test facilities used for both 
light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle testing, manufacturers have expressed 
uncertainty about PM emissions with new engine and emissions control 
technologies entering the market as a result of new greenhouse gas 
(GHG) standards. Therefore we are adopting the same phase-in schedule 
as for the light-duty sector in model years 2018-2019-2020-2021: 20-40-
70-100 percent, respectively. This will apply to HDVs certified under 
either NMOG+NOX phase-in alternative. The California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) is phasing in the LEV III PM standards for HDVs 
on the same schedule, except that LEV III will also involve a 10 
percent PM phase-in in the 2017 model year. We asked for comment on our 
adding this to our voluntary program for 2017, but received no comments 
on it and are not including it in the Tier 3 program.
    For manufacturers choosing the declining fleet average 
NMOG+NOX compliance path, the PM phase-in requirement for 
HDVs will be completely independent of the NMOG+NOX phase-
in, with no requirement that both phase-ins be met on the same 
vehicles. As a result, vehicles certified to any of the bin standards 
for NMOG+NOX need not necessarily meet Tier 3 PM standards 
before the 2021 model year. Instead, the current 0.02 g/mi PM standard 
will apply for those vehicles not yet phased into the Tier 3 PM 
standards. We are requiring that manufacturers choosing the percent-of-
sales phase-in alternative for NMOG+NOX meet the PM phase-in 
requirements with only those vehicles certified to the Tier 3 
NMOG+NOX standard, except in the 2019 and earlier model 
years when the standards, including the PM standards, are voluntary, 
and in the 2021 model year when the 100 percent PM phase-in requirement 
exceeds the 87-88 percent NMOG+NOX phase-in requirement. 
This is appropriate given the ability of manufacturers to build 
``phase-out'' vehicles (those not counting toward the phase-in 
percentages) under the percent-of-sales NMOG+NOX alternative 
that are certified entirely to pre-Tier 3 standards while still 
participating in the Tier 3 ABT program, discussed above.
    We will consider any vehicle under either compliance path that is 
not certified to Tier 3 standards for PM and NMOG+NOX (as 
well as the other, concomitant Tier 3 standards and requirements such 
as the extended useful life), an ``interim Tier 3'' vehicle. This term 
also applies to vehicles certified in one of the interim bins, as 
discussed above.
    Note that compliance with Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements 
follows a separate phase-in schedule as described in Section IV.C. As a 
result, a vehicle in an exhaust emissions family that the manufacturer 
has phased in to the new useful life and test fuel requirements may be 
in an evaporative emissions family that has not yet phased in the Tier 
3 useful life and test fuel for evaporative emissions compliance and 
testing.
i. Optional PM Phase-In
    The percent-of-sales phase-in schedule for the PM standard, 
described above, will allow manufacturers with multiple vehicle models 
to determine and plan the phase-in of those models based on anticipated 
sales volumes of each model. However, manufacturers certifying only a 
few vehicle models may not be able to take meaningful advantage of this 
schedule. This is because their limited number of models may force them 
to over-comply to reach the required minimum percentages, compared to a 
manufacturer with many vehicle models available from which to choose a 
phase-in pathway.
    For instance, a manufacturer with only two models that each equally 
account for 50 percent of its sales would be required to introduce (at 
least) one of the models in MY 2018 to meet the phase-in requirement of 
20 percent in the first year. At the 50 percent level, this model would 
then also meet the requirements for MY 2019 (40 percent). To meet the 
MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the manufacturer 
would need to introduce the second Tier 3 vehicle that year. Thus the 
manufacturer would have introduced 100 percent of its Tier 3 models one 
year earlier compared to a manufacturer that was able to delay the 
final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 2021 by distributing its 
redesign of models over the entire phase-in period.
    To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all 
manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are adopting the 
proposed optional ``indexed'' phase-in schedule that could be used by a 
manufacturer to meet the phase-in requirements. A manufacturer that 
exceeds the phase-in requirements in any given year will be allowed to, 
in effect, offset some of the phase-in requirements in a later model 
year. The optional phase-in schedule will be acceptable if it passes a 
mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to provide 
manufacturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at higher 
volumes than they are obligated to under the normal phase-in schedule, 
while ensuring that the overall population of complying vehicles at the 
end of the phase-in is roughly the same as under the fixed percentage 
approach. In this alternative approach, manufacturers will weight Tier 
3 PM-compliant vehicles in the earlier years by multiplying their 
percent phase-in by the number of years prior to MY 2022 (that is, the 
second year of the 100 percent phase-in requirement).

[[Page 23487]]

    The mathematical equation for applying the optional phase-in is as 
follows:

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

where APP is the actual phase-in percentage for the referenced model 
year. The sum of the calculation will need to be greater than or equal 
to 440, which is the result when the optional phase-in equation is 
applied to the primary percent phase-in schedule (4 x 20% + 3 x 40% + 2 
x 70% + 1 x 100% = 440). Commenters supported this optional PM phase-in 
approach.
3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs
    Unlike passenger cars and light trucks, HDVs are not currently 
subject to SFTP standards. SFTP standards are intended to ensure 
vehicles have robust emissions control over a wide range of real-world 
driving patterns not well-covered by the FTP drive cycle. Even though 
HDVs are not typically driven in the same way as passenger cars and 
LDTs, especially as they frequently carry or tow heavy loads, we 
believe some substantial portion of real world heavy-duty pickup and 
van driving is not well-represented on the FTP cycle.
    The goal in setting the SFTP standards levels is not to force 
manufacturers to add expensive new control hardware for off-FTP cycle 
conditions, but rather to ensure a robust overall control program that 
precludes high off-FTP cycle emissions by having vehicle designers 
consider them in their choice of compliance strategies. High off-FTP 
cycle emissions, even if encountered relatively infrequently in real-
world driving, could create a substantial inadequacy in the Tier 3 
program, which aims to achieve very low overall emissions in use. The 
SFTP provisions will also help make the HDV program more consistent 
with the heavy-duty 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 SFTP standards levels are provided in Table IV-16. These are 
consistent with those adopted in the LEV III program.

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

    We are linking Tier 3 SFTP implementation for HDVs directly to the 
Tier 3 FTP phase-in and bins for these vehicles. That is, an HDV 
certified to any of the Tier 3 FTP bin standards must meet the SFTP 
standards for that bin as well. However, because the FTP PM standard 
phases in on a separate schedule, we will require that SFTP PM 
compliance be linked to the same schedule. That is, an HDV certified to 
the Tier 3 FTP PM standard must meet the applicable SFTP PM standard as 
well. This approach recognizes the complementary nature of FTP and SFTP 
provisions and helps to ensure that Tier 3 emissions controls are 
robust in real world driving. CARB expressed support in its written 
comments for this approach to linking FTP and SFTP requirements and an 
intent to propose aligning LEV III with it once the Tier 3 program is 
finalized.
    There are no SFTP requirements for the interim Tier 3 bins in each 
class (Class 2b Bins 340 and 395 and Class 3 Bins 570 and 630), because 
these are essentially carry-over bins from the previous standards to 
help facilitate the transition to Tier 3, and therefore are not 
intended to take on new requirements that might prompt a redesign. 
These implementation provisions are consistent with the approach taken 
in the LEV III program, except that California applies more of the Tier 
3 requirements for SFTP and extended useful life to vehicles in the 
interim bins.
    To help ensure a robust SFTP program that achieves good control 
over a wide range of real world conditions, we proposed to use a 
weighted-average composite SFTP cycle, with NMOG+NOX 
emissions calculated from results of testing over three cycles: the 
US06, the FTP, and the SC03, weighting these results by 0.28, 0.35, and 
0.37, respectively. However, at proposal, we determined that the full 
US06 component of the composite cycle, along with the ALVW loaded test 
condition, would not be sufficiently representative of real-world 
driving for two groups of HDVs: Those with low power-to-weight ratios 
and Class 3 vehicles.
    Therefore, as discussed in the proposal, SFTP testing of Class 2b 
vehicles with power-to-weight ratios at or below 0.024 hp/lb, may, at 
the manufacturer's option replace the full US06 component of the 
composite SFTP emissions with the test results from only the second of 
the three emissions sampling bags in the US06 test, generally referred 
to as the ``highway'' portion of the US06. HDVs so tested will be 
subject to the correspondingly lower SFTP standards levels shown in the 
table above. These vehicles will be driven during the test in the same 
way as the higher power-to-weight Class 2b vehicles (over the full US06 
cycle), using best effort (maximum power) if

[[Page 23488]]

the vehicle cannot maintain the driving schedule. The large majority of 
Class 2b vehicles--those with power-to-weight above 0.024 hp/lb--will 
be required to include emissions over the full US06 cycle in the 
composite SFTP. We believe that this approach provides a robust but 
repeatable and reliable test for the full range of Class 2b vehicles, 
as the highway portion of the US06 retains broad coverage of vehicle 
speed/acceleration combinations measured in real-world driving. Any 
testing conducted by EPA would follow the manufacturer's test path for 
the vehicle.
    For Class 3 vehicles, which range up to 14,000 lbs GVWR, we are 
also concerned that the full US06 cycle would not provide a 
representative drive cycle for SFTP testing. These vehicles are much 
larger than the light-duty vehicles that formed the basis for 
development of the US06 cycle, and loading them to ALVW for the SFTP 
test yields a very heavy test vehicle, not likely to be safely driven 
in the real world in a manner that is typified by this aggressive 
cycle. We believe that the LA-92 (or ``Unified'') driving cycle 
developed by CARB is more representative of Class 3 truck driving 
patterns and will produce more robust results for use in SFTP 
evaluations. Therefore we are adopting the proposed LA-92 cycle for use 
in place of the US06 component of the composite SFTP for Class 3 HDVs.
    HDVs do not have SC03 emissions requirements under the current HDV 
standards. Manufacturers of HDVs have indicated that they expect the 
SC03 emissions to be consistently lower than either the US06 or the FTP 
emissions levels, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden may be 
unnecessary. We are therefore providing HDV manufacturers with the 
option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions 
results for purposes of compliance. However, we will retain the ability 
to determine the composite emissions using SC03 test results in 
confirmatory or in-use testing. We received no adverse comments on this 
proposed approach.
    The set of composite SFTP cycles and standards we proposed and are 
adopting for HDVs is consistent with the MDV LEV III program. We 
received no adverse comments on them, except with regard to in-use 
testing as discussed in Section IV.B.6.a.
b. Enrichment Limitation for Spark-Ignition Engines
    To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment in areas not fully 
encountered in the SFTP cycles, we proposed and are adopting 
limitations in the frequency and magnitude of enrichment episodes for 
spark-ignition HDVs. These limitations are identical to those for 
light-duty vehicles. See Section IV.A.4.c for discussion of the 
requirements and relevant comments received.
4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
    This section describes how exhaust emissions credits may be earned 
and used. See Section V.C for similar provisions that apply for 
evaporative emissions. We are continuing the practice of allowing 
manufacturers to satisfy standards through the averaging of emissions, 
as well as through the banking of emissions credits for later use and 
the trading of credits with others.
    There are a number of facets of the Tier 3 ABT program for HDVs 
that are different from the existing program. First, instead of 
separate NMHC and NOX credits, manufacturers earn combined 
credits, consistent with the form of the standards.
    Second, manufacturers may accrue a deficit in their credit balance. 
Deficits incurred in a model year may be carried forward but a 
manufacturer will not be permitted to have a negative overall HDV 
credit balance in more than 3 consecutive model years. Manufacturers 
will have to use any new credits to offset any shortfall before those 
credits can be traded or banked for additional model years. Credits not 
used within 5 years after they are earned will be forfeited. These 5/3-
year credit/deficit life provisions are consistent with our light-duty 
Tier 3 approach, the California LEV III program for MDVs, and EPA 
programs for controlling GHG emissions from light- and heavy-duty 
vehicles.
    Third, as part of our new requirement for chassis certification of 
complete diesel HDVs, we are allowing the chassis-certified diesel HDVs 
to participate in the Tier 3 ABT program without restriction. Prior to 
Tier 3 they have not been allowed to earn or use ABT credits. We are 
not restricting or adjusting credit exchange between diesel and 
gasoline-fueled HDVs, consistent with our shift to combined 
NMOG+NOX standards that helps to ensure comparable 
stringency for these two engine types, and consistent also with the LEV 
III MDV program.
    Credits earned by a chassis-certified Tier 3 HDV may be used to 
demonstrate compliance with NMOG+NOX standards for any other 
chassis-certified Tier 3 HDV, regardless of size and without 
adjustment. This effectively allows manufacturers to plan a 
comprehensive HDV compliance strategy for their entire Class 2b and 
Class 3 product offering, by balancing credits so as to demonstrate 
compliance with the standards for both classes.
    Industry commenters argued that EPA should align the HDV credit 
provisions with the light-duty program by allowing early Tier 3 credits 
to be generated in MYs 2016 and 2017, calculated relative to the 
highest Class 2b and Class 3 bin NMOG+NOX levels (395 and 
630 mg/mi, respectively), and capped at a level proportional to the 
California level in MY 2018. However, these highest bin levels 
correspond to those of the existing HDV standards for NMHC and 
NOX, and are significantly higher than the MY 2016 and 2017 
LEV III levels. Thus vehicles designed to just meet the LEV III 
standards in these years could generate a large preliminary number of 
credits under the industry's Tier 3 early credits proposal, credits 
they would not earn in LEV III, thereby potentially thwarting the 
harmonization of the two programs. Truncating that credit bank for each 
manufacturer in 2018 such that it is proportional to their LEV III 
balance could perhaps, with additional restrictions on trading and 
banking, restore a harmonized credit status in that year. However, it 
constitutes an unnecessarily complex and uncertain pathway to the same 
result as that achieved under EPA's early opt-in provisions.
    Commenters requested that we provide for the conversion of pre-Tier 
3 HDV credits for use in Tier 3. However, as discussed in the proposal, 
we are not including provisions for doing so. We believe that by 
providing an early Tier 3 opt-in program for HDVs, capable of 
generating credits for two model years before the mandatory standards 
take effect (even longer under the alternative percent-of-sales phase-
in approach), we are giving ample opportunity for the manufacturers to 
accumulate early credits.
    Manufacturers commented that the proposed fleet average compliance 
approach is incongruous with California's LEV III method based on 
vehicle equivalent credits (VECs). Although expressing that they have 
no preference for the method since the stringency is equivalent, they 
recommended that EPA foster harmonization by providing a compliance 
option based on VECs. We believe that such an option would add 
unnecessary complexity to the Tier 3 program, and is made even more 
unnecessary by the intent expressed in CARB's written comments to 
propose a fleet average option for LEV III that is identical to EPA's 
approach.

[[Page 23489]]

    In the past we have set upper bounds, called family emission limit 
(FEL) caps, on how high emissions can be for credit-using vehicles, 
regardless of how many credits might be available. Under our Tier 3 bin 
structure, we believe that exhaust emission FEL caps are no longer 
relevant for Tier 3 HDVs, as every vehicle must meet whatever standards 
apply in the bin chosen for the vehicle by the manufacturer. (The bin 
standard becomes the effective FEL.) Indeed, because credits and 
deficits are calculated based on the difference between a 
manufacturer's fleet average emissions and the fleet average standards 
for a given model year, credits are not calculated for individual 
vehicle families at all. Thus the standard for NMOG+NOX in 
the highest allowable bin serves the purpose of the FEL caps in 
previous programs.
    Consistent with our proposal, we are not creating an averaging 
program for the HDV SFTP program, because we believe that the bin 
structure and 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 emissions control on a vehicle that lacks 
commensurate FTP control, could prove at odds with the primary goal of 
the supplemental test for HDVs.
5. Feasibility of HDV Standards
    The feasibility assessment, discussed in more detail in Chapter 1 
of the RIA, recognizes that the Tier 3 program is composed of several 
new requirements for Class 2b and 3 heavy-duty vehicles, which include 
primarily large gasoline and diesel pick-up trucks and vans with 
diverse application-specific designs. These new exhaust emissions 
requirements include stringent NMOG+NOX and PM standards for 
the FTP and the SFTP, that will as a whole require new emissions 
control strategies and hardware in order to achieve the standards. The 
type of new hardware that will be required will vary depending on the 
specific application and emissions challenges. Additionally, gasoline 
and diesel vehicles will require different emissions control strategies 
and hardware. The level of stringency for the SFTP NMOG+NOX 
standards will generally only require additional precise control of the 
engine parameters not necessitated in the past because of the lack of 
SFTP requirements. Similarly, the new PM standards on both the FTP and 
SFTP cycles will require more precise control of engine operation on 
gasoline vehicles while diesels already equipped with diesel 
particulate filters will require minimal changes. The new PM standards 
may also require that manufacturers consider the durability of their 
engines to the 150,000 miles useful life requirement with respect to 
engine wear resulting in increased oil consumption and potentially 
higher PM emissions.
    In order to assess the technical feasibility of NMOG+NOX 
national fleet average FTP standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles 
and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles, we conducted an analysis of 
certification data for the HDVs certified in the 2010 and 2011 MYs. For 
this final rule, we also reviewed certification records for 2012 and 
2013 MY vehicles, and determined that these primarily involve carryover 
engines and emission control hardware. Therefore we did not update the 
NPRM analysis however any new or updated certification results in the 
2012 or 2013 MYs are included in the RIA chapter 1 discussion. This 
analysis provided a baseline for the current HDV fleet emissions 
performance, as well as the emissions performance specific to the Class 
2b and 3 vehicles. The emissions performance of each heavy-duty vehicle 
class specific to gasoline and diesel is shown in Table IV-17 below. It 
is important to note that the emissions results are only the 4000 mile 
test point results and do not incorporate any deterioration which 
manufacturers must account for when certifying to a full useful life 
standard. Designs limiting the deterioration of emission control 
hardware are critical to meeting the emission standards at the useful 
life of the Tier 3 program. Deterioration factors to adjust the values 
to the Tier 3 useful life standard of 150,000 miles were not available. 
However, deterioration factors to adjust to 120,000 miles useful life, 
and their implications for performance at higher miles, are discussed 
in the RIA Chapter 1.
    The analysis also reflects the importance of the combined 
NMOG+NOX standard approach, where diesels and gasoline HDVs 
can balance their combined NMOG and NOX levels. Diesel 
vehicles in the analysis produce very low NMHC emissions (NMOG is not 
reported for diesels) but higher NOX emissions, while 
gasoline vehicles have opposite performance. The combined standard 
allows manufacturers to determine the proper balance of the unique 
emissions challenges of a diesel or gasoline vehicle.

                                             Table IV--17 2010/11 Certification Test Results at 4,000 Miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               NMHC            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 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

[[Page 23490]]

emission levels considerably from the levels indicated in this data 
set, particularly for diesel vehicles.
    However, as discussed above, these emission results do not include 
the expected emissions deterioration which will be determined by 
manufacturers during development and certification testing. Therefore, 
manufacturers will need to further reduce emissions levels in 
anticipation of the unavoidable emissions deterioration that will occur 
during the useful life of the vehicle. Further, deterioration is a 
function of several factors, but it is predominantly due to emissions 
control hardware thermal exposure (high temperatures), which is 
typically a significant issue on vehicles used for performing work like 
Class 2b and 3 vehicles.
    We also expect that the 2011 heavy-duty GHG rule will present new 
challenges to manufacturers' emissions performance goals as vehicles 
begin to use new engines designed to meet the new GHG 
requirements.\341\ Some of these new technologies may result in 
emissions challenges that are specific to certain operating conditions. 
For example, downsized gasoline engines will likely have improved FTP 
exhaust emissions but have increased challenge with the high-load SFTP 
requirements. Diesel-fueled vehicles may need to carefully balance 
engine controls which reduce GHG emissions but can increase criteria 
emissions (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the ability of the heavy-duty fleet to meet the PM 
standards for the FTP and the SFTP, we based our conclusions on some 
testing of current heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) and the PM 
performance of the existing light-duty fleet with similar engines. 
Testing of two HDGVs with the highest sales volume (Ford F250 and 
Chevrolet Silverado 2500), albeit not aged to full useful life, 
confirmed that they have similar PM emissions levels as the light-duty 
counterparts and therefore also meet the standards for both the Class 
2b and Class 3 configurations. Data from light-duty gasoline vehicles 
with similar or common engines with their heavy-duty ``sister'' vehicle 
models demonstrates that these vehicles are currently meeting the Tier 
3 FTP PM standards at the Tier 2 useful life mileage of 120,000 miles. 
Heavy-duty diesel vehicles all are equipped with DPFs and have no 
challenges meeting the FTP or SFTP PM standards being set for Tier 3.
    The SFTP test data from the same two heavy-duty vehicles described 
above indicates that gasoline vehicles can achieve the standards for 
SFTP NMOG+NOX and PM. Since heavy-duty vehicles are not 
currently required to comply with any of the SFTP requirements, 
manufacturers have not focused on improving the emissions performance 
specifically over the SFTP cycles (US06, LA-92, and SC03). Therefore, 
although the limited testing results had a high degree of variability, 
several tests met the PM standards for the high power-to-weight Class 
2b vehicles. Consistent with light-duty, vehicles that are 
demonstrating high PM on the US06 will need to control enrichment and 
oil consumption from engine wear. Recently manufacturers have already 
been implementing product changes to reduce oil consumption to address 
both customer satisfaction issues and to reduce cost of vehicle 
ownership.
    Given the technologies likely to be applied to meet the HDV exhaust 
emissions standards, discussed below, we consider the lead time 
available before the standards take effect under all of the 
alternatives to be sufficient. HDV manufacturers are already adopting 
some of the complying technologies, especially for their light-duty 
vehicles, and these can readily be adapted for heavy-duty applications. 
In addition, manufacturers have already begun developing these 
technologies for HDVs, including diesels, in response to California's 
recently adopted LEV III MDV standards which begin to take effect in 
the 2015 model year. Finally, as described above in Sections IV.B.2, 
IV.B.3, and IV.B.4, our program incorporates a number of phase-in and 
alternative compliance provisions that will ease the transition to 
final standards without disrupting heavy-duty pickup and van product 
redesign cycles. Among these is an alternative phase-in that does not 
begin mandatory standards until model year 2019.
    Comments we received on the proposed HDV standards did not 
specifically address our analysis of their technical feasibility. The 
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) outlined diesel 
and gasoline-engine technologies that they expect will be used to 
achieve the Tier 3 standards cost-effectively, generally consistent 
with our draft RIA. Vehicle and engine industry commenters argued that 
the case we made for feasibility relied too heavily on extending light-
duty truck test data, supplemented by testing of only two HDVs, neither 
of which were fully aged or representative of future vehicles designed 
to meet our new GHG standards. However, commenters did not question the 
feasibility, durability, implementability, or effectiveness of the 
technologies we identified, or their ability to achieve the proposed 
standards. Instead, the focus of these comments was on statutory 
provisions for lead time and stability, and on how relaxed standards 
for in-use testing and testing at high altitudes would help to 
implement the standards within the allotted lead time. These issues, 
including changes we are making in response to the comments, are 
addressed in Sections IV.B.2.c, IV.B.6.a, and IV.B.6.f.
i. Technologies Likely To Be Applied
    The technologies expected to be applied to vehicles to meet the 
lower standards levels will address the emissions control system's 
ability to control emissions during cold start. Current vehicle 
emissions control systems depend on the time it takes for the catalyst 
to light-off, which is typically defined as the catalyst reaching a 
temperature of 250 [deg]C. While the specific emissions challenge is 
somewhat different for gasoline engines than for diesel engines, 
achieving the necessary temperatures in the catalysts is a common 
challenge. In order to improve catalyst light-off, the manufacturers 
will likely add technologies that provide heat from combustion more 
readily to the catalyst or improve the catalyst efficiency at lower 
temperatures. These technologies could include calibration changes, 
thermal management, close-coupled catalysts, catalyst Platinum Group 
Metal (PGM) loading, and possibly secondary air injection. In some 
cases, where the catalyst light-off response and efficiency are not 
enough to address the cold start emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may 
be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catalyst is 
lit-off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of 
these technologies addresses both NMOG and NOX performance. 
Key potential technologies are described in greater detail below.
     Engine Control Calibration Changes--These include changes 
to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more 
combustion heat is created during the cold start on gasoline engines. 
Diesel engines may use unique injection timing strategies or other 
available engine control parameters. Engine calibration changes can 
affect NMOG, NOX and PM emissions.
     Thermal Management--This technology includes all design 
attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the catalyst with 
minimal cooling on both gasoline and diesel engines. This includes 
insulating the exhaust piping between the engine and the catalyst, 
reducing the wetted area of the

[[Page 23491]]

exhaust path and/or reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust system. 
Close-coupling of catalysts (packaging the catalysts as close to the 
head of the engine as possible to mitigate the cooling effects of 
longer exhaust piping) can also be effective, but is more difficult to 
employ than in light-duty applications because of durability concerns 
with highly loaded operation and the potential increase in fuel 
consumption to protect the catalyst from high temperatures.
     Catalyst PGM Loading--Additional PGM loading in the 
catalyst provides a greater number of sites to catalyze emissions and 
addresses NMOG, NOX and PM emissions.
     Selective Catalytic Reduction Optimization--Diesel 
applications will continue to refine this NOX emissions 
control strategy through improved hardware design and implementation in 
vehicle applications. Additional engineering enhancements in the 
control of the SCR system and related processes will also help reduce 
emissions levels.
6. Other HDV Provisions
a. In-Use Emissions
    The proposal requested comment on the need for relaxation of 
NMOG+NOX and PM standards for in-use vehicle testing. The 
LEV III program includes these on an interim basis in the more 
stringent bins in both FTP and SFTP testing. However, in its written 
comments, CARB expressed the view that the technologies required for 
SFTP compliance are well-established, and that sufficient lead time is 
provided such that interim in-use standards for SFTP are not needed. As 
a result, CARB expressed an intent to propose aligning the LEV III 
program with the approach EPA proposed on this matter after the Tier 3 
program is finalized. The manufacturers commented that relaxed interim 
in-use standards are needed in the HDV sector, both for FTP and SFTP 
standards. The reasons cited were a need to harmonize with LEV III, the 
scarcity of data on which to establish standards that apply over the 
full useful life, the extension of that useful life to 150,000 miles, 
the need for manufacturers to address customer concerns with new 
products and technologies, uncertainties that accompany the new SFTP 
cycles and part 1066 testing requirements (especially for PM), and the 
introduction of innovative technologies required to meet GHG standards 
in the same timeframe.
    After considering the comments we have concluded that relaxed 
interim in-use standards are appropriate for HDVs, both for FTP and 
SFTP testing. We are adopting HDV in-use standards levels that are 
identical to those adopted for LEV III, as shown in Table IV-18. We 
consider these levels reasonable, in line with relaxed in-use standards 
adopted in past programs, and helpful toward harmonization. We are not 
applying interim in-use NMOG+NOX standards to the interim 
(two highest) bins for the FTP standards, because these bins are 
intended for carry-over of existing designs, and there should be little 
uncertainty over their in-use emissions performance. Interim bin 
vehicles certified to the Tier 3 PM standards shall, however, be 
subject to the relaxed in-use PM standards in the same way as for HDVs 
in other bins. Bin 0 standards are driven by specific zero-emissions 
technologies for which in-use margins would not be appropriate, and so 
we are not setting in-use standards for Bin 0.
    We are also adopting the general approach taken in LEV III of 
making these interim standards available during the phase-in period 
(model years 2016-2022) for the first two model years that a test group 
is newly certified to a Tier 3 NMOG+NOX or PM standard. Test 
groups subsequently recertified to a more stringent NMOG+NOX 
bin standard may begin the two year cycle over again. A test group that 
is first certified into a Tier 3 bin in model year 2022 or later may 
not take advantage of the relaxed interim in-use standards. LEV III 
adopted somewhat different applicability years, for the most part 
ending earlier, in model year 2020. However, we believe that the modest 
extension is appropriate to facilitate the Tier 3 phase-in. If a 
vehicle test group is certified into a Tier 3 bin, but not yet to the 
Tier 3 PM standard, the in-use standard for PM shall apply for the 
first two model years it is first certified to the PM standard. In 
order to better harmonize with LEV III, the availability of these in-
use standards includes the voluntary model years.

                                 Table IV-18--Interim In-Use Standards for HDVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      FTP (mg/mi)                        SFTP (mg/mi)
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              NMOG+NOX             PM             NMOG+NOX             PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Class 2b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 395 (interim).......................             (\a\)                16             (\a\)             (\a\)
Bin 340 (interim).......................             (\a\)                16             (\a\)             (\a\)
Bin 250.................................               370                16      \b\ 770/1120         \b\ 12/15
Bin 200.................................               300                16      \b\ 770/1120         \b\ 12/15
Bin 170.................................               250                16       \b\ 490/630         \b\ 12/15
Bin 150.................................               220                16       \b\ 490/630         \b\ 12/15
Bin 0...................................             (\a\)             (\a\)             (\a\)             (\a\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Class 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 630 (interim).......................             (\a\)                20             (\a\)             (\a\)
Bin 570 (interim).......................             (\a\)                20             (\a\)             (\a\)
Bin 400.................................               600                20               770                12
Bin 270.................................               400                20               770                12
Bin 230.................................               340                20               490                12
Bin 200.................................               300                20               490                12
Bin 0...................................             (\a\)             (\a\)             (\a\)             (\a\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ No relaxed interim in-use standard.
\b\ The lower value applies to low power-to-weight vehicles optionally certified using only the highway portion
  of the SFTP US06.

[[Page 23492]]

b. HDV Useful Life
    Currently the HDV regulatory useful life, the period of use or time 
during which emissions standards apply, is 120,000 miles or 11 years, 
whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805-4). For Tier 3 vehicle criteria 
emissions we are extending the useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 
years, whichever occurs first. This change better reflects the 
improvements in vehicle durability and longevity that have occurred in 
the several years since the 120,000 mile useful life was established, 
and maintains consistency with the LEV III MDV program and with our 
Tier 3 program for large LDTs, for which the same useful life period is 
being adopted.
    The new useful life requirement applies to Tier 3 HDVs in all bins 
except those designated as interim bins, consistent with the purpose of 
the interim bins to provide for limited carry-over of pre-Tier 3 
vehicle designs during the phase-in period. Although the percentage 
application in each year will therefore depend on each manufacturer's 
fleet binning strategy, the declining NMOG+NOX fleet average 
standard will ensure a robust phase-in of the new useful life 
requirement over the 2018-2022 model years, such that it is expected to 
be about 50 percent in 2018, and necessarily reaches 100 percent by 
2022 when the interim bins are no longer available. For those 
manufacturers choosing to certify to the voluntary standards, the new 
useful life will apply even earlier, in model year 2016 or 2017. For 
manufacturers choosing the alternative percent-of-sales 
NMOG+NOX alternative, the new useful life requirement 
applies to all HDVs counted toward the phase-in requirement, resulting 
in a generally equivalent useful life phase-in rate to that of the LEV 
III-harmonized alternative.
    See Section IV.F.5 for further discussion of useful life 
requirements with regard to GHG standards. Manufacturers may optionally 
retain the 120,000 mile/11 year useful life for PM on interim Tier 3 
vehicles that are not phased in to the Tier 3 PM standards. We received 
no adverse comments on these useful life provisions.
c. Heavy-Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicles
    As in the light-duty program, manufacturers must demonstrate heavy-
duty flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) and dual-fuel vehicle compliance with 
both the FTP and the SFTP emissions standards when operating on both 
the conventional petroleum-derived fuel and the alternative fuel. 
Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles must demonstrate compliance with 
both the FTP and SFTP emission standards while operating on the 
alternative fuel. For all of these vehicles, this includes the 
requirement to meet FTP emissions standards when conducting fuel 
consumption and GHG emissions testing, and also to meet the FTP and 
highway test requirements at high altitudes (see Sections IV.B.6.e and 
f). Because FFVs can operate on various combinations of their 
conventional and alternative fuel, the emissions requirements apply to 
operation at any mix of the fuels achievable in the fuel tank with 
commercially available fuels, including for compliance at high 
altitudes, even though the required demonstration of compliance is 
limited to the conventional and alternative fuels designated for 
certification testing. We received no adverse comments on these 
provisions.
d. Existing Provision To Waive HDV PM Testing
    EPA's existing program includes a provision for manufacturers to 
waive measurement of PM emissions in non-diesel heavy-duty vehicle 
emissions testing. As proposed, we are eliminating this provision. We 
believe that the Tier 3 PM standards for these vehicles are of 
sufficient stringency that routine waiver of testing is not 
appropriate. The CARB LEV III program also reflects this view. We do 
not expect this change to be onerous for manufacturers, as the number 
of heavy-duty vehicle families is not large. We received no adverse 
comments on this change.
e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emissions Testing
    As with the light-duty Tier 3 program, HDVs must meet the FTP bin 
standards when tested over both the city and highway test cycles. We do 
not believe this adds a very significant test burden as vehicle 
emissions are already required to be measured when these tests are run 
for GHG and fuel consumption determinations. Nor do we believe that 
this requirement is design forcing. Rather, we are creating this 
requirement to ensure that test vehicle calibrations are not set by 
manufacturers to minimize fuel consumption and GHG emissions, at the 
expense of causing high criteria pollutant emissions. Considering the 
additional work involved in measuring PM emissions and the reduced 
likelihood of high PM emissions on the highway test, we are not 
mandating that PM emissions testing be included in this requirement. We 
received no adverse comments on these proposed provisions.
f. HDV Altitude Requirements
    As in the past, we intend that HDV Tier 3 standards result in 
emissions controls that are effective over a full range of operating 
altitudes. We proposed that HDVs be required to meet the FTP bin 
standards (but not the SFTP standards) at high altitudes, and expressed 
our expectation that compliance with the FTP standards would require 
neither the use of special hardware nor adjustment to the level of the 
standards.
    The manufacturers argued in their comments that the reasons EPA 
cited in proposing relief at high altitudes for light-duty vehicles 
apply for HDVs as well, and requested that relaxed NMOG+NOX 
standards be adopted in the more stringent bins for testing of HDVs at 
high altitudes. Ford argued that the challenges could be even greater 
for HDVs because they are designed to operate at high altitudes with 
heavy payloads and towed trailers, and this may necessitate the 
locating of emissions systems farther from exhaust manifolds, thereby 
increasing catalyst lightoff delays.
    Although we agree to a certain extent about the performance of 
gasoline-fueled HDVs at high altitudes and their similarity to LDVs, 
the comments did not alter our view that the compliance margins 
provided in the HDV FTP bin standards compared to what the control 
technologies can achieve, and the freedom manufacturers have to shift 
to the more stringent bins gradually as the program phases in, are 
adequate to account for these effects at altitude. The manufacturers 
provided no data to counter this view.
    We note that our adoption of relaxed interim in-use standards for 
vehicles in these bins will be directionally helpful to address any 
remaining concerns by manufacturers regarding emissions at altitude 
(Section IV.B.6.a). This is because testing at high altitudes is often 
not required for certification (typically manufacturers use an 
engineering analysis instead), and thus the relaxed in-use standards 
will help to facilitate Tier 3 implementation for any HDV designs in 
which in-use problems at high altitudes surface in the initial model 
years.

C. Evaporative Emissions Standards

    Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel systems, which are a 
mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, occur when a vehicle is in operation, 
when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. Evaporative emissions 
which occur daily from gasoline-powered vehicles are primarily 
functions of air

[[Page 23493]]

and fuel temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and vehicle driving. EPA 
first instituted evaporative emissions standards in the early 1970s to 
address hydrocarbon emissions when vehicles are parked after being 
driven. These are commonly referred to as hot soak and diurnal 
emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have been 
modified and improved, the standards have been revised to be more 
stringent, and we have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel 
system designs by establishing new requirements such as running loss 
emission standards and test procedure provisions which address resting 
losses (e.g., permeation). Onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) 
requirements for control of refueling emissions first began to phase-in 
for light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) in the 1998 
MY. These were later expanded to cover medium-duty passenger vehicles 
(MDPVs) and some heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs).
    Even though evaporative and refueling emission control systems have 
been in place for most of these vehicles for many years, evaporative 
emissions still contribute 30-40 percent of the on-road mobile source 
hydrocarbon inventory. The rate of these emissions in grams/day (hot 
soak and diurnal), grams/mile (running loss) or grams per gallon 
(refueling) depends on (1) the stringency of the applicable emission 
standards, (2) ambient and fuel temperature, (3) fuel vapor pressure, 
and (4) the presence/state of repair of the fuel/evaporative control 
system.
    These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also 
contain air toxics such as benzene. Even though there are mature 
evaporative emission control programs in place, further hydrocarbon 
emission reductions are needed and can be achieved from further 
evaporative emission controls on gasoline-powered highway motor 
vehicles.
    This section discusses the vehicle evaporative emission standards 
and related provisions for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. The 
evaporative emissions program has six basic elements: (1) The early 
allowance program (MY 2015-2016), (2) the transitional program (MY 
2017), (3) the Tier 3 evaporative emission phase-in program (MY 2018-
2021), (4) the fully phased-in standards (MY2022+), (5) requirements 
for HDGVs including ORVR for the 2018MY, and (6) a leak standard and 
test procedure which become mandatory for Tier 3 vehicles in the 
2018MY. As discussed below, we are finalizing more stringent standards 
that will apply for the 2- and 3-day evaporative emissions tests, a 
canister bleed test procedure and emission standard, and a new 
certification test fuel specification.\342\ As discussed in section 
IV.D, we are also adding a fuel/vapor system leak standard and test 
procedure for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs. EPA is not changing any existing 
light-duty running loss or refueling emission standards with the Tier 3 
FRM, with the exception of the certification test fuel specification 
and the addition of a refueling emission controls for complete HDGVs 
over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). This section also 
describes phase-in flexibilities, credit and allowance programs, and 
other issues related to evaporative emissions control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ Certification fuel provisions for evaporative and 
refueling emissions testing for flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are 
discussed separately below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this rule, the vehicle classifications, LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and 
HDGVs, remain unchanged from Tier 2 (see 40 CFR 86.1803-010). For 
purposes of this discussion of the Tier 3 evaporative emissions 
program, the vehicle standards can be further placed in four 
categories: (1) ``zero evaporative emission'' PZEV vehicles certified 
by CARB as part of the ZEV program, (2) vehicles certified by CARB to 
meet LEV III evaporative emission program requirements on CARB 
certification fuel (7 RVP E10) as early as 2014 MY, (3) vehicles 
meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emissions program requirements using the 
Tier 3 certification test fuel (9 RVP E10), and (4) transitional 
vehicles meeting existing EPA evaporative requirements on Tier 2 
certification test fuel (9 RVP E0).343 344 For ease of 
reference these four categories may be referred to as PZEV evap, LEV 
III evap, Tier 3 evap, and Tier 2/MSAT evap in this section.\345\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \343\ We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission 
standards for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs in 2007 (72 FR 8428, February 
26, 2007). The most recent standards for HDGVs were adopted in 2000 
(66 FR 5165, January 18, 2001).
    \344\ See Section IV.F for a discussion of the final 
certification fuel provisions, including discussion of options for 
and implications of the certification test fuel having 10 percent 
ethanol.
    \345\ ``PZEV evap'' as discussed here refers only to the 
evaporative emission and useful life requirements of the PZEV 
program, not the exhaust emission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
a. Final Standards
    The Tier 3 program for evaporative emissions builds on previous EPA 
requirements as well as the evaporative emissions portion of CARB's 
recent LEV III rule which starts mandatory phase-in with the 2018 MY. 
The level of the standards, the timing of their implementation, and 
related provisions are designed in great measure to allow manufacturers 
to design, certify, and build one control system for each evaporative/
refueling family to meet CARB and EPA requirements so that these 
vehicles can be sold in all 50 states. Commenters supported this 
approach and no commenter opposed the stringency or timing of the 
evaporative emission standards and related test procedures. We believe 
the program is appropriate since it will require new more stringent 
evaporative emissions control technology in new vehicles and also 
achieve improved in-use system performance.
    Section IV.C.1.a.i, which follows, describes the basic emission 
standard levels for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. Section IV.C.1.a.ii, 
describes a new canister bleed standard and testing requirement for 
measuring emissions from the evaporative canister. Section IV.C.1.a.iii 
discusses the optional use of the CARB LEV III Option 1 evaporative 
emission standards during a transition period. Next, Section 
IV.C.1.a.iv discusses interim use of CARB PZEV zero evap data based on 
CARB Phase II fuel. Finally section IV.C.1.a.iv, discusses the ongoing 
requirement to meet running loss emission standards.
i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards
    The Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal emission standards are designed to 
bring into the broader motor vehicle fleet the ``zero evap'' technology 
used by the manufacturers in their partial zero emission vehicles 
(PZEVs). Manufacturers developed this ``zero evap'' technology as part 
of their response to meeting the requirements of the CARB Zero Emission 
Vehicle (ZEV) program. This program, which is in effect in 11 other 
states, allows manufacturers to meet their ZEV mandate percentages 
(totally or in-part) by the use of vehicles which among other 
characteristics have very low fuel vapor emissions.
    The hot soak plus diurnal emission standards we are adopting 
(presented in Table IV-19) are designed to be met with technology that 
limits Tier 3 vehicles to essentially zero fuel vapor emissions. For 
the Tier 3 evaporative emissions program, we are not changing the basic 
2-and 3-day evaporative emission test procedures other than the 
certification fuel requirements. The level of the standards primarily 
accommodates what is often referred to as new vehicle background 
hydrocarbon emissions. These emissions arise from the off-gassing of 
volatile hydrocarbons from plastics, rubbers, and other

[[Page 23494]]

polymers found in new vehicles (e.g., new tires, interiors, seats, fuel 
system components, paints, and adhesives). In the field these emissions 
decrease over time as the vehicle ages, but this cannot necessarily be 
replicated in the time that manufacturers typically allocate for 
vehicle certification or with the techniques normally used for vehicle 
pre-conditioning. Provisions related to vehicle pre-conditioning before 
evaporative emissions certification testing are discussed further 
below.
    In the past EPA has set relatively uniform (but not identical) 
evaporative emission standards for LDVs and LDTs and somewhat higher 
values for MDPVs and HDGVs. The Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal emission 
standards follow this approach, because in general the vehicles have 
higher levels of non-fuel background emissions as they get larger.
    As described in more detail in Section IV.C.2.d below, EPA is 
finalizing a program that will allow manufacturers to demonstrate 
compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission 
standards using averaging concepts. A manufacturer may comply by 
averaging within each of the four vehicle categories but for the 
reasons discussed below, may not rely on averaging across categories. 
The technical approaches to meeting the standards are discussed in 
Section IV.C.2.

            Table IV-19 Final Evaporative Emission Standards
                          [g/test] \a\ \b\ \c\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Highest hot soak +
                                                   diurnal level (over
        Vehicle category/averaging sets            both 2-day and 3-day
                                                      diurnal tests)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1......................................                    0.300
LDT2...........................................                    0.400
LDT3, LDT4, MDPV...............................                    0.500
HDGVs..........................................                    0.600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The standards are in grams of hydrocarbons as measured by flame
  ionization detector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in
  the enclosure known as the sealed housing for evaporative
  determination (SHED).
\b\ Note that the standards are the same for both tests; existing
  standards are slightly different for the 2- and 3-day tests.
\c\ Vehicle categories are the same as in EPA's Tier 2 final rule; see
  65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.

ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard
    In addition to more stringent hot soak plus diurnal standards, EPA 
is finalizing a new canister bleed emission test procedure and standard 
as part of the Tier 3 program. The canister bleed test procedure is 
described in Section IV.C.6 below. EPA is adopting the canister bleed 
standard because it is an important tool in moving Tier 3 evaporative 
emissions control toward zero fuel vapor emissions. No commenter 
opposed the canister bleed standard or commented on the test procedure. 
The new test and standard align with the California LEV III 
requirements and help to ensure that near-zero fuel vapor emissions are 
being emitted by vehicles from the fuel tank through the evaporative 
emission canister. Manufacturers will be required to measure diurnal 
emissions over the 2-day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank 
and the evaporative emission canister using Tier 3 certification fuel 
and comply with a 0.020 g/test standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs 
and 0.030 g/test for HDGVs. The feasibility of this standard is 
discussed in Section IV.C.3 below. The canister bleed test and standard 
drives canister design elements such as total gasoline working 
capacity, internal architecture, and the type of carbon used. These are 
also key elements of canister design for the hot soak plus diurnal 
emission standards.
    The canister bleed standard will be implemented differently than 
the hot soak plus diurnal standard. EPA is not applying 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 will need to demonstrate 
compliance with their respective standard. As discussed below, the 
canister bleed standard will not apply at high altitude, but 
proportional control is expected. Since the performance of the canister 
is also evaluated in the hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emissions 
sealed housing for evaporative determination (SHED) test the canister 
bleed emission standard will not be included in the In-Use Verification 
Program of under 40 CFR 86.1845 through 1853, but it must be met in 
use. We will not have canister bleed specific family criteria for 
certification but the test will have to be completed and the standard 
met for each evaporative/refueling family including potentially twice 
if there are two canisters used. A deterioration factor will not be 
required, but the manufacturer must certify that the standard will be 
met for the full useful life. As mentioned above, the standard will 
have to be met in-use and could be evaluated in EPA confirmatory 
testing.
    The canister bleed standard will have to be met using the same 
fuels and test procedures used for the hot soak plus diurnal standards. 
We will accept results on either CARB or EPA test fuels/test 
temperatures for the canister bleed test provided the same are used for 
the hot soak plus diurnal test.
iii. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standard With the Fuel System Rig Test
    As part of its LEV III program, CARB has included an alternative 
set of evaporative emission standards, referred to as Option 1 
standards. These are shown in Table IV-20.

                            Table IV-20 CARB--Option 1 Evaporative Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Highest hot soak + diurnal level
                                                              (over both 2- and 3-day diurnal
                     Vehicle category                                tests)  (g/test)           Running loss (g/
                                                           ------------------------------------       mile)
                                                              Vehicle SHED        Rig SHED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Car.............................................             0.350               0.0              0.05
LDT  6,000 lbs GVWR.......................             0.750               0.0              0.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23495]]

    The Option 1 standards include evaporative emission standards (hot 
soak plus diurnal) that are slightly higher numerically than our final 
standards. Vehicles certified under this option may not use averaging 
in the CARB LEV III program because they basically represent the same 
evaporative emission standards as exist for PZEVs under CARBs ZEV 
program wherein averaging is not permitted. Option 1 also includes an 
additional SHED test of the vehicle fuel system (rig test) that pre-
dates development of the canister bleed emission standard. The rig SHED 
test is discussed in Section IV.C.6. From a practical perspective, this 
test is more difficult to conduct than the bleed test discussed above 
and is intended to force manufacturers to demonstrate at certification 
that their stand alone (not in chassis) fuel/vapor control system 
designs have vapor control systems and the goal of aligning with the 
LEV III program for a national program where possible.\347\ As noted in 
the following sections, vehicles certified under this provision will 
count toward the phase-in percentage requirements and could earn 
allowances as discussed below, but the vehicles will not be eligible to 
earn or use credits for the evaporative emissions averaging program. 
Carryover vehicles will have to meet the EPA leak standard and the high 
altitude emission standard to be counted toward the sales percentage 
requirements for 2018 and later model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \347\ EPA is incorporating by reference the CARB Option 1 test 
procedures and emission standards for this interim period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iv. Interim Carryover of PZEV Evap Data for Tier 3 Certification
    To earn credits toward compliance with the CARB Zero Evaporative 
Emissions (ZEV) program requirements, many manufacturers have certified 
LDVs and LDTs to 150,000 mile useful life emission standards similar to 
those found in Table IV-20. These vehicles have used CARB Phase II fuel 
(E0) and met the rig SHED test requirement in lieu of the canister 
bleed standard, but otherwise have employed the same basic technology 
EPA expects for the LEV III and Tier 3 programs. EPA is permitting data 
generated from certification of these vehicles in the 2015 and 2016 MYs 
to be used for Tier 3 evaporative emissions purposes through the 2019 
MY.
v. Running Loss Emission Standards
    EPA has required vehicles to meet running loss emission standards 
since the 1996 model year. These requirements, which are specified in 
40 CFR 86.134-96, apply to all gasoline-powered highway motor vehicles. 
EPA is not changing either the test procedures or emission standard for 
the running loss test. However, the change in certification test fuel 
will apply to testing for such standards. This is appropriate based on 
the rationale for implementing a certification fuel change and is 
necessary since the running loss test is part of the overall test 
sequence for the 3-day hot soak plus diurnal test. EPA does not 
anticipate that the change in certification test fuel will impact the 
stringency of the running loss test and standards or the manufacturers' 
ability to comply as part of Tier 3.
b. High-Altitude Requirements
    Prior to this rule, the most recent vehicle evaporative emission 
standards were adopted in 2007.\348\ The new standards adopted in 2007 
apply only to testing under low-altitude conditions.\349\ In the 2007 
rule, we decided to continue to apply the previous ``Tier 2'' standards 
for testing under high-altitude conditions. This was necessary to 
achieve an equivalent level of overall stringency for high-altitude 
testing, accounting for the various effects of altitude and lower 
atmospheric pressure on vapor generation rates, canister loading and 
purging dynamics, and other aspects of controlling evaporative 
emissions due primarily to lower air density and vapor concentrations 
at altitude. While it is important for vehicles to have effective 
emission controls at high altitudes, we do not want the high-altitude 
standards and test procedures to dictate the fundamental design of the 
Tier 3 evaporative emission control systems since the high altitude 
vehicle population is only about five percent of the national total. 
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to address this goal by 
applying the current 2-day low altitude evaporative emission standards 
and requirements for high-altitude testing.\350\ The vehicle categories 
for the high altitude standards in this rule are the same as for the 
low altitude standards. The standards are presented below in Table IV-
21. This will both reduce evaporative emissions at high altitude and 
again create a requirement to confirm that emission controls function 
effectively at high altitude without forcing manufacturers to apply 
altitude-specific technologies. The leak standard presented in Section 
IV.D below will apply equally at low and high altitude testing as 
compliance is not dependent on air density and vapor concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ See 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007).
    \349\ Low altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 
549 meters (1,800 feet). High-altitude conditions means a test 
altitude of 1,620 meters (5,315 feet) plus or minus 100 meters (328 
feet) or equivalent observed barometric test conditions of 83.3 kPa 
(24.2 inches Hg) plus or minus 1kPA (0.30 inches Hg) See 40 CFR 
86.1803-01.
    \350\ See Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: 
Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel 
Sulfur Control Requirements 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001 and Control 
of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 72 FR 8428, 
February 26, 2007.

[[Page 23496]]

     Table IV-21--Final High-Altitude Evaporative Emission Standards
                                [g/test]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Highest hot soak +
                                                   diurnal level (over
                Vehicle category                   both 2-day and 3-day
                                                     tests) (g/test)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1......................................                     0.65
LDT2...........................................                     0.85
LDT3, LDT4.....................................                     1.15
MDPV...........................................                     1.25
HDGVs  14,000 lbs GVWR........................                      2.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A few additional points should be noted about our Tier 3 high 
altitude evaporative emissions control program. First, EPA does not 
expect manufacturers to produce vehicles with high-altitude only 
evaporative control systems. Given the nature of evaporative emission 
control technology, there should be emission reductions at high 
altitude proportional to those achieved at lower altitudes. We are not 
applying the canister bleed test and emission standard at high 
altitude, but we expect similar emission reductions to those which will 
occur at low altitude. These vehicles will have to meet the canister 
bleed emission standard at low altitude and canister bleed emission 
reductions at high altitude should be proportional as is the case with 
the low altitude hot soak plus diurnal standards. Any adjustment to 
meet the standard at high altitude to account for canister adsorption 
and desorption effects of higher altitudes would result in 
fundamentally the same technology with an increase in the testing 
burden but not necessarily more emissions control. Therefore, we 
believe the low-altitude canister bleed test is sufficient for 
achieving the 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, the same differential will apply to the FELs for high-
altitude. For example, if an LDV was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g 
instead of the 0.300 g standard, the high-altitude FEL will be 0.75 g 
(0.65g+0.10g). This high-altitude FEL will not be used for any 
emission-credit calculations, but it will be used as the emission 
standard for compliance purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for certification 
test fuel will be set at 7.8 RVP with 10 percent ethanol, as specified 
in Section IV.F. Finally, we are finalizing a minor adjustment to the 
high altitude test procedures. The existing 2- and 3-day test 
procedures apply equally at low and high altitude. We are keeping the 
same basic requirement but will allow for a downward adjustment of 
5[emsp14][deg]F in the temperatures related to the running loss test 
within the 3-day test cycle. Thus, the applicable ambient temperatures 
at Sec.  86.134-96 (f) and (g) will be 905[emsp14][deg]F 
instead of 955[emsp14][deg]F for high altitude testing, and 
the entire fuel temperature profile from Sec.  86.129-94(d) shifts down 
by 5[emsp14][deg]F. 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. EPA requested comment on the alternative approach of 
keeping test temperatures the same, but omitting the 3-day test cycle 
for testing at high altitude. This was supported by one set of 
commenters, but at this time EPA does not have the data needed to drop 
such a fundamental test requirement.
    As mentioned above, emission data from vehicles meeting the current 
CARB PZEV zero evap and CARB LEV III Option 1 requirements could be 
used to qualify that vehicle to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
regulations for the 2017-2021 MYs. To qualify for a federal 
certificate, the vehicle will also have to meet the Tier 3 high 
altitude evaporative emission requirements. CARB does not require 
vehicles to meet EPA high altitude requirements, so for these vehicles 
we are giving the manufacturers the option to certify either by 
providing SHED test data or based on an engineering demonstration using 
data and analysis and the application of good engineering judgment. For 
the 2015-2017 MYs, manufacturers can use data based on either Tier 2 or 
Tier 3 test fuel. Beginning in the 2018 model year, for Tier 3 vehicle 
certification to the high altitude standard, the data must be based on 
Tier 3 fuel.
c. 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.7 
and IV.B.6 of this preamble, along with the new emission standards, we 
are finalizing 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. The longer useful life will apply to all 
certifications to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards (see Table 
IV-19 and Table IV-20 above). For an evaporative/refueling family 
certified to 150,000 miles/15 year useful life for evaporative 
emissions this useful life will also apply to the hot soak plus 
diurnal, running loss, canister bleed, fuel system rig, refueling, 
leak, and high altitude standards. All of these standards impact the 
fuel and vapor control systems and it is technologically consistent to 
require the same useful life for these standards because they all rely 
on the mechanical integrity, durability, and operational performance of 
the same components in the evaporative emissions control system.
    Due to limitations in the CAA, for LDVs and for LDTs up to 6,000 
lbs GVWR and at or below 3,750 lbs LVW (LDT1s), we are keeping the 
current useful life of 120,000 miles/10 years unless, as described in 
Section IV.A.7, a manufacturer elects alternative exhaust emission 
requirements that are associated with 150,000 mile/15 year useful life 
for these vehicles. For manufacturers that select those optional 
standards, the useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years will apply for all 
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements as listed in the previous 
paragraph.
    During the early, transition, and phase-in program periods and 
until the final year of the allowed phase-in period for the Tier 3 
evaporative emission program (MY 2015-2021) the differences between the 
exhaust and evaporative emission phase-in programs presents the 
possibility that in some cases a manufacturer could certify a model to 
the Tier 3 exhaust requirements (or CARB equivalents) but not 
necessarily to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements.\351\ In 
those situations, the final rule provides that a family could have a 
150,000 miles/15 years useful life for exhaust emissions but maintain 
the current useful life for all of the evaporative and refueling 
emission standards since the vehicle does not yet meet Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements. During the phase-in period, if a 
family is certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements but 
not yet certified for Tier 3 exhaust emission requirements, then the 
useful life could be 150,000 miles/15 years for evaporative and 
refueling emissions standards but the existing useful life for exhaust 
emissions. However, by the 2022 MY the useful life for all of these

[[Page 23497]]

requirements will be 150,000 miles/15 years for LDT2/3/4s, MDPVs, and 
HDGVs since by that model year all vehicles must be certified using 
Tier 3 certification fuel and test procedures and meet Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards or CARB equivalents.\352\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \351\ By the 2022 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system emissions 
certifications must use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test 
procedures or equivalent CARB test procedures, certification and 
emission standards. This affects evaporative (hot soak plus 
diurnal), running loss, and canister bleed emission standards 
certification. Refueling, spit back and leak standards are only to 
be met using Federal certification test fuel.
    \352\ The only exception here will be for vehicles not meeting 
Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result 
of the use of previously earned allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OBD regulations call for the systems to operate effectively over 
the useful life of the vehicle. We are not changing that requirement, 
but rather want to clarify that during the early, transition, and 
phase-in years of the program (MY 2015-2021), all of the OBD monitoring 
requirements have the same useful life as that for the exhaust emission 
standard except for the evaporative system leak monitoring requirement 
which has the same as that required for the evaporative and refueling 
emission standards control systems.
d. What requirements must a vehicle meet to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle 
for evaporative emissions?
    As mentioned above, there are three different revised or new 
evaporative emision requirements applicable to Tier 3 vehicles. These 
are the hot soak plus diurnal standards, the canister bleed standard, 
and the leak standard. In addition the refueling, running loss, and 
spit back standards are unchanged but will have to be met on Tier 3 
certification fuel. Compliance with these requirements is potentially 
complicated by the fact that the CARB ZEV and LEVIII programs will 
bring zero evap technology into the market place before or at the same 
time that Tier 3 implementation begins but with test fuel and test 
procedure differences. In order to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for 
evaporative emission purposes the vehicle must meet all applicable 
requirements on the specified fuel. Unless otherwise specified (e.g., 
HDGV refueling spit back), if a vehicle does not meet all evaporative 
emission program requirements, including both the applicable standards 
and test fuel then it does not qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for 
evaporative emission purposes. Table IV-22, below summarizes the 
requirements that vehicles in various categories must meet to qualify 
as a Tier 3 vehicle for evaporative emission purposes as a function of 
model year. The entries in the cells of the table specify the required 
test fuel. The table is for reference of the reader in reviewing 
subsequent sections of this preamble. Refer to the regulatory text for 
specific requirements for the various programs.

                  Table IV-22--Requirements for Vehicle To Qualify for Tier 3 Evaporative Emissions Program and Test Fuel Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        High altitude &
       Model year          Program/zero evap stds    HS+DI/running loss          Rig            Canister bleed       Leak (except       refueling/spit
                                                                                                                       HHDGV) *             back **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               MY 2017 TRANSITION PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................  Percentage--PZEV zero     CA Ph. 2...........  CA Ph. 2...........  N/A...............  N/A...............  EPA Tier 2 or Tier
                           evap (carryover).                                                                                           3.
2017....................  Percentage--LEV III Opt.  CA Ph. 3...........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A...............  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3.
                           1.
2017....................  Percentage--LEV III Opt.  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A................  CA Ph. 3..........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3.
                           2.
2017....................  Percentage--Tier 3......  Tier 3.............  N/A................  EPA Tier 3........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3.
2017....................  PZEV zero evap only       CA Ph. 2...........  CA Ph. 2...........  N/A...............  N/A...............  EPA Tier 2 or Tier
                           (carryover).                                                                                                3.
2017....................  20/20--PZEV zero evap     CA Ph. 2...........  CA Ph. 2...........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 2 or Tier
                           (carryover).                                                                                                3.
2017....................  20/20--LEV III Opt. 1...  CA Ph. 3...........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2017....................  20/20--LEV III Opt. 2...  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A................  CA Ph. 3..........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2017....................  20/20--Tier 3...........  Tier 3.............  N/A................  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              MY 2018-2021 PHASE-IN PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018-2019...............  PZEV zero evap            CA Ph. 2...........  CA Ph. 2...........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 2 or Tier  EPA Tier 2 or Tier
                           (carryover).                                                                            3.                  3.
2018-2021...............  LEV III Opt. 1..........  CA Ph. 3...........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2018-2021...............  LEV III Opt. 2..........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A................  CA Ph. 3..........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2018-2021...............  Tier 3..................  Tier 3.............  N/A................  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            MY 2022+ FULLY PHASED-IN PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022+...................  LEV III Opt. 2..........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A................  CA Ph. 3..........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2022+...................  Tier 3..................  Tier 3.............  N/A................  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* LHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 14,000 lbs; HHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR in excess of
  14,000 lbs.
** Incomplete HDGVs without ORVR may defer demonstrating compliance with the spit back requirement on Tier 3 fuel until the 2022 MY.

2. Program Structure and Implementation Flexibilities
a. Percentage Phase-In Requirements
    As proposed, the final Tier 3 evaporative emission standards will 
be phased in over a period of six MYs 2017-2022. Manufacturers 
supported the proposed phase-in schedule and there were no issues 
raised with regard to lead time for any vehicle class. As discussed 
below, there will be three options for the 2017 MY. For the 2018-2019 
MYs, the requirement will apply to 60 percent of a manufacturer's 
nationwide sales of all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs (including 
vehicles sold in California and the section 177 states). This will 
increase to 80 percent for MYs 2020 and 2021 and by MY 2022 it will 
apply to 100 percent of sales in

[[Page 23498]]

these four categories. Beginning in MY 2018 any vehicle included in the 
percentage phase-in, except vehicles that had earned allowances, will 
have to meet the leak standard discussed in section IV.D.
    Evaporative emission requirements for the MY 2017 apply only to 
LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803-01. To be 
consistent with the start date for Tier 3 exhaust standards, phase-in 
requirements will not include vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the 
2018 MY. The manufacturers will have three options. The first, which we 
are calling the ``primary'' or ``percentage'' option, requires that a 
value equal to 40 percent of a manufacturer' s LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s 
sold outside of California and the states that have adopted the CARB 
ZEV or LEV III programs must meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements on average. The 40 percent is calculated based on vehicles 
at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR but compliance can be based on vehicles 
regardless of their GVWR. The second which we are calling the ``PZEV 
zero evap only'' option, requires a manufacturer to sell all of the 
LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s certified with CARB as meeting the PZEV 
evaporative emission requirements (zero evap) in MY 2017 throughout all 
of the U.S. and not to offer for sale any non-PZEV zero evap version of 
those specific vehicle models/configurations in any state whose 
vehicles are covered by the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 
Thus, this will apply to sales in any state except for California and 
states that have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III programs under section 
177 of the Clean Air Act. Under this second option, no tracking of 
sales or end of year compliance calculation will be required. Some 
manufacturers may find this option attractive, as they have more 
limited product offerings and find tracking of production and sales 
more difficult. The third option, which we are terming the 20/20 
option, requires that 20 percent of a manufacturer's LDVs, LDT1s, and 
LDT2s (e.g., equal to or less than 6,000 lbs GVWR) sold outside of 
California and the states that have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III 
programs meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements on average 
and that this 20 percent or another 20 percent of vehicles in the three 
groups listed above meet the leak standard discussed in section IV.D. 
Each percentage requirement must be met, (i.e., there is no flexibility 
to permit meeting shortfalls of the hot soak plus diurnal or leak 
standard percentages with higher values from the leak standard 
category). However, as was the case with the 40 percent option above, 
compliance can be based on vehicles regardless of their GVWR. The third 
option was supported by several commenters as a means to address 2017 
MY transition issues related to phase-out of current products and 
phase-in of future products. EPA believes that for these vehicles the 
leak standard will provide emission reduction benefits comparable in 
magnitude to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Thus, under 
this approach, the manufacturers' product transition concerns can be 
addressed while achieving the overall evaporative emission reductions 
from 2017 MY vehicles. It should be noted that these vehicles must also 
meet the 0.020 inch evaporative system leak monitoring requirement 
which also takes effect in the 2017 model year.
    As discussed below, beginning in the 2018 MY, to be counted toward 
the percentages needed to meet the Tier 3 phase-in percentages (e.g., 
60% in 2018 and 2019 MYs) a Tier 3 compliant vehicle must also meet the 
leak standard.
    At the time of certification, manufacturers will identify which 
families will be included in their Tier 3 evaporative emission 
percentage calculations (this could be families above or below the 
individual Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the given class of 
vehicles (Table IV-19) as well as vehicles meeting CARB's PZEV zero 
evap or LEV III Option 1 standards (Table IV-20) and could also include 
earned allowances as discussed below. The manufacturers will use 
projected sales information for these families plus allowances as 
desired and available, to show how they expect to meet the phase-in 
percentage requirements for the model year of interest. At the end of 
the model year reconciliation the manufacturers will be expected to 
show that the percentages were met. If the percentages are not met, the 
manufacturers will either use additional allowances and/or bring more 
vehicle families/vehicles into the calculation until the sales 
percentage is met. This step is being required because the initial 
demonstration of compliance with the fixed percentage at certification 
is based on projected sales. If the manufacturers did not have to 
demonstrate that the fixed percentages were met, the percentage would 
then be a goal and not a requirement and there would be no means to 
capture the emission reduction shortfalls. This step is unique to the 
evaporative emission program relative to the NMOG+NOX and PM 
programs because the evaporative program involves both fixed 
percentages and ABT. The NMOG+NOX program involves ABT but 
does not involve fixed percentages and the PM program involves fixed 
percentages but does not involve ABT.
    The additional vehicles added to meet the percentage could only be 
meeting the Tier 2 hot soak plus diurnal requirements. In this case, 
use the larger of the 2- or 3-day hot soak plus diurnal certification 
emission levels. Adding these vehicle families/vehicles into the 
calculations (discussed below) may result in a credit deficit for that 
model year for a given averaging set. A manufacturer could not have an 
unresolved deficit for more than three consecutive model years as 
discussed below. The deficit would have to be eliminated with positive 
credits not later than the ABT calculation and credit reconciliation 
which occurs after the fourth model year.
    As discussed above for exhaust emissions, while unlikely, it is 
possible that a manufacturer could in its annual certification preview 
meeting with EPA, indicate that its technology mix is such that it will 
have a credit deficit when the sales percentages requirement is met. 
This could occur if the fleet average evaporative emission value for 
Tier 3 vehicles did not meet the Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal standard 
for the Tier 3 vehicles in any given averaging set. Also, a 
manufacturer could have a deficit from a previous model. In these 
situations, certifying with a projected or actual deficit would require 
EPA approval after submission of a plan from the manufacturer which 
explains how it will eliminate the deficit within the model years 
permitted. Even if a manufacturer had projected or actual deficits for 
two or three consecutive model years, all accrued deficits would have 
to be eliminated by the reconciliation which occurs after the fourth 
model year. Within this plan, which would have to be submitted and 
approved at each annual certification preview meeting, EPA would expect 
to see progress toward compliance as indicated by such factors as 
improved emissions performance for future test groups, a substantiated 
trend toward a more favorable fleet technology sales mix, no 
backsliding in projected fleet average values, and perhaps other 
situation specific criteria.
    Requiring a showing at the time of certification based on projected 
sales requires due diligence by the manufacturers and EPA, but the Tier 
3 evaporative emissions program allows for fleet averaging, so a 
validation or ``truing up'' of these sales projections after the end of 
the model year is necessary for determining compliance

[[Page 23499]]

with the requirements of the standard. This is discussed in Section 
IV.C.2.d.iii. As discussed further below, validated sales information 
will also be used for earning early allowances and to show compliance 
with the alternative phase-in schedule approach.
    For these purposes, vehicles included in the phase-in percentage 
could be: (1) Families which certified to PZEV zero evap or CARB LEV 
III Option 1 requirements in MYs 2015 and 2016, (2) families certified 
to meet Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements, (3) any vehicle 
family certified to the CARB LEV III Option 2 hot soak plus diurnal 
evaporative emission standards, and (4) vehicles from the early 
allowance program. To qualify as a Tier 3 certification for evaporative 
emission purposes, any new evaporative/refueling emission family 
certifications will have to meet the EPA Tier 3 certification 
requirements for both test procedure and certification test fuel for 
the evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal and canister bleed, running 
loss), refueling, and spit back emission standards. The leak standard 
will apply in the 2018 and later MYs to all Tier 3 vehicles except 
HHDGVs and those from the early allowance program. Furthermore, 
assuming the EPA provisions related to carryover of emissions data are 
met, 2015-2016 MY CARB PZEV zero evap evaporative emissions 
certifications could be carried over until the end of the 2019 MY and 
included as compliant vehicles within the Tier 3 program if they meet 
the other applicable Tier 3 requirements. The same is true for CARB 
LEVIII Option 1 certification, except carryover would be permitted 
through the 2021 MY if they meet the other Tier 3 requirements. See 
Table IV-4 for more detail on the program options and fuel requirements 
by model year.
    The phase-in percentages for MYs 2017 through 2022 reflect a 
percentage phase-in concept applied successfully by EPA in previous 
rules involving evaporative and refueling emissions control. The phase-
in provides an appropriate balance between the needed emission 
reductions and time for the manufacturers to make an orderly transition 
to the new technology on such a broad scale. The higher initial 
percentage here is appropriate because the expected evaporative 
emission control technology is already being used to varying degrees by 
12 manufacturers on over 50 vehicle models today and is projected to 
gain even deeper penetration by 2017 due to the partial zero emission 
vehicles (PZEV) option within the CARB ZEV program.\353\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \353\ See http://driveclean.ca.gov/searchresults_by_smog.php?smog_slider_value=9&x=12&y=12, (last accessed on December 
6, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Alternative Phase-In Percentage Scheme
    As part of program flexibility, we are allowing 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. The alternative phase-in 
percentage provisions allow manufacturers to use a phase-in more 
consistent with product plans such as beginning with a lower 
percentage(s) than required under the primary phase-in during the early 
years or to benefit from producing and selling more than the minimum 
percentage of compliant vehicles early. This flexibility could also be 
helpful in the event that a manufacturer elects to put some vehicles on 
different phase-in schedules for meeting Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative 
emission standards. As explained further below, with some limitations, 
allowances could be used toward compliance with the alternative phase-
in scheme values for any given model year.
    This approach, which was widely supported in comments by the 
manufacturers, would be available beginning in the 2017 MY for all 
manufacturers, except for any manufacturer which used the ``PZEV zero 
evap only'' nationwide option for the 2017 MY for whom the approach 
would be available beginning in 2018 MY. Vehicle and fuel eligibility 
requirements for the program are summarized in Table IV-23. Refer to 
the regulatory text for specific requirements.

                  Table IV-23--Vehicle Qualifications for 2017-2022MY Alternative Phase-in Percentage Schemes & Test Fuel Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        High altitude &
       Model year          Program zero evap stds.   HS+DI/running loss          Rig            Canister bleed       Leak (except       refueling/ Spit
                                                                                                                       HHDGV) *             back **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017....................  PZEV evap (carryover)...  CA Ph. 2...........  CA Ph. 2...........  N/A...............  N/A...............  EPA Tier 2 or Tier
                                                                                                                                       3.
2017....................  LEV III Opt. 1..........  CA Ph. 3...........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A...............  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3.
2017....................  LEV III Opt. 2..........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A................  CA Ph. 3..........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3.
2017....................  Tier 3..................  Tier 3.............  N/A................  EPA Tier 3........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3.
2018-2019...............  PZEV evap...............  CA Ph. 2...........  CA Ph. 2...........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 2 or Tier  EPA Tier 2 or Tier
                          (carryover).............                                                                 3.                  3.
2018-2021...............  LEV III Opt. 1..........  CA Ph. 3...........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A...............  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2018-2022...............  LEV III Opt. 2..........  CA Ph. 3...........  N/A................  CA Ph. 3..........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
2018-2022...............  Tier 3..................  Tier 3.............  N/A................  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3........  EPA Tier 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* LHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 14,000 lbs; HHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR in excess of
  14,000 lbs.
** Incomplete HDGVs without ORVR may defer demonstrating compliance with the spit back requirement on Tier 3 fuel until the 2022 MY.

    Under this approach, before the 2017 MY (2018 MY for a manufacturer 
which used the ``PZEV zero evap only'' nationwide option for the 2017 
MY), a manufacturer will present a plan to EPA which demonstrates that 
the sum of the products of a weighting factor and the percentages of 
their U.S. vehicle sales for each model year from 2017 (2018) through 
2022 is greater than or equal to 1280 if the program started in the 
2017 MY (or 1040 if the program started in the 2018 MY). The 1280 and 
1040 numerical values are equal to the sum of the product of the 
weighting factors and the percentage requirements for MY 2017 or 2018 
start dates, respectively, as applicable through MY 2022. These are 
calculated in the following manner: 
[(6)(2017MY%)+(5)(2018MY%)+4(2019MY%)+3(2020MY%)

[[Page 23500]]

+2(2021MY%)+(1)(2022MY%)]. The 2017 MY portion of the calculation would 
not be included if the manufacturer used the ``PZEV zero evap only'' 
nationwide option and thus started the alternative phase-in scheme in 
the 2018 MY. Under the regulations, EPA has the authority to question 
elements of the plan and to seek clarifications and potential changes 
as needed. EPA could disapprove the plan and potentially not allow the 
use of an alternative phase-in scheme for the model year of interest if 
the manufacturer does not present a viable explanation and rationale as 
to how the required numerical sum for the phase-in would be achieved.
    EPA also sought comment on including the 20 percent value hot soak 
plus diurnal value from the 20/20 option described above for 2017 MY in 
this calculation. Manufacturers generally supported including the 2017 
MY in the calculation but did not clearly state whether the 40 percent 
or 20/20 option approach or both were supported. EPA has decided to 
include both options for the 2017 MY in the alternative phase-in 
percentage scheme; 40 percent as described above or 20 percent, with 
the stipulation that any vehicle used to meet the 20 percent 
requirement in the 2017 MY would also have to meet the OBD evaporative 
leak monitoring requirements and the leak standard. In other words, the 
flexibility of using different vehicles as allowed for the 20/20 option 
in the primary phase-in scheme is not included in the alternative 
phase-in. Including this restriction avoids the complexity that would 
be added if two different sets of vehicles were allowed to meet the two 
elements of the 20/20 option for the 2017 MY, as in the primary phase-
in (e.g., expanding the calculation and tracking requirements and 
incorporating leak standard compliance and OBD evaporative system 
monitoring as part of the alternative phase-in scheme). If a 
manufacturer's hot soak plus diurnal value exceeded 20 percent then 
that larger value could be used in the alternative phase-in 
calculation. However, the leak standard value cannot be less than 20 
percent and for the first 20 percent the hot soak plus diurnal and the 
leak must be on the same vehicle and that vehicle must meet the 0.020 
inch OBD evaporative system leak monitoring requirement. Compliance 
would be calculated in the following manner: 
[lsqb](6)(2017MY%)+(5)(2018MY%)+(2019MY%)+3(2020MY%)+2(2021MY%)+(1)(2022
MY%)[rsqb]. If choosing the 20/20 option approach for MY 2017, the 
value to be met or exceeded in the alternative phase-in would be 1160 
which is based on substituting the required phase-in percentages for 
MYs 2017-2022 in the equation. Under this option as above, before the 
2017 MY, the manufacturer would have to submit a plan to EPA which 
demonstrates that the sum of the products of a weighting factor and the 
percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales for each model year from 2017 
through 2022 is greater than or equal to 1160. A manufacturer that over 
complies with the targets (i.e., 1040, 1160, 1280) may not trade the 
excess to another manufacturer. Also, a manufacturer must include all 
of its affected products in program, not just specific vehicle 
categories or subcategories.
    A manufacturer's alternative phase-in plan must be approved by EPA 
prior to the start of production for a given model year and will have 
to be reviewed with EPA each subsequent model year to confirm that the 
manufacturer's target percentages are being met. This would be expected 
to occur at the annual certification preview meeting. Manufacturers not 
meeting their target goals must present revised plans for EPA approval 
to show how the target percentages and equivalent emission standards 
will be met. Manufacturers using the alternative phase-in percentage 
scheme must still show compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal 
standards in each year as discussed in Section IV.C.2.d.iii even if 
they fall short of their individual target goal percentages for a given 
year. EPA is not requiring that manufacturers include Tier 2 vehicles 
in the calculation for a given model year if they fall short of 
projections (e.g., if a manufacturer projects 25% in a given model year 
but only achieves 22%) because it will have to be made up in a 
subsequent year using a lower multiplier.
c. Allowance Program
    We are finalizing incentives for early introduction of vehicles 
compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations. 
Manufacturers can take advantage of these incentives prior to MY 2018 
by selling vehicles that meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
regulations earlier than required or in greater numbers than required. 
Vehicle eligibility requirements for the allowance program are 
summarized in Table IV-24. Refer to the regulatory text for specific 
provisions.

                                      Table IV-24--Vehicle Eligibility To Earn Allowances & Test Fuel Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      High altitude &
        Model year & program            Vehicle category       HS+DI/running loss             Rig               Canister bleed     refueling/ spitback *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2016 PZEV zero evap carryover.  LDV, LDT..............  CA Ph. 2..............  CA Ph. 2.............  N/A..................  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
2015-2016 LEV III Option 1.........  LDV, LDT..............  CA Ph. 3..............  CA Ph. 3.............  N/A..................  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
2015-2016 LEV III Option 2.........  All...................  CA Ph. 3..............  N/A..................  CA Ph. 3.............  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
2015-2016 Tier 3...................  All...................  Tier 3................  N/A..................  Tier 3...............  EPA Tier 3.
2017 ``PZEV evap only'' carryover..  LDT 3&4...............  CA Ph. 2..............  CA Ph. 2.............  N/A..................  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
2017 ``Percentage'' option--LEV III  LDT3 &4 MDPV, HDGV....  CA Ph. 3..............  CA Ph. 3.............  N/A..................  EPA Tier 3.
 Option 1.
2017 ``Percentage'' option LEV III-- LDT3/4 MDPV, HDGV.....  CA Ph. 3..............  CA Ph. 3.............  CA Ph. 3.............  EPA Tier 3.
 Option 2.
2017 ``Percentage'' option Tier 3..  LDT3/4 MDPV, HDGV.....  Tier 3................  EPA Tier 3...........  EPA Tier 3...........  EPA Tier 3.
2017 ``20/20'' and all MY alt phase- Not available.........
 in schemes.
2018+ LDV, LDT, MDPV & HDGV........  Not available.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23501]]

 
                                                                         ORVR **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015-2017 Early ORVR...............  Complete HDGV >10,000   ......................  .....................  .....................  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
                                      but 14,000   ......................  .....................  .....................  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
                                      lbs. GVWR.
2015-2021 ORVR.....................  Incomplete HDGV >8,500  ......................  .....................  .....................  EPA Tier 2/Tier 3.
                                      lbs. GVWR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* LHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR equal to or less than 14,000 lbs; HHDGVs are heavy-duty gasoline vehicles with a GVWR in excess of
  14,000 lbs. Incomplete HDGVs without ORVR may defer demonstrating compliance with the spit back requirement on Tier 3 fuel until the 2022 MY.
** All ORVR certifications must use Tier 3 fuel by the 2022 model year.

    As described below, manufacturers can earn ``allowances'' for 
selling any vehicle meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission program 
requirements as specified in Table IV-22 earlier than required. The 
vehicles may be LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs. Specifically, the 
allowance program includes the following: (1) For MYs 2015 and 2016, 
any LDVs and any LDTs meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission program 
requirements as specified in Table IV-22 which are sold outside of 
California and the states that have adopted CARB's ZEV or LEV III 
programs, (2) for MYs 2015-2017, any MDPV or HDGV meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission program requirements as specified in Table IV-22 
early and sold in any state, (3) for MY 2017, any LDT3/4 meeting the 
Tier 3 evaporative emission program requirements as specified in Table 
IV-22 and sold outside of California and the states that have adopted 
CARB's LEV III or ZEV programs, and (4) for MYs 2015-2017, any complete 
or incomplete HDGV with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs meeting the EPA 
refueling emissions regulations and sold outside of California and the 
states that have adopted CARB's LEV III program. EPA asked for comment 
on extending the ORVR requirement to all HDGVs, complete and 
incomplete. As discussed in section IV.C.4.b, we are extending ORVR to 
all complete vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR, but are not including 
incomplete vehicles over 8,500 lbs GVWR in the ORVR requirement at this 
time. However, we are permitting complete vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR 
and incomplete HDGVs meeting the refueling emission standard to earn 
allowances through the 2021 MY. Any complete or incomplete HDGV 
eligible to earn allowances for the model years and areas discussed 
above will earn them at a 1:1 rate for refueling emissions compliance 
purposes and at a 2:1 rate for Tier 3 evaporative emissions purposes 
because the refueling emission reductions are much larger.
    Furthermore, for the 2017 MY, manufacturers choosing EPA's 
``percentage'' option (see Section IV.C.2.a) could earn allowances for 
sales of LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the CARB LEV III or 
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and related requirements assuming 
their LDV, LDT1/2 sales meet the 40 percent requirement. Similarly, 
manufacturers choosing EPA's ``PZEV zero evap only'' option could earn 
allowances in MY 2017 for LDT3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the 
``PZEV zero evap'' evaporative emission standards, CARB LEV III, or EPA 
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and related requirements. EPA has 
decided not to include allowances for the 2017MY for any manufacturer 
using the 20/20 option since it would involve identifying not only the 
vehicles exceeding the 20 percent for the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements but also the vehicles exceeding the 20 percent for the 
leak standard and these may be different vehicles. For both the 
``percentage'' and ``PZEV zero evap only'' options for the 2017 model 
year, to avoid double counting, the allowances will be earned only for 
those vehicles sold outside of California and the states that have 
adopted CARB's LEV III/ZEV program requirements.
    To qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for evaporative emission allowance 
purposes the vehicle must meet the requirements summarized in Table IV-
22. Manufacturers will earn one allowance for each qualifying vehicle 
sold. Manufacturers can use these allowances in MY 2017 through 2022 to 
help demonstrate compliance with the phase-in percentage requirements 
and fleet average evaporative emission standards for those years. Since 
credits and allowances serve primarily the same purpose and allowing 
for splits of allowances/credits greatly complicates program 
implementation, the final rule provides that manufacturers can only 
earn allowances in MYs 2015-2016 for any LDVs and LDT1/2s meeting the 
Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations which are sold outside of 
California and the states that have adopted CARB's ZEV or LEV III 
programs and for MYs 2015-2017 for any qualifying LDT3/4, MDPV, and 
HDGV.\354\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \354\ LDVs and LDT1/2 sold in California and states which have 
adopted the LEV III or ZEV programs cannot generate allowances 
because these programs will already require zero evap technology 
vehicles in those states in MYs 2015-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Allowances will be used in the compliance determination in the 
following manner. Vehicles qualifying for allowances can be used in the 
fleet average evaporative emission standard calculation for any year 
during the phase-in. This applies to the primary phase-in and 
alternative phase-in programs. Allowance vehicles will be entered into 
the compliance calculation with an emission value equivalent to the 
evaporative emission standard for their vehicle category from Table IV-
19 even if it was certified to CARB PZEV zero evap or LEV III Option 1 
standards (Table IV-20). For the percent phase-in requirement in either 
the primary or alternative phase-in schemes, allowance vehicles will 
count for one vehicle for each allowance used within their vehicle 
category. For the primary scheme this will be counted as one

[[Page 23502]]

vehicle, but for the alternative phase-in option the value will be 
multiplied by the weighting factor (6 for 2017, 5 for 2018, 4 for 2019, 
3 for 2020, etc). Within the alternative phase-in scheme the 
manufacturer will be limited to using these early allowances for no 
more than 10 percentage points of the phase-in requirements in any 
given model year (e.g., MYs 2017-2022). EPA believes this limitation is 
appropriate since early use in the alternative phase-in scheme is 
multiplied and early introduction of ``zero evap'' technology should be 
encouraged, but not necessarily at the expense of its widespread use 
across the various vehicle categories as the phase-in progresses. The 
allowances are designed primarily to facilitate manufacturer transition 
during the program phase-in. As such, they may not be traded between 
manufacturers and unused allowances will expire after the 2022 MY.
    An example here may be helpful in demonstrating how allowances will 
work. Take a hypothetical manufacturer who earned a total of 10,000 
allowances in MYs 2015 and 2016 and sells 100,000 units per year. In MY 
2018, the manufacturer will have a phase-in requirement of 60 percent 
or 60,000 vehicles. For the primary phase-in option the manufacturer 
could use part or all of its allowances in 2018 without restriction. 
For the alternative phase-in scheme assume the manufacturer set its 
alternative phase-in value at 60 percent for the 2018 MY. The final 
regulations limit the use of allowances to 10 percentage points of the 
60 percent or in this case 10,000 vehicles out of 60,000. Without a 
multiplier this will require the use of all 10,000 allowances in 2018, 
but with the multiplier of 5 for MY 2018 only 2,000 allowances are 
needed to reach the 10 percentage point maximum. Using a similar 
calculus, the manufacturer could use another 10 percentage points in MY 
2019, but it will require 2,500 allowances to reach this level since 
the multiplier is 4 assuming sales remain at 100,000 units per year. 
The number of allowances to reach the 10 percentage point level will 
increase each year as the multiplier decreases.
d. Evaporative Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading
i. Introduction
    Throughout EPA's programs for mobile source emission controls, we 
have often included emission averaging programs for exhaust emissions. 
An emission averaging program is an important factor we take into 
consideration in setting emission standards under the Clean Air Act. An 
emission averaging program can reduce the cost and improve the 
technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the 
standards achieve the greatest achievable reductions, considering cost 
and other relevant factors, in a time frame that is earlier than might 
otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product 
planning and the opportunity for a more cost-effective introduction of 
product lines meeting a new standard. Emission averaging programs also 
create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology, which 
allows certain emission families to act as leaders for new technology. 
This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the 
technology before they apply the technology throughout their product 
line.
    These programs generally involve averaging and banking, and 
sometimes trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one 
or more families at emission levels above the applicable emission 
standards as long as the increased emissions are offset by one or more 
families certified below the applicable standards. These are referred 
to as individual family emission limits (FELs). The over-complying 
families generate credits that are used by the under-complying 
families. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to 
account for differences in production volume, and on other factors as 
necessary such as useful life. The average of all emissions for a 
particular manufacturer's production within a vehicle category must be 
at or below the level of the applicable emission standards. Banking 
allows a manufacturer to generate emission credits and bank them for 
future use in its own averaging program in later years. Trading allows 
a manufacturer to sell credits or obtain credits from another 
manufacturer.
    EPA proposed and is finalizing an emissions ABT program for the 
Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emissions standards. The 
evaporative emissions ABT program is generally structured and operates 
the same as that for exhaust emissions as discussed in Section 
IV.A.7.m. The major difference is the added requirement to reconcile 
compliance with the fixed percentage requirement as discussed in detail 
in Section IV.C.2.a. Also, there is a five year credit life for 
evaporative emissions as opposed to the longer interim values for 
NMOG+NOX FTP and SFTP credits.
    This is the EPA's first averaging type program for evaporative 
emissions from light-duty or heavy-duty vehicles. It does not apply to 
the canister bleed standard or the leak standard because it is the low 
altitude ``zero evap'' hot soak plus diurnal standard which will drive 
the fundamental approach used to comply with all of these requirements. 
We sought comment on the value of including trading in the program. The 
comments from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the 
Association of Global Automakers very generally supported the inclusion 
of trading but provided no detail. Upon follow-up from EPA no 
manufacturer provided any further explanation on the need for the 
program or how they might use it.\355\ In past similar programs for 
exhaust emissions there have been only a few trades, but incorporating 
trading within the program adds a degree of flexibility if a 
manufacturer finds itself in a credit deficit situation. Thus, we have 
decided to include trading, but credit trades are limited based on the 
same averaging set restrictions as discussed below for averaging and 
banking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \355\ See Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Association 
of Global Automakers comments on the NPRM (dated July 1, 2013) and 
Passavant, G. (June 2013) EPA and Auto Industry Meeting Related to 
Tier 3 Evap and OBD NPRM. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evaporative emissions ABT program will start with the 2017 MY 
for the percentage and 20/20 options. Prior to the 2017 MY and for 
other options as discussed in Section IV.C.2.b, manufacturers may earn 
allowances. The programs will continue for the 2018 MY and beyond for 
all manufacturers regardless of their 2017 MY option and will not 
sunset, as does the allowance program. Vehicles generating ABT credits 
in the 2017 MY or later will not be permitted to also generate 
allowances as this would be double counting.
    A key element of an averaging program is the identification of the 
averaging sets. This establishes the basis within which evaporative 
emission families can be averaged for purposes of compliance as well as 
credit and deficit determinations. As proposed, we are finalizing four 
averaging sets and the applicable emission standard for each of the 
averaging sets as shown in Table IV-19. Except as noted in Section 
IV.C.2.d.2 below, credit exchanges between averaging sets will not be 
permitted. Participation in ABT is voluntary since a manufacturer could 
elect to certify each family within the averaging set to its individual 
standard as if there were no averaging program.
    An evaporative emission ABT calculation and assessment involves two 
distinct steps. The first is the determination of the credit/deficit 
status of each family relative to its applicable

[[Page 23503]]

standard from Table IV-19. The second is the role of ABT calculations 
in the overall compliance demonstration which is discussed in Section 
IV.C.2.d.
ii. Family Emission Limits
    A manufacturer choosing to participate in the evaporative emissions 
ABT program will certify each emission family to an FEL that applies 
for the hot soak plus diurnal standard for low altitude testing. The 
FEL selected by the manufacturer becomes the emission standard for that 
emission family. Emission credits (or deficits) are based on the 
difference between the emission standard that applies (by vehicle 
category) and the FEL. The vehicles will have to meet the FEL for all 
emission testing. As mentioned in Section IV.C.1.b., above, for 
vehicles certified with FELs above or below the applicable standard for 
testing at low altitude, the same differential will apply to the FELs 
for high-altitude. This high-altitude FEL will not be used for any 
emission-credit calculations, but it will be used as the emission 
standard for compliance purposes.
    The final rule provides that the FELs selected by the manufacturer 
must be selected at 0.025 g/test increments above or below the 
applicable Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for each vehicle 
category. For example, for LDVs the increments for the FELs would be +/
- 0.025 from 0.300 g/test (e.g., 0.225, 0.250, 0.275, 0.300, 0.325, 
0.350, 0.375 . . . 0.500). The FEL is used in the compliance 
demonstration not the certified level. The certified level must be 
below the FEL, but the FEL could be a higher value than the closest 
increment value. For example, a certified value of 0.235 g/test could 
support an FEL of 0.250 g/test or any other higher increment value. One 
commenter asked that the gradation be finer than 0.025 g/test, but EPA 
believes this is the appropriate increment, since the standard itself 
is the sum of two values and rounding of the measured values is 
involved.
    FELs are capped such that they cannot be set any higher than 0.500 
g/test for LDVs, 0.650 g/test for LDT1s and LDT2s, 0.900 g/test for 
LDT3s and LDT4s, 1.000 g/test for MDPVs, 1.4 g/test for HDGVs at or 
below 14,000 lbs GVWR, and 1.9 g/test for those above 14,000 lbs GVWR, 
respectively. These FEL caps are the 3-day hot soak plus diurnal 
emission standards applicable under EPA's existing regulations. While 
we asked for input on these FEL caps and vehicle groupings, no party 
provided comment.
    Total evaporative emission credits (or deficits) under the Tier 3 
hot soak plus diurnal ABT program will be calculated differently in the 
2017 model year and the 2018 and later model years. For 2017 
calculations will be based on sales in the U.S. excluding California 
and the section 177 states which have adopted the LEV III/ZEV programs. 
For 2018 and later model years it will be based on all 50 states. 
Calculations will use the following equation: Credits = (fleet average 
standard-fleet average FEL) x ``U.S. sales''. The ``fleet average 
standard'' term here is the applicable Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal 
standard for the vehicle category from Table IV-19. The sales number 
used in the 2018 and later MY calculation will be the number of 
vehicles of the evaporative emission families in that category sold in 
the U.S. which are subject to the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards. Emission credits banked under the evaporative emission ABT 
program will have a five year credit life and will not be discounted. 
This means the credits will maintain their full value through the fifth 
model year after the model year in which they are generated. At the 
beginning of the sixth model year after they are generated, the credits 
will expire and cannot be used by the manufacturer. We are limiting 
credit life so there is a reasonable overlap between credit generating 
and credit using vehicles. As mentioned above, for purposes of the 
compliance calculation, allowance vehicles will have an FEL equivalent 
to the EPA emission standard (Table IV-19) for their respective vehicle 
category.
iii. Compliance Demonstration
    Demonstration of compliance with the evaporative emissions 
standards is done after the end of each model year. There are two 
steps. In the first step, as discussed above, manufacturers must show 
compliance with the applicable phase-in percentages from the primary 
phase-in scheme (i.e., 40, 60, 80, and 100), the 20/20 option for MY 
2017, or an alternative phase-in percentage scheme. It is sales from 
these families together with their respective FELs which will be used 
to make the demonstration of compliance with the emission standard on 
average within each vehicle averaging set. Compliant vehicle types for 
these purposes are the same as described in Section IV.C.1.c above for 
projected sales. If the required sales percentages are not met by 
direct sales or allowances, non-Tier 3 vehicles would have to be 
identified to make up the shortfall in this calculation but would not 
be subject to the canister bleed or leak standard requirements.
    In the second step, using the FELs, manufacturers calculate the 
sales-weighted average emission levels within each of the four vehicle 
categories using sales for each family.\356\ Manufacturers are allowed 
to use credits only within a defined averaging set. The averaging sets 
are: (1) LDVs and LDT1s, (2) LDT2s, (3) LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs, and 
(4) HDGVs. These sales-weighted calculated values must be at or below 
the emission standard for that vehicle category as shown in Table IV-
19, (unless credits from ABT are used). If the difference between the 
standard and the sales-weighted average FEL is a positive value this 
could generate banked credit available for future use. If the 
difference between the standard and the sales-weighted average FEL is a 
negative value this would be a credit deficit which could be covered by 
previously banked credits. Credit deficits will be allowed to be 
carried forward through negative banking. However, manufacturers are 
required to make up any deficits within the three subsequent model 
years with credits from vehicles in the same averaging set, except as 
described below. That is, after calculations for the fourth model year 
are complete, all previous deficits from the preceding model years will 
have to be resolved by credits generated by the manufacturer or 
acquired through trading from vehicles within the same averaging set. 
As an illustration, a credit deficit accumulated in MY 2017 would have 
to be eliminated not later than the time that the 2020 MY ABT 
calculation is submitted to EPA. In no case will a manufacturer be 
permitted to carry a deficit (negative credit balance) for more than 
three consecutive model years. Using a similar illustration, all credit 
deficits accumulated in MYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 would have to be 
eliminated not later than the time that the 2020 MY ABT calculation is 
submitted to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \356\ For MY 2017 calculations will be based on sales in the 
U.S. excluding California and the section 177 states which have 
adopted the LEV III/ZEV programs. For 2018 and later model years it 
will be based on all 50 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, manufacturers are required to identify and 
include in the calculations for each of the four averaging sets, 
vehicle families from each of the vehicle categories (see Table IV-19) 
until the total annual nationwide sales in the given model year equals 
or exceeds the prescribed percentages. This could include non-Tier 3 
vehicles. If the inclusion of non-Tier 3 vehicles results in an 
exceedance of the hot soak plus diurnal emission standard for that 
category of vehicles, the credit deficit would have to be made up in a 
subsequent model year. Credits from

[[Page 23504]]

banking and trading can be used to cover deficits at any time within 
the appropriate averaging set.
    Allowances can also be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
percentage phase-in requirements and the vehicle category average 
emission standard. For purposes of the percentage phase-in 
requirements, vehicles which have earned allowances are counted as 
compliant in the percentage calculation. For purposes of the 
calculations for compliance with the emission standard, allowance 
vehicles enter into the evaporative emissions compliance calculation as 
having an emission rate equivalent to the standard for that category of 
vehicle. Thus, allowance vehicles can help in demonstrating compliance 
with the percentage phase-in requirement (up to ten percentage points 
per model year in the alternative phase-in scheme) and can help in 
reducing deficits since their calculation value is equivalent to the 
level of the standard.
    As presented in detail above, during the 2017-2021 MYs EPA is 
allowing manufacturers limited flexibility to meet the percentage 
phase-in requirements using carryover certification data from vehicles 
certified to CARB PZEV zero evap and CARB LEV III Option 1 standards in 
the 2015 or 2016 model years. These vehicles may have certification 
values slightly higher than those of EPA's Tier 3 program for the given 
vehicle and vehicle category. Since the emission standard values in 
Table IV-19 and Table IV-20 are very similar for any given vehicle 
category, for purposes of simplification during the phase in, EPA in 
the final rule provides that any CARB PZEV zero evap or CARB LEV III 
Option 1 vehicles used in the 2017-2021MYs emission standard compliance 
determination be entered into the calculation with the emission level 
equivalent to the Tier 3 vehicle category in which the vehicle model 
would otherwise fit. However, we are not allowing manufacturers to 
generate emission credits for families certified with EPA based on 
carryover CARB PZEV zero evap or CARB LEV III Option 1 evaporative 
emissions data as provided for in Table IV-20. We are not including 
these vehicles in the ABT program since the programs are not directly 
comparable, and the structure of the current CARB ZEV program, which is 
the genesis of most PZEV zero evap offerings, allows for a different 
number of PZEV sales as a function of manufacturer size and CARB LEV 
III Option 1 does not permit averaging.
    As mentioned above, we are limiting use of credits to only within a 
defined averaging set. Cost effective technology is available to meet 
the hot soak plus diurnal emission standards on average within each of 
the vehicle categories in the averaging sets, especially since the 
standards are designed to accommodate nonfuel hydrocarbon background 
emissions. Thus, further flexibility is not needed. Moreover, we are 
constraining averaging to within these sets because of equity issues 
for the manufacturers. We are concerned that in the absence of such 
constraints the four or five manufacturers with a wide variety of 
product offerings in most or all of these categories would have a 
competitive advantage over the majority of manufacturers which have 
more limited product lines. This effect could be even more pronounced 
if the number of evaporative families is considered, since larger more 
diverse manufacturers have more models and thus more evaporative 
families.
    Nonetheless, manufacturer use of credits from different averaging 
sets to demonstrate compliance is permitted in limited cases. As noted 
above, if a manufacturer has a credit deficit at the end of a model 
year in a given averaging set, they will have to use credits from the 
same averaging set during the next three model years to make up the 
deficit. However, if a deficit still exists at the end of the third 
year (i.e., the deficit has existed for three consecutive model years), 
we are incorporating provisions to permit a manufacturer to use banked 
or traded credits from a different averaging set to cover the remaining 
deficit in the fourth model year's ABT calculation, with the following 
limitations. Manufacturers are able to use credits from the LDV and 
LDT1 averaging set to address remaining deficits in the LDT2 averaging 
set, and vice versa. Furthermore, manufacturers are permitted to use 
credits from the LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV averaging set to address 
remaining deficits in the HDGV averaging set, and vice versa. No other 
use of credit exchanges across different averaging sets is allowed. 
These restrictions are being finalized because of equity concerns 
caused by the different nature and size of various manufacturer product 
lines.
    For both the percentage phase-in and sales-weighted average 
calculation steps above, we are basing the calculation on nationwide 
sales (excluding California and the section 177 states which have 
adopted the LEVIII/ZEV programs) in the 2017 MY since the anti-
backsliding provisions of the LEV III evaporative emissions program are 
in place through the 2017 MY. The program uses annual nationwide sales 
beginning in the 2018 MY. We believe this approach is consistent with 
the manufacturers' plans for 50-state vehicles. A program design which 
enables a nationwide program has been an important premise of this 
rulemaking. Furthermore, this is simpler for the manufacturers and for 
EPA since it relieves the need to project future model year sales or 
track past model year sales at a disaggregated level. We recognize that 
decisions by the manufacturers on a national fleet versus a bifurcated 
approach such as exists today (California and the section 177 states 
which have adopted the LEVIII/ZEV programs separate from the rest of 
U.S. sales) may not yet have been made. The CARB LEV III and EPA phase-
in requirements are identical beginning in 2018, so EPA sees little 
need for concern that a 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.
    As discussed above, manufacturers not meeting the percentage phase-
in requirements will 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. These non-Tier 3 vehicles would not be subject 
to leak standard or canister bleed standard requirements. The 
additional vehicles could only be meeting the Tier 2 hot soak plus 
diurnal requirements and adding these vehicle families/vehicles into 
the calculation may result in a credit deficit. A manufacturer could 
not have an unresolved deficit for more than three model years as 
discussed below. The deficit would have to be eliminated with positive 
credits not later than the ABT calculation and credit reconciliation 
which occurs after the fourth model year.
    Resolving this sales percentage shortfall problem becomes a bit 
more complicated for the 2017 MY 20/20 option because it requires that 
20 percent of vehicles meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
requirements and that 20 percent meet the leak standard. These may or 
may not be the same vehicles. As a means to resolve this potential 
problem, EPA is requiring that any shortfall of either of the 20 
percent values (Tier 3 evaporative or leak standard) for the 2017 MY be 
covered by allowances or by future sales of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements in excess of the

[[Page 23505]]

evaporative emission percentage sales requirement for that MY or some 
combination of MYs. For example, if a manufacturer was five percentage 
points short of either the 20 percentage points for the hot soak plus 
diurnal or the 20 percentage points for the leak standard in the 2017 
MY, then it will have to accelerate sales of vehicles meeting Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements in the 2018-2021 MYs to cover the 5 
percentage points (e.g., 65 percent in 2018 instead of 60 percent or 63 
percent in 2018 MY and 62 percent in the 2019 MY, etc.). These vehicles 
as Tier 3 vehicles in MY 2018 or later would also have to meet the leak 
standard.
e. Small Volume Manufacturers
    As flexibility, we are establishing provisions for small volume 
manufacturers and for those small business manufacturers and 
operationally independent small volume manufacturers with average 
annual nationwide sales of 5,000 units or less.\357\ These 
manufacturers would be permitted to delay meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards, including the requirement to use EPA 
certification test fuel, until the 2022 MY. See pages 29892 and 29998-
29999 of the preamble to the NPRM and Section IV.G.5 below for a 
discussion of the 5,000 vehicle threshold. This includes the hot soak 
plus diurnal standards, the canister bleed emission standard, and the 
leak standard. In the interim, these vehicles must meet the existing 
evaporative and refueling emission standards. The initial determination 
of whether a manufacturer is under the 5,000 unit threshold will be 
based on the three year average of actual nationwide sales for MYs 
2012-2014. This allowance would not be affected if a qualifying 
manufacturer's nationwide sales later exceed that value before 2022. 
Similarly, new market entrants (not in the market in the 2012 MY) with 
projected sales of less than 5,000 units could be covered by the small 
volume manufacturer provisions. However, in this case if actual running 
average nationwide sales exceed 5,000 units per year in any three 
consecutive model years they will have to meet the Tier 3 evaporative 
requirements in the third model year thereafter. For example, if a new 
market entrant in 2015 projects nationwide production of 4,000 units 
per year and the average of actual values in 2015-2017 exceeds 5,000 
units per year they will have to meet Tier 3 evaporative requirements 
by the 2020 MY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \357\ See 40 CFR 86.1838-01(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technological Feasibility
    Evaporative/refueling emission control systems are an integral part 
of the overall vehicle engine and fuel system. EPA is establishing two 
revised and three new standards in this rule (2-/3-day hot soak plus 
diurnal standards, high altitude standards canister bleed standards, 
fuel rig SHED standard, leak standard) and a new test fuel which 
applies to these standards as well as the current running loss, 
refueling, and spit back emission standards.
    Hot soak plus diurnal emissions are fuel vapors which arise from 
the fuel system when it is parked immediately after operation (hot 
soak) and during daily ambient heating and cooling or by means of 
permeation when the vehicle is at rest. Control of hot soak plus 
diurnal emissions is primarily achieved by routing fuel vapors to a 
canister filled with activated carbon. These vapors are stored on the 
carbon and purged in the engine during vehicle operation. Hot soak plus 
diurnal emission rates vary with fuel vapor pressure, temperature, and 
fuel system design. Permeation emissions have been reduced by improving 
fuel tank and fuel line materials. Permeation emissions are sensitive 
to the gasoline ethanol content. While EPA has required ethanol in the 
fuel used for assessing evaporative system durability since 2004, Tier 
3 is the first rule to require the certification test fuel for 
gasoline-fueled vehicles to include ethanol (E10).
    Canister bleed emissions are fuel vapors which diffuse from the 
canister vent as a result of the normal redistribution of vapors within 
the activated carbon while the vehicle is at rest. The emission rate 
depends on the tank volume, its fill quantity, the size and 
architecture of the canister and the characteristics of the carbon 
itself. While the biggest effect of this vapor redistribution is a 
uniform vapor concentration within the canister, it can also cause 
vapors to escape through the canister vent even without continued 
canister loading resulting from fuel tank heating.
    Vapor leaks in the vehicle fuel/evaporative system can arise from 
micro-cracks or other flaws in various fuel/evaporative system 
component structures or welds, problems with component installations, 
and more generally from connections between components and fuel lines 
and vapor lines. Control of leaks is especially important to achieving 
full useful life emission control system performance.
    In Tier 3, the emissions test fuel is changing from 9 RVP E0 to 9 
RVP E10. EPA does not expect the change in emissions test fuel to 
affect refueling, spit back, or running loss compliance technology or 
strategies.
    While these elements of the evaporative/refueling program are 
separate requirements for compliance purposes, the integrated nature of 
the design and operation of the evaporative/refueling control systems 
and the vehicle engine/fuel systems often leads to co-benefits when 
technology is added or upgraded. In some cases technology to meet one 
of the new or revised evaporative emission requirements will either 
help in efforts to meet other evaporative type requirements or enhance 
durability. For example, technology used to address the canister bleed 
standard will also reduce hot soak plus diurnal emissions and 
technology to meet the leak standard will reduce hot soak plus diurnal 
emissions and enhance durability.
    Based on review of current certification data and the documentation 
in current professional literature, there is no doubt that the 
technology is available to meet the final evaporative emission 
standards described in this rule.\358\ There are at least 50 vehicle 
models which met the requirements in 2013.\359\ There are many 
technologies manufacturers can consider which will reduce emissions and 
enhance durability. Manufacturer compliance options and cost 
considerations are also addressed by the phase-in flexibilities and as 
the ABT program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \358\ Passavant, G. (December 2013). Assessment of 2013 MY 
Evaporative Emission Results. Memorandum to the docket.
    \359\ See Chapter 1 of the RIA for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM we described a variety of technology approaches and 
calibrations which manufacturers could use to meet the Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements. No comments were provided on the 
stringency of the standards, the technologies, the feasibility of the 
standards, or the costs of compliance. Nonetheless, we updated our 
technology analysis in light of new certification data and vehicle 
technology projections. As in the analysis supporting the NPRM, we 
identified technologies on the basis of their control effectiveness and 
cost to implement. Not every model will use every technology described 
below. Rather we expect manufacturers to apply the technologies needed 
on any given model to meet the compliance target level. The 
technologies could be broadly grouped into two segments. The

[[Page 23506]]

first are those expected to see widespread use based on their 
effectiveness and cost to implement. The second are those which are in 
relatively widespread use today, but could be optimized if necessary to 
achieve further reductions. In many cases the reductions available from 
this second group are relatively small and the costs are slightly 
higher than for the other strategies. The anticipated control 
technologies to comply with the hot soak plus diurnal, canister bleed/
rig, and leak standards are described briefly below and are grouped in 
these two basic segments. A more detailed analysis for each vehicle 
category is found in Chapter 1 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).
    a. Technologies expected to see widespread use: Engine/fuel system 
conversion: As projected in our RIA for the 2017-2025 light-duty GHG 
emissions final rule, EPA projects a significant movement from port 
fuel injection (PFI) engines to gasoline direct injection (GDI) 
engines. This ranges from 60-100 percent of products for all categories 
except gasoline-powered trucks over 14,000 lbs GVWR. This reduces air 
induction systems emissions by 90 percent.
    Air Induction System (AIS) Scrubber: For vehicles/engine models not 
converted to GDI, EPA projects the use of an AIS scrubber as is now 
used on some PZEV models. These would reduce air induction system 
emissions by 85 percent.
    Canister honeycomb: This is a lower gasoline working capacity 
activated carbon device designed to load and purge very easily and 
quickly. This device reduces canister bleed emissions by 90 percent but 
also provides control for the hot soak plus diurnal test.
    Reduce leaks from connections and improve seals and o-rings: Vapor 
leaks from connections and the emission rates from these leaks is 
exacerbated if poor sealing techniques or low grade seal materials are 
use in connectors such as o-rings. Reducing connections in the fuel and 
evaporative systems and improving techniques and materials would reduce 
these emissions by 90 percent. This would reduce hot soak plus diurnal 
emissions, improve durability, and help to assure compliance with the 
leak standard.
    Move parts into the fuel tank: Another means to reduce leak-related 
vapor emissions is to move fuel evaporative system parts which are 
external to the fuel tank to the inside. Emissions from these parts 
would be completely eliminated. This would reduce hot soak plus diurnal 
emissions, improve durability, and help to assure compliance with the 
leak standard.
    OBD evaporative system leak monitoring: Beginning in the 2017 model 
year, the OBD system will need to be able to find, confirm, and signal 
a leak in the evaporative system of 0.020 inches cumulative diameter or 
greater. This is currently done on most vehicles less than 14,000 lbs 
GVWR as a result of the manufacturers' response to meeting CARB 
requirements, but will be mandatory under EPA regulations.
    b. Technologies expected to be optimized if necessary to achieve 
further reductions:
    In the NPRM, EPA discussed a number of other technologies with the 
demonstrated potential to further reduce evaporative emissions. These 
included: (1) Upgrading the activated carbon canister and optimizing 
purge calibrations (especially for larger displacement engines), (2) 
upgrading fuel line materials to reduce permeation, (3) improving the 
fuel tank barrier layer to reduce permeation, (4) improving fuel tank 
manufacturing processes to reduce tank seam permeation emissions, (5) 
upgrading the fuel tank fill tube material to reduce permeation, and 
(6) improving the security of the fill tube connection to the fuel 
tank. While each of these approaches reduces evaporative emissions, 
they are to large degrees in use today. Thus their further application 
may be limited to specific situations. It is worth noting, that the use 
of these technologies has contributed to the relatively large 
compliance margins under the existing hot soak plus diurnal standards.
    The reductions required and cost of compliance for any given 
vehicle model will depend on its current certification level and the 
type of evaporative emission control technology applied. The baseline 
emission values for 2-day hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission 
certification for current models range from 0.42-0.96 grams per test 
(g/test). Achieving the desired compliance targets (at least 25 percent 
below the Tier 3 standard) would require reductions ranging from 0.12 
g/test for LDT2s to 0.51 g/test for HDGVs.\360\ EPA estimates 2025MY 
costs in the range of $9-15 per vehicle with a fuel cost savings of 
about $2 over the vehicle life. The application of the technologies 
expected to see widespread use under Tier 3 will create the margins 
need for compliance and in some cases create excess reductions which 
could be used to generate credits for ABT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \360\ Passavant, G. (December 2013). Assessment of 2013 MY 
Evaporative Emission Results. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Heavy-Duty Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements
a. Background on HDGV
    HDGVs are gasoline-powered vehicles with either a GVWR of greater 
than 8,500 lbs, or a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 lbs, or a 
basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet.\361\ HDGVs are 
predominantly but not exclusively commercial vehicles, mostly trucks 
and other work type vehicles built on a truck chassis. EPA often 
discusses HDGVs in three basic categories for regulatory purposes 
according to their GVWR class. These are Class 2b (8,501-10,000 lbs 
GVWR), Class 3 (10,001-14,000 lbs GVWR), and Class 4 and above (over 
14,000 lbs GVWR). These are further sub-categorized into complete and 
incomplete vehicles.\362\ Class 2b HDGVs are mostly produced by the 
manufacturers as complete vehicles and are very similar to lower GVWR 
LDTs of the same basic model sold by the manufacturers. Class 3 HDGVs 
are also built from LDT chassis with fuel system designs that are 
similar to their Class 2b and LDT counterparts, but these are on some 
occasions sent to secondary manufacturers as incomplete vehicles to 
attach a load carrying device or container. EPA estimates that more 
than 95 percent of Class 2b/3 vehicles are complete when they leave the 
original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Class 4 and above HDGVs are 
built on a more traditional heavy-truck chassis and in most cases leave 
the OEM as an incomplete vehicle. For Class 2b/3 vehicles, it is common 
to certify the vehicle for emissions purposes (exhaust, evaporative, 
etc) as a full chassis, while for Class 4 and above the vehicle is 
certified as a chassis for evaporative emissions while the engine is 
dynamometer certified for exhaust emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \361\ MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but they are 
classified separately for evaporative and refueling emission 
purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803-01.
    \362\ Heavy-duty vehicles may be complete or incomplete. A 
complete HDGV is one that has the primary load carrying device or 
container (or equivalent equipment) attached, normally by the 
vehicle OEM. An incomplete vehicle is one that does not have the 
primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment) 
when it leaves control of the manufacturer of the engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HDGVs have been subject to evaporative emission standards since the 
mid 1980s. Recently, the timing of the standards has lagged 
requirements for LDVs and LDTs by several years, but the standards are 
of comparable stringency when vehicle size and fuel

[[Page 23507]]

tank volume are considered. The most recent 2/3 day hot soak plus 
diurnal standards for HDGVs took effect in 2008. Refueling control 
requirements apply to complete Class 2b vehicles only. These 
requirements phased-in over the period from 2004-2006.
b. HDGV Evaporative Emission Control Requirements
    As discussed above, EPA is including HDGVs within the Tier 3 
evaporative emissions program. The hot soak plus diurnal and canister 
bleed test emission standards that will apply to these HDGVs are 
presented in Table IV-19 and-Table IV-20 and the high altitude standard 
is presented in Table IV-21. These vehicles will be included in the 
averaging calculation beginning in the 2018 MY and will be eligible for 
creating and using allowances and credits.
    Furthermore, for the reasons discussed below, EPA is requiring that 
all complete HDGVs regardless of their GVWR be required to meet the 
refueling emission standards and use the test procedures currently 
required for LDVs and LDTs and complete Class 2b vehicles. (See Sec.  
86.1813-17). In their comments, manufacturers expressed concern about 
the amount of gasoline used in the development and certification of 
refueling emission control systems for HDGVs (due to the larger fuel 
tanks). To address this concern, EPA will permit manufacturers to 
certify using two separate processes for vehicles with tanks of 40 
gallons or larger. The first will be the engineering evaluation of 
canister and purge data from lighter weight HDGVs certified in the SHED 
to show that similar or scaled-up systems on heavier HDGVs have the 
purge volume and canister working capacity to pass the refueling 
standard. This could include a comparison of control system design 
elements such as canister shape, canister internal architecture, total 
canister volume, and total gasoline working capacity as well as purge 
air volume over the Federal Test Procedure. This would be subject to 
the application of good engineering judgment. The second is application 
of the provisions of 40 CFR 86.153-98 (a) through (b)(1) on a bench set 
up for a tank of the appropriate volume in lieu of a vehicle test to 
show the efficacy of the fill neck seal. Such a test could be conducted 
in a conventional SHED.
    The ORVR requirement applies to complete Class 3 vehicles by the 
2018MY and all other complete HDGVs by the 2022MY. EPA proposed these 
requirements for Class 3 HDGVs and asked for comment on extending the 
requirements to all HDGVs. The manufacturers expressly commented that 
HDGV ORVR requirements should be limited to complete HDGVs.\363\ There 
are only four manufacturers of HDGVs. Of these, three offer complete 
products in the Class 3 weight range and none offer complete products 
in the Class 4 and above weight range. As mentioned above, Class 3 
vehicles have largely the same vehicle chassis and fuel system 
configurations as Class 2b vehicles. The manufacturers of complete 
Class 2b vehicles indicated to the CARB and EPA that they carry across 
their Class 2b fuel evaporative control system designs onto Class 3 and 
this includes the onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) system used 
for control of refueling emissions. Thus, applying refueling emission 
controls to complete Class 3 vehicles adds no cost and has little 
additional emission reduction benefit. However, it does set a 
requirement to continue these controls in future model years. There are 
no complete Class 4 and above HDGVs and neither manufacturer who 
certifies incomplete HDGVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR objected to 
establishing an ORVR requirement for complete HDGVs.\364\ This sector 
is made of incomplete HDGV chassis and diesel-powered products. 
However, setting a requirement for potential future Class 4 and above 
designs establishes certainty for manufacturers but brings no near term 
cost burden or emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \363\ See comments of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and 
Association of Global Automakers in the public docket at EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0135-4451.
    \364\ Passavant, G., (September 2013). EPA and General Motors 
Meeting on Issues Related to Tier 3 NPRM and (September 2013). EPA 
and Ford Meeting on Issues Related to Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandums to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incomplete HDGVs make up 15-20 percent of all HDGV sales. Of this, 
approximately 80 percent are Class 2b/3 and 20 percent are Class 4 and 
above. EPA is not extending the refueling emission control requirement 
to incomplete HDGVs at this time. The control system designs would be 
essentially the same as on complete HDGVs, but manufacturers have 
indicated to EPA that they would have to establish additional measures 
to ensure that the steps taken to complete the vehicle by the secondary 
manufacturer do not compromise the integrity and safety of the fuel/
evaporative control system (including ORVR) and that the ORVR system 
continues to perform properly with regard to emissions control. While 
there are relatively few of these vehicles, their contributions to the 
inventory are larger than might be expected due to their lower fuel 
economy. Given these contributions, EPA may consider proposing to apply 
ORVR to incomplete HDGVs in a future action.
    EPA is also including a provision that manufacturers be permitted 
to comply with the refueling emission standard as early as the 2015 MY 
to earn on a one-to-one basis allowances which could be used to phase-
in the Class 3 refueling emission control requirement or as an 
allowance on a 2:1 basis under the Tier 3 evaporative emission program. 
EPA believes this is appropriate since the expected daily average 
reduction in vehicle refueling emissions for this class of vehicles is 
large relative to the reduction in evaporative emissions expected under 
Tier 3. This would also apply to any incomplete HDGV a manufacturer 
voluntarily certified to the refueling emission standards. Any 
certifications, including those done early, must use EPA Tier 3 test 
procedures and certification test fuels or CARB LEV III equivalents.
c. Other Program Elements for HDGVs
    In the NPRM, EPA sought comment on several provisions related to 
Tier 3 certification test fuel and evaporative emission control 
requirements.
    First, EPA sought comment on whether heavy-duty gasoline engines 
(HDGEs) not subject to new Tier 3 exhaust emission standards (those 
certified for exhaust emissions using an engine dynamometer) which are 
used in HDGVs subject to Tier 3 evaporative emission standards should 
certify for exhaust emissions on Tier 3 emissions test fuel.\365\ 
Manufacturers responded by asking that the use of Tier 3 fuel for HDGE 
exhaust emissions certification be voluntary, but agreed that the use 
of Tier 3 certification fuel would not change the stringency of the 
current dynamometer-based emission standards or the costs of 
compliance. Based on consultations with manufacturers, EPA has decided 
to require that all HDGEs be certified on Tier 3 fuel by the 
2022MY.\366\ To provide flexibility for very unique applications or 
circumstances, EPA will allow up to five percent of a manufacturer's

[[Page 23508]]

dynamometer-certified HDGE sales in any given model year to be 
certified using Tier 2 certification fuel. This flexibility is limited 
to certification based on carryover data beginning in the 2022MY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \365\ EPA also sought comment on whether to require HDGVs to use 
Tier 3 emissions test fuel for evaporative emissions standards even 
if we did not adopt the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards and whether to allow Class 4 and above HDGVs to earn 
allowances or credits if EPA did not adopt the Tier 3 standards for 
these vehicles. These have been superseded by our decision to apply 
the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards to all HDGVs as described 
above.
    \366\ Passavant, G. (September 2013). EPA and General Motors 
Meeting on Issues Related to Tier 3 NPRM and (September 2013). EPA 
and Ford Meeting on Issues Related to Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandums to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as discussed in Section IV.F.5 for light-duty vehicles, we 
are committed to the principle of ensuring that any change in test fuel 
for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles/engines will not affect the stringency 
of either the fuel consumption or GHG emissions standards. As part of 
the separate rulemaking discussed in Section IV.F.5, we expect to 
establish the appropriate test procedure adjustment for HD engine fuel 
consumption standards and to determine the need for any test procedure 
adjustment for GHG emissions standards based on the change in 
certification test fuels.
    Third, to simplify the evaporative emission regulations for HDGVs 
and to bring them more in line with the current structure of the 
product offerings in this sector, we are finalizing provisions to 
permit evaporative emissions certification by engineering analysis for 
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR (instead of above 26,000 lbs GVWR as 
permitted in the existing regulations). We are also finalizing 
regulatory language to clarify how these provisions are to be 
implemented. This applies to the hot soak plus diurnal, running loss, 
and canister bleed standards. These HDGVs will remain subject to the 
emission standards when tested using the specified procedures. This is 
the same cut point allowed by CARB and will allow for one certification 
method. Even though it was supported by one commenter, we are not 
including specific provisions for design-based certification for HDGVs 
over 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA believes that the option to certify using 
engineering analysis and data serves the same purpose.
    Fourth, we are finalizing a revised description of evaporative 
emission families that does not reference sealing methods for 
carburetors or air cleaners as this technology is now obsolete for 
HDGEs.
    Fifth, EPA is finalizing regulatory language permitting HDGVs over 
14,000 lbs GVWR to be grouped with those between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs 
GVWR for purposes of complying with evaporative and refueling emission 
control standards and related provisions. In these cases, we require 
these HDGVs to meet all the requirements applicable to the group in 
which they are being included (e.g., useful life, OBD, etc.).
    Finally, the regulations at 40 CFR part 86, subpart M, describe how 
to test heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to demonstrate 
compliance with evaporative emission standards. Most of these 
provisions are identical to those that apply under 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart B. We are eliminating subpart M and replacing it with a simple 
instruction to test these heavy-duty vehicles using the procedures of 
subpart B, with a small number of appropriate modifications noted as 
exceptions to the light-duty test procedures. Relying on references to 
subpart B instead of largely copying them into subpart M eliminates 
many pages of unnecessary regulatory text and makes it easier to 
maintain a consistent set of requirements. Changing a provision in 
subpart B in the future will automatically apply for evaporative 
testing of both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles unless otherwise 
provided in the particular rulemaking.
    In response to comments received, we are specifying that heavy-duty 
vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR must use the same drive schedules and 
test fuels that apply for light-duty vehicles. Subpart M already allows 
light-duty drive schedules and certification test fuels as an 
alternative to using those for heavy-duty vehicles, and most if not all 
manufacturers of these vehicles already use the light-duty drive 
schedules, which facilitates testing simplicity and coordination of 
design parameters with light-duty vehicles. The heavy-duty drive 
schedule generally involves less driving, which makes this the more 
stringent test option for designing purge. Omitting this more stringent 
option therefore does not change the effective stringency of the 
applicable standards.
    With these changes from the proposed rule, there are only two 
aspects of testing that are different for heavy-duty vehicles above 
14,000 lbs GVWR. First, the regulations specify that the exhaust 
emission measurements are not required for the driving portion of the 
test between canister pre-conditioning and diurnal testing. Exhaust 
emission standards in this vehicle size range apply based on engine 
testing only. Second, wider engine speed tolerances apply. This is 
captured in part 1066 by specifying wider engine speed tolerances for 
any testing that does not require exhaust emission measurements since 
the greater allowance has no effect on emissions measurements. This 
applies, for example, for pre-conditioning drives for light-duty 
vehicles, and it also applies for pre-conditioning related to 
evaporative emissions of heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR.
    There are some differences in the existing test provisions in 
subparts B and M that we are not preserving. Some of these differences 
arose from changes to subpart B that were inadvertently not carried 
over to subpart M. In other cases, there may have been an intentional 
distinction that no longer applies (such as provisions related to 
slippage on twin-roll dynamometers). Also, we are not retaining 
distinctions in subpart M related to procedures for determining road 
load settings and for operating manual or automatic transmissions. 
Additional differences we are not preserving include gas divider 
specifications, SHED and dynamometer calibration procedures, and some 
provisions for alternative canister loading and vehicle pre-
conditioning. We are also restoring the content of Sec.  86.1235(b) 
through (i) related to dynamometer operating procedures, which were 
inadvertently removed in an earlier rulemaking.
5. Evaporative Emission Requirements for FFVs
    A flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) as defined in 40 CFR 86.1301-01 means 
any motor vehicle engineered and designed to be operated on a petroleum 
fuel and on a methanol or ethanol fuel or any mixture of the petroleum 
fuel and methanol or ethanol. Many manufacturers have one or more FFVs 
in their product offerings. These include many different LDV and LDT 
vehicle chassis styles including passenger cars, mini-vans, pick-ups, 
sport utility vehicles and even a few HDGVs.
    The EPA regulations implementing the FFV provisions for ethanol 
FFVs, including those in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and 86.1811-09, have been 
applied primarily for FFVs capable of operating on gasoline/ethanol 
mixtures up to E85. As a matter of policy, EPA has not required 
certification testing for evaporative and refueling emissions on the 
full range of E0-E85 fuel blends, but instead has allowed the option to 
use a blend created when Tier 2 fuel (9 RVP E0) is splash blended with 
ethanol to a 10 percent gasoline/ethanol blend. This simulates what 
often occurs in the vehicle fuel tank when Tier 2 fuel (9 RVP E0) is 
dispensed into a tank containing mostly E85. This yields a blend which 
has a Reid vapor pressure of about 10 psi. Nearly all manufacturers 
have certified using this option. The California ARB LEV III program 
has no special evaporative or refueling emission test fuel requirements 
for FFVs.
    In the Tier 3 NPRM, EPA proposed to revise the certification test 
fuel for evaporative emissions, to revise the hot soak plus diurnal 
emission standard, and to add a canister bleed emission standard and a 
leak standard. These

[[Page 23509]]

standards apply to FFVs and non-FFVs. EPA proposed to revise the 
ethanol content of the certification test fuel for refueling emissions 
but did not otherwise propose to change the fuel vapor pressure, the 
level of the refueling emission standard or the test procedure. 
Furthermore, in the NPRM, EPA sought comment on leaving unchanged the 
basic approach to FFV certification test fuel for Tier 3 evaporative 
and refueling emissions, except that the certification test fuel would 
be 9 RVP E0 splash blended with E15 such that the blend would have a 10 
psi vapor pressure, i.e., the RVP of the evaporative emissions test 
fuel used by nearly all manufacturers. Manufacturers commented that the 
Tier 3 certification test fuel should be the same for FFVs and non-FFVs 
and that carryover should be permitted from Tier 2 to Tier 3. EPA met 
with several manufacturers to clarify their comments and to discuss 
issues affecting the evaporative and refueling emissions certification 
fuel for FFVs.\367\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \367\ Passavant, G. (September, 2013). EPA, GM, Ford, and 
Chrysler Meeting on Tier 3 Certification Fuel for Evaporative and 
Refueling Emission Standards for FFVs. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For FFVs, EPA has several factors to consider for evaporative and 
refueling emission certification test fuel. First, EPA is finalizing a 
9 RVP E10 certification test fuel for non-FFVs for evaporative and 
refueling emissions. This is consistent with our broader policy 
objective to allow the manufacturers to sell the same vehicles in all 
50 states. Second, 10 psi RVP certification test fuel for the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards for FFVs could result in more 
evaporative emission reductions than a 9 psi RVP test fuel, but this 
would be counter to the broader policy objective regarding a national 
program since CARB has no separate FFV evaporative emission standards 
and likely would affect the stringency of the final evaporative 
emission standards. Specifically, finalizing 10 psi RVP certification 
test fuel for the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards as applied to 
FFVs would increase the stringency of the evaporative emission 
standards for FFVs both compared to the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards with 9 psi RVP test fuel for non-FFVs and compared to the 
Tier 2/MSAT evaporative emission standards with 10 psi RVP test fuel 
for FFVs. Third, we are not changing the level of the refueling 
emission standard (though we are adding ethanol to the test fuel and 
extending ORVR to complete Class 3 HDGVs) and we did not examine how a 
potential change from the existing 10 psi RVP test fuel for FFV 
refueling would affect in-use emission reductions or the stringency of 
the refueling standard for FFVs. A change in the test fuel vapor 
pressure likely would likely lead to a change in the stringency of the 
refueling emission standard as they are now applied to FFVs. Retaining 
the current requirements for refueling emissions for FFVs does not 
affect the national program since CARB currently follows Federal Test 
Procedures and test fuels for ORVR.
    Balancing all of these factors, EPA is adopting a bifurcated scheme 
for evaporative and refueling emission certification for Tier 3. 
Evaporative emission requirements for the hot soak plus diurnal, 
canister bleed, running loss, spit back, and leak standards will be 
based on Tier 3 certification fuel (9 RVP E10) for FFVs. This will 
permit reciprocity between the LEVIII and Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards programs and subject the manufacturers to only one set of 
evaporative emission tests for FFVs and non-FFVs. However, for the 
refueling emission standard, EPA is retaining the 10 psi certification 
test fuel requirement for FFVs because the worst case in-use RVP 
conditions when E0 and E85 are commingled will still be possible. In 
current systems, the fuel vapor pressure in the refueling emission test 
drives the total gasoline working capacity of the activated carbon 
canister that is necessary in the integrated evaporative/refueling 
control system. Although a 10 psi RVP certification fuel for 
evaporative emissions control could be viewed as more stringent, we 
believe that keeping the fuel vapor pressure at 10 psi in the refueling 
test, which is what was proposed for comment, will help to assure that 
the in-use emission reduction benefits of current evaporative systems 
on FFVs are retained. We expect that total canister gasoline working 
capacities will still be driven by the 10 psi RVP fuel used in the 
refueling test and therefore the higher in-use RVP conditions which 
impact evaporative emissions will still be addressed.
    EPA is specifying a 10 RVP E10 test fuel specification for FFV 
refueling emissions certification. However, as a compliance alternative 
EPA will continue to permit certification based on in vehicle fuel tank 
blending of two different fuels (i.e., vehicle fuel tank filled to 10 
percent of capacity with E85 and then refueled to at least 95 percent 
of capacity with (9 RVP E0). Either of these approaches will also meet 
CARB certification test fuel requirements as the test fuel vapor 
pressure would be higher than with EPA's 9 RVP E10 or CARB's 7 RVP E10 
test fuel. In addition, we are not changing existing requirements that 
all IUVP testing for evaporative and refueling tests are done on the 
non-FFV fuel (i.e., Tier 2 IUVP vehicles are tested on 9 RVP E0 and 
Tier 3 IUVP vehicles are tested on 9 RVP E10.
    In their comments on the Tier 3 NPRM, manufacturers asked that EPA 
allow carryover of certification emission data from Tier 2 to Tier 3. 
Since the regulatory approach for refueling emissions is basically the 
same as what is currently being used by the manufacturers, we believe 
there should be opportunity for carryover of refueling emission data 
under the current regulatory program. Manufacturers also expressed 
concern that the refueling emission standard would require them to keep 
a 10 RVP E10 or 9 RVP E0 test fuel solely for refueling emission 
standard certification purposes. To help address this concern, in 
certification testing, EPA would consider approving other refueling 
test fuel blends with 10 percent ethanol and 10 psi such as a refueling 
event where a tank is filled initially with 10 percent E85 and during 
refueling test is filled with 90 percent 9 RVP E0. EPA would also 
permit manufacturers the option to seek EPA approval to certify by 
attestation using alternative procedures or through engineering 
analysis based on similar evaporative/refueling emission system 
configurations and emission test results and data on similar vehicles 
showing that the vehicle could pass the refueling emission standard and 
meet the requirements in use on 10 psi RVP E10 fuel. They would remain 
subject to confirmatory testing on 10 RVP E10. Both of these options 
could only be implemented with approval of the Administrator.
6. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
a. Review and Update of Testing Requirements
    EPA adopted the current test requirements for controlling 
evaporative emissions in 1993.\368\ Those changes included: (1) Diurnal 
testing based on heating and cooling the ambient air in the SHED \369\ 
instead of forcing fuel temperatures through a specified temperature 
excursion; (2) repeated 24-hour diurnal measurements to capture both 
permeation and diurnal emissions; (3) high-temperature hot soak 
testing; (4)

[[Page 23510]]

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

    \368\ 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993).
    \369\ SHED is the Federal Register acronym for sealed housing 
for evaporative determination. The SHED is the enclosure in which 
the evaporative emissions are captured before measurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These test procedures are generally referred to as ``enhanced 
evap'' testing. EPA adopted these ``enhanced evap'' test procedures in 
coordination with CARB. The test requirements include two separate test 
sequences to demonstrate the effectiveness of evaporative emission 
controls. The ``2-day 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 ``3-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 is also effective for requiring control of 
permeation and other fugitive emissions. The 3-day sequence was 
intended to establish a design benchmark for achieving adequate 
canister storage capacity to allow for several days of parking on hot 
summer days, in addition to requiring vehicle designs that prevent 
emissions during high-temperature driving and shutdown conditions.
    After adopting these evaporative test procedures, we set new 
standards for refueling emissions control which called for onboard 
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR).\370\ Manufacturers have typically 
designed their ORVR systems to be integrated with their evaporative 
controls, using a single canister and purge strategy to manage all fuel 
vapors vented from the fuel tank. Due to the magnitude of the refueling 
emission load and the manner in which the load rates affect activated 
carbon capture efficiency, it has become clear that ORVR testing with 
these integrated systems serves as the benchmark for achieving adequate 
canister storage capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \370\ 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the nearly 20 years since adopting these test procedures, 
manufacturers have made great strides in developing designs and 
technologies to manage canister loading and purging and to reduce 
permeation emissions. Except as discussed below, we are not changing 
the test procedures for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 
emission standards. As described above, we are adopting a new standard 
based on measured values over a canister bleed test, and a fuel system 
rig test. These are intended to measure only fuel vapors which diffuse 
from the evaporative canister or permeate/leak from a fuel system. CARB 
developed these procedures as a means for setting standards that are 
not affected by nonfuel background emissions. The canister bleed test 
procedure is a variation of the established two-day test sequence. The 
canister is preconditioned by purging and loading to breakthrough, then 
attached to an appropriate test vehicle for driving over the duty cycle 
for the exhaust test. The canister is then attached to a fuel tank for 
measurement. After a stabilization period, the tank and canister 
undergo two days of temperature cycling. Canister emissions are 
measured using a flame ionization detector (FID), with a conventional 
SHED approach or by collecting emissions in a bag and measuring the 
mass. Rather than repeating CARB's regulations, we are incorporating 
those regulations by reference into the CFR.\371\ This will avoid the 
possibility of complications related to minor differences that may 
occur with separate test procedures. The fuel system rig test is a 
bench test where a complete vehicle fuel system (without the vehicle 
chassis) is constructed in the SHED and evaluated over the 3-day cycle 
in both a ``wet'' and ``dry'' state.\372\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \371\ For a description of the canister bleed test procedure 
(BETP), see pp.III-51 to III-55 of http://www.arb.ca.gov/db/search/search_result.htm?cx=006180681887686055858%3Abew1c4wl8hc&cof=FORID%3A11&q=BETP&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arb.ca.gov%2Fhomepage.htm (last accessed 
on January 13, 2014).
    \372\ See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/mac0503/mac0503.pdf 
for a description of the rig test standard and test procedure (last 
accessed on January 13, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB adopted the fuel system ``rig test'' as an optional approach 
to demonstrate control of evaporative emissions without the effects of 
the nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions that are seen in testing the whole 
vehicle in the SHED. We generally expect manufacturers to comply with 
the EPA requirements which include the canister bleed test and emission 
standard instead of CARB LEV III Option 1 which includes the rig test 
and emission standard. However, since we are accepting PZEV zero evap 
and CARB LEV III Option 1 certifications for the 2017-2018 MYs and 
2017-2021 MYs, respectively, we are also incorporating by reference 
CARB's rig test into the CFR to accommodate those manufacturers that do 
in fact rely on this approach.
    Also, as discussed further below, we are adopting a new leak test 
procedure which will be used to measure leak rates for the leak 
standard. The leak test standard test procedure is contained in the 
regulatory text.
    Manufacturers have raised a pair of related concerns regarding the 
current test procedures. First, hybrid vehicles and new engine designs 
for meeting fuel economy standards and CO2 emission 
standards increase the challenge of maintaining an adequate purge 
volume to prepare vehicles for the diurnal test. For hybrid vehicles 
this is related to the amount of time the engine is running. For other 
technologies this is related to the trend toward decreasing available 
vacuum in the intake manifold, which is the principal means of drawing 
purge air through the canister. Second, preconditioning the canister by 
loading to breakthrough serves as a disincentive for some control 
strategies that might otherwise be effective at reducing emissions, 
such as designs involving greater canister capacity or better 
containment of fuel vapors inside the fuel tank. In addition, we have 
learned from studying in-use emissions and in-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.
    In the NPRM, we requested comment on an optional adjustment to the 
test procedure intended to address these three concerns. In this 
alternative, for designs involving pressurized tanks, manufacturers 
would determine an alternative vapor load to precondition the canister 
before the exhaust test. If, for example, a fuel system is designed to 
stay sealed up to 1 psi and to vent vapors to the canister if rising 
temperatures trigger a pressure-relief valve, the manufacturer could 
quantify the actual vapor load to the canister during three consecutive 
days of cycling through diurnal test temperatures. This three-day vapor 
load would be the amount of fuel vapor used to precondition the 
canister (loaded at the established rate of 15 grams per hour). This 
canister loading may also involve butane instead of fuel vapor, but we 
would likely require a greater mass of butane to account for the fact 
that it is easier to remove the butane from the activated carbon in the 
canister. This

[[Page 23511]]

approach would be flexible to accommodate any design target for 
pressurizing fuel tanks. Canister preconditioning for the ORVR test 
(for integrated and nonintegrated systems) would remain unchanged. EPA 
sees merit in further consideration of such test procedure 
flexibilities, but auto manufacturers did not provide support these 
concepts in their comments and we are not adopting the proposed 
optional adjustment.
b. Test Fuel for Certification
    EPA is changing the certification test fuel specifications as 
described in Section IV.F. Here we discuss some implications for 
evaporative and refueling emissions testing beyond those discussed 
above for FFVs. We are revising the certification test fuel 
specification in conjunction with the Tier 3 standards, principally to 
include ethanol and reduce sulfur such that the test fuel better aligns 
with the current and projected in-use fuel. Although we received 
unsolicited comment asking that we set durability test fuel 
specifications for evaporative and refueling emission control systems 
to be the same as those for the certification test fuel (9 RVP E10 in 
this final rule), we are not changing durability fuel specifications in 
this rule other than to remove minimum sulfur content requirements. In 
particular, we are not changing the existing requirement that ``any 
mileage accumulation method for evaporative emissions must employ 
gasoline fuel for the entire mileage accumulation period which contains 
ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline 
under federal law and that is commercially available in any state in 
the United States''. See Sec. Sec.  86.1824-08(f)(1) and 86.113-
04(a)(3)(i). EPA believes this is prudent policy to ensure that 
emission control systems are designed for the fuels with the potential 
to adversely affect durability and there is no reason to change the 
existing approach especially since E15 fuel is now legally permissible 
and commercially available for appropriate vehicles and there is 
potential for its market penetration to increase in the future. Any 
bench aging using E15 fuel must simulate the effects of alcohol in-use 
fuels on evaporative emission system components.
    Since there are already vehicles in the market which employ the 
technology needed to meet the new hot soak plus diurnal requirements, 
EPA is taking a flexible approach to the phase-in of the certification 
test fuel. This is summarized in Table IV-22.
    To accommodate vehicles already designed to meet CARB PZEV zero 
evap evaporative emission requirements, EPA's phase-in provides that 
PZEV zero evap vehicles which qualify for carryover can use CARB Phase 
2 fuel for evaporative emissions (hot soak plus diurnal and running 
loss standards) and rig test certification for MYs 2015-2019. For CARB 
PZEV zero evap vehicles, high altitude, refueling, and spit back 
standard certification may use either EPA Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel in MYs 
2015-2019. For the leak standard in the 2018 and later MYs, they must 
use Tier 3 test fuel. Beginning in the 2017 MY, the use of PZEV zero 
evap data is limited to carryover of data from 2015 or 2016 MY 
certifications.
    Those using CARB LEV III Option 1 can use CARB Phase 3 fuel for 
evaporative emissions (hot soak plus diurnal and running loss 
standards) and rig test certification for MYs 2015-2021. For CARB 
Option 1, high altitude, refueling, and spit back standard 
certification must may use Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel in MYs 2015-2016 but 
in the 2017 and later MYs all LEV III option 1 certifications for the 
high altitude, refueling, spit back, and leak standards must use EPA 
Tier 3 fuel.
    CARB LEV III Option 2 evaporative emission vehicles may use CARB 
Phase 3 fuel to meet evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal and running 
loss standards) and canister bleed standards beginning in 2015 MY and 
following. High altitude, refueling, and spit back may use Tier 2 or 
Tier 3 fuel in model years 2015 and 2016. For 2017 and later model 
years CARB LEV III option 2 evaporative families must use Tier 3 test 
fuel for high altitude, refueling, spit back, and leak standard 
certifications.
    Tier 3 evaporative emission vehicles must use Tier 3 fuel to meet 
evaporative emission (hot soak plus diurnal and running loss 
standards), high altitude, canister bleed, and refueling/spit back 
emission standards beginning in the 2015 MY and following. Beginning in 
the 2018 MY, Tier 3 vehicles must use Tier 3 emission test fuel to 
demonstrate compliance with the leak standard requirements.\373\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \373\ This provision applies in 2017 MY for vehicles meeting the 
Tier 3 requirements using the 20/20 option and does not apply to 
HDGVs with a GVWR greater than 14,000 lbs. Incomplete HDGVs have 
until the 2022 MY to meet the spit back standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the program is fully phased-in, any Tier 3 evaporative 
emission certification will have to use Tier 3 certification test fuel 
and test procedures or CARB equivalent test procedures and fuels. This 
could be done as early as the 2015 MY and will be required for all 
vehicle models by the 2022 MY.\374\ As indicated above and in Table IV-
22, we are further applying the new test fuel at the same time to ORVR 
testing. Therefore, beginning in the 2017 MY if manufacturers do any 
new testing to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission standards (using Tier 3 or LEV III fuel), they will need to 
submit test data to demonstrate compliance with the refueling emission 
standards using the new certification test fuel as well as the leak 
(when applicable), spit back, canister bleed, running loss, and high 
altitude emission standards. Any family that is not yet captured within 
the Tier 3 phase-in percentage may remain on Tier 2 certification fuel 
through the 2021 MY. By the 2022 MY all evaporative and refueling 
emission certifications will have to be on EPA test procedures and 
certification fuels or CARB equivalents as identified in the 
regulations. Policies regarding test procedures and test fuels for EPA 
confirmatory and other post certification testing are discussed in 
Section IV.C.6.e below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \374\ The only exception here would be if a vehicle uses 
allowances in the 2022 model year to meet the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we are including provisions to allow any vehicle certified 
to the refueling spit back standard separately (mostly incomplete 
HDGVs)to continue to do so using Tier 2 current certification fuel 
until the 2022 MY even if its evaporative emissions are certified on 
Tier 3 certification fuel. This is reasonable since the fill quality of 
the vehicle and eliminating spit back are not necessarily related to 
the ethanol or sulfur content of the gasoline. The manufacturers must 
meet this requirement through testing, as the engineering evaluation 
flexibility available for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR does not apply to 
this standard.
c. Correction for Ethanol Portion of the SHED Measurement
    Another issue related to adding ethanol to the certification test 
fuel relates to the emission measurement in the SHED. Emissions are 
detected by flame ionization detectors (FID), which are less responsive 
to ethanol than gasoline. This effect causes 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

[[Page 23512]]

activated carbon in the canister. We proposed to address this issue by 
the use of a prescribed correction factor. Under this approach 
manufacturers would simply multiply their SHED measurement results by a 
fixed value to adjust upward for the difference in the FID response to 
ethanol. Data available to EPA at the time of the NPRM suggested that a 
value of approximately 1.1 would be appropriate for E15.\375\ For an 
E10 certification fuel, California ARB finalized a value of 1.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \375\ Moulis, C. (2012, January). SHED FID Responses for 
Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comments, the manufacturers supported the use of a 
correction factor, but stipulated that the value put forth by EPA was 
too large and they should be given the option to measure the ethanol 
fraction of the vapor in the SHED through procedures and instrumental 
approaches prescribed in the regulations (see 40 CFR 1065.269, 
1065.369, and 1065.805) instead of using a fixed correction value. Two 
manufacturers provided data based on testing with E10 test fuel which 
generally showed lower ethanol fractions than represented by the 1.1 
value proposed by EPA for hot soak plus diurnal emissions, and 
uniformly showed very low ethanol fractions for refueling 
measurements.\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \376\ Passavant, G. (2013, October). Manufacturer Data on 
Ethanol Measurements in the SHED. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the data provided by the manufacturers and has 
considered their comment that they should be given the option to 
measure the ethanol fraction and adjust the SHED results rather than be 
required to use a fixed correction factor. Based on these 
considerations, EPA is establishing the following approach with regard 
to ethanol corrections. First, EPA will permit measurement or the use 
of a fixed correction factor on an evaporative family by evaporative 
family basis. However, once the manufacturer selects an approach for 
any given evaporative family, that approach must be used in all 
subsequent testing of all vehicles certified using that data including 
carry over. For example, if a manufacturer chooses to measure the 
ethanol fraction for purposes of certification of a test group in a 
given model year, that same method must be used in any manufacturer 
confirmatory testing as well as IUVP or IUCP testing of all vehicles in 
that test group. Alternatively, if a manufacturer uses the fixed 
correction factor in certification it must also use it for all 
evaporative emission tests covered by the requirement for a given test 
group and for all follow on testing. Second, the decision on 
measurement or correction factor must be uniform on a test group basis 
for all evaporative emission standards covered by the correction 
requirement. In this case this includes hot soak, diurnal, high 
altitude, running loss, and rig test measurements. Third, in terms of a 
fixed correction factor, EPA believes that the 1.08 value adopted by 
California is consistent with the data and is specifying that value for 
hot soak plus diurnal (low and high altitude), running loss, and rig 
test measurement corrections for any testing conducted with 10 percent 
ethanol. Based on the data provided by the manufacturers, EPA is not 
requiring a fixed correction value or measurement for refueling, spit 
back, or canister bleed measurements for testing conducted with 10 
percent ethanol. This aligns with the expectation that ethanol 
concentrations will be very low with FID-based measurements and that 
mass-based measurements will capture any ethanol adequately without a 
need for correction. Finally, EPA will use the method selected by the 
manufacturer in any confirmatory or surveillance testing. However, 
since corrections will always be zero or greater, no correction is 
needed to make a failure determination if the FID value exceeds the 
emission standard or FEL. With regard to the 1.08, EPA remains open to 
future revisions to this value, in coordination with CARB, if a fuller 
data set representative of various vehicle models, SHED FID ethanol 
response values, FID designs (analog vs. digital), ethanol calculation 
approaches (photo acoustic and impinger), and test sites demonstrates 
that a different value would be technically appropriate and adequately 
conservative relative to the direct measurement methods permitted in 40 
CFR 1065.
    For higher ethanol blends (such as E85), the regulation already 
specifies measurement and calculation procedures to adjust for this 
effect. We are not making any changes to these procedures.
d. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel Hydrocarbon Emissions for the 
Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
    The Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal, leak, and canister bleed emission 
standards taken together are expected to bring about the widespread use 
of technology which effectively eliminates fuel vapor emissions. The 
fuel rig, canister bleed, and leak standards are not influenced by 
nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle. Nonfuel hydrocarbon 
emissions from the vehicle are measured as part of SHED emission 
testing, and are indistinguishable from fuel hydrocarbons when a FID is 
used to measure the concentration. The level of these nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions vary by vehicle and component design and 
material. These emissions arise from paint, adhesives, plastics, fuel/
vapor lines, tires, and other rubber or polymer components and are 
generally greater with larger size vehicles. These nonfuel hydrocarbon 
emissions are usually highest with newly manufactured vehicles and 
decrease relatively quickly over time.
    Currently, manufacturers normally conduct some preconditioning to 
reduce or eliminate the effects of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 
on evaporative emissions measurements in the SHED. In the past, this 
practice has not been addressed through regulatory provisions. However, 
given the stringent level of the Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal 
evaporative emission standards, and that nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 
are expected to be a significant portion of the hydrocarbon emissions 
measured in the SHED, EPA believes that some sort of preconditioning 
before certification testing is appropriate and that a regulatory 
provision addressing this practice is warranted. Providing some 
recognition of and allowance for this practice will help to create the 
proper balance between necessary and proper preconditioning to address 
high nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions and excessive preconditioning which 
could undermine the intent of the hot soak plus diurnal emission 
standard (~ 50 mg or less of fuel evaporative emissions). EPA believes 
the goal of evaporative emissions preconditioning should be to get 
nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions to what we call vehicle background 
levels. A working definition of vehicle background level might be the 
level which will occur naturally twelve months after production. A 
provision in the regulations which addresses preconditioning reduces 
ambiguity for the manufacturers and could reduce or eliminate any 
uncertainty in the true meaning of certification test results.
    Manufacturer activity with regard to preconditioning often involves 
two practices. First, manufacturers in some cases ``bake'' their test 
vehicles at temperatures of 50 [deg]C or higher for periods of up to 
ten or more days to accelerate the off-gassing of these nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions before testing is conducted. While this practice 
is common, there is no standardized method or protocol for this 
preconditioning prior to new vehicle certification testing. For 
example, some manufacturers bake for a set period of time in a climate 
chamber while others

[[Page 23513]]

bake in the climate chamber and periodically measure nonfuel background 
in a SHED until an acceptable or stable level of nonfuel hydrocarbon 
emissions is achieved. Second, manufacturers often remove, modify, or 
clean certain components which are the largest source of nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions. Preconditioning could also include measures to 
eliminate minor fuel drips, spills, or other fuel remnants which occur 
as a result of vehicle preparation for testing.
    We are not specifying standardized pre-conditioning practices or 
protocols with regard to addressing nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions 
before evaporative emission certification testing. However, we are 
finalizing general provisions in four areas. First, we specify in the 
regulations that preconditioning for the purpose of addressing nonfuel 
hydrocarbon emissions is permitted. Second, we specify that any 
preconditioning is voluntary. Third, we specify that if preconditioning 
is conducted, the details must be specified to EPA before certification 
testing, (i.e., at the time of the pre-certification planning meeting). 
The goal of this preconditioning should be to get nonfuel hydrocarbon 
emissions to vehicle background levels as discussed above. The 
specifics to be discussed with EPA could include details on vehicle 
baking practices such the temperature and time duration in the climate 
chamber and practices conducted as an alternative or complement to 
vehicle baking such as installing used tires (drive and spare) on 
certification vehicles, and allowing the windshield washer tank to be 
filled only with water. EPA's goal in these discussions is to gain 
certainty that manufacturers are not preconditioning vehicles so 
severely that they create a level of nonfuel hydrocarbons that is 
artificially low and would not occur in use and thereby creating a 
false additional compliance margin for fuel hydrocarbons in the 
certification test. Fourth, except as discussed below we are providing 
in the regulations that no pre-conditioning is permitted for testing of 
any vehicle aged more than twelve months from its date of manufacture. 
This restriction for vehicles older than 12 months includes 
certification, confirmatory and in-use testing for any vehicle 
certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. For these 
vehicles, nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions will presumably be reduced to a 
stable level due to natural off gassing which begins after the vehicle 
is manufactured. Emissions from any replacement parts or other vehicle 
maintenance will presumably be encompassed within the margin below the 
standard created by this natural off-gassing.
    EPA received several comments concerning the proposed restriction 
on pre-conditioning of vehicles older than 12 months from the date of 
manufacture. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the 
Association of Global Automakers asked that baking be permitted if such 
a vehicle is found to have identifiable contamination due to causes 
such as a fuel spill, refrigerant leak, or washer fluid leak and that 
the manufacturer be given the option to age the tires (tires only) from 
any vehicle where the tires are less than twelve months from 
manufacture as indicated on the sidewall. CARB asked that EPA only 
allow the use of an aged spare tire in any testing and not spare tire 
removal. EPA generally agrees with these commenters and is finalizing 
provisions for limited flexibility subject to EPA approval. Under these 
provisions manufacturers may be permitted to clean any spills or leaks 
but not to bake the entire vehicle. Baking of tires less than 12 months 
old may also be permitted with EPA prior approval. Vehicles must be 
tested with a spare tire in place since emissions from the spare tire 
were considered as the standard was developed. Manufacturers may 
exchange a new spare tire for one that is baked or aged. Finally, one 
manufacturer indicated that there may be circumstances where the base 
chassis for a certification vehicle was used in previous certification 
but that this base chassis was modified for a new model year and 
cleaned, reconfigured, and recertified with new components which affect 
background emissions.\377\ While EPA believes this would be a rare 
occurrence, regulatory provisions in this rule allow EPA to approve 
additional pre-conditioning for vehicles in this situation upon 
manufacturer request and justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \377\ See public comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4299 and 
Passavant, G. (2013, October). VW Email to EPA Regarding Vehicle 
Preconditioning. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Reciprocity With CARB
    Over the past 15 years EPA's ``enhanced evap'' test procedures have 
been based on testing with 9 pound per square inch (psi) RVP gasoline 
with test temperatures representing a summer day with peak temperatures 
of about 96 [emsp14][deg]F. CARB adopted the same basic procedures, but 
specified that testing should occur with 7 psi RVP gasoline at 
temperatures of up to 105[emsp14][deg]F. EPA and CARB agreed that 
certification could be based on testing with either EPA or CARB 
conditions and that these provided equivalent stringency for purposes 
of evaporative control system design. However, the provision allowing 
for this equivalence of test data preserved EPA's ability to also test 
with either EPA or CARB temperature conditions and related test fuels. 
CARB always specified EPA test conditions for refueling as they were 
deemed worst case. CARB recently changed their certification test fuel 
to a 7 RVP gasoline with 10 percent ethanol and as discussed in Section 
IV.F, we are changing the Federal certification test fuel specification 
to a 9 RVP gasoline with 10 percent ethanol.
    During the development of this FRM we carefully considered the 
practice of CARB/EPA reciprocity with regard to certification test 
fuels, hot soak plus diurnal test procedures, running loss test 
procedures, and emission test results when it comes to evaporative 
emissions certification. Based on these considerations and the 
alignment of the ethanol content for the EPA and CARB certification 
fuels, we have decided to retain our current approach with regard to 
CARB/EPA reciprocity for evaporative and refueling emissions. EPA and 
CARB have agreed to continue accepting emission test data on each 
other's test fuels and temperature conditions for certification such 
that a uniform national program for certification test fuel will be 
able to exist. For model years during the evaporative emissions 
standard phase-in discussed above (ending after the 2021 MY), EPA will 
conduct any post certification testing on any vehicle in the Tier 3 
program manufactured in the 2015-2021 MYs using the fuel and 
temperatures used by the manufacturer for certification. This approach 
covers families certified using carry over PZEV evaporative emissions 
data (through the 2019 MY) and LEV III Option 1 certifications (through 
the 2021 MY). Our program flexibility in the area of test fuels for hot 
soak plus diurnal, running loss and SHED rig/canister bleed emission 
standards is summarized in Table IV-25. After the 2021 model year, EPA 
will retain the option to test on either set of temperatures/fuels. 
This applies to all evaporative emission standards (hot soak plus 
diurnal, running loss, and canister bleed). For the other emission 
standards (refueling, leak, spit back, and high altitude hot soak plus 
diurnal) EPA will use the test fuel used by the manufacturer through 
the 2019 model year. For the 2020 model year and later we may use Tier

[[Page 23514]]

3 fuel or California Phase 3 if its use is permitted for certification. 
Please refer to the regulatory text for specific provisions.
    EPA will review all Tier 3 program evaporative emissions data. If 
the data shows that the EPA and CARB based test requirements give fully 
equivalent results, in the future we may revise our regulations so that 
a vehicle is always tested on the fuel used for its initial 
certification.

                    Table IV-25--Tier 3 Evaporative Emissions Program Options and Test Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          EPA test fuel for
                           Start                                            confirmatory,     End MY for use in
     Vehicle program         MY     Program standards      Cert fuel       surveillance &           Tier 3
                                                                                IUVP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PZEV zero evap..........     2015  Hot soak +          CA Ph. 2........  Fuel used by the    After 2019 MY.
                                    diurnal, running                      manufacturer.
                                    loss & SHED rig.
LEV III Opt. 1..........     2015  Hot soak +          CA Ph. 3........  CA Phase 3 through  After 2021 MY.
                                    diurnal, running                      2019 MY, after
                                    loss & SHED rig.                      EPA may use Tier
                                                                          3 or CA Phase 3.
LEV III Opt. 2..........     2015  Hot soak +          CA Ph. 3........  CA Phase 3 through  N/A.
                                    diurnal, running                      2019 MY, after
                                    loss & canister                       EPA may use Tier
                                    bleed.                                3 or CA Phase 3.
Tier 3..................     2015  Hot soak +          Tier 3..........  Tier 3............  N/A.
                                    diurnal, running
                                    loss & canister
                                    bleed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table IV-22, to qualify as a Tier 3 vehicle for evaporative emission purposes vehicles must meet the
 hot soak + diurnal, high altitude, rig/canister bleed, running loss, refueling, and spit back standards. The
 leak standard applies beginning in the 2018 MY and the SHED rig/canister bleed tests are program specific.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, a vehicle test group using Tier 3 certification fuel and 
test procedures for meeting the various evaporative and refueling 
emission standards will qualify for inclusion in the Tier 3 evaporative 
emission standards phase-in. However, EPA recognizes that the 
California and federal evaporative emission standard programs are 
starting from different bases and that the transition provisions are 
different in some ways. For example, the EPA program starts in the 2017 
MY but after that has the same basic program construct as CARB in 2018. 
However, prior to the 2017 MY, CARB has a ZEV program provision which 
will continue to bring zero evap technology into the fleet before the 
2017 MY and CARB also allows early LEV III Option 1 and Option 2 
evaporative emission certifications. To capitalize on this technology 
and to facilitate transition, we are finalizing provisions that any 
CARB evaporative emission test data from MYs 2015 and 2016 PZEV zero 
evap certifications (hot soak plus diurnal and running loss) can be 
used in federal certification for those evaporative families through 
the 2019 MY. Similarly, we are finalizing provisions that CARB LEV III 
Option 1 certifications (hot soak plus diurnal and running loss) can be 
used in federal certification for those evaporative families through 
the 2021 MY. Assuming the vehicle test groups also meet the Tier 3 high 
altitude evaporative emission standards, the refueling emission 
standard, the spit back standard, and the leak standard when 
applicable, they could be included in the percentage phase-in 
calculations as Tier 3 vehicles. If the vehicles do not meet the Tier 3 
evaporative emission requirements manufacturers could potentially sell 
them nationwide, but they could not be included as Tier 3 compliant 
vehicles in the percentage phase-in calculation. Table IV-22 provides a 
concise summary of the requirements a vehicle must meet to qualify as a 
Tier 3 vehicle during the program's early, transition, and phase-in 
periods.
    EPA proposed a similar provision for a manufacturer who elects to 
use the CARB test procedures and test fuels to meet the refueling 
emission standard. However, no manufacturer indicated interest in their 
comments and we have decided not to include reciprocity for this 
provision in the Tier 3 program. While experimental data based on field 
bench testing suggests that the CARB test fuel RVP and dispensed 
temperature together would give the same results as the EPA test fuel 
RVP and dispensed temperature there are no vehicle test data in the 
record at this time. CARB has always accepted refueling and spit back 
certification on EPA test fuel and will continue to do so in the 
future. This provision would have added another layer of complexity to 
the program and was not necessary since the refueling and evaporative 
tests are done separately.
f. Evaporative and Refueling Emission Standards for Various Fuels
    The evaporative and refueling emission standards apply in different 
ways to different fuels. First, with regard to the evaporative emission 
standards, Clean Air Act section 202(k) specifies that gasoline-fueled 
vehicles must be certified to evaporative emission standards. Section 
202(a) authorizes EPA to establish evaporative emission standards for 
other fuels. Today evaporative emission standards apply to LDVs, LDTs, 
MDPVs, and HDVs fueled by gasoline methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and 
liquified petroleum gas (LPG). For the refueling emission standard the 
situation is quite different. Section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act 
specifies that the refueling emission standards apply to all LDVs 
regardless of the fuel used. Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 
authorizes EPA to establish emission standards for other fuels and 
classes of vehicles. Prior to the Tier 3 final rule, the refueling 
emission standards applied to all vehicles less than 10,000 lbs GVWR 
regardless of the fuel used.
    In the NPRM, EPA requested comment on applying the refueling 
standards to all vehicles regardless of fuel used. This would include 
all volatile fuels.\378\ The evaporative standards apply today to all 
volatile fuels \379\ (except for diesel) and we asked for comment on 
explicitly including dedicated ethanol as well as fuel-cell vehicles, 
and electric vehicles. EPA also requested comment on applying the 
refueling and evaporative standards only to vehicles using volatile 
liquid fuels instead of all volatile fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \378\ A volatile fuel is a volatile liquid fuel or any fuel that 
is a gas at atmospheric pressure; gasoline, methanol, ethanol, 
natural gas, and LPG are volatile fuels.
    \379\ A volatile liquid fuel is a fuel that is liquid at 
atmospheric pressure and has a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0 
pounds per square inch--gasoline, ethanol, and methanol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received four comments on this issue. One commenter expressed 
the view that evaporative requirements should be expanded to apply to 
volatile liquid fuels plus liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and liquified 
natural gas (LNG) while the three other commenters did not see the need 
to apply the

[[Page 23515]]

requirements to any gaseous fueled vehicle or other vehicle using a 
non-volatile liquid fuel because these vehicle fuel systems are sealed 
and rarely vent during normal operation or never vent at all.
    As is discussed further in the Summary and Analysis of comments, 
based on the comments, the fuel properties, and current industry fuel 
system design practices, EPA has decided to retain the requirement that 
the evaporative and refueling emission standards apply to vehicles 
using any volatile fuel. For gaseous fueled vehicles (LPG and LNG/CNG 
vehicles), only the Tier 3 3-day hot soak plus diurnal and running loss 
standards apply. For the other volatile fuels all of the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards apply. For the refueling emission 
standard the requirements apply to all complete vehicles less than 
10,000 lbs GVWR regardless of the fuel used. This is not being changed, 
except that the requirement will not apply to diesel-powered LDTs and 
HDVs vehicles. For vehicles over 10,000 lbs GVWR, the refueling 
emission standards will apply only to complete vehicles. This includes 
LPG, CNG, LNG, and dedicated ethanol or methanol vehicles. While the 
test procedures for these standards would apply, EPA is including 
regulatory provisions to permit manufacturers to certify based on 
related data, engineering analysis, and compliance with published 
consensus standards. We are not applying these requirements to electric 
or fuel cell vehicles.
    For vehicles equal to or less than 8,500 lbs GVWR, the Tier 3 
evaporative and refueling emission standards for alternative fuel 
vehicles apply to each vehicle of a vehicle evaporative/refueling 
family as the family is included in the manufacturer's phase-in for the 
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. For vehicles over 8,500 lbs 
GVWR, the application of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards 
depends on the Job 1 (first build) date for the vehicle evaporative 
family. If the Job 1 date for a vehicle model is before the fourth 
anniversary date of the signature of the rule then the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards do not apply until the next model year. 
If the Job 1 date is after the fourth anniversary date, the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards apply in that model year. This 
determines when the vehicle is to be included in the denominator of the 
percentage phase-in calculation. The refueling emission standard 
applies only to complete vehicles and we are applying the same phase-in 
requirements as for complete HDGVs. For complete vehicles between 
10,000 and 14,000 lbs GVWR the refueling emission standard applies in 
the 2018 model year. For complete vehicles with a GVWR in excess of 
14,000 lbs GVWR, compliance is required in the 2022 model year. 
Finally, for all small businesses, the Tier 3 evaporative and refueling 
emission standards do not apply until the 2022 model year.
g. Other Changes and Future Considerations
    This rulemaking included consideration of several amendments or 
clarifications to existing requirements related to evaporative 
emissions. As part of this process, EPA has concluded that the 
following provisions warrant adjustment, clarification, or correction:
     Even though the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR 
part 86 apply to the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust 
emission standards, we require a separate certificate for complying 
with evaporative and refueling emission standards. An important related 
point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards 
always apply to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission standards may 
apply to either the engine or the vehicle. Since we plan to apply 
evaporative/refueling/leak standard and the recently adopted greenhouse 
gas standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it will be 
advantageous to have the regulations related to their certification 
requirements written together as much as possible to reduce burden and 
increase efficiency. Therefore, for 2015 and later model years, we are 
moving the emission standards and certification requirements for HDGVs 
from 40 CFR part 86 to the new 40 CFR part 1037, which was originally 
used for greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty highway vehicles. This 
is not intended to change the requirements that apply to these 
vehicles, except as noted in this section.
     Section 86.1810-01 contains specifications addressing 
whether diesel fuel vehicles can be waived from demonstrating 
compliance with the refueling emission standard through testing. In the 
existing regulation the potential for a waiver from testing depended on 
the diesel fuel having an RVP equal to or less than 1 psi and the fuel 
tank having a temperature which does not exceed 130[emsp14][deg]F. We 
have examined this provision and are withdrawing the fuel temperature 
limit specification. Short of fuel spillage in the SHED, EPA sees no 
likelihood that a diesel fueled vehicle with RVP less than 1 psi could 
fail the refueling emission standard even at fuel tank temperatures 
above 130[emsp14][deg]F. This is due to the inherently low vapor 
pressure of diesel at these temperatures and the likelihood that vapor 
shrinkage conditions will occur in the fuel tank during refueling since 
the dispensed fuel will be much cooler than the tank fuel.
     When adopting the most recent prior set of evaporative 
emission regulatory changes we did not carry through the changes 
applying evaporative emission standards to vehicles using methanol-
fueled compression-ignition engines. This final rule corrects this 
oversight.
     We are finalizing provisions to address which standards 
apply when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor 
vehicle, which is currently not directly addressed in the highway 
regulation. The approach requires testing complete vehicles with any 
auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel-system components). 
Incomplete vehicles are to be tested without the auxiliary engines, but 
any such engines and the corresponding fuel-system components will need 
to meet the standards that apply under our nonroad program as specified 
in 40 CFR part 1060.
     We are removing the option for secondary vehicle 
manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is specified by 
the certifying manufacturer without re-certifying the vehicle. 
Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank capacity 
must either work with the certifying manufacturer to include the larger 
tank, or go through the effort to re-certify the vehicle. This 
provision has not been used and is better handled as part of 
certification rather than managing a separate process. We are including 
corresponding changes to the emission control information label.
     We are revising the provisions for setting the vehicle air 
conditioning controls during the running loss portion of the 
evaporative emissions test cycle to simply reference the specifications 
for exhaust emission testing described in 40 CFR part 1066. This allows 
test labs to use a uniform set of test procedures for setting up test 
vehicles. This change is expected to have no effect on the stringency 
of the running loss test.
     EPA regulations at Sec.  86.1824-01 permit manufacturers 
to develop their full-useful life deterioration factors for evaporative 
and refueling emission standards based on the use of good engineering 
judgment. These factors are additive in nature, and when added to the 
``undeteriorated low mileage'' test value the sum must be less than the

[[Page 23516]]

applicable emission standard or FEL. Manufacturers usually certify such 
that this summed value falls below the emission standard or FEL enough 
to provide a margin for in-use compliance and to address variability 
and other uncertainty. Regulations (at Sec.  86.1824-08) require that 
evaporative emissions durability assessments must employ gasoline fuel 
for the entire mileage accumulation period which contains ethanol in, 
at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under 
federal law and that is commercially available in any state in the 
United States (currently E15). In their comments the Alliance of 
Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global Automakers asked 
to be able to use evaporative emissions deterioration factors from Tier 
2/LEV II assessments even if the assessed or measured full life 
emission value used to determine the deterioration factor from the Tier 
2/LEV II 2 testing is above the Tier 3/LEV III emission standard for 
the vehicle category of interest. (This situation, which is often 
referred to as line crossing, is not prohibited in the EPA regulation.) 
\380\ Thus, EPA is permitting the use of this data but requires that: 
(1) The manufacturers use good engineering judgment in the testing used 
to develop their deterioration factors and the assessment and 
application of this data in developing deterioration factors, (2) the 
manufacturers use the evaporative/refueling emissions test fuel as 
stipulated in the regulations for Tier 3, and (3) the addition of the 
deterioration factor to the low mileage test result does not result in 
an exceedance of the emission standard or the FEL cap for that category 
of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \380\ Passavant, G. (December 2013) Background Information on 
Background Information: Carryover of Emissions Data and Line 
Crossing. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Improvements to In-Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Systems

1. Reasons for Adding a Leak Test Standard
    As emission standards approach zero, as in the ``zero evap'' 
standards discussed above, in-use performance becomes critical for 
vehicles to meet the standards over their useful life periods and 
provide the expected emission reductions. Fuel vapor control system 
leaks are not a new problem, in fact it was one of the main reasons for 
replacing the canister method for assessing evaporative emissions with 
the enclosure (SHED test) method used today.\381\ However, as emission 
standards have become more stringent, test procedures have improved, 
and vehicle lifetimes have increased, any malfunction or deterioration 
in the system causes significant emissions increases. Even a small leak 
can cause large amounts of HC vapor. Therefore, the prevalence of leaks 
in the fleet can have a significant effect on the average evaporative 
emissions overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \381\ Rarick.T, ``Evaporative Emission Enclosure (SHED) 
Procedure Analysis of Surveillance Program Data,'' Evap 75-2, June 
1975 and ``Investigation and Assessment of Light-Duty Vehicle 
Evaporative Emission Sources and Control,'' EPA-460/3-76-014, June, 
1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in detail in the NPRM, recent laboratory and field 
data \382\ show very high emissions from vehicles with liquid/vapor 
leaks. Field studies have indicated approximately 10 percent of overall 
fleet have significantly elevated evaporative emissions. The studies 
show that this frequency increases as vehicles age. The Coordinating 
Research Council (CRC) E-77 programs randomly recruited sixteen 
vehicles and almost half had some type of leak. Emissions related to 
these leaks grew in magnitude over the course of the program which 
lasted a few years. In addition, the EPA recently completed a test 
program to gather information on running loss emissions with implanted 
leaks of varying sizes, locations and fuel volatility.\383\ Data from 
this study is not included in the modeling analysis for this final 
rule, but the results show that there are significant emissions from 
leaks while driving as the fuel tank temperature rises. Therefore the 
reductions from the future prevention of leaks will be larger than our 
current estimates. These data led EPA to examine the OBD-based 
evaporative system leak data available from I/M programs from several 
states to more accurately gauge the rate of leaks above the 0.020 inch 
monitoring threshold met by most manufacturers as a result of CARB's 
2004 model year OBD II requirements.\384\ These are important data 
because even a vehicle with a fuel/evaporative system leak as small as 
0.020 inches would be expected to fail the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standard in a SHED test and in fact emit 4-5 times above the Tier 3 
emission standard on a daily basis due to the number of vehicle trips 
per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \382\ CRC E-77 reports: Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2008). Vehicle 
Evaporative Emission Mechanisms: A Pilot study, CRC Project E-77; 
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010), Enhanced Evaporative Emission 
Vehicles (CRC E-77-2); Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010), Evaporative 
Emissions from In-Use Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC E-77-2b); 
Haskew, H., Liberty, T. (2010), Study to Determine Evaporative 
Emission Breakdown, Including Permeation Effects and Diurnal 
Emissions Using E20 Fuels on Aging Enhanced Evaporative Emissions 
Certified Vehicles, CRC E-77-2c; DeFries, T., Lindner, J., Kishan, 
S., Palacios, C. (2011), Investigation of Techniques for High 
Evaporative Emissions Vehicle Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot 
Study at Lipan Street Station; DeFries, T., Palacios, C., Weatherby, 
M., Stanard, A., Kishan, S. (2013) Estimated Summer Hot-Soak 
Distributions for Denver's Ken Caryl I/M Station Fleet.
    \383\ Kishan, S., Sabisch, M., Stewart, J., Glinsky, G. (2014) 
Running Loss Testing with Implanted Leaks.
    \384\ Weatherby, M., Sabisch, M., Kishan, S. (2014) Analysis of 
Evaporative On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Readiness and DTCs Using I/M 
Data. Note: the data was presented in a docket memo for NPRM\ and is 
now part of a peer reviewed report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We examined data for vehicles meeting CARB's OBDII evaporative 
emission leak monitoring requirements as well as either the CARB/EPA 
enhanced evaporative emission or Tier2/LEV II evaporative emission 
standards. Since the data were gathered by the states under different 
protocols and time periods, the content of the data sets is not 
identical. To provide some degree of uniformity in our analysis, we 
examined the data for model years 2000 and later, but within each state 
we only looked at calendar years of data beginning after the initial 
state I/M exemption period had passed (2-6 calendar years depending on 
the state). Thus the analysis focused on I/M OBD information for 
calendar years 2004-2012.
    Examined together, the data generally indicate the following.
     For all our States analyzed, the trend lines show that 
between 2-4 percent of the vehicles entering the I/M program (at about 
2 years old) have a ``not ready'' evaporative monitor. The percentage 
increased to between 8-11 percent as the vehicle aged to 8 years old 
with a rate increase of approximately 1 percent per year as the vehicle 
ages.
     The model years and time periods analyzed for the four 
States shows approximately 0.7-2.5 percent of vehicles overall with a 
``ready'' evap monitor had one or more stored evap DTCs, indicating a 
potential evaporative emissions-related problem as defined in the OBD 
regulations.
     A further review of the data shows that, overall, in the 
three States with an enforced OBD program approximately 0.7-1.6 percent 
of vehicles with a ``ready'' evap monitor had one or more stored 
evaporative emissions related DTCs. The fourth State, which does not 
enforce the OBD test, had a higher percentage (2.5 percent) of evap 
monitor ``ready'' vehicles that had stored evap related DTCs.
     For the same model years and time periods analyzed for the 
three States with enforced OBD programs, EPA

[[Page 23517]]

estimates about 0.5 percent of vehicles with a ``ready'' evap monitor 
evaluated at four years old in an I/M program had a stored DTC. This 
rate increased at a rate of about 0.15 percent per year and was about 
1.1 percent for vehicles at 8 years old. For the fourth state, which 
does not enforce OBD evaporative results, EPA estimates about 1.4 
percent of vehicles evaluated at four years old had a stored DTC. This 
rate increased at a rate of about 0.5 percent per year and was about 
3.5 percent for vehicles at 8 years old.
     Analyzing each state's data for specific evaporative DTCs, 
over 50 percent of all evaporative codes were for evaporative system 
leaks. The second most common category (15-20 percent) involved some 
sort of error in the operation of the purge flow control which could 
also contribute to evaporative leaks.
     The monitor ``ready'' rates are relatively uniform for all 
States analyzed, but the percentage of evaporative emissions related 
MILs illuminated and the percentage of evaporative system leak related 
DTCs were larger in the fourth State. EPA believes this is the case 
because OBD is advisory only in this State's I/M program, meaning that 
a vehicle could pass its I/M requirement with a MIL illuminated and not 
have to repair it.
    In considering this information for the fleet as a whole, a few 
other factors must be considered. First, a vehicle can pass its I/M 
requirements (based on provisions of individual State I/M programs) 
with the evaporative emissions monitor ``not ready''. Second, the 
vehicle can pass with a pending DTC. Third, it is not uncommon for 
vehicle repair related to an OBD MIL to occur just before I/M visits. 
Based on factors such as these, the values presented above are likely 
to be conservative on a fleet average basis. Beyond this, as discussed 
in the NPRM, earlier research conducted by EPA and the state of 
Colorado indicated that OBD is not designed to catch every evaporative 
system leak and sometimes misses leaks it should have found but did not 
for various reasons (some determined and some unknown).\385\ This 
suggests that overall leak prevalence is higher than indicated by the 
OBD data alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \385\ Eastern Research Group (2013) Evaluation of the 
Effectiveness of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Systems in Identifying 
Fuel Vapor Losses from Light-Duty Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimating a nationwide fleet average leak rate is possible with 
the limited data available if some informed assumptions are made. Only 
about 24.5 percent of vehicles in the U.S. are in I/M areas and of 
these only 20.8 percentage points (~4/5) are in areas which rely on OBD 
as part of the pass/fail protocol. There is at present no data on the 
prevalence of evaporative system leaks for vehicles in areas without I/
M. However, based on these data it reasonable to assume that the rates 
in these areas are no less than for areas with I/M (where I/M mandates 
repair) and are likely similar to or larger than those for the one 
state analyzed where OBD is advisory only. Under those assumptions, the 
average leak rate across the country is much higher than for I/M areas 
alone. For example, if one considers data from the eight year age point 
in the I/M data for states which require repair, the leak prevalence 
rate is about 1.4 percent and in the state where OBD is advisory it is 
3.5 percent. Weighted by the fleet percentages given above, this 
indicates a leak rate of about 3.0 percent in the fleet for the eight 
year age point. This is a conservative estimate based on historic 
evaporative I/M data.\386\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \386\ USEPA (2014), ``Development of Evaporative Emissions 
Calculations for Tier 3 FRM'' memorandum to the Tier 3 docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The propensity for leaks in the vehicle fleet has the potential to 
reduce the benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards 
substantially. If on any given day, as few as 3 percent of Tier 3 
vehicles have a leak(s) of 0.020 inches or greater this will cause in-
use emissions equivalent to essentially all of the projected emission 
reductions from the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards on that 
day.\387\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \387\ See EPA memorandum: ``Initial Comparison of Emission Rates 
from Vehicles with Fuel/Vapor System Leaks to Tier 3 Evaporative 
Emission Reductions, December, 2013.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The leak standard we are adopting will help technology to meet the 
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and to improve in use durability. 
These technology measures (see Section IV.C.3) coupled with the upgrade 
to the OBD evaporative emissions certification and monitoring 
requirements to signal problems at smaller threshold diameters 
(discussed in Section IV.E below) and additions to the IUVP program 
focused on testing a larger sample of vehicles for fuel/evaporative 
system leaks in IUVP than for evaporative emission standards alone will 
help to ensure improved in-use performance of evaporative emission 
control systems.
    Based on the above discussion, there needs to be an increased focus 
on evaporative emissions durability. Nevertheless, there is no question 
of the value of OBD leak monitoring for evaporative systems, especially 
when owners complete needed repairs in response to the DTCs set. The I/
M OBD statistics and associated in-use leak values discussed above 
would be higher without OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. 
However, these data suggest that EPA OBD regulations in place for 2004 
and later model year vehicles will not alone be sufficient to address 
concerns regarding the emission effects of vapor leaks from the fuel 
and evaporative control systems.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \388\ Existing OBD regulations specify that if the fuel tank 
volume exceeds 25 gallons then the manufacturer may seek a larger 
leak detection orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted 
a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then that same 
numerical value becomes the leak standard value. We do not expect 
this value to exceed 0.040 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, EPA included a substantial discussion of the work we 
conducted on high evaporative emission rates and our rationale for the 
need for a leak standard to help address these concerns. No commenter 
challenged the data or the premises for our conclusion that a leak 
standard was needed. Manufacturers asked that the leak standard be 
phased-in with the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and that use 
of upgraded OBDII evaporative system monitoring capability be included 
as part of the in-use verification program (IUVP) provisions. Both 
elements are contained in this final rule. CARB fully supported the 
proposed leak standard and test procedure and indicated its intent to 
adopt such provisions after the Tier 3 FRM is adopted.
2. Nature, Scope and Timing of Leak Standard
    The evaporative emission standards in this FRM will help to promote 
widespread use of improved technology and materials which will reduce 
evaporative emissions in-use. The new requirement for a leak standard 
and test procedure will help to ensure the durability of Tier 3 
evaporative emission control systems nationwide. As discussed in the 
technological feasibility discussion in Section IV.C above, the actions 
of manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards are 
expected to address fuel/evaporative system design features which 
currently have a greater propensity for developing leaks and thus 
improve in-use durability for evaporative control systems compared to 
vehicles meeting previous evaporative emission standards. The leak 
standard will provide added assurance that as the manufacturers design 
for ``zero evap'' standards they

[[Page 23518]]

also design the systems to avoid leaks over the full useful life.
    Based on the information described above concerning evaporative 
emissions in-use, we believe a leak standard is necessary to ensure 
that vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements not have 
evaporative emissions in excess of the Tier 3 standards for their full 
useful life. Toward that end, we are finalizing a leak standard to be 
met both at new vehicle certification and in use for IUVP testing. The 
leak standard will apply beginning in the 2017 MY to vehicles in the 
20/20 option for that year and in the 2018 MY and later model years to 
any vehicle certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or a 
CARB carryover vehicle counted toward the sales percentage phase-in 
requirements discussed in Section IV.C, including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, 
and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. The standard will be 
applicable for the same useful life period as for the evaporative 
emission standards that apply to the vehicle. The standard will apply 
to vehicles using volatile fuel (e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol fuel 
vehicles, but not diesel or CNG vehicles).
    To be compatible with CARB OBD requirements being met by most 
manufacturers and the OBD requirements included in this rule, we are 
specifying that the leak standard be expressed in the form of a 
cumulative equivalent orifice diameter. We are finalizing a value of 
0.02 inches.\389\ The standard basically requires that the cumulative 
equivalent diameter of any orifices or ``leaks'' in the system not 
exceed 0.02 inches. This is consistent with California OBD requirements 
(and those being finalized in this rule as well) that the OBD system be 
capable of identifying leaks in the fuel/evaporative system of a 
cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.020 inches. EPA believes a standard 
at this level is feasible since earlier testing programs identified 
vehicles with essentially no leaks and it is essentially equivalent to 
that required for CARB OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. We are 
finalizing a leak standard of 0.02 inches which with rounding is a bit 
less stringent than the 0.020 inch OBD evaporative system leak 
monitoring requirement. EPA believes this level of precision is 
sufficient to accomplish the air quality objective and yet provides 
some compliance margin between the standard and the monitor requirement 
such as is reflected through multipliers for the exhaust emission 
standards established for other OBD monitors. The leak standard will be 
specified to one significant digit (e.g., 0.02 inches) but will have to 
be measured and reported to at least two significant digits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \389\ Existing OBD regulations specify that if the fuel tank 
volume exceeds 25 gallons then the manufacturer may seek a larger 
leak detection orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted 
a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then that same 
numerical value becomes the leak standard value. We do not expect 
this value to exceed 0.040 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The leak standard will apply at the time of certification as well 
as during confirmatory and in-use verification program testing. We do 
not expect that new vehicles being certified will have a leak problem, 
and since a vehicle with a leak would likely fail the evaporative 
emissions SHED test, there is little value in mandating a leak test at 
certification. Thus, EPA will permit a manufacturer to attest to 
compliance with the leak standard at certification.
    To implement the leak standard within the existing regulatory 
structure a few minor rule changes are being made. First, existing EPA 
regulations such as those at Sec.  86.098-24, specify criteria for 
evaporative/refueling emission families. EPA believes this basic 
structure is appropriate for the leak standard, with the additional 
criteria that vehicles in the same evaporative/refueling family must 
use the same basic approach to OBD leak detection. Significantly 
different volume fuel tanks would likely also be a family determinant, 
but we believe this is already covered by the evaporative/refueling 
family criteria. Second, since the leak standard is a pass/fail 
requirement and not an emission rate, there is no requirement for the 
application of a deterioration factor. Third, EPA requires that the 
manufacturers recommend two or more leak test points for each test 
group. One of these points should be near the canister/purge valve 
(ideally in the vapor line between the canister/purge valve and the 
fuel tank) and the other in the gas cap/fill pipe area. Three points 
are required for vehicles with two separate evaporative and refueling 
canisters such as non-integrated ORVR systems which employ two 
activated carbon canisters and four points are required for vehicles 
with dual fuel tanks and two separate evaporative/refueling control 
systems.
    EPA believes that linking the timing of the leak standard to the 
beginning of the phase-in of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards 
in the 2018 model year provides adequate lead time and is consistent 
with the technical rationale supporting the feasibility of the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standard.
3. Leak Standard Test Procedure
    The fundamental concepts underlying fuel/evaporative system leak 
test are not new to the manufacturers. There is already a simple leak 
check in 40 CFR 86.608-98(a)(1)(xii)(A) and in the past at least three 
states included a fuel/evaporative system pressure leak test in I/M 
programs. More importantly, all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and HDGVs 
manufactured today have the onboard capability to run a pressure or 
vacuum leak based check on the vehicle's evaporative emission system as 
part of OBD evaporative system leak monitoring. These systems employ 
either positive or negative pressure leak detection pumps or operate 
based on natural vacuum for negative pressure leak detection. EPA is 
finalizing a test based on a similar concept of placing the system 
under a slight positive pressure (but from an external source), 
measuring the flow needed to maintain that pressure in the fuel/
evaporative control system, and converting that flow rate to an 
equivalent orifice diameter. With regard to the test procedure we will 
first discuss where the leak test can occur in the FTP test sequence. 
We will then discuss how the test is to be conducted. EPA proposed this 
test procedure as part of the NPRM and discussed it extensively in the 
preamble to the proposed rule, and provided a full draft of the 
Recommended Practice for comment as an Appendix to the RIA. No comments 
were received. We are finalizing this test procedure as proposed.\390\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \390\ Smith, P. and Passavant, G., ``Recommended Test Procedure 
and Supporting Testing Data for the Evaporative Emissions Leak 
Test'', December 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, when conducted, the leak test should be completed 
immediately following the first two preconditioning steps within the 
FTP sequence (see Figure B96-10 in 40 CFR 86.130-96). Thus, the vehicle 
preconditioning steps for the leak test are: (1) Fill the vehicle fuel 
tank to 40 percent of capacity using the appropriate certification test 
fuel and then (2) let the vehicle soak for a minimum of a six hour 
period at a temperature in the range of 68-86 [deg]F. EPA requires that 
the test be conducted with 9 RVP E10 test fuel for both certification 
and IUVP.\391\ After preconditioning is complete, the leak test is 
conducted and the test sequence proceeds as prescribed in subpart B or 
testing is terminated if the purpose is only to conduct leak testing. 
EPA

[[Page 23519]]

believes this modest level of preconditioning is sufficient to create 
standard conditions which enable repeatable and reliable measurement 
results. Preconditioning cannot include any prescreening for leaks nor 
will any tightening of fittings or connections be permitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \391\ This is the same preconditioning that is called for in 
existing 40 CFR 86 subpart B for exhaust, evaporative, and refueling 
emissions testing. EPA will consider permitting the leak standard to 
be evaluated using CARB LEV III test fuel if CARB ultimately adopts 
this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After preconditioning is complete, manufacturers then run the leak 
test. To fully complete testing on a vehicle, two or more test points 
are required depending on the fuel evaporative system configuration. 
All points must pass for the vehicle test to be a pass. As discussed 
above, one of these points should be near the canister/purge valve 
(ideally in the vapor line between the canister/purge valve and the 
fuel tank) and the other in the gas cap/fill pipe area. Three points 
are required for vehicles with two separate evaporative and refueling 
canisters such as non-integrated ORVR systems which employ two 
activated carbon canisters and four points are required for vehicles 
with dual fuel tanks and two separate evaporative/refueling control 
systems such as dual tank LDTs. If the fuel/evaporative system has an 
embedded evaporative system test port then that point can be used. 
Also, a manufacturer can develop a test rig such as a ``fill pipe 
extension'' which screws into the fill pipe opening using cap threads 
at one end and on the other end has threads to screw the fill pipe 
vehicle cap in place. Within this extension there must be an access 
port for the leak test equipment to be attached. Thus, the full system 
could be tested without any direct intrusion or the need for a separate 
gas cap assessment. The manufacturer must specify the test points at 
the time of the pre-certification meeting. If the manufacturer selects 
an entry point which requires the fuel cap to be removed, then the cap 
will have to undergo a separate test as is now done in many I/M 
stations.\392\ In this case, tests from both points combined must pass 
the standard. Manufacturers commented that only one test point was 
needed, but when asked by EPA they offered no data to counter that 
provided by EPA in the NPRM which showed the potential for different 
results at different test point locations for the same vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \392\ For related information see ``IM240 & Evap Technical 
Guidance'', EPA 420-R-00-007, April, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The procedure is 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 regulatory text.
     Calculate effective leak orifice diameter from measured 
output flow rate and temperature and pressure data or use apparatus 
with built in computer providing an equivalent digital readout. 
Calculate to the nearest 0.01 inch.
     Calculated effective orifice diameter must be less than or 
equal to the standard.
     If leak test is conducted at the fuel cap opening then the 
manufacturer must also show evidence that the vehicle's fuel cap is 
performing properly.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \393\ Such tests are done routinely in I/M stations using a 
commercially available apparatus. The gas cap leak rate may be 
determined by pressure loss measurement, direct flow measurement, or 
flow comparison methods and shall be compared to a pass/fail flow 
rate standard of 60 cubic centimeters per minute of air at 30 inches 
of water column. The flow rate methods are referenced to standard 
conditions of 70 [deg]F and 1 atm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Use two or more separate test points, near the evaporative 
canister/purge valve and the other near the fuel cap are required. This 
is especially important if the fuel cap/fill neck area is isolated from 
the rest of the fuel/evaporative system as a result of the 40 percent 
fill or if dual tanks are not otherwise connected through vapor lines.
     Tests can be void if the test apparatus fails, becomes 
disconnected, fails to maintain a stable flow rate or pressure, or the 
test was stopped before completion due to safety considerations or some 
other relevant vehicle issue.
     Leak tests at all points (2 or more depending on the fuel 
tank/evaporative system configuration) must pass for a vehicle to pass. 
This includes performance within specification for the fuel cap if it 
is removed for testing.
    The test procedure presented above is based on current fuel system 
designs. In the future, it is reasonable to expect changes in designs 
of the fuel systems such that the procedure above may need adjustment. 
EPA will monitor these fuel system changes and modify the test 
procedure provisions as needed. Furthermore, existing EPA regulations 
(see Sec.  1065.10(c)) contain provisions which provide the opportunity 
for manufacturers to seek approval for special or alternate test 
procedures if from a practical perspective their systems cannot be 
evaluated under EPA requirements or they have an approach deemed 
equivalent or better. Any such special or alternative procedures must 
be reported under Sec.  86.004-21(b)(9).
4. Certification and Compliance
    As part of the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP 2000) in-use 
verification program (IUVP) \394\ the manufacturers began testing the 
evaporative emissions performance of small samples of in-use vehicles 
owned and used by the public. These regulations can be found at 40 CFR 
86 1845-01, and 1845-04. In 2000, EPA extended this requirement to 
cover chassis-certified HDVs, which for these purposes are basically 
all HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\395\ The in-use testing for 
evaporative emissions started in 2004 for 2001 MY LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs 
and in 2008 for 2007 MY chassis certified HDGVs. Current IUVP data for 
evaporative emissions (including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs up to 
14,000 lbs GVWR) covers about 1800 vehicle tests. These data show that 
when evaluated in the laboratory using certification test procedures, 
the vast majority (over 95 percent) of the vehicles pass the 
evaporative emission standards to which they were certified. While this 
information is indicative of good in-use performance, it has 
limitations. First, the test results are for small sample sizes. For 
the approximately 150 million LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and chassis-certified 
HDGVs produced between 2001 (the start of the IUVP program) and 2010 
(latest available data), only about 0.001 percent of vehicles were 
tested. Second, the IUVP regulations place limits on the age/mileage 
for vehicle testing. Each model year is tested in two ``batches,'' 
nominally at the one and four year age points. One year old vehicles 
must have at least 10,000 miles and four year old vehicles must have at 
least 50,000 miles with at least one within the higher mileage group 
having an odometer reading of at least 75 percent of useful life 
(90,000 miles for most Tier 2 vehicles). With the even longer useful 
life periods under Tier 3, attention to in-use durability for 
evaporative systems becomes even more important. Including the leak 
standard within the IUVP protocol, as structured in the discussion 
below, will provide better information to EPA and manufacturers 
concerning evaporative system performance and help to focus 
manufacturer efforts on using designs

[[Page 23520]]

and hardware with full useful life durability in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \394\ See 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999).
    \395\ See 65 FR 59922-59924 (October 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. In-Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements for the Leak 
Standard
i. Introduction
    We believe it is important to identify leaks since vehicles with 
leaks are expected to have daily emission rates above the Tier 3 
evaporative emissions standards, and the recent laboratory and field 
data \382\ suggest a propensity for the diameter of vehicle leak 
orifice to get larger over time and thus to have even higher emissions. 
This is also important because evaporative leak emissions occur 
virtually every day whether the vehicle is driven or not. Thus 
identifying potential leak problems is important to capturing the 
emission benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements.
    Toward that end, EPA is including assessment of compliance with the 
leak standard within the IUVP program. In developing the proposed rule, 
we considered expanding the evaporative emission testing portion of the 
IUVP program as a means to assess leaks, but we decided to focus on the 
leak standard because it is less burdensome than a full evaporative 
emissions SHED test and is a cost effective step toward assessing many 
aspects of evaporative emissions performance in-use.
    EPA believes adding a leak test requirement does not create an 
unreasonable burden. The test procedure described above is simple to 
run, inexpensive to conduct in terms of equipment and labor, and can be 
completed relatively quickly compared to an evaporative emissions test. 
However, we are retaining the evaporative emissions testing 
requirements currently in IUVP to monitor broader evaporative control 
system effectiveness (e.g., purge, canister control efficiency, 
permeation).
ii. IUVP Test Requirements
    We are requiring that the leak test be conducted for each and every 
vehicle assessed in IUVP for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR 86.1845-04. 
This will begin for 2017 MY vehicles meeting the leak standard under 
the 20/20 option and more fully in the 2018 MY certifications for all 
test groups meeting the new leak standard. The leak test IUVP 
requirement includes the low and high mileage tests for any exhaust 
vehicle evaluated for exhaust emissions plus a requirement that there 
be at least one representative of each evaporative/refueling/leak 
family evaluated at each mileage/year point. We are finalizing this 
approach to implementing IUVP for the leak standard in lieu of creating 
a new set of requirements which would require another set of vehicles 
to be procured for testing. We are not including the leak test with any 
evaporative emissions test in IUVP, since a leak will be evident in the 
results of the evaporative emissions test.
    The existing IUVP regulations at Sec.  86.1845-04, Table S04-07, 
call for test sample sizes on a sliding scale based on annual vehicle 
sales by test group. This can vary from zero for very small sales test 
groups to six vehicles for test groups with sales exceeding 250,000. 
There are more exhaust emission test groups than there are evaporative/
refueling test families and exhaust emission test groups may cover one 
or more of the same evaporative/refueling/leak families, so we expect 
to receive multiple leak test results for most evaporative/refueling/
leak families. This will expand the amount of IUVP data we receive in 
this important area and improve our ability to assess the overall leak 
performance for a given evaporative/refueling/leak family and the fleet 
as a whole.
    As discussed above, EPA believes that the fuel and evaporative 
control system leaks are heavily influenced by age as well as design 
and other factors. EPA asked comment on extending the age point for 
leak testing for IUVP beyond the four year point to better assess this 
effect. However, in the past, manufacturers have expressed concern 
about the implications of testing older vehicles and about finding 
vehicles still within their warranty and recall liability periods. EPA 
believes further consideration of longer year test points is merited 
for exhaust, evaporative, refueling and leak tests but because such a 
change could potentially affect all four tests we have decided to defer 
that action to a broader IUVP program review. Extending the time point 
for the leak test alone would create a different programmatic test 
burden in terms of more vehicle procurements than the program laid out 
above.
iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission Standard Test Results
    The existing regulations contain provisions addressing follow-on 
testing requirements for exhaust emissions for vehicles which fail to 
meet various performance thresholds within IUVP (see 40 CFR 86.1846-
01). As mentioned above, we expect that it will be common to get more 
than one leak test result over the course of each model year's mileage 
testing point for each evaporative/refueling/leak family as a result of 
the requirement to assess leaks with each exhaust IUVP test. However, 
the leak standard is basically pass/fail at 0.02 inches and it is 
difficult to establish a threshold criteria for a pass/fail standard 
such as has been done for exhaust emissions where there is a multiplier 
applied to the level of the individual exhaust emission standard.
    Given the importance of the leak standard in assuring in-use 
evaporative emissions control, we are finalizing a set of criteria for 
assessing leak standard results from IUVP. These criteria can be 
summarized as follows for each low and high mileage test point for each 
model year tested:
     lf 50 percent or more of all vehicles evaluated in an 
evaporative/refueling/leak emission family for any given model year 
pass the leak standard, testing is complete. This applies to cumulative 
testing for that family throughout the model year for that mileage 
group. This is consistent with the exhaust emission requirements for 
IUVP and EPA believes it is reasonable since vehicles are tested in the 
``as received'' condition from consumers.
     If only one representative of the evaporative/refueling/
leak family is tested in a mileage group for that model year's vehicles 
and it passes the leak standard testing is complete. If that vehicle 
does not pass the leak standard a manufacturer may test an additional 
vehicle to achieve the 50 percent rate.
     If an evaporative/refueling/leak emission family fails to 
achieve the 50 percent rate, it is presumed that the family will enter 
into In-Use Confirmatory Testing Program (IUCP).
    Before IUCP begins, the manufacturer may ask for engineering 
analysis discussions with EPA to evaluate and understand the technical 
reasons for the testing outcomes and the implications for the broader 
fleet. Technical information for these discussions could include but 
will not be limited to detailed system design, calibration, and 
operating information, technical explanations as to why the individual 
vehicles tested failed the leak standard, and comparisons to other 
similar families from the same manufacturer. Relevant information from 
the manufacturer such as data or other information on owner complaints, 
technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty 
programs, warranty repair data, state I/M data, and data available from 
other manufacturer specific programs or initiatives could help inform 
understanding of implications for the broader fleet. As part of this 
process a manufacturer could elect to provide evaporative emissions 
SHED test data on the individual vehicle(s) that did not pass the leak 
standard during IUVP.

[[Page 23521]]

With an adequate technical basis, the outcome of this engineering 
analysis discussion could result in an EPA decision not to require IUCP 
testing.
    We will operate within the basic structure of the IUCP program in 
the existing regulations. Prior to commencing IUCP testing the 
manufacturer, after consultation with EPA submits a written plan 
describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and 
testing procedures. This plan could include inclusion of a hot soak 
plus diurnal SHED test to supplement leak test results. EPA must 
approve this plan before testing begins. As prescribed in the IUCP 
regulations for exhaust, if five vehicles are tested and all pass the 
leak standard then testing will be complete. If all five vehicles do 
not pass, then five more are tested. More vehicles can be tested at the 
manufacturer's discretion but all testing must be completed within the 
time period specified in the regulations. EPA and the manufacturer then 
enter into discussions regarding interpretation, technical 
understanding, and compliance/enforcement implications of the test 
results, if any.
iv. Optional Test Procedure Approach for IUVP/IUCP
    With the implementation of the OBD regulation changes in Section 
IV.E below regarding evaporative system leak rate monitoring, EPA is 
finalizing an optional approach to a portion of the leak test 
procedure. This optional testing approach is included in the IUVP/IUCP 
testing program for the leak standard, but will not be used for 
certification testing for the leak standard. EPA can also use this 
procedure for conducting compliance assessments. Under this optional 
approach manufacturers will be able to rely upon the operation of their 
OBD evaporative system leak detection hardware and operating protocols 
in lieu of running the stand alone in-use leak test to check for the 
presence of a 0.02 inch leak in the fuel/evaporative system.
    Quite simply, if a vehicle is brought in for IUVP or IUCP testing 
and a scan tool query of the onboard computer indicates that the 
vehicle has successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system 
leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles and no evaporative 
system leak problems for any diameter above 0.020 inches are indicated 
(no pending or confirmed diagnostic trouble code(s) P0440, P0442, 
P0446, P0455, P0456, or P0457), the vehicle would be deemed to have met 
and passed the leak standard test requirement. However, if the system 
has not successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system leak 
check within 750 miles with no problem indicated then the manufacturer 
will have the option to run its OBD-based evaporative system leak check 
in the laboratory after prescribed preconditioning. This OBD-based 
approach is sometimes used in auto manufacturer dealerships and repair 
facilities to diagnose and fix evaporative system leaks found by the 
OBD system. If the vehicle completes the full OBD-based leak test in 
the laboratory then the vehicle's pass/fail results for the 0.02 inch 
cumulative equivalent diameter orifice will be based on the OBD test 
result. This optional protocol can apply to every leak standard test 
after certification unless not approved by EPA for IUCP under 40 CFR 
1846.01(i). Replicate tests will not be required or allowed but void 
tests could be repeated.
    Furthermore, EPA will permit the manufacturer to run the stand 
alone EPA leak test in several situations. First, manufacturers can 
conduct the stand alone test to confirm that a problem identified by 
the OBD-based evaporative system monitoring leak check is a leak and 
not a problem with the OBD leak monitor itself. Second, a manufacturer 
can run the stand alone EPA leak test to confirm that the leak value 
identified by the OBD system is truly above the level of the leak 
standard. Third, it can be used for vehicles which have not 
successfully completed a full OBD-based evaporative system leak 
monitoring check within the last 750 miles. Fourth, it can be used to 
confirm that a DTC set within the last 750 miles actually indicates the 
presence of a leak(s) greater than the standard. However, if a 
manufacturer elects to use only OBD-based evaporative system leak based 
monitoring in its IUVP testing; these results will be the basis for 
decisions regarding IUCP. As required in the existing IUVP regulations, 
all test data whether OBD based or based on EPA's stand alone test 
procedure must be reported to EPA.
    There may be some advantages to this option since it employs a 
pressure/vacuum approach manufacturers understand and creates positive/
negative pressures manufacturers have accommodated within their fuel/
evaporative system. One potential downside is that under current 
designs vehicle engines will have to be operating to create the 
pressure or vacuum and because the engine is operating this will 
require the OBD-based leak test to be stand alone after the 
preconditioning sequence is complete. This will be more challenging for 
natural vacuum leak detection systems unless extended driving is 
involved to create the fuel system heat needed for a natural vacuum 
event or this is done through a climate chamber or SHED based diurnal 
heat build.
    Allowing for this approach raises at least two implementation 
questions. The first is related to the value of conducting the OBD-
based test for a vehicle with a confirmed or pending leak DTC already 
set in the computer and/or an MIL indicated. In this case, EPA will 
permit the manufacturer to run the OBD-based leak test and/or the stand 
alone EPA leak test or concede that the vehicle will not pass the leak 
standard and count the result. Second is the question of gas caps. This 
is among the most common codes found in OBD records and is often 
related to operator error such as not tightening the gas cap properly. 
Codes of this nature have no value in this leak assessment, so a 
manufacturer will be permitted to correct the problem before testing 
and clear this OBD code before testing or run the stand alone EPA leak 
test.

E. Onboard Diagnostic System Requirements

1. Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System Regulation Changes--Timing
    EPA first adopted OBD requirements for 1994 and later model year 
LDVs and LDTs. While EPA has extended its requirements from LDVs and 
LDTs to larger and heavier vehicles,\396\ EPA's last broad upgrade to 
its basic OBD regulation was in the 2005 timeframe. Since that time, 
CARB has adopted and the manufacturers have implemented a number of 
additional provisions to enhance the effectiveness of their OBD 
programs. These provisions include new requirements for OBD evaporative 
system leak detection as well as provisions to help insure that systems 
are built and operate as designed over their full useful life, give 
reliable results (find and signal only true deficiencies), and operate 
frequently during in use operation. It is permitted in existing EPA 
regulations and is common practice for the industry to certify their 
OBD systems with CARB and for EPA to accept CARB OBD certifications as 
satisfying EPA requirements. EPA is continuing that practice and we are 
updating our regulations to be

[[Page 23522]]

consistent with the latest CARB regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \396\ EPA's OBD regulations for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, are found 
at 40 CFR 86.1806-05. EPA has also adopted OBD requirements for 
incompletes and heavier vehicles (greater than 14,000 lbs GVWR) (see 
74 FR 8324, February 24, 2009 and 40 CFR 86.010-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed to adopt, with a few adjustments, the CARB regulatory 
requirements related to OBD II (see California Code of Regulations 
(CCR) 1968.2 dated May 18, 2010). We received comment from CARB that 
since our NPRM was issued, they were s completing an update of their 
OBD II regulations and that EPA should adopt these provisions in lieu 
of the May 18, 2010 provisions.\397\ We have reviewed these updates and 
concur with the commenters, so we are adopting the provisions 
officially approved by CARBs Office of Administrative Law on July 31, 
2013. We are also adding provisions and continuing the exceptions as 
discussed below. The changes we are adopting do not include any changes 
to requirements for engines used in vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR or to 
vehicles over 14,000 lbs GVWR, except for HDGVs optionally certified 
using chassis procedures. To be consistent with the manner in which the 
Tier 3 exhaust emission standards are being implemented for the heavy-
duty vehicles between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR, the OBD requirements 
will be based on the Job 1 (first production) date for the vehicle/
engine model. If the vehicle/engine model Job 1 date is before the 
fourth anniversary date of the signature of the Tier 3 rule the 
requirements will not be mandatory in that model year. If the Job 1 
date is on or after the fourth anniversary of the signature date of the 
Tier 3 rule the OBD requirements will apply in that model year. The 
Tier 3 OBD requirements will apply to all 8,501-14,000 lb HDVs in the 
2020 model year. To be consistent with the manner in which the Tier 3 
exhaust emission standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \397\ The latest update of CARB's OBD regulations was adopted on 
July 31, 2013. See section 1968.2 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/obdprog/obdregs.htm/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are taking this approach to OBD for three basic reasons. First, 
this is consistent with the goal of a national program and one vehicle 
technology for all 50 states. Second, compliance with the current CARB 
OBDII requirements is now demonstrated technology, compliance with 
these requirements is common within the industry today, and we expect 
that to continue in the future with the 2013 CARB changes. Thus, the 
added burden is minimal since essentially all manufacturers certify 
their CARB OBD systems nationwide with EPA. Third, the latest OBD 
systems run frequently on in-use vehicles to identify potential exhaust 
and evaporative system performance problems, so adopting these 
provisions will create the opportunity for OBD to serve a more 
prominent role in ensuring the Tier 3 emission standards are met in-
use.
    Alignment with the existing CARB OBD II requirements will be 
required by the 2017 MY, except as discussed below. Manufacturers 
requested a phase-in compliance approach in lieu of a fixed compliance 
date, but no specific justification was provided by the commenters and 
EPA could not establish a need for this accommodation since the most 
recent changes to CARB OBDII regulations (2013) did not meaningfully 
affect provisions regarding vehicles/engines under 14,000 lbs GVWR 
which have been in place since 2006. LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and vehicles 
under 14,000 lbs GVWR already comply with CARB OBDII requirements and 
use the CARB certification as the basis for EPA certification.
    There is an important link between OBD provisions related to 
evaporative emission control system leak monitoring and the leak 
standard. They each provide an important incentive to design fuel/
evaporative systems with fewer propensities to develop leaks in use but 
each addresses the issue from a different perspective. The distinction 
is that the leak standard prohibits leaks of greater than 0.02 inches 
cumulative equivalent diameter, while the OBD evaporative system leak 
monitoring provision requires that the OBD system find leaks larger 
than 0.020 inches cumulative equivalent orifice diameter and notify the 
owner, but with no explicit requirement to repair the problem. Thus 
adopting a 0.020 inch cumulative equivalent orifice diameter aligns 
these two programs and, as discussed above, facilitates the use of OBD 
evaporative system leak monitoring hardware/strategy as an optional 
leak detection test procedure for in-use testing.
    With regard to OBD evaporative system leak detection, EPA received 
comment that we should permit a phase-in for compliance with the 0.020 
inch evaporative system leak monitoring requirement. Even though the 
0.020 inch leak monitoring requirement has been in place since the 
2004MY for CARB OBDII, and essentially manufacturers have met it for 
years, the existing EPA regulation actually only requires monitoring at 
the 0.040 inch threshold level. After considering the comments 
received, EPA is permitting a limited and minimal phase-in for the 
0.020 inch leak detection criterion for the OBD evaporative system 
monitoring requirement. We are permitting this phase-in, because a few 
vehicle models still only meet the 0.040 inch monitoring threshold in 
their Federal configuration and complying with the 0.020 inch CARB OBD 
II requirement entails validating performance in high altitude and cold 
weather regimes not seen in California. Thus, the 0.020 inch 
requirement would be new for those few models currently certified only 
to the EPA evaporative leak monitoring requirement. We are, therefore, 
implementing the following phase-in provision for the 0.020 inch leak 
detection criterion for the OBD evaporative system monitoring 
requirement. First, if a vehicle model meets the 0.020 inch requirement 
in the 2016 model year it is not eligible for the phase-in provision. 
No backsliding is permitted. Second, for manufacturers with models not 
meeting the CARB OBDII evaporative system leak monitoring requirement 
in the 2016 MY (see 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4)), they will be permitted to 
delay product-wide compliance with the 0.020 inch leak provision of the 
evaporative system monitoring requirements until the 2018 model year by 
engaging in a voluntary early phase-in. This phase-in would begin in 
the 2016 model year and conclude in the 2018 model year at a 100 
percent implementation rate. For example, a manufacturer could delay 
attaining 100 percent compliance with the OBD evaporative system leak 
monitoring requirement until the 2018 model year by complying in the 
2016 model year using a percentage which is at least as large as the 
delay for the 2017 model year (e.g., 40% in 2016 MY, 60% in 2017MY, and 
100% in 2018MY).
2. Revisions to EPA OBD Regulatory Requirements
    As discussed above, we are updating our OBD regulations to be 
consistent with current California OBD II requirements. We are 
incorporating by reference section 1968.2 of the California Code of 
Regulations as adopted July 31, 2013 (13 CCR 1968.2). This includes 
paragraphs (c) through (j) in their entirety. These paragraphs are 
entitled: (c) Definitions, (d) General Requirements, (e) Monitoring 
Requirements for Gasoline/Spark Ignited Engines, (f) Monitoring 
Requirements for Diesel/Compression Ignition Engines, (g) 
Standardization Requirements, (h) Monitoring System Demonstration 
Requirements for Certification, (i) Certification Documentation, (j) 
Production Vehicle Evaluation Testing. The substance of many of these 
provisions is already contained in existing EPA OBD requirements for 
LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs less than 14,000

[[Page 23523]]

lbs GVWR.398 399 EPA will continue to accept certifications 
with CARB OBD requirements as satisfying EPA OBD requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \398\ MDVs in the CARB regulations basically incorporate MDPVs 
and complete HDGV less than 14,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA.
    \399\ We are not changing the requirement for incompletes and 
vehicles with a GVWR above 14,000 lbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most noteworthy changes we are finalizing are summarized below. 
The CCR below is the California Code of Regulations cite for each 
pertinent provision.
     EPA is adding a 0.020 inch leak detection monitoring 
threshold upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle categories LDV, 
LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR except for those 
with fuel tanks larger than 25 gallons capacity (see 13 CCR 1968.2(e)). 
OBD leak monitoring systems will have to identify, store, and if 
required signal any leak(s) equal to or greater than 0.020 inches 
cumulative equivalent diameter. This will thus include diagnostic 
trouble codes (DTC) P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and P0457.
     EPA is incorporating by reference the full array of rate 
based monitoring requirements (see 13 CCR1968.2 (d)(3)-(6)). Meeting 
the rate based monitoring requirements will help to insure that, even 
with enable criteria, the exhaust and evaporative system monitors run 
frequently enough that on average a problem would be identified and 
signaled to the owner in operation within two weeks. This will help to 
improve the fraction of time monitors are ready to find a potential 
problem.
     EPA is incorporating by reference provisions regarding 
monitoring system demonstration requirements for certification. We are 
incorporating by reference CARB provisions in this area and accepting 
submissions to CARB for purposes of compliance demonstration (see 13 
CCR 1968.2(h)). Adopting current CARB monitoring system demonstration 
requirements assures that monitoring systems operate as designed when 
installed on certification vehicles.
     EPA is incorporating by reference the CARB production 
vehicle evaluation data program. This program requires manufacturers to 
demonstrate that the OBD system functions as designed and certified 
when installed on production vehicles. (See 13 CCR 1968.2(j)).
    In addition, we are adding two new requirements, and retaining 
three minor exceptions. Each of these actions is described separately 
below.
     We are adding the requirement that before certification a 
manufacturer must demonstrate the ability of its OBD leak monitoring 
system to detect and report a 0.020 inch leak in the fuel/evaporative 
system. Current CARB protocols within 13 CCR 1968.2(h)(3) do not 
require this demonstration as part of certification. This requirement 
helps to ensure the OBD system's capability to function as designed and 
the OBD-based evaporative system leak monitoring hardware to be used as 
an optional test procedure for IUVP testing for the leak standard. This 
requirement being added for the same vehicles that are subject to 
monitoring system demonstration requirements for certification under 
CARB OBD regulations under 1968.2(h)(3).\400\ EPA test procedures are 
contained in 40CFR 86.1806-17(b). In the spirit of aligning CARB and 
EPA OBD provisions, if CARB ultimately adopts this demonstration 
requirement and CARB's test procedure provisions fulfill the purpose of 
the EPA requirement, EPA will strongly consider proposing to adopt the 
CARB test procedures in lieu of those in 40 CFR 86.1806-17(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \400\ Passavant, G. (January, 2014). ``Development of 0.020'' 
Evaporative Leak Monitoring System Demonstration Requirement Test 
Procedure''. Memorandum to the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This requirement applies to any vehicle test group certified to the 
OBD 0.020 inch evaporative system leak monitoring requirement. Since 
the regulation requires only a relative few test groups each model year 
per manufacturer, we will permit the manufacturers either to meet the 
requirement for the remainder of its test groups on production vehicles 
of a previous model year which used the identical monitoring hardware 
and strategies or to certify by attestation that each of their 
remaining test groups meets the requirement based on development, 
calibration, and other information. If a manufacturer chooses to 
certify by attestation for some test groups for a given model year, the 
regulations are structured such that over several model years a 
manufacturer would evaluate through testing all test groups as new 
groups are selected in subsequent model years.
     For the OBD evaporative system leak monitoring 
requirement, EPA is establishing a requirement for a scan tool readable 
function (a new InfoType $14 in Service $09 of SAE J1979DA) which can 
be used to obtain the distance traveled since the OBD leak monitoring 
diagnostic was last completed successfully, i.e., the system passed or 
failed (identified any leak above 0.020 inches) during that monitoring 
event (unless it is otherwise already required in other OBD system 
modes). The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate implementation 
of the leak standard within IUVP, by permitting the use of OBD 
evaporative system monitoring results as a tool to make pass/fail 
determinations during IUVP. As discussed in section IV.D above, if a 
vehicle successfully completed an evaporative system leak monitoring 
within the most recent 750 miles then the manufacturer could use this 
result for its IUVP requirement for the leak standard. EPA asked for 
comment on how best to implement this requirement within the OBD 
system, in what model year(s) it should be required and to which 
vehicle classes it should apply.
    Manufacturers supported this requirement, and suggested a lower 
cost approach which we are adopting in the final rule. Rather than 
requiring that the distance and monitoring results be stored in NVRAM 
to avoid false results based on a user induced code clear or battery 
disconnect, the manufacturers suggested that the ``distance since evap 
monitoring decision'' InfoType be reset to the maximum value ($FFFF/
65,535km) when codes are cleared or after a reprogramming event (e.g., 
battery disconnect). The InfoType would be reset to zero km when an 
evaporative monitoring pass/fail decision is later made, allowing the 
mileage to be read directly at IUVP. In the usual situation where no 
user induced code clear or reprogramming event (e.g., battery 
disconnect) occurred, the mileage since the last decision could be read 
directly. In either circumstance, the presence of an evaporative system 
leak related DTC (P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455, P0456, and P0457 or 
manufacturer specific equivalent DTC) will indicate a failure and the 
lack of such a DTC will indicate a pass. The mileage and the pass/fail 
results will then be taken together for purposes of the 750 mile option 
in the IUVP assessment for the leak standard.\401\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \401\ Passavant, G. (January, 2014). ``Manufacturer Input on 
Distance Since Last Evaporative Monitoring Decision''. Memorandum to 
the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This requirement applies to all vehicle categories subject to the 
leak test including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs less than 
14,000 lbs GVWR. Manufacturers commented that this requirement should 
apply only to vehicles/test groups meeting the leak standard. Since the 
leak standard phases-in between 2018 and 2022 model years (2017 for 
manufacturers using the 20/20 evaporative emission option), a 
manufacturer may phase-in compliance with this requirement as well.

[[Page 23524]]

     The minor exceptions which are contained in EPA's existing 
OBD regulations are to be continued. Compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection is not required. 
Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) are not being 
adopted. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of 
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, will apply only 
to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. For all model years, 
the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of the existing EPA 
regulations apply only to alternative fuel vehicle/engine manufacturers 
selecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance.
    These changes, taken together will improve the performance, 
reliability, general utility, and effectiveness of OBD systems for Tier 
3 exhaust and evaporative emission controls. Furthermore, these changes 
create the opportunity for OBD evaporative system leak monitoring 
systems to serve a more prominent role in ensuring compliance with the 
leak standard. EPA believes that they can be implemented for minimal 
cost since most manufacturers are meeting them today and will have to 
for LEV III vehicles. The provisions we are incorporating by reference 
give manufacturers the flexibility to seek a revision to the emission 
threshold for a malfunction on any diagnostic required if the most 
reliable monitoring method developed requires a higher threshold to 
prevent significant errors of commission in detecting a 
malfunction.\402\ Any decision on a potential exception would be 
preceded by a consultation between EPA and CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \402\ See 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, the OBD requirements will apply to small 
entities in the 2022 model year, if they choose to take advantage of 
one of the revised implementation schedules for small volume 
manufacturers and small businesses. However, as is the case for larger 
manufacturers, no backsliding is permitted meaning that if they 
voluntarily meet the OBD requirements on their Federal configurations 
in the 2016 model year as a result of compliance with CARB regulations 
they must continue to meet the requirements on the Federal 
configurations in the 2017 and later model years. Small alternative 
fuel converters will still be able to meet the OBD requirements using 
the provisions of 40 CFR 85, subpart F. Finally, it should be noted 
that as CARB updates its OBD regulations in the future EPA will 
consider these changes and propose to adopt them or incorporate them by 
reference, if appropriate.
3. Provisions for Emergency Vehicles
    It is common for emergency vehicles such as law enforcement, 
medical response, and fire protection vehicles operated by government 
entities to be derived from similar publicly available vehicle 
configurations. However, these vehicles often have chassis 
configurations, auxiliary equipment packages, and performance 
requirements different from the standard publicly available 
configurations. These emergency response vehicles typically meet the 
various EPA emission standards based on the engineering calibrations 
and emission control hardware used in the publicly available 
configuration. OBD requirements also apply to these vehicles and 
occasionally their unique design and/or operating characteristics may 
prevent them from meeting one or more of the various OBD requirements.
    In comments on the NPRM, one manufacturer raised a concern that 
EPA's proposed adoption of the current CARB OBDII requirements for the 
2017 model year would create a compliance problem for two of their law 
enforcement vehicle configurations. These two vehicle configurations 
cannot meet one element of the current CARB OBDII requirements (CCR 
1968.2 (e)(6.2.1)(C)) without compromising the performance expected by 
law enforcement personnel.\403\ To address this issue CARB provided 
these vehicles an exemption from this provision, by permitting it to 
meet Federal requirements as permitted by the California Vehicle Code. 
This solved the problem because the CARB OBD II provision of interest 
did not exist within the Federal OBD requirements at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \403\ See Ford Motor Company comments on the Tier 3 NPRM at EPA/
HQ/OAR/2011/0135/4349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This raises both a near term and a broader policy issue related to 
emergency vehicles. First, we are incorporating a definition for 
emergency vehicle that is specific to the Tier OBD requirements.\404\ 
Second, with regard to the two law enforcement vehicle configurations 
identified by the manufacturer, EPA has reviewed the manufacturer's 
technical information and agrees with CARB's previous assessment.\405\ 
Thus, EPA will grant the manufacturer a three model year exemption from 
the requirement as requested by the manufacturer (MY2017-2019 
inclusive). Specifically, we are delaying the need to comply with the 
requirements of CCR 1968.2 (e)(6.2.1)(C)--incorporated by reference by 
EPA--until the 2020MY for any emergency vehicle which does not meet the 
requirement in the 2016 model year. This specifically applies to the 
two test groups identified by the commenter. Second, in a broader 
context, there is a need to address the potential future need for a 
deficiency or an exemption for emergency response vehicles. If CARB 
grants a deficiency for emergency response vehicles under CCR 1968.2(k) 
we would expect this to be done in consultation with EPA. Furthermore, 
we are incorporating provisions to address a potential situation where 
an emergency vehicle needs a deficiency (a temporary or permanent 
allowance for manufacturers to be non-compliant with a specific 
requirement of the OBD regulations as long as certain requirements are 
met) or exemption which is not addressed by CARB under CCR 1968.2(k). 
EPA is adopting a provision which authorizes us to address these 
circumstances based on an application from the manufacturer. Under this 
provision, EPA may approve a request for a deficiency or in extreme 
circumstances a temporary or potentially permanent exemption from a 
given OBD requirement. In considering decisions to approve/disapprove 
this request, EPA will consider the provisions of CCR 1968.2 (k)(1) 
plus engineering information and vehicle emission and performance data 
provided by the manufacturer which demonstrates significant vehicle 
engineering or system performance issues (e.g., vehicle speed, 
acceleration, handling, safety, fuel economy, cost) related to 
complying with the OBD requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \404\ For the Tier 3 OBD requirements, emergency vehicle means a 
motor vehicle manufactured primarily for use as an ambulance or 
combination ambulance-hearse or for use by the United States 
Government or a State or local government for fire protection or law 
enforcement.
    \405\ Passavant, G. (January, 2014). Information Related to CARB 
AFRIM OBD Requirements for Emergency Vehicles. Memorandum to the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Future Considerations
    EPA and CARB coordinate closely on OBD II requirements. When 
changes to the requirements occur, CARB provisions often precede those 
from EPA. Since LEV III begins before Tier 3, EPA expects that CARB 
will revise any OBD II requirements related to the LEV III before EPA 
would do so for Tier 3. EPA expects to work with CARB on any potential 
changes to OBD II requirements related to LEV III and to consider 
proposing such changes in a

[[Page 23525]]

future action since we expect great commonality between Tier 3 and LEV 
III exhaust and evaporative emission control systems. Two presentations 
related to CARB's initial thinking for LEV III related OBDII revisions 
are available in the docket.\406\ In the interim, for any Tier 3 
exhaust emission bin which does not have a corresponding bin value in 
the Tier 2 program, the threshold for the exhaust emission malfunction 
criteria is that of the next higher bin in the Tier 2 regulation as 
prescribed for the latest model year in CCR 1968.2(e)(1)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \406\ McCarthy, M., ``CARB Light-duty OBD Regulation Update'', 
SAE 2012 Onboard Diagnostics Symposium, Nov 2012 and Remenus, M., 
``CARB Light-duty OBD Regulation Update'', SAE 2013 Onboard 
Diagnostics Symposium, September 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, EPA discussed the basics of evaporative emission 
control technology and laid out concerns regarding the loss of 
evaporative and refueling emission control which occurs if a canister 
is not purged. This can potentially occur if the purge hardware fails 
or if the flow of purge air through the canister is impeded by foreign 
matter collecting at the inlet port or on the carbon itself, canister 
poisoning due to fuel or water intrusion, or activated carbon breakdown 
from phenomena such as road vibration. Failure of purge hardware is 
already covered by OBD and a recent study indicates that this is a 
relatively rare evaporative system problem.\407\ Failure of the 
activated carbon to purge due to problems such as those mentioned above 
are not covered by OBD. EPA is undertaking a study to better 
characterize the causes and frequency of such potential problems, and 
may propose in a future rulemaking an OBD-based monitoring requirement 
related to activated carbon/canister capture should the study indicate 
a significant frequency of loss of canister efficiency in-use and loss 
in emissions control relative to other evaporative system failure 
modes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \407\ Weatherby, M., Sabisch, M., Kishan, S. (2014) Analysis of 
Evaporative On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) Readiness and DTCs Using I/M 
Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM we also asked for comment on several other issues 
related to the role of OBD in future technology fuel/evaporative 
control systems. This included pursuing a monitoring threshold less 
than the 0.020 inches cumulative diameter that we are finalizing in 
this rule for non- pressurized and pressurized fuel systems. We asked 
about the feasibility and cost of requiring the OBD leak detection 
monitoring system to detect and signal the presence of a smaller 
diameter orifice, such as 0.010 inch upstream of the purge valve for a 
pressurized system with a designed in-use operating pressure threshold 
in excess of 0.36 psi (10 inches water). Also, for the pressurized 
system, we asked for comment on a potential provision to require that 
the fuel tank vent to the canister at key off if the OBD system 
identifies a leak. In their comments manufacturers indicated concerns 
about the need for such provisions or their value in reducing emissions 
relative to current requirements. EPA believes both of these provisions 
merit further investigation, but at the present time we lack the data 
to assess the feasibility and emission reduction benefits associated 
with each approach and so are not taking action on them.
    Finally, in the NPRM we sought input on whether the operation of a 
vacuum pump or similar device used to assist or supplement vehicle 
engine vacuum purge or any device otherwise used to enhance or control 
purge flows, rates, or schedules should be required to be monitored as 
part of OBD. In their comments the manufacturers indicated their view 
that this would be covered by current OBD provisions, and we are not 
taking further actions.

F. Emissions Test Fuel

    In-use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA last revised 
specifications for the gasoline used in emissions testing of light- and 
heavy-duty vehicles. Sulfur and benzene levels have been reduced and, 
perhaps most importantly, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by 
volume (E10) has replaced non-oxygenated gasoline (E0) across the 
country. This trend has had second-order effects on other gasoline 
properties. In-use fuel is projected to continue to change as refiners 
adjust their gasoline production to reflect the renewable fuel volumes 
required under the RFS2 program, as well as further sulfur reduction 
under the Tier 3 rule.\408\ As a result, we are updating federal 
emission test fuel specifications to better match in-use fuel. The 
revised test fuel specifications apply for exhaust emissions testing, 
fuel economy/greenhouse gas testing, and emissions testing for non-
exhaust emissions (with some exceptions discussed elsewhere in this 
preamble, e.g., for refueling tests in flex-fuel vehicles). The revised 
gasoline specifications, found at Sec.  1065.710 and discussed below, 
apply to emissions testing of light-duty cars and trucks as well as 
heavy-duty gasoline vehicles certified on the chassis test, where the 
vehicles are certified to the Tier 3 standards.\409\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \408\ See 78 FR 49794 (August 15, 2013) for the latest renewable 
fuel requirements under the RFS2 program.
    \409\ As discussed elsewhere in Section IV, we are also 
generally requiring the use of Tier 3 test fuel in conducting 
exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions testing of heavy-duty 
gasoline engines certified on an engine dynamometer. These could 
include engines installed in incomplete Class 2b and Class 3 
vehicles and engines used in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel: Ethanol Content and Volatility
a. Emission Test Fuel Ethanol Content
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed that the emissions test gasoline be 
changed from E0 to E15 as a forward-looking position based on 
indications following the 2011 E15 waiver decision that the market 
would move in that direction.\410\ Since the time when we developed the 
proposal, several relevant factors have led EPA to reconsider that 
position, including limited proliferation on a national scale of 
stations offering E15 and the complexities E15 test fuel would 
introduce for long-term harmonization of the Tier 3 vehicle emission 
regulations with California's LEVIII program (which uses E10 for 
emissions testing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \410\ EPA issued a waiver allowing E15 to be introduced into 
commerce for use in MY 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. On 
July 25, 2011, EPA finalized regulations to mitigate the potential 
for misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered by 
the E15 waiver, i.e., MY 2000 and older light-duty motor vehicles, 
all heavy-duty gasoline vehicles and engines, motorcycles, and all 
gasoline-powered nonroad products (which includes boats).\410\ Two 
of the required mitigation measures are a label for fuel pumps that 
dispense E15 to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of 
the fuel and a prohibition on the use of E15 by consumers in 
vehicles not covered by the waiver, excluding flexible fuel vehicles 
(FFVs). For more details, see 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comments supporting use of E10 as emissions test fuel 
from the automotive and oil industries, as well as states and NGOs 
citing the fact that this was most representative of current market 
conditions. Other stakeholders involved in fuel marketing and 
distribution cited significant infrastructure cost and liability 
concerns in making E15 widely available at existing stations. Ethanol 
industry commenters generally supported E15 certification fuel as 
proposed, but provided no specific timeline on which this blend level 
would become representative of in-use fuel. The most recent surveys of 
the market show that E10 now comprises nearly 100% of in-use gasoline, 
with very small amounts of E0 and E15 being sold in limited areas where 
there is specific interest.\411\ Based on this information and 
considering comments, EPA is finalizing

[[Page 23526]]

E10 as the ethanol blend level in emissions test gasoline for Tier 3 
light-duty and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. We will continue to 
monitor the in-use gasoline supply and based on such review may 
initiate rulemaking action to revise the specifications for emissions 
test fuel to include a higher ethanol blend level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \411\ More detail on fuel survey data is available in Chapter 3 
of the Regulatory Impact Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in Sections IV.A.7.d (tailpipe emission testing) 
and IV.C.5.b (evaporative emission testing), we are requiring all 
light-duty and chassis-certified heavy-duty gasoline vehicles to be 
certified to Tier 3 standards on federal E10 test fuel. As described in 
those sections, EPA will accept emission certification test results 
performed according to CARB's LEVIII procedures including CARB's E10 
test fuel. Confirmatory and in-use exhaust or evaporative testing of 
vehicles certified on CARB's E10 test fuel will be performed using that 
same test fuel through MY 2019. After MY 2019, EPA will continue the 
practice of accepting emission data at certification on the LEVIII test 
fuel; however confirmatory and in-use testing may be performed using 
Tier 3 E10 test fuel at the discretion of the Agency.
b. Certification Fuel Volatility (RVP) Specification
    In deciding to finalize E10 as the emissions test fuel it is 
appropriate to consider whether a change in the volatility of the test 
fuel is warranted, typically expressed as in pounds per square inch 
(psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) or dry vapor pressure equivalent 
(DVPE). The Clean Air Act (Section 211(h)(1)) sets a national limit on 
summertime RVP in northern conventional gasoline areas of 9.0 psi to 
control ozone pollution. However, Congress included a waiver allowance 
(Section 211(h)(4)) granting an additional 1 psi RVP to 10% ethanol 
blends, meaning that E10 could have an RVP up to 10 psi in these 
conventional gasoline areas unless specifically prohibited by state or 
local rules. Under Section 211(h)(4), E15 is not covered by the waiver 
and thus is restricted to 9 psi nationwide.
    The automakers submitted comments that recommended leaving the RVP 
of emissions test fuel at 9 psi on the basis that raising the 
specification to 10 psi would increase the stringency of the proposed 
evaporative emission standards significantly. We agree that the 
resulting increased vapor generation rates during the refueling test 
would increase emissions (by about 10 percent and during the hot soak, 
diurnal, canister bleed, and running loss tests by as much as 25 
percent in total). While the likely increase in canister volume in 
response to higher certification fuel RVP would not be difficult for 
automakers to accommodate in most cases, there are additional 
uncertainties regarding cost and feasibility of strategies for removing 
the larger vapor loads from the canister during vehicle operation 
(vapor ``purging''). Some vehicles have adequate engine vacuum 
available to accomplish the increased vapor purge, while others may 
require new or innovative approaches to increase purge volume or 
efficiency (as discussed in the evaporative emissions technology 
discussion in Section IV.C.3).
    Several other commenters, such as NGOs and environmental groups, 
supported setting certification gasoline RVP to 10 psi to be 
representative of the worst-case volatility vehicles may see in the 
market, making the test procedure more stringent than in the proposed 
program and further reducing evaporative emissions.
    Raising the certification test fuel RVP to 10 psi would also impact 
the equivalency of CARB and EPA hot soak plus diurnal evaporative 
emission test procedures. (California requires the use of 7 psi RVP 
test fuel, which, in conjunction with higher test temperatures, 
produces equivalent results to the federal test procedures using 9 psi 
fuel.) If we were to adopt 10 psi test fuel, we would likely need to 
develop and adopt new test procedure adjustments in order to maintain 
the equivalency of CARB and EPA evaporative procedures (and allow 
reciprocal acceptance of test data generated under either agency's 
program).
    In addition, the 1 psi RVP waiver for E10 does not apply to 
gasoline with higher ethanol levels; for example, under current 
regulations E15 is subject to an RVP limit of 9 psi. If EPA had adopted 
10 psi test fuel in this rule and if gasoline with higher ethanol 
levels than E10 were to become commonly used nationwide, maintaining 
alignment with in-use fuel could necessitate a change in emissions test 
fuel back to 9 psi.
    A review of 2011 gasoline batch data submitted to EPA shows that 
just under half of summertime gasoline was conventional gasoline at 10 
psi RVP. An additional third was RFG at approximately 7 psi RVP, with 
the remainder having intermediate RVPs under local volatility control 
programs. A volume-weighted average of these data is approximately 8.7 
psi RVP. Thus, an emissions test gasoline volatility at 9 psi aligns 
well with the average nationwide in-use RVP today. In addition, 
virtually all of the areas that have elevated summertime ozone levels 
where excess evaporative VOC emissions would be of greatest concern 
already control in-use gasoline RVP to levels less than 9 psi. 
Furthermore, under section 211(a)(5), governors can request that the 1 
psi waiver for E10 not apply in their state if it causes an emissions 
increase that contributes to air pollution. Any state exercising this 
authority would have in-use E10 RVP levels limited to 9 psi.
    After considering these technical and policy issues in the context 
of the information available and comments received, we conclude that 
the most appropriate approach is to set an RVP of 9 psi for Tier 3 
emissions test fuel.
c. Durability Test Fuel
    EPA's motor vehicle emissions standards typically require a level 
of performance over a specified test procedure, with emissions measured 
while the engine or the vehicle is operated using the specified test 
fuel and operated in a specified manner. The test fuel specifications 
typically apply for all emissions testing used to determine compliance 
with the standard, including emissions testing to obtain a certificate 
of conformity, as well as compliance testing for newly produced or in-
use engines or vehicles. While this test fuel is sometimes referred to 
as ``certification fuel,'' the test fuel specifications are not limited 
to certification related emissions testing, but also apply to 
compliance related emissions testing after the certificate of 
conformity has been issued. The certification process also typically 
involves a process to ensure that the emissions controls system is 
durable over the regulatory useful life of the vehicle or engine. This 
can involve long-term or accelerated aging of a vehicle or engine prior 
to emissions testing. The fuel used for such aging is commonly referred 
to as service accumulation or durability fuel, and in many cases is 
specified as commercial gasoline that will be generally available 
through retail outlets (Sec.  86.113-04(a)(3)), or in some cases may be 
specified as gasoline which contains ethanol in, at least, the highest 
concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is 
commercially available in any state in the United States, such as for 
durability aging of evaporative emissions system (Sec.  86.1824-08(f)). 
EPA is not changing the specifications for fuel used during durability 
related aging that is part of the certification process. The regulatory 
changes in this final rule only apply to the test fuel used during 
emissions

[[Page 23527]]

testing, both for purposes of certification and for later compliance 
related testing.
    We are not changing the exhaust or evaporative durability fuel 
requirements outlined in the provisions of Sec.  86.113-04(a)(3), 
except to remove the minimum sulfur content (15 ppm) specified at Sec.  
86.113-04(a)(3)(i). Those provisions require that ``[u]nless otherwise 
approved by the Administrator, unleaded gasoline representative of 
commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail 
outlets must be used in service accumulation.'' We expect that 
manufacturers will use service accumulation fuels that are generally 
representative of the national average in-use fuels (or worst case for 
durability) during the model year which is being certified, including, 
for example, the ethanol content (for exhaust emissions), sulfur level, 
and fuel additive package. For exhaust emission bench aging durability 
programs as allowed under the provisions of Sec.  86.1823-08(d) and 
(e), the bench aging program should be designed using good engineering 
judgment to account for the effects of in-use fuels on exhaust 
emissions, including the effects of future in-use fuels on catalytic 
converters, oxygen sensors, fuel injectors, and other emission-related 
components.
    For evaporative emissions, durability fuel requirements are the 
same as for exhaust emissions (as outlined above), plus an additional 
requirement in the provisions of Sec.  86.1824-08(f), that the service 
accumulation fuel ``contains ethanol in, at least, the highest 
concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is 
commercially available in any state in the United States. Unless 
otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must 
determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the 
highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar 
year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage 
accumulation.'' Thus, we expect that E15 service accumulation fuel will 
be used for whole vehicle evaporative durability programs. Similarly, 
evaporative bench aging durability programs allowed under the 
provisions of Sec.  86.1824-08(d) and (e), should be designed using 
good engineering judgment to account for the durability effects of in-
use fuels on evaporative emissions, bleed emissions, and leakage 
emissions.
2. Other Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel Specifications
    Where possible, we are changing test fuel specifications to be 
consistent with CARB's LEV III gasoline test fuel specifications.\412\ 
In addition to the ethanol and volatility specifications discussed 
above, below is an overview of some of the key changes. Table IV-26 
provides a summary of the new test fuel properties. For more 
information on how we arrived at the test fuel property ranges and ASTM 
test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \412\ LEV III test procedures, including a description of test 
fuel, can be found at 13 CCR 1961.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Octane--lowering gasoline octane to around 87 (R+M)/2 to 
be representative of in-use fuel, i.e., regular-grade E10 gasoline. 
Manufacturers can continue to use high-octane gasoline for testing of 
premium-required \413\ vehicles and engines as well as for testing 
unrelated to exhaust emissions. Historically, the high octane rating of 
test fuel has not had any real emissions implications. However, as 
manufacturers begin introducing new advanced vehicle technologies 
(e.g., turbocharged/downsized), this may no longer be the case. For 
those vehicles where operation on high-octane gasoline is required by 
the manufacturer, we are allowing the manufacturer to test on a fuel 
with a minimum octane rating of 91 (R+M)/2 (in lieu of the 87 (R+M)/2 
specified for general test fuel). According to the regulations found at 
Sec.  1065.710(d), vehicles or engines are considered to require 
premium fuel if they are designed specifically for operation on high-
octane fuel and the manufacturer requires the use of premium gasoline 
as part of their warranty as indicated in the owner's manual. Cases 
where premium gasoline is not required but is recommended to improve 
performance would not qualify as a vehicle or engine that requires the 
use of premium fuel. For qualifying vehicles and engines, all emission 
tests must use the specified high-octane fuel. For vehicles and engines 
certified on high-octane gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in-use 
testing would also be conducted on high-octane gasoline. All other test 
fuel specifications are the same as those described in Table IV-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \413\ Premium-required defined at Sec.  1065.710(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Distillation Temperatures--adjusting gasoline distillation 
temperatures to better reflect in-use E10 gasoline. This includes minor 
T10, T90 and FBP adjustments based on AAM fuel surveys and refinery 
batch data. These data show that T50 varies widely in in-use fuel, from 
around 150[emsp14][deg]F to 220[emsp14][deg]F. Adopting a wide 
specification range for test fuel may have undesirable effects on 
consistency of results between facilities and over time. Therefore, we 
have chosen a range of 190-210[emsp14][deg]F to maintain some overlap 
with CARB's specification of 205-215[emsp14][deg]F but extending 
somewhat lower to better capture federal in-use fuel. For more 
information on how we arrived at the distillation temperatures in Table 
IV-26, refer to Chapter 3 of the RIA.
     Sulfur--lowering the sulfur content of test fuel to 8-11 
ppm to be consistent with our new Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards. The 
10 ppm annual average sulfur standard for in-use gasoline standard is 
expected to result in 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 0.5-
0.7 volume percent to represent in-use fuel under the MSAT2 
regulations.\414\ The MSAT2 standards, which took effect January 1, 
2011, limit the gasoline pool to 0.62 volume percent benzene on 
average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \414\ 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total Aromatics--lowering the range of aromatics content 
in the test fuel to better match today's in-use E10 gasoline, and 
narrowing the range to limit variability of results. Data from recent 
gasoline batch data as well as AAM surveys support a specification of 
22-26 volume percent.\415\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \415\ More details on fuel property analysis are available in 
Chapter 3 of the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Distribution of Aromatics--in addition to total aromatics 
and benzene, the updated test fuel requirements place boundaries on the 
distribution of aromatics by carbon number (i.e., prescribed volume 
percent ranges for each of C7, C8, C9, and C10+ hydrocarbons). There is 
evidence that the heaviest aromatics in gasoline contribute 
disproportionately to PM emissions, so compliance with emission 
standards should be demonstrated on fuel with a composition 
representative of in-use gasoline. For more information on the 
aromatics specifications, refer to Chapter 3 of the RIA.
     Olefins--adjusting the olefins specification to a range of 
4-10 volume percent to better match in-use E10 gasoline.
     Other Specifications--adding distillation residue, total 
content of oxygenates other than ethanol, copper corrosion, solvent-
washed gum, and oxidation stability specifications to better control 
other performance properties of test fuel. These specifications are 
consistent with ASTM's D4814 gasoline specifications and CARB's LEV III 
test fuel requirements.

[[Page 23528]]

     Updates to Gasoline Test Methods--updating some of the 
gasoline test methods previously specified in Sec.  86.113 with more 
appropriate, easier to use, or more precise test methods for ethanol-
blended gasoline. Key changes include replacement of ASTM D323 with 
ASTM D5191 for measuring vapor pressure; replacement of ASTM D1319 with 
ASTM D5769 for measuring aromatics and benzene; and replacement of ASTM 
D1266 with three alternative ASTM test methods (D2622, D5453 or D7039) 
for measuring sulfur.

                                                  Table IV-26--Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel Properties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Specification
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------
             Property                        Unit                             Low- temperature    High altitude           Reference procedure \a\
                                                             General testing       testing           testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2..........  .......................            87.0--88.4 \b\                87.0 Minimum  ASTM D2699 and D2700.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity (R-M)................  .......................                       7.5 Minimum                      ASTM D2699 and D2700.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent      kPa (psi)..............         60.0-63.4         77.2-81.4         52.4-55.2  ASTM D5191.
 (DVPE) c, d.                                                      (8.7-9.2)       (11.2-11.8)         (7.6-8.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation \e\
    10% evaporated...............  [deg]C ([deg]F)........             49-60             43-54             49-60  ASTM D86.
                                                                   (120-140)         (110-130)         (120-140)
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------
    50% evaporated...............  [deg]C ([deg]F)........                     88-99 (190-210)
    90% evaporated...............  [deg]C ([deg]F)........                    157-168 (315-335)
    Evaporated final boiling       [deg]C ([deg]F)........                    193-216 (380-420)
     point.
Residue..........................  milliliter.............                       2.0 Maximum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons......  volume %...............                        21.0-25.0                       ASTM D5769.
C6 Aromatics (benzene)...........  volume %...............                         0.5-0.7
C7 Aromatics (toluene)...........  volume %...............                         5.2-6.4
C8 Aromatics.....................  volume %...............                         5.2-6.4
C9 Aromatics.....................  volume %...............                         5.2-6.4
C10+ Aromatics...................  volume %...............                         4.4-5.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olefins \5\......................  mass %.................                        4.0-10.0                        ASTM D6550.
Ethanol blended..................  volume %...............                        9.6-10.0                        See Sec.   1065.710(b)(3).
Ethanol confirmatory \f\.........  volume %...............                        9.4-10.2                        ASTM D4815 or D5599.
Total Content of Oxygenates Other  volume %...............                       0.1 Maximum                      ASTM D4815 or D5599.
 than Ethanol \f\.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
\b\ Octane specifications apply only for testing related to exhaust emissions. For engines or vehicles that require the use of premium fuel, as
  described in paragraph (d) of this section, the adjusted specification for antiknock index is a minimum value of 91.0; no maximum value applies. All
  other specifications apply for this high-octane fuel.
\c\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, using the following equation: DVPE (kPa) =
  0.956pT--2.39 (or DVPE (psi) = 0.956pT--0.347. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method.
\d\ Parenthetical values are shown for informational purposes only.
\e\ The reference procedure prescribes measurement of olefin concentration in mass %. Multiply this result by 0.857 and round to the first decimal place
  to determine the olefin concentration in volume %.
\f\ The reference procedure prescribes concentration measurements for ethanol and other oxygenates in mass %. Convert results to volume % as specified
  in Section 14.3 of ASTM D4815.

    As mentioned earlier, we will continue to allow manufacturers to 
test vehicles on premium-grade gasoline should the vehicles require it. 
In addition, since we cannot predict all future changes in gasoline 
vehicle technologies and in-use fuels, we will allow vehicle 
manufacturers to specify an alternative test fuel under certain 
situations. Under this provision, if manufacturers were to design 
vehicles that required operation on a higher octane, higher ethanol 
content gasoline (e.g., dedicated E30 vehicles or FFVs optimized to run 
on E30 or higher ethanol blends), under 40 CFR 1065.701(c), they can 
petition the Administrator for approval of a higher octane, higher 
ethanol content test fuel if they can demonstrate that such a fuel 
would be used by the operator and would be readily available 
nationwide, vehicles would not operate appropriately on other available 
fuels, and such a fuel would result in equivalent emissions 
performance. For vehicles certified on high-octane, high-ethanol 
gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in-use testing would also be 
conducted on high-octane, high-ethanol gasoline. This could help 
manufacturers who wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle 
efficiency as a step toward complying with the 2017 and later light-
duty greenhouse gas and CAFE standards. This in turn could help

[[Page 23529]]

provide a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 and 
enhance the environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation 
fuel by using it to enable more fuel efficient engines.
    We received comments in general support of allowing certification 
on higher octane fuels if the vehicles require it, although some 
commenters believe that the criteria EPA is specifying for such an 
allowance are too severe. We have considered these comments, and as 
discussed in the Summary and Analysis of Comments document, we continue 
to believe that our approach is appropriate, and we are finalizing 
these provisions as proposed.
3. Flexible Fuel Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Test Fuel
    We are also finalizing specifications for the fuel used in flexible 
fuel vehicles (FFV) exhaust emissions testing including certification 
testing. EPA is establishing specifications for FFV test fuel to 
resolve confusion and inconsistency among FFV manufacturers in carrying 
out their certification and other testing requirements and to ensure 
that FFV emissions are appropriately controlled over the range of in-
use fuels. The FFV exhaust emissions test fuel specifications will 
phase in on the same schedule as the E10 standard gasoline test fuel 
specifications for light- and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles (described 
in Section IV.F.4). These FFV exhaust emissions test fuel 
specifications may be used voluntarily prior to when they are required 
to be used. The base fuel stock used to formulate FFV exhaust emissions 
test fuel must comply with the specifications finalized today for the 
standard E10 emissions test fuel as described in preamble Sections 
IV.F.1 and 2. This practice avoids the need to specify the ranges for a 
number of fuel parameters as we have done for gasoline test fuel in 
Table IV-26 and helps to minimize the number of test fuels that a 
vehicle manufacturer must store. Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that 
meets the specifications discussed in preamble Section V.G. must be 
blended into this base fuel stock to attain an ethanol content of 80 to 
83 volume percent in the finished test fuel. Commercial grade normal 
butane can be added as a volatility trimmer to meet a 6.0 to 6.5 psi 
RVP specification for the finished test fuel.\416\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \416\ The specifications for commercial grade butane are 
contained in 40 CFR 80.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to the use of DFE to manufacture FFV test fuel, 
neat (undenatured) fuel grade ethanol can be used. As an alternative to 
using a finished E10 standard gasoline test fuel in the manufacture of 
FFV test fuel, the gasoline blendstock used by the fuel provider to 
produce a compliant E10 test fuel can also be used to manufacture the 
FFV test fuel. This would allow ethanol to be blended only once to 
produce FFV test fuel. In such cases, a sample of the subject gasoline 
blendstock must be tested after the addition of ethanol to produce a 
finished standard E10 gasoline test fuel to demonstrate that the blend 
meets all of the requirements for standard gasoline test fuel described 
in Section IV.F.
    The public comments were supportive of EPA establishing 
specifications for FFV exhaust emissions test fuel. However, some 
commenters stated that the ethanol content and RVP specifications for 
FFV exhaust emissions test fuel should be based on typical values for 
in-use E85.\417\ Automobile manufacturers commented that EPA should 
wait to finalize FFV test fuel specifications until a review of in-use 
E51-83 fuel quality can be completed in later 2013. They stated that 
this would allow the FFV test fuel specifications to be representative 
of the change to in-use ``E85'' composition since ASTM reduced the 
minimum ethanol concentration from 68 to 51 volume percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \417\ The term ``E85'' has historically been used to describe an 
ethanol blend for use in FFVs with a maximum ethanol content of 83 
volume percent and satisfying other fuel parameter specifications 
established by ASTM International. ASTM D5798-13, ``Standard 
Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive 
Spark-Ignition Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Substantial publicly available literature exists to demonstrate 
that the ethanol content of fuel used in FFVs has a significant effect 
on vehicle emissions. The effect of ethanol content on FFV emissions 
becomes more pronounced with increasing ethanol concentration. The 
current ASTM specification for E85 provides that the ethanol content of 
E85 may vary from 51 to 83 volume percent depending on climactic 
conditions.\418\ Consistent with our long standing policy regarding the 
exhaust emissions testing of FFVs, we continue to believe that FFVs 
must comply with all emissions control requirements while using any 
fuel that they have the potential to operate on in-use. This ensures 
vehicles are designed and calibrated for emissions performance across 
the full range of potential in-use fuel formulations. FFVs are required 
to have exhaust emissions certification testing conducted using both 
E10 and FFV exhaust emissions test fuel to account for the effect on 
emissions of the full range of potential ethanol blend formulations. To 
ensure that FFV certification testing adequately accounts for in-use 
emissions performance, we are finalizing the ethanol content of FFV 
exhaust emissions test fuel at 81-83 volume percent as proposed. 
Exhaust emissions testing conducted using a fuel containing 81-83 
volume percent ethanol will provide results that represent the effect 
of ethanol on FFV emissions performance when this effect is most 
pronounced. The complimentary emissions certification testing required 
for FFVs on E10 will ensure that the effect on FFV emissions from the 
full range of potential in-use ethanol concentrations is represented. 
Given the need to ensure that FFV emissions certification testing is 
representative of the full range of potential in-use ethanol blends, it 
would be inappropriate to set the required ethanol concentration for 
FFV emissions test fuel based on typical in-use levels as suggested by 
some of the commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \418\ ASTM International D5798-13, ``Standard Specification for 
Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition 
Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the RVP of FFV exhaust emissions test fuel must assure 
emissions performance over the range of in-use fuels. When ethanol and 
gasoline are blended to produce high level ethanol blends, the RVP can 
be and often is very low. As a result, ASTM instituted a minimum RVP 
for E51-83 of 5.5 psi. Given that low volatility fuels can make the 
control of cold start emissions more challenging, we are finalizing the 
RVP of FFV exhaust emissions test to be near the minimum RVP that will 
be encountered in-use. The 6.0 to 6.5 RVP specification finalized today 
will help to ensure that FFVs are designed and calibrated to maintain 
their exhaust emissions performance across the range of in-use fuels.
    The levels of other fuel parameters for in-use E51-83 are 
determined by the levels of these parameters present in the gasoline 
blendstock used as diluted by the addition of ethanol. Therefore, we 
believe that requiring that the levels of these other fuel parameters 
present in FFV exhaust emissions test fuel be determined by the 
dilution of the levels present in standard gasoline emissions test fuel 
appropriately reflects their potential effect on emissions performance. 
Given the considerations discussed above in determining the FFV exhaust 
emissions test fuel specifications finalized today, we do not believe 
that there would be a substantial benefit in waiting for the completion 
of the E51-83 fuel quality survey currently

[[Page 23530]]

underway to finalize FFV test fuel specifications.
    As discussed in preamble Section V.H., the Agency is also 
considering finalizing the in-use fuel quality standards for higher 
level ethanol blends on which we sought comment in the NPRM. These 
standards included an in-use RVP standard of 9.0 psi matching that of 
conventional gasoline. They also contained provisions to allow the 
production of high-level ethanol blends for use in FFVs from natural 
gasoline and other higher volatility components. Were we to finalize 
these in-use standards, we would also consider raising the RVP for the 
FFV exhaust emissions test fuel.
    We are revising the definition of ``alcohol'' in 40 CFR part 600 to 
align with the change in the ASTM specification for in-use fuels. Under 
the revised regulation, we consider an alcohol-fueled vehicle to be one 
that is designed to operate exclusively on a fuel containing 51 percent 
or more ethanol or other alcohol by volume. This is not intended to 
change the applicability, procedures, or requirements for the fuel 
economy provisions in 40 CFR part 600.
4. Implementation Schedule
    As described earlier in this Section IV, we are establishing Tier 3 
exhaust and evaporative emission standards. The changes in the 
specifications for test fuel apply to vehicles certified to these new 
standards. The program is designed to transition to the new test fuel 
during the first few years as the Tier 3 standards are phasing in. 
Testing requirement with the new Tier 3 test fuel starts with light-
duty vehicles certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 70, and 
heavy-duty vehicles certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 
250 (for Class 2b) and Bin 400 (for Class 3). For light-duty vehicles, 
Table IV-27 below describes the implementation schedule of the new Tier 
3 gasoline test fuels for each of the program elements in addition to 
the all the gasoline test fuel options available during the transition 
period. Table IV-3 below similarly describes the heavy-duty gasoline 
vehicle test fuel implementation schedule and gasoline test fuel 
options. The new Tier 3 PM requirements for both light-duty vehicles 
and heavy duty vehicles which phase-in independent of other vehicle 
exhaust emission requirements must be met using the certification test 
fuel for meeting the NMOG+NOX standards.
    Starting with model years 2020 for light-duty and 2022 for heavy-
duty, all manufacturers will use the new test fuel for all exhaust 
emission testing (with the exception of small volume manufacturers and 
small businesses, which can delay using the new test fuel for all 
vehicles until model year 2022). Manufacturers also need to comply with 
cold temperature CO and NMHC standards using the new test fuel for any 
models that use the new test fuel for meeting the light-duty Tier 3 
exhaust emission standards as indicated in the tables below. These same 
tests will also provide the basis for meeting GHG requirements under 40 
CFR part 86 and fuel economy requirements under 40 CFR part 600, as 
described in the following section.

                  Table IV-27--Exhaust Emissions Gasoline Test Fuels for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Test purpose:                           Test cycles
                                      demonstration of   -------------------------------------------------------
    Emission compliance program       compliance to the                           Cold CO and
                                    emissions standards:   FTP City/HWFE/SFTP         NMHC        High altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2............................  Certification.......  (1)(2)(3)(4)........              (1)              (1)
                                    Confirmatory and In-  Certification fuel                (1)              (1)
                                     use.                  and/or (1)*.
Tier 3 Early 2015 to 2017.........  Certification.......  (1)**(2)***(3)(4)...         (1)**(3)         (1)**(3)
                                    Confirmatory and In-  Certification fuel..         (1)**(3)         (1)**(3)
                                     use.
Tier 3 phase-in 2017 to 2019......  Certification.......  (1)**(2)***(3)(4)...         (1)**(3)         (1)**(3)
                                    Confirmatory and In-  Certification fuel..         (1)**(3)         (1)**(3)
                                     use.
Tier 3 complete 2020+.............  Certification.......  (3)(4)..............              (3)              (3)
                                    Confirmatory and In-  Certification fuel                (3)              (3)
                                     use.                  and/or (3)*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuels: (1) Tier 2 (2) LEV II (3) Tier 3 E10 (4) LEV III E10
* EPA accepts the use of California certification fuels (or Tier 3 E10 for Tier 2 certification) but
  manufacturer must comply on the program specific Federal fuel. EPA may perform or require manufacturer testing
  on the Federal fuel.
** Fuel (1) only allowed for Bins 160, 125, 110, 85.
*** Fuel (2) only allowed for carryover SULEV 150k exhaust.

                   Table IV-28--Exhaust Emissions Gasoline Test Fuels for Heavy Duty Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Test purpose:                        Test cycles
                                              demonstration of      --------------------------------------------
      Emission compliance program             compliance to the
                                             emissions standards         FTP City/HWFE/SFTP       High altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Tier 3.............................  Certification.............  (1)(2)(3)(4)..............              (1)
                                         Confirmatory and In-use...  Certification fuel and/or               (1)
                                                                      (1)*.
Tier 3 Early 2016 to 2017..............  Certification.............  (1)** (3)(4)..............         (1)**(3)
                                         Confirmatory and In-use...  Certification fuel........         (1)**(3)
Tier 3 phase-in 2018 to 2021...........  Certification.............  (1)** (3)(4)..............         (1)**(3)
                                         Confirmatory and In-use...  Certification fuel........         (1)**(3)
Tier 3 complete 2022+..................  Certification.............  (3)(4)....................              (3)
                                         Confirmatory and In-use...  Certification fuel and/or               (3)
                                                                      (3)*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuels: (1) Tier 2 (2) LEV II (3) Tier 3 E10 (4) LEV III E10
* EPA accepts the use of California certification fuels (or Tier 3 E10 for Tier 2 certification) but
  manufacturer must comply on the program specific Federal fuel. EPA may perform or require manufacturer testing
  on the Federal fuel.
** Fuel (1) only allowed for Bins 340, 395, 570, 630.

[[Page 23531]]

    Additionally, heavy-duty gasoline engines (HDGEs) not subject to 
new Tier 3 exhaust emission standards (those certified for exhaust 
emissions using an engine dynamometer) are required to be certified on 
Tier 3 fuel by MY 2022. Further discussion can be found in Section 
IV.C.4.c.
    For evaporative emission testing, manufacturers will need to use 
the new test fuel for any models that are to be certified to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards. To the extent that these models are 
different than those used for exhaust emission testing with the new 
test fuel, manufacturers will need to do additional testing to 
demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. They may 
alternatively use the new test fuel earlier than the regulations 
specify to avoid additional testing. We further require that 
manufacturers submit certification data based on the new test fuel to 
demonstrate compliance with refueling emission standards for any 
vehicles that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards.
5. Implications of Emission Test Fuel Changes on CAFE Standards, GHG 
Standards, and Fuel Economy Labels
a. Test Fuel
    Under regulations in 40 CFR part 600, vehicles use the same test 
fuel in emission testing conducted for CAFE standards, greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions, and the fuel economy label as that used for emission 
testing for criteria pollutants. This includes the test fuel used for 
testing on all five cycles (FTP, highway fuel economy test (HFET), 
US06, SC03, and Cold FTP). In the Tier 3 NPRM, EPA proposed a change in 
emissions test fuel used to determine compliance with criteria 
pollutant standards and this test fuel change would also apply to CAFE 
and GHG standards and the fuel economy label such that a common test 
fuel under 40 CFR part 600 was retained. At the same time, EPA 
indicated its commitment to the principle that the change in test fuel 
would not affect the stringency of the CAFE or GHG standards and that 
the labeling calculations would be updated in a future action to 
reflect the change in test fuel properties.
    The NPRM indicated that more data and time were needed to assess 
the effects on stringency and implementation of these programs. While 
EPA's initial review of available data suggested that the change in 
test fuel would not impact the GHG standards, more time and data were 
needed to confirm this initial view regarding the GHG standards and to 
determine what adjustments if any would need to be made to the CAFE 
program and fuel economy label calculation procedures to account for 
the change in test fuel. EPA indicated we would defer action on 
appropriate adjustments, if any, for the GHG and CAFE programs until 
data were available to assess how the difference in the fuel properties 
(Tier 3 fuel compared to Tier 2 fuel) would impact the stringency of 
the CAFE and GHG standards for Tier 3 technology vehicles and the 
calculations for the fuel economy label. EPA indicated that any 
adjustments or changes in the regulatory text would be done through a 
future action.
    Manufacturers commented that EPA should take action on the 
necessary adjustments to compliance calculations as part of the Tier 3 
final rule. The methodologies for addressing some elements of the 
changes in fuel properties such as the difference in energy density are 
already addressed in the regulation. One key element, the ``R'' factor 
found in the equation of 40 CFR 600.113-12(h)(1) is intended to capture 
inefficiencies and differences in how vehicles respond to changes in 
the energy content of the fuel. This factor is empirically based, 
developed using vehicle test data. This value is presently set at 0.6 
and is shown in the denominator of the aforementioned equation. While 
there has been some data evaluated to assess the impact of changing the 
emission test fuel on the ``R'' factor, EPA did not propose a value in 
the NPRM and specifically stated that we would continue to investigate 
this issue and if necessary address it as part of a future action, as 
opposed to changing it in the Tier 3 final rule. Furthermore, as 
discussed above, there is a need for more data to fully understand how 
other changes in certification fuel for Tier 3, such as the octane 
specification, may affect the stringency of the CAFE and GHG standards 
which were based on Tier 2 emission fuel, as well as any implications 
for the fuel economy label. These potential effects are best understood 
using emission data generated on Tier 3/LEV III vehicles tested on both 
Tier 3 and Tier 2 test fuel.
    In addition, the manufacturers commented that even with the use of 
``analytically derived data'' as permitted under current EPA 
regulations and guidance, \419\ EPA should finalize an appropriate test 
procedure adjustment in the Tier 3 rulemaking, including adoption of an 
``R'' factor of 1.0, and should allow manufacturers the option of using 
Tier 2 fuel for CAFE, GHG, and fuel economy labeling at least through 
MY2019 to provide time for adjusting to the new test fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \419\ See 40 CFR 600.006-08(e) and EPA guidance letter CD 12-03, 
February 27, 2012 and CCD-04-06, March 11, 2004, available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, EPA indicated that we would not be changing the ``R'' 
factor or implementing other adjustments or changes in the regulatory 
text in the FRM. In follow-up meetings with the manufacturers, we 
expressed a willingness to consider permitting GHG and CAFE to continue 
on Tier 2 fuel until the future rulemaking action to address the ``R'' 
factor and other potential changes was complete and in effect. The 
manufacturers responded that under this approach the existing 
regulations would require a significant amount of additional emission 
testing for any model certified to the Tier 3/LEVIII exhaust emission 
standards before the future rulemaking is completed and in effect.\420\ 
This is because Tier 3 test fuels would be used in emission data 
vehicles (EDVs) evaluated for compliance with Tier 3 criteria pollutant 
standards, but these same EDVs would also have to be tested on Tier 2 
fuel for GHG, fuel economy label, and CAFE program data purposes. Also, 
while Tier 2 fuel would apply to EDVs and fuel economy data vehicles 
(FEDVs) evaluated for fuel economy label, CAFE program data values, and 
compliance with GHG standards, these same FEDVs would have to be 
retested on Tier 3 fuel to show compliance with the Tier 3 criteria 
pollutant standards. This additional testing would also extend to in-
use verification program (IUVP) testing under 40 CFR 86.1845 through 
86.1853.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \420\ This could start as early as the 2015 MY when the LEV III 
program begins to phase-in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the concerns expressed by the manufacturers, EPA has 
identified five interim changes to existing regulations to both clarify 
testing requirements and to provide the manufacturers a reasonable 
opportunity to continue to test for CAFE, GHG, and labeling purposes on 
Tier 2 test fuels for each EDV and FEDV until such time as EPA 
determines appropriate adjustments, if any, related to a change to Tier 
3 test fuels. EPA believes these changes can be implemented without 
impacting the integrity of the testing conducted for the criteria 
pollutant, CAFE, and GHG standards or values generated for 
determination of fuel economy labels. It is very important to

[[Page 23532]]

note that the emission test data generated by these early Tier 3/LEVIII 
vehicles covering both Tier 2 and Tier 3 test fuel will provide data 
needed to assess the ``R'' value and the impact of the fuel change on 
the stringency of the CAFE and GHG standards, and the calculations for 
the fuel economy labeling program. These data will be instrumental in 
developing any appropriate adjustments to maintain equivalent 
stringency for the CAFE and GHG standards and to update the fuel 
economy labeling calculations, as needed. At the present time, EPA 
expects to have the needed data in early to mid 2015 and will then be 
in a position to conduct a thorough assessment of the impacts of 
different emission test fuels on Tier 3/LEV III vehicles and develop 
any appropriate adjustments and changes, in consultation and 
coordination with NHTSA.
    These interim changes which are presented below and shown in Table 
IV-29, apply only to vehicles certified to the Tier 3 and/or LEV III 
exhaust emission standards in the model years before the future action 
mentioned above takes effect. These are reflected in 40 CFR 80.600.117.
    1. For any given EDV or FEDV, our regulations will require that 
testing related to CAFE and GHG standards and the fuel economy label 
must still be done on Tier 2 fuel even if criteria pollutant testing is 
done on Tier 3 or LEV III fuel. The ``R'' value used in the fuel 
economy equation would remain at 0.6 until any change is made in a 
future rulemaking.
    2. The requirement continues that FEDVs are expected to meet the 
criteria pollutant emission standards. As a flexibility, rather than 
requiring FEDVs to retest on Tier 3 fuel to show that they pass the 
criteria pollutant emission standards, we are providing in the 
regulations that FEDVs may meet these standards using Tier 2 fuel on 
each of the five cycles (as applicable) or be subject to retesting and 
passing on Tier 3 fuel if they do not meet requirements on Tier 2 fuel 
or otherwise do not comply with 40 CFR 86.1835-01(b) and 40 CFR 
600.008(b). In these circumstances, assuming a retested vehicle meets 
criteria pollutant standards on Tier 3 fuel, the emissions results on 
the Tier 2 fuel will still be used for CAFE, GHG, and fuel economy 
labeling purposes. Retesting on Tier 3 fuel is only required for those 
cycles where the FEDV did not meet the criteria pollutant standards on 
Tier 2 fuel.
    3. As a flexibility, if EDV testing is conducted on Tier 3/LEV III 
fuel for criteria pollutants (all 5 cycles), then we are requiring the 
EDV testing to be conducted on Tier 2 fuel for only 2 cycles (FTP and 
HFET) for GHG and CAFE purposes. These emission results on Tier 2 fuel 
are expected to meet the Tier 3 criteria pollutant standards. Our 
regulations then require manufacturers to use these EDV Tier 2 fuel 
test results (FTP and HFET) for the CAFE, and GHG standards. The EDV 
Tier 2 fuel test results (FTP and HFET) would also be used for fuel 
economy label calculations except in rare cases where the EDV does not 
pass the litmus test or if the manufacturer voluntarily elects to use 
the vehicle specific 5-cycle method to determine fuel economy label 
values. In those two cases, the EDV would need to be tested on Tier 2 
test fuel on each of the five cycles.
    4. As a flexibility, during the interim model years, manufacturers 
may use either Tier 2 or Tier 3/LEVIII test fuel emission results to 
conduct the litmus evaluations for fuel economy labeling under 40 CFR 
600.115-11. All emission results for the five tests involved used must 
be from the same test fuel. EPA believes this is appropriate since the 
litmus evaluation is based on a comparison of the percent differences 
of 2 and 5 cycle values rather than absolute differences in the values. 
If a manufacturer chooses to conduct the litmus evaluation using LEVIII 
fuel, the cold FTP test must still use Tier 3 fuel. In the situation 
where the manufacturer uses Tier 3/LEV III test fuel for the litmus 
test the R-factor will be 0.6. EPA will provide guidance on determining 
the values for the other fuel quality parameters needed for the fuel 
economy calculations when Tier 3/LEVIII fuel is used.
    5. Exhaust emission testing for IUVP for GHGs shall be conducted 
using the same test fuel as used for criteria pollutant certification, 
unless the manufacturer uniformly elects to conduct its IUVP GHG 
testing on Tier 2 fuel. This relieves the need to conduct IUVP testing 
for criteria pollutants on Tier 3 fuel and GHG testing on Tier 2 fuel. 
EPA believes this is an acceptable interim regulatory flexibility, 
since the IUVP testing for GHGs does not involve the IUCP provisions of 
40 CFR 86.1846-01.

                               Table IV-29--Interim Testing Requirements for EDVs and FEDVs on Tier 3 and Tier 2 Test Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Criteria      GHG/Label/CAFE  (EDVs and FEDVs)  (tier 2 fuel)    Litmus  calculation              IUVP
------------------------------------   pollutant  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Tests/  cycles               (EDVs)        5-cycle          2-cycle  (CAFE/GHG/label)              5-cycle           Criteria        GHG*
--------------------------------------------------    (label)   -------------------------------------------------------------   pollutant  -------------
                                        5-cycle   --------------                                                             --------------
                                    --------------
                                      Tier 3 fuel                                                        Tier 2 or  Tier 3
      Test fuel  requirements          or other    Tier 2  fuel  Tier 2  fuel       Tier 3  fuel                fuel          Tier 3  fuel  Tier 2  fuel
                                      transition
                                       option**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP................................            X             X             X   Show criteria           Use 5-cycle Tier 3               X             X
                                                                                pollutant standards     fuel or Tier 2 fuel
                                                                                are met using Tier 2    test results.
                                                                                fuel or must retest
                                                                                on Tier 3 fuel.
HFET...............................            X             X             X   ......................  .....................            X             X
US06...............................            X             X   ............  ......................  .....................            X
SC03...............................            X             X
Cold FTP...........................            X             X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Manufacturer may uniformly elect to use Tier 2 fuel results to meet the IUVP GHG requirements or rely on Tier 3 results.
** California Phase 2 fuel is only permitted for GHG/Label/CAFE and Litmus assessments for vehicles certified for criteria pollutants in the Tier 3
  program using carryover data from CARB LEV II certifications such as SULEVs and PZEVs.

[[Page 23533]]

    Manufacturers may use LEVIII fuel (California Phase 3) in lieu of 
Tier 3 fuel, but any cold FTP testing must be done using Tier 3 Cold 
FTP fuel. LEV III fuel is 7 RVP E10, Tier 3 fuel is 9 RVP E10, and Tier 
2 fuel is 9 RVP E0.
    Manufacturers have presented two points of view with regard to when 
the potential new requirements (including a revised ``R'' factor and 
other possible test procedure changes/adjustments related to CAFE, GHG, 
and fuel economy labeling) should take effect once the future 
rulemaking action mentioned above is complete. Some have stated that 
use of the new provisions should be available for use as soon as 
possible after the rule is completed. This would minimize the need for 
any future duplicate testing and put manufacturers on course for fully 
aligning with the new requirements quickly. Others have asked that 
there be lead time provided before the application of the new 
requirements becomes mandatory. The manufacturers have expressed 
concern that the use of the new requirements more quickly by one 
manufacturer versus another could create a competitive imbalance. At 
the same time, manufacturers do not necessarily want to be forced to 
certify all products to the new requirements by a cut-off date (e.g., 
2020 model year) without EPA consideration of phase-in or phase-out 
provisions and data carryover.
    EPA understands the manufacturers' various issues and concerns in 
this area. Based on the information available at this time, EPA is 
expecting to allow the optional use of any future adjustments for 
compliance calculation and labeling purposes as soon as the future rule 
mentioned above becomes effective. Furthermore, we expect that the 
mandatory use of any such new adjustments with all Tier 3 
certifications would be required for the 2020 MY. These initial timing 
projections are subject to revision based on timing of the completion 
of the future action and the data and record developed in that future 
rulemaking.
b. Useful Life for GHG Standards
    As stated above, EPA is committed to retaining equivalent 
stringency for GHG emissions compliance beginning in MY 2017. We need 
more emissions test data to better understand the GHG emission impacts 
of Tier 3 fuel in Tier 3 technology vehicles. However, we believe that 
certifying a vehicle to a longer useful life for any emission 
constituent would have only a beneficial effect on emissions. To 
address potential concerns about changes in the stringency of the GHG 
standards resulting from a longer useful life, we are not requiring a 
longer useful life for GHG emission standards, although manufacturers 
can optionally certify GHG emissions to a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful 
life.
6. Consideration of Test Fuel for Nonroad Engines and Highway 
Motorcycles
    As described earlier in Section IV.F., we are adopting new 
specifications for the gasoline emissions test fuel used for testing 
highway vehicles subject to the Tier 3 standards. Earlier in the 
development of this rulemaking, EPA also considered changing the test 
fuel specifications for other categories of engines, vehicles, 
equipment, and fuel system components that use gasoline. These include 
a wide range of applications, including small nonroad engines used in 
lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and 
snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, and highway motorcycles. 
While engines in some of these categories employ advanced technologies 
similar to light-duty vehicles and trucks, the vast majority of these 
engines employ much simpler designs, with many of the engines being 
carbureted with no electronic controls. Because of the lower level of 
technology, emissions from these engines are potentially much more 
sensitive to changes in fuel quality.
    EPA is not applying the new emissions test fuel specifications to 
these other categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel system 
components. In discussing the potential change in test fuel 
specifications with the large number of businesses potentially impacted 
by such a change, many companies supported such a change. However, a 
number of manufacturers raised concerns about the level of ethanol in 
the new fuel, the cost of recertifying emission families on the new 
fuel, the impact on nationwide product offerings, and the cost impact 
of complying with the existing standards on the new test fuel. EPA 
believes it is important that the test fuel for these other categories 
reflect real-world fuel qualities but has elected to defer moving 
forward now pending additional analysis of the impacts of changing the 
test fuel specifications for the wide range of engines, vehicles, 
equipment and fuel system components that could be impacted. These 
impacts include the impact on the emissions standards, as well as the 
other issues raised by the manufacturers. EPA plans to explore such a 
change in a separate future action.
    While we are not changing the test fuel specifications for these 
other types of vehicles and engines, we are updating the reference 
standards associated with specific parameters and making minor 
adjustments to calculation methods. For certified engines and vehicles 
that have already been using the test fuel specified in Sec.  1065.710, 
we are clarifying that the RVP is calculated using the same equation 
described above for the new fuel specified for Tier 3 vehicles. We are 
also taking the opportunity to align and update test methods for the 
various gasoline test fuels in 40 CFR part 86. Specifically, we are 
revising Sec. Sec.  86.113 and 86.213 to (1) use both ASTM D2699 and 
ASTM D2700 for octane measurements involving both research and motor 
octane specifications (including octane sensitivity), (2) use ASTM 
D2622 for all sulfur measurements, which is widely used and provides 
superior results compared with the methods that have been referenced in 
the regulations, (3) use ASTM D5191 for measuring fuel volatility, 
including the calculation described above. We are also updating the 
regulations to reference a newer version of the following currently 
referenced procedures: ASTM D86, ASTM D1319 ASTM D2699, ASTM D3231, and 
ASTM D3237. All these changes and updates align with fuel 
specifications in 40 CFR part 1065.
7. CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel Specifications
    There are currently no sulfur specifications for the test fuel used 
for certifying natural gas (CNG) vehicles. There is also no sulfur 
specification in 86.113 for the test fuel used for certifying liquefied 
petroleum gas (LPG) light duty vehicles. The LPG certification test 
fuel for heavy-duty highway engines and for nonroad engines in 1065.720 
includes an 80 ppm maximum sulfur specification. We requested comment 
on the appropriateness of changing 86.113 to reference 40 CFR part 1065 
for all natural gas and LPG test fuels. We further requested comment on 
amending these specifications to better reflect in-use fuel 
characteristics, and in particular on the appropriateness of aligning 
the sulfur specifications with those that apply for gasoline test fuel. 
We noted that changing the sulfur specifications would depend on 
establishing that the new specification is consistent with the range of 
properties expected from in-use fuels.
    The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (the Alliance) stated that 
EPA should adopt a 10 ppm maximum sulfur specification for CNG and LPG

[[Page 23534]]

vehicle certification test fuels. They also stated that Sec.  86.113 
should reference part 1065 for CNG and LPG test fuels (for light and 
heavy duty vehicles). The American Petroleum Institute (API), the 
Association of Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and several 
individual refiners stated that EPA should not establish new sulfur 
standards for CNG and LPG vehicle certification test fuels until 
additional data are available on the sulfur content of in-use CNG/LPG 
fuels. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) stated that they are 
opposed to a change in the sulfur specifications for LPG vehicle 
certification test fuels given that they are unaware of any issue that 
would warrant such a change.
    As discussed in Section V.J. of today's preamble, additional time 
is needed for EPA to work with industry to collect data on current CNG/
LPG sulfur content, to determine whether additional control of in-use 
CNG/LPG sulfur content is needed, and to evaluate the feasibility and 
costs associated with potential additional sulfur controls. Therefore, 
we are deferring finalizing in-use quality and certification test fuel 
specifications for CNG and LPG at this time.

G. Small Business Provisions

    We are adopting special flexibility provisions for small businesses 
that are subject to the Tier 3 emissions standards. Such businesses are 
typically vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers 
(ICIs), or alternative fuel vehicle converters. We are also providing 
Tier 3 flexibility to companies that, though they may not meet the 
eligibility requirements for small businesses, sell less than 5,000 
vehicles per year in the United States, and thus qualify as small 
volume manufacturers (SVMs). These companies and small businesses 
typically face similar challenges in implementing new EPA vehicle 
standards.
    As in previous vehicle emissions rulemakings in which we have 
provided such flexibilities, our reason for doing so is that these 
entities generally have more implementation difficulty than larger 
companies. Small companies generally have more limited resources to 
carry out necessary research and development; they can be a lower 
priority for emission control technology suppliers than larger 
companies; they have lower vehicle production volumes over which to 
spread compliance costs; and they have a limited diversity of product 
lines, which limits their ability to take advantage of the phase-in and 
averaging provisions that are major elements of the Tier 3 program.
    We proposed small business provisions largely based on the 
recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, 
described in Section XIII.C of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM). We proposed provisions for additional lead time, reduced 
testing requirements, and opportunities for hardship relief to help 
small entities to leverage technological developments by others and to 
spread the availability of needed engineering, supplier, and capital 
resources. Based on the comments we received, we have improved on the 
proposed provisions in the final rule as described in detail below.
1. Lead Time and Relaxed Interim Standards
    We proposed that small businesses and SVMs be allowed to postpone 
compliance with the standards and other Tier 3 requirements, including 
use of the new certification test fuel, until model year (MY) 2022. For 
MY 2022 and later, they would be subject to the same Tier 3 
requirements as other manufacturers, including the declining fleet 
average NMOG+NOX standards and the fully phased in 30 mg/mi 
FTP standard for MYs 2025 and later. We requested comment on adopting 
relaxed FTP NMOG+NOX standards for small companies in the 
light-duty market segment, noting that LEV III provides light-duty SVMs 
with relaxed FTP NMOG+NOX standards of 125 and 70 mg/mi in 
MYs 2022 and 2025, respectively.
    We did not receive comments from non-SVM small businesses subject 
to the Tier 3 vehicle standards about our proposed small entity phase-
in provisions. However, we received comments from SVMs, as well as the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of Global 
Automakers, arguing that the proposed phase-in did not provide adequate 
lead time relief for SVMs, and that the long-term Tier 3 standards for 
light-duty vehicles are not technologically feasible for SVMs. They 
highlighted the ability of large manufacturers to offset high emissions 
from high-performance, luxury models by averaging with their low-
emitting models, while competing SVM products must be designed to 
actually achieve low emissions while still meeting customers' 
performance expectations. Their limited production can also result in 
emission control technology suppliers placing a lower priority on SVM 
orders than on those of larger, high-volume manufacturers.
    Because of these factors, SVMs suggested that their companies meet 
a slightly more stringent NMOG+NOX standard (125 mg/mi) than 
what we proposed for SVMs in the early years of the program, and a 
permanently relaxed standard of 51 mg/mi beginning in MY 2022. Ferrari 
suggested a compliance schedule for SVMs similar to the California LEV 
III program, with either a permanently relaxed standard (matching the 
California LEV III 70 mg/mi long-term standard) or a delay until MY 
2030 to meet the primary 30 mg/mi Tier 3 standard (when they suggest 
that SVMs could potentially comply). CARB comments supported Tier 3 
adoption of its LEV III provisions for SVMs, including the long-term 70 
mg/mi standard beginning in MY 2025. VNG, a natural gas fuel network 
provider, commented that gaseous-fuel small-volume test groups should 
be given extended phase-in opportunities identical to those proposed 
for SVMs, regardless of company size. As justification, VNG pointed to 
challenges unique to converting vehicles to operate on natural gas: 
thermal management of direct injection fueling and engine oil systems, 
adaptation of gasoline direct injection (GDI) controls to natural gas 
port fuel injection, and improvement of turbocharger response times.
    After considering the comments, we agree with SVMs that their 
unique logistical and technological challenges, especially in the later 
years of the primary FTP NMOG+NOX standards phase-in 
schedule, warrant a significant period of relaxed standards for these 
manufacturers. However, we have found no fundamental reason why, given 
sufficient lead time, all manufacturers, regardless of company size and 
vehicle characteristics, will not be able to meet the Tier 3 standards. 
Thus, we are finalizing an optional program for SVMs, available to non-
SVM small businesses as well, under which they can choose an 
alternative 3-stage FTP NMOG+NOX fleet average standard 
phase-in schedule: an initial standard of 125 mg/mi for MYs 2017 
through 2021, a more stringent standard of 51 mg/mi for MYs 2022 
through 2027, and the final Tier 3 standard of 30 mg/mi thereafter.
    Because companies choosing this 3-stage compliance option are 
certifying to Tier 3 bin standards in MY 2017, we are requiring that 
other exhaust emissions standards, including SFTP and PM standards, 
apply for their vehicles as well, to the same degree and on the same 
schedule as for other manufacturers. Application of evaporative 
emissions and onboard diagnostics (OBD) standards, on the

[[Page 23535]]

other hand, is not affected by choice of the 3-stage compliance option 
for the FTP NMOG+NOX standards, and small companies may 
separately choose to delay compliance with evaporative emissions and 
OBD standards (except as noted in Section IV.G.3) until MY 2022, as 
proposed. In addition, small companies choosing the 3-stage compliance 
option may delay the longer useful life and new test fuel requirements 
for exhaust emissions standards until MY 2022 to align these changes 
with the 3-stage schedule. This option would not preclude use of other 
applicable small entity flexibility provisions discussed in this 
subsection.
    Although we are adopting this revised implementation schedule for 
SVMs and small businesses, we believe the proposed approach of allowing 
postponement of Tier 3 compliance until MY 2022 may be useful for small 
companies needing more lead time to begin certifying Tier 3 vehicles. 
Therefore we are finalizing the proposed approach as an additional but 
separate option for such companies, including SVMs, ICIs, and 
alternative fuel vehicle converters. Furthermore, because the optional 
3-stage SVM implementation schedule, and the record of comments that 
prompted it, are specific to the light-duty sector, we are not 
extending it to heavy-duty vehicles and instead are finalizing only the 
proposed approach of allowing postponement of Tier 3 compliance until 
MY 2022 for any SVMs and small businesses in the heavy-duty sector.
    Companies that take advantage of one of the SVM and small business 
implementation schedule provisions in either the light-duty or heavy-
duty sector are not allowed to generate or use Tier 3 exhaust emissions 
credits in that sector while or before they are subject to 
significantly less stringent standards than other manufacturers. That 
is, they cannot earn or use Tier 3 exhaust emissions credits before MY 
2022 under the 3-stage light-duty SVM revised implementation schedule, 
and they also cannot do so before MY 2022 if they are using the 
postponed compliance schedule that we proposed, unless they choose to 
end their use of these SVM implementation options earlier than MY 2022.
    We disagree with VNG's assessment that small-volume test groups of 
large manufacturers should have until 2022 to comply with Tier 3. The 
technical challenges outlined by VNG have to do with converting 
gasoline vehicles to run reliably and durably on natural gas. Although 
these conversion challenges may be exacerbated for the new generation 
of turbocharged GDI vehicles, we have no evidence or comments from a 
vehicle manufacturer indicating that meeting Tier 3 standards is 
significantly more difficult for natural gas vehicles than for gasoline 
vehicles. Note that we are providing some relief for small volume test 
groups in the form of assigned deterioration factors (discussed below), 
but not because of feasibility concerns. Rather, we believe that 
assigned deterioration factors provide a sufficient alternative to the 
extensive process of developing a unique factor for each low-volume 
vehicle model. We find no justification to delay compliance with Tier 3 
standards for larger manufacturers' low-volume models as requested by 
VNG.
2. Assigned Deterioration Factors
    In Tier 3 as in past programs, manufacturers must demonstrate 
compliance with emissions standards throughout the vehicle's useful 
life. This is generally done by testing vehicles at low mileage and 
then applying a deterioration factor to the measured emissions levels. 
The deterioration factors are determined by testing emissions control 
systems before and after an aging process. In the past we have allowed 
small entities to use deterioration factors assigned by EPA instead of 
performing the extended testing, and we proposed to do so again for 
demonstrating compliance with Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emissions 
standards. We did not propose specific assigned deterioration factors, 
but noted that the proposed delay in the small entity compliance 
schedule to MY 2022 would allow sufficient deterioration data from 
large manufacturers to accumulate for timely development of these 
factors.
    We are adopting the assigned deterioration factor provisions for 
small businesses and SVMs (as well as for small volume test groups), as 
proposed. Commenters expressed support, and asked that the Agency 
commit itself to keeping these factors up to date as durability data 
accumulates. In response, we can state that we are committed to 
periodically updating and publishing these assigned deterioration 
factors. Given that SVMs will be allowed to use the revised 
implementation schedule described above, starting in MY 2017, it 
becomes necessary to consider assigned deterioration factors in stages. 
Because there may not be a sufficient base of accumulated durability 
data on Tier 3 vehicles by MY 2017, we expect that the current set of 
assigned factors based on Tier 2 vehicles may continue in place for 
some time, noting that the MY 2017-2021 SVM fleet average of 125 mg/mi 
is not too much different from the average of today's Tier 2 vehicle 
emissions. By MY 2022, when the SVM NMOG+NOX fleet average 
standard drops to 51 mg/mile, we expect to have new assigned factors 
available. We note that small businesses and SVMs may also, with 
advance EPA approval, use deterioration factors developed by another 
manufacturer (40 CFR 86.1826-01(b)).
3. Reduced Testing Burden and OBD Requirements
    Under our existing regulations, manufacturers must perform in-use 
testing on their vehicles and demonstrate that their in-use vehicles 
comply with the emissions standards. These regulations provide for 
reduced levels of testing for small companies with annual sales under 
15,000, and for no in-use testing for those with annual sales up to 
5,000. We received no adverse comments on our proposal to continue this 
approach in Tier 3, and are retaining it.
    As described in Sections IV.A and IV.B, we are requiring 
manufacturers to test for PM emissions from vehicles of all fuel types, 
a change from previous practice in which non-diesel vehicles could be 
waived from PM testing. However, we proposed and have decided to 
continue the PM testing waiver in Tier 3 for small businesses and SVMs. 
In lieu of testing, these companies are required to make a statement of 
compliance with the Tier 3 PM standards, and their vehicles are still 
subject to the standards. We may however measure PM emissions to 
determine compliance in EPA confirmatory or in-use testing.
    We proposed to apply CARB's OBD requirements to Tier 3 vehicles, 
except that small alternative fuel vehicle converters would be allowed 
to instead meet our existing OBD requirements (40 CFR 86.1806-05). The 
natural gas fuel network provider VNG objected that the proposed 
exception disadvantages larger vehicle manufacturers and should be made 
equally available to all vehicle manufacturers' small volume test 
groups. We expect that larger manufacturers wishing to produce 
alternative fuel vehicles will be familiar with CARB's OBD requirements 
and well-positioned to implement these requirements in Tier 3. We note 
that larger OEMs themselves did not request to be covered by an 
extension of this provision.
    We are finalizing the exception to the Tier 3 OBD requirements as 
proposed. Note that the optional delay in Tier 3 implementation until 
MY 2022 that is available to small businesses, discussed

[[Page 23536]]

above, includes a delay in the Tier 3 OBD requirement to MY 2022, as 
proposed, except that vehicles already meeting this requirement in MY 
2017 must continue to do so in subsequent years. We are also adopting 
this Tier 3 OBD delay to MY 2022 for small companies taking advantage 
of the revised light-duty 3-stage implementation schedule discussed 
above, even though other Tier 3 requirements start for them in MY 2017, 
in order to avoid overburdening these manufacturers with multiple sets 
of new OBD design constraints.
4. Hardship Relief
    We proposed and are adopting provisions for small businesses and 
SVMs in hardship situations to apply for additional time to meet the 
Tier 3 standards. Such appeals will need to include evidence that the 
noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to 
comply, and that severe economic hardship would occur if the relief is 
not granted, though the company need not show that its solvency will be 
in jeopardy without the relief. (This showing is required in other EPA 
programs granting hardship relief under 40 CFR 1068.250.) The duration 
of relief will be established on a case-by-case basis for Tier 3 and is 
not being limited by regulation. Commenters supported these proposed 
provisions, within the context of a revised approach to SVM lead time, 
discussed above.
5. Eligibility for the Flexibilities
    As proposed, we are using the federal Small Business Administration 
(SBA) criteria to define small businesses eligible for the special 
provisions. SBA defines small business vehicle manufacturers as those 
with less than 1,000 employees, and small business ICIs and alternative 
fuel vehicle converters are evaluated using SBA criteria based on 
annual revenues. See Section IV.H.3 for a discussion of additional 
provisions that apply specifically to ICIs. Also, as proposed, we are 
defining SVMs in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 for purposes of Tier 3 as companies 
with nationwide annual U.S. sales volumes at or below 5,000 vehicles, 
though the 15,000 vehicle threshold used in Tier 2 continues to apply 
in a few regulatory provisions that Tier 3 changes are not impacting. 
Eligibility will be evaluated using an average of 2012-2014 MY sales. 
For companies with no 2012 MY sales, projected sales may be used, but 
their eligibility will be re-evaluated thereafter using a three-year 
running average.
    VNG commented that the proposed 5,000 vehicle threshold could 
potentially limit the ability (or willingness) of natural gas SVMs to 
scale up production by forcing a tradeoff between sales and regulatory 
burden, pointing also to the fact that 15,000 vehicles is only 0.1% of 
annual light-duty vehicle sales. We do not believe that the SVM relief 
provisions are so advantageous as to cause self-limiting of sales, 
except possibly in the unlikely case of a company very near the 
threshold. Even if this were to happen, moving the threshold to 15,000 
would not prevent the same dynamic from happening at that sales level. 
Furthermore, our use of a three-year average of sales for determining 
SVM eligibility protects the SVMs from being penalized for having an 
especially good year not reflective of its long-term growth trend. See 
the MY 2017 and later light-duty GHG final rule for a discussion of our 
basis for adopting the 5,000 vehicle threshold (77 FR 62793, October 
15, 2012).
    We requested comment on extending eligibility for the Tier 3 SVM 
provisions to small manufacturers that are owned by large manufacturers 
but are able to demonstrate that they are operationally independent. We 
established such a provision in the light-duty greenhouse gas (GHG) 
program, and CARB did so in LEV III. Comments from CARB and Ferrari 
supported this extension. No commenters opposed it; however, Advanced 
Biofuels USA recommended caution to avoid advantaging SVMs capable of 
leveraging parent company resources to drastically increase U.S. market 
share within 2-3 years. Given the establishment of this provision in 
our GHG program, and the value of this extension for harmonization with 
LEV III, we are adopting this change into Tier 3 using the same 
eligibility criteria as in our GHG program, set forth in 40 CFR 
86.1838-01(d). We believe these criteria are sufficiently strict and 
objective to address the concerns expressed by Advanced Biofuels USA.
    To qualify as SVMs in either the light-duty or heavy-duty Tier 3 
programs, the company's total sales of vehicles subject to standards 
under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S count toward the vehicle sales limit, 
including both light- and heavy-duty vehicles. Companies so qualified 
may take advantage of SVM provisions in both sectors.

H. Compliance Provisions

1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures
    We are finalizing most of the amendments we proposed to 40 CFR part 
1066 as part of the effort to migrate test requirements from 40 CFR 
part 86. We began this process a couple of years ago when we 
established part 1066, but we applied these test procedures only to 
certain vehicles above 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
for the purpose of measuring greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 57470, 
September 15, 2011). This final rule extends these procedures, with 
some amendments, to vehicles at or below 14,000 lbs GVWR for 
measurement of both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. 
The procedures in part 1066 cover the same requirements that have been 
included in 40 CFR part 86, but include more detailed specifications 
for how to measure exhaust emissions using a chassis dynamometer. They 
also reference large portions of 40 CFR part 1065 to align test 
specifications that apply equally to engine-based and vehicle-based 
testing, such as CVS and analyzer specifications, calibrations, test 
fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms. Overall, the part 
1066 procedures represent a modernization of the part 86 procedures 
rather than fundamentally different procedures.
    Until this rule, testing requirements related to chassis 
dynamometers have relied on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA 
guidance documents, and extensive learning from industry experience 
that has led to a good understanding of best practices for operating a 
vehicle in the laboratory to measure emissions. The revisions we are 
finalizing capture this range of material, integrating and organizing 
these specifications and procedures to include a complete set of 
provisions to ensure that emission measurements are accurate and 
repeatable.
    This final rule includes the following revisions to part 1066:
     Clarification of regulatory requirements.
     Migration of mass-based emission calculations from part 86 
to part 1066.
     Introduction of a new NMOG calculation.
     Revision of 40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, to increase the 
specificity with which part 1065 references are made as they pertain to 
testing equipment, test fluids, test gases, and calibration standards.
     Addition of coastdown procedures for light-duty vehicles.
     Reordering of the test sequence with respect to vehicle 
preparation and running a test.
     Specifying part 1065 procedures for PM measurement, 
including certain deviations from part 1065 for chassis testing.

[[Page 23537]]

     Insertion of detailed test specifications for vehicles 
certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
     Addition of provisions related to testing with four-wheel 
drive dynamometers, as described below.
     Correction of typographical errors.
    We are finalizing the use of part 1065 for PM measurement with 
slight adjustments to the dilution air temperature, minimum dilution 
ratio, and background measurement requirements. By controlling the 
parameters that affect PM formation (dilution air temperature, dilution 
factor, sample residence time, filter face temperature, and filter face 
velocity), the procedures will reduce lab-to-lab and test-to-test 
variability.
    The regulations being finalized will provide alternative approaches 
to sample PM onto different combinations of filters. One option is to 
collect a sample for phases 1 and 2 of the FTP on a single filter, and 
collect a sample for phases 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a second filter. 
Another option is to collect a sample for phases 1, 2, and 3 on a 
single filter. A final option is to sample PM emissions from two full 
UDDS cycles; however manufacturers choosing this option must still run 
a separate three-bag test for evaporative emission testing. We will 
continue to allow sampling under the traditional FTP methodology of a 
bag or filter per test phase (3 phases in total) instead of these new 
methods. We are also finalizing new PM sampling and calculation methods 
as proposed.
    We are revising the chassis dynamometer specifications in part 1066 
by removing the maximum roll diameter and by requiring speed and force 
measurements at a minimum frequency of 10 hertz (Hz). Some 
manufacturers may be interested in testing with nonstandard dynamometer 
configurations, such as new flat-track dynamometers or old twin-roll 
dynamometers. We may approve the use of these and other nonstandard 
dynamometer configurations as alternative procedures under 40 CFR 
1065.10(c)(7).
    We proposed that EPA may test vehicles with the capability of all-
wheel drive operation with dynamometers operating in either two-wheel 
drive or four-wheel drive mode, regardless of the type of dynamometer 
that the manufacturer used for certifying the vehicle. However, the 
final regulations specify that we will conduct our testing using the 
same drive mode as the manufacturer. Vehicle manufacturers commented 
that differences in test results between a vehicle tested on a two-
wheel drive and a four-wheel drive dynamometer might be due to 
differences in dynamometer characteristics more than in vehicle 
operation. Results of a government-industry study that tested vehicles 
on both two-wheel and four-wheel drive dynamometers indicated fuel 
economy differences in the range of 4%, although the study 
was inconclusive with respect to the cause of the differences.\421\ 
Based on the results of this study, we will continue to test vehicles 
during confirmatory tests using the manufacturer's dynamometer 
configuration for that vehicle, and that test will be the official 
certification result. We are, however, finalizing revisions to 40 CFR 
1066.410(g) to clarify that we may also test the manufacturer's vehicle 
in a different dynamometer configuration than what was used for 
certification testing for information-gathering purposes. If we decide 
to perform this testing, we will depend on the manufacturer to 
cooperate in reconfiguring the test vehicle for our testing. We will 
continue to investigate the effects of four-wheel drive dynamometers on 
emission results and will not rule out possible future test procedure 
changes that might require certification of, or allow EPA to perform 
confirmatory testing on, any vehicle on a four-wheel drive dynamometer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \421\ ``Four Wheel Drive Dynamometer Meeting with the Alliance 
of Automobile Manufacturers and the Global Automakers,'' EPA Memo 
from Chris Laroo, November 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comments to this rulemaking, vehicle manufacturers 
stressed the importance to them that EPA use the same test procedures 
that they used for their certification testing when we perform 
confirmatory testing on their vehicles. Although the manufacturers did 
not explain the reasons for their comment, we presume that the 
manufacturers' concern relates to situations where EPA test procedures 
would lead to higher emission levels than those resulting from a 
slightly different test procedure used by a manufacturer. If so, the 
concern is misplaced. The purpose of EPA's test procedure flexibility 
provisions is not to allow manufacturers to use test procedures as a 
tool to enable compliance with the standards--in other words, to 
demonstrate compliance for engines that in the absence of the 
regulatory test procedure flexibility would not meet the standard. 
Rather, the purpose is to reduce the burden of testing. We go through 
the rulemaking process to establish the specified default test 
procedures as a means of creating an objective measure of compliance 
with emission standards. Where we also include alternative procedures, 
they generally are not intended to change the conclusions from the 
rulemaking related to the stringency of the emission standards, or to 
lead to a different conclusion regarding compliance relative to the 
specified test procedures. EPA has addressed this issue previously for 
engine testing in Sec.  1065.10(a), where we note that we condition the 
allowance to use alternate procedures on the provision that they would 
``not affect your ability to show that your engines comply with the 
applicable emission standards.'' We note further that this provision 
``generally requires emission levels to be far enough below the 
applicable emission standards so that any errors caused by greater 
imprecision or inaccuracy do not affect your ability to state 
unconditionally that the engines meet all applicable emission 
standards.''
    In a related context, Sec.  1065.10(c)(1) explains that the intent 
of the test procedures is ``to produce emission measurements equivalent 
to those that would result from measuring emissions during in-use 
operation''. This provision, which also applies for vehicle testing, 
envisions a process in which both the manufacturer and EPA can apply 
their engineering judgment to improve the representativeness of the 
testing. It would be appropriate for a manufacturer to ask EPA to 
modify our test procedures if the manufacturer believed EPA's test 
procedures would lead to results that were unrepresentative of in-use 
operation. However, it would not be appropriate to ask us to modify our 
test procedures to make them less representative of in-use operation.
    The proposed rule included discussion of SI units as part of 
emission measurement procedures. At this time we are not converting 
emission standards to SI units. Note however that like part 86, part 
1066 relies extensively on calculations involving physical parameters 
to calculate emission rates and perform various calibrations and 
verifications. As already reflected in part 1066, manufacturers have 
used a variety of units to perform these calculations. We would expect 
that dynamometers and other laboratory equipment are all capable of 
operating in SI units even if current practice in some laboratories is 
to use other units. Moving toward standardized units for calculations 
will allow us to more carefully and appropriately specify precision 
values for various measured and calculated parameters. This will also 
simplify calculations, facilitate review of results from different 
laboratories, and help with communications regarding any round robin 
testing that might occur.

[[Page 23538]]

    As proposed, we will phase in the part 1066 test procedures for 
certifying all sizes of chassis-tested vehicles. All aspects of part 
1066 related to PM testing must be met at the start of MY 2017 for 
vehicles certified to the PM standards. All other aspects of part 1066 
must be met starting with the certification of MY 2022 vehicles. 
Manufacturers may begin using the part 1066 procedures before these 
deadlines, including step-wise changes to migrate gradually to part 
1066 procedures. The regulations will require that good engineering 
judgment be used during this transition to ensure that the effective 
stringency of the standards is not changed. We recognize that 
individual differences between part 86 and part 1066 test procedures 
may have a slight upward or downward impact on measured emissions, even 
though the combined overall impact will be negligible. Thus, during the 
migration, care must be taken to avoid applying an unbalanced mix of 
changes that could bias emissions.
    As described in Section IV.D, we are finalizing new test fuel 
specifications for E10 gasoline test fuel in 40 CFR part 1065. The test 
fuels specified for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, while not 
used for very many engine families, are currently following different 
specifications under 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. We intend to revisit 
these fuel specifications in the future in the hope of adopting single, 
comprehensive fuel specifications for natural gas and liquefied 
petroleum gas that properly represent in-use fuels for highway and 
nonroad applications.
    The proposal also included various technical amendments to 40 CFR 
part 1065, which we are finalizing largely as proposed. See the Summary 
and Analysis of Comments for a discussion of changes we have made in 
response to comments. Of particular note is the revision to subpart F 
specific to preconditioning engines with exhaust aftertreatment 
devices. We are also adopting test procedures for unregulated 
pollutants such as semi-volatile compounds (PAHs, etc.). These 
technical amendments, which have no effect on the stringency of any 
emission standards, include several minor changes to clarify regulatory 
requirements, align with chassis-testing procedures where appropriate, 
and correct typographical errors.
2. Reduced Test Burden
    We are updating the regulatory provisions that allow manufacturers 
to omit testing for certification, in-use testing, and selective 
enforcement audits in certain circumstances. Sections IV.A.3, IV.B.6, 
and IV.G.3 describe how this applies for demonstrating that vehicles 
meet the Tier 3 PM standards. We are also allowing manufacturers to 
omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG emissions testing that 
goes beyond the testing needed for certifying vehicles to the Tier 3 
standards. Requiring such measurement would add a significant burden 
with very limited additional assurance that vehicles adequately control 
PM. We are also allowing manufacturers to ask us to omit PM and 
formaldehyde measurement for selective enforcement audits. If there is 
a concern that any type of vehicle would not meet the Tier 3 PM or 
formaldehyde standards, we will not approve a manufacturer's request to 
omit measurement of these emissions during a selective enforcement 
audit.
    The existing regulations have allowed for waived formaldehyde 
testing for gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles. The Tier 3 
NMOG+NOX emission standards are stringent enough that it is 
unlikely that vehicles will comply with the NMOG+NOX 
standards while exceeding the formaldehyde standards. We are therefore 
continuing this waiver practice, such that manufacturers of Tier 3 
vehicles do not need to submit formaldehyde data for certification.
3. Miscellaneous Provisions
    The following additional certification and compliance provisions 
are included in the final rule:
     The certification practice for assigned deterioration 
factors that are available for both small volume manufacturers and 
small volume test groups has matured significantly since it was first 
adopted. We are revising Sec.  86.1826 to more carefully reflect the 
current practice. For example, the existing regulations specified that 
manufacturers with sales volumes between 300 and 15,000 units per year 
should propose their own deterioration factors based on engineering 
analysis of emission data from other families. We believe it is best 
for EPA to develop a set of assigned deterioration factors that can 
apply to all small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups. 
The revised regulation accordingly spells out a process for EPA to use 
available information to establish assigned deterioration factors that 
can be used for any number of manufacturers and test groups.
     The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 rely on rounding 
procedures specified in ASTM E29. This standard is revised 
periodically. The newer versions are not likely to change in a way that 
affects the regulation, but the updates make it difficult to maintain a 
coordinated reference to the current protocol. We are addressing this 
by specifying that the rounding protocol described in 40 CFR 1065.20(e) 
applies, unless specified otherwise. We are not changing all the 
references in part 86; rather, we are defining ``round'' in subparts A 
and S to have the meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065 so that all new 
regulatory text would rely on this new description. The rounding 
specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 are intended to be identical to 
those in the latest versions of ASTM E29 and NIST SP811. For example, 
this now includes procedures for nonstandard rounding, such as rounding 
to the nearest 25 units, or the nearest 0.05, where that is 
appropriate.
     Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are companies that 
import specialized vehicles into the U.S. and are subject to EPA 
requirements specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart P. The standards that 
apply to the imported vehicles depend in part on the vehicle's model 
year. Therefore, vehicles imported by ICIs in the future will 
eventually be subject to the Tier 3 standards. Because all existing 
ICIs are small businesses, the Tier 3 standards generally do not apply 
until 2022 at the earliest. In addition, the certification practices 
for ICIs have matured significantly since they were first adopted. EPA 
is adopting two changes to update how the regulations affect ICIs. 
First, we are adopting a requirement for ICIs to use electric 
dynamometers when running exhaust emission tests. Electric dynamometers 
have been required for many years for vehicle manufacturers, and EPA 
believes it is time to require that ICIs use such test equipment. In 
cases where an ICI can demonstrate that they will incur a substantial 
increase in compliance costs, the regulations include a provision 
allowing EPA to approve requests on a case-by-case basis to allow 
testing on other types of dynamometers until the ICI is able to use an 
electric dynamometer meeting current specifications. Second, we are 
adopting an allowance for ICIs to use a specific set of reduced testing 
procedures for up to 300 vehicles each year that have been modified to 
a U.S.-certified configuration. This has been allowed for ICIs since 
1999 and was approved under EPA's authority to establish equivalent 
alternate test procedures.\422\ Instead of running a full set of 
emission tests, the reduced-testing requirements allow ICIs to run an 
FTP for exhaust emissions, a highway fuel

[[Page 23539]]

economy test, and the hot soak test and the one-hour diurnal emission 
test that applied prior to the evaporative emission test procedures 
that involve 24-hour cycling of ambient temperatures. We do not believe 
these changes will have any significant cost impacts on ICIs. Most ICIs 
have electric dynamometers or can upgrade for a relatively small cost. 
The reduced testing burden provisions keep the cost of testing low, 
compared to the cost of running a full set of emission tests that would 
otherwise be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \422\ See 40 CFR 86.106-96(a) and Enclosure 2 to EPA Guidance 
letter CCD-02-04, February 6, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

V. Fuel Program

    Under today's Tier 3 program, we are finalizing reductions in 
gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. These standards will help reduce 
current levels of sulfur that contribute to ambient levels of air 
pollution that endanger public health and welfare. It will also help 
prevent the significant impairment of the emission control systems 
expected to be used in Tier 3 technology, significantly improve the 
efficiency of emissions control systems currently in use, and continue 
prevention of the substantial adverse effects of sulfur levels on the 
performance of vehicle emissions control systems.

A. Overview

1. Background
a. History of Gasoline Sulfur Control
    Sulfur is naturally occurring in crude oil. Crude oil containing 
higher concentrations of sulfur (i.e., greater than 0.5 percent) is 
called ``sour'' and crude containing lower sulfur concentrations (e.g., 
West Texas Intermediate) is referred to as ``sweet.'' Regardless of the 
concentration, because sulfur is naturally occurring in crude oil, it 
is also naturally occurring in gasoline. As discussed in Section IV.A, 
sulfur impairs the performance of today's vehicle emission control 
technologies (i.e., precious metal catalytic converters), reducing the 
emission benefits of current and advanced vehicles. As explained below, 
in 2000 EPA took action to reduce gasoline sulfur levels under what is 
known as the Tier 2 Program \423\ and we are taking further action with 
today's Tier 3 Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \423\ 67 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tier 2 was a major, comprehensive program designed to reduce 
emissions from passenger cars, light trucks, and large passenger 
vehicles (including sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick-up 
trucks) and the sulfur content of gasoline. Under this program, 
automakers were required to

[[Page 23540]]

manufacture low-emission vehicles when operated on low-sulfur gasoline, 
and refiners were required to produce low-sulfur gasoline nationwide.
    Required reductions in gasoline sulfur under the Tier 2 program 
began in 2004 with refinery and importer caps of 300 ppm and a 
corporate average cap of 120 ppm. For most refiners and importers, 
compliance with the final sulfur standards (30 annual average and 80 
per-gallon cap) was required beginning in 2006. The Tier 2 program was 
fully implemented on January 1, 2011 (the ultra-low sulfur diesel 
program allowed for some extensions of the Tier 2 gasoline program 
flexibility provisions). The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program also 
included an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program that allowed 
companies to generate credits for implementing the required changes 
earlier than their required start date, and allowed ongoing flexibility 
to meet the 30 average sulfur standard.
    At full implementation, the Tier 2 program (treating vehicles and 
fuels as a system) required passenger vehicles to be over 77 percent 
cleaner and gasoline sulfur to be reduced by up to 90 percent from pre-
program levels.
b. Need for Additional Gasoline Sulfur Control
    The authority under which we are lowering the existing gasoline 
sulfur standards comes from Clean Air Act section 211(c)(1). This is 
because emission products of gasoline with current levels of sulfur 
cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and because emission 
products of gasoline with current levels of sulfur will impair to a 
significant degree the emissions control device or systems on the 
vehicles subject to today's final Tier 3 standards. For more on our 
legal authority to set gasoline sulfur standards, refer to Section V.M.
    As explained in Section IV.A, robust data from many sources show 
that gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e., around 30 ppm on average) 
continues to degrade vehicle catalytic converter performance during 
normal operation. NOX emissions are the most significantly 
affected by this degradation. The NMOG+NOX vehicle emission 
standards, representing an 80 percent reduction from current Tier 2 
standards, will not be possible without the gasoline sulfur controls we 
are finalizing today. Today's 10 ppm sulfur standard should enable 
vehicle manufacturers to certify their entire product line of vehicles 
to the final Tier 3 fleet average standards. Tier 3 vehicles must 
achieve essentially zero warmed-up NOX emissions to comply 
and must maintain this performance for up to 150,000 miles. An increase 
in emissions of only a few milligrams per mile due to sulfur could make 
compliance impossible for some vehicles. The standards are projected to 
be especially challenging for larger SUVs and pick-up trucks. Based on 
testing of these vehicles, as shown in Section IV.A, reducing gasoline 
sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their 
emission performance in-use over their useful life. Lowering gasoline 
sulfur will also help reduce emissions of pollutants that endanger 
public health and welfare from vehicles already on the road today. As 
also discussed above in Section IV.A, we have tested a wide range of 
vehicles to better understand the impact that even lower gasoline 
sulfur could have on emissions. Our test data showed significant 
NOX and VOC reductions when vehicles were tested on low 
sulfur gasoline. As also explained in more detail in Section III.B, 
lowering average gasoline sulfur from 30 to 10 ppm will result in 
approximately 260,000 less tons of NOX and 50,000 less tons 
of VOC almost immediately as the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards take 
effect.
2. Summary of Final Tier 3 Fuel Program Standards
    The major elements of the fuel program being finalized today are 
summarized below. Please refer to sections V.B through V.J for more 
discussion on each of the elements summarized here.
a. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
    Under today's final Tier 3 fuel program, gasoline and any ethanol-
gasoline blend will be required to have a sulfur level of 10 ppm or 
less on an annual average basis beginning January 1, 2017. The 10 ppm 
average will apply to a refiner or importer's annual gasoline 
production. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, the Tier 3 program 
applies to gasoline in the United States and the U.S. territories of 
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding California. Please see 
Section V.B for a more detailed discussion of the annual average sulfur 
standard.
b. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps
    Refiners and importers will continue to be subject to refinery gate 
per-gallon sulfur caps of 80 ppm. Similarly, gasoline downstream of the 
refinery gate (e.g., at terminals, retail stations, etc.) will continue 
to be subject to a 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur cap. We are also committing 
to continue to evaluate if reductions in the per-gallon sulfur caps are 
warranted.
    A more detailed discussion on our decision to continue the current 
80 and 95 ppm per-gallon sulfur caps, and elements of an in-use study, 
can be found below in Section V.C.
c. Small Refiner and Small Volume Refinery Provisions
    As described in further detail in Section V.E.1, approved gasoline 
small refiners and small volume refineries must produce gasoline 
meeting the 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard beginning January 1, 
2020. Small refiners and small volume refineries who meet the 10 ppm 
sulfur standard prior to this date may generate credits for early Tier 
3 program compliance.
d. Averaging, Banking, and Trading (ABT) Program
    Section V.D discusses our averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) 
program. Refiners and importers may continue to generate credits for 
reductions in their gasoline sulfur levels below the current (Tier 2) 
30 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard through December 31, 2016; and 
for reductions below the new 10 ppm average standard beginning January 
1, 2017. These credits can be used for compliance with either the Tier 
2 standard through 2016 or the Tier 3 standard beginning in 2017. The 
Tier 3 ABT program will have similar credit use provisions as the Tier 
2 ABT program. These provisions include: Five-year credit life from the 
year of generation; two-trade limit for inter-company trading; and the 
ability to use credits internally, bank for future use, or trade to 
other refiners/importers. Although credits generated prior to January 
1, 2017 will be valid for five years or until December 31, 2019, 
whichever is earlier.
e. Gasoline Additive Cap
    As discussed further in Section V.C., manufacturers of gasoline 
additives that are used downstream of the refinery at less than 1.0 
volume percent will be required to limit the sulfur contribution to the 
finished gasoline from the use of the additive to less than 3 ppm when 
the additive is used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. For 
each batch of additive produced, the manufacturer must retain sulfur 
test records for 5 years, and must make these records available to EPA 
upon request.
    Parties that introduce additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume 
percent will be required to satisfy all of the obligations of a refiner 
and fuel manufacturer, including demonstration

[[Page 23541]]

that the finished blend meets the applicable sulfur specification.
f. Requirements for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Gasoline 
Oxygenates
    Today's rule finalizes a 10 ppm sulfur cap for denatured fuel 
ethanol (DFE). While DFE is the predominant gasoline oxygenate 
currently in use, these standards also apply to other gasoline 
oxygenates. Today's rule finalizes a 3.0 volume percent limit on 
ethanol denaturant concentration. We are adopting the current ASTM 
International specifications that only natural gasoline, gasoline 
blendstocks, or gasoline may be used as denaturants for DFE.\424\ As 
discussed in the Summary and Analysis of Comments, we believe it is not 
necessary to finalize the proposed additional limits on the potential 
denaturants that may be used at this time. We are also finalizing 
regulatory text to state that DFE must be composed solely of carbon, 
hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur. Testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
obligations are also being finalized to implement these new standards 
as discussed in Section V.G. Sulfur testing using approved analytical 
methods or volumetric blending records and denaturant product transfer 
documents (PTDs) can be used by manufacturers/importers of DFE in 
demonstrating compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE finalized 
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \424\ ASTM D4806-13a, ``Standard Specification for Denatured 
Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline for Use as Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

g. Fuel Used in Flexible Fuel Vehicles
    As discussed in Section V.H., we are deferring finalizing 
additional fuel quality requirements for E16-50 and E51-83 at this 
time. We continue to believe in the importance of implementing 
additional fuel quality standards for higher-level ethanol blends and 
will continue to work with stakeholders in their development following 
the publication of this final rule.
h. Standards for Butane and Pentane
    As discussed further in Section V.I, we are finalizing a 10 ppm 
sulfur cap for butane blended into gasoline effective January 1, 2017. 
This is consistent with the Tier 3 10 ppm refinery average sulfur 
specification finalized today. In addition, as discussed below in 
Section VI.A.4, we are also finalizing provisions to allow pentane to 
be blended into gasoline downstream of the refinery. These provisions 
are similar to the existing provisions for butane blending. This 
allowance will become effective June 27, 2014; a 30 ppm sulfur cap will 
apply to pentane blended into gasoline (consistent with the existing 
sulfur cap for butane under the Tier 2 program) until December 31, 
2016, after which a 10 ppm sulfur cap will apply.
i. CNG/LPG
    As discussed below in Section V.J., we are deferring establishing 
in-use sulfur requirements for compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid 
propane gas (LPG) to provide additional time to work with stakeholders 
to collect data on current CNG/LPG sulfur content; to determine whether 
additional control of in-use CNG/LPG sulfur content is needed; and to 
evaluate the feasibility and costs associated with potential additional 
sulfur controls.

B. Annual Average Sulfur Standard

    Under today's final Tier 3 fuel program, gasoline and any ethanol-
gasoline blend will be required to have a sulfur level of 10 ppm or 
less on an annual average basis beginning January 1, 2017. The 10 ppm 
average will apply to a refiner or importer's annual gasoline 
production. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, the Tier 3 program 
applies to gasoline in the United States and the U.S. territories of 
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding California. We are 
finalizing the 10 ppm average sulfur standard both to enable the new 
vehicle fleet to meet the Tier 3 vehicle standards being finalized 
today pursuant to CAA section 211(c)(1)(B), and to reduce emissions 
from the existing in-use vehicle fleet that endanger public health and 
welfare pursuant to section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    We received numerous comments both in support of and against the 
proposed 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard. Commenters opposing the 
standard believe that 10 ppm is too low and/or is not needed to enable 
Tier 3 vehicle technologies. Some commenters suggested that EPA should 
consider setting a less stringent sulfur standard than the proposed 10 
ppm annual average (detailed information regarding the comments can be 
found in the Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which is 
located in the docket for this rulemaking). We believe that a 10 ppm 
annual average standard will help reduce current levels of sulfur that 
contribute to ambient levels of air pollution that endanger public 
health and welfare. It will also help prevent the significant 
impairment of the emission control systems expected to be used in Tier 
3 technology, significantly improve the efficiency of emissions control 
systems currently in use, and continue prevention of the substantial 
adverse effects of sulfur levels on the performance of vehicle 
emissions control systems. This level is also feasible, and is the 
level that appropriately balances costs with the emission reductions 
that it provides and enables.
    As discussed in Section IV.A.6., and further in Chapter 5 of the 
RIA, we believe that a standard of 10 ppm is appropriate, and when 
combined with the advances in emissions control technologies will be 
sufficient to meet the Tier 3 emissions standards. The feasibility of 
the 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet average depends on exhaust 
catalyst systems that require gasoline with average sulfur levels of 10 
ppm or less. Further, annual average sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm 
would significantly impair the emission control technology that we 
expect will be used to meet the Tier 3 standards and to ensure in-use 
compliance over a vehicle's useful life. This is particularly a concern 
for some larger vehicles that will need to reduce NOX to 
near-zero levels, due to greater difficulty in reducing cold-start 
NMOG, in order to meet a combined NMOG+NOX standard. As 
discussed in Section IV.A.6, increasing gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 
20 ppm or 30 ppm would make it impossible for vehicle manufacturers to 
meet the Tier 3 standards. Achieving Tier 3 standards would require 
offsetting the resultant higher emissions but EPA is not aware of 
existing technology or developing technology that could address these 
higher emissions when taking into consideration the entire vehicle 
fleet. Increasing gasoline sulfur from 10 ppm to 20 ppm or 30 ppm would 
also forego the very large immediate reductions from the existing 
fleet.
    We also do not believe a sulfur standard lower than 10 ppm is 
necessary to enable vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards. As also 
discussed in Section IV.A, reducing sulfur below 10 ppm would further 
reduce vehicle emissions and allow the Tier 3 vehicle standards to be 
achieved more easily. However, we believe that a 10 ppm average 
standard is sufficient to allow vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards. 
Furthermore, as discussed below, there are significant challenges 
associated with reducing sulfur below 10 ppm.
    As explained in Section IV.A, sulfur in fuel oxidizes in the 
exhaust and coats the sites where chemical reactions can take place on 
the precious metal catalysts used in vehicles to reduce emissions of 
VOC, NOX, PM, CO, and toxics. Accordingly, any sulfur in 
gasoline causes vehicle emissions to

[[Page 23542]]

increase. Sulfur can be burned off the catalyst during high-
temperature, rich operation of the vehicle (i.e., aggressive driving 
conditions), but as long as there is any sulfur in the fuel, exhaust 
emissions will increase. Because any amount of sulfur in the fuel can 
have this effect, the lower the sulfur the better. Refiners experience 
the same phenomenon with precious metal catalysts used in the reformer 
and isomerization units at their refineries.\425\ To protect the 
precious metal catalysts in these units, refiners reduce the sulfur in 
the feed to these units to 1 ppm or below. Thus, it is technically 
possible for refiners to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels to 
virtually zero. While refiners did not have reason to reduce the sulfur 
in FCC gasoline until Tier 2 required such reductions, some refiners 
have achieved reductions in this stream at some of their refineries for 
other reasons such as: (1) Protecting the FCC catalyst from the 
contaminants in the gas oil feed, (2) reducing stack emissions from the 
regenerator of the FCC unit, and most importantly (3) increasing 
gasoline yields from the FCC unit. For most refineries, FCC gasoline 
accounts for about one-third of gasoline and before Tier 2 was the 
source of over 95 percent of the sulfur in gasoline. Under Tier 2, most 
refiners significantly desulfurized FCC gasoline to around 70 to 80 
ppm, yet FCC gasoline continues to contribute the majority of sulfur in 
gasoline today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \425\ Together, the streams from the reformer and isomerization 
units account for approximately one-third of gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An annual average sulfur level of 10 ppm will achieve very large 
immediate reductions from the existing fleet, as discussed in Sections 
III and IV. Because any sulfur in gasoline will continue to impair 
vehicle catalyst performance, reducing sulfur levels to zero would 
maximize vehicle emission reductions. However, there are two reasons 
why we believe a 10 ppm average sulfur standard is sufficient and 
further reductions (e.g., 10 ppm cap or 5 ppm average) are not 
necessary at this time. First, our analysis shows that a 10 ppm annual 
average is sufficient to enable vehicles to reach the Tier 3 standards. 
Consequently, while reducing sulfur levels further would continue to 
yield reductions from the in-use fleet, they would not be necessary to 
enable the new Tier 3 vehicle standards to be met. Second, while sulfur 
levels would continue to reduce emissions from the existing fleet, 
reducing sulfur further below 10 ppm becomes increasingly difficult and 
costly. FCC naphtha is very rich in 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. 
Furthermore, as desulfurization severity increases, there is an 
increase in the amount of sulfur removed (in the form of hydrogen 
sulfide) which recombines with the olefins in the FCC naphtha, thus 
offsetting the principal desulfurization reactions. There are means to 
deal with the recombination reactions, but they result in even greater 
capital investments. In addition, while FCC gasoline contributes the 
majority of sulfur to the finished gasoline, as the sulfur level drops 
below 10 ppm, the sulfur level of the various other gasoline streams 
within the refinery also become important. Any necessary treatment of 
these additional streams increases both capital and operating costs.
    U.S. refineries are currently in different positions, both 
technically and financially. In general, they are configured to handle 
the different crude oils they process and turn them into a widely 
varying product slate to match available markets. Those processing 
heavier, sour crudes may have a more challenging time reducing gasoline 
sulfur under the Tier 3 program. Also, those with higher sulfur levels 
in other refinery streams may have a more difficult time desulfurizing 
gasoline. Perhaps most important, U.S. refineries vary greatly in size 
(atmospheric crude capacities range from less than 5,000 to more than 
500,000 barrels per day) and thus have different economies of scale for 
adding capital to their refineries. Therefore, it can be less costly 
per gallon for some larger refineries to get down to 10 ppm than for 
smaller refineries, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the RIA. As a result, 
with a 10 ppm average standard, the flexibility afforded by the ABT 
program helps those refineries with very high costs. They have the 
option of staying above 10 ppm if they can acquire credits from other 
refineries that were able to lower their sulfur level below 10 ppm. 
However, if the gasoline sulfur standard were lower, this would 
essentially end the ability of refiners to average sulfur reductions 
across their refineries. There simply would not be enough opportunity 
to generate credits at levels much below 10 ppm.
    As discussed further in Chapter 5 of the RIA, we assessed the 
potential costs of an annual average standard lower than 10 ppm (e.g., 
5 ppm). Our analysis shows that sulfur control costs for refineries to 
meet a standard below 10 ppm could be on the order of two times more 
costly per ppm-gallon of gasoline sulfur reduced. In addition, a 
standard below 10 ppm could be cost-prohibitive for more challenged 
refineries. Further, such a standard would also introduce additional 
costs to address the contribution to gasoline sulfur from gasoline 
additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and contamination in the 
distribution system.
    Therefore, we believe that the 10 ppm annual average standard will 
help reduce current levels of sulfur that contribute to ambient levels 
of air pollution that endanger public health and welfare. It will also 
help prevent significant impairment of the emission control systems 
expected to be used in Tier 3 technology, significantly improve the 
efficiency of emissions control systems currently in use, and continue 
prevention of the substantial adverse effects of sulfur on the 
performance of vehicle emissions control systems. The level is also 
feasible (especially considering its associated ABT provisions, 
described in Section V.D), and is the point which appropriately 
balances costs with the emission reductions that it provides and 
enables.

C. Per-Gallon Sulfur Caps

1. Standards
    The final Tier 3 program is composed of a 10 ppm refinery annual 
average sulfur standard (discussed above in Section V.B) with an 80 ppm 
per-gallon cap at the refinery gate and a 95 ppm per-gallon cap 
downstream; these per-gallon caps currently exist 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. The caps also 
limit downstream sulfur contamination and enable the enforcement of the 
gasoline sulfur standard in-use. Our 10 ppm average standard with 
higher per-gallon caps compares to a 10 ppm cap standard in much of 
Europe, Japan, and Korea. In addition to the gasoline standards we are 
finalizing today, we are also finalizing caps on the sulfur content of 
gasoline additives, to limit their contribution to the overall in-use 
gasoline sulfur level.
a. What We Proposed
    We proposed two options for the per-gallon sulfur caps--maintaining 
the Tier 2 80 ppm refinery gate sulfur and 95

[[Page 23543]]

ppm downstream sulfur caps and, beginning January 1, 2020, lowering to 
50 ppm refinery gate and 65 ppm downstream caps. The 50 ppm refinery 
gate cap was proposed to take effect on January 1, 2020, as this is the 
date when the small refiner, small volume refinery, and early credit 
use provisions would expire; and also to avoid forcing additional 
refinery investments during the early credit usage period. We also 
requested comment on lowering the caps to 20 ppm at the refinery gate 
and 25 ppm downstream.
    We received comments on both of the proposed per-gallon cap options 
of 80/95 ppm and 50/65 ppm, as well as comments on finalizing lower 
caps of 20/25 ppm and a 20 ppm overall cap. Comments supporting lower 
caps noted potential environmental benefits, greater certainty that 
vehicles would see lower and more uniform gasoline sulfur levels, and 
enabling new vehicle technologies that require very low sulfur levels. 
Comments in support of maintaining the current Tier 2 caps cited 
concerns on cost, flexibility for turnarounds/unplanned shut downs (due 
to refinery fire, natural disaster, etc.), and potential impacts on 
gasoline supply and pricing. Detailed information regarding the 
comments we received on the per-gallon sulfur caps is provided in the 
Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which is available in the 
rulemaking record.
b. Final Refinery Gate Sulfur Cap
    In today's action, we are retaining the 80 ppm refinery gate cap. 
The refinery gate cap provides flexibility for batch-to-batch 
variability that naturally occurs at a refinery due to the varying 
types of crude that refineries process, variations in unit operations, 
and variations in product mix. It further provides for flexibility 
during unit turnarounds, and unplanned upsets (e.g., refinery fires, 
natural disasters, etc.), to avoid a complete refinery shutdown. A 
lower cap could create situations where refiners would need to store 
more off-spec gasoline for future processing. However, if a refinery 
does not have adequate tankage for storing this product, and/or if its 
processing units are not large enough to ``catch up'' in refining off-
spec product, it could result in significant impacts to fuel pricing or 
supply. For a refiner that produces multiple products, any potential 
supply impacts could also impact other fuel markets (e.g., diesel, jet 
fuel, etc.). Additionally, the refinery gate cap is a ``hard'' limit--a 
refinery's actual production has to be well below this limit to account 
for in-use testing tolerances, safety margins, and any additives that a 
refiner may need to add prior to the fuel leaving the refinery. An 80 
ppm refinery gate cap will provide refiners needed flexibility, and 
more certainty that they will be able to continue producing and 
distributing at least some gasoline during turnarounds/upsets to avoid 
a total shutdown. It will further provide more certainty for transmix 
processors, additive manufacturers and other downstream parties.
    As described below in Section VII, we believe that most refineries 
would not have significant costs as a result of the Tier 3 program 
because they will be able to meet the 10 ppm average sulfur standard 
largely through revamps and operational changes at their facilities, 
rather than installing grassroots units. Lowering to a cap of 50 ppm 
would directionally increase the costs of the Tier 3 program. The 
American Petroleum Institute (API) provided a detailed study with their 
comments \426\ quantifying the additional costs associated with 
successively more stringent per-gallon caps. While we do not agree with 
the study's overall cost analysis, we do agree that with a refinery 
gate cap of 50 ppm, a number of refiners would incur higher capital 
costs due to the decreased ability to handle off-spec product with a 
lower refinery gate cap. As refiners must ensure that they can continue 
to produce saleable product and meet demand in the event of an upset or 
an off-spec batch of fuel, the need for installation of additional 
tankage and/or increased refinery processing capability would be 
greater with a 50 ppm refinery gate cap. While at the time of the 
proposal we believed that a cap of 50 ppm would have little cost 
impact, our more recent analysis shows that a 50 ppm cap would increase 
the cost of the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards by approximately 10 
percent (see RIA Chapter 5.2.2.4). At the same time, the more stringent 
cap with its associated increase in cost would be unlikely to provide 
significant additional emission benefits nationwide. As discussed 
previously in Sections III and IV above, the emissions benefits 
associated with the Tier 3 program are mainly driven by the reduction 
in the average sulfur content of gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm, since 
vehicle emissions are proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel. 
Changes in the cap would not affect this. In the context of the final 
ABT provisions, a higher cap does allow for increases in emissions on a 
temporal basis as one batch of fuel is allowed to have higher sulfur 
levels. However, this is then offset by reductions in emissions from 
batches of fuel that are then required to be below the 10 ppm average 
standard. Similarly, the final ABT provisions allow for the possibility 
that the fuel from different refineries will cause varying emission 
reductions as one refinery's higher average sulfur levels would lead to 
less emission reductions in-use. However, this is then offset by 
greater reductions in emissions due to the fuel produced by refineries 
with sulfur levels below the average standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \426\ ``Economic and Supply Impacts of a Reduced Cap on Gasoline 
Sulfur Content; Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute''; 
Turner, Mason & Company. Document number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4285; 
API-AFPM Attachment 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our cost analysis, which is discussed below in Section 
VII.B., we project nearly 40% of the gasoline pool would be at 5 ppm, 
about 45% at 10 ppm and the remaining approximately 15% at levels 
higher than 10 ppm. The sulfur level for this 15% in our analysis 
ranges from 11 ppm all the way up to 70 ppm. However, as discussed in 
Section VII.B., these high sulfur levels are more a function of the 
limitations of our analysis where we could only model these refineries 
as remaining at their current Tier 2 sulfur levels. We anticipate that 
in most (if not all) cases refineries will make operational changes 
and/or investments in order to reduce their credit burden and reduce 
their compliance costs. This anticipation, along with the fact that a 
10 ppm average standard by definition limits the amount of gasoline 
that can remain at higher sulfur levels (regardless of the cap), means 
that we anticipate most refineries, including those using credits, will 
still average less than 20 or 30 ppm in their physical gasoline 
production. Nevertheless, the final ABT program does allow for the 
possibility (regardless of the cap) that were this higher sulfur fuel 
to be concentrated in any certain geographical area, it would not 
receive the full emission reductions from the Tier 3 program. We have 
considered the potential for areas to consistently receive fuel that 
might be predominantly higher than the 10 ppm average. Because 
refineries generating credits and using credits are interspersed across 
the country, and because most areas receive a considerable portion of 
their fuel by pipeline, barge, rail, or truck from refineries in other 
areas, we expect the variation in average sulfur levels across the 
country to be too limited to warrant lowering the per-gallon cap to 50 
ppm. Given the stringency of the 10 ppm average standard, we predict 
that in-use

[[Page 23544]]

sulfur levels will generally be well below 50 ppm.
    Further reductions in the refinery gate cap are also not needed to 
enable the vehicle emissions standards, as the vehicle standards are a 
function of the 10 ppm annual average sulfur standard. While vehicle 
manufacturers have expressed concerns about the potential impacts on 
emissions performance if individual vehicles are exposed to gasoline 
above 10 ppm due to higher per-gallon caps and/or credit usage,\427\ we 
believe that vehicles will see sulfur levels closer to the 10 ppm 
average rather than the 80 ppm cap due to the fact that the 10 ppm 
average will drive reductions in gasoline sulfur levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \427\ Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011, October 6). 
Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we believe it is prudent at this time to retain an 80 ppm 
refinery gate cap. However, we are committing to monitor and further 
evaluate in-use sulfur levels and their impact on vehicle emissions. If 
it is warranted, we will reassess the sulfur cap level and the need for 
potential future regulatory action. Such ongoing evaluation will 
include analyses of: In-use fuel surveys; batch data that refineries 
are required to submit; and the sulfur credit market. It will also 
include the evaluation of any issues or concerns that might arise 
during implementation of the program. Finally, we will also carry out 
an ongoing evaluation of data submitted by the vehicle manufacturers on 
the performance of their Tier 3 vehicles in-use.
c. Downstream Sulfur Cap
    With regard to the downstream sulfur cap, we believe that 
maintaining a 15 ppm differential between the refinery gate sulfur cap 
and the downstream sulfur cap will provide pipeline operators, transmix 
processors, and gasoline additive users the same flexibility as was 
provided under the Tier 2 program. As was the case under the Tier 2 
program, allowing a 15 ppm differential is needed to ensure adequate 
flexibility in accommodating gasoline produced from transmix, instances 
of contamination during distribution, and for the use of necessary 
(sulfur-containing) additives. In rare circumstances when the sulfur 
contribution from all these sources are coincidently at their maximum 
levels, a very limited number of batches of gasoline at the 95 ppm 
downstream sulfur cap may be present in the distribution system. 
However, we expect that this will not have a substantial impact on the 
average sulfur content of in-use gasoline. Comments received on this 
issue were generally in support of maintaining the 15 ppm delta.
    Pipeline operators are currently allowed to blend limited volumes 
of transmix into gasoline in their systems provided that the resulting 
gasoline meets all fuel quality specifications and the endpoint of the 
blended gasoline does not exceed 437[emsp14][deg]F.\428\ This enables 
pipeline operators to avoid the installation of additional transmix 
storage and loading equipment at a number of remote locations to 
facilitate shipping small volumes of transmix to processing facilities 
by truck.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \428\ The requirements for transmix blenders are contained in 40 
CFR 80.84(d). 437[emsp14][deg]F is the maximum endpoint allowed for 
gasoline in ASTM D4814.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently transmix processors must produce gasoline sufficiently 
below the 95 ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate any downstream 
sulfur increases from the use of gasoline additives and contamination 
from further distribution. The sulfur content of the gasoline produced 
by transmix processors is determined by the sulfur content of the 
transmix they receive, which in turn is primarily a function of the 
sulfur content of gasoline and jet fuel components in the 
transmix.\429\ Transmix processors do not handle sufficient volumes to 
support the installation of currently available desulfurization 
units.\430\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \429\ Transmix is a by-product of the multi-product pipeline 
distribution system. 40 CFR 80.84(a) defines transmix pipeline 
interface that does not meet the specifications for a fuel that can 
be used or sold, and that is composed solely of any combination of: 
Previously certified gasoline (including previously certified 
gasoline blendstocks that become gasoline solely upon the addition 
of an oxygenate); distillate fuel; or gasoline blendstocks that are 
suitable for use as a blendstock without further processing.
    \430\ Transmix processors produce ~0.1 percent of the gasoline 
consumed in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Accounting for Ethanol Blending in the Determination of Compliance 
With Gasoline Sulfur Requirements
    In demonstrating compliance with the gasoline sulfur standards 
finalized today, gasoline refiners and importers may adjust the sulfur 
levels in the gasoline and blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs) 
that they produce/import to account for the downstream addition of 
ethanol. We proposed that the sulfur content of denatured fuel ethanol 
(DFE) used for downstream blending would be assumed to be 10 ppm in 
making such demonstrations of compliance. Refiners commented that 
refiners and importers should be allowed to either use the actual 
sulfur value of the DFE or conduct laboratory hand blends of a 
representative sample of DFE to determine the effect on the sulfur 
content of the blended fuel from the addition of DFE. We agree that 
refiners and importers should be allowed to use the actual sulfur 
content of DFE when a sulfur test result is available and when the 
refiner can demonstrate that the test result was derived from a 
representative sample of the DFE that was blended with the gasoline or 
BOB. The sulfur content of in-use DFE will typically be lower than the 
10 ppm sulfur cap finalized today for DFE. We assumed that DFE would 
have an average sulfur content of 5 ppm in conducting the refinery 
analysis to support this rule. Therefore, today's final rule requires 
that in determining their compliance with today's sulfur standards, 
refiners and importers must either use the actual sulfur content of the 
DFE established through testing of the DFE actually blended or assume a 
5 ppm sulfur content for the DFE added downstream. To prevent potential 
bias, a refiner or importer must choose to use only one method during 
each annual compliance period.
2. Requirements for Gasoline Additives
    Today's action finalizes the requirement that manufacturers of 
gasoline additives used downstream of the refinery at less than 1 
volume percent must limit the sulfur contribution to the finished 
gasoline from the use of their additive to no more than 3 ppm when the 
additive is used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. The 
additive manufacturer will be required to maintain records of its 
additive production quality control activities which demonstrate that 
the sulfur content of additive production batches is such that when the 
additive is used at its maximum recommended treatment rate it will add 
no more than 3 ppm to sulfur content of the finished gasoline. We 
received comments in support of our proposed requirements (these 
comments can be found in the docket to this rulemaking, and are 
summarized in the Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which is 
also located in the docket). An environmental organization commented 
that the sulfur contribution from additives can have a material effect 
on emissions performance given the level of vehicle emissions control 
that is being finalized today. We also received comments from gasoline 
additive manufactures were in favor of the proposed controls.
    The requirements finalized today are designed to prevent the 
potential dumping of high sulfur materials into

[[Page 23545]]

gasoline under the guise of the addition of gasoline additives. We 
continue to believe that all current gasoline additives contribute less 
than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished fuel when used at the 
maximum recommended treatment rate (with 3 ppm being the extreme). 
Normal additive production quality control practices already have had 
to consider the sulfur contribution of the additive to finished 
gasoline as a result of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur requirements. The 
maximum recommended treatment rate is already stated on product 
transfer document or packaging for the additive. Additive manufacturers 
are to retain production quality control records for 5 years and make 
these available to EPA upon request. Therefore, the requirements 
finalized today will not constrain the use of genuine gasoline 
additives or result in significant additional costs to gasoline 
additive manufacturers. Parties that introduce additives to gasoline at 
over 1.0 volume percent are required to satisfy all of the obligations 
of a refiner and fuel manufacturer including demonstration that the 
finished blend meets the applicable sulfur specification.
    We also received comments from an environmental organization 
requesting that EPA promulgate limits on the combined sulfur 
contribution for all additives blended into a batch of gasoline in 
addition to controlling the sulfur contribution from individual 
additives. We believe that such additional controls are not necessary, 
would add an unwarranted additional compliance burden, and could 
interfere with the use of necessary downstream additives. Certain 
additives that provide critical fuel performance characteristics (e.g., 
corrosion control, demulsifiers) contain sulfur-containing compounds as 
an essential functional component. Such additives are used to remedy 
specific instances of gasoline quality problems, and their treatment 
rate is governed by the desire to limit the added cost from their use.

D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program

    In today's rule, we are finalizing an ABT program that will reduce 
the compliance costs and promote the feasibility of the Tier 3 gasoline 
sulfur program, because it will allow refiners and importers to choose 
the most economical compliance strategy (i.e., investment in 
technology, credits, or both) to meet the 10 ppm average sulfur 
standard. In response to comments received on our proposal, we have 
simplified and added flexibility to the ABT program. The ABT program 
allows refiners and importers to continue to generate credits for 
overcompliance with the current Tier 2 30 ppm average gasoline sulfur 
standard through 2016, and the new 10 ppm average standard beginning in 
2017. (Small refiners and small volume refineries have a January 1, 
2020 compliance date, as described below.) These credits can be used 
for compliance with either the Tier 2 standard through 2016 or the Tier 
3 standard beginning in 2017. Credits can also be banked for future use 
or transferred to other refineries for compliance with the average 
sulfur standard. In addition, we are allowing refiners and importers to 
also use any valid credits banked from 2012 and 2013 under the Tier 2 
program toward compliance with either the Tier 2 or Tier 3 sulfur 
programs. We believe these provisions will provide a seamless 
transition from Tier 2 to the Tier 3 program.
1. How will the ABT program assist with compliance?
    The Tier 3 ABT program allows refiners and importers the 
flexibility to: (1) Have varying gasoline sulfur levels for their 
batches of fuel as long as they meet the 10 ppm average over the course 
of the year; (2) use credits generated at one of its refineries to 
offset higher sulfur gasoline produced at another of its refineries; 
(3) bank generated credits for future use; and (4) participate in 
trading (via buying and/or selling) of credits from another refiner to 
help lower costs. The ABT program allows for the generation of credits 
by refiners and importers for over-compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur 
standard (on a refinery/facility basis), and for the transfer of these 
credits to other refiners (for use a refinery) to reduce or eliminate 
their need to make capital investments to meet the 10 ppm standard. The 
ABT program will provide refiners and importers with multiple 
approaches to compliance, and each can choose the approach that best 
minimizes their costs.
2. ABT Modeling
    For the proposed rule, we modeled the effects of an ABT program on 
refinery compliance. Our modeling determined the lowest cost approach 
on a refinery-by-refinery basis under two scenarios: The first, in 
which every refinery has the opportunity to make credit transfers with 
every other refinery in the nation, and a more limited scenario in 
which credit transfers would only occur within companies that own more 
than one refinery.
    In developing today's final program, we also analyzed the Tier 2 
credit market and found that, currently, Tier 2 sulfur credits are both 
transferred within companies (intra-company) and traded between 
companies (inter-company). As discussed in Chapter 4.3 of the RIA, in 
2012 approximately 56% of the Tier 2 credit transactions were inter-
company trades. The remaining 44% were intra-company trades. This 
analysis shows that there is a functioning, well-established gasoline 
sulfur credit trading market. There does not appear to be any hindrance 
to credit trading currently or in the future. We anticipate that a 
significant number of refineries will take advantage of the opportunity 
to generate or use credits, thus lowering their compliance burden for 
the Tier 3 program. For a more complete discussion of our analysis of 
credit trading and the associated cost impacts of the ABT program, 
refer to Chapter 4.3 of the RIA.
3. Eligibility
    Consistent with our proposal, under today's final program, sulfur 
credits may be generated by both U.S. refiners and importers of 
gasoline into the U.S. only for gasoline that is subject to the sulfur 
requirements as described in the regulations at Sec.  80.1603. This 
excludes gasoline produced or imported for use in California 
(``California gasoline'') and gasoline designated for export, but 
includes gasoline produced by California refineries for use outside the 
state. We sought comment in the proposed rule on whether or not to 
include California. All comments received on this issue were against 
the inclusion of such gasoline in the ABT program, largely because it 
would cause additional burden but provide no appreciable credits to the 
market to justify the additional compliance burden (such as batch 
reporting). We agree with these comments, and are finalizing the 
provision that California gasoline and gasoline for export will not be 
included in the ABT program. In order to exclude exported gasoline and 
California gasoline, refiners must keep records to demonstrate that the 
excluded gasoline was designated for export or as California gasoline, 
and was actually exported or used in California.
    While under existing fuel programs (e.g., MSAT2), we precluded 
importers from generating ``early'' credits (credits generated before a 
program start date), we are allowing importers to generate early 
credits in the Tier 3 ABT program, consistent with our proposal. 
Importers were previously precluded from generating early credits 
because they generally did not need additional lead time to comply with 
our fuel standards (as they most likely would not be

[[Page 23546]]

investing in new refining technologies) and we also thought it would be 
difficult for them to establish representative baselines from which 
early credits could be generated. However, early credit baselines are 
not a part of the Tier 3 program, as discussed above. In addition, 
commenters noted that while importers may not necessarily have to take 
actions to desulfurize fuel like domestic refiners do, these parties 
may have to pay premiums on obtaining lower sulfur fuel, thus their 
efforts to provide lower sulfur fuel should also be able to generate 
early credits. Thus, we are finalizing provisions allowing importers to 
generate early credits for sending over-compliant gasoline to the 
United States prior to January 1, 2017.
    We proposed to limit credit generation to refiners and importers. 
Under the Tier 2 gasoline program, we allow refiners who produce 
gasoline by combining blendstocks together or adding blendstocks to 
previously certified gasoline (refiner-blenders) to participate in the 
in the sulfur ABT program, but do not allow butane blenders who comply 
with the reduced sampling, testing, and reporting requirements to 
participate in the sulfur ABT program.\431\ We are extending these 
provisions to butane and pentane blenders under the Tier 3 
program.\432\ Under today's rule, any refiner who uses the reduced 
sampling, testing, and reporting provisions for blending butane or 
pentane into gasoline will not be allowed to generate credits. Refiner-
blenders who comply with the full suite of sampling, testing, and 
reporting requirements will, however, be allowed to generate credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \431\ The provisions for butane blenders are located in 40 CFR 
80.82.
    \432\ See Section V.I. for a discussion of the requirements for 
pentane blenders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received several comments from ethanol producers and Growth 
Energy (representing ethanol producers), who commented that DFE should 
be subject to an annual average sulfur standard and that ethanol 
producers should be able to participate in the ABT program that is 
available to refiners and importers of gasoline. These commenters 
stated that preventing them from participating in the ABT program would 
provide refiners with pathways to allow delayed adoption of cleaner 
fuel standards at their expense. Some ethanol producers commented that 
they should be allowed to participate in the ABT program as a means of 
offsetting the additional cost of the proposed per-batch sulfur testing 
and reporting requirements. We also received comments from refiners 
stating that credit generation should be permitted only for refiners 
and importers.
    As in existing EPA fuel programs, we continue to believe that it is 
not appropriate expand the ABT provisions to cover ethanol producers 
and oxygenate blenders for several reasons. First, expanding the ABT 
program beyond refiners and importers could greatly increase the number 
of parties participating thereby potentially complicating EPA 
compliance assurance activities while having little overall impact on 
the sulfur credit pool. Second, the current ABT program under the Tier 
2 gasoline sulfur program, which is limited to gasoline refiners and 
importers, has functioned effectively with few compliance 
irregularities. Third, experience with the unleaded gasoline program 
suggests widespread abuse and fraud when credits have been allowed to 
be generated or sold by parties other than refiners or importers 
subject to the regulations. Fourth, it would require a considerably 
more complicated compliance structure, including the application of all 
refiner responsibilities to ethanol producers and blenders. Fifth, 
there is no need for DFE producers to generate credits in order to 
recoup the value for any lower sulfur content of their product. The 
value of any lower sulfur content will be reflected in the market price 
of DFE, similar to the octane value to refiners. Sixth, the sulfur ABT 
provisions were included to ease the burden of compliance for refiners 
who have to make capital changes to their facilities to meet today's 
more stringent sulfur standards. In addition to reducing the cost of 
today's gasoline sulfur program, the ABT provisions allow for an 
earlier effective date of the sulfur standards than would otherwise be 
possible. Such considerations are not applicable to ethanol producers 
since capital expenditures for desulfurization equipment or other 
equipment will not be needed at their facilities to comply with the 
sulfur standards finalized today.\433\ Finally, overcompliance with the 
per-gallon sulfur cap for DFE is not a valid basis for credit 
generation. We expect that in all cases, the DFE sulfur level will be 
below the cap. To allow credit generation for these parties, we would 
need to set an additional annual average sulfur standard for DFE at 
some level below 10 ppm and allow credits to be generated for 
overcompliance with that standard. Accordingly, we do not believe it is 
appropriate to allow ethanol producers or blenders to generate sulfur 
credits under the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, and as such, we are 
not finalizing such a provision. The Tier 3 rule prohibits any person 
downstream of the refinery or importer that produced or imported 
gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB who adds oxygenate to such product from 
including the volume and sulfur content of the oxygenate in any 
compliance calculations for credit generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \433\ The requirements for ethanol producers finalized today are 
discussed in Section V.G.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Credit Generation and Use
    Under the Tier 3 ABT program, the credit generation provisions are 
nearly the same as those under the Tier 2 program. In essence, the Tier 
2 program simply continues with a lower standard below which credits 
are generated. Refiners and importers are allowed to average within and 
across companies to meet the standard in the most cost-effective manner 
possible, including generating and using credits. For Tier 3, refiners 
and importers can generate credits for overcomplying with the 10 ppm 
standard on a volume-weighted annual average basis beginning January 1, 
2017. Credit generation periods remain 12 months long and continue to 
be synchronized with annual compliance demonstration periods. The final 
Tier 3 ABT program provisions for approved small refiners and small 
volume refineries are discussed below in Section V.D.6.
    Consistent with our proposal, and to encourage early gasoline 
desulfurization and give the refining industry flexibility to stagger 
their investments over time, we are also finalizing provisions to allow 
refiners and importers to generate credits prior to January 1, 2017 
(i.e., early credits).
    We proposed an early credit program for overcompliance with the 
current Tier 2 30 ppm gasoline sulfur standard from January 1, 2014 
through December 31, 2016. These early credits were proposed to have a 
credit life of three years, and could be used through December 31, 
2019. We also proposed that refiners and importers who generated early 
credits would then have to designate them at the end of the compliance 
year as either Tier 2 credits or Tier 3 early credits, and the credits 
would have to be used in accordance with the designation.
    We received several comments on our early credit provisions. Some 
commenters stated that the requirement to designate credits as either 
Tier 2 or Tier 3 would not provide refiners and importers the intended 
amount of flexibility, as they may not necessarily be able to predict 
if they will need to use those early credits for either Tier 2 or Tier 
3 compliance. Further,

[[Page 23547]]

commenters were concerned that if more refiners than anticipated opt to 
bank the credits for possible future use at their own refineries, it 
could result in less credits being made available to the market. We 
also received comments both in support of and against the proposed 
three-year credit life. Some commenters stated that they believed that 
all credits should have a five-year life to provide maximum flexibility 
and more certainty on the availability of credits; while other 
commenters supported the three-year credit life limit, because it would 
coincide with the end of the small refiner/small refinery provisions 
thus providing more certainty of the benefits of the Tier 3 program. 
Finally, while not proposed, we received many comments requesting that 
EPA clarify what would become of ``banked'' Tier 2 credits (Tier 2 
credits generated in 2012 and/or 2013 that were not used before the end 
of their five-year credit life and would have expired when the Tier 3 
program began, under the terms of the proposed ABT program). Commenters 
further stated that these credits should not expire, but rather should 
be allowed to receive their full five-year credit life, as they 
represent actual reductions in refinery sulfur levels.
    As discussed above, we are finalizing a more flexible approach to 
the ABT program than what we proposed. We believe this will provide for 
a more seamless transition from the Tier 2 to the Tier 3 credit 
programs and more certainty on credit availability.
    Consistent with our proposal, refiners and importers may begin 
generating early credits on January 1, 2014, and continue through 
December 31, 2016. These credits will be generated on an annual average 
basis, from a demonstration that the refiner or importer's annual 
average gasoline sulfur level is below the current Tier 2 30 ppm annual 
average sulfur standard. We believe this simple early credit approach 
is possible because U.S. gasoline was averaging around 30 ppm as we 
started developing the Tier 3 program, based on compliance data. Since 
refiners and importers would need to continue to comply with the 
existing Tier 2 sulfur standards during the early credit period, absent 
Tier 3, they would need to maintain this level of performance on an 
industry average basis. Accordingly, any additional gasoline sulfur 
reductions beyond 30 ppm will be attributed to the proposed Tier 3 
program.
    In response to comments received, we are not requiring that credits 
be designated as either Tier 2 or Tier 3 and only used for the program 
for which they were designated. Refiners and importers may use early 
credits either for ongoing compliance with the Tier 2 program, or bank 
them for future compliance with the Tier 3 program (within the limits 
of the credit life restrictions). Essentially, the Tier 2 credit 
generation provisions simply continue, and any banked credits generated 
in 2014 through 2016 that were not used for compliance with the Tier 2 
standards would be carried over for use in complying with Tier 3. We 
believe that this will allow for more certainty of credit availability 
before refiners must make their Tier 3 investment decisions, thus 
reducing the cost of the program. It will also avoid any incentive for 
refiners to use up banked Tier 2 credits prior to 2017 causing 
increased in-use sulfur levels and emissions.
    Based on our analysis of the Tier 2 credit market for 2012, we 
believe that there will be a balance of 2012 banked credits equivalent 
to approximately two months of compliance, and we anticipate a similar 
amount (perhaps more) for 2013. Although we did not propose to allow 
for banked 2012 and 2013 Tier 2 credits to be used for compliance with 
the Tier 3 program, we are finalizing this provision for a number of 
reasons. First, the Tier 2 banked credits represent real reductions--
refiners and importers are currently generating these credits for 
overcompliance with the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard. Second, 
allowing these banked credits to receive their full five-year credit 
life will provide more assurance of the credit availability for trading 
for those who need them to comply with Tier 3 without a large capital 
investment. As previously explained, this will allow for more certainty 
of credits available far before making Tier 3 investment decisions, 
thus reducing the cost of the program. A lack of certainty in the 
credit trading market could lead to refiners banking more credits than 
usual for their own use rather than allowing these credits to be 
available in the market for trading. As shown in Chapter 4.3 of the 
RIA, refiners tend to hold credits as an insurance policy until they 
approach the end of their credit life. If credit-generating refiners 
continue with this approach, credits generated in 2012 and 2013 will 
likely be available for purchase in 2017 and 2018 for those refiners 
that may want to rely on them for compliance (along with additional 
early credits generated in 2014 through 2016). Finally, as we 
anticipate that these credits will be equal to about four months of 
compliance, the allowance of 2012 and 2013 banked Tier 2 credits makes 
for a more flexible program by effectively allowing for a small amount 
of additional lead time without adversely affecting the overall 
benefits of the Tier 3 program. As discussed previously, this will 
avoid any incentive for refiners to use up banked Tier 2 credits prior 
to 2017 causing increased in-use sulfur levels and emissions. We 
believe these provisions will allow the Tier 3 program to begin on 
January 1, 2017, with more certainty regarding the availability of 
credits for those refiners needing (or choosing) to defer investment to 
better align with their existing turnaround/shutdown schedules.
    All credits generated before January 1, 2017 will be valid for five 
years or until December 31, 2019, whichever is earlier--no early 
credits may be used for compliance beginning January 1, 2020. Thus, 
banked Tier 2 credits generated in 2012 and 2013 will receive their 
full five-year life and will not expire at the start of the Tier 3 
program. However, credits generated in 2015 and 2016 that are unused as 
of December 31, 2019 will expire and become invalid. We believe that 
structuring the early credit program this way will offer considerable 
flexibility to refiners phasing in Tier 3 gasoline sulfur controls, 
while still placing a date at which point the intended sulfur program 
will be fully implemented and enforceable--January 1, 2020 (the same 
date small refiners and small refineries must begin complying with the 
10 ppm sulfur standard). This will also provide a date certain to give 
auto manufacturers greater confidence for the design of their vehicles 
that all vehicles in-use are running on 10 ppm average fuel. Otherwise, 
it is possible that the greater ease of generating early credits 
relative to 30 ppm sulfur (as opposed to 10 ppm in 2017 and beyond) 
would allow higher sulfur levels to continue well beyond 2019.
    Consistent with our proposal, all credits generated beginning 
January 1, 2017 will be for overcompliance with the Tier 3 10 ppm 
annual average sulfur standard, and will have a five-year credit life. 
We believe five years will give refiners and importers sufficient time 
to use credits generated in previous years while still placing 
limitations on credit life to help with enforcement. Five years is 
consistent with the Tier 2 ABT program, as well as the current credit 
life and recordkeeping provisions for other 40 CFR part 80 fuels 
programs, and coincides with the applicable statute of limitations for 
violations by parties who generate invalid credits. Credits must be 
used within five years

[[Page 23548]]

from the year they were generated (regardless of when/if they are 
traded), otherwise they will expire and become invalid. For example, 
credits generated in 2017 can be applied towards 2018-2022 compliance, 
as well as 2017 compliance. After March 31, 2023 (when reports for the 
2022 annual compliance period will be due), credits generated in 2017 
will expire and become invalid. Similarly, credits generated in 2018 
can be applied towards 2019-2023 compliance, as well as 2018 
compliance. After March 31, 2024, credits generated in 2018 expire, and 
so on and so forth.
5. Credit Trading Provisions
    We are also finalizing provisions for credit trading in Tier 3 that 
are identical to those under the current Tier 2 program. As in that 
program, it is possible that sulfur credits could be generated by one 
party, subsequently transferred or used in good faith by another, and 
later found to have been calculated or created improperly or otherwise 
determined to be invalid. As in the current Tier 2 program as well as 
other 40 CFR part 80 fuel programs, if this occurs, we are requiring 
that both the seller and purchaser will have to adjust their sulfur 
calculations to reflect the proper credits and either party (or both) 
could be determined to be in violation of the standards and other 
requirements if the adjusted calculations demonstrate noncompliance 
with the 10 ppm standard.
    Sulfur credits must be transferred directly from the refiner or 
importer generating them to the party using them for compliance 
purposes. This ensures that the parties purchasing them are better able 
to assess the likelihood that the credits are valid. As proposed, we 
are also finalizing an exception for the case where a credit generator 
transfers credits to a refiner or importer who inadvertently cannot use 
all the credits. In this case, the credits can be transferred a second 
time to another refiner or importer. After the second trade, the 
credits must be used or they will expire. Allowing a maximum of two 
trades is consistent with other recent fuel programs and we believe it 
is sufficiently flexible while still preserving adequate means for 
enforcement. While some commenters stated that they believe the two-
trade maximum is not necessary given the fact that credits are only 
being traded within a small part of industry, we believe that unlimited 
trading could result in an unenforceable program and potentially lead 
to problems with invalid credit trading. Given the widespread use of 
credit trading between different companies under the Tier 2 program 
despite this provision, there appears to already be sufficient 
flexibility in the program. We received comments requesting that we 
clarify that intra-company trading will continue to be unlimited as it 
is in the existing Tier 2 ABT program. Intra-company trading will in 
fact remain unlimited, and we have added language to the final Tier 3 
regulations to clarify this.
    There are currently no prohibitions against brokers facilitating 
the transfer of credits from one party to another. Any person can act 
as a credit broker, regardless of whether such person is a refiner or 
importer, as long as the title to the credits is transferred directly 
from the generating refiner or importer to the using refiner or 
importer. This prohibition on outside parties taking ownership of 
credits was promulgated in response to problems encountered during 
implementation of the unleaded gasoline program, and has since been 
extended to subsequent fuels rulemakings. We continue to believe that 
maintaining this prohibition will allow for maximum program 
enforceability and consistency with all of our other ABT programs for 
mobile sources and their fuels.
6. ABT Provisions for Small Refiners and Small Volume Refineries
    Consistent with our proposal, approved small refiners and small 
volume refineries must comply with the 10 ppm annual average standard 
by January 1, 2020, which allows for an additional three years for 
compliance. This is the primary form of relief offered to small 
refiners and small volume refineries under the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 
program (discussed further in Section V.E, below). Approved small 
refiners and small volume refineries may continue to generate credits 
for overcomplying with the 30 ppm Tier 2 standard before January 1, 
2020. Prior to January 1, 2017, credits generated by small refiners and 
small volume refineries can be traded/sold to non-small refiners for 
use by December 31, 2019, and the credit revenues could be used to help 
offset their Tier 3 investments.
    When the Tier 3 program begins on January 1, 2017, small refiners 
and small volume refineries may continue to generate credits for 
overcompliance with the 30 ppm sulfur standard (as they will still be 
subject to the Tier 2 standards through December 1, 2019), or they may 
generate credits for overcompliance with the Tier 3 10 ppm sulfur 
standard. We are finalizing that small refiners and small volume 
refineries must designate their credits as being generated for either 
the Tier 2 or Tier 3 ABT program, as proposed. Credits designated and 
generated as Tier 2 credits may only be traded with other small 
refiners and small volume refineries (and these credits may only be 
used for compliance through December 31, 2019). However, credits 
designated and generated as Tier 3 credits may be traded with non-small 
refiners as well. Additionally, from January 1, 2017 through December 
31, 2019, if a small refiner's annual average sulfur level is below 10 
ppm, they may elect to split the designation and generation of credits 
between both the 10 ppm and 30 ppm standards (without double-counting). 
For example, in 2017, a small refiner with an annual gasoline sulfur 
average of 8 ppm could generate 20 ppm-volume Tier 2 credits (30 ppm-10 
ppm) that could be used by other small refiners and small volume 
refineries, or banked by the refinery for future Tier 2 compliance. 
This small refiner would also generate 2 ppm-volume Tier 3 credits (10 
ppm-8 ppm) that could be sold to refiners and importers subject to Tier 
3, or banked by the refiner for future Tier 3 compliance.
7. Deficit Carryforward
    Under the final Tier 3 sulfur program, we are finalizing deficit 
carryforward provisions similar to the existing Tier 2 program, whereby 
an individual refinery that does not meet the 10 ppm standard in a 
given year may carry a credit deficit forward for 1 year. Under this 
deficit carryforward allowance, the refinery will have to make up the 
credit deficit and come into compliance with the Tier 3 sulfur standard 
the next calendar year. We received comments expressing concern that it 
will be more challenging for refineries to make up their credit deficit 
in one year with a 10 ppm sulfur standard, and requesting that the 
deficit carryforward allowance be extended to two or three years. We 
disagree with these comments primarily because of concerns with the 
enforceability of allowing for a deficit beyond one year. In addition, 
we believe that an extended deficit carryforward will further delay 
Tier 3 sulfur reductions. While we acknowledge that there might be an 
increased hurdle for some refiners to make up their own credit 
shortfall, we believe the ABT program provides ample opportunity to 
purchase credits from others. However, in recognition of unanticipated 
circumstances, such as where credits are unavailable or are 
prohibitively expensive such that the refiner could not make up the 
deficit in one year, the Tier 3 hardship provisions provide EPA

[[Page 23549]]

with the authority to allow for extended deficit carryforward, if a 
refiner's hardship petition demonstrates that it meets the criteria. 
Thus, we are finalizing that a refiner could carry a deficit forward 
for up to 3 years only in cases of hardship situations, as described 
below in Section V.E.2.

E. Additional Program Flexibilities

1. Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Provisions
    We are finalizing several regulatory flexibility provisions for 
small entities in the fuels industry to reduce the burden that the Tier 
3 program could have on them. As in previous fuel rulemakings, our 
justification for including provisions specific to small businesses is 
that these entities generally have a greater degree of difficulty in 
complying with the standards compared to other entities.
    In developing the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we evaluated the 
environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of 
refiners and others in the fuel industry to meet the sulfur standards 
as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is necessary and feasible 
for the vast majority of the program to be implemented in the 
established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as 
possible. Based on information available from small refiners and others 
(as discussed further in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
description in Section XII.C), we believe that the category of entities 
classified as small generally face unique circumstances with regard to 
compliance with environmental programs, compared to larger entities. 
Thus, as discussed below, we are finalizing several regulatory 
flexibility provisions for small refiners to reduce the burden that the 
Tier 3 program could have on them.
    Small entities as a category generally lack the resources that are 
available to larger companies to raise capital for investing in a new 
regulatory program, such as shifting of internal funds, securing of 
financing, or selling of assets. Small entities are also likely to have 
more difficulty in competing for any needed engineering and 
construction resources. This is because the magnitude of their projects 
tends to be both smaller and less profitable for the contracted firms. 
As such, we are including provisions in today's rule that would provide 
assistance for small entities in meeting the 10 ppm sulfur standards. 
This proposed approach would allow the overall program to begin as 
early as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as 
soon as possible, while helping to ensure that small entities have 
adequate time to raise capital for new fuel desulfurization equipment 
or to make any other needed changes. We also believe that small 
business regulatory flexibilities can provide these entities with 
additional help and/or time to accumulate capital internally or to 
secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the 
availability of any needed engineering and construction resources in a 
manner that they are available by the time they are needed.
i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners
    We are finalizing a compliance date of January 1, 2020 for small 
refiners, allowing small refiners to postpone compliance with the Tier 
3 program for up to three years. Small refiners will have from January 
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline 
with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
program). This delayed compliance schedule for small refiners is not 
intended as an opportunity for those refiners to increase their 
production of gasoline with sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm, but 
rather will help small refiners with compliance with the program. Since 
the compliance costs for their competitors may rise during these three 
years and since their gasoline will be sold into the same fungible 
market, this delay will not only provide them more lead time, but also 
financial support towards later compliance. Compliance with the 10 ppm 
annual average sulfur standard will begin on January 1, 2020 for small 
refiners. Further, as discussed in greater detail in Section V.D.5, a 
small refiner would be allowed to continue using Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
credits through December 31, 2019 to meet their refinery average 30 ppm 
sulfur standard.
ii. Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
    During the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) Panel process, small refiners raised the concern that a 
refinery gate cap of 20 ppm could cause problems during a refinery 
turnaround or an upset because a cap of this level could result in a 
refiner not being able to produce saleable gasoline. The Panel likewise 
had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm may cause problems for 
small downstream entities such as transmix processors and gasoline 
additive manufacturers. They stated it would not be feasible for 
transmix processors to install desulfurization equipment to produce 
gasoline that meets a 25 ppm sulfur cap. They also stated that such a 
low sulfur cap could preclude certain necessary gasoline additives from 
the market whose activity depends on sulfur containing components. 
Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on 
retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 
and 95 ppm, respectively, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid 
system upsets for the entire refining and distribution system. Further, 
the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Panel members recommended that EPA propose retaining the 
80 ppm and 95 ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that, if EPA were to 
propose caps lower than 80 and 95 ppm, the Agency request comment on 
additional refinery gate and downstream caps that are above 20/25 ppm 
but below 80/95 ppm. As discussed above, we proposed options to 
maintain the current 80/95 ppm caps or to lower them to 50/65 ppm and 
sought comment on a refinery gate cap of 20 ppm with a downstream cap 
of 25 ppm. We are retaining the current 80/95 ppm per-gallon sulfur 
caps in today's final rule. For more information on today's final per-
gallon sulfur cap provisions and related comments, refer to Section V.C 
of this preamble and Chapter 5 of the Summary and Analysis of Comments 
document.
b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions
    Consistent with our proposal, we are finalizing a compliance date 
of January 1, 2020 for small volume refineries. Approved small volume 
refineries will receive a three-year delay (January 1, 2017 through 
December 31, 2019) in meeting the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur 
standard, similar to the small refiner delay. During the development of 
the Tier 3 rulemaking and throughout the SBREFA process, it became 
evident that some refineries may experience higher compliance costs on 
a per-gallon basis than other refineries, and in some cases 
considerably higher. These are refineries owned by a refiner/company 
that would not meet the SBA definition of a small business. In an 
oversupplied gasoline market, these refineries may have difficulty 
justifying capital investments to comply with new standards. In 
recognition of this concern under the RFS program, Congress granted all 
refineries with a crude oil throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 
barrels per calendar day (bpcd) additional time to comply. Consistent 
with this allowance, we are including delayed Tier 3 sulfur standards 
for approved small volume refineries.

[[Page 23550]]

Overall, we believe that these small refineries are disproportionally 
impacted when it comes to their cost of compliance and ability to 
rationalize the investment costs in today's gasoline market. Giving 
these refineries additional lead time will allow more time to invest in 
desulfurization technology, take advantage of advancements in 
technology, develop confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as a means of 
compliance, and avoid competition for capital, engineering, and 
construction resources with the larger refineries. Credit generation 
opportunities for approved small volume refineries are identical to 
those for small refiners, as described above in Section V.D.
    A refiner must apply and be approved for small volume refinery 
status. We are finalizing a small volume refinery net crude throughput 
of less than or equal to 75,000 bpcd, based on the highest crude 
throughput for the 2012 calendar year. We received comment suggesting 
that a higher crude throughput (e.g., 90,000 bpcd) would be more 
appropriate, as the refining industry has changed since Congress set 
the 75,000 bpcd throughput limit for small refineries in the RFS 
program. In analyzing various crude throughput maximums between 75,000 
and 90,000 bpcd, we do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to 
increase the threshold beyond what was previously set by Congress. The 
75,000 bpcd limit set by Congress was to recognize those refineries 
that would have difficulty with compliance with a rulemaking (from both 
a cost and feasibility standpoint), raising this limit would go beyond 
Congress' intent.
2. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations
    We are finalizing hardship provisions that are intended to 
accommodate a refiner's inability to comply with the 10 ppm sulfur 
standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with 
unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during the 
program. These provisions, which are similar to those in existing fuels 
programs, are available to all refiners, small and non-small, though 
relief will be granted on a case-by-case basis following a showing of 
certain requirements; primarily that compliance through the use of 
credits is not feasible. Any hardship waiver granted will not be a 
total waiver of compliance; rather, a hardship waiver will consist of 
short-term relief that will allow a refiner facing a hardship situation 
to, for example, receive additional time to comply. EPA will determine 
appropriate hardship relief based on the nature and degree of the 
hardship, as presented by the refiner in its hardship application, and 
on our assessment of the credit market at that time. Further, as 
discussed above in Section V.D.7, hardship waivers could grant relief 
in the form of additional deficit carryforward for up to three years, 
depending on the level of hardship and the status of the credit market. 
A detailed description of the requirements for applying for a hardship 
waiver is located in the regulations at 40 CFR 80.1625.
    We do not anticipate a great need for hardship relief, given the 
flexibilities offered as part of the Tier 3 program and an expected 
robust credit trading market. Nevertheless, we are finalizing hardship 
provisions in this action as a failsafe for unforeseen circumstances, 
or should credits become scarce or prohibitively expensive.
a. Temporary Waivers Based on Unforeseen Circumstances
    We are finalizing a provision to allow for temporary waivers based 
on unforeseen circumstances. EPA would, at our discretion, permit a 
refiner to seek a temporary waiver from the Tier 3 sulfur standards 
under certain rare circumstances. This waiver provision is intended to 
provide refiners relief in unanticipated circumstances--such as a 
refinery fire or a natural disaster (i.e., force majeure)--that cannot 
be reasonably foreseen now or in the near future. Under this provision, 
a refiner can seek a hardship waiver for relief if it can demonstrate 
that the magnitude of the impact is so severe as to require such an 
extension. A refiner would need to show that: (1) The waiver is in the 
public interest; (2) the nonconformity is unavoidable; (3) it will meet 
the proposed Tier 3 standards as expeditiously as possible; (4) it will 
make up the air quality detriment associated with the nonconforming 
gasoline, where practicable; and (5) it will pay to the U.S. Treasury 
an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity less the 
amount expended to make up the air quality detriment. These conditions 
are similar to those in existing fuels regulations, and are necessary 
and appropriate to ensure that any waivers granted would be limited in 
scope.
    Such a request will be based on the refiner's inability to produce 
compliant gasoline at the affected facility due to extreme and unusual 
circumstances outside the refiner's control that could not have been 
avoided through the exercise of due diligence. The hardship request 
will also need to show that other avenues for mitigating the problem, 
such as the purchase of credits toward compliance under the ABT program 
provisions, have been pursued and yet were insufficient or unavailable. 
In light of other flexibilities, including the ABT program, we expect 
that the need for such requests will be rare.
b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme Hardship Circumstances
    In addition to the provision for short-term relief in extreme 
unforeseen circumstances, we are also finalizing a hardship provision 
where a refiner may receive a hardship waiver based on severe economic 
or physical lead time limitations of the refinery to comply with the 
Tier 3 standards at the start of the program. A refiner seeking such 
hardship relief under this provision must demonstrate that these 
criteria were met. In addition to showing that unusual circumstances 
exist that impose extreme hardship in meeting the Tier 3 standards, the 
refiner will need to show that: (1) It has made best efforts to comply, 
including through the purchase of credits; (2) the relief granted under 
this provision is in the public interest; (3) the environmental impact 
is acceptable; and (4) it has active plans to meet the requirements as 
expeditiously as possible. We expect that hardship relief requests 
under this provision will mostly be applicable at the beginning of the 
Tier 3 program, when refiners are making their investments to comply. 
If hardship relief under these circumstances is approved, we expect to 
impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the refiner is making best 
efforts to achieve compliance offsetting any loss of emission control 
from the program.
    We believe that providing short-term relief to those refiners that 
need additional time due to hardship circumstances will help to 
facilitate the adoption of the overall Tier 3 program for the majority 
of the industry. However, we do not intend for hardship waiver 
provisions to encourage refiners to delay planning and investments they 
would otherwise make. Again, because of the flexibilities of the 
overall Tier 3 program, especially the ABT program, we expect the need 
for additional relief to be rare.

F. Compliance Provisions

    This section describes the compliance provisions of today's 
program. For the most part, the Tier 3 sulfur standards simply reflect 
a lowering of the current Tier 2 sulfur standards. Thus, we are 
retaining most of the same compliance provisions as the current Tier 2 
program, with exceptions as noted. However, we also proposed and sought 
comment on several fuel program

[[Page 23551]]

regulatory streamlining measures, including a broader program redesign 
to streamline the reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping 
regulations.\434\ As discussed below, some of these streamlining 
measures will also impact the Tier 3 sulfur compliance provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \434\ For more information on Part 80 regulatory streamlining 
options, refer to Section VI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Registration, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to track 
compliance with the Tier 3 standards and the ABT program.
a. Registration Requirements
    Refiners, importers, and anyone acting as a refiner (e.g., a 
terminal with blending or other refining operations) who expects to 
produce or import gasoline must register each of its facilities with 
EPA by June 1, 2016, or six months prior to producing gasoline meeting 
the Tier 3 standards and/or participating in the credit program. 
Manufacturers of denaturants that are designated as suitable for use in 
the manufacture of DFE that meets federal requirements must also 
register each of their facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or six 
months prior to producing denaturant that is so designated.\435\ 
Manufacturers of pentane designated as suitable for use by blenders 
into previously certified gasoline (PCG) subject to the Tier 2 program 
must register each of their facilities with EPA prior to manufacturing 
pentane for such downstream blending.\436\ Manufacturers of pentane for 
use by blenders of pentane into PCG subject to the Tier 3 program must 
register each of their facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or six 
months prior to producing such pentane. After the Tier 3 program begins 
on January 1, 2017, any non-registered parties must register at least 
three months prior to producing gasoline, participating in the credit 
market, producing denaturant designated as suitable for use in the 
manufacture of DFE that meets federal requirements, or producing 
pentane for downstream blending into PCG under the Tier 3 program. 
Consistent with the existing registration requirements for butane 
blenders, pentane blenders must comply with the fuel registration 
requirements under the fuel and fuel additives registration program of 
40 CFR part 79. Most refiners, importers, and ethanol producers and 
some ethanol denaturant manufacturers are currently registered with EPA 
under other 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs. All manufacturers of 
gasoline additives for use in highway vehicles are already required to 
be registered with EPA under 40 CFR part 79 fuel and fuel additives 
program. Parties who are already registered do not have to register 
again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \435\ As discussed in section V.I. of this preamble, the use of 
denaturants that are so designated enables DFE manufacturers to use 
streamlined provisions to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 
sulfur requirements for DFE.
    \436\ The provisions for downstream blending of pentane into 
gasoline described in section VI.A.3. will become effective 60 days 
after the publication of this rule and may be used for gasoline 
subject to the Tier 2 program requirements as well as gasoline 
subject to the Tier 3 program requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same basic forms currently being used for existing fuels 
programs will be used for Tier 3 registration. These forms are well 
known in the regulated community and are simple to fill out. Upon 
receipt of a completed registration form, EPA will issue a unique 4-
digit company identification number and a unique 5-digit facility 
identification number. As with existing fuels programs, these numbers 
will be required for all reports sent to EPA and for PTDs.
    Registrations do not expire and do not have to be renewed; however, 
registered parties are responsible for notifying us of any change to 
their company or facility information.
    An entity's registration must include a corporate name and address 
(including the name, telephone number, and email address of a corporate 
contact person); and, for each facility operated by the entity:
     Type of facility (e.g., refinery, import facility, 
pipeline, terminal, transmix facility, etc.)
     Facility name
     Physical location
     Name, telephone number, and email address of a corporate 
contact person
b. Reporting Requirements
    Refiners and importers must submit annual reports demonstrating 
their compliance with the Tier 3 standards, and on the generation, use, 
and transfer of sulfur credits at each of its refineries or import 
facilities. Similar to our other sulfur programs, refiners and 
importers must submit data on individual batches of gasoline (including 
batch volume and sulfur content). Based on our experience with existing 
gasoline and sulfur-based programs, we believe that requiring annual 
reports and individual sulfur batch data provides an effective means of 
monitoring compliance with the standards and the credit program.
    Producers and importers of blender grade pentane for use by pentane 
blenders must also submit annual reports that include data on 
individual batches demonstrating compliance with the quality 
requirements for blender grade pentane and batch volume.
    We proposed that producers and importers of DFE and other 
oxygenates would be required to submit an annual report that includes 
the total volume of DFE/oxygenate produced and an attestation that all 
batches met the proposed fuel quality requirements. We continue to 
believe that such annual reports are important enforcement and 
compliance assurance mechanism and thus are finalizing the proposed 
annual reporting requirements for oxygenate producers and importers.
    Tier 3 reports will be due annually on March 31, on forms as 
required by EPA.
c. Recordkeeping Requirements
    Similar to current EPA fuels programs, refiners and importers must 
retain all records that demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 program, 
including the ABT program.
    Manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates must keep records for 
five years on individual batches of DFE/oxygenate (including batch 
volume,, denaturant concentration, and sulfur test results or other 
records to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 sulfur requirements 
as applicable).\437\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \437\ As discussed in section V.G. of this preamble, DFE 
manufacturers may demonstrate compliance with Tier 3 sulfur 
requirements either by testing each batch or mathematically using 
volumetric blend records and product transfer documents from the 
denaturants used provided such denaturants are from a registered 
denaturant producer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers of ethanol denaturant that is designated as suitable 
for use in the manufacture of DFE that meets federal requirements must 
keep records on individual batches of such denaturant including batch 
volume, and sulfur content.
    Manufacturers of pentane that is designated as suitable for use for 
blending into PCG must keep records on individual batches of such 
pentane including batch volume, sulfur content, benzene content, olefin 
content, aromatic content, C6 and higher hydrocarbon content, and 
purity as applicable.
    Manufacturers of gasoline additives for use in highway vehicles 
must keep records on individual batches of such additives including 
batch volume and additive production quality control activities which 
demonstrate that the sulfur content of additive production batches 
complies with the Tier 3 sulfur requirements. We expect that such 
records would include the results of periodic sulfur testing but not 
necessarily testing on each production batch.

[[Page 23552]]

    All parties in the gasoline, DFE, ethanol denaturant, pentane, and 
gasoline additive production and distribution system subject to the 
Tier 3 sulfur program are also required to keep records of all PTDs and 
records of any quality assurance programs. Records must be retained for 
five years. For credit transactions, records must be retained for five 
years from the usage date. Records must be made available to EPA on 
request; if electronic records are kept, hard copies must be made 
available upon request.
    Information submitted to EPA may be claimed as confidential 
business information (CBI). Parties making such a claim must follow all 
reporting guidance and clearly mark the information being claimed as 
proprietary. EPA will treat information covered by such a claim in 
accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and other Agency 
procedures for handling proprietary information.
2. Sampling and Testing Requirements
    Under the Tier 2 program, a sulfur concentration must be determined 
for every batch of gasoline. We are retaining this requirement under 
the Tier 3 program. As with the existing Tier 2 program, this every-
batch testing requirement will be required to occur prior to the batch 
leaving the refinery. We are also retaining the Tier 2 sampling, 
testing, and sample retention requirements in today's final rule. 
Additionally, as discussed below in Section VI, we have included 
performance based measurement standards that will allow refiners to use 
alternate test methods for measuring sulfur if they so choose.
    We proposed that manufacturers of DFE would be required to test 
each individual batch of DFE for its sulfur content. In response to 
comments, we are finalizing an alternative means for DFE manufacturers 
to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 sulfur requirements in 
addition to per batch testing.\438\ We anticipate that DFE 
manufacturers will typically use this alternative means in the place of 
per batch sulfur testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \438\ The alternative means of demonstrating compliance with the 
Tier 3 sulfur requirements for DFE manufacturers is discussed in 
section V.G. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, manufacturers of additives for use in highway 
gasoline vehicles must maintain records of additive production quality 
control activities which demonstrate that the sulfur content of 
additive production batches complies with the Tier 3 sulfur 
requirements. We expect that periodic sulfur testing will be needed to 
comply with this requirement but not necessarily testing on each 
additive production batch. Manufacturers of pentane that is designated 
as suitable for use by blenders into PCG must test every batch to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements sulfur content, benzene 
content, olefin content, aromatic content, C6 and higher hydrocarbon 
content, and purity as applicable. Blenders of pentane into gasoline 
must conduct periodic sampling and testing of the pentane they receive 
from each separate pentane supplier to demonstrate that the pentaene is 
compliant with the applicable compositional requirements.
3. Small Refiner Compliance
    To qualify for small refiner status under the Tier 3 program, a 
refiner must apply by June 1, 2016. As with our other existing EPA 
fuels programs, we are continuing to use the Small Business 
Administration definition of a small refiner: 1,500 employees (company-
wide). To qualify for small refiner status under Tier 3, a small 
refiner must also meet the following additional criteria:
     The refiner must have produced gasoline from crude oil 
during the 2012 calendar year.
     The refiner must have owned and operated the refinery 
during the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. New 
owners that purchased a refinery after that date will have done so with 
full knowledge of the proposed Tier 3 regulations, and should have 
planned to comply along with their purchase decisions. As with existing 
fuel programs, a refiner that restarts a refinery in the future may be 
eligible for small refiner status. Thus, a refiner restarting a 
refinery that was shut down or non-operational during calendar year 
2012 can apply for small refiner status. In such cases, we will judge 
eligibility under the employment and crude oil capacity criteria based 
on the most recent 12 consecutive months prior to the application, 
unless we conclude from data provided by the refiner that another 
period of time is more appropriate. However, this is limited to a 
company that owned the refinery at the time that it was shut down. New 
purchasers will not be eligible for small refiner status for the same 
reasons described above.
     The refiner must have had 1,500 employees or less based on 
the average number of employees for all pay periods from January 1, 
2012 through December 31, 2012 for all subsidiaries, parent companies 
(i.e., any company or companies with controlling interest), and joint 
ventures.
     The refiner must have had a crude oil capacity less than 
or equal to 155,000 bpcd during the 2012 calendar year.
    A refiner applying for small refiner status must apply and provide 
EPA with several types of information, as specified in the regulations, 
by June 1, 2016. All refiners seeking small refiner status under this 
program must apply for small refiner status, regardless of whether the 
refiner has 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 final rule that are 
later found to contain false or inaccurate information will 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 includes the capacity 
of all refineries controlled by a refiner and by all subsidiaries and 
parent companies and joint ventures. We will presume that the 
information submitted to EIA is correct. (In cases where a company 
disagreed with this information, the company may petition EPA with 
appropriate data to correct the record when the company submitted its 
application for small refiner status. EPA will accept such alternate 
data at its discretion.)
     The name and address of each company location where 
employees worked during the 2012 calendar year; and the number of 
employees at each location during this time period. This includes the 
locations and number of employees working at all subsidiaries, 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, 2012 through 
December 31, 2012, the name and address of each company 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 is true to

[[Page 23553]]

the best of his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery 
as of January 1, 2012.
    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 finalizing provisions that are 
similar to those in our existing fuels programs to allow up to an 
additional 30 months of lead time to comply with the Tier 3 program 
after the disqualifying event, but no later than December 31, 
2019.\439\ This 30 months of additional lead time will only apply to 
refineries that were previously subject to small refiner relief, as we 
believe there will be no adverse environmental impact because of the 
pre-existing relief provisions that applied to the small refiner. A 
refiner will also lose its small refiner status if it ceases to process 
crude oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \439\ See, for example, 69 FR 39051 (June 29, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our intent has been, and continues to be, limiting the small 
refiner relief provisions to a small subset of refiners that are 
challenged, as discussed above. However, it is also our intent to avoid 
stifling normal business growth. Therefore, 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, such 
refiners will be permitted to retain their individual 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 will 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.
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. Small refineries must have a net crude throughput 
threshold of no more than 75,000 bpcd based on the highest throughput 
in calendar years 2011 or 2012 as the basis for receiving small volume 
refinery status.
    Refiners must include the following in their applications for small 
volume refinery status:
     Proof that the refiner produced gasoline from crude oil 
during the 2012 calendar year.
     Proof that the refiner owned and operated the refinery 
during the period from January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
     The refinery's total crude throughput as reported to EIA 
for each of calendar years 2011 and 2012. Again, we will presume that 
the information submitted to EIA is correct. In cases where a refiner 
disagrees with this information, the refiner may petition EPA with 
appropriate data to correct the record when the refiner submits its 
application for small volume refinery status. EPA will 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 is true to the best of 
his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery as of January 
1, 2012.
5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties
    In today's final rule we are retaining the existing 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 currently used in existing EPA fuels 
programs for attest engagements. The violation and penalty provisions 
applicable to today's Tier 3 program will be very similar to the 
provisions currently in effect in other gasoline programs as well.
6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions
    The following paragraphs discuss several provisions and exemptions 
from the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards in special circumstances.
a. Gasoline Used in Military Applications
    In both our diesel fuel program and the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
program, we provided an exemption for 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 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 is also 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), need to be fueled on 
the same fuel as those with an NSE. We are including this exemption in 
the Tier 3 gasoline program.
b. Gasoline Used in Research, Development, and Testing
    Similar to existing EPA fuels programs, we are finalizing 
provisions to allow for 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 Tier 3 program. 
Thus, we are including 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 must 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 may be granted 
at the discretion of EPA, with the condition that EPA can withdraw the 
exemption in the event the Agency determines the exemption is not 
justified. In addition, an exemption based on false or inaccurate 
information will be considered void ab initio. Gasoline subject to an 
exemption will 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.

[[Page 23554]]

c. Gasoline for Export
    Gasoline produced for export, and that is actually exported for use 
in a foreign country, will be considered exempt from the fuel content 
standards and other requirements of the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. 
In order to exclude exported gasoline, refiners must retain records to 
demonstrate that the gasoline was exported. Such gasoline must be 
designated by the refiner, and the PTD must state that the gasoline is 
for ``export only''; otherwise, the gasoline will be considered as 
intended for use in the U.S. and subject to the Tier 3 standards. 
Gasoline intended for export must be segregated from all gasoline 
intended for use in the U.S. Distributing or dispensing such fuel for 
domestic use will be illegal.
d. Other Special Provisions and Exemptions
    Additionally, in existing EPA 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 are 
finalizing such exemptions for the Tier 3 program as well.

G. Standards for Oxygenates (Including Denatured Fuel Ethanol) and 
Certified Ethanol Denaturants

    The following discussion is focused on the standards finalized 
today for denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) because DFE is the predominant 
gasoline oxygenate currently in-use.\440\ These standards also apply to 
other gasoline oxygenates.\441\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \440\ An importer of biofuels commented that EPA should clarify 
that the standards for DFE will apply to importers as well as 
domestic producers. The regulations finalized today specifically 
state that the standards for denatured fuel ethanol apply to 
importers are will as domestic producers of DFE.
    \441\ Public comments supported our proposal to apply the same 
standards to all gasoline oxygenates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Sulfur Standard
    The Tier 2 gasoline requirements include the prohibition on 
blending gasoline with DFE that has sulfur content higher than 30 
ppm.\442\ This requirement reflects the 30 ppm refinery gasoline 
average sulfur requirement under the Tier 2 program. Consistent with 
the approach under the Tier 2 program and our proposed 10 ppm refinery 
average sulfur standard for gasoline under the Tier 3 program, we 
proposed that producers of DFE for use by oxygenate blenders would be 
required to meet a 10 ppm sulfur cap beginning January 1, 2017. We 
proposed requiring DFE producers to test each batch of DFE to 
demonstrate compliance with the sulfur content standard, and to retain 
and provide batch reports to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \442\ 40 CFR 80.385(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) commented that if EPA were to 
accept current industry practices used to assure that DFE is compliant 
with the state of California's 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE in place of 
per-batch sulfur testing and reporting there would be no additional 
burden to ethanol producers in meeting a 10 ppm sulfur cap.\443\ In 
2002, RFA conducted an industry survey that demonstrated DFE 
manufacturers were meeting California's 10 ppm maximum sulfur content 
requirement. Since then, RFA has recommended to the ethanol industry 
that all DFE meet this California requirement and indicated that 
ethanol producers are adhering to this recommendation. Other commenters 
also stated that DFE manufacturers have been producing DFE that 
complies with California specifications because of logistical 
difficulties in segregating ethanol destined for California from other 
destinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \443\ RFA requested regulatory relief from the proposed batch 
testing and reporting requirements as discussed in preamble Section 
V.G.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An environmental organization commented that the proposed 10 ppm 
sulfur cap for DFE was necessary to ensure that the Tier 3 program 
benefits are actually realized. Refiners commented that requiring DFE 
to meet a 10 ppm sulfur cap was essential to facilitating their 
compliance with the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur requirements. In 
demonstrating compliance with the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur 
standard finalized today, gasoline refiners and importers may adjust 
the sulfur levels in the gasoline and BOBs that they produce/import to 
account for the downstream addition of ethanol.\444\ Therefore, the 
sulfur level of DFE has a direct effect on the extent of the 
desulfurization measures that a refiner/importer will have to undertake 
to comply with the gasoline sulfur standards finalized today. A refiner 
commented that if the sulfur standard for DFE was left at its current 
level of 30 ppm, greater capital investments would be needed to adjust 
and lower the sulfur content of other gasoline blending streams to 
prevent violation of the ultimate 10 ppm annual average standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \444\ Accounting for the effect of oxygenate added downstream of 
the refinery or import facility in demonstrating compliance with the 
average gasoline sulfur standard is addressed in regulations 
finalized today at Sec.  80.1603(d). See Section V.C. in today's 
preamble regarding the sulfur level in DFE that must be used by 
refiners and importers in making this compliance determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some ethanol producers and Growth Energy (representing ethanol 
producers) commented that DFE should be subject to an annual average 
sulfur standard and be able to participate in the averaging banking and 
trading (ABT) program that is available to refiners and importers of 
gasoline. Some ethanol producers commented that they should be allowed 
to participate in the ABT program as a means of offsetting the 
additional cost of the proposed per-batch sulfur testing and reporting 
requirements.
    EPA believes that requiring DFE to comply with a 10 ppm sulfur cap 
is the most appropriate means of ensuring that finished gasoline blends 
attain the sulfur control goals of the Tier 3 program. Therefore, 
today's rule finalizes a 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE. Because essentially 
all (if not all) DFE already meets California's 10 ppm sulfur standard, 
EPA believes that the implementation of a federal 10 ppm sulfur cap for 
DFE would not result in a significant increased burden for ethanol 
producers.\445\ Neat ethanol produced with standard quality control 
practices should have negligible sulfur content. Denaturants with 
sufficiently low-sulfur content to facilitate compliance with the 10 
ppm sulfur cap for DFE are widely available. Allowing DFE to exceed 10 
ppm would result in the use of higher-sulfur denaturants, thereby 
increasing gasoline refiner capital costs to install desulfurization 
equipment. As discussed in Section V.D.3 of this preamble, there are 
several reasons why we do not believe that it is appropriate to expand 
the ABT provisions to include ethanol producers and importers. 
Furthermore, as discussed in Section V.G.4, sulfur testing on each 
batch of DFE will not be required provided that the DFE producer or 
importer demonstrates compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE 
with volumetric blending records, whereas an average standard would 
require testing of every batch. We anticipate that DFE producers and 
importers will typically choose to demonstrate compliance with the 10 
ppm sulfur cap using volumetric blending records rather than per-batch 
sulfur testing. Therefore, we do not anticipate that DFE producers and 
importers will need to install additional sulfur testing equipment as a 
result of today's rule. Hence, there is no need to extend the 
flexibility of meeting an annual average sulfur standard and 
participation in the ABT program to

[[Page 23555]]

ethanol producers and importers to help facilitate their compliance as 
exists for gasoline refiners.\446\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \445\ The potential for additional burden associated with 
demonstrating compliance with a 10 ppm sulfur cap is discussed in 
Section V.G.4.
    \446\ See Section V.D.3. of this preamble for additional 
discussion of why we are not extending the sulfur averaging, 
banking, and trading program to cover DFE manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments were supportive of the proposed January 1, 2017 
implementation date for standards applicable to DFE. Today's action 
requires that importers and manufacturers of DFE comply with the 
standards finalized today beginning January 1, 2017.
2. Limitation on the Type of Ethanol Denaturant
    To limit the variability in DFE composition and the associated 
potential impact on vehicle emissions, we proposed to allow the use of 
only certified gasoline, gasoline blendstocks for oxygenate blending 
(BOBs), and natural gasoline as denaturants. Commenters stated that it 
would be unnecessary to place additional limits on the types of 
denaturants that could be used beyond those in the ASTM specification 
for DFE. Groups representing refiners stated that EPA had not presented 
data to support that additional limitations on the types of denaturants 
that can be used (or the allowed concentrations at which they may be 
used) are needed beyond those adopted by ASTM and the State of 
California to address concerns about the potential adverse impacts on 
vehicle emissions performance. The ASTM specification for DFE requires 
that the only denaturants that can be used are gasoline, gasoline 
blendstocks, and natural gasoline. The State of California incorporated 
the ASTM limits on allowable denaturants into its regulations for DFE 
by reference.\447\ Thus, both ASTM and the State of California allow 
the use of gasoline blendstocks other than BOBs as denaturants. One 
refiner stated that DFE producers have used refinery gasoline 
blendstocks such as ``light straight run'' and ``light naphtha'' as 
denaturants and that removing this flexibility would increase DFE 
production costs. They noted that access to this flexibility could 
become more important under a 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE. In addition to 
needing to preserve the flexibility to use a range of gasoline 
blendstocks, ethanol manufacturers stated that EPA should consider the 
possibility of approving denaturants that are not currently allowed 
under the ASTM specification for DFE. One refiner stated that ASTM is 
the appropriate technical forum for the consideration of adding new 
allowable denaturants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \447\ The California Code of Regulations references ASTM D 4806-
99 which limits the allowed denaturants to gasoline, gasoline 
components, and natural gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate to implement 
additional controls to address the potential impact of fuel components 
in denaturants other than sulfur on vehicle emissions. However, we 
agree with the comments that it is not appropriate to implement 
additional controls on the types of denaturants that may be used beyond 
those currently adopted by ASTM and the State of California at this 
time. Therefore, in response to comments, today's rule includes the 
requirement that only gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and natural 
gasoline may be used to denature DFE.\448\ This requirement is 
essentially the same as the current ASTM and State of California 
specifications for the type of denaturants that may be used. We will 
continue to monitor the potential need for additional controls on 
ethanol denaturants, and may revisit this issue in the context of 
setting in-use quality specifications for E85 in the future.\449\ We 
will also continue to monitor the need for additional denaturants, and 
when appropriate EPA may undertake a future rulemaking to consider 
allowing their use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \448\ Finished gasoline used as denaturant must be compliant 
with the applicable EPA requirements.
    \449\ See Section V.H. for a discussion of potential FFV in-use 
fuel quality requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section V.G.4, in order for DFE producers and 
importers to take advantage of streamlined provisions for demonstrating 
compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE, they must only use 
denaturants from registered producers that have been demonstrated as 
meeting EPA compositional requirements. Denaturants from unregistered 
denaturant producers may be used by DFE producers provided that they 
test each batch of DFE to demonstrate compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur 
cap for DFE.
3. Limitation on Ethanol Denaturant Concentration
    To further limit the potential impact on vehicle emissions of fuel 
parameters in ethanol denaturants other than sulfur, we proposed to 
limit denaturant concentration in DFE to a maximum of 2 volume percent, 
which translates to 2.5 volume percent considering rounding. We also 
requested comment on alternately adopting the additional fuel 
specifications currently in force for DFE in the State of California. 
While California allows a maximum denaturant content of 5 volume 
percent consistent with the industry consensus ASTM International 
(ASTM) specification for DFE, they also have maximum specifications for 
benzene, olefins, and aromatics as well as sulfur.\450\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \450\ California Code of Regulations 13 CCR section 2262.9. ASTM 
International D4806-13a, ``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel 
Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of refiners and ethanol manufacturers stated that it was 
unnecessary to limit denaturant concentration beyond the 5 volume 
percent specified by ASTM. Ethanol manufacturers stated that the RFS2 
program requirement that DFE contain no more than 2 volume percent 
denaturant for Renewable Identification Number (RIN) generation 
purposes already provides a strong incentive to keep denaturant 
concentration under 2 percent.\451\ However, they stated that the 
flexibility to have a slightly higher denaturant content can be 
important to ethanol producers. One ethanol producer stated that the 
proposed maximum 2 volume percent cap on denaturant concentration would 
provide insufficient tolerance given that the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 
and Trade Bureau requires a 1.96 percent minimum denaturant 
concentration.\452\ They stated that EPA should provide a more 
reasonable tolerance to avoid inadvertent compliance issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \451\ This RFS2 program provision is covered under the 
definition of renewable fuel/ethanol in 40 CFR 80.1401. The volume 
of denaturant used in excess of 2 volume percent must be subtracted 
from the total volume of DFE for RIN generation purposes.
    \452\ Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau formulas require 
a minimum of two parts of approved denaturant to 100 parts of 
ethanol with a minimum of 195 proof ethanol.: 27 CFR Subpart X, 
Distilled Spirits for Fuel Use; ASTM International D4806-13a, 
``Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending 
with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of refiners stated that the current 5 volume percent 
maximum on denaturant concentration established by ASTM would limit 
concerns regarding components other than sulfur so that they would be 
unlikely to impact vehicle emissions performance. One refiner stated 
that EPA should adopt the entire California specifications for DFE in 
order to address concerns about potential emissions impacts of fuel 
components in denaturants other than sulfur. They stated that this 
would not impose an additional burden on DFE producers since logistical 
difficulties in segregating ethanol destined for California from other 
destinations has already caused producers to DFE to California 
specifications.

[[Page 23556]]

    Since we are not finalizing benzene, olefin, or aromatics 
specifications for ethanol denaturants like California, we continue to 
believe that it is appropriate to implement a more stringent limit on 
maximum denaturant concentration to address concerns about the 
potential impact on vehicle emissions of fuel parameters in ethanol 
denaturants other than sulfur. Setting a more stringent limit on 
denaturant concentration will ensure that harmful components such as 
benzene potentially present in ethanol denaturants are adequately 
diluted in the finished fuel blend. We agree with comments that it is 
appropriate to provide additional flexibility for the allowable 
denaturant levels that may be used. Therefore, we are finalizing a 3.0 
volume percent maximum on ethanol denaturant concentration. This 
approach provides sufficient flexibility to DFE producers while 
avoiding the need to impose additional testing burdens on denaturant 
and DFE producers (e.g., for benzene and aromatics). We will consider 
whether additional controls may be needed for mid-level ethanol blends 
and E85 in a later action.
4. Demonstration of Compliance With the Sulfur Requirements and 
Requirements for Certified Ethanol Denaturants
    To demonstrate compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur cap finalized 
today, we proposed that producers and importers of DFE would be 
required to test the sulfur content of each batch of DFE they produce. 
We also proposed that DFE producers would be required to provide batch 
records to EPA on an annual basis. We requested comment on whether to 
require producers of denaturants for use in DFE to register with EPA 
and to demonstrate compliance with a maximum sulfur specification based 
on the anticipated dilution with ethanol.
    Refiners stated that producers of DFE should be subject to 
requirements similar to those for gasoline refiners including batch 
sampling. However, refiners stated there would be no added value in 
requiring batch reports from DFE producers. Ethanol producers currently 
use certificates of sulfur analysis from denaturant producers and 
volumetric DFE blending records to assure themselves that when a sample 
of DFE is tested by the State of California that it will be found to be 
compliant with a 10 ppm sulfur cap.\453\ They stated that EPA should 
accept such records to demonstrate compliance with the federal 10 ppm 
sulfur cap for DFE in place of per-batch sulfur testing on DFE. Under 
this approach, ethanol producers would maintain records regarding the 
denaturant sulfur content and the calculations used to determine the 
sulfur content of the finished DFE. Because the sulfur content of neat 
(un-denatured) ethanol manufactured using industry standard quality 
control practices should be negligible, the sulfur content of DFE is 
effectively determined by the sulfur content of denaturant used.\454\ 
Ethanol producers stated that they would also perform standard quality 
assurance activities including sampling incoming shipments of 
denaturant for sulfur content on a periodic basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \453\ The State of California does not rely on industry testing 
and recordkeeping to help establish compliance with their sulfur 
requirements for DFE, instead choosing to focus on direct testing 
that they conduct. EPA relies on the review of industry records 
including those associated with tesing conducted by industry as well 
as direct testing conducted by EPA for compliance assurance.
    \454\ Ethanol manufacturers conduct periodic sulfate testing on 
neat ethanol to ensure that sulfur contamination from the 
manufacturing process is negligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ethanol producers stated that many DFE production facilities do not 
have on site sulfur testing equipment and the installation of such 
equipment would represent a substantial burden to DFE producers. 
Ethanol producers stated that they had worked with denaturant producers 
to ensure access to a low-sulfur stream of denaturants, and that it is 
common business practice for denaturant producers to provide them with 
information on the sulfur content of their product. Ethanol producers 
stated that sulfur test results from the ASTM Inter-laboratory 
Crosscheck Program (ILCP) for DFE illustrate that batch reporting for 
DFE is unnecessary. They noted that the ILCP data shows DFE typically 
has sulfur content of 1 to 5 ppm.
    Ethanol producers stated that requiring denaturant manufacturers to 
register with EPA would limit the number of denaturant suppliers 
willing to supply the ethanol industry. They stated that it is 
inappropriate to require a natural gasoline producer to register in 
order to supply product for DFE, because they are not required to 
register in order to supply the same product to a gasoline blender.
    EPA agrees that is appropriate to finalize requirements for the 
demonstration of compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE that are 
based on current industry practices rather than requiring sulfur 
testing on each batch of DFE.\455\ We agree that that potential 
contribution to the sulfur content of DFE other than from the addition 
of denaturants can be adequately addressed by the retention of 
production quality control records by the ethanol manufacturer. We 
agree that it is most appropriate to place the primary focus of 
compliance assurance on the denaturant manufacturers given the 
denaturant typically contributes the majority of the sulfur to the 
finished DFE. Therefore, we are finalizing streamlined provisions that 
DFE producers and importers may use in demonstrating compliance with 
the 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE as an alternative to testing each batch 
of DFE for its sulfur content. These streamlined provisions are based 
on the use of denaturant batch sulfur testing conducted by denaturant 
producers who have registered with EPA and certified the denaturant 
they produce as meeting EPA requirements.\456\ Uncertified denaturants 
from unregistered denaturant producers may be used by DFE producers 
provided that they test each batch of DFE to demonstrate compliance 
with the 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE.\457\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \455\ Per-batch sulfur testing for other potential oxygenates 
will be required to demonstrate compliance with the 10 ppm sulfur 
cap. EPA may consider amending the requirements for other potential 
oxygenates in a later rulemaking based on additional information 
that we might receive.
    \456\ Certified denaturant producers and importers will be 
required to register with EPA as a certified denaturant producer or 
importer by November 1, 2016, or 60 days before introducing 
certified denaturant into commerce, whichever is earlier.
    \457\ The limitation on the types of denaturants that may be 
used and the maximum concentration at which a denaturant may be used 
discussed in Section V.G.2 and 3 would apply regardless of whether a 
denaturant from a registered or non-registered denaturant 
manufacture are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DFE manufacturers that use denaturants that have been certified and 
designated on the denaturant product transfer document (PTD) as 
suitable for use in the manufacture of DFE that meets federal 
requirements will be able use PTDs for the denaturants used and 
volumetric blending records which show that the denaturant was added at 
3.0 volume percent or less in demonstrating compliance with the 10 ppm 
sulfur cap for DFE in lieu of per-batch sulfur testing of DFE. The 
sulfur content of ``neat'' (i.e. un-denatured) ethanol may be assumed 
to be negligible for the purposes of demonstration of compliance using 
volumetric blending records provided that the DFE manufacturer 
maintains quality control records that demonstrate this assumption is 
justified. Today's rule also requires that DFE manufacturers conduct 
quality assurance to demonstrate affirmative defenses to

[[Page 23557]]

presumptive liability.\458\ Producers and importers of DFE must 
initiate a PTD to accompany each batch of DFE which states that it 
meets federal standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \458\ Such quality assurance practices include periodic 
calibration of the denaturant blending equipment to ensure that 
denaturants are not added in excess of 3.0 volume percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Denaturant manufacturers are accustomed to providing certificates 
of sulfur analysis to DFE manufacturers. Therefore, we believe that the 
requirements finalized today for denaturant manufacturers to conduct 
per-batch sulfur testing, initiate a product transfer document stating 
that denaturant is suitable for use in manufacturing DFE that meets 
federal requirements, retain records, and register with EPA will not 
represent a substantial new burden. DFE manufacturers who use the 
mathematical method to demonstrate compliance with DFE sulfur 
requirements must only use certified denaturants from registered 
denaturant manufacturers. Registering with EPA will be a one-time act, 
as will be the necessary modifications to denaturant product transfer 
documents. Thus, the requirement to register with EPA should not be a 
serious impediment for a manufacturer to enter the denaturant supply 
market. We believe that it is necessary to require denaturant 
manufacturers to register with EPA in order to facilitate compliance 
oversight. EPA needs to be able to identify all manufacturers of 
denaturants in order to periodically audit their records, and to 
recognize potential denaturants in the system that are incorrectly 
designated as a certified denaturant appropriate for use in 
manufacturing DFE that meets federal sulfur requirements. Denaturant 
manufacturers that supply their product to refiners for use in the 
manufacture of gasoline are not required to register with EPA because, 
unlike the DFE manufacturers, refiners are responsible for testing the 
final gasoline they produce.
    As is current practice today, we anticipate that ethanol 
manufacturers will negotiate the specific sulfur level they require 
from denaturant manufacturers to facilitate compliance with the 10 ppm 
sulfur cap for DFE taking into consideration what level of compliance 
margin a given manufacturer feels is necessary. We believe that it is 
appropriate to allow this practice to continue. We understand that 
ethanol manufacturers currently require denaturant manufacturers to 
provide a product with a sulfur content of 120 ppm or less in order to 
ensure that DFE that contains 5 volume percent denaturant can comply 
with California's 10 ppm sulfur cap for DFE. Thus, we expect that 
denaturant manufacturers will not need to change the sulfur content of 
the denaturant they manufacture in order to comply with the 
requirements finalized today.
    Manufacturers of certified denaturants used by DFE producers that 
employ the volumetric blending record method in demonstrating 
compliance with the sulfur requirements for DFE must retain per batch 
sulfur test data on the denaturants they produce to demonstrate that 
the sulfur content of the denaturant will not cause the sulfur content 
of DFE to exceed 10 ppm when added to neat ethanol at 3.0 volume 
percent. The sulfur content of the certified denaturant must be stated 
on the PTD and must be no greater that 330 ppm. Any sample of 
denaturant which is designated as appropriate for use in manufacturing 
DFE that meets federal requirements, that is found by EPA to have 
sulfur content above 330 ppm will be deemed to be noncompliant, and the 
denaturant manufacturer may be liable for the associated penalties. A 
denaturant with a sulfur content of 330 ppm when used at 3.0 volume 
percent would result in a sulfur content of the finished DFE of 10 ppm. 
Certified denaturant manufacturers may represent the denaturant they 
produce as having a sulfur content of less then 330 ppm on the PTD. In 
such cases, the denaturant batch must not exceed the sulfur content 
stated on the PTD.
    We continue to believe that annual reports from oxygenate producers 
are important enforcement and compliance assurance tool. Therefore, we 
are finalizing the requirement that producers and importers of DFE and 
other oxygenates must register with EPA as and oxygenate producer or 
importer and submit annual reports to EPA that include the total volume 
of DFE/oxygenate produced and an attestation that all batches met the 
proposed fuel quality requirements.\459\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \459\ Oxygenate producers and importers will be required to 
register with EPA as an oxygenate producer or importer by November 
1, 2016, or 60 days before introducing certified denaturant into 
commerce, whichever is earlier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Additional Requirements for Denatured Fuel Ethanol, Ethanol 
Denaturants, and Other Gasoline Oxygenates
    We are finalizing regulatory text to clarify that DFE and other 
gasoline oxygenates must be composed solely of carbon, hydrogen, 
oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. Manufacturers of denaturants that are 
designated as suitable for use in the manufacture of DFE that meets 
federal requirements will also be required to attest that the 
denaturant is composed solely of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, 
and sulfur.
    Producers and importers of gasoline oxygenates, producers and 
importers of denaturants designated as suitable for manufacturing DFE 
meeting federal sulfur requirements, fuel distributors, and oxygenate 
blenders will be required to maintain the applicable records for 5 
years and provide them to EPA upon request.

H. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles

    Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are vehicles that are capable of 
operating on both gasoline and gasoline blends containing up to 83 
volume percent ethanol. Ethanol fuel blends that contain from 51 and 83 
volume percent ethanol (E51-83) have historically been referred to as 
``E85'' in reference to the maximum allowed content of denatured 
ethanol assuming a 2 percent denaturant concentration.\460\ Fuel blends 
that contain from 16 to 50 percent ethanol (E16-50) are sometimes 
referred to as mid-level ethanol blends. Both E51-83 and E16-50 are 
currently used only in FFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \460\ Industry consensus standards for E51-83 are described in 
ASTM International D5798-13, ``Standard Specification for Ethanol 
Fuel Blends for Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or any 
level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission performance the 
vehicles still need fuel that meets certain quality specifications, 
such as the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard finalized today. We 
anticipate that the use of higher level ethanol blends in FFVs will 
continue to increase in the future as the RFS program continues to be 
implemented. 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.\461\ Therefore it 
is becoming increasingly important that all fuels used in FFVs, not 
just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. The lack of separate fuel 
quality 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

[[Page 23558]]

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) \462\ (i.e., contain only carbon, 
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) apply to any fuel used in an 
FFV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \461\ The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a program to 
assist in the funding for the installation of as many as 10,000 
ethanol blender pumps over the next 15 years in rural areas. Growth 
Energy has a ``Blend Your Own Ethanol'' program to encourage the 
installation of ethanol blender pumps.
    \462\ 73 FR 22277, 22281 (April 25, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our various standards for gasoline currently 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.\463\ As a result, our gasoline standards 
currently apply to E16-50 ethanol blends. However, additional 
regulatory provisions could be useful to facilitate compliance 
assurance if we are to continue to treat such mid-level ethanol blends 
as gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \463\ 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The existing requirement that E51-83 must be substantially similar 
(sub-sim) to the vehicle certification test fuel has provided a limited 
measure of control over in-use E51-83 fuel quality. The finalization of 
specifications for FFV exhaust emission test fuel in today's action 
will provide improved clarity regarding what constitutes sub-sim for 
in-use E51-83. However, these specifications are not sufficient to 
provide clarity as to what is considered sub-sim for E51-83. For 
example, E51-83 manufactured using only gasoline, gasoline blendstocks 
for oxygenate blending (BOBs), a limited volume of butane that meets 
the standards for downstream blending into gasoline, and denatured fuel 
ethanol that meets the standards finalized today would clearly be sub-
sim. However, use of natural gasoline may or may not result in an E51-
83 blend that is sub-sim. In addition to the need for additional 
clarity regarding what constitutes sub-sim for E51-83, standards for 
sulfur, benzene, and RVP are needed to ensure fuel quality supports the 
attainment of our environmental goals.
    At proposal, we sought comment on appropriate regulatory mechanisms 
to implement in-use quality standards for E51-83 and E16-50. We 
requested specific comment on possible approaches, including draft 
regulations, which were described in detail in a memorandum to the 
docket.\464\ The draft regulations contained fuel quality 
specifications for E51-83 and two options that E51-83 manufacturers 
could use to demonstrate compliance. We sought comment on whether the 
Agency should continue to treat E16-50 as gasoline and on the need to 
clarify existing regulations on the meaning of gasoline as any fuel 
that contains 50 percent or more gasoline. Given that E16-50 can only 
be used in FFVs, we also sought comment on whether to amend the 
regulations to treat E16-50 as an alternative fuel. If EPA were to 
treat E16-50 as an alternative fuel rather than gasoline, we sought 
comment on whether we should take the same approach for E16-50 as 
detailed in the draft regulations for E51-83 with respect to sulfur, 
benzene, RVP standards, and substantially similar requirements under 
CAA section 211(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \464\ Possible Approach to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used 
in Flexible-Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), 
Memorandum to the docket, Jeff Herzog, April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comments in support of and against our proposal. The 
vast majority of comments supported the need for EPA to promulgate in-
use quality standards for these higher level ethanol blends. We also 
received a number of detailed productive comments on the draft 
regulations. A number of stakeholders also expressed their willingness 
to work with EPA to provide supplementary information on issues that 
were not addressed at proposal and not contained in their comments. At 
this time, we acknowledge that additional work is needed on some issues 
and we note that such work could not be accommodated within the 
timeline for this Tier 3 final rule. Therefore, we are deferring final 
action on these provisions at this time. We will continue to work with 
stakeholders in developing in-use fuel quality standards for higher 
level ethanol blends following the publication of this final rule. 
Subsequently, we may issue a supplementary proposal prior to issuing a 
final rule if the additional information we receive from stakeholders 
warrants such an action.

I. Sulfur Standards for Purity Butane and Purity Pentane Streams 
Blended into Gasoline

    Under the Tier 2 gasoline program, ``purity'' butane blended into 
gasoline downstream of the refinery is subject to a 30 ppm sulfur cap 
and other specifications regarding its composition.\465\ This is 
consistent with the 30 ppm refinery average sulfur standard under the 
Tier 2 program. Today's action finalizes the proposed 10 ppm sulfur cap 
for purity butane blended into gasoline effective January 1, 2017. This 
is consistent with the Tier 3 10 ppm refinery average sulfur 
specification finalized today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \465\ 40 CFR 80.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section VI.A.4 in today's preamble, we are 
finalizing provisions to allow ``purity'' pentane to be blended into 
gasoline downstream of the refinery that are similar to the existing 
provisions for butane blending. This allowance will become effective 
June 27, 2014. Until December 31, 2016, a 30 ppm sulfur cap will apply 
to purity pentane blended into gasoline consistent with the existing 
sulfur cap for purity butane under the Tier 2 program.\466\ Beginning 
January 1, 2017, a 10 ppm sulfur cap will apply to purity pentane 
blended into gasoline consistent with the butane sulfur standard 
finalized today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \466\ Other requirements regarding the composition of purity 
pentane will also apply that are similar to those for purity butane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Butane blenders commented that a significant fraction of butane and 
pentane might be expected to have sulfur content in excess of 10 ppm 
after the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur requirements become effective. To 
maintain a stable and adequate supply of butane and pentane for 
downstream RVP trimming, butane blenders requested that EPA adopt a 10 
ppm sulfur average cap with a 30 ppm sulfur cap.\467\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \467\ RVP trimming refers to the practice of adding a limited 
amount of butane/pentane to previously certified gasoline at a 
terminal so that the finished gasoline is closer to the maximum 
applicable volatility standard (summer or winter) than can be 
attained at the refinery level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Butane and pentane have an inherently low sulfur content that can 
be made to meet a 10 ppm sulfur cap with relatively mild 
desulfurization techniques. We anticipate that butane and pentane 
suppliers will desulfurize these blendstocks to well below 10 ppm 
sulfur as part of their response to the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur 
requirements. Therefore, we believe that allowing butane and pentane 
used for RVP trimming to exceed a 10 ppm sulfur cap would needlessly 
complicate compliance assurance and defer some of benefits of the Tier 
3 sulfur requirements.

J. Standards for CNG and LPG

    The vehicle emissions standards finalized today are fuel neutral 
(i.e., they are applicable regardless of the type of fuel that the 
vehicle is designed to use). There currently are no sulfur standards 
for the fuel used in compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane 
gas (LPG) vehicles. We requested comment on whether it is necessary for 
EPA to establish sulfur standards for CNG and LPG to enable them 
meeting more stringent vehicle

[[Page 23559]]

emissions standards, and whether a 15 ppm sulfur cap similar to that 
established for highway diesel fuel would be appropriate. Comment was 
also requested on whether and how to address the sulfur contribution 
from odorants and other additives used in CNG and LPG.
    We received comments in support of and against EPA establishing 
sulfur standards for CNG and LPG and whether such standards are 
necessary to enable CNG and LPG vehicles to meet the vehicle emissions 
standards finalized today.\468\ In addition, some commenters stated 
that EPA should not establish new sulfur standards for in-use CNG and 
LPG fuels until additional data is available on current sulfur levels, 
and the feasibility/costs associated with potential additional sulfur 
controls have been evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \468\ See Chapter 5.8. in the Summary and Analysis of Comments 
Document that accompanies this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is deferring finalizing in-use sulfur requirements for CNG/LPG 
in this final rule to provide additional time to work with stakeholders 
to collect data on current CNG/LPG sulfur content, to determine whether 
additional control of in-use CNG/LPG sulfur content is needed, and to 
evaluate the feasibility and costs associated with potential additional 
sulfur controls. Given that the information currently available 
suggests already low sulfur levels in CNG/LPG, the vehicle emissions 
standards finalized today will apply to CNG/LPG vehicles in addition to 
vehicles fueled on gasoline, diesel fuel, or any other fuel.\469\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \469\ Several commenters provided information on CNG and LPG 
sulfur levels as discussed in the Summary and Analysis of Comments 
associated with this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions

    EPA recognized when it proposed the Tier 3 fuel program that it is 
important to the success of the Tier 3 fuel program that refineries be 
able to obtain air permits, if needed, in time to complete the 
modifications necessary to comply with the proposed gasoline sulfur 
program. Accordingly, to help inform the public and obtain comment on 
this topic, a section of the preamble to the proposed rule presented 
background information on air permitting requirements and programs. 
That information is not repeated in full here. Based on our preliminary 
assessment of the proposed rule's implications for needed refinery 
modifications, we estimated at the time of our proposal that only a 
small percentage of refineries would likely need to make modifications 
that would trigger a requirement to obtain air permits. Moreover, we 
anticipated that these permit applications would be processed quickly 
enough that air permitting would not be a significant obstacle to 
timely compliance with the proposed gasoline sulfur program. We 
continue to anticipate that there will be no such obstacle.
    Based on our final assessment, which takes into consideration 
updated information on current refinery configurations and operations 
and refineries' future plans as well as the requirements and 
flexibilities in the final Tier 3 fuel program, we believe that under 
the final Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard from a low of four to a high 
of nine refineries would need major source NSR permits, which includes 
nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) and/or Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) permits. This estimate equates to approximately 
four to eight percent of the 108 refineries projected to sell gasoline 
that will be subject to the Tier 3 standards. The number of refineries 
needing major source NSR permits could be even lower if refineries 
apply emission controls to reduce emissions increases below the 
significance levels applicable to affected pollutants or if they ``net 
out'' of NSR for the affected pollutants. As stated above, EPA 
continues to anticipate that permit applications associated with 
refinery changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 fuel program will be 
processed quickly enough that air permitting will not be a significant 
obstacle to timely compliance with the gasoline sulfur program.
1. Proposal
    In the proposed rule, we stated our anticipation that the types of 
changes (both physical and operational) 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 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 anticipated that a small number of refineries had the 
potential to experience emissions increases to meet the proposed 
gasoline sulfur standard that are large enough to trigger major NSR 
(Nonattainment NSR and/or PSD). This small number of refineries 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 did 
not anticipate that the time frames required for the small number of 
affected refineries to obtain any needed NSR and/or PSD permits would 
present an obstacle to timely compliance with the proposed Tier 3 
gasoline sulfur requirements.
    In the proposal we also discussed a number of concepts that might 
facilitate more expeditious permitting where it is required as a result 
of refinery changes needed to meet the new requirements. That 
discussion was based primarily on concepts that had arisen during the 
earlier Tier 2 fuel program. That discussion is not repeated here. We 
invited public comment on those concepts.
2. Updated Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting 
Implications
    EPA has updated our refinery-by-refinery assessment of the physical 
and operational changes that are likely to be needed to allow each 
active refinery in the U.S. to produce gasoline that complies with the 
final Tier 3 fuel specifications. We have also assessed the likely 
effects of those changes on refinery emissions. This updated assessment 
is described in more detail in the final RIA. Using this updated 
assessment, we were able to update our understanding of the potential 
scope of the major NSR permitting requirements refiners might face 
under the final 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.
    In our updated analysis, we adjusted the analysis to reflect the 
existence of a nationwide average, banking, and trading (ABT) program 
and refined our estimates regarding the physical and operational 
changes that will be required at each refinery (as described in the 
final 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 
updated projections of refinery-specific changes, we re-estimated the 
increased demand for energy (i.e., fuel to generate process heat, 
steam, and electricity), hydrogen, and sulfur recovery associated with 
meeting the final Tier 3 standards.

[[Page 23560]]

Having received no comments suggesting that they should be changed, we 
re-applied the 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.
    We determined upper and lower bounds for emissions increases 
resulting from changes necessary to meet the final Tier 3 gasoline 
sulfur specification. We did not have sufficient detailed information 
to predict which refineries would find it most profitable to generate 
additional electrical power and hydrogen 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 and hydrogen, 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 high 
and low 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.
    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 
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 high case are presented 
here. More detailed results as well as the underlying methodology used 
in the permitting analysis are described in the final RIA for this 
rulemaking. In general terms, we found that for the low case only about 
one-half the number of refineries were estimated to trigger major NSR 
as were estimated for the high case.
    We found that under the high case, nine refineries appeared likely 
to have significant emissions increases for one or more pollutants and 
thus would trigger major NSR.\470\ This estimate equates to 
approximately eight percent of the 108 refineries projected to sell 
gasoline that will be subject to the Tier 3 standards. Of these nine 
refineries, we predicted that three refineries would need major source 
permits for NAAQS-related pollutants and their precursors (PSD and/or 
Nonattainment NSR) and for GHGs (results for GHG are discussed below). 
Thus, we believe that under the final Tier 3 program only about three 
refineries may 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \470\ Because state requirements regarding minor NSR permitting 
vary and we do not expect minor NSR permitting programs to be a 
significant challenge for refinery modification projects, we did not 
attempt to estimate how many of the remaining refineries might need 
to obtain minor NSR permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All three refineries just described as potentially needing NSR 
permits for NAAQS pollutants are also projected to need PSD permits for 
GHGs. In addition to these three refineries, we estimated that six 
other refineries may require a PSD permit addressing only GHG emissions 
from new or modified equipment that is part of the project. For these 
nine refineries, BACT would have to 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 are likely to modify or add to meet the final Tier 3 standards 
will generally be sufficient to satisfy BACT requirements for GHG 
emissions in terms of achievability, cost-effectiveness, and energy-
efficiency even absent the requirement to obtain a permit, meaning that 
having to demonstrate that BACT is in place would not necessitate any 
shift in project design or cause increased 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, some of the 
new or modified equipment expected to be involved in refinery projects 
designed to meet the final Tier 3 standards are fuel combustion units 
(e.g., process heaters). Because fuel cost (direct cost in the case of 
purchased natural gas and opportunity cost in the case of refinery-
generated fuel gas) represents a significant component of total 
operating cost for such units, refineries will strive to maximize 
energy efficiency based on available technologies as part of their 
project design.
    In 2010, EPA issued a white paper on available and emerging 
technologies for reducing GHGs from the petroleum refining 
industry.\471\ This white paper addresses the types of equipment 
expected to be involved in projects designed to meet the final 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 for meeting BACT requirements, and we do 
not expect that in the time frame associated with Tier 3-related 
projects, add-on controls would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \471\ See ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 will also be required. Significantly, no air quality modeling 
of GHGs will be required, and thus there would be no need to obtain 
extensive input information on

[[Page 23561]]

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.
    On March 22, 2012, the President issued Executive Order 13604 (EO 
13604), Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of 
Infrastructure Projects. EO 13604 states that federal permitting and 
review processes must provide a transparent, consistent, and 
predictable path for both project sponsors and affected communities, 
and that a number of described elements must be incorporated into 
routine agency practices to provide improvements in the performance of 
federal permitting processes.
    Under the EO, EPA has adopted a plan identifying the permitting and 
review processes that EPA views as most critical to significantly 
reduce the aggregate time required to make permitting and review 
decisions on infrastructure projects while improving outcomes for 
communities and the environment, and describing specific and measurable 
actions the agency will take to improve these processes.\472\ With 
regard to permitting under the Clean Air Act, this plan stated EPA's 
intention to issue a guidance memorandum by the end of 2012 to apply to 
PSD permits issued by EPA and by state or local agencies with delegated 
authority from EPA, aimed at clarifying expectations and 
responsibilities regarding the timely processing of permit applications 
by an EPA Regional Office or delegated agency. This memorandum was 
subsequently issued on October 15, 2012.\473\ EPA Regional Offices 
serving as the permitting authorities for refineries making 
modifications as part of the Tier 3 program will be guided by the 
memorandum. The memorandum also recommends that other permitting 
authorities consider following the approaches outlined in the 
memorandum where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \472\ The U.S. EPA Plan for Modernizing Federal Permitting and 
Review Pursuant to EO 13604, August 9, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/epainnov/pdf/eo-infrastructure-epa-final-plan.pdf
    \473\ Timely Processing of Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) Permits when EPA or a PSD-Delegated Air Agency 
Issues the Permit, Stephen D. Page to Regional Air Division 
Directors, October 15, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/timely.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Comments and Responses
    Several oil industry commenters expressed doubt about whether EPA's 
prediction of the small number of refineries that would need GHG 
permits was realistic. Commenters generally stated that permits for the 
modifications needed to comply with the Tier 3 requirements should be 
issued expeditiously. Some industry commenters expressed doubt that 
this would be the case, noting what they characterized as the slow pace 
at which GHG permits have been issued since the requirement for GHG 
permitting became effective. One oil industry commenter suggested that 
Tier 3-related modifications be completely exempt from permitting if 
they would not increase refinery capacity by more than 10 percent. No 
other specific suggestions for streamlining were submitted. 
Environmental groups commented that any efforts to streamline 
permitting should not relax the substantive requirements to get a 
permit.
    The final rule does not establish any new flexibilities or 
exceptions to current permitting regulations. On an ongoing basis, EPA 
continues to consider ways to streamline the permitting process 
consistent with CAA requirements and goals. EPA has concluded that only 
a small number of refineries appear to have the potential of triggering 
major source permitting as a result of modifications needed to meet the 
Tier 3 fuel program, given the flexibilities provided by the final 
program in terms of when modifications must be in place in order to 
achieve compliance. There were no industry comments that demonstrated a 
specific reason for concern about permitting implications on a broad 
scale.
    The Response to Comment Document includes a fuller summary of the 
comments on refinery permitting implications and the EPA responses to 
these comments.

L. 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.B). Based on information gathered from 
numerous stakeholder meetings and discussions with vendor companies 
that provide the gasoline desulfurization technologies both before and 
after the proposal, as well as the results from our refinery-by-
refinery modeling, we believe it is technologically feasible at a 
reasonable cost for refiners to meet the sulfur standards in the lead 
time provided. A summary of our feasibility analysis is presented 
below. For more on our feasibility and cost assessments and the 
refinery modeling that supports them, refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of the 
RIA.
1. Comments Received
    We received a number of comments on the proposed rule regarding 
feasibility and lead time. Commenters in the refining industry 
generally stated that they believe that the amount of lead time 
proposed is not sufficient. These commenters noted concerns that the 
short lead time proposed would drive up costs as there would be 
unscheduled shut-downs to install and/or revamp equipment to meet the 
Tier 3 sulfur standard, and would not provide enough time for the 
permitting process. These commenters requested at least five years of 
lead time, and noted that EPA has historically provided at least four 
years of lead time in previous fuels rulemakings. Commenters in the 
auto industry, as well as states and non-governmental organizations 
(NGOs), encouraged us to finalize the rule as soon as possible and to 
retain the January 1, 2017 start date to harmonize our program with 
California's LEVIII program and to enable Tier 3 benefits as soon as 
possible. As discussed in more detail below, we believe the amount of 
lead time provided is sufficient, especially given the flexibilities 
being provided. A complete discussion on the comments received with 
regard to lead time can be found in Chapter 5 of the Summary and 
Analysis of Comments document.
2. Is it feasible for refiners to comply with a 10 ppm average sulfur 
standard?
    Gasoline desulfurization technologies are well known and are 
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.\474\ 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

[[Page 23562]]

Predictive Model, California gasoline contained approximately 10 ppm 
sulfur on average in 2010 (9 ppm in the summer and 11 ppm in the 
winter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \474\ California 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\475\ Beijing, China also recently introduced a 10 
ppm sulfur limit for gasoline.\476\ These standards are considerably 
more stringent than the 10 ppm annual average standard being finalized 
today because each batch of gasoline produced at every refinery must 
meet the 10 ppm cap. As a result, every refinery must be designed to 
meet this cap regardless of changes in crude oil supply, operation 
conditions, or product mix. 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 to maximize 
gasoline production. Because the FCC unit is responsible for nearly all 
the sulfur that ends up in gasoline, many U.S. refineries may face a 
bigger challenge in achieving 10 ppm gasoline sulfur levels. Even in 
the U.S., however, the picture is changing. The Annual Energy Outlook 
for 2013 produced by the Energy Information Administration supports the 
view that the U.S. demand for diesel fuel is increasing while the 
demand for gasoline is decreasing, starting the process that will make 
the U.S. more like Europe. Thus, U.S. refiners seem to be beginning to 
move away from relying on the FCC unit as the most important refinery 
unit. For this reason, the challenge of complying with more stringent 
gasoline sulfur control will decrease over time, and we discuss this 
more at the end of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \475\ Hart Energy Consulting. (2011). International Fuel Quality 
Center: 2011 Worldwide Fuel Specifications
    \476\ Article 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The review of gasoline sulfur control in California and elsewhere 
and the future trend for gasoline demand support that achieving 10 ppm 
is feasible. The Tier 3 requirements are less demanding than those of 
Europe or Japan. This is because the Tier 3 sulfur standard is an 
average standard instead of a cap standard. The accompanying Tier 3 cap 
standard is 80 ppm, which is much higher than the average standard, 
allows individual gasoline batches to vary in sulfur level throughout 
the year. Complying with Tier 3 is also made easier, as compared to 
California, Europe and Japan, by the ABT program which allows 
refineries with an easy path to compliance with Tier 3 to reduce their 
gasoline sulfur to less than 10 ppm sulfur and generate and sell those 
credits to refineries, which are more challenged by Tier 3.
3. Can refiners meet the January 1, 2017 start date?
    An adequate amount of lead time is required for the implementation 
of any rulemaking. Depending on the level of effort required to comply, 
more or less lead time is also required. In the case of Tier 3, 
refiners need time to select the technology and the vendor that will 
provide the technology needed for compliance with the fuels standard. 
Next, they need time to arrange an engineering and construction (E & C) 
contractor which will design and oversee the construction of the 
refinery unit and the time needed to obtain the necessary permits and 
procure the necessary hardware. Next, refiners need time to construct 
the unit. Finally, the refiner needs time to make the necessary unit 
tie-ins of the unit with the rest of the refinery and then startup the 
unit.
    This section, along with detailed analysis provided in the RIA, 
explains that when taking into account the time to revamp existing FCC 
postreater units or build grassroots postreater units, tie-in the new 
or revamped units with the rest of the refinery and considering the 
flexibility offered by the ABT program, refiners will be able to comply 
with the Tier 3 program within the lead time provided.
a. Time Required To Install Grassroots Units and Revamp Existing Units
    The technologies for complying with Tier 3 are well known and well 
proven. Refiners which complied with Tier 2 using FCC naphtha 
desulfurization technologies installed the following units: Axens Prime 
G+, CDTech's CDHydro and CDHDS, UOP's ISAL Sinopec's S-Zorb and Exxon's 
Scanfining. Refiners shopped around and chose among these various 
technologies which were largely untested at the time, which required us 
to provide more lead time for Tier 2. Since the Tier 2 sulfur standard 
began to be phased in, nine years have elapsed, and we believe that 
refiners now have direct experience with the installation and operation 
of these technologies and the vendor companies that license them and 
continue to support their installations onsite. We therefore believe 
that refiners will be able to reach a decision very quickly when 
complying with Tier 3, particularly, because in most cases the refiners 
will be revamping the units already installed for Tier 2 when complying 
with Tier 3.
    Based on our conversations with refiners, construction companies, 
vendor companies and from published literature, we estimated the time 
it takes to revamp existing postreaters and install grassroots 
postreaters. To revamp an existing postreater it is expected to require 
up to two years. Installing a grassroots postreater is estimated to 
require three years. Figure A reflects these project completion times 
showing the various major intermediate steps for completing the 
projects.

[[Page 23563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.002

    Since many of the Tier 3 revamps are expected to be very modest 
(e.g., change out a reboiler or heat exchanger), we believe that the 
revamping of postreaters could take less time than what we estimate in 
Figure V.L-1. Following EPA held discussions with many refiners in 2011 
about EPA's plan to pursue additional sulfur control post-Tier 2 (Tier 
3), refiners began the process of assessing how they would comply. The 
Tier 3 proposal was delayed for about a year and it is our 
understanding from recent discussions with vendor companies and some 
refiners that, during this time, many refiners began assessing how they 
intended to comply with Tier 3. Thus, many refiners likely have 
completed the scoping studies, which involves technology selection, and 
in the case of grassroots units, vendor selection as well (refiners 
with a particular postreater technology in most cases are expected to 
simply revamp the same vendor's technology, so there is no need to 
select a vendor). If refiners have already completed their scoping 
studies, we estimate that installation of the revamps or grassroots 
units would be about 3 months shorter than the 2 and 3 years, 
respectively, than we estimate in Figure V.L-1.
    We believe that these project timelines are reasonable in light of 
past industry experiences which show FCC postreaters being installed in 
refineries in less time than what we estimate. At the Motiva refinery 
in Port Arthur, TX, a grassroots CDTech postreater was designed, 
constructed and started up in less than 2 years. At two refineries in 
Germany, two Prime G+ units were designed, constructed and started up--
one of them in two years, and the other in 18 months. As an extreme 
example, the $3.6 billion dollar, 180 kbbl/day crude oil expansion at 
Marathon's Garyville, LA refinery was designed, constructed and started 
up in 4 years. This project involved construction of 10 major refinery 
units. Since these may be best case examples, we continue to believe 
the projections provided above in Figure V.L-1 are reasonable. In 
contrast, EPA received comments and feedback during meetings from the 
refining industry suggesting that many of the steps outlined in Figure 
V.L-1 could take considerably longer. For example, they stated that 
permits could take 2 years and procurement of vessels, pumps, 
compressors and heaters could take 2 years as well, extending the time 
needed to complete their projects. However, even if this may be true in 
some situations, the examples above highlight that this is not true in 
all situations. Furthermore, most refineries, as discussed in section 
V.K. will not need to go through any extensive permitting process and 
as discussed below, not all refineries will need to undertake extensive 
revamps of existing units or installation of grassroots units. So once 
again, we believe the timeline shown is reasonable for the vast 
majority of refineries. Many can complete there actions faster. For 
those that may require a longer timeline, the program flexibilities 
discussed below allow for this within the lead time provided.
b. Program Flexibility That Extends Lead Time
    As discussed in Section V.D, the final Tier 3 program includes an 
ABT program that significantly helps refiners comply with the January 
1, 2017 start date. There are several provisions of the ABT program 
that help with respect to any leadtime constraints.
    The ABT program allows for ongoing intra-company and inter-company 
trading nationwide. This will allow some refineries to over-comply with 
the 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard (in our analysis, we modeled these 
refineries

[[Page 23564]]

bringing their gasoline down to 5 ppm), allowing other refineries that 
would otherwise need to install grassroots units to not invest and 
purchase credits instead. This aspect of the ABT program is very 
important because our analysis estimates that only one refinery would 
need to install a grassroots hydrotreater whereas without the ABT 
provisions, there could be as many as 20 grassroots units. This one 
aspect has huge implications for leadtime because as discussed in the 
previous subsection, revamps require two years or less whereas 
grassroots FCC postreater units require approximately three years to 
install. We are convinced that this aspect of the ABT program will be 
utilized to the maximum extent possible because refineries revamping 
their postreaters in lieu of installing grassroots postreaters results 
in the most cost-effective mechanism for meeting the 10 ppm annual 
average standard.
    An important issue to consider is that in order for refiners to opt 
not to invest in a grassroots unit they would have to trust that 
credits will be available to them. For the proposal, we conservatively 
assumed that refiners would only rely on credits if they could generate 
them internally. However, for the final rule analysis, we have assessed 
how the sulfur credits were being traded under Tier 2 and found that 
over half the sulfur credits were freely traded between companies (as 
opposed to only being used within companies), and many single-refinery 
companies had sulfur levels above 30 ppm (single-refinery companies 
must purchase credits from other companies). Because credits have a 5-
year life, we also see in the Tier 2 data that refiners tend to sell 
credits rather than let them simply expire. Refiners may hold them as a 
contingency, but then sell them prior to their expiration. For example, 
in 2012, 40 percent of the credits traded were generated in 2007 and 
were set to expire at the end of 2012. This one quality of the Tier 2 
program ensures the free access to credits. We designed the Tier 3 
credit trading program to work just like the Tier 2 credit trading 
program, thus we are confident that there will be widespread trading 
within and between refining companies.
    A second aspect of the ABT program that helps with leadtime is the 
provision for generating early sulfur credits and banking them for 
later use. As discussed in Section V.D above, this provision allows 
refineries to reduce their gasoline sulfur to less than 30 ppm prior to 
January 1, 2017 and bank the credits for later use. Based on comments 
that we received on the proposed rule, we are allowing Tier 2 credits 
which are generated during the years 2012 and 2013 to also be used to 
show compliance for Tier 3. This effectively extends the early credit 
generation period for Tier 3 to encompass the years 2012 to 2016, which 
is 5 years. Analyzing the 2012 gasoline quality data that refiners 
reported to EPA, we found that gasoline sulfur levels in the U.S. 
averaged about 26.7 ppm. Thus, refiners have already begun 
overcomplying with Tier 2 by 3.3 ppm, and are therefore already 
generating early credits that can be used for Tier 3. If refiners do 
nothing more but continue to overcomply with Tier 2 by 3.3 ppm over the 
5 years of early credit generation, refiners will have generated enough 
credits to delay the completion of their capital projects by roughly a 
year. Furthermore since those credits generated in 2012 and 2013 will 
expire in 2017 and 2018 respectively, refiners will have an incentive 
to either use them themselves or trade them in 2017 and 2018. Thus 
refiners that may need to count on them to delay their capital 
investment are likely to be able to have access to them.
    When the extent of the flexibility afforded by the final ABT 
provisions is fully understood by refiners, we believe that refiners 
will generate a lot more early credits with their existing gasoline 
sulfur control units than the 3.3 ppm we observed in 2012. As we 
discussed in our cost analysis, to produce more diesel fuel in response 
to a greater demand for diesel fuel relative to gasoline, refiners are 
undercutting the swingcut portion of FCC naphtha at their 
refineries.\477\ This action to shift what historically was blended 
into the gasoline pool to the diesel fuel pool, actually also 
dramatically reduces the sulfur content of the gasoline pool. If the 
entire swingcut portion of FCC naphtha is undercut to the diesel fuel 
pool, the amount of sulfur in the gasoline pool is reduced by about 50 
percent. Our cost analysis estimates that at almost one quarter of U.S. 
refineries, refiners are fully undercutting the FCC naphtha to diesel 
fuel today. At many other refineries, refiners are only partially 
undercutting their FCC naphtha. These refineries will be able to reduce 
the sulfur of their gasoline well below their current levels and 
generate a large number of early credits for Tier 3. Even for the 
subset of refineries at which the FCC naphtha is not being undercut, 
refiners can assess how much activity or catalyst life is left in its 
FCC postreater catalyst and compare this time with the time to the next 
turnaround when the FCC postreater catalyst is scheduled to be 
replaced. If there is spare catalyst life, the refiner could elect to 
``turn up'' their postreaters to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels to 
under 30 ppm. With this strategy, the refiner would generate early 
sulfur credits. Also, when the refiner replaces the catalyst in its 
Tier 2 postreater, it can elect to do so with a more active catalyst 
which would allow the refinery to produce gasoline at sulfur levels 
below 30 ppm and generate more early credits for Tier 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \477\ The term swingcut means that this portion of the FCC 
product pool can be blended into gasoline or diesel fuel while still 
meeting the fuel quality specifications for either fuel regardless 
of where this swingcut is blended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the early actions refiners are already taking, or could 
take, to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels, we believe that refiners 
would be able to reduce their gasoline sulfur to as low as 20 ppm, on 
average. By averaging 20 ppm for 2.5 years prior to 2017, refiners 
would be able to delay completion of all capital investments for Tier 3 
until mid 2019. If we add the 3.3 ppm of credits during 2012, 2013 and 
first part of 2014, refiners would be able to delay completion of all 
capital investments in Tier 3 until 2020. Thus, the early credit 
provisions will, in-effect, provide nearly 6 years of leadtime for full 
compliance with the fuels program. This will allow ample time for 
refiners to complete their investment and schedule their tie-ins during 
normal shutdown activities. It effectively provides even more lead time 
than the 5 years that the refining industry requested in their 
comments. The delay in the program implementation will also help to 
distribute the demand on the E & C industry over more years ensuring 
that the E & C industry won't be overwhelmed.
    We are also finalizing a compliance deadline of January 1, 2020 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). This 
will provide approximately 36 of the 108 affected refineries with 
nearly 6 years of lead time; again more than the 5 years that the 
refining industry requested in their comments. We believe that these 
refiners and 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 refiners and refineries 
additional lead time provides 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

[[Page 23565]]

resources with the larger refineries. Due to the January 1, 2020 
compliance deadline for small refiners and small volume refineries we 
estimate that of the 64 refineries that will ultimately need to revamp 
(63) their existing hydrotreaters or add a grassroots hydrotreater (1) 
over the course of implementing the Tier 3 program 15 refineries could 
wait to take such actions until 2020. Further, as discussed in more 
detail in Section V.E.1, small refiners and small volume refineries can 
generate early credits (from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019) 
relative to 30 ppm for sale to other small refiners/small volume 
refineries, and relative to 10 ppm for sale to non-small refiners. This 
could provide another pool of early credits for Tier 3 prior to January 
1, 2017 and ongoing credits during the years of 2017, 2018 and 2019.
    Despite the flexibility afforded by the ABT program, some refiners 
have expressed concern that should they want or need to rely on credits 
for compliance, they may not be able to do so if they cannot be assured 
that they will be able to acquire the necessary credits from other 
parties when the time comes. This could force them into making 
relatively costly investments that they would otherwise be able to 
avoid. We recognize that this may be a concern, particularly prior to 
2020 when the market will be in a state of transition. While we cannot 
guarantee credit availability, and we are confident that the program as 
designed provides ample opportunity for credit generation, we do 
believe that providing the market with at least some basic information 
on credit availability may provide some added assurance and aid in 
credit market liquidity. Consequently, we pledge to work with the 
refining industry on ways to make information on the sulfur credit 
market more transparent over the period leading up to 2020, balancing 
their need for information with the resource constraints of the Agency. 
In doing so, to protect confidentiality, we will not be able to 
identify individual company credit balances or deficits, but would 
intend to provide an aggregated level of information, such as total 
credit balances for each vintage year, on an annual basis leading up to 
2020. Because industry has already shown the ability to identify and 
establish the necessary trading relationships under the Tier 2 program, 
we anticipate that they will be able to continue to do so under Tier 3.
    In summary, we believe that the ABT program we are finalizing today 
provides ample flexibility for complying with Tier 3. The averaging 
provisions will allow refiners that only need to revamp their Tier 2 
postreaters to generate credits by overcomplying with the 10 ppm 
standard, and in turn allow refineries that otherwise need to install 
grassroots units to comply solely through the purchase of credits. The 
banking provisions also allow refiners to generate early credits, 
effectively delaying investments for compliance to potentially as late 
as 2020. Finally, the small refiner and small refinery provisions delay 
compliance for approximately 36 refineries until 2020, as well as 
generate and trade early credits. We believe that all of these 
provisions effectively address any leadtime concerns. Furthermore, 
there are additional options available to refineries to avoid a 
noncompliance situation should all these program flexibilities prove 
insufficient. Refineries are permitted to carry a credit deficit for 
one year as long as they make it up the following year, and the final 
rule allows refiners to apply for hardship waivers if necessary. In 
addition, refineries with access to export markets can always choose to 
export fuel until such time as they can bring their desulfurization 
capacity online. There is a large and growing gasoline export market 
from the U.S. already. Such exports of higher sulfur gasoline could be 
offset through imports of compliant gasoline such as historically 
occurred from Europe, which has a 10 ppm sulfur cap on gasoline.
c. Impact of Turnaround Timing
    We received numerous comments on the proposed January 1, 2017 
compliance deadline. In their comments to the proposed Tier 3 
rulemaking, the oil industry stated that EPA must consider and include 
the time it takes to tie-in the revamps and grassroots units in the 
proposed leadtime. The oil industry urged EPA increase the leadtime for 
Tier 3 to 5 years to allow for refiners to make their investments 
needed to comply with Tier 3 and tie-in those new investments. In 
today's action we are finalizing a compliance deadline of January 1, 
2017. As previously explained above, various provisions of the ABT 
program effectively provide nearly 6 years of leadtime to complete 
capital projects. We also note that the capital projects do not have to 
be completed prior to installing the necessary tie-ins. We do agree, 
however, that the need to make tie-ins must be considered when 
assessing the feasibility of leadtime, and in doing so, our analysis 
shows that refiners can comply with Tier 3 within the leadtime 
provided. This is true not only because the final rule effectively 
provides nearly 6 years of leadtime to complete capital projects, as 
described above, but also because the capital projects do not have to 
be completed prior to installing the necessary tie-ins.
    When a refiner builds a grassroots unit or some sort of revamp 
which involves new reactor volume or perhaps by adding a splitter, this 
new capital must be ``tied-in'' to the rest of the refinery. The tie in 
usually involves connecting a pipe from the existing unit to the new 
capital installed for complying with Tier 3. However, a pipe cannot 
simply be added while the refinery is operating. Instead, the refiner 
will add the necessary pipe for making the tie-in when the refinery is 
shutdown for regular maintenance. The revamp or grassroots unit does 
not have to be started up at that time. Instead, the connection pipe 
just needs to be added and blocked off with a sealing-type valve and a 
blind flange (essentially a flat piece of steel) is bolted on as a 
precaution against a leaky valve. Once this piping has been added, the 
refiner can restart its refinery. Then when the refiner is ready to 
complete the tie-in to the completed Tier 3 revamp or grassroots unit, 
the refiner would remove the blind flange and connect a pipe which 
connects the existing part of the refinery to the newly installed 
grassroots postreater unit or revamp postreater subunit. This last step 
can either occur when the refinery is shutdown or still operating. At 
that point the refiner would only need to open the block valve to 
complete the tie-in of the grassroots unit or revamp to the existing 
refinery.
    On its Web page, the American Petroleum Institute (API) reports 
that the average time between turnarounds is 4 years when the U.S. 
refineries perform maintenance on the FCC unit.\478\ This means that on 
average, 25% of U.S. refineries shutdown to perform maintenance on its 
FCC units each year. Most often, refiners conduct maintenance 
turnarounds on their refineries during the spring when the demand for 
gasoline and diesel fuel is at their lowest. Thus, refiners will have 
the years of 2014, 2015 and 2016 to make their tie-ins during a 
regularly scheduled refinery turnaround to be able to comply by January 
1, 2017, thus roughly three-quarters of the tie-ins could occur before 
the January 1, 2017

[[Page 23566]]

compliance date.\479\ If we superimpose the tie-in issue with the types 
of investments we project will be made for Tier 3, we project that for 
three-quarters of the revamps, refiners will be able to make their tie-
ins prior to the January 1, 2017 start date, while the other refineries 
will require until the spring of 2017 to make their tie-ins. As a 
worse-case scenario, if refiners don't even try to begin making their 
tie-ins until the spring of 2015, they would need the spring of 2015 to 
the spring of 2018 to complete their tie-ins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \478\ Fact Sheet entitled ``Refinery Turnarounds,'' American 
Petroleum Institute (API) Web page: http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/fuels-and-refining/refineries/refinery-turnarounds; downloaded June 21, 2013.
    \479\ Since most refiners have already completed their scoping 
studies with the vendor companies which license the desulfurization 
technologies, they likely already understand what steps would need 
to be taken to tie-in their revamps and grassroots units with their 
existing refinery. For this reason, we believe that refiners can 
begin making their tie-ins as soon as the spring of 2014, and 
perhaps even earlier than that. One refiner who owns a number of 
refineries shared with us that they prepared the tie-ins for Tier 3 
when they installed their Tier 2 units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, regardless of whether we assume that tie-ins begin to 
occur in 2014 or 2015, the flexibility afforded by the ABT program will 
readily enable refiners to complete their capital investments and tie-
ins and comply with Tier 3 within the lead time provided. A more 
detailed discussion and analysis of Tier 3 compliance considering unit 
construction time, the tie-ins of revamps and grassroots units and 
availability of credits is contained in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
d. Hardship
    While we project that there will be plenty of credits available to 
allow refiners to complete their capital investments and tie in the new 
or revamped unit to the rest of their refinery, we are providing 
another option to refiners as a safety valve in case there is a 
shortfall of credits. Consistent with our proposal, today's rule 
contains provisions for a refiner to apply for a hardship waiver. Thus, 
where a refiner cannot complete its project by January 1, 2017 and 
credits are not available or are prohibitively expensive, the refiner 
may file a hardship waiver. Details of our hardship provisions can be 
found in Section V.E.2.
e. Impact on the Engineering and Construction Industry
    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 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.\480\ 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-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \480\ Moncrief, Philip & Ragsdale, Ralph. (2000). Can the U.S. 
E&C Industry Meet the EPA's Low Sulfur Timetable? Paper presented at 
NPRA Annual Meeting, March 26-28, 2000. Paper No. AM-00-57.

               Table V-1--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 for each type of job. The results 
are shown in Table V-2. 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-2--Maximum Monthly Demand for Personnel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Front-end       Detailed
                                                                      design        engineering    Construction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Workers...............................................             202             809           6,012
Percentage of Current Workforce \a\.............................             11%              9%              4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Based on current employment in the U.S. Gulf Coast assuming half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast

    To meet the Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected to 
invest $2.0 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately 250 
front-end design and engineering jobs and 1,500 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 Tier 3 sulfur standards. For an in-depth assessment of stationary 
source implications, refer to Section V.K. For more on our E&C 
assessment, refer to Chapter 4 of the RIA.

[[Page 23567]]

M. Statutory Authority for Tier 3 Fuel Controls

    Consistent with our proposal, we are adopting 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)]. Consistent with our proposal, we are 
finalizing 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 149 million people 
currently live in counties exceeding a NAAQS.\481\ 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.\482\ A more detailed discussion 
of the health and environmental effects of these pollutants is included 
in Section II.B. As discussed there, 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 reductions in 
emissions of these pollutants, with the benefits to public health and 
welfare significantly outweighing the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \481\ 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.
    \482\ U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National-
Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated the technical feasibility of achieving these 
sulfur levels, including the cost of the reductions. We have concluded 
that these reductions are feasible in the lead time provided. For more 
on the feasibility of the fuel standards, refer to Section V.L above 
and Chapter 4 of the RIA.
    As discussed in Section III, and further supported by the 
discussion in Section IV.A.6, EPA also evaluated the emissions 
reductions from pre-Tier 3 vehicles that will be achieved by 
controlling gasoline sulfur level to 10 ppm on average. The 10 ppm 
sulfur standard will provide significant reductions in harmful 
emissions independent of the vehicle standards and these reductions are 
significant and contribute to the total monetized health benefits. 
Already in 2018, when the emission reductions are almost entirely due 
to the sulfur standards, the Tier 3 program will provide significant 
benefits. We continue to believe that the Tier 3 program will produce 
benefits to public health and welfare whose value significantly 
outweighs the costs. These reductions can be achieved in a manner that 
is technologically feasible. 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 Tier 3 program, refer to Chapter 5 of the 
RIA.
    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 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 (D.C. 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 adopting 
Tier 3 emissions standards for motor vehicles under section 202. These 
standards could not achieve any emission reductions for vehicles 
already in use, while reducing fuel sulfur will achieve large emission 
reductions for vehicles already in use. For new vehicles, the use of 10 
ppm average sulfur fuel is an essential part of achieving Tier 3 levels 
while applying an array of advancements in emissions control technology 
to the light-duty fleet. As shown in Section IV.A, we believe that 
achieving the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards will require 
technological improvements such as very careful control of the exhaust 
chemistry and exhaust temperatures to ensure high catalyst efficiency. 
These technology improvements, which are described in greater detail in 
the RIA (Chapter 1)--improving warm-up and catalyst light-off after 
cold starts and maintaining very high catalyst efficiency--all rely on 
10 ppm sulfur average fuel to achieve the very significant emissions 
reductions required for the fleet to achieve Tier 3 emissions levels.
    Achieving Tier 3 emissions standards without a reduction in sulfur 
to 10 ppm levels would only be possible if there were technology 
improvements significantly above and beyond even those mentioned above. 
EPA cannot identify technology improvements that could provide such a 
large additional increase in emissions control effectiveness, across 
the fleet, above and beyond that provided by the major improvements in 
technology discussed above, without any additional gasoline sulfur 
control. As discussed in Section IV.A.3, the Tier 3 fleet average 
exhaust emissions standards of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX will 
require large reductions of emissions across a broad range of light-
duty vehicles and trucks with differing degrees of utility. 
Specifically, achieving Tier 3 emissions

[[Page 23568]]

standards as an average across the fleet will require fleet wide 
reductions of approximately 80%. We believe this means significant 
reductions from all sectors, with the result that there is a need for 
major reductions from all types of vehicles in the light-duty fleet, 
including those above as well as most vehicles that are already near, 
at, or below the Tier 3 Bin 30 fleet average standard.
    Achieving these reductions presents a major technology challenge 
and EPA is not aware of technology improvements that could provide such 
large additional increases in emissions control effectiveness, across 
the fleet, above and beyond that provided by the major improvements in 
control technologies expected for use in meeting today's Tier 3 
standards. Rather, as available test data indicates, in addition to 
lower gasoline sulfur levels, the required reductions are of a 
magnitude that EPA expects manufacturers to employ advances in 
technology in all of the relevant areas of emissions control--exhaust 
catalyst technologies, (such as reducing the time to catalyst light 
off, improving exhaust catalyst durability at 120,000 or 150,000 miles 
and improving efficiency of fully warmed up exhaust catalysts), 
reducing engine out emissions, power train calibration primarily 
focused on reducing cold-start NMOG emissions, and on reducing both 
cold-start and warmed-up (running) NOX emissions.
    The impact of sulfur reduction on the effectiveness of the 
available technology improvements plays such a large role in achieving 
the Tier 3 emissions standards that it is clearly unrealistic to expect 
that technology would be available, at the 30 ppm sulfur standard, to 
fill the emission control gap left from no sulfur reduction, and still 
achieve the very significant fleet wide reductions needed to meet the 
Tier 3 fleet average. In effect reducing sulfur from 30 ppm to 10 ppm 
has such a large impact on the ability of the technology improvements 
to achieve Tier 3 emissions levels that absent these sulfur reductions 
there is not a suite of technology advancements available to fill the 
resulting gap in emissions reductions. As also discussed in Section 
IV.A.6, testing of Tier 2 and Tier 3 type vehicles, as well as other 
information, shows that sulfur has a very large impact on the 
effectiveness of the control technologies expected to be used in Tier 3 
vehicles. Without the reduction in sulfur to a 10 ppm average, the 
major technology improvements projected under Tier 3 would only result 
in a limited portion of the emissions reductions needed to achieve Tier 
3 levels. For example, without the reduction in sulfur from a 30 ppm to 
10 ppm average, the technology improvements would not come close to 
achieving Tier 3 levels. In some cases this may result in the same 
effectiveness as the current Tier 2 technology and achieve only 
approximately Tier 2 levels of exhaust emissions control.
    As earlier explained, EPA has not identified technology that would 
achieve the average Tier 3 emissions standards, across the fleet, with 
sulfur at 30 ppm levels, and as a result Tier 3 emissions standards 
would not be technically feasible and achievable. This is also the case 
for levels in-between 30 and 10 ppm, e.g., 20 ppm. The required 
emissions reductions are so large and widespread across the fleet, and 
the technology challenges are high enough, especially for heavier 
vehicles, that the large increase in emissions that would occur even 
from a higher average sulfur level compared to 10 ppm average would 
lead to an inability for the technology to widely achieve the Tier 3 
fleet wide average emissions standards.
    Further, as also explained in Section IV.A.6, larger vehicles (the 
largest LDVs and LDT3s, LDT4s and MDPVs) will have greater difficulty 
achieving cold-start NMOG emissions control as a result of today's 
emissions standards. (Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles 
versus the current 120,000 miles will further add to manufacturers' 
compliance challenge for large light trucks; see Section IV.A.7.c for 
the useful life requirements.) This is based in part on the impact on 
NMOG emissions of the larger engine surface-to-volume ratio and 
resultant heat conduction from the combustion chamber during warm-up. 
There are also tradeoffs between some cold-start NMOG controls and 
cold-start NOX control. For example, secondary air injection 
and/or leaner fueling strategies improve catalyst light-off for NMOG 
after a cold-start but also place OSC components in an oxidation state 
that limits potential for NOX reduction and thus often 
result in higher cold-start NOX emissions. Some applications 
achieve lower NMOG+NOX emissions without the use of 
secondary air injection by careful calibration, changes to the catalyst 
formulation and balancing of catalyst HC and NOX activity. 
The EPA Prototype Silverado and the developmental Ford Explorer 
discussed in Section IV.A.6.c are specific examples of this approach. 
Thus, as a result of today's emissions standards these larger vehicles, 
in addition to needing to reduce NOX emissions to near-zero 
levels (as is generally the case for all Tier 3 vehicles, as discussed 
below), these trucks may also have additional NMOG reduction challenge.
2. Section 211(c)(1)(B)
    Under the second criterion, we believe that sulfur in gasoline will 
significantly impair the emission-control systems expected to be in 
general use in motor vehicle engines designed to meet the Tier 3 
emission standards. The Tier 3 fuel sulfur standards will 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 vehicles.
    Section IV describes the substantial adverse effect of high 
gasoline sulfur levels on the emission-control devices or systems for 
vehicles and engines meeting the Tier 3 emission standards. As 
discussed in Section IV.A.6, sulfur in gasoline inhibits the emissions 
control performance of modern three-way exhaust catalyst systems by 
selectively binding with, and in some instances reacting with active 
sites and coating materials. 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. In 
addition to its interaction with catalyst materials, sulfur can also 
react with the wash-coating itself to form alumina sulfate, which in 
turn can block coating pores and reduce gaseous diffusion to active 
materials below the coating surface. Sulfur also interferes with the 
ability of OSC components to reduce NOX emissions. Water-
gas-shift reactions, which are also important for NOX 
reduction over catalysts combining Pd and ceria, 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).
    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. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, however, it cannot 
completely eliminate the effects of sulfur poisoning. In current 
vehicles,

[[Page 23569]]

desulfurization conditions occur typically at high loads when there is 
a degree of commanded enrichment (i.e., fuel enrichment commanded by 
the engine management system primarily for protection of engine and/or 
exhaust system components). A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in-use 
fleet recently completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately 
following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur 
level, suggesting that lower gasoline sulfur levels will bring emission 
benefits unachievable by catalyst desulfurization procedures 
alone.\483\ For example, if a vehicle operates on gasoline with less 
than 10 ppm sulfur, exhaust emissions stabilize over repeat FTP tests 
at emissions near those of the first FTP that follows the high speed/
load operation and catalyst desulfurization. Continued operation on 
gasoline with 10 ppm average sulfur content or lower is necessary after 
catalyst desulfurization in order to achieve emissions reductions with 
the current in-use fleet.\484\ As also discussed in Section IV.A.6, the 
emission effects study performed by SGS also suggests that negative 
effects of exposure to a somewhat higher sulfur level (80 ppm in this 
case) are largely reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, and thus, suggests 
that reducing fuel sulfur levels nationwide will bring significant 
immediate benefits by reducing emissions of the existing fleet. 
Finally, to the extent such conditions do not occur today as part of 
normal driving for vehicles in the in-use fleet, there is no practical 
way to modify such existing vehicles to do so. 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 and is the only effective 
means for the in-use fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \483\ The Effects of Ultra-Low Sulfur Gasoline on Emissions from 
Tier 2 Vehicles in the In-Use Fleet, EPA-420-R-14-002.
    \484\ See Preamble Section IV.A.6.c and Chapter 1 of the RIA 
(Section 1.2.3.2) for more details on this study and its results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Tier 3 vehicles, there are several reasons why regular 
operation at the high exhaust temperatures and rich air-to-fuel ratios 
necessary for catalyst desulfurization is not desirable and may not be 
possible. The temperatures necessary to release sulfur oxides are high 
enough to lead to thermal degradation of the catalyst over time through 
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). Also, the rich 
air-to-fuel ratios necessary for sulfur removal can result in increased 
PM, NMOG and CO emissions.
    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 when 
standards increase in stringency and emissions levels 
decrease.485 486 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. As also shown in Section 
IV.A.6, there are currently available data from various studies and 
testing on Tier 2 vehicles that indicate that emissions performance is 
sensitive to sulfur levels in gasoline. Specifically, the MSAT studies 
of Tier 2 vehicles showed the emission reduction potential of lower 
sulfur fuel on Tier 2 and later technology vehicles over the FTP cycle. 
For instance, there was a 48 percent increase in NOX over 
the FTP when gasoline sulfur was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. 
Further, emissions data from testing conducted by EPA on a 
representative subset of vehicles (after clean-out procedures) on 28 
ppm and 5 ppm fuel with accumulated mileage, showed Bag 2 
NOX emissions were 47 percent lower on the 5 ppm fuel as 
compared to 28 ppm fuel. The reductions found in these studies are also 
consistent with the MSAT and Umicore studies on Tier 2 vehicles in 
terms of the magnitude of NOX and HC reductions when 
switching from 28 ppm to 5 ppm fuel. The results of the emission 
effects study performed by SGS and included with API's comments on the 
Tier 3 proposal are also consistent with the findings of EPA's Tier 2 
in-use study, namely that emissions performance is sensitive to fuel 
sulfur level. In sum, these studies confirm our view that reducing 
sulfur levels in gasoline from current levels to levels in the range of 
today's final gasoline sulfur standards will be expected to achieve 
significant reductions in emissions of NOX, hydrocarbons, 
and other pollutants of interest from the in-use fleet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \485\ Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. 
(2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines. 
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-2019.
    \486\ Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel 
Sulfur on FTP NOX Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder 
Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The importance of lower sulfur gasoline is also demonstrated by the 
fact that vehicles certified to California SULEV typically certify to 
higher bins for the federal Tier 2 program. Light-duty vehicles 
certified to SULEV under LEV II are more typically certified federally 
to Tier 2 Bin 3, Bin 4 or Bin 5. In particular, non-hybrid vehicles 
certified to California SULEV are not certified to federal Tier 2 Bin 2 
emissions standards even though the numeric limits for NOX 
and NMOG are shared between the California LEV II and federal Tier 2 
programs for SULEV and Bin 2. Confidential business information shared 
by the auto companies indicate that the primary reason is an inability 
to demonstrate compliance with SULEV/Bin 2 emission standards after 
vehicles have operated in-use on gasoline with greater than 10 ppm 
sulfur and with exposure to the higher sulfur gasoline sold nationwide. 
While vehicles certified to the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards both 
demonstrate compliance using certification gasoline with 15-40 ppm 
sulfur content, in-use compliance of SULEV vehicles in California 
occurs after significant, sustained operation on gasoline with an 
average of 10 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap of 20 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 further discussed in Section IV.A.6.d, available studies and 
testing also confirm that there is significantly increased sensitivity 
of exhaust emissions to gasoline sulfur by vehicles with exhaust 
emission control technologies that we expect to be used with vehicles 
complying with today's Tier 3 emissions studies. Specifically, 
available test data from the Ford Motor Company developmental heavy-
light-duty truck and the Umicore Autocat 2009 Chevrolet Malibu PZEV 
show more increases in NOX and NMOG+NOX emissions 
with increased gasoline sulfur

[[Page 23570]]

than was observed for Tier 2 vehicles. Similarly, test data from the 
EPA Tier 3 prototype 2012 Chevrolet Silverado heavy-light duty pickup 
also showed increased NMOG+NOX emissions and one exceedance 
of today's final Bin 30 exhaust emissions standards. In sum, available 
test data indicate that increasing gasoline sulfur levels from 10 ppm 
to 30 ppm on vehicles meeting Tier 3 standards essentially negated the 
entire benefit of the advances in emissions control technology that 
were applied to meet Tier 3 developmental goals. Because of the 
resulting need to reach near-zero NOX levels to offset NMOG 
emissions, any significant degradation in NOX emissions 
control over the useful life of the vehicle will likely prevent some if 
not most larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NOX 
level low enough to comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet-average standard. 
Any degradation in catalyst performance due to gasoline sulfur will 
also reduce or eliminate the margin necessary to ensure in-use 
compliance with the Tier 3 emissions standards. Thus, the impact of 
gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust catalyst performance and the 
relative stringency of the Tier 3 exhaust emissions 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.B, the average 10 ppm gasoline sulfur 
standard is feasible and is the level that appropriately balances costs 
with the emission reductions that it provides and enables. Not only 
will a 10 ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to certify 
their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average 
standards, but reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will better enable 
these vehicles to maintain their emission performance in-use over their 
full useful life. Higher sulfur levels would make it impossible for 
vehicle manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards, and would forego 
the very large immediate reductions from the existing fleet. Reducing 
the sulfur level below 10 ppm would further reduce vehicle emissions 
and allow the Tier 3 vehicle standards to be achieved more easily. 
However, we believe that a 10 ppm average standard is sufficient to 
allow vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards. Further, as discussed in 
Sections V.B and IX.B there are significant challenges associated with 
reducing sulfur below 10 ppm.
3. Section 211(c)(2)(B)
    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 above 
and in the RIA (Chapter 1), 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 below in Section VII. The RIA 
includes a detailed analysis of the environmental benefits of the 
emission standards (Chapters 6 and 8), an analysis of the technological 
feasibility and cost of controlling sulfur to the levels established in 
the final rule (Chapters 4 and 5), and a cost analysis of the sulfur 
control and motor vehicle and engine emission standards (Chapter 9). 
Under section 211(c)(2)(B), as just noted, EPA is also required to 
compare the costs and benefits of achieving emission standards through 
emission-control systems that would not be sulfur-sensitive, if any 
such systems are or will be in general use. We have determined that 
there are not (and will not be in the foreseeable future) emission 
control devices available for general use in motor vehicles that can 
meet the emission standards and would not be significantly impaired by 
gasoline with current gasoline sulfur levels. Emissions cannot be 
reduced anywhere near the magnitude contemplated by the emission 
standards without the application of the kind of emissions control 
technology discussed in this final rule.
4. Section 211(c)(2)(C)
    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 
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 and pentane 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 a significant 
degree the performance of any emission control device or system. This 
action 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 adopting new Tier 3 vehicle standards and new 
gasoline sulfur standards, we are also finalizing a range 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 Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards, while others 
deal with other aspects of EPA's existing fuel and vehicle regulations.
    EPA is also synchronizing several different reporting deadlines 
under various regulations affecting transportation and motor vehicle 
fuels and fuel additives. This action will reduce regulatory burdens by 
aligning reporting deadlines across several programs and lays the 
foundation for the overall goal of combining various fuels reports 
together into a single, simplified electronic format in the near 
future.

[[Page 23571]]

A. Fuel Program Amendments

    The following sections discuss the changes being finalized today to 
the fuels regulations in 40 CFR parts 79 and 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 
needed clarification and/or streamlining; still others are to provide 
additional flexibility.
    With regard to regulatory streamlining, the majority of these items 
involve providing additional clarity, removing or updating outdated 
provisions, and decreasing the frequency and/or volume of reporting 
burden where data are either no longer needed or are redundant in light 
of other EPA fuels programs. In general, we believe that these changes 
are straightforward and will reduce burden on industry with no expected 
environmental impact.
    We are also finalizing regulations to adopt a performance-based 
measurement systems approach to fuel parameter testing as discussed in 
Section VI.A.2, to expand the downstream butane blending provisions to 
allow for pentane blending as discussed in Section VI.A.3, and to 
accept Top Tier test data under the gasoline deposit control program as 
discussed in Section VI.A.4. We may undertake additional regulatory 
streamlining in a future action following additional stakeholder 
interactions, as discussed in Section VI.A.5.
    Below is a table listing the provisions that we are amending in 
today's action. We have provided additional explanation for those 
amendments that warrant additional explanation in the following 
sections.

 Table VI-1--Summary of Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Section                            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Varied............................  Various sections amended to update
                                     references to test methods (see
                                     Section VI.A.1.a.iii).
79.5..............................  Revised periodic reporting
                                     requirements.
80.2..............................  Revised and added definitions.
80.8..............................  Amended to update sampling test
                                     methods, and to state to which
                                     fuels Sec.   80.8 applies.
80.46.............................  Revised measurement of RFG fuel
                                     parameters.
80.47.............................  Added Performance-Based Test Method
                                     Approach.
80.65.............................  Amended to reduce complex model test
                                     parameters and reporting and to
                                     accommodate RVP adjustment when
                                     blender grade pentane is blended
                                     into gasoline downstream of the
                                     refinery.
80.65(f)(5).......................  Added to allow for designation of an
                                     alternative lab.
80.66(f)..........................  Amended to delete references to
                                     appendices that no longer exist.
80.74.............................  Amended to reflect the recordkeeping
                                     requirements for entities in the
                                     blender grade pentane distribution
                                     system.
80.75.............................  Revised RFG reporting requirements.
                                     Added reporting requirements for
                                     produces and importers of blender
                                     grade pentane.
80.77.............................  Amended to reflect the product
                                     transfer document requirements for
                                     entities in the distribution system
                                     for blender grade pentane.
80.80.............................  Amended to reflect the potential
                                     penalties requirements for entities
                                     in the distribution system for
                                     blender grade pentane.
80.82.............................  Amended to apply butane blending
                                     provisions to entire part 80 and to
                                     revise RVP test method.
80.85.............................  Added the requirements for
                                     downstream pentane blending.
80.86.............................  Added the requirements for producers
                                     and importers of blender grade
                                     pentane.
80.87.............................  Added the controls and prohibitions
                                     for entities in the blender grade
                                     pentane distribution system.
80.101............................  Revised measurement of conventional
                                     gasoline fuel parameters.
80.105............................  Amended to require identification of
                                     test methods used in refiner
                                     reports, and to add reporting
                                     requirements for butane blenders.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)............  Amended to specify the requirements
                                     for certification of an additive
                                     under the new alternative gasoline
                                     deposit control certification
                                     option.
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(3)............  Added to specify the requirements
                                     for certification of an additive
                                     under all gasoline deposit control
                                     options other than the alternative
                                     certification option.
80.161(b)(2)......................  Amended to address the submission of
                                     gasoline deposit control additive
                                     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 will be
                                     required under the alternative
                                     gasoline deposit control
                                     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 gasoline deposit
                                     control 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 deposit
                                     control certification option.
80.163(a)(1)(iii).................  Amended to specify that gasoline
                                     deposit control additives may be
                                     certified under the new alternative
                                     certification option.
80.164(a).........................  Amended to reference the test fuel
                                     requirements under the alternative
                                     gasoline deposit control
                                     certification option.
80.165............................  Amended to accommodate the
                                     alternative deposit control test
                                     procedures and standards under the
                                     alternative gasoline deposit
                                     control certification option.
80.167(a).........................  Amended to specify how confirmatory
                                     testing will be conducted for
                                     additives certified under the
                                     alternative gasoline deposit
                                     control certification option.
80.176............................  Added to specify the certification
                                     test procedures and standards under
                                     the alternative gasoline deposit
                                     control certification option.
80.177............................  Added to specify the certification
                                     test fuels under the alternative
                                     gasoline deposit control
                                     certification option.
80.178............................  Added to incorporate standards and
                                     test methods by reference.
80.330............................  Revised sampling and testing
                                     requirements.
80.340............................  Amended to add standards for
                                     gasoline produced by blending
                                     pentane into previously certified
                                     gasoline.

[[Page 23572]]

 
80.370............................  Amended to require identification of
                                     test method used and revises
                                     reporting requirements.
80.511............................  Revised per-gallon and marker
                                     requirements.
80.572............................  Revised labeling requirements.
                                     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.
80.573............................  Revised labeling requirements.
80.574............................  Revised labeling requirements.
80.580............................  Incorporated test methods by
                                     reference.
80.584(b)(3)(i)...................  Amended to correct typographical
                                     error (``notc'' to ``not'').
80.585............................  Revised test method approval
                                     process.
80.604............................  Revised reporting requirements.
80.1235(a)(6).....................  Amended to allow refiners and
                                     importers who are blending
                                     blendstock into previously
                                     certified gasoline (PCG) an
                                     alternative to directly test the
                                     blendstock for benzene.
80.1235(a)(5).....................  Amended to clarify that refiners and
                                     importers may use either approach
                                     for blendstocks that are blended
                                     into either conventional gasoline
                                     or reformulated gasoline.
80.1235(b)(2).....................  Amended to clarify EPA's intent (per
                                     Sec.   80.1238(b)) to allow
                                     refiners and importers to include
                                     oxygenate blended downstream of a
                                     refinery or import facility in
                                     their annual average benzene
                                     calculation, and to make the
                                     section consistent with Sec.
                                     80.1238(b).
80.1238...........................  Revised benzene determination.
80.1347(a)(5).....................  Amended to require that a negative
                                     annual average must be reported as
                                     zero, and that a refiner must
                                     comply with Sec.   80.65(i) when
                                     producing RBOB or RFG and Sec.
                                     80.101(g)(9) when producing
                                     conventional gasoline.
80.1347(a)(6).....................  Added to allow refiners and
                                     importers who are blending
                                     blendstock into previously
                                     certified gasoline (PCG) an
                                     alternative to directly test the
                                     blendstock for benzene.
80.1348...........................  Revised 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...........................  Revised reporting requirements for
                                     gasoline benzene program.
80.1407...........................  Amended to reflect that pentane
                                     blenders incur a renewable volume
                                     obligation (RVO) for the blender
                                     grade pentane they add to
                                     previously certified gasoline
                                     (PCG).
80.1451...........................  Revised RFS reporting requirements.
80.1640(d)........................  Added to allow refiners who blend
                                     only blender-grade pentane into PCG
                                     to meet the sampling and testing
                                     requirements for sulfur by using
                                     sulfur test results pursuant to
                                     Sec.   80.85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fuels Program Regulatory Streamlining
a. Amendments Related to Reduction of Testing and Reporting of Complex 
Model Gasoline Parameters
    In Sec. Sec.  80.65 and 80.75, we are streamlining and reducing the 
reformulated gasoline (RFG) and conventional gasoline (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 batch must 
be tested for every parameter listed in Sec.  80.65. No monthly 
compositing of batch samples is allowed for any parameter. For CG, 
monthly compositing and batch reporting based on those monthly 
composites is allowed for all parameters except sulfur and benzene. 
With the phasing out of complex model standards \487\, 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 volatile organic compound (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 (and thus measure all complex model 
parameters) until 2015 for CG MSAT1 compliance.\488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \487\ Per Sec.  80.41(e) and (f), and Sec.  80.101(c), 
applicable NOX and toxics emissions requirements are 
superseded by the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards and MSAT2 benzene 
standards, respectively.
    \488\ 61 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, there are 17 complex model parameters on the RFG/anti-
dumping batch report. We are reducing testing and reporting 
requirements for some of these parameters for RFG, CG or both. For both 
RFG and CG, we are eliminating testing and reporting of American 
Petroleum Institute (API) gravity. In addition, we are finalizing that 
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. 
Commenters agreed with the elimination of testing of API gravity and 
oxygenates.
    For winter RFG, we are eliminating the requirement to test and 
report aromatics, distillations and olefins on an every batch basis and 
instead will allow testing and reporting of monthly composites. 
Commenters from the refining industry strongly suggested that we 
eliminate testing of these parameters altogether, since they are not 
needed, and their elimination would further reduce the burden on 
regulated parties. While we agree that a reduction in burden would 
occur if refiners were not required to test, even on a monthly 
composite basis, for these parameters, the many interconnected aspects 
of the RFG program make any seemingly innocuous change potentially 
fraught with unintended consequences. Thus, we are deferring the 
consideration of any action to completely eliminate the testing of 
these parameters to any future

[[Page 23573]]

fuel program restructuring, as discussed in Section VI.A.5.
    Sulfur and benzene will continue to be tested and reported on an 
every batch basis as these values are necessary for the Tier 2 and Tier 
3 gasoline sulfur and MSAT2 benzene programs. All summer complex model 
parameters will still be required to be tested and reported on an every 
batch basis because of the summer VOC requirement for RFG. For CG, 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). In the proposal, we stated ``. . . values for 
aromatics, olefins, and distillation terms may continue to be 
determined from monthly composites.'' Some commenters thought the term 
``may'' in that sentence meant that reporting on those parameters at 
all is optional. That is an incorrect interpretation. In this final 
rule, we are finalizing requirements for use of either monthly 
composites or batch testing. The parameters must still be measured and 
reported. Commenters in the refining industry do not think these 
parameters need to be measured at all for parties subject to the MSAT2 
benzene standard, as compliance with that standard is not dependent on 
aromatic, olefin, or distillation values. As mentioned earlier, there 
are several areas of the RFG and/or anti-dumping programs where testing 
and reporting burden could likely be reduced; however, we have not 
fully evaluated the implications of changing the current requirements, 
and thus we are leaving consideration of such changes to the broader 
program restructuring discussed in Section VI.A.5. Nonetheless, the 
changes that are finalized today will substantially reduce the testing 
and reporting burden on regulated parties.
b. Amendments Related to Reporting Dates
    EPA is amending 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. Currently under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, 
there are ten separate cyclical reporting dates each year (eleven in a 
leap year). Streamlining reporting deadlines will allow EPA to develop 
a single, user-friendly, electronic form that will collect all required 
data, maximizing the capability of electronic reporting to provide 
reuse of data and avoid duplicate data submission. EPA's goal is to 
simplify reporting and reduce the number of hours parties spend 
preparing and submitting reports while simultaneously improving data 
received from stakeholders. 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.
    We are amending these deadlines so that all affected programs use 
the same four reporting deadlines. Programs that will be affected by 
this change 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 I);
     the Gasoline Benzene program (40 CFR part 80 subpart L);
     the Renewable Fuel Standard program (40 CFR part 80 
subparts K and M); and
     the Tier 3 program being finalized today (40 CFR part 80 
subpart O).
    We are finalizing that reporting deadlines will be standardized as 
follows: June 1, for all reports covering quarter 1 of the compliance 
year (January through March); September 1, for quarter 2 (April through 
June); December 1, for quarter 3 (July through September); and March 31 
for quarter 4 (October through December). End-of-year compliance 
reports will also be due on March 31. These changes will either delay 
or maintain current deadlines for nearly all required reports. 
Deadlines for all other annual reports will either be maintained if 
they matched the new quarterly deadline, or extended to match the new 
quarterly deadline. It should be noted that even with the changes 
finalized today, respondents will still have the option to report 
earlier than any given deadline. Commenters generally agreed with the 
proposed date changes. Some commenters in the refining industry 
suggested eliminating all quarterly reporting for RFG if winter 
aromatics, olefins and distillation are no longer required to be 
reported as they suggested. These values are normally reported in the 
1st and 4th quarters. As one commenter stated, ``In addition, there is 
no point in splitting up summer RFG/RBOB reporting between the 2nd and 
3rd quarters.'' As noted above, winter aromatics, olefins and 
distillation are still required to be reported, albeit on a monthly 
composite basis. Thus, the need for quarterly reporting remains. 
However, we expect that the need for quarterly reports will be 
evaluated as part of the broader program restructuring discussed in 
Section VI.A.5.
    EPA proposed not to include ``Attest Engagements'' (currently due 
May 31 of the following year) or reporting related to specific events 
under the Fuels Program, such as trading Renewable Identification 
Numbers (RINs) in EPA's Moderated Transaction System (EMTS), in the 
reporting revisions described above. Rather, all reporting deadlines 
for Attest Engagements and reporting specific events will remain the 
same. Some commenters communicated that if the annual and fourth 
quarter reporting deadlines were to be extended to March 31 of each 
year, then the attest engagement date should also be shifted one month 
from May 31 to June 30 to allow sufficient time for the significant 
data-gathering and communications required to complete those 
engagements. EPA is not changing the compliance period associated with 
the new extended reporting date, but rather, is simply allowing 
additional time for data review, preparation and reporting. EPA does 
not believe that extending the attest engagement date is necessary 
because companies have the flexibility to use the extra reporting time 
to begin preparation for the attest engagement if they prefer. As 
stated previously, the extension to reporting deadlines does not 
preclude stakeholders from reporting before the deadline. EPA is not 
extending the date for attest engagements from May 31 to June 30. That 
said, EPA is streamlining reporting dates to aid in our development of 
a single electronic reporting format and is updating the due date for 
attest engagements found in part 80 from May 31 to June 1. This change 
will not affect compliance or increase burden of reporting entities. 
Rather, the purpose of streamlining various reporting deadlines is to 
ease reporting burden and help aid EPA in the development and 
implementation of a single electronic reporting format.
    We are also correcting a typographical error in 40 CFR 
80.1451(f)(2) and clarifying that reports are to be signed by the 
``responsible corporate officer.'' One commenter suggested that EPA 
revise the instances when a ``responsible corporate officer'' signature 
is required, and when perhaps someone else in the company can sign.

[[Page 23574]]

The example given in the comment was that a phone number change should 
not require a ``responsible corporate officer'' signature, as getting 
this level of signature can be burdensome, and the company can have 
appropriate delegations in place when someone other than the 
``responsible corporate officer'' is the signatory. While we understand 
the concern expressed, EPA does not believe a regulatory action is 
necessary to address this concern but rather believes this issue is 
best addressed via administrative procedures. EPA plans to further 
evaluate this specific concern and similar ``responsible corporate 
officer'' issues and address the concerns in the future, outside of the 
regulatory framework.
    Finally, we are addressing a typographical error in the regulatory 
text. Specifically, incorrect references under 40 CFR 79.5(a)(2) and 
79.5(b) are being addressed as well as clarification being added.
c. Amendments To Update Fuel Parameter 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. As stated in the proposal, 
a number of relevant regulatory provisions had references to test 
methods that have been revised and updated. Several comments were 
received indicating that since the time of the proposal, some of the 
proposed updates have been further revised and updated and the desire 
was expressed for the regulated community to have the opportunity to 
use the most current version of each of these test methods. Today, we 
are updating 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, in gasoline 
and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard. (Sec. Sec.  
80.46(a)(1), 80.580(b)(2).) ASTM test methods D5453, D6920, D3120 and 
D7039 are currently alternative test methods for measuring sulfur in 
gasoline. (Sec. Sec.  80.46(a)(3)(i), 80.46(a)(3)(ii), 
80.46(a)(3)(iii), 80.46(a)(3)(iv).) ASTM test method D5453 is also an 
alternative test method for measuring sulfur in diesel fuel at the 500 
ppm sulfur standard, as well as ASTM test method D4294. (Sec.  
80.580(c)(2).) ASTM test method D6667 is currently the designated test 
method for measuring sulfur in butane. (Sec.  80.46 (a)(2).) ASTM test 
methods D4468 and D3246 are currently alternative test methods for 
measuring the sulfur content in butane. (Sec. Sec.  80.46(a)(4)(i), 
80.46(a)(4)(ii).) ASTM D1319 is currently the designated test method 
for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics in diesel fuel and is 
also allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics in 
gasoline. (Sec. Sec.  80.46(b), 80.2(z), and 80.46(f)(3), 
respectively.) ASTM D6550 is currently an alternative test method for 
measuring olefins in gasoline. (Sec.  80.46(b)(2)(i).) ASTM test method 
D5599 is currently the designated test method for measuring oxygenates 
in gasoline. (Sec.  80.46(g)(1).) ASTM test method D4815 is currently 
an alternative test method for measuring oxygenates in gasoline. (Sec.  
80.46(g)(2).) ASTM test method D5769 is currently the designated test 
method for measuring aromatics in gasoline. (Sec.  80.46(f)(1).) ASTM 
test method D3606 is currently the designated test method for measuring 
benzene in gasoline. (Sec.  80.46(e).) ASTM test method D86 is 
currently the designated test method for measuring the distillation of 
gasoline. (Sec.  80.46(d).) ASTM test method D5191 is currently the 
designated test method for measuring the RVP of gasoline. (Sec.  
80.46(c).) ASTM test method D976 is currently the designated test 
method for measuring the Cetane Index of diesel fuel. (Sec.  80.2(w).) 
ASTM standard practice D4057 is currently the manual sampling standard 
practice for petroleum and petroleum products. (Sec.  80.8(a).) ASTM 
standard practice D4177 is currently the automatic sampling standard 
practice for petroleum and petroleum products. (Sec.  80.8(b).) ASTM 
standard practice D5842 is currently the RVP sampling standard practice 
for fuels. (Sec.  80.8(c).) ASTM standard practice D5854 is currently 
the composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum 
products. (Sec.  80.8(a).)
    Table VI-2 lists the designated analytical test methods and 
alternative analytical test methods for RFG, CG and diesel fuel that we 
are updating 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 revisions to these 
test methods will 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 so that improvements in the test method's procedures would 
ensure better operation for the user of the test method. Thus, EPA is 
today updating 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; (3) ASTM D4294-10, alternative test method for sulfur in 
diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (4) ASTM D5453-12, 
alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel at the 
500 ppm sulfur standard; (5) ASTM D6667-10, designated test method for 
sulfur in butane; (6) ASTM D4468-85(Reapproved 2011), alternative test 
method for sulfur in butane; (7) ASTM D3246-11, alternative test method 
for sulfur in butane; (8) ASTM D1319-13, 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; (9) 
ASTM D6550-10, alternative test method for measuring olefin content in 
gasoline; (10) ASTM D4815-13, alternative test method for measuring 
oxygenate content in gasoline; (11) ASTM D5599-00 (2010), the 
designated test method for measuring oxygen content in gasoline; (12) 
ASTM D5769-10, the designated test method for measuring aromatics in 
gasoline; (13) ASTM D3606-10, the designated test method for measuring 
benzene in gasoline; (14) ASTM D86-12, the designated test method for 
measuring distillation properties of gasoline; (15) ASTM D5191-12, the 
designated test method for measuring the RVP of gasoline; (16) ASTM 
D976-06(2011), the designated test method for measuring the Cetane 
Index of diesel fuel; and (17) ASTM D7039-13, alternative test method 
for measuring sulfur in gasoline.

[[Page 23575]]

 Table VI-2--Designated & Alternative ASTM International Analytical Test
       Methods Under RFG, CG & Diesel Motor Vehicle Fuel Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fuel parameter                ASTM Analytical test method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur (designated test        ASTM D2622-10, entitled ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products
                                by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray
                                Fluorescence Spectrometry''.
Sulfur (designated test        ASTM D2622-10, entitled ``Standard Test
 method for 500 ppm sulfur      Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products
 diesel).                       by Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray
                                Fluorescence Spectrometry''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D3120-08, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in
                                Light Petroleum Hydrocarbons by
                                Oxidative Microcoulometry''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D4294-10, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for 500 ppm sulfur      Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products
 diesel).                       by Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence
                                Spectrometry''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D5453-12, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Determination of Total Sulfur
                                in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition
                                Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and
                                Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
                                Fluorescence''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D5453-12, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for 500 ppm sulfur      Method for Determination of Total Sulfur
 diesel).                       in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition
                                Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and
                                Engine Oil by Ultraviolet
                                Fluorescence''.
Sulfur (designated test        ASTM D6667-10, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for butane).            Method for Determination of Total
                                Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons
                                and Liquefied Petroleum Gases by
                                Ultraviolet Fluorescence''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D4468-85(Reapproved 2011), entitled,
 method for butane).            ``Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur
                                in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and
                                Rateometric Colorimetry''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D3246-11, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for butane).            Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by
                                Oxidative Microcoulometry''.
Olefins (designated test       ASTM D1319-13, entitled ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid
                                Petroleum Products by Fluorescent
                                Indicator Adsorption''.
Aromatics (alternative test    ASTM D1319-13, entitled ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline and        Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid
 designated test method for     Petroleum Products by Fluorescent
 diesel).                       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.
Olefins (alternative test      ASTM D6550-10, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for the Determination of Olefin
                                Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-
                                Fluid Chromatography''.
Oxygen content (designated     ASTM D5599-00 (2010), entitled,
 test method for gasoline).     ``Standard Test Method for Determination
                                of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas
                                Chromatography and Oxygen Selective
                                Flame Ionization Detection''.
Oxygen content (alternative    ASTM D4815-13, entitled ``Standard Test
 test method for gasoline).     Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE,
                                TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1
                                to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas
                                Chromatography''.
Aromatics (designated test     ASTM D5769-10, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Determination of Benzene,
                                Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished
                                Gasolines by Gas Chromatography/Mass
                                Spectrometry''.
Benzene (designated test       ASTM D3606-10, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Determination of Benzene and
                                Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation
                                Gasoline by Gas Chromatography''.
Distillation (designated test  ASTM D86-12, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Distillation of Petroleum
                                Products at Atmospheric Pressure''.
Reid Vapor Pressure            ASTM D5191-12, entitled, ``Standard Test
 (designated test method for    Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum
 gasoline).                     Products (Mini-Method)''.
Cetane Index (designated test  ASTM D976-06(2011), entitled, ``Standard
 method for diesel).            Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index
                                of Distillate Fuels''.
Sulfur (alternative test       ASTM D7039-13, entitled, ``Standard Test
 method for gasoline).          Method for Sulfur in Gasoline, Diesel
                                Fuel, Jet Fuel, Kerosine, Biodiesel,
                                Biodiesel Blends, and Gasoline Ethanol
                                Blends by Monochromatic Wavelength
                                Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence
                                Spectrometry''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Amendments Related to Downstream Blending and Upstream Refiner/
Importer Compliance Determination
    Today's rule also clarifies the list of products that are not to be 
included in a refinery's or importer's compliance determination under 
Sec.  80.1240. Refiners and importers are currently required under 
Sec.  80.1235(b)(2) to exclude oxygenate added to finished gasoline, 
RBOB or CBOB downstream of either the refinery that produced the 
gasoline or the import facility where the gasoline was imported. This 
conflicts with EPA's intended approach in Sec.  80.1238(b), which 
allows refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream 
of a refinery or import facility in their annual average benzene 
calculation, provided the refiner or importer meets certain 
requirements. We are finalizing changes that will allow refiners and 
importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of their facility and 
that will make these related sections consistent. EPA received 
significant support for this action from commenters.
e. Amendments Regarding Previously Certified Gasoline
    For compliance with the MSAT2 regulations, for blendstock that is 
blended into previously certified gasoline (PCG), we are providing 
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 a produced batch. We are adding Sec.  
80.1347(a)(6) to reflect this alternative. This practice is already 
allowed under the Tier 2 sulfur program (at Sec.  80.340(a)(2)). 
Refiners and importers are currently required to determine the benzene 
content of the PCG before the addition of blendstock, determine the 
benzene content of the combined blend of PCG and blendstock, and 
calculate the properties of the blendstock by

[[Page 23576]]

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 amending the regulations at Sec.  80.1235(a)(6) (and 
adding Sec.  80.1347(a)(6), as mentioned) to allow refiners and 
importers who blend blendstock into PCG to directly test the blendstock 
for benzene. We expect that this method will improve accuracy and 
ensure a positive benzene test result. Also, today's action will 
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 amending the regulations at Sec.  80.1235(a)(5) 
to clarify that refiners and importers may use either approach for 
blendstocks that are blended into either conventional gasoline or 
reformulated gasoline.
    Lastly, we are allowing 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.\489\ 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. We are 
amending the regulations to provide this alternative by adding a new 
Sec.  80.1349. EPA received significant support for this action from 
commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \489\ 70 FR 74561 (December 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. 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 
finalizing (at Sec.  80.65(f)(5)) that a facility will 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 may 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). EPA received significant support for 
this action from commenters.
g. Amendments Related to De Minimis Reporting Changes
    We proposed that parties who submit batch reports would not be 
required to correct inconsequential errors in reporting batch volumes 
under certain conditions, the primary condition being that the 
discrepancy met the definition of ``de minimis'', which as proposed, 
was an amount no greater than the smaller of 500 gallons or one (1) 
percent of the true batch volume. Under the proposal, regulated parties 
would no longer be required to provide a complete resubmission of a 
compliance report when a minor discrepancy of a few barrels was 
uncovered. We proposed that this new provision would apply to reporting 
for RFG, anti-dumping, gasoline and diesel sulfur, and MSAT2. We 
proposed that it would also apply to the RFS renewable volume 
obligation (RVO), but would only apply to the volume of fuels produced 
or exported that result in a RVO for obligated parties.
    We received comments on this proposed change, many of which 
generally agreed with our concept. However, commenters who agreed with 
the concept stated that they believe the proposed levels are so small 
that they are of little practical value, and that a de minimis volume 
of 500 gallons will almost always be less than 1 percent of the true 
batch volume. In examples provided, commenters stated that pipeline 
batch volumes are approximately 25,000 barrels, and that a 500 gallon 
difference equates to a 0.05% difference; 500 gallons on a 250,000 
gallon refinery production batch equates to 0.005%. Thus, according to 
the commenters, the 500 gallon limit--which is clearly less than 1% in 
the two examples--would fail to provide the intended relief and would 
not prevent a party from having to make inconsequential volume 
corrections. These commenters suggested that a de minimis threshold 
value of 0.5 percent be applied regardless of batch size. Several 
commenters also recommended that we delete the proposed regulatory text 
at Sec.  80.10 (c) and (d), as the application of a de minimis 
threshold implies that small volume errors in batch reporting are truly 
inconsequential and do not have an impact on compliance with fuel 
standards, so no separate demonstration of material impact should be 
required.
    One commenter stated that it opposes the de minimis provision with 
respect to the RFS program. According to the commenter, EPA did not 
provide sufficient legal or factual basis for the proposal in order for 
the public to provide meaningful comment. In addition, according to the 
commenter, the proposed de minimis change, if finalized, would allow 
obligated parties to under report their volume, thereby reducing their 
RVO. The commenter also stated that EPA cannot finalize the proposed 
provision based on other comments it receives because, according to the 
commenter, EPA would still not be satisfying notice and comment 
requirements.
    We have decided not to finalize the proposed de minimis provisions 
at this time. One of the primary motivations for proposing the de 
minimis provision was to avoid the need for inconsequential corrections 
to production volumes that would have no impact on compliance with 
standards that rely on production volumes (e.g., average standards and 
RFS). Late changes to production volumes for whatever reason can 
necessitate simultaneous changes to compliance calculations that, if de 
minimis, would have no meaningful impact on compliance. However, as 
comments highlight, it is has proven difficult to come up with an 
acceptable de minimis threshold that can apply across all potential 
situations. Furthermore, the proposed provision focused only on volume 
corrections, but in reality our experience suggests that corrections 
often take place for other purposes such as data entry, coding, 
formating or other typographical errors--not only minor corrections to 
reported volume. We believe that adjusting reports for inconsistencies 
will become less burdensome, as EPA intends to transition all reporting 
to electronic reporting in the future. In addition, EPA received input 
from the regulated community about a de minimis provision specifically 
as it related to the RFS program. As discussed below in Section 
VI.A.1.h, we are finalizing a one-month delay in the RFS reporting 
deadline, which we believe will provide obligated parties with more 
time to review and correct their records and reports, and help to 
minimize the need for late corrections. We will revisit the need for a 
de minimis threshold in the future if these changes prove insufficient.
h. Amendments Related to RFS2 Annual Report Date
    EPA is finalizing the proposed changes to the RFS2 annual report 
date from the last day of February to March

[[Page 23577]]

31. EPA intended the change would 1) alleviate staffing problems for 
regulated entities because the regulatory requirements are often 
handled by the same personnel and 2) provide relief from the urgent 
need to obtain RINs when small discrepancies in gasoline production or 
import volumes are realized. Another reason for proposing a change to 
the reporting deadline from the last day in February to March 31 was 
described in Section VI.A.1.b. (Amendments Related to Reporting Dates). 
Streamlining reporting dates will allow EPA to develop a single, user-
friendly, electronic form that will collect all required data, 
maximizing the capability of electronic reporting to provide reuse of 
data and avoid duplicate data submission. Commenters generally agreed 
with the proposed date change. One commenter pointed out that the 
staffing issue described would not be addressed by the change date 
because EPA is changing both RFG and Anti-dumping compliance deadlines 
to March 31--same as the RFS2 annual reporting. EPA understands the 
point made but nonetheless, believes that delaying the RFS reporting 
date will give reporting entities additional time and flexibility to 
review data and will have no impact on emissions, air quality, or 
compliance with the standard. EPA also believes that the overarching 
goal of streamlining reporting dates to develop a single electronic 
reporting format, in and of itself, will provide general relief to 
regulated parties. Comments received generally support this view.
    EPA requested comment on whether or not the same date extension 
from the last day of February to March 31 should apply to those 
transferring RINs in EMTS for satisfying RVOs under the previous 
compliance year. Some commenters wanted to have RIN trading through the 
new deadline (March 31), while others wanted trading to end on the last 
day of February to allow time for data cleanup which could improve 
compliance and reporting accuracy. One commenter also pointed out that 
changing the RIN trading deadline might have an unforeseen impact on 
the RIN market and suggested EPA carefully consider this possibility 
before making a decision on extending the RIN trading date. EPA agrees 
that providing enough time for data cleanup is important to ensure 
reporting accuracy and meet compliance goals. In addition, EPA 
understands stakeholders' concerns about how such a change in RIN 
trading could conceivably impact the RIN trading market dynamics. As 
such, RIN transfers in EMTS for satisfying RVOs under the previous 
compliance year will continue to end on the last day of February.
i. Amendments to the Highway Diesel Pump Label Requirements
    We are removing 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, thus, retail and wholesale purchaser-consumer 
facilities will be free to continue labeling to eliminate confusion if 
they so choose. The elimination of this requirement from the 
regulations does not preclude retail and wholesale purchaser-consumer 
facilities from keeping 15 ppm highway diesel fuel labels, it only 
eliminates the EPA requirement that such labels must be present.
    Comments from parties in the fuels industry expressed support for 
this proposal. Additionally, we received a comment suggesting that the 
requirement of vehicle labeling for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel (ultra 
low sulfur diesel fuel, or ``ULSD'') should also be removed in 
conjunction with this change, as the vehicle labels would be 
unnecessary for the same reasons noted for the pump labels. We note 
that this change was in fact made for vehicles under 14,000 lbs GVWR in 
a previous rulemaking for MY 2014 and later vehicles (see 40 CFR 
86.1807-01(h)). Further, in today's action, we are discontinuing the 
ULSD labels for MY 2014 and later vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR at 40 
CFR 86.007-35(c).
2. Performance-Based Measurement Systems (PBMS)
    Today we are finalizing a performance-based measurement system 
(PBMS) for chemical and physical properties of fuels regulated by EPA's 
motor vehicle and engine fuel programs. Specifically, they are gasoline 
properties at Sec.  80.46, gasoline sulfur at Sec.  80.195, and diesel 
fuel properties at Sec.  80.2(z). At proposal, we explained that PBMS 
would set forth procedures and criteria for those laboratories making 
measurements to demonstrate compliance with fuels regulations to 
qualify alternative analytical test methods. We also explained that it 
would set minimum statistical quality control (SQC) requirements, based 
on standard industry practices, and that laboratories must maintain and 
document the precision and accuracy of analytical methods used in the 
context of this program. We further explained that EPA envisioned that 
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 vehicle and engine 
fuel properties while not reducing the emission benefits that result 
from these fuel programs. We reasoned that PBMS should also provide 
cost savings to the regulated industry by providing rapid access to 
newly-developed test methods with superior speed and ease of analysis. 
This is because some of these newer methods use less-expensive easier 
to automate instrumentation and smaller quantities of consumables, 
thus, reducing both operating costs and environmental impact (78 FR 
29953). Table VI-3 below lists fuel parameters and their corresponding 
designated test methods that we proposed to update.

                   Table VI-3--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 D5191-10b, 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.

[[Page 23578]]

 
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 D5599-00 (2010).
Aromatics in diesel fuel....................  ASTM D1319-10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Overview of Proposed Program Requirements
    As explained at proposal, in a June 29, 2004 rulemaking, EPA 
specified a performance-based approach for measuring diesel sulfur at 
15 ppm and 500 ppm and removed previous requirements that had specified 
particular designated and alternative methods for 15ppm diesel 
sulfur.\490\ We decided, in that rulemaking, to offer two options for 
test methods for diesel sulfur at the 500 ppm level. The first option 
required use of either the designated test method or specific 
alternative test methods.\491\ The second option was for a test method 
to meet performance based requirements similar to those adopted for 15 
ppm diesel sulfur.\492\ We proposed extending the performance-based 
approach to method selection and qualification to other parameters 
besides diesel sulfur, with modifications appropriate to accommodate 
the differences among fuel parameters. Today, consistent with our 
proposal, we are finalizing requirements for PBMS subject to a few 
revisions of certain requirements that we are making in response to 
comments on our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \490\ See 40 CFR 80.584 and 80.545.
    \491\ See 40 CFR 80.580(c)(2).
    \492\ See 40 CFR 80.584(a)(2), 40 CFR 80.584(b)(2)(i) through 40 
CFR 80.584(b)(2)(iii), and 40 CFR 80.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, in today's action we are setting forth requirements 
that laboratories should use to demonstrate the precision \493\ and 
accuracy \494\ of chosen fuel parameter measurement methods. As also 
explained at proposal, PBMS as finalized 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 quality criteria, (3) prescribe criteria rather than specific 
methods \495\, and (4) require all laboratories making regulatory 
measurements to establish and maintain a statistical quality control 
program (72 FR 29955). EPA continues to believe that PBMS will not 
compromise on either precision or accuracy relative to the system that 
exists under current regulations. We have also incorporated the 
standards and practices of Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) 
organizations wherever feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \493\ Precision--the amount of consistency in a set of 
measurements performed on the same material. ASTM repeatability and 
reproducibility are examples of measures of precision. ASTM 
Repeatability (``r'')--the difference between successive test 
results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under 
constant operating conditions on identical test material. ASTM 
Reproducibility (``R'')--the difference between two single and 
independent test results obtained by different operators working in 
different laboratories on identical test material using the same 
method.
    \494\ Accuracy--the closeness of a single measurement to its 
true value of what is being measured.
    \495\ For some parameters the criteria will be based on the 
laboratory's chosen method's ability to closely predict the 
measurements made by EPA's chosen or ``designated'' method. This 
approach is made necessary by the ``method-dependent'' definition of 
some of the parameters to be measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's requirements apply to the qualification of analytical test 
instrumentation and methods used to measure various characteristics of 
individual fuel samples. Consistent with our proposal, it does not 
apply to sampling methods or in-line blending methods. The Agency 
received several comments asking to extend PBMS to in-line blending 
methodologies expeditiously. As earlier explained, today's final action 
does not extend to sampling methods or in-line blending methods. This 
is because, in-line blending already has a certification process that 
sets forth qualification criteria that take into account the unique 
combinations of sampling, control, and analysis that are involved with 
in-line blending. See 40 CFR 80.65(f).
b. How can we establish the accuracy of the measurement system (all 
qualified methods/installations) for each parameter?
    We proposed grouping the gasoline and diesel fuel parameters that 
must be measured (e.g., aromatics, sulfur, etc.), into two categories, 
depending upon whether it is practically feasible to construct and use 
gravimetric standards \496\ for defining the parameter and thus, for 
determining the accuracy of a measurement method. To establish the 
accuracy of methods measuring each parameter for which gravimetric 
standards are not feasible, we proposed retaining an EPA-prescribed 
reference method or designated method that would, in effect, define the 
parameter--as in ``parameter X is, for federal regulatory purposes, 
whatever method Z measures.'' We explained that parameters that require 
such treatment would be described as ``method-defined'' parameters. We 
also explained that anchoring 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. We 
further explained that this approach is often referred to as 
``correlating'' the new method with the designated method. Such a 
correlative approach to qualification is dependent for its workability 
upon the test fuels used to establish the correlation. They 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 
does not hold true and where the predictions of the designated method's 
results are quite erratic and inaccurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \496\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As also explained at proposal, our classification of parameters 
into the absolute or method-defined categories is not entirely 
straightforward. Of the parameters subject to our proposal, only those 
with sulfur as the analyte seem to fall unambiguously into the absolute 
category. We additionally explained that sulfur is a single element 
rather than a

[[Page 23579]]

compound (or, worse, a class of compounds with numerous members) and 
thus lends itself to the construction of gravimetric standards. We 
further explained that 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, arguably, even more amenable to the absolute approach, 
since the matrix, butane, is a single compound rather than a constantly 
varying mixture of many compounds. We noted that the diesel sulfur rule 
used the absolute approach. We therefore proposed to treat gasoline 
sulfur and sulfur in butane as absolute parameters. For a complete 
discussion of our classification scheme see 78 FR 29955-29956.
    Given logical and practical difficulties with using a gravimetric 
approach to qualifying methods for parameters other than sulfur, EPA 
proposed and sought comment on classification of parameters into either 
the absolute category to be used for sulfur or method defined or 
correlative category to be used for all parameters other than sulfur. 
All comments received were in support of this approach. Therefore, 
today, EPA is adopting a classification of fuel parameters where the 
absolute category will be used for sulfur in gasoline and butane, and a 
method defined category will be used for all other gasoline and diesel 
fuel parameters.
c. How would analytic methods be evaluated for qualification?
i. General Provisions: to which methods and which parties do the 
proposed requirements apply?
    We proposed and requested comments on requiring laboratories to 
qualify all methods used in measurements for regulatory purposes. We 
explained that EPA did not believe that a relatively simple 
qualification test would ensure continued measurement quality, but 
rather that these requirements would greatly reduce the likelihood of a 
laboratory undertaking important measurements without some assurance 
that an instrument is in working order, that at least one operator 
\497\ in the laboratory understands the method for its use, and that it 
can be made to perform to meet acceptable criteria. We received 
comments that were supportive of these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \497\ The intent behind the qualification process is to 
demonstrate the facility's capability with the method. Accordingly 
we did not propose 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 did not propose to require, that a 
laboratory rotate operators during the testing required for 
qualification, thereby both improving and testing the skills of all 
operators for a given method and strengthening its quality program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. How would Laboratories demonstrate the precision and accuracy of 
methods for measuring ``absolute'' parameters and thus qualify the 
methods for use?
    As explained at proposal, test methods typically used for gasoline 
sulfur are also frequently used for diesel sulfur. We also noted that 
the ASTM test method designations for both are the same. At proposal, 
we explained that examination of test method descriptions, however, 
pointed toward substantial differences in how these test methods are 
used in the different matrices. Thus, while we considered the 
possibility of allowing the diesel sulfur qualifications to be used 
also for gasoline sulfur, we believed differences between a diesel fuel 
matrix and gasoline fuel matrix were likely too great to permit such a 
sweeping exemption from qualification requirements. We reasoned that 
reworking test methods to measure gasoline sulfur would, in many cases, 
generate most of the data needed for qualification, and thus would not 
represent a major additional effort. So, despite VCSB-sponsored 
gasoline sulfur test methods bearing the same organizational 
designations as their diesel counterparts, we proposed to require that 
these test methods qualify separately for use in measuring gasoline 
sulfur (78 FR 29956). No negative comments were received on our 
proposal to require test methods that have already been qualified for 
diesel fuel to qualify separately for gasoline. Thus, consistent with 
our proposal, we are finalizing requirements for test facilities that 
have already qualified a method for measuring sulfur in diesel fuel to 
qualify test methods for measuring sulfur in gasoline.
    Operational Description: We proposed requiring applications for 
qualification to include a complete operational description of the test 
method in question. For methods published by organizations such as ASTM 
International, we explained that the test method designation number and 
title would satisfy this requirement. We also proposed requiring the 
description to include the scope of the test method, a summary, 
discussion of interferences that are expected, apparatus needed, 
reagents, sampling and specimen preparation, calibration, test method 
procedure, calculations, and any test method-specific quality control 
(78 FR 29956). We received comments in support of these requirements as 
well as comments indicating that the regulations should explicitly 
state that the test method designation number and title of the test 
method would meet the operational description requirement for VCSB test 
methods. The Agency agrees with this comment and has modified the final 
regulations as suggested. In today's action we are also finalizing all 
other operational description requirements as proposed.
    Precision Qualification: We proposed and sought comments on 
requirements for precision qualification that were similar to 
requirements set forth in the non-road diesel sulfur rule. As explained 
at proposal that rule imposed a maximum value for the standard 
deviation \498\ 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. We explained that the factor of 1.5, expands the allowable 
variability from that of back-to-back tests (as in ASTM's definition of 
repeatability) to account for the sources of greater variability that 
find their way into a longer series of tests on the same material. We 
explained that 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 considered it to be reasonable, as well as 
having proven to be workable in practice, and therefore proposed that 
the precision qualification for diesel fuel be applied to both absolute 
and method defined fuel parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \498\ Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of 
the population (formula uses ``N-1'' in the denominator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments were supportive of our proposed precision criteria for the 
absolute fuel parameters of sulfur in gasoline and sulfur in butane. We 
also received comments that were against the extrapolation of precision 
qualification for absolute fuel parameters based on published method 
repeatability (r) to method defined parameters. These comments will be 
addressed in more detail below under the discussion of precision 
criterion for method defined fuel parameters.
    Gasoline Sulfur Precision Criteria: We proposed and sought comments 
on the use of the repeatability for ASTM D7039-07 (i.e., 1.76 ppm at 10 
ppm) to set the precision criterion for sulfur in gasoline. We reasoned 
that the maximum allowable standard deviation

[[Page 23580]]

of the twenty test results on a 10 ppm gasoline would be 0.95 ppm.\499\ 
We did not propose to prescribe the parameter level for the fuel used 
for these precision tests, because we believed that 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. We also explained that 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 (78 FR 29956-29957). 
Comments provided were in support of this requirement. Thus the Agency 
is finalizing the precision criterion for sulfur in gasoline that is 
based on the repeatability of ASTM D7039-07. This would require 
dividing it by 2.77 to obtain the underlying standard deviation, and 
multiplying the result by 1.5 to get the applicable precision criterion 
based on the concentration of sulfur in gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \499\ This number was determined by using the repeatability 
equation for ``r'' from ASTM D7039-07 for a 10 ppm sulfur gasoline 
to get 1.76 ppm, dividing the ``r'' in ppm by 2.77 to obtain the 
underlying standard deviation of 1.39 ppm, and multiplying the 
result by 1.5 (criterion used in diesel sulfur rule) to get 0.95 
ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sulfur in Butane Precision Criteria: We proposed a precision 
criterion based on the repeatability of ASTM D6667-10. We explained 
that this test method's repeatability at the 10 ppm level would be 1.15 
ppm, and that calculations for sulfur yielded an upper limit for the 
standard deviation of the 20 tests for sulfur in butane of 0.62 ppm (78 
FR 29957). Most of the comments we received were in support of our 
proposal. We also received one comment from the Independent Fuel 
Terminal Operators Association (IFTOA), a trade association for fuel 
terminal operators, which provided comments on behalf of its members. 
IFTOA expressed concerns over the repeatability calculation we provided 
at proposal for 10 ppm sulfur in butane. IFTOA explained that reduced 
sulfur levels would inhibit butane blending due to reduced availability 
of butane with very low sulfur. IFTOA requested additional flexibility 
and noted the difficulty and expense involved in finding butane with 
sulfur content of 10 ppm or below. Therefore, IFTOA urged the Agency to 
consider focusing on the sulfur content of the final blend and not the 
sulfur content of the butane component. IFTOA further provided comments 
urging the Agency to allow blenders downstream of the refinery and 
importer gate to add butane that meets the downstream per gallon cap so 
long as the butane blending operation does not cause the blender's 
finished gasoline to have annual average sulfur content above 10 ppm.
    The Agency disagrees with IFTOA's reading of the example 
calculation provided in the proposed preamble and regulations, which 
utilized the repeatability of ASTM D6667-10 as the basis for the 
precision criterion when the sulfur level of butane was at 10 ppm. The 
intent of this example was not to provide a cap on sulfur in butane at 
10 ppm, but rather only intended to be an example explaining that the 
precision criterion for sulfur in butane would be 0.62 ppm if the 
sulfur level in butane was 10 ppm. The Agency agrees with IFTOA that 
blenders downstream of the refinery and importer gate should be 
permitted to add butane that meets the downstream per gallon cap of 80 
ppm so long as the butane blending operation does not cause the 
blender's finished gasoline to have an annual average sulfur content 
above 10 ppm. Accordingly, today's final regulations include examples 
if sulfur in butane is at the 80 ppm cap, instead of the 10 ppm sulfur 
average. We are also finalizing precision criteria for sulfur in butane 
that is based on the repeatability of ASTM D6777-10, consistent with 
our proposal.
    Temporal Distribution of Precision Tests: With regard to spacing of 
the required 20 precision tests, we proposed and sought comments on 
requiring 7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day. We 
also sought 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 over 20 days (78 FR 
29957). We received comments in support of option 2, (i.e., arranging 
tests into no fewer than five batches or fewer tests each, with only 
one such batch allowed per day over the minimum of 20 days) because, 
according to commenters, it would provide the most flexibility and be 
easier to implement. Today's rule includes requirements for testing 
that are consistent with our proposed option 2.
    Accuracy Qualification: We proposed and sought comments on accuracy 
criteria for absolute fuel parameters that are similar to the criteria 
for sulfur in diesel fuel. We proposed that applicants for 
qualification would be required to select two commercially available 
gravimetric standard reference materials (SRM), and then 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 
(ARV), for each SRM. We proposed to use 0.75 times the precision 
criterion described above, which is the same value for sulfur in 
diesel. We explained that 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. For other parameters 
that might eventually fall into the absolute category, we proposed that 
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 (78 FR 29957).\500\ Comments 
were supportive of our proposed requirements for determining accuracy 
criteria for absolute fuel parameters. Thus, the Agency is finalizing 
the accuracy qualification criteria as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \500\ It is important to understand that the numerical examples 
presented in the text are entirely hypothetical, because use of 
precision testing material or gravimetric standards at levels other 
than those used in the examples would change all of the numbers. Use 
of a gasoline sulfur gravimetric standard at 5 ppm (instead of the 
10 ppm used in the example) would require computing the 
repeatability of the method at 5 ppm using the equation given in the 
method description, dividing it by 2.77, multiplying the result by 
1.5, and then multiplying that result by 0.75. As a short-cut, the 
accuracy criterion could be determined by multiplying the ASTM 
repeatability of the method at the level in question by 0.4061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. How would laboratories demonstrate the precision and accuracy of 
methods for measuring ``method-defined'' parameters and qualify the 
methods for use?
    Operational Description: We proposed the same operational 
description requirements for both method defined and absolute 
parameters. We explained that publication of a test method by a VCSB 
organization, such as ASTM, where the test method number and title is 
cited, would meet this criterion. We also explained that a non-VCSB 
test method would require additional information because non-VCSB test 
methods have not been fully vetted by a VCSB. We explained that the 
underlying scientific measurement principles must be thoroughly 
explained and the apparatus described well enough that a trained 
outsider could successfully implement the non-VCSB test method and 
replicate the applicant's results (78 FR 299957). In addition, for non-
VCSB test method we proposed that the description must

[[Page 23581]]

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. As 
previously discussed in Section VI.A.3.c.ii, we received comments in 
support of these requirements as well as comments indicating that the 
regulations should explicitly state that the test method designation 
number and title of the test method would meet the operational 
description requirement for VCSB test methods. The Agency agrees with 
this comment and has modified the final regulations as suggested. In 
today's action we are also finalizing all other operational description 
requirements as proposed.
    Precision Qualification Specifics: We proposed the same precision 
qualification criteria for both method defined and absolute parameters. 
For reference installations, we proposed additional requirements that 
the instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided 
for in ASTM D6299-10\e1\ (and the proposed SQC procedures) and that the 
applicant must submit control charts showing a record of in-control 
operation for at least five months. At proposal we acknowledged that 
while these requirements would likely result in a delay between 
instrument setup and the ability to qualify a reference installation, 
we believed that any delay was necessary to demonstrate the stability 
of these critically important installations. We reasoned that EPA 
expected no lack of laboratories that are capable of meeting these 
standards considering the number of long-established installations of 
these designated test methods (78 FR 29957).
    The Agency received several comments from the American Petroleum 
Institute, the Association of Fuel and Fuel Petrochemical 
Manufacturers, Chevron Products Company, and Marathon Petroleum Company 
LP that were against extrapolating the same precision qualification 
criteria for absolute fuel parameters, which is based on the published 
method's repeatability (r), to the precision qualification criterion of 
method defined fuel parameters. Specifically, according to the 
commenters, precision criteria for method defined fuel parameters are 
sensitive to the matrix making up the fuel material that is to be 
analyzed. This degree of sensitivity to the fuel matrix is different 
for different test methods, techniques, and instrumentation that 
measure the same method defined fuel property. Commenters recommended 
instead that the precision standard deviation qualification criterion 
be based on the Test Performance Index (TPI), as described in ASTM 
D6792.\501\ The commenters further explained that the TPI in ASTM D6792 
sets minimum site precision performance criteria based on test method 
reproducibility (R) and the Precision Ratio (PR) of the published test 
method. Also, commenters noted that using the TPI as outlined ASTM 
D6792 would be consistent with OMB Circular 119, which directs agencies 
to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government unique 
standard except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \501\ ASTM D6792-07, entitled, ``Standard Practice for Quality 
System in Petroleum Products and Lubricants Testing Laboratories''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency has evaluated ASTM D6792 and agrees that it would be 
appropriate to base the precision qualification criterion for method 
defined parameters on the TPI as described in ASTM D6792. We also agree 
that method-defined test methods are subject to fuel matrix effects, 
and therefore, that the degree of sensitivity to the fuel matrix is 
different for different test methods, techniques, and instrumentation 
that measure the same method defined fuel property. Therefore, in a 
change from proposal, and in response to comments, we are requiring 
that the precision qualification criterion for method defined 
parameters be based on the Test Performance Index (TPI) as described in 
ASTM D6792.
    Olefins in Gasoline Criterion: We had proposed to base the 
precision qualification for olefins in gasoline on the repeatability of 
ASTM D1319-10. Thus, we explained that for a test fuel with olefins at, 
say, 9 volume percent (Vol.%), the repeatability would be 0.972, the 
underlying standard deviation would be 0.972/2.77=0.351, and the 
precision criterion would be 1.5 times that or 0.53 Vol.%. We had 
proposed that a laboratory's standard deviation for the 20 tests could 
not exceed that value and still qualify for precision (78 FR 29957-
29958). Several commenters including the American Petroleum Institute, 
the Association of Fuel and Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers, Chevron 
Products Company, and Marathon Petroleum Company LP, argued that that 
the precision standard deviation criterion for method-defined 
parameters should be based on the TPI described in ASTM D6792-07.\502\ 
Also, both API and AFPM stated that using the TPI as outlined in ASTM 
D6792 is consistent with OMB Circular 119, which directs agencies to 
use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government unique 
standards except where either inconsistent with law or otherwise 
impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \502\ ASTM D6792-07, Standard Practice for Quality System in 
Petroleum Products and Lubricants Testing Laboratories\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously explained, the Agency has evaluated and agrees with 
the comment that the TPI, in ASTM D6792, should be used because it sets 
minimum site precision performance criteria based on test method 
reproducibility (R) and the Precision Ratio (PR) of the published test 
method. The Agency is therefore, finalizing the requirement that 
precision criteria for olefins in gasoline will be based on the TPI in 
ASTM D6792. Additionally, consistent with our proposal to afford the 
regulated community the use of the most current version of test 
methods, we are also updating the olefin in gasoline test method ASTM 
D1319 to the 2013 year version, as discussed in Section VI.A.1.a.iii 
above. We are also finalizing requirements that the reproducibility of 
ASTM D1319-13 be utilized in setting the precision criterion. For 
example, the reproducibility is 3.06, and the precision criterion is 
0.3 times 3.06 or 0.92 volume percent (Vol. %), for a test fuel with 
olefins at 9 Vol. %.
    Table VI-4 provides the TPI in ASTM D6792 for setting the olefin 
precision criterion.

                                         Table VI-4--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Olefins in Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Site precision
                                                                                                          ASTM D6792        Maximum          standard
                   ASTM method                                 Property               Precision ratio   minimum TPI =   acceptable site     deviation
                                                                                           (R/r)            (r/R')       precision (R')  qualification =
                                                                                                                                             R'/2.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D1319-13........................................  Olefins...........................              3.2              1.2            0.83R             0.3R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23582]]

    Aromatics in Gasoline Criterion: We proposed use of the 
repeatability standard deviation for D1319-10 to set the precision 
criteria for aromatics in gasoline (78 FR 29958). As previously 
explained, in response to comments received on proposed requirements 
for precision criteria for method-defined parameters, such as olefins 
in gasoline, the Agency is finalizing regulations for the use of the 
TPI in ASTM D6792 because we believe that it sets minimum site 
precision performance criteria based on test method reproducibility (R) 
and the Precision Ratio (PR) of the published test method. 
Additionally, as also previously explained, consistent with our 
proposal to afford the regulated community the use of the most current 
version of test methods, we are updating the aromatic in gasoline test 
method ASTM D1319 to the 2013 year version, as discussed in Section 
VI.A.1.a.iii. Thus, the reproducibility of ASTM D1319-13 should be 
utilized in setting the precision criterion. In today's action, the 
Agency is finalizing precision criteria for aromatics in gasoline that 
is based on the TPI in ASTM D6792 TPI. Thus, for example, the 
reproducibility is 3.7, and the precision criterion is 0.3 times 3.7 or 
1.11 Vol. % for a test fuel with aromatics at 32 Vol. %.
    Table VI-5 provides the TPI in ASTM D6792 TPI for setting the 
aromatics precision criterion along with the use of ASTM D1319-13's 
reproducibility.

                                        Table VI-5--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Aromatics in Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Site precision
                                                                                                          ASTM D6792        Maximum          standard
                   ASTM method                                 Property               Precision ratio   minimum TPI =   acceptable site     deviation
                                                                                           (R/r)            (r/R')       precision (R')  qualification =
                                                                                                                                             R'/2.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D1319-13........................................  Aromatics.........................              2.8              1.2            0.83R             0.3R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Oxygen and Oxygenates in Gasoline Criterion: We proposed use of the 
repeatability for D5599-00 (2010) to determine the precision criterion 
for oxygen and oxygenates in gasoline. We explained that for a test 
gasoline with 3 mass% total oxygen, the repeatability would be 0.083 
mass% and the criterion for precision in this example to be 0.045 mass% 
(78 FR 29958). As previously explained, in response to comments we 
received on our proposed precision criteria for method-defined 
parameters, the Agency is finalizing the use of the TPI in ASTM D6792 
for setting precision criteria for method defined parameters. Thus, for 
a test fuel with total oxygenate content at 3 mass % total oxygen, the 
reproducibility would be 0.32, and the precision criterion is 0.3 times 
0.32 or 0.10 mass % total oxygen. Table VI-6 provides the TPI in 
D6792for setting oxygen and oxygenates precision criterion.

                                        Table VI-6--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Oxygenates in Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Site precision
                                                                                                          ASTM D6792        Maximum          standard
                   ASTM method                                 Property               Precision ratio   minimum TPI =   acceptable site     deviation
                                                                                           (R/r)            (r/R')       precision (R')  qualification =
                                                                                                                                             R'/2.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D5599--00 (2010)................................  Oxygenates........................              6.8              2.4            0.42R            0.15R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each method defined fuel parameter that lacked alternative test 
methods we proposed a precision criterion of 1.5 times the 
repeatability for the designated test method divided by 2.77. We had 
proposed that a laboratory's standard deviation for the 20 tests could 
not exceed that value and still qualify for precision (Table VI-6, 78 
FR 29958). As explained above, as it relates to the Agency's response 
to the proposed precision criterion for method defined fuel parameters, 
the Agency today is finalizing precision criterion as provided in Table 
VI-7 for the various method defined fuel parameters lacking 
alternatives to the designated test method using the ASTM D6792 TPI 
approach, except for distillation. The distillation method defined fuel 
parameter is discussed in further detail below.

                  Table VI-7--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Fuel Parameters lacking Alternatives to the Designated Test Method
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                          Site precision
                                                                                                          ASTM D6792        Maximum          standard
                   Test method                                 Property               Precision ratio   minimum TPI =   acceptable site     deviation
                                                                                           (R/r)            (R/R')       precision (R')  qualification =
                                                                                                                                             R'/2.77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D5191-12........................................  RVP...............................              1.9              1.2            0.83R             0.3R
D3606-10........................................  Benzene...........................              4.6              2.4            0.42R            0.15R
D1319-13........................................  Aromatics in Diesel...............              2.8              1.2            0/83R             0.3R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to distillation properties, (which is one of the 
parameters lacking alternatives to designated test methods), several 
commenters, including API and AFPM, recommended the use of ASTM D86-07 
for setting the precision criterion for distillation properties. 
According to these commenters, the precision criterion as published in 
later year versions of ASTM D86 is not consistently supportable by 
actual ASTM ILCC program data. As support, they referenced Note 31 of 
the current ASTM D86 test method.\503\ They

[[Page 23583]]

commented that a plausible explanation for this is that the 
interlaboratory study (ILS) used to derive the current precision 
criteria required several runs on the ILS material to select heating 
profile, and hence does not reflect how the method is actually 
conducted in a routine production environment. In addition, the ILS 
study sample set may not adequately cover the range of available real 
world production gasoline. They also stated that there is general 
consensus that the precision of this test method is sensitive to the 
slope of the boiling curve; hence, a constant precision as articulated 
in the cited ASTM D86-11, a method may not be appropriate as a one-
size-fits-all measure for gasolines with different matrices and 
volatility properties for winter as compared to summer fuels. According 
to commenters, directionally, and based on on-going discussions with 
ASTM, it would appear that the ASTM test method precision may revert to 
a boiling curve slope based approach, similar to ASTM D86-07. They 
further commented that for gasoline containing ten volume percent 
ethanol (E10), the boiling curve slope and hence precision is impacted 
by the location of the azeotrope point relative to the distillation 
points of interest (T10, T50 and 
T90).\504\ Both API and AFPM also commented that the 
precision function as stated in ASTM D86-07 is a more realistic 
representation for E-10 gasoline precision with different fuel 
matrices. Finally, API and AFPM expressed concerns on the use of ASTM 
D86-11a precision criteria and the proposed precision qualification of 
1.5r/2.77, which they described as too restrictive. Both API and AFRPM 
provided fuel producer control chart data as an example, which is 
reproduced in Table VI-10.\505\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \503\ Note 31 of the current ASTM D86 test method reads ``NOTE 
31-- A new inter laboratory study is being planned to address 
concerns that laboratories are not able to meet the precision for 
percent evaporated temperature at fifty percent.''
    \504\ The azeotrope point is a function of the base stock 
gasoline composition, and therefore can vary with different fuel 
matrices.
    \505\ The raw data supporting the control data is supplied by 
API and AFPM in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135.

                 Table VI-8--API & AFPM Example of ASTM D86-11a Fuel Producer Control Chart Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     IBP          E10          E50          E90          FBP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg F..........................................       103.65       151.32       224.88       351.44       417.16
Stdev F........................................         1.93         1.66         1.36         1.22         2.66
Avg C..........................................        39.81        66.29       107.16       177.47       213.98
StDev C........................................         1.07         0.92         0.75         0.68         1.48
EPA precision criteria.........................         1.54         0.72         0.40         0.97         1.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing these comments and especially data set out in Table 
VI-8, we agree that our proposed distillation precision criterion would 
likely be too restrictive, especially for the distillation point of 
E50. Accordingly, in a change from proposal and in response to these 
comments and additional data, the Agency is finalizing precision 
criterion for the gasoline distillation parameter based on 0.3 times 
the automated reproducibility of ASTM D86-07 instead of ASTM D86-11a. 
Table VI-9 provides the precision criterion for the gasoline 
distillation method defined fuel parameter.

Table VI-9--Method-Defined Precision Criterion for Gasoline Distillation
     Based on 0.3 Times the Automated Reproducibility of ASTM D86-07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                0.3* Reproducibility
         Percent Evaporated Point                     ([deg]C)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial Boiling Point.....................  0.3 * 8.5.
10 Percent Evaporated.....................  0.3 *(3.0 +2.64*Sc).
50 Percent Evaporated.....................  0.3*(2.9+3.97*Sc).
90 Percent Evaporated.....................  0.3*(2.0+2.53*Sc).
Final Boiling Point.......................  0.3*10.5.
                                            Where Sc is the average
                                             slope (or rate change) of
                                             the gasoline distillation
                                             curve as calculated in
                                             accordance with Section
                                             13.5 of ASTM D86-07.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accuracy Qualification: At proposal, we also explained that test 
methods used to measure method-defined parameters would likely fall 
into three separate tracks: reference installations of designated 
methods intended for use in qualifying alternative methods; designated 
method installations intended for ordinary production measurements; and 
non-designated methods. We proposed and sought comments on requirements 
that reference instruments must be shown to have been near the middle 
of the distribution of the industry monthly inter-laboratory crosscheck 
program (ILCC) for at least five months prior to application. We also 
proposed that laboratories would specifically compute the difference 
between the instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the 
applicable standards (or to the average value for the fuel type in the 
complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the 
non-outlier labs in the program. We further proposed that this 
difference would be standardized by expressing it in robust standard 
deviation units. These standardized ILCC differences would be put into 
a moving average with a span of, say, 5 months. We proposed to set the 
standard so that the instrument's moving average would be within the 
central 50% of the distribution of participating designated method 
labs. We also reasoned that because a robust standard deviation is used 
by the ILCC program this percentage will have to be approximate (78 FR 
29958).
    Several commenters, including API and AFPM commented on the 
proposed requirements for reference installations of method defined 
fuel parameters used to qualify other method defined test methods. 
These comments and our response to these comments are discussed in 
further detail below.
    At proposal we discussed the role of Voluntary Consensus Bodies in 
qualifying alternative analytical test methods as well as the use of 
reference materials in qualifying and maintaining such test methods. We 
requested comments on the appropriateness of using three types of 
standard reference materials for accuracy and on their

[[Page 23584]]

applicability in the qualification process and statistical quality 
control process of analytical test methods. Specifically, we proposed 
use of the following: (1) Gravimetric standards, (2) Consensus named 
fuels (e.g., gasoline or diesel fuels), and (3) Locally named 
standards. For a complete discussion of these issues see 78 FR 29958-
29960. All comments received were in support of the use of these kinds 
of reference materials in the qualification process and statistical 
control program.
d. Qualification criteria for designated method installations used to 
qualify method-defined parameter instruments
    We proposed the following requirements for designated test method 
installations (also known as are reference installations) that would be 
used to qualify method-defined parameter instruments. We explained that 
these reference installations would be used to evaluate the accuracy of 
other alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations, 
and as such that we believed that they should be held to higher 
standards.
    First, we proposed that reference instruments must meet precision 
qualification requirements that are similar to the criteria set forth 
in the non-road diesel sulfur rule. As explained earlier, that rule 
imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation \506\ 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. We proposed that for those 
method-defined parameters, shown in Table VI-6 of the proposed 
preamble, lacking currently allowed alternatives to their designated 
methods, the precision criteria would be based on the fuel parameter's 
designated test method. At proposal, we also explained that in each 
case the precision criterion is determined by (``r''/2.77) times 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 (79 FR 29960).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \506\ Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of 
the population (formula uses ``N-1'' in the denominator).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, the Agency received comments that were not 
in support of extrapolating the same precision qualification criteria 
for absolute fuel parameters, which is based on published method 
repeatability (r) of the applicable fuel parameter times 1.5 and 
dividing by 2.77, to precision criterion of method defined parameters. 
As previously explained, these commenters stated that the precision 
criteria of method defined parameters are sensitive to the matrix of 
the fuel. This degree of sensitivity to fuel matrix effects is 
different for different test methods, techniques, and instrumentation 
that claim to measure the same method defined fuel property. Also, 
commenters recommended that the precision standard deviation 
qualification criterion for method defined parameters be based on a TPI 
as described in ASTM D6792.\507\ As previously explained, the Agency 
has evaluated ASTM D6792 and agrees that the precision qualification 
criterion for method defined parameters be based on a TPI as described 
in ASTM D6792. Thus, in a change from proposal, we are finalizing 
requirements for reference instruments to meet precision qualification 
requirements as discussed above for their respective fuel parameter in 
Table VI-4 through Table VI-9 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \507\ ASTM D6792-07, entitled, ``Standard Practice for Quality 
System in Petroleum Products and Lubricants Testing Laboratories''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we proposed that reference instruments must be shown to be 
near the middle of the distribution of the ILCC program for at least 
the five months prior to application.\508\ We proposed requiring 
laboratories to specifically compute the difference between the 
instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable 
standards (or to the average value for the fuel type in the complex 
model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non-
outlier labs in the program. We further proposed that this difference 
be standardized by expressing it in robust standard deviation units. We 
also proposed that these standardized ILCC differences would be put 
into a moving average with a span of, say, 5 months. We proposed to set 
the standard such that the instrument's moving average would be within 
the central 50% of the distribution of participating designated method 
labs. We explained that because a robust standard deviation is used by 
the ILCC program this percentage would have to be approximate. We 
further explained that 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. In essence, these designated method 
installations would serve as surrogates for the gravimetric standards 
that cannot be used in qualifying alternative methods for method-
defined parameters (79 FR 29960).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \508\ There may be an alternative to this measure to be had from 
the D6299-10\e1\ calculations, so that we could require that the 
instrument be doing SQC and having a certain quality of performance. 
This could reduce the burden of calculations and align this 
requirement better with the NTTAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both API and AFPM stated that this requirement would be feasible 
for a single entity wishing to qualify alternate test methods under 
ASTM D6708 by using a single reference installation; however, they 
described the requirement as overly restrictive in other instances. 
Based on a workup, provided as a separate attachment to their comments 
\509\, of the proposed requirements using ASTM D5599 Total Oxygen 
results on eleven RFG distributions, RFG1205 through RFG1303, they 
showed that less than fifteen percent of the participants met the 
proposed EPA requirement of staying within the central 50 percent for 5 
successive exchanges. Therefore, they suggested a requirement of 3 out 
of 5 successive exchanges staying within the middle 50 percent of the 
distribution of measurements on the ILCC program would be more 
realistically achieved in practice. After reviewing these comments and 
data, the Agency agrees that setting a requirement of 3 out of 5 
successive exchanges to stay within the middle 50% of the distribution 
of measurements of the industry monthly ILCC program for at least five 
months is more appropriate and achievable as compared to 5 out of 5 
successive exchanges staying within the middle 50% of the distribution 
of measurements of the ILCC for at least five months. Another commenter 
recommended the option of using other crosscheck programs besides those 
from ASTM, and suggested that EPA revise criteria for the reference 
installations at 40 CFR 80.47(k)(2) to also refer to use of 
commercially available monthly ILCC. The Agency agrees that the 
regulated community should be able to use both commercially available 
and industry monthly ILCC, and has made this change to 40 CFR 80.47(k) 
to afford this flexibility. Therefore, in a change from proposal, and 
in response to these comments, the Agency is setting a requirement that 
a reference installation of the designated test method must be shown to 
be within the middle 50% of the distribution of measurements for 3 out 
of 5 exchanges of either the industry

[[Page 23585]]

or commercially available monthly ILCC program for at least five 
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \509\ For a description of workup and spreadsheet associated 
with these comments, see attachment No. 4 in Docket number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0135-4276-A5.pdf and attachment No. 5 in EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135-4276-A6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter suggested that EPA should require applicants to 
submit control charts showing a record of in-control operation for at 
least five months provided that: (1) Regular maintenance and/or re-
calibration conducted during the 5 month in-control qualification 
period is considered as part of in-control normal operation, and (2) 
the clock for the 5 month period does not re-start (in other words the 
system is still considered to be in-control) if an assignable cause for 
out of control is found, mitigated, and the system is brought back in-
control during the period that the reference installation is attempting 
to meet the 5 month in-statistical-control requirement. The Agency 
agrees with these two conditions and in a change from our proposal, we 
are finalizing regulations that would allow systems meeting these two 
conditions to be in-control with respect to the 5 month in-statistical-
control requirement. Finally, for reference installations, we proposed 
that the reference instrument must be shown to be in statistical 
control, as provided for in ASTM D6299-10\e1\, comply with applicable 
SQC procedures as well as have control charts showing a record of in-
control operation for at least five months. We explained that while 
these requirements would likely impose a delay between instrument setup 
and the ability to qualify as a reference installation we believed that 
any delay would be necessary to demonstrate the stability of these 
critically important installations. We also reasoned that we expected 
no lack of facilities capable of meeting these standards considering 
the number of long-established installations of these designated 
methods.
    API and AFPM disagreed with this requirement and stated that 
summary statistics (mean and standard error = standard deviation/square 
root [no. of results]) from ILCC program data can be used as is, i.e., 
without imposing the reference installation criteria to conduct an ASTM 
D6708 assessment on VCSB alternate test methods, provided that the 
number of non-outlying results is greater than 16 for both designated 
and alternate methods. According to both commenters, this is the 
current de facto methodology for determination of ARV of check 
standards as specified in ASTM D6299, clause 6.2.2.1 and Note 7. Both 
commenters also suggested that using ASTM D6299 for establishing ARV 
would be consistent with OMB Circular 119. They noted also that ASTM 
ILCC program data for the method-defined parameters of interest exceeds 
this number (16) significantly.
    API and AFPM also commented that it is neither necessary nor 
statistically justified to apply the reference installation precision 
and middle 50 percent criteria to the ILCC program data for designated 
test method because the relevant ILCC program statistics are calculated 
using outlier-free data, and the number of data points is large, hence 
providing a better statistical sample of the laboratory population. 
According to them, the mean calculated using the full ILCC program 
outlier-free data set is a more accurate representation of the 
population parameter ([mu]) than the mean calculated using only the 
middle 50 percent. They noted the standard error for the arithmetic 
mean calculated using the full ILCC program data set is significantly 
reduced due to the square root [number of non-outlying results] term in 
the denominator for calculation of standard error. Both API and AFPM 
also urged EPA to clearly state that the use of ILCC program data as 
described above is suitable for an ASTM D6708 assessment of VCSB 
alternate test methods. EPA agrees that the use of ASTM ILCC program 
data is suitable for an ASTM D6708 assessment of VCSB alternative test 
methods, provided that the number of non-outlying results is greater 
than 16 for both designated and alternate methods. In these situations 
where VCSB ILCP data is utilized during an ASTM D6708 assessment, the 
reference installation criteria provided in the regulations will not 
apply, rather a VCSB will have the flexibility of utilizing the VCSB 
ILCC program data to conduct an ASTM D6708 assessment. The Agency has 
made these changes in the final regulations to reflect these comments.
    Finally, API and AFPM noted that the current ``robust'' outlier 
treatment methodology for the ASTM CS92 ILCP program will be replaced 
with a statistically more rigorous approach using the Generalized 
Extreme Studentized Deviation (GESD) technique. Thus, they suggested 
that EPA remove the term ``robust'' from the preamble and regulations 
wording. EPA agrees with the comment and has removed ``robust'' from 
the final regulations wording.
e. Qualification Criteria for Designated Test Method Installations that 
are ``Method-Defined'' Parameters Instruments and Not Used To Qualify 
Other ``Method-Defined'' Methods
    At proposal, we explained that refiners, importers and oxygenate 
blenders producing gasoline and diesel fuel are required to test these 
fuels to determine the levels of various specified parameters. A 
designated test method is associated with each parameter to be tested 
(except for sulfur concentration in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, which 
must meet performance-based requirements) \510\ in 40 CFR part 80. 
Table VI-5 of the proposed rule preamble listed the fuel parameters and 
their corresponding designated test methods. We proposed that 
installations of designated methods must maintain records and meet 
certain statistical quality control requirements. We explained that 
requiring all installations of all methods, including existing 
designated method installations, to implement statistical quality 
control, would likely suffice to homogenize and improve measurement 
quality in these already-stable and standardized methods (78 FR 29961).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \510\ See 40 CFR 80.580, 40 CFR 80.584 and 40 CFR 80.585.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Qualification Criteria for Method Defined Parameter Instruments 
Other Than Designated Test Methods
    With regard to method-defined parameters, the Agency today is 
finalizing two options for qualification of alternative test methods. 
The first option, known as the VCSB approach, allows for qualifying 
methods that have been sponsored and published by a voluntary consensus 
standards body, such as ASTM International. The second option, known as 
the non-VCSB approach, 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. At proposal, we explained that both options would require the 
candidate method to have a precision criterion that is at least equal 
to that of the designated analytical test method (though not defined in 
precisely the same way). We also proposed to require that 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 (78 FR 29961).
    Consistent with our proposal, we are finalizing the following 
criteria for both the VCSB and non-VCSB approaches to qualify method-
defined instruments that are discussed in further detail below.

[[Page 23586]]

i. Qualification Criteria for VCSB Method-Defined Parameter Test 
Methods
    For methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB, such 
as ASTM, we expect that at a minimum, the VCSB must have fully 
described the analytical test method, so that it is replicable in many 
different laboratories and its operation may be understood by a 
technician. (We continue to consider publication of a method by a VCSB 
organization such as ASTM as meeting 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. Consistent with our proposal, a VCSB-based 
candidate 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, we 
continue to believe that 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 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.\511\ Further, consistent with 
our proposal, VCSB method-defined test methods must utilize ASTM D6708 
to determine if a correlation equation is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \511\ ASTM D 6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for 
Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between 
Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a 
Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Qualification Criteria for non-VCSB Method-Defined Parameter Test 
Methods
    Consistent with our proposal, 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. We 
proposed the following seven qualification criteria for non-VCSB 
method-defined parameter test methods.
    First, the Agency proposed to require a complete operational 
description of the non-VCSB test method, as described above in Section 
VI.A.2.c.iii of this preamble. We explained that 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.
    Second, the Agency proposed that the candidate non-VCSB test method 
be tested on a range of fuels \512\ and by a qualified reference 
installation of the applicable designated test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \512\ Fuels, either consensus named fuels or locally named 
reference materials, used must be typical of those to be analyzed by 
the facility in practice and must meet the data requirements 
(variability, etc.) of ASTM D6708-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Agency proposed 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 proposed 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. We explained that 
it was possible that 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 statistical 
variability criteria). In this situation, types of fuels used for 
qualification and the method that 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. The Agency 
believes that any restriction on the scope of fuels to be used in 
qualifying a method must be accompanied by a discussion of how the 
applicant plans to screen samples for conformity to the scope.
    Fifth, the Agency proposed that precision qualification be 
conducted in the form of cross-method reproducibility 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.
    We explained that 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. For a detailed description of cross-
method reproducibility (Rcm) see 78 FR 29962.
    Sixth, the Agency proposed that the applicant would demonstrate, 
through the use of ASTM D6708-08, whether a correlation to the 
designated test method is necessary. We explained that ASTM D6708-08 
could also be used to determine whether the candidate methods results 
are either 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 proposed the use of ASTM 6708-08 for corrections, if 
it is determined that the candidate method requires such a correction 
to predict designated test method results. The Agency proposed that the 
correction would be applied to the candidate instruments output to 
obtain measurements results for regulatory purposes.
    Finally, we proposed to require that applicants for non-VCSB test 
methods secure an independent third party oversight and audit review of 
the data generated and used to qualify non-VCSB test methods. We 
proposed 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 
requirements for non-VCSB test method qualification have been 
satisfied. The Agency explained that this requirement would provide 
additional assurance that a non-VCSB test method is found to be 
adequate in use for compliance (78 FR 29961-29962).
    We received comments in support of the proposed qualification 
criterion for non-VCSB Method-Defined Parameters. One commenter 
recommended allowing third-party oversight service providers that have 
good working knowledge of

[[Page 23587]]

ASTM D6708 and ASTM D6299 in addition to degrees in Chemistry or 
Statistics. Further, they believed that limiting the third party 
oversight qualification to only U.S. degree holders would exclude non-
U.S. degreed subject matter experts with equivalent knowledge and 
qualification. They suggested that rule language be expanded to include 
non-U.S. equivalent degreed or industry recognized subject matter 
experts. Another commenter recommended professional chemical engineers 
with demonstrated experience in analytical techniques as an option to 
chemists and statisticians because, according to the commenter, 
chemical engineers have a strong background in chemistry, and based on 
trends within industry they would also have experience in statistical 
process control. The Agency agrees with these comments and has amended 
the final regulations to include chemical engineers and non-U.S. 
degreed subject matter experts with equivalent knowledge and 
qualifications as third party oversight service providers. Rule 
revisions have also been made to reflect the recommendation that all of 
these candidates should also have a good working knowledge of ASTM 
D6708 and ASTM D6299.
    Consistent with our proposal, the Agency today is finalizing the 
qualification criteria for non-VCSB method defined fuel parameters with 
the few changes in response to comments as discussed above.
g. Statistical quality control: how can we ensure that test methods 
continue to deliver quality measurement in practice?
    Today's final action also includes a statistical quality control 
(SQC) program that must be applied to any analytical test method used 
in the regulatory programs covered by this final action. Consistent 
with our proposal, every laboratory that uses test instruments to 
measure fuel parameters to satisfy EPA's reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements must implement and maintain a basic SQC program. Unlike 
the qualification criteria requirements, where only one set of 
essentially identical instruments implementing the same method in a 
laboratory must qualify, every laboratory must have a separate SQC 
program for each instrument used to make measurements for reporting or 
recordkeeping purposes.\513\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \513\ Such SQC programs are already an established part of VCSB 
protocols for analytical laboratory operation (as indicated by such 
practices as ASTM's D6299-10\e1\) and are likely to be part of most 
laboratories ''standard operating procedures.'' Thus, such a 
requirement very likely adds little or nothing in the way of burden 
for most laboratories. Laboratories that lack such programs and 
would have to expend significant effort to create them are those 
most at risk for poor measurements and for which the effort is most 
easily justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with our proposal, we are also finalizing requirements 
that provide implementation of a SQC program by a laboratory as a 
defense in any subsequent enforcement actions where measurements are in 
issue. Today's requirements also reflect our proposal to adopt a subset 
of SQC procedures that are already widely in use from ASTM D6299-
10\e1\. We continue to anticipate that the measures we are finalizing 
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 laboratories 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 yield 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 finalized minimum specific SQC 
requirements for laboratories for absolute parameters, VCSB-approved 
methods used to measure method-defined parameters, and non-VCSB 
proprietary methods used to measure method-defined parameters are 
discussed in further detail below.
    We proposed similar precision and accuracy SQC requirements for 
each instrument used to measure absolute and VCSB-approved and non-VCSB 
proprietary methods for measuring method-defined parameters in the 
laboratory. We proposed that every instrument would test a quality 
control (QC) material \514\ either once per 20 production tests or once 
per week and maintain both an ``I'' chart \515\ and an ``MR'' 
chart.\516\ We proposed that any violation of the control limit would 
be investigated by laboratory personnel, corrective action taken as 
required, and records kept of the incident for a period of 5 years. We 
also proposed allowing used of ASTM D6299-10\e1\ procedures for 
transitioning from one batch of QC material to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \514\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition 
and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, 
storage and use of reference material samples.
    \515\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for 
chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon 
corrective action.
    \516\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section A1.5.2 for chart 
construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should 
be investigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also proposed use of Annex A1.9, entitled ``Q-Procedure'', of 
ASTM D6299-10\e1\ for validating new QC material. We proposed that when 
QC material is soon-to-be-depleted, that a new batch of QC material 
would be prepared and its value compared to the old QC material on a 
chart. We explained that the new batch of QC material would be tested 
concurrently with the soon-to-be-depleted old QC material. And the 
results would be plotted from the ``old'' and ``new'' QC materials on 
respective charts, and if no special-cause signals are noted, then the 
result for the new material would be considered valid (78 FR 29963-
64).\517\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \517\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Annex A1.9 Q-Procedure. Procedures 
differ depending whether an I-chart, MR chart, EWMA chart, Q-chart 
or a combination of these charts are utilized by the laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received comments in support of all these requirements with the 
exception of requirements for both QC verification and validation of 
new QC materials. One commenter recommended that test facilities 
conduct verification of new QC material three times a year rather than 
on a quarterly basis so that this requirement is aligned with ASTM 
International ILCC program sample cycle frequency. The Agency agrees 
with this comment and has made rule language changes to reflect that 
test facilities can conduct verification of new QC material three times 
a year in order to align this requirement with ASTM ILCC program sample 
cycle frequency. Additionally, the Agency envisions this change will 
help encourage the participation of ASTM Subcommittees in the PBATM 
approach for their respective alternative test methods.
    One commenter noted that the Q-procedure in ATSTM D6299, which 
relates to the handling of QC material batch transition, is intended to 
be an alternative approach to the concurrent testing (overlap) 
protocol. They suggested the option of using either one of the two 
procedures, and not both the Q-Procedure and I-procedure as we had 
proposed. According to the commenter, the Q-procedure is technically 
equivalent to the I-procedure. They also suggested that for sites 
opting to use the Q-procedure, the very first run on the new QC batch 
should be validated by either an overlap in-control result of the old 
batch, or by a single execution of an accompanying SRM. Then the new 
result would be considered validated if the single result of the SRM is 
within the established site precision (R') of the ARV of the SRM. The 
Agency agrees that the Q-procedure is functionally equivalent to the I-
procedure and that

[[Page 23588]]

laboratories should be given the flexibility to use either of these two 
procedures instead of both procedures, as proposed. The Agency also 
agrees that for sites opting to use the Q-procedure, the very first run 
on the new QC batch should be validated by either an overlap in-control 
result of the old batch, or by a single execution of an accompanying 
SRM. The new result would be considered validated if the single result 
of the SRM is within the established site precision (R') of the ARV of 
the SRM. In response to these comments, we have revised our proposed 
regulations to reflect these suggested changes.
    We proposed requiring every instrument to test a commercially 
available gravimetric ``SRM'' (``check standard'' as defined in ASTM 
D6299-10\e1\) on a quarterly basis. We explained that the absolute 
difference between the mean of multiple back-to-back tests of the SRM 
and the ARV of the SRM that is 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 proposed to require that records of the SRM 
measurements and investigations into any exceedance of these proposed 
criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. Additionally, we 
proposed to require laboratories to pre-treat and assess results from 
the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions,\518\ 
construct ``MR'' and ``I'' charts \519\ with control lines, and 
maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting 
underlying causes of any control limit violations as discussed in ASTM 
D6299-10\e1\. We proposed to require that records of such incidents and 
the underlying control charts must be kept by the facility for a period 
of 5 years. (78 FR 29963.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \518\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and 
Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a 
single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or 
multiple check standards must be used.
    \519\ See ASTM D6299-10\e1\, Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex 
sections for chart construction and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the expanded uncertainty of the ARV 
should be incorporated into the accuracy qualification criterion as 
follows: Accuracy qualification criterion = square root 
[(0.75R)[supcaret]2 + (0.75R) [supcaret]2/L], where L = the number of 
single results obtained from different labs used to calculate the 
consensus ARV. According to the commenter, this is because the standard 
error of the ARV in the consensus-named fuels may not in all cases be 
negligible when compared to 0.75R. The Agency agrees with this comment 
and has incorporated the standard error of the ARV in the consensus-
named fuel into the accuracy qualification criteria for determining 
when appropriate action should be taken during an SQC investigation.
    Today, the Agency is also finalizing the Statistical Quality 
Control requirements for absolute fuel parameters, and VCSB-approved 
and non-VCSB proprietary methods that are used for measuring method 
defined parameters, as proposed. Consistent with our proposal, the 
Agency is also finalizing requirements allowing use of either the ``I'' 
chart or Q-procedure for validation of new check standards, and the 
incorporation of the standard error of the ARV in the consensus-named 
fuel into the accuracy qualification criteria for determining when 
appropriate action should be taken during an SQC investigation.
h. Agency Approval Options
    We proposed to require qualification of only proprietary analytical 
test methods, i.e., non-VCSB test methods for fuel parameters. We also 
sought comment on whether we should require qualification of all 
analytical test methods for fuel parameters. The following section 
contains a discussion of our proposal, as well as our final decision 
based on the comments received on our proposal.
    At proposal, we explained that the approach to performance-based 
qualification of test methods would go considerably beyond the minimum 
requirements of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 
1995 in providing flexibility of method choice, and accomplish 
performance-based qualification without compromising measurement 
quality. We also reasoned that the primary tools for achieving the 
latter objective are laboratory-specific qualification of method 
installations and a requirement for across-the-board SQC. We also 
explained that while EPA would benefit from PBMS, when finalized, by no 
longer having to evaluate new alternative measurement methodologies, 
this benefit would likely not offset the substantial and unpredictable 
resource costs involved in administering a qualification process and 
providing infrastructural support for laboratories' SQC programs (78 FR 
29964-29965).
    We proposed qualification requirements for only non-VCSB test 
methods for fuel parameters. We also proposed excluding designated test 
methods that have been in operation 6 months prior to finalizing this 
rule, as well as test methods that are developed by VCSBs, like ASTM 
International or the International Organization for Standards (ISO) 
from qualification requirements. We had also proposed subjecting 
laboratories that develop test methods but decide not to offer them for 
evaluation and establishment through a VCSB-based organizational 
process to qualification requirements.\520\ We proposed that all test 
methods subject to qualification requirements must be qualified 
independently by each analytical laboratory that wishes to adopt the 
test method. We explained that this is because such a test method would 
not have been shown to be capable of accurately measuring the fuel 
parameter in different laboratories and across a variety of fuel 
matrices. We also explained that 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 on other laboratory, and its accuracy must 
be demonstrated by direct correlation to the designated analytical test 
method for the particular fuel parameter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \520\ Reasons for not submitting a local method for VCSB 
evaluation may include the proprietary nature of software or 
apparatus or the fact that the method is highly matrix-sensitive and 
not likely to perform consistently when used to analyze fuels with 
widely varying properties. EPA recognizes that matrix sensitivities 
may be subtle and methods with such characteristics may have been 
sponsored and published by VCSB's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For test methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB 
such as ASTM or ISO, we proposed that 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. We also 
proposed that 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 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.\521\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \521\ This first approach assumes that a single such equation 
can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may 
not always hold true. The more detailed discussion of the two 
approaches that follows this introduction explores this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also proposed that a VSCB-based alternative test method need not 
be qualified separately in each laboratory that adopts it. We explained 
that this is because the test method's procedures would have been 
exhaustively described by the time the VCSB-based candidate alternative 
test method has been

[[Page 23589]]

through the extensive development process typically required by a VCSB. 
We also reasoned that at this point there would be little uncertainly 
about how the analytical test method is to be applied, and it would 
have been implemented in a variety of different laboratories and used 
on a variety of different types of fuels. We continue to believe that 
the VCSB-based process gives 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. 
As also explained at proposal, 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 \522\ and for determining whether the alternative test 
method can be adequately correlated with the designated test 
method.\523\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \522\ ASTM D6708-08, 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.
    \523\ ASTM D6708-08, entitled, Standard Practice for Statistical 
Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test 
Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also recognized that imposing qualification requirements on 
existing test methods developed by a VCSB without adequate lead time 
may be problematic. We thus proposed to give methods published and in 
operation upon publication of the Tier 3 proposed rule (May 21, 2013) a 
grace period of one year from the effective date of a final rule to 
comply with today's requirements.
    We also proposed to exempt existing (i.e., in use for six months 
prior to publication of the proposal) installations of designated test 
methods that are method-defined parameters from the qualification 
requirement. We reasoned that these installations were stable and 
capable methods in relatively experienced hands because they are 
already being used to certify fuels, and that requiring their 
qualification could be disruptive and burdensome to both their 
operators and to whomever manages the qualification process. We further 
reasoned that 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 also proposed 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 also sought comment on whether the Agency should require 
qualification of all analytical test method for the fuel parameters of 
40 CFR part 80. This would include each designated test method, all 
alternative test method 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 recognized that imposing the qualification requirement on 
existing and operational installations of all methods without adequate 
lead time may be problematic. We thus proposed to give laboratories 
(i.e., those in operation when the proposal was published (May 21, 
2013)) a grace period of one year from the effective date of the final 
rule prior to complying with the requirements being finalized in 
today's rule. We explained that we believed 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 (78 FR 29964-29965).
    All comments received were in support of our proposal to require 
qualification of only non-VCSB test methods for fuel parameters. We 
also received several comments requesting a compliance period of 18 
months from the effective date of this rule rather than one year. 
According to commenters, this period of time was needed by the 
regulated community to help ensure adequate lead time to implement this 
new performance based measurement system program especially because 
there of expected modifications based on comments that were received on 
the proposed PBMS requirements. Thus, there will be a need for further 
clarification and implementation guidance beyond what was proposed and 
finalized today. Some commenters noted the discrepancy between the 
preamble and regulatory text as it related to the proposed exemption 
for installations of designated test methods of method-defined 
parameters that were in use six months prior to publication of the 
proposed rule. Consistent with our proposal, the Agency today is 
finalizing requirements for qualification of only non-VCB test methods 
for fuel parameters, as proposed. We are also finalizing as proposed 
the exemption of existing (i.e., in use for six months prior to May 21, 
2013) installations of designated test methods from today's 
qualification requirements. Further, in response to comments and in a 
change from our proposal, we are now providing a compliance period of 
18 months from the effective date of this final rule for when these 
performance based analytical test methods measurement system 
requirements at 40 CFR 80.47 will be effective.
3. Downstream Pentane Blending
    Today's action finalizes provisions to allow blender grade pentane 
to be blended into previously certified gasoline (PCG) downstream of a 
crude oil refinery.\524\ These provisions will become effective June 
27, 2014. These provisions that are being finalized today are similar 
to the long standing provisions for blending butane into gasoline at 40 
CFR 80.82, with additional provisions to provide adequate compliance 
assurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \524\ Blender grade pentane refers to pentane that meets the 
specifications for either commercial grade or non-commercial grade 
pentane discussed below and as such may be added to previously 
certified gasoline by pentane blenders meeting the requirements 
finalized today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refiners are not able to produce gasoline or BOBs that are as close 
to the applicable maximum volatility (RVP) standard in a given area as 
what can be achieved at a terminal through RVP trimming due to spatial 
and temporal considerations regarding the shipment of gasoline to 
terminals. Butane is currently blended into PCG downstream of the 
refinery in order to trim RVP levels closer to the applicable maximum 
RVP specifications. Butane blenders are required to test the finished 
gasoline they produce to demonstrate compliance with the maximum RVP 
requirements. Testing for RVP is quick, and requires relatively 
inexpensive and easy to operate equipment. Hence, RVP testing can be 
accommodated at a terminal where small (tank truck sized) batches are 
continually produced by blending for delivery to retail stations. 
Testing for other fuel parameters such as sulfur and benzene content 
requires more costly and technically demanding equipment that cannot 
readily be accommodated at a terminal. Such testing can also not be 
completed in a

[[Page 23590]]

time frame that is compatible with the need for terminals to quickly 
move product to retailers in order to maintain adequate supply for 
consumers. These considerations informed the Agency's prior decision to 
allow butane blenders to primarily rely on testing conducted by the 
butane supplier (and the producer of the PCG) to demonstrate compliance 
with gasoline fuel quality requirements other than maximum RVP.\525\ 
The same considerations exist today regarding blending pentane into 
PCG. Therefore, we are finalizing provisions to allow pentane blenders 
to also primarily rely on testing conducted by the pentane producer or 
importer and the producer of the PCG to demonstrate compliance with 
gasoline fuel quality requirements other than maximum RVP. We are 
requiring that the test results on the pentane be generated by the 
producer or importer of the pentane because we believe that it is 
necessary to identify a specific party that must register with EPA and 
be responsible for the pentane quality requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \525\ Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Modifications to 
Standards and Requirements for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline Including Butane Blenders and Attest Engagements; Final 
Rule, December 15, 2005, 70 FR 74552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fuels regulations place primary responsibility for sampling, 
testing, reporting and assuring that gasoline meets applicable fuel 
standards on refiners. The flexibility that this rule provides to 
butane blenders and pentane blenders does not shift this primary 
compliance obligation. The rule does, however, provide a limited 
flexibility for refiners who add these blendstocks to previously 
certified gasoline. The agency has provided this limited flexibility 
because of the unique nature of these blendstocks, and because of 
additional compliance requirements that are imposed on the 
manufacturers of these blendstocks and the refiners who use these 
blendstocks. Refiners who use the special allowance for butane and 
pentane blending will remain liable for any fuel quality violations, 
but will be able to rely on sampling and testing from the butane and 
pentane manufacturer, if all of the requirements of the regulations are 
met. All other refiners, including blender-refiners, must comply with 
all of the applicable sampling, testing, reporting recordkeeping and 
fuel quality standards, and may not rely on test results from 
blendstock suppliers.
    As discussed in Section V.C. of today's preamble, the current 
butane sulfur cap will also apply to blender grade pentane blended into 
gasoline by until the implementation of today's Tier 3 sulfur 
requirements, when a 10 ppm sulfur cap will apply to both butane and 
pentane blended into gasoline. The benzene, olefins, and aromatics 
specifications for ``commercial grade'' and ``non commercial grade'' 
blender grade pentane discussed below are similar to the requirements 
for butane.
    We received comments in favor of our proposal to allow pentane 
blending into PCG. During our discussions with stakeholders following 
the proposal and from the review of public comments, we became aware of 
additional potential issues associated with assuring the quality of 
pentane for gasoline blending beyond those that exist for butane.\526\ 
In response to comments and to further limit variability in pentane 
quality, C6 and higher hydrocarbons in pentane blended into gasoline 
must be limited to 5 volume percent or less. We were also made aware of 
the possibility that parties that handle natural gasoline liquids (NGL) 
might misinterpret the pentane blending provisions finalized today to 
apply to natural gas liquids. A pentane stream for gasoline blending 
does not currently exist, and there are currently varying definitions 
of NGL, which is sometimes referred to pentanes-plus. There is also 
concern about potential contamination if the same equipment is used to 
transport blender grade and NGL. Today's rule finalizes the following 
additional requirements, that will preclude potential confusion of NGL 
with blender grade pentane, help ensure that the quality of blender 
grade pentane is maintained throughout the distribution system, and 
facilitate EPA enforcement and compliance assurance of the quality 
requirements for blender grade pentane.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \526\ See the Summary and Analysis of Comments for this rule for 
a detailed response to comments on the pentane blending provisions 
finalized today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, producers and importers of pentane for gasoline blending 
must register with EPA. Such registrations must include sufficient 
information to demonstrate that the producer or importer will be 
capable of producing or importing blender grade pentane meeting today's 
quality specifications and that contamination during distribution to 
the pentane blender can be adequately limited. Second, producers and 
importers of pentane for gasoline blending must test each batch of 
blender grade pentane to demonstrate that the quality requirements are 
met. Third, producers and importers of pentane for gasoline blending 
must submit an annual report to EPA that includes batch test data and 
information on the volume produced or imported. These requirements will 
enable EPA to perform effective oversight of entities that produce 
pentane for use by pentane blenders.
    Fourth, pentane blenders must use only blender grade pentane from 
registered producers or importers. We believe that this requirement 
will provide additional assurance that pentane blenders are obtaining 
product only from legitimate producers. Fifth, pentane blenders must 
conduct periodic quality assurance testing on both the commercial grade 
pentane and the non-commercial grade pentane that they receive. Sixth, 
we are requiring a more frequent sampling frequency than is required 
for butane. For commercial-grade pentane, pentane blenders must sample 
and test once for every 350,000 gallons of pentane received, or once 
every three months, whichever is more frequent. For non-commercial-
grade pentane, pentane blenders must sample and test once for every 
250,000 gallons of pentane received, or once every three months, 
whichever is more frequent. We believe that the heightened level of 
concern regarding assuring the quality of pentane used by downstream 
blenders warrants these additional requirements.
    Finally, we are finalizing specific product transfer document and 
recordkeeping requirements for parties that produce and take custody of 
pentane for gasoline blending. Entities in the distribution chain for 
blender grade pentane must maintain records of their quality assurance 
activities to manage contamination while blender grade pentane is in 
their custody. We proposed amendments to 40 CFR 80.79 to address the 
liability and prohibited activities for entities in the blender-grade 
pentane distribution system. During our review of the regulations 
finalized today, we noted that such provisions are already covered 
under existing regulations that pertain to entities in the distribution 
system for butane used by downstream butane blenders as well as other 
parties. Therefore, we are not finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 
CFR 80.79.
    A party that blends pentane into gasoline is a refiner, similar to 
butane blenders. Similar to the butane blending provisions, pentane 
blending will not be allowed into RFG or RBOB from April 1 through 
September 30, or into any RFG or RBOB that is designated as VOC-
controlled. Like butane blenders, pentane blenders must test the 
finished gasoline to ensure that the applicable volatility requirements 
are met. Consistent with the requirements for butane blenders, pentane 
blenders will not be subject to other sampling and testing requirements 
that would

[[Page 23591]]

otherwise apply to a refiner, provided that they use blender grade 
pentane that meets today's specifications and conduct today's specified 
quality assurance practices.
    Testing to demonstrate compliance with gasoline compositional 
requirements other than maximum RVP will not be required for pentane 
blender provided that the blender has product transfer documents from 
the supplier that demonstrate the pentane is ``commercial grade''. 
Until December 31, 2016, commercial grade pentane is defined as pentane 
that test results demonstrate is 95 percent pure and has the following 
properties: Sulfur 
importers and pentane blenders must be conducted using test procedures 
that have been approved by the Administrator. No such test procedures 
are currently approved. As part of their registration requirements, 
pentane producers and importers must specify the test procedures that 
they will use to demonstrate compliance with the pentane quality 
requirements finalized today. EPA will continue to work with industry 
in establishing test procedures for use in meeting pentane testing 
requirements.
    We believe that the butane blending provisions have reduced the 
burden of compliance with EPA gasoline quality requirements. We 
anticipate that expanding these provisions to allow pentane to be 
blended into gasoline will further reduce the burden of compliance. The 
requirement that final blends must comply with maximum gasoline 
volatility requirements will ensure that the flexibility to conduct 
downstream RVP trimming will not reduce the environmental benefits of 
EPA's gasoline quality requirements. Due to its lower volatility 
compared to butane, larger volumes of pentane than butane can be 
blended into gasoline while still meeting the gasoline RVP standards. 
Thus, allowing pentane to be blended into gasoline downstream of the 
refinery may displace butane blending. Since pentanes have a lower 
boiling point than butane, this could result in some environmental 
benefit from reduced vehicle evaporative emissions. A prominent butane 
blender stated that allowing pentane blending would provide an 
opportunity to increase domestic gasoline supply which in turn could 
help reduce gasoline prices.
    One commenter requested that the blending flexibility for pentane 
be extended to other gasoline range hydrocarbons such as heavy naptha. 
We disagree. We are not expanding today's provisions beyond pentane. 
Pentane is a clean burning alkane like butane. The only concern with 
respect to the effect of downstream pentane and butane blending on 
vehicle emissions can be addressed through compliance with gasoline 
maximum volatility requirements. Less is known about the potential 
impacts on vehicle emissions of the downstream blending of blendstocks 
other than butane and pentane. We note that such blendstocks can still 
be utilized by refiners.
    Allowing blending of heavier boiling range hydrocarbons, such as 
heavy naptha, would also likely raise additional compliance assurance 
issues. Similar to butane, blender grade pentane requires special 
pressure vessels for transport, storage, and blending into gasoline due 
to its relatively high vapor pressure/boiling point.\527\ These special 
equipment and handling needs present a significant barriers to entry 
into the pentane blending market, thereby limiting the potential number 
of parties engaged in the market. The substantial investments needed 
for such special equipment also provides assurance that parties engaged 
in the pentane blending market will be motivated to comply with EPA 
requirements. These factors make us confident that the compliance 
assurance requirements finalized today are sufficient to support 
provisions for pentane blending. On the other hand, in the case of 
heavier hydrocarbons that are liquid under ambient conditions, gasoline 
handling equipment could be used. This would greatly multiply the 
number of potential parties that could supply product to downstream 
blenders, thereby substantially increasing compliance assurance 
concerns. Therefore, we are not finalizing provisions for downstream 
blending other than those for pentane at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \527\ The boiling point of pentane is ~ 97 [deg]F and butane is 
~30 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Acceptance of Top Tier Deposit Control Test Data
    Today's action finalizes the proposed amendments to EPA's gasoline 
deposit control regulations to accept test data collected for the 
industry-based ``Top-Tier'' deposit control program as demonstration of 
compliance with EPA's intake valve deposit (IVD) and fuel injector 
deposit (FID) control requirements. 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 and necessary for current vehicle 
technology.\528\ Several major gasoline marketers have adopted Top Tier 
for their gasoline. It is widely accepted that conformance with the Top 
Tier IVD and FID control testing requirements is more challenging than 
complying with the standard EPA IVD and FID testing requirements. 
Accepting IVD/FID test data that complies with the Top Tier 
requirements in place of the standard EPA IVD/FID testing requirements 
will provide significant savings to industry from reduced deposit 
control testing while maintaining the emissions benefits of EPA's 
gasoline deposit control program. These changes are being codified in 
the regulations at Sec. Sec.  80.161(b), 80.163(a)(1)(iii), 80.164(a), 
80.165, 80.167(a), 80.176, and 80.177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \528\ The industry-based Top Tier deposit control program is 
discussed at http://www.toptiergas.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments we received were in favor of the proposal to accept 
test data that demonstrates compliance with the Top Tier program as 
alternative compliance data under EPA's deposit control program. 
Chevron stated that their extensive experience with deposit control and 
related vehicle/engine performance testing, combined with the vast body 
of technical literature on the subject, shows that compliance with Top 
Tier IVD/FID requirements provides improvements in emissions

[[Page 23592]]

and performance compared to fuels with deposit control additive levels 
that merely meet EPA's deposit control requirements. Chevron identified 
a typographical error in the proposed regulations to codify the Top 
Tier testing requirements at Sec.  80.177(b)(1)(iv). The proposed 
regulations stated that test fuel used in IVD testing must contain no 
less than 240 ppm sulfur. This error is corrected in the regulations 
finalized today to state that test fuel used in IVD testing must 
contain no less than 24 ppm sulfur, consistent with the Top Tier 
deposit control standard.
5. Potential Broader Regulatory Streamlining Through Program 
Restructuring
    The current set of fuel regulations is the result of programs that 
have been established over the years to reduce emissions from mobile 
sources. These programs include gasoline volatility (RVP), reformulated 
gasoline and anti-dumping, sulfur control (which today's Tier 3 program 
will revise), mobile source air toxics (MSAT1), benzene control 
(MSAT2), and the renewable fuel standards (RFS). Most of these 
regulations have been amended numerous times.
    The RFG and anti-dumping regulations in particular contain some of 
the more extensive requirements on sampling, testing, and reporting. 
They also have some of the more stringent restrictions on gasoline use 
(e.g., restricting where fuel produced can be sold, what it may be 
commingled with, etc.). EPA used the RFG and anti-dumping rules as the 
foundation for many aspects of subsequently developed fuel regulatory 
programs. However, the subsequent rules, considered as a whole, have 
supplanted most of the RFG and anti-dumping standards. For this reason, 
we proposed 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 40 CFR 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 being finalized today. EPA expects that further streamlining 
would result in more efficient and less costly compliance 
determinations for affected parties while maintaining the environmental 
benefits of the programs. However, in many cases 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 
that require further development, notice and comment. We intend to 
continue to seek comment in future actions 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.
    We received a number of comments supporting the concept of further 
streamlining in 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, including suggestions for 
additional areas of the regulations to consider in the future.

B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs Amendments

    We are amending several regulatory requirements for motor vehicles 
and other types of vehicles and engines. These changes are intended to 
align with the Tier 3 standards and to make various adjustments and 
corrections to the regulations. We are also removing large portions of 
obsolete regulatory text and updating cross references accordingly.
1. Fuel Economy Labeling
    EPA adopted updated fuel economy labeling requirements in 40 CFR 
part 600 on July 6, 2011.\529\ 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 disallow certification to half of the existing smog ratings. 
We are therefore adopting a new transitional 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 may 
continue to meet Tier 2 standards for the ``phase-out'' fraction of the 
fleet through model year 2020, but must 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 
transitional smog rating scale in model year 2018 to reflect the start 
of Tier 3 program for the majority of vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \529\ 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The smog rating scale ranges from 1 to 10. The federal Tier 3 
program comprises seven different NMOG+NOX emission 
certification levels. In addition, the California ZEV program for 2018 
and later model years includes a unique TZEV category, which falls 
between a ZEV (Bin 0) and a SULEV20 (Bin 20), resulting in a total of 
eight emission standards.\530\ EPA received comment asking that we 
develop appropriate ratings that account for both the exhaust 
certification and all-electric range of TZEV vehicles. EPA plans to 
develop guidance for smog ratings for TZEV vehicles in its annual fuel 
economy guidance letter. Therefore we are not finalizing a smog rating 
for California TZEV vehicles at this time. As proposed, we are omitting 
rankings 2 and 4 to help convey the larger absolute differences in the 
g/mile standards between Bins 70 and 125 and Bins 125 and 160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \530\ http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/fro2rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also adjusting the scale again in model year 2025, once the 
Tier 3 standards are fully implemented, so that, 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, consistent with the 
fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating.
    We revised the regulations slightly after the proposal to 
accommodate the presence of LEV III vehicles in 2017 and earlier model 
years.
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 taking 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

[[Page 23593]]

through 2003 model year light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty passenger vehicles. Also, the National LEV standards in 40 
CFR part 86, subpart R (and in Appendix XIII through XVIII of part 86), 
applied only for 1999 through 2003 model years. These subparts, and 
references to that content, can be removed from the CFR.
    Similarly, the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, applied to 
light-duty vehicles only through model year 2000 for light-duty 
vehicles and model year 2004 for light-duty trucks and chassis-
certified heavy-duty vehicles. Much of that subpart continues to apply 
for heavy-duty engines, so the obsolete portions must be removed more 
selectively. We are removing 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 streamlining 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 copying the new paragraph into the section for the 
older model-year provisions, with descriptive language in place to say 
when the new provision applies as appropriate. This consolidation 
allows 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 the performance of a vehicle's emission control system. 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 the 
certification short test (``CST'' or ``cert short test'').\531\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \531\ 58 FR 58382 (November 1, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA adopted requirements in 1993 for manufacturers to design and 
build their vehicles with OBD, which provides performance feedback for 
evaluating whether emission control systems are functioning properly. 
This rule, combined with fleet turnover, has resulted in vehicles 
subject to I/M being equipped with OBD. The standard protocol for I/M 
programs now depends on the OBD system instead of tailpipe tests to 
determine which vehicles need maintenance. Since vehicle manufacturers 
have to certify the performance of OBD systems as part of the 
certification process, the use of OBD for I/M testing also provides a 
basis for determining that emission repairs are covered by the 
manufacturer's warranty, when necessary. For many years, manufacturers 
have submitted a compliance statement for certification instead of 
submitting data to demonstrate that they meet the standards associated 
with the cert short test. Since emission measurements are no longer 
part of any standardized I/M testing, it has become clear that OBD 
systems have completely replaced the cert short test as the means of 
making warranty determinations for I/M testing. We are therefore 
entirely removing the cert short test standards and test procedures 
from 40 CFR part 86, subparts O and S, and similarly removing 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 
updating 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, which accounts for 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 will 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 on the new test 
procedures, we are eliminating 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 will also 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. We will eventually migrate these remaining provisions to 40 
CFR part 1036, where we already describe the greenhouse gas emission 
standards and certification requirements for heavy-duty highway 
engines.
    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 to 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 86, subpart M, describe how to test 
heavy-duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to demonstrate compliance 
with evaporative emission standards. Most of these provisions are 
identical to those that apply under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B. As 
described in Section IV.C, we are eliminating subpart M and replacing 
it with a simple instruction to test these heavy-duty vehicles using 
the procedures of subpart B, with a small number of appropriate 
modifications noted as exceptions to the light-duty test procedures.
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

[[Page 23594]]

model year vehicles. Starting with the 2001 model year, these same 
requirements were copied into Sec.  86.1808-01. These two sets of 
requirements are identical except for the model year applicability and 
a variety of very minor stylistic differences. We are revising the 
service information regulations in Sec.  86.1808-01 to apply also to 
1996 through 2000 model year vehicles, and to correct several 
typographical and formatting errors. These changes should have no 
practical significance, since the 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 better incorporate the new LA-92 driving schedule described in 
Section IV.B for heavy-duty vehicles, we are eliminating 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 are updating Sec.  1065.1010 with the latest versions of 
all the reference procedures and technical standards that we were able 
to identify.
    In areas of the regulations other than part 1065, we are generally 
updating the regulation 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 are not making broad or universal changes 
to these references in other parts of the regulation.
    One particular area of interest relates to rounding. As described 
in Section IV.H.3, we are defining ``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. This 
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. We expect to 
eventually remove all mandatory references to ASTM E29 and NIST SP811 
and rely exclusively on Sec.  1065.20 as the method for rounding 
numerical quantities.

VII. What are the cost impacts of the rule?

    We have estimated the costs for both the vehicle standards 
described in Section IV and the 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 RIA.
    Section VII.C provides a summary of total costs for the final 
vehicle and fuel programs together. 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 standards. 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 or submitted as comments on the proposal), 
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 will be able to 
comply with the Tier 3 standards which we are adopting 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 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.
1. What changes have been made to vehicle program costs since proposal?
    Chapter 2 of the final RIA contains details about what changes have 
been made since the proposal and why we have made those changes. We 
have made several changes since the proposal, but two changes have 
significant impacts on the final rule

[[Page 23595]]

vehicle costs and help to explain the large reduction in cost estimates 
between proposal and final rule. The first of these significant changes 
involves the catalyst platinum group metal (PGM) loading costs. As 
commenters pointed out, the cost estimates in the proposal have become 
dated, as they were based largely on four-year-old estimates of the 
CARB LEVIII program. For this final rule, we have developed a more 
robust catalyst loading cost estimate using a methodology suggested by 
one commenter.\532\ This more robust estimate results in lower costs 
than estimated in the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \532\ ICCT Comments in Response to the Tier 3 Proposed 
Rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4304; Posada, 
Francisco, et. al., ``Estimated Cost of Emission Control 
Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles Part 1--Gasoline,'' SAE 2013-
01-0534, 4/8/2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second significant contributer to reduced final rule cost 
estimates is the use of the MY 2017-2025 fleet mix projected to result 
from the most recent GHG and fuel economy rules. That projected fleet 
mix shows a large percentage of four-cylinder engines (generally these 
are inline engines, or I4), which are less costly to modify to achieve 
Tier 3 compliance than the proposal's projected MY 2012-2016 fleet mix, 
which included many more V-configuration six-cylinder (V6) and eight-
cylinder (V8) engines. We mentioned in the preamble to the proposal our 
intention to use the projected MY 2017-2025 fleet for our final rule 
cost analysis (see 78 FR 29970).
    We have made many other updates to the analysis for this final 
rule. For example, we reviewed the MY2013 certification database to 
evaluate the certified emission levels of the fleet. We found that many 
vehicles are already being certified with emission levels that would 
meet final Tier 3 standards. Further, many vehicles have certified 
emission levels that are 70% of the 0.30 g/mi NOX+NMOG 
standard, meaning that sufficient compliance margin exists for those 
vehicles to comply with Tier 3 without any additional costs.\533\ Our 
final rule estimates no exhaust emission-related Tier 3 costs for these 
vehicles (evaporative emission-related costs are discussed below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \533\ As discussed in Section IV, we expect manufacturers to 
target 60-80% of the standard, or 20-40% compliance margins under 
Tier 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have also concluded that active HC adsorbers are not expected on 
any vehicles and, instead, a passive HC adsorber will be used. The 
passive HC adsorber is considerably less costly. We base this on 
comments from MECA and ICCT and on confidential business information 
(CBI) provided by Tier 1 suppliers after the proposal.\534\ We have 
also decreased our evaporative emission control costs, in part because 
of the high penetration of gasoline engines with direct injection as 
projected by the MY 2017-2025 GHG and fuel economy rules. Direct 
injection removes a large source of evaporative emissions and, thus, 
means fewer vehicles need to add certain evaporative control 
technologies. We have also decreased the penetration rates of secondary 
air injection in the later years of the program, for reasons described 
below. Lastly, we have modified very slightly our indirect cost markups 
to account for the fact that most of the research and development 
efforts required of auto makers are in response to CARB's LEVIII rule 
and need not be conducted again for Tier 3 compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \534\ See ICCT, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4304, at page 
11 of 21; see MECA, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4675, at page 
3 of 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have made some changes that have increased costs, although the 
cost increases are smaller in magnitude than the cost decreases from 
other changes so, on net, estimated vehicle-level costs are lower than 
in the proposal. One such change was to increase the engine calibration 
costs (from roughly $2/vehicle to $5/vehicle), to cover expected 
calibration efforts associated with PM control on direct injected 
gasoline engines. We have also increased the penetration rates of the 
technology we term ``optimized thermal management'' for some vehicle 
classes. This was done to ensure that all vehicles adding technology 
include costs for either optimized close-coupled catalysts or optimized 
thermal management by setting the combined phase-in rate in each 
vehicle category to 100%. Another change was to update all costs from 
2010 dollars to 2011 dollars.\535\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \535\ We have updated 2010 dollars to 2011 dollars using the 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price deflator as reported by the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis on May 30, 2013. The factor used, taken 
from Line 1 of Table 1.1.4 Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product, 
was 1.035 to convert from 2009$ and 1.021 to convert from 2010$. For 
example, to convert from 2010$ to 2011$, we calculated the (value in 
2010$) x 1.021 = (value in 2011$).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to total program costs, the significant change since 
proposal was to exclude costs incurred on vehicles sold in all states 
(California and elsewhere) that have adopted the California LEVIII 
program. As a result, our estimated costs per vehicle are applied to 
millions fewer vehicles in the final rule, thus making the total 
program costs considerably lower. And finally, we have included 
operating savings (fuel savings) associated with avoiding the loss of 
fuel that would have otherwise evaporated absent the new Tier 3 
controls. The otherwise evaporated fuel is ultimately used to propel 
the vehicle, thus providing a savings to the consumer.
2. Summary of Vehicle Program Costs
    As in the proposal, we have developed our costs with respect to a 
given vehicle type and the type of engine with which it is equipped. 
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 the $119 (2017 cost in 2011$) 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 
and 75 percent of the V8 passenger car applications will require it in 
MY2017. In the same way, we anticipate that light truck applications 
will not add that technology until MY2018, again at a 25%/75% 
penetration rate for V6/V8 applications, respectively. Table VII-1 
below shows our estimate of the cost of each of the emission control 
technologies for the gasoline vehicles affected by this final 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 2011 dollars 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 RIA.)

[[Page 23596]]

                                              Table VII-1--MY2017 Technology Costs by Gasoline Engine Type
                                                                       [2011$] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           HD \c\    HD Class   >14K HD
                      Technology                         PC I4      PC V6      PC V8      LT I4      LT V6      LT V8     Class 2b      3         \d\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Loading.....................................        $43        $68       $101        $50        $75       $108        $59        $59        N/R
Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst.....................         24         48         71         24         48         71        N/R        N/R        N/R
Optimized Thermal Management.........................         36         36         36         36         36         36         36         36        N/R
Secondary Air Injection..............................    \b\ N/R        119        119        N/R        119        119        N/R        N/R        N/R
Engine Calibration...................................          5          5          5          5          5          5          5          5        N/R
Hydrocarbon Adsorber.................................        N/R        N/R         20        N/R        N/R         20        N/R        N/R        N/R
Evaporative Emissions Controls.......................         15         15         15         14         14         14         11         17         17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ PC = passenger car; LT = light truck; I4 = In-line 4-cylinder; V6 = 6-cylinder, V8 = 8-cylinder.
\b\ N/R--Not Required.
\c\ Heavy-duty.
\d\ Gasoline only.

                                             Table VII-2--Technology Application Rates for Gasoline Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                 Class 2b &
                   Technology                      PC I4 \a\    PC V6 \a\    PC V8 \a\    LT I4 \b\    LT V6 \b\    LT V8 \b\      3 \b\     >14K HD \c\
                                                   (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)    (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Loading................................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100            0
Optimized Close-coupled Catalyst................           50           60           75           50           60           75            0            0
Optimized Thermal Management....................           50           40           25           50           40           25           25            0
Secondary Air Injection \d\.....................            0           25           75            0           25           75            0            0
Engine Calibration..............................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100            0
Hydrocarbon Adsorber............................            0            0           15            0            0           15            0            0
Evaporative Emissions Controls..................          100          100          100          100          100          100          100          100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ MY2017 and later.
\b\ MY2018 and later (Note that, for the vehicle cost analysis, LDT1/2/3/4 are treated collectively as light trucks.)
\c\ Gasoline only.
\d\ Secondary air injection penetration rates ramp down from values shown here as follows: Passenger car and light truck V6 gasoline: 25/25/25/15/15/5/5/
  5/5% beginning in 2017 except for light trucks which have a 0% penetration in MY2017; Passenger car and light truck V8: 75/75/75/65/65/55/55/45/45%
  beginning in 2017 except for light trucks which have a 0% penetration in MY2017.

    Note the footnote to Table VII-2 describing the penetration rates 
used for secondary air injection systems in V6 and V8 gasoline 
vehicles. In the proposal, we did not use a ramped down penetration 
rate like that being used in this final rule for this technology. We 
have revised the penetration rates in this final rule because of the 
historical pattern by which secondary air injection has been 
implemented in the light-duty fleet. Generally, secondary air makes an 
appearance in the early implementation stages and then is slowly phased 
out as auto makers learn more about and become more comfortable with 
their ability to meet any new emission standards with a lower degree of 
reliance on secondary air. Presumably, this technology is added in the 
early stages because it provides effective and relatively easily 
implemented cold temperature control for difficult applications in 
which auto makers tend to consider every technique at their disposal to 
ensure full useful life compliance. Then, as experience is gained, the 
secondary air injection systems slowly disappear from the new light-
duty fleet due to its relatively high cost. We expect a similar 
implementation pattern in response to Tier 3. This position is 
corroborated by ICCT in their comments where they say, in the context 
of LEV II vehicles meeting the LEV III standards, ``In some cases it 
was easier and cheaper for manufacturers to add existing hardware 
(i.e., secondary air injection) than to invest the engineering 
resources to fully optimize precise air/fuel control and fast light-off 
strategies, or to develop new hardware'' (emphasis added).\536\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \536\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4304 at page 11 of 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Medium Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) were included in the light-
duty fleet as part of Tier 2. Given their current certification 
requirements for criteria pollutants, we have included the costs for 
MDPVs to meet the Tier 3 standards with the light truck 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 light 
trucks (with V8 engines), as in many cases there are identical 
powertrains and chassis between the large light truck and MDPV 
platforms.
    We also expect that some manufacturers may continue to build and 
sell light-duty diesel vehicles and certify those vehicles to Tier 3. 
All light-duty diesel vehicles currently being sold in the federal 
fleet are equipped with some means of controlling NOX 
emissions, either a Lean NOX Trap (LNT) or selective 
catalytic reduction (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

[[Page 23597]]

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--MY2017 Technology Costs and Application Rates for Diesel
                                 Engines
                                 [2011$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Light-duty and
            Technology                Diesel engine        heavy-duty
                                    costs (all types)   application rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimized Thermal Management......                $36                25%
Engine Calibration \a\............                  2                100
SCR Optimization..................                 59                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These engine calibration costs are the same as the proposal since
  the increased calibration costs associated with gasoline direct
  injection do not apply for diesels.

    We also estimated costs for HDVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR 
and for gasoline HDVs above 14,000 lbs. Vehicles in this range are 
often referred to as Class 2b (8,5001-10,000 lbs), Class 3 (10,001-
14,000 lbs) and Class 4 and above (>14,000 lbs) vehicles and are 
typically full-size pickup truck and work vans. We applied the same 
process to the heavy-duty vehicles as we did to the light-duty 
vehicles. Heavy-duty costs and application rates are included in Table 
VII-1, Table VII-2, and Table VII-3 above.
    We have also considered the impacts of manufacturer ``learning-by-
doing'' 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. We have made no 
changes to the application of learning curve cost reductions relative 
to the proposal. For details surrounding learning-by-doing, please 
refer to Chapter 2 of the final RIA.
    The evaporative emissions standards that we are adopting will 
impose relatively small cost impacts. We estimate the cost of system 
improvements, including indirect costs, to be less than $17 (MY2017 
cost in 2011$) per vehicle, for all vehicle 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 RIA.
    We have used the individual technology costs discussed briefly here 
and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the 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 projected sales estimates for the 
years 2017 and later. The projected sales estimates used, as noted 
earlier, represent the future fleet mix rather than today's fleet mix. 
That fleet mix is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the 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 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-
by-doing effects. As stated above, a large portion of the cost is 
incurred in the initial model years. Costs then continue to rise as the 
percentage of vehicles complying with the final standards increases 
through MY 2025.
    We have estimated costs consistent with the fact that manufacturers 
would be required to start the phase-in of Tier 3 standards in MY2017 
for vehicles under 6,000 lbs GVWR and the expectation that MY2018 will 
begin the phase-in 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 will be required to 
move from a Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in MY2017 (for vehicles 14,000 pound HD.....................................          0         10         10         13         13         16         15         15         15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold outside California and other states that have adopted LEVIII.

[[Page 23598]]

    Total annual costs are shown below in Table VII-5. This table 
includes all costs associated with the final Tier 3 vehicle standards, 
i.e., both exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Also included 
are facility-related costs associated with the final requirements to 
conduct more PM testing on gasoline vehicles. (Additional detail 
regarding the PM facility costs are described in section 2.6 of the 
final RIA.) We show the facility costs in the year 2016 even though the 
program does not begin until 2017. These costs represent the 
construction costs that would be incurred before the first year of the 
standards in preparation for the testing efforts that would be 
required. We have not made any changes to the costs per facility 
upgrade relative to the proposal, and we present the details supporting 
our estimates in Chapter 2 of the final RIA.
    Lastly, as noted above, we have included the impact on operating 
costs associated with the new evaporative emission controls. Because 
the evaporative emissions that would have been emitted absent the new 
standards will ultimately be used to propel the vehicle, the avoided 
evaporative emissions represent a savings to the consumer. While these 
savings are small on a per-vehicle basis--generally less than $2/
vehicle over its lifetime--they are notable on a fleetwide basis where, 
in calendar year 2025, they result in $11 million in pre-tax savings. 
We also considered other operating costs, such as maintenance costs and 
repair costs, but concluded that the nature of the Tier 3 compliance 
technologies will not result in any increases or decreases in existing 
operating costs. We present the details about these operating savings 
in Chapter 2 of the final RIA.

                                                 Table VII-5--Annual Costs of the Tier 3 Vehicle Program
                                                             [Millions of 2011 dollars] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Exhaust                            Evap                        Operating \b\
             Year              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Facilities    Total
                                    LD         HD        All         LD         HD        All         LD         HD        All
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016..........................         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0         $0       $21.4      $21.4
2017..........................        268          0        268       25.5          0       25.5          0          0          0        3.52        297
2018..........................        519       20.2        539       70.2       3.24       73.4      -1.17     -0.047      -1.22        3.52        615
2019..........................        555       24.2        579       69.2       3.18       72.4      -2.03     -0.094      -2.12        3.52        653
2020..........................        571       27.8        599       94.3       4.12       98.4      -3.22     -0.160      -3.38        3.52        697
2021..........................        598       31.5        630       92.8       4.04       96.8      -4.44     -0.226      -4.67        3.52        725
2022..........................        605       34.8        640        116       4.93        121      -5.96     -0.309      -6.27        3.52        758
2023..........................        606       33.3        639        111       4.73        116      -7.45     -0.390      -7.84        3.52        751
2024..........................        620       33.1        653        109       4.70        114      -8.95     -0.472      -9.42        3.52        761
2025..........................        635       32.8        668        108       4.66        113      -10.4     -0.553      -11.0        3.52        773
2030..........................        632       31.8        664        108       4.56        113      -18.0     -0.959      -19.0        3.52        761
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs shown include costs for the Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold outside California and other states that have adopted LEVIII.
\b\ Operating costs use pre-tax fuel prices; negative cost values denote savings.

B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program

    The sulfur control program we are adopting 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 final sulfur control program requires refiners and 
importers to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels on average down to 10 
ppm. The ABT provisions being adopted along with the 10 ppm average 
sulfur control standard will allow refiners that reduce their gasoline 
sulfur levels below 10 ppm to earn credits and trade those credits to 
other refiners who would find it more expensive to reduce their sulfur 
levels down to the average standard. The ABT program will allow 
refiners to optimize their investments, which we believe will result in 
achieving the average sulfur control standard nationwide at lower 
costs. We are maintaining the current 80 ppm sulfur cap at the refinery 
gate. We estimate that the national average refinery costs incurred to 
comply with the fully phased-in Tier 3 sulfur control program with ABT 
program will be 0.65 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 RIA.
1. Overview
    The basic methodology we used to estimate the cost of sulfur 
control for the final rule is similar to that for other rulemakings. 
Using a refinery-by-refinery cost model that we developed for this 
rulemaking, we projected the sulfur control technology expected to be 
used by each refinery, and the cost of each refinery's sulfur control 
step, to estimate compliance with the final sulfur control program. We 
aggregated the individual refinery costs to develop a national average 
cost estimate for the final sulfur control program. We modeled costs 
assuming an in-use average of 10 ppm and assuming refiners take full 
advantage of the ABT provisions and minimize overcompliance based on 
experience for the Tier 2 program demonstrating this today.
    Refinery-by-refinery cost models are useful when individual 
refineries are expected to respond to program requirements in different 
ways and/or have significantly different process capabilities. 
Furthermore, as is the case with sulfur control, such approaches are 
possible when the refinery changes required are primarily ``add-ons'' 
that do not impact the fundamental operation at the refinery. Thus, in 
the case of modeling potential gasoline sulfur control programs, we 
needed a model that could accurately simulate the variety of decisions 
refiners will make at different refineries, especially in the context 
of a nationwide ABT program. For this and other related reasons, we 
developed a refinery-by-refinery cost model to evaluate the costs and 
other impacts of the final sulfur control program.
    Refinery-by-refinery cost models have been used in the past by both 
EPA and the oil industry for such programs as the Mobile Source Air 
Toxics gasoline

[[Page 23599]]

benzene control,\537\ highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards. 
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 good 
assessment of the overall market impacts and of the variation of 
impacts across the refineries. Refinery-by-refinery models are also 
very useful when estimating the cost impacts of ABT programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \537\ ``Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile 
Sources,'' 72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We used a linear program (LP) cost model to estimate a cost for 
recovering the octane lost when refiners further desulfurize their 
gasoline to comply with the 10 ppm sulfur standard. Our refinery 
modeling run for estimating octane cost assumed E10 with a small amount 
of E85. This cost is a key input into the refinery-by-refinery cost 
model. The octane cost we developed from the LP model is $0.31 octane 
number-barrel. We also used the LP refinery model to estimate the 
change in gasoline qualities that occurs when refiners make up for the 
lost octane that were used as inputs into the emissions impacts 
analysis discussed in Section III.
2. Methodology
    The way that the refinery-by-refinery cost model works can be 
subdivided into two primary steps. First, the model attempts to model 
how refiners blend up gasoline at each of their refineries. This is an 
important step because the fluidized catalytic cracker (FCC) naphtha, a 
product from FCC units, is responsible for almost all the sulfur in 
gasoline, even after complying with Tier 2. To help our understanding 
of how refiners blend up their gasoline, we used refinery unit 
throughput data which tell us how refiners are using their refinery 
units. The per-gallon cost is calculated over all the gasoline pool, 
while the desulfurization cost is incurred by desulfurizing FCC 
naphtha; thus, the relative volume of FCC naphtha to the rest of the 
gasoline pool is important.
    The second primary step of the refinery-by-refinery cost model is 
to project how refiners would comply with the Tier 3 10 ppm average 
sulfur standard taking into consideration how they complied with the 30 
ppm Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard. To determine how refiners would 
comply with Tier 3, we contacted the vendors which provided the 
technology to refiners for complying with Tier 2 and continued to 
provide onsite support. Vendors provided information to us for 
installing grassroots units or revamping existing FCC postreaters 
sufficient to reduce the gasoline pool down to 10 and 5 ppm. We also 
evaluated the need and cost to refiners to reduce the sulfur levels of 
other refinery streams and included costs for those refineries to 
hydrotreat the light straight run naphtha stream where such additional 
control appeared warranted. Finally, we assessed the cost for complying 
with Tier 3 assuming that refiners take advantage of an ABT program. To 
assess the costs for the Tier 3 program that included an ABT program, 
we organized the estimated sulfur reduction costs for each refinery for 
achieving both 5 and 10 ppm from lowest to highest to determine the set 
of investments for Tier 3 which minimized the cost of the Tier 3 
program.
    We made a number of modifications to the refinery-by-refinery model 
for the final rule cost analysis. Based on a review of credit trading 
occurring for Tier 2, which revealed that credits are freely traded 
between refining companies, we changed our cost analysis to assume 
nationwide credit trading instead of restricting it to intra-company 
trading, as we did for the Tier 3 proposal's cost analysis. We 
incorporated refinery unit throughput data that we obtained from EPA's 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The refinery 
model we used for this final rule estimated sulfur reduction cost for 
each refinery based on actual starting sulfur levels, instead of 
assuming that each refinery was desulfurizing their gasoline from 30 
ppm to 10 or 5 ppm. We further refined our assessment for treating 
light straight run naphtha, but did not include any costs for treating 
butane since we found out from a vendor that butane is routinely 
treated today. We requested and received additional desulfurization 
cost data from vendor companies that we applied in our cost analysis. 
In response to comments from peer reviewers and other information that 
we obtained, we applied a higher offsite factor and a higher 
contingency factor to the capital costs. Additional changes that were 
made for the final rule cost analysis are discussed in Chapter 5 of the 
RIA.
    Our refinery-by-refinery sulfur cost model incorporates data on 
throughput volumes for each of the major refinery units in each 
refinery, including the crude unit, FCC unit, coker, hydrocracker, 
alkylation unit, reformer, isomerization unit, naphtha hydrotreater and 
aromatics plant. Unlike the unit capacity data used for the NPRM 
analysis, throughput volumes are a much more robust set of data because 
they eliminate the need to try to estimate how that refinery is 
operating that unit, or whether the unit is shutdown. We also used 
purchase and sales information for each refinery such as purchases of 
natural gas liquids, naphtha and sales of propylene. The propylene 
sales data were used to estimate whether a refinery is operating its 
FCC unit in propylene maximization mode. If a refinery is operating in 
propylene maximization mode, some of the volume of FCC naphtha is 
cracked to produce increased volume of propylene for sales to the 
chemicals industry, but these refineries are producing a smaller volume 
of FCC naphtha. While the increased use of refinery-specific data has 
improved the ability of the refinery-by-refinery model to represent the 
operations of each refinery, there still is uncertainty about how each 
refinery is being operated.
    To assess how well our refinery model estimates the gasoline 
production for each refinery, we compared the gasoline production 
volume estimated by the refinery-by-refinery model for each individual 
refinery to the 2011 gasoline volumes reported by refiners to EPA. 
Despite the use of very robust throughput data, there was still an 
overproduction of gasoline by quite a few refineries. In trying to 
address this overproduction of gasoline volume by our refinery model, 
we spoke to refiners, vendors and peer reviewers and also reviewed the 
results of our LP refinery modeling runs. This led us to conclude that 
this volumetric difference in the refinery model was due in many cases 
to not accounting for the undercutting of heavy gasoline into the jet 
and diesel fuel pools. We further discuss the implications of 
undercutting in Section VII.B.3. Overall, after we made some 
adjustments by assuming that certain refiners are undercutting heavy 
gasoline to distillate, we were satisfied with the model's volumetric 
estimates. To set up the refinery model, the model was updated with a 
projection of refined product volumes, and of input and output prices, 
from the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook 
(AEO) 2013 for the year 2018.
    For this refinery-by-refinery sulfur cost model, we conducted two 
sets of independent peer reviews. One set of peer reviews was conducted 
for the version of the refinery-by-refinery model we developed for 
estimating the costs for the NPRM. We reviewed the peer review comments 
and decided that the impact on the estimated costs would be small, so 
we deferred making changes to address those peer review comments until 
the final rule. We developed another version of the

[[Page 23600]]

refinery-by-refinery cost model which addressed the comments we 
received from the first set of peer reviews, as well as included 
additional improvements to the refinery model based on new information 
that we received after we conducted the cost analysis for the NPRM. We 
submitted the final rule version of the refinery cost model for a 
second round of peer review. The peer review comments as well as our 
responses to these comments are contained in the docket. We addressed 
many of the comments made by the peer reviewers in the final version of 
the cost model. The oil industry has also conducted a similar analysis 
using a refinery-by-refinery cost model, and we discuss the results of 
its analysis at the end of this chapter.
    Our assessment of how refiners will comply with Tier 3 has not 
changed since we conducted our cost analysis for the NPRM. The refinery 
unit responsible for the greatest contribution of sulfur to gasoline is 
the FCC. The FCC processes a very heavy feedstock which contains high 
levels of sulfur.\538\ 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.\539\ 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 of the sulfur in refiner's gasoline 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 Axens Prime G+, Exxon-Mobil Scanfining, 
CDTech's CDHydro and CDHDS, Sinopec's 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 the 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 useful 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 understand what would be involved to achieve a 10 
ppm sulfur standard using postreating (see Chapter 4 of the RIA). We 
were able to obtain some additional sulfur cost information from the 
vendors since we conducted our cost analysis for the proposed rule, and 
this was incorporated into our cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \538\ A hydrocarbon stream which contains large amounts of 
sulfur is also referred to as being sour. In general, the heavier 
the hydrocarbon portion of crude oil, the higher the natural sulfur 
content.
    \539\ On average, the fluidized catalytic cracker supplies about 
35 percent of a refiner's gasoline output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gasoline desulfurization vendors were pessimistic that the 
operations of FCC pretreaters could be adjusted to enable those 
refineries which relied on those units to comply with the Tier 2 sulfur 
standard to meet a 10 ppm sulfur standard. Many of those FCC pretreater 
units have marginal (less than two years) turnaround times today and 
they would either require a major revamp or suffer even shorter 
turnaround times if they were to simply be turned up. 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 relatively expensive for the amount of 
sulfur reduction obtained, the ABT analysis we conducted avoided many 
of these types of investments. Instead, the refiners with refineries in 
this situation are projected to acquire credits from refiners capable 
of reducing sulfur levels below 10 ppm at a lower cost.
    In addition to addressing the sulfur in the FCC naphtha, we believe 
that some refineries may need to reduce the sulfur in the 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. Other refiners use a sweet crude oil, and once 
the LSR is treated by using an extraction desulfurization technology, 
the sulfur level of the LSR is likely to be very low (under 10 ppm). 
However, some refineries that refine a more sour crude oil slate and do 
not have isomerization units could have fairly high sulfur levels in 
their LSR, even after using extraction desulfurization. For these 
refineries, we conducted an assessment to determine whether these 
refineries have sufficient hydrotreating capacity to hydrotreat the 
LSR. We believe that refiners that do not currently desulfurize their 
LSR, but may need to do so because their crude oil is not sweet, could 
do so by either feeding it to their naphtha hydrotreater (the 
hydrotreater which desulfurizes the feed to the isomerization and 
reformer units), or perhaps even to the FCC postreater; we added a cost 
for this. Because LSR does not contain any olefins, it is an easy 
stream to hydrotreat and actually improves the hydrotreating conditions 
within the FCC naphtha hydrotreater.
3. Fuel Program Costs
    We used the refinery-by-refinery cost model to estimate the costs 
of the 10 ppm average standard being adopted in this final rule. The 
Tier 3 fuels program maintains the 80 ppm cap sulfur control standard 
that was put in place under the Tier 2 sulfur program. 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 LSR 
naphtha, for those refineries where we estimate that the LSR naphtha is 
not being desulfurized today and found that it likely needs to be.
    As described in Section V.A.4, we are also adopting 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 ABT program, refineries that can reduce sulfur below 
10 ppm at a relatively low cost can generate credits which can then be 
acquired by refineries for whom the cost of attaining the 10 ppm sulfur 
standard would be higher. These credits can be traded among refineries 
within the same company, or between refiners and importers nationwide. 
The net effect of this credit trading would be to reduce the overall 
cost of the program. The extent to which the ABT provisions reduce the 
cost of the Tier 3 program depends on the extent that the ABT program 
is used by refiners. As summarized in the alternatives section (Section 
IX), the cost of the 10 ppm Tier 3 sulfur program is 0.65 c/gal 
assuming widespread nationwide credit trading, while if we assume that 
no credit averaging or trading between any individual refinery occurs, 
the Tier 3 program cost increases to 0.88 c/gal, a 35% increase. In 
between those two scenarios is the case that sulfur credits are only 
used for averaging within companies (not traded between refineries 
owned by different companies), and we estimated the cost for that 
scenario at 0.75 c/gal. Since we were not sure about the extent that 
credits were traded under Tier 2 when we conducted the cost analysis 
for the NPRM, we conservatively assumed for the NPRM cost analysis that 
refiners

[[Page 23601]]

would only volume-average sulfur levels among their refineries, and not 
trade credits between refining companies. However, for the final rule 
cost analysis we evaluated the credit trading that was occurring under 
Tier 2. We found that 56% of credits were in fact being traded between 
refining companies under Tier 2, with the balance being used within 
refining companies. This demonstrated that credit trading was freely 
occurring between refining companies, supporting the conclusion that 
credit trading would occur nationwide among refineries under Tier 3. We 
therefore assumed nationwide credit trading for our final rule.
    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 (their refineries do not have 
FCC units). All such refineries were assumed to generate credits for 
the increment between 10 ppm and their current sulfur level.
    Our methodology was unable to consider a fifth category where a 
refinery may utilize less expensive capital and operational changes to 
reduce their sulfur levels partially below Tier 2 levels and rely on 
purchasing credits only for the remainder. Such opportunities are 
likely to exist at most refineries, but such refinery specific 
information is not available to us. As a result, refineries in the 
third category are modeled to simply remain at Tier 2 sulfur levels and 
incur no capital or operating cost.
    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).
    Our final rule cost analysis is based on a nationwide credit 
trading scenario. Under Tier 2 today, a significant fraction of Tier 2 
sulfur credits are bought and sold between companies and we believe 
that this practice will continue (see Section V.D for details about the 
ABT program). To model this phenomenon, we first establish an estimated 
cost for each refinery for reducing its gasoline 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 using only one cost 
(either 10 or 5 ppm) for any one refinery. The model then follows this 
ranking, starting with the lowest-cost refineries, and adds refineries 
and their associated control technologies one-by-one until the 
projected national average gasoline sulfur level reaches 10 ppm. This 
modeling strategy projects the sulfur control technology that will be 
used by each refinery, as well as identifies those refineries that are 
expected to generate credits and those that are expected to use credits 
in lieu of investing in sulfur control. The sum of the costs of the 
refineries expected to invest in further sulfur control provides the 
projected overall cost of the program.
    Based on the results of our cost analysis, we estimate that for the 
U.S. refining industry to achieve a 10 ppm average level with the full 
benefit of nationwide credit trading, the final sulfur control program 
would cost on average 0.65 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 2011 dollars. 
Refiners would be expected to make $2.025 billion in capital 
investments to achieve this sulfur reduction. These capital investments 
are expected to be made over the 6 years that the Tier 3 program is 
expected to be phased in, which would spread out the capital costs to 
average about $330 million per year.
    Our cost assessment is likely conservative (i.e., overestimates 
costs). The capital cost estimate is based on vendor data which assumes 
that refiners are hydrotreating full range FCC naphtha. If refiners are 
indeed undercutting their FCC naphtha at many refineries (and more will 
be doing so in the future), many refiners would likely not need to make 
any capital changes. This is because the FCC postreaters were designed 
when refiners were maximizing their gasoline production and 
hydrotreating full range FCC naphtha. When undercutting the FCC naphtha 
to the diesel pool, refiners cut out about 16% of the FCC naphtha 
volume and about half of the sulfur. Thus, if a refiner was able to 
produce 30 ppm gasoline, after fully undercutting their FCC naphtha 
into the diesel pool, they would likely be able to produce 15 ppm 
sulfur gasoline using their existing Tier 2 postreater. They could then 
use a more active catalyst which likely would enable the refinery to 
achieve 10 ppm gasoline without any capital changes to their FCC 
postreaters. If all refiners were undercutting their FCC naphtha and 
are able to comply with Tier 3 without any capital additions to their 
FCC postreaters, the cost of the program would decrease to around 0.4 
c/gal.
    Another way that our modeling could be conservative is that 
refiners are slowly converting their FCC pretreaters over to mild 
hydrocrackers to produce more diesel fuel, which is in higher demand. 
We do not know the extent that this is happening, and our current 
analysis assumes that none of the FCC pretreaters have been converted 
over to mild hydrocrackers. However, a cost sensitivity analysis that 
we conducted with our refinery model estimates that if all the FCC 
pretreaters were converted over to mild hydrocrackers, costs of the 
Tier 3 program would decrease to 0.55 c/gal, assuming nationwide credit 
trading. If we combined the cost reduction of undercutting with the 
mild hydrocracking, the Tier 3 costs would be lower than either of two 
cost sensitivities which were conducted independently.
    We also received some comments by API and two of the peer reviewers 
about our octane costs. We will not include all the discussion here 
about octane costs because we do so in detail in the response to peer 
review comments and in Chapter 5 of the RIA. While we are comfortable 
with the octane costs that we used, we did conduct a sensitivity at a 
higher octane cost ($0.5/per octane number barrel instead of $0.31/
octane number-barrel that we used). At the higher octane cost of $0.5/
octane number barrel, the Tier 3 sulfur control costs increases from 
0.65 c/gal to 0.73 c/gal.
    We also estimated annual aggregate costs, including the amortized 
capital costs, associated with the new fuel standard. When the 10 ppm 
gasoline sulfur standard is fully phased in 2020, we estimate that the 
sulfur standard

[[Page 23602]]

would cost $790 million in that year. Figure VII-1 shows the 
distribution of refinery costs over the accumulated gasoline volume for 
the fully phased in 10 ppm sulfur standard.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.003

    Figure VII-1 shows that for almost 20 percent of the gasoline pool, 
refineries will not incur any cost under Tier 3, either because these 
refineries are already very low in sulfur because they do not have FCC 
units, or because the refineries are purchasing credits.\540\ For 
another 10 percent of the gasoline pool, the refinery costs are in the 
0-0.5 cent/gal range. For the next 55 percent of the gasoline pool, the 
refinery costs are in the 0.5-1.0 c/gal range. For the last 15 percent 
of the gasoline pool, the refinery costs range from 1.0 to 2.1 c/gal 
for revamps, with the exception of one refinery at 2.8 c/gal 
representing the cost for the sole grassroots unit which our modeling 
estimates would need to be installed. All other refiners that may 
otherwise need to install a grassroots hydrotreater were able to comply 
more cheaply through the purchase of credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \540\ Refineries purchasing credits will incur a cost for the 
purchase of the credit, but since we do not know what the price of a 
credit will be, we allocate all the cost for complying with Tier 3 
solely on the refineries adding capital and incurring operating 
costs to comply with Tier 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure VII-2 summarizes our estimated U.S. gasoline sulfur levels 
over the accumulated gasoline volume post Tier 3.

[[Page 23603]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.004

    Figure VII-2 shows that over 80 percent of the gasoline pool would 
predominately be either 5 or 10 ppm representing the two sulfur levels 
to which we assumed that refiners would desulfurize their gasoline 
pool. For the rest of the gasoline pool, the refineries are clearly 
purchasing credits and their sulfur levels range from 10 to nearly 70 
ppm. As discussed earlier, lacking more detailed refinery-specific 
information, for these refineries we assumed that they take no action 
to reduce their gasoline sulfur below their Tier 2 levels. In reality 
these refineries are likely to take some very cost-effective steps to 
partially reduce their gasoline sulfur and not rely solely on credits 
to demonstrate compliance with Tier 3. Were we able to model such 
refinery changes, it would only serve to further lower our projected 
costs.
4. Other Cost Estimates
    Three other cost studies were 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).\541\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \541\ Mathpro (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\542\ 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 (an estimate of the impact of 
the 20 ppm cap standard using API information is presented below).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \542\ Baker and O'Brien, Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost 
Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline; prepared for The 
American Petroleum Institute. March 2012. Available at: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/110715_LowerSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API made a series of conclusions based on the study. Perhaps the 
most important conclusion is that no refinery would shut down as a 
result of the 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. Since they assumed a 20 ppm cap precluding 
refiners from utilizing the ABT program, it required virtually all 
refiners to incur capital costs thereby driving up marginal costs. 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 set 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

[[Page 23604]]

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 
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 0.65 c/gal cost with an ABT program that assumes nationwide 
trading of credits, and higher than our 0.86 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.
    We were able to obtain a document which shed some light on the 
methodology that API used to develop its FCC postreater capital 
costs.\543\ When the proposed rule was being reviewed by the Office of 
Management Budget (OMB) at the end of 2012, API provided to OMB a 
document which provided answers to questions that EPA and EIA posed to 
API and Baker and O'Brien back in mid-2011 when API was about to 
release its study of gasoline sulfur control costs. According to the 
document, API collected investment cost information for 5 FCC naphtha 
hydrotreater projects that were apparently completed by refiners to 
comply with Tier 2, and not the low severity capital projects that 
refiners would use to comply with Tier 3. No specific information was 
provided for any of those projects to determine whether each of those 
projects was typical, or if they included atypical costs add-ons for 
other refinery upgrades, which is common when refiners make changes in 
response to an environmental regulation. API adjusted the capital cost 
to be on a 35kbbl/day basis and the capital costs were inflated from 
the year that the project was constructed in the 2003 to 2005 
timeframe, to mid-2009 dollars using the Nelson-Farrar Refinery 
Construction Index. API then reviewed the final capital investment 
costs for FCC postreaters with several other members that had recently 
installed FCC postreaters. One refiner which had presented an itemized 
list of capital costs for a recent FCC postreater installation stated 
that the costs for their recent FCC postreater installation were two 
times higher than the Nelson-Farrar adjusted costs, so API doubled the 
costs. The information provided did not state whether these later 
installations used to double the estimated postreater costs were in the 
U.S. where engineering and construction are readily available or 
overseas where most recent FCC postreater installations have been 
occurring and where the installation costs could be much higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \543\ Document entitled ``Follow-up Questions from EPA-EIA'' (no 
other information provided on the document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the ISBL capital cost that we used for a grassroots 
FCC postreater is $1500/bbl-day for a 30,000 bbl/day grassroots unit, 
which increases to $2430/bbl/day when the offsite and contingency costs 
are added on. Thus, the API capital costs of $6540 are about 2 and one 
half 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,\544\ the API capital costs are almost two times higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \544\ The installed capital cost for an FCC postreater from the 
Jacobs data base was adjusted to current year dollars. This 
estimated installed capital cost is several years old and may not 
represent Jacobs current cost estimate for a FCC postreater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As alluded to earlier, 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 is likely one important 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

[[Page 23605]]

30 to 70 percent of the capital cost for a grassroots FCC unit. Our 
capital cost estimate for revamping an FCC naphtha postreaters range 
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.
    As discussed above, an important reason why API's projected capital 
costs for complying with Tier 3 are so high is that API assumed a 20 
ppm cap standard in addition to the 10 ppm average standard that it 
studied. The 20 ppm cap standard eliminates the possibility of 
realizing the cost savings of an ABT program. After we proposed the 
Tier 3 rule, API presented to EPA, in its comments on the proposed 
rulemaking, its estimate for the cost of finalizing a more stringent 
cap standard. The study, which was contracted to the Turner, Mason & 
Company, estimated that a 20 ppm cap standard would increase the 
capital cost of complying with a 10 ppm average standard by $6.1 
billion. If we subtract the $6.1 billion in capital costs attributed to 
the 20 ppm cap standard from the $9.8 billion in total capital costs 
from API's Addendum report which estimated the cost of complying with 
Tier 3, and adjust the fixed operating costs accordingly, the API 
estimated average cost (not marginal cost) for complying with Tier 3 
decreases to 0.97 c/gal. In addition to the questionable capital costs 
assumed for FCC postreaters as discussed above, this information from 
API on its estimated cost of complying with a 20 ppm cap standard helps 
to answer an important question of why API estimated average cost was 
still higher than the other studies after other cost adjustments were 
made. This final adjustment to the API costs makes the estimated API 
costs for complying with Tier 3 right in line with the other cost 
studies. This adjusted API cost, however, still does include the cost 
saving aspects of credit averaging and trading since the API analysis 
assumed that each refinery meets the 10 ppm average sulfur standard. 
Thus, to compare this most recent cost adjustment of API costs to our 
cost study, our 0.87 c/gal cost for no ABT program would be the most 
appropriate cost for comparison (see Chapter IX for alternative costs), 
The adjusted API cost and our cost are only 0.1 c/gal different.
    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.\545\ The authors made a number of conclusions. After 
reviewing both the ICCT and API studies, the authors found that a 
primary difference in estimated costs between the two studies was the 
capital costs. The authors contacted vendor companies that license FCC 
postreater technologies and surveyed the companies to find out what the 
capital costs are for a FCC postreater. As a result of the survey, the 
report authors concluded that API's capital costs were too high, and 
those used in the ICCT study were about right. The authors found that 
Baker and O'Brien has a history of exaggerating the economic impacts of 
EPA rules, citing the costs and other impacts of its analysis of the 
2007 on-highway heavy-duty proposed rulemaking. The authors concluded 
that the impact of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard on the average 
refining cost would likely be closer to the 1 cent per gallon estimate 
by the ICCT study. Furthermore, the report's authors also pointed out 
that the marginal cost analysis conducted by API did not consider the 
averaging banking and trading (ABT) program that we adopted, which 
would reduce the marginal costs of the Tier 3 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \545\ Schink, George R., Singer, Hal J., Economic Analysis of 
the Implications of Implementing EPA's Tier 3 Rules, prepared for 
the Emissions Control Technology Association, June 14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Summary of Program Costs

    While the estimated costs for the separate vehicle and fuel 
programs are presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B, respectively, it is 
useful to present the combined cost estimates representing the full 
Tier 3 program.
    We have chosen to use an annual 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 final 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-6 below shows our estimated program costs by year. The 
total program costs for the final rule are lower than those projected 
for the proposal due to several reasons. First, the vehicle program 
costs are lower due in part to applying the per vehicle costs to 
vehicles excluding those sold in California and the states that have 
adopted the LEV III program. A complete discussion of the differences 
in vehicle costs between the proposal and final rule are outlined above 
in Section VII.A.1. Second, the fuel program costs are also lower than 
the values projected for the proposal due to lower refinery cost 
estimates, as discussed above in Section VII.B. In addition, the annual 
fuel consumption projections are lower in the final rule because they 
reflect the inclusion of the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy 
Standards for 2017-2025 model years. Complete details of this analysis 
can be found in the RIA Chapter 8.

                                           Table VII--6 Total Annual Vehicle and Fuel Control Costs, 2011$ \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Vehicle  exhaust       Vehicle
                                                   emission        evaporative         Vehicle       Facility  costs     Fuel sulfur     Total  program
                    Year                        control costs   emission control  operating  costs     ($million)       control costs         costs
                                                 ($million)     costs ($million)      ($million)                         ($million)        ($million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016........................................                $0                $0                $0               $21                $0               $21
2017........................................               268                26                 0                 4               804             1,101
2018........................................               539                73                -1                 4               799             1,414
2019........................................               579                72                -2                 4               794             1,447
2020........................................               599                98                -3                 4               787             1,484
2021........................................               630                97                -5                 4               778             1,503
2022........................................               640               121                -6                 4               768             1,526
2023........................................               639               116                -8                 4               758             1,509
2024........................................               653               114                -9                 4               748             1,509
2025........................................               668               113               -11                 4               737             1,510

[[Page 23606]]

 
2030........................................               664               113               -19                 4               696             1,457
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates include costs associated with: (a) The Tier 3 vehicle standards in all states except California and the states that have adopted the
  LEV III program; and, (b) the Tier 3 fuel standards in all states except California.

VIII. What are the estimated benefits of the rule?

    This section presents EPA's analysis of the criteria pollutant-
related health and environmental impacts that will occur as a result of 
the final Tier 3 standards. The vehicles and fuels subject to the 
standards are significant sources of mobile source air pollution such 
as direct PM, NOX, SOX, VOCs and air toxics. The 
standards will reduce exhaust and evaporative emissions of these 
pollutants from vehicles. Emissions of NOX (a precursor to 
ozone formation and secondarily-formed PM2.5), 
SOX (a precursor to secondarily-formed PM2.5), 
VOCs (a precursor to ozone formation and, to a lesser degree, 
secondarily-formed PM2.5) and directly-emitted 
PM2.5 contribute to ambient concentrations of 
PM2.5 and ozone. Exposure to ozone, PM2.5, and 
air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature 
deaths as well as other important public health and environmental 
effects.
    For the final rulemaking, we have estimated the health and 
environmental impacts in 2030, representing projected impacts 
associated with a year when the program is fully implemented and when 
most of the fleet is turned over. Overall, we estimate that the 
standards will lead to a net decrease in PM2.5- and ozone-
related health impacts. The estimated 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 0.04 [mu]g/m\3\ 
in 2030). The estimated 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 0.32 ppb in 2030).\546\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \546\ Note that the national, population-weighted 
PM2.5 and ozone air quality metrics presented in this 
Section represent an average for the entire, gridded U.S. CMAQ 
domain. These are different than the population-weighted 
PM2.5 and ozone design value metrics presented in Chapter 
7, which represent the average for areas with a current air quality 
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the lower end of EPA's range of preferred premature mortality 
estimates (Krewski et al., 2009 for PM2.5 and Bell et al., 
2004 for ozone),547 548 we estimate that by 2030, 
implementation of the standards will reduce approximately 770 premature 
mortalities annually and will yield between 6.7 and 7.4 billion in 
total annual benefits, depending on the discount rate used.\549\ The 
upper end of the range of avoided premature mortality estimates 
associated with the standards (based on Lepeule et al., 2012 for 
PM2.5 and Levy et al., 2005 for ozone) 550 551 
results in approximately 2,000 premature mortalities avoided in 2030 
and will yield between 18 and 19 billion in total benefits. Thus, even 
using the lower end of the range of premature mortality estimates, the 
health impacts of the final standards presented in this rule are 
projected to be substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \547\ Krewski, D., M. Jerret, R.T. Burnett, R. Ma, E. Hughes, Y. 
Shi, et al. (2009). Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the 
American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and 
mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, 
Boston, MA.
    \548\ Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short-term mortality 
in 95 U.S. urban communities, 1987-2000. Journal of the American 
Medical Association, 292(19), 2372-2378.
    \549\ The monetized value of PM2.5-related mortality 
accounts for a twenty-year segmented cessation lag. To discount the 
value of premature mortality that occurs at different points in the 
future, we apply both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate. We also use 
both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate to value PM-related nonfatal 
heart attacks (myocardial infarctions). Nonfatal myocardial 
infarctions (MI) are valued using age-specific cost-of-illness 
values that reflect lost earnings and direct medical costs over a 5-
year period following a nonfatal MI.
    \550\ Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J (2012). Chronic 
Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of 
the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health 
Perspect. Jul;120(7):965-70.
    \551\ Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. (2005). 
Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric bayes metaregression 
analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4), 458-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that of necessity, decisions on the emissions and other 
elements used in the air quality modeling were made early in the 
analytical process for the final rulemaking. For this reason, the 
modeled changes in emissions used to support the air quality and 
benefits analyses are slightly different than those used to represent 
the final emissions impacts of the Tier 3 standards. The magnitude of 
the differences is small, however, and for that reason we do not expect 
these differences to materially impact our cost-benefit conclusions. 
See Chapter 7.2.1.1 of the RIA for more details.

A. Overview

    We base our analysis of the program's impact on human health on 
peer-reviewed studies of air quality and human health 
effects.552 553 These methods are described in more detail 
in Chapter 8 of the RIA. Our benefits methods are consistent with the 
RIA that accompanied the final revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter and the final ozone 
NAAQS. To model the ozone and PM air quality impacts of the final 
standards, we used the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 
(see Chapter 7.2.2 of the RIA that accompanies this preamble). The 
modeled ambient air quality data serves as an input to the 
Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program version 4.065 
(BenMAP).\554\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \552\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 
and Radiation, EPA-452/R-12-005. Retrieved August 14, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
    \553\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone 
NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Prepared by: Office of Air and 
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved 
August 14, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
    \554\ Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the 
software, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/benmodels.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The range of total monetized ozone- and PM-related health impacts 
projected

[[Page 23607]]

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.

                  Table VIII-1--Estimated 2030 Monetized PM- and Ozone-Related Health Benefits
   2030 Total ozone and PM benefits--PM mortality derived from American Cancer Society analysis and six-cities
                                                  analysis \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Total benefits         Total benefits (billions,
   Premature ozone mortality            Reference          (billions, 2011$, 3%    2011$, 7% discount rate) \b\
            function                                      discount rate) \b\ \c\                \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city analyses............  Bell et al., 2004......  Total: $7.4-$15.......  Total: $6.7-$14.
                                                          PM: $6.0-$14..........  PM: $5.4-$12.
                                                          Ozone: $1.1...........  Ozone: $1.1.
                                 Huang et al., 2005.....  Total: $7.9-$16.......  Total: $7.3-$14.
                                                          PM: $6.0-$14..........  PM: $5.4-$12.
                                                          Ozone: $1.7...........  Ozone: $1.7.
                                 Schwartz, 2005.........  Total: $8.0-$16.......  Total: $7.3-$14.
                                                          PM: $6.0-$14..........  PM: $5.4-$12.
                                                          Ozone: $1.7...........  Ozone: $1.7.
Meta-analyses..................  Bell et al., 2005......  Total: $9.8-$18.......  Total: $9.2-$16.
                                                          PM: $6.0-$14..........  PM: $5.4-$12.
                                                          Ozone: $3.6...........  Ozone: $3.6.
                                 Ito et al., 2005.......  Total: $11-$19........  Total: $11-$18.
                                                          PM: $6.0-$14..........  PM: $5.4-$12.
                                                          Ozone: $4.9...........  Ozone: $4.9.
                                 Levy et al., 2005......  Total: $11-$19........  Total: $11-$18.
                                                          PM: $6.0-$14..........  PM: $5.4-$12.
                                                          Ozone: $5.0...........  Ozone: $5.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total includes premature mortality-related and morbidity-related ozone and PM2.5 estimated 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 (Krewski et al., 2009) or the Six-Cities study
  (Lepeule et al., 2012). Range also reflects alternative estimates of non-fatal heart attacks avoided based on
  either Peters et al. (2001) or a pooled estimate of four studies.
\b\ 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.
\c\ 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 analysis presented in this chapter incorporates an 
array of policy and technical changes that the Agency has adopted since 
the Tier 3 proposal's draft RIA. These changes reflect EPA's work to 
update PM-related benefits reflected in the most recent PM NAAQS.\555\ 
Below we note the aspects of this analysis that differ from the Tier 3 
proposal's draft RIA:\556\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \555\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 
and Radiation, EPA-452/R-12-005. Retrieved August 14, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
    \556\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Draft 
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 
Standards. Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation. EPA-420-D-13-
002. Retrieved October 18, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/tier3/420d13002.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Incorporation of the newest American Cancer Society (ACS) 
mortality study and newest Harvard Six Cities mortality study. In 2012, 
Lepeule et al. published an extended analysis of the Six Cities 
cohort.\557\ Compared to the study it replaces (Laden et al., 
2006),\558\ this new analysis follows the cohort for a longer time and 
includes more years of PM2.5 monitoring data. The all-cause 
PM2.5 mortality risk coefficient drawn from Lepeule et al. 
is roughly similar to the Laden et al. risk coefficient applied in the 
EPA's recent analyses of long-term PM2.5 mortality and has 
narrower confidence intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \557\ Lepeule J., Laden F., Dockery D., Schwartz J. 2012. 
Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended 
Follow-Up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ 
Health Perspect. Jul;120(7):965-70.
    \558\ Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. 
2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.'' 
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 173:667-
672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2009, the Health Effects Institute published an extended 
analysis of the ACS cohort (Krewski et al., 2009).\559\ Compared to the 
study it replaces (Pope et al., 2002),\560\ this new analysis 
incorporates a number of methodological improvements.\561\ The all-
cause PM2.5 mortality risk estimate drawn from Krewski et 
al. (2009) is identical to the Pope et al. (2002) risk estimate applied 
in recent EPA analyses of long-term PM2.5 mortality but has 
narrower confidence intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \559\ Krewski, D., M. Jerret, R.T. Burnett, R. Ma, E. Hughes, Y. 
Shi, et al. (2009). Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the 
American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and 
mortality. HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, 
Boston, MA.
    \560\ Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. 
Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer, 
Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 
Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical 
Association 287:1132-1141.
    \561\ Refer to the 2012 PM NAAQS RIA for more detail regarding 
the studies themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Updated health endpoints. We have removed the quantification of 
chronic bronchitis from our main analysis. This change is consistent 
with the findings of the PM Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) that 
the evidence for an association between long-term exposure to 
PM2.5 and respiratory effects is more tenuous.\562\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \562\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Updated demographic data. We updated the population demographic 
data in BenMAP to reflect the 2010 Census and future projections based 
on economic forecasting models developed by Woods and Poole, Inc.\563\ 
These data replace the earlier demographic

[[Page 23608]]

projection data from Woods and Poole (2011).\564\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \563\ Woods & Poole Economics Inc. 2012. Population by Single 
Year of Age. CD-ROM. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. Washington, DC.
    \564\ Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. (2011). 2012 Complete 
Economic and Demographic Data Source (CEDDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Incorporation of new morbidity studies. Since the publication of 
the 2004 Criteria Document for Particulate Matter,\565\ the publication 
of the more recent PM ISA,\566\ and the Provisional Assessment of 
Recent Studies on Health Effects of Particulate Matter Exposure 
(``Provisional Assessment''),\567\ the epidemiological literature has 
produced several new studies examining the association between short-
term PM2.5 exposure and acute myocardial infarctions, 
respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations, respiratory and 
cardiovascular emergency department visits, acute respiratory symptoms 
and exacerbation of asthma, respiratory and cardiovascular 
hospitalizations. Upon careful evaluation of this new literature, we 
added several new studies to our health impact assessment; in many 
cases we have replaced older single-city time-series studies with newer 
multi-city time-series analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \565\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2004. Air 
Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. National Center for 
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC EPA/600/
P-99/002bF. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87903>.
    \566\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
    \567\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. 
Provisional Assessment of Recent Studies on Health Effects of 
Particulate Matter Exposure. EPA/600/R-12/056A. National Center for 
Environmental Assessment--RTP Division. December.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Updated the survival rates for non-fatal acute myocardial 
infarctions. Based on recent data from Agency for Healthcare Research 
and Quality's Healthcare Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample 
database,\568\ we identified death rates for adults hospitalized with 
acute myocardial infarction stratified by age. These rates replace the 
survival rates from Rosamond et al. (1999).\569\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \568\ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). 2009. 
HCUPnet, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Rockville, MD. 
Available on the Internet at http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov>. American 
Lung Association (ALA). 1999. Chronic Bronchitis. Available on the 
Internet at http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungchronic.html>.
    \569\ Rosamond, W., G. Broda, E. Kawalec, S. Rywik, A. Pajak, L. 
Cooper, and L. Chambless. 1999. ``Comparison of Medical Care and 
Survival of Hospitalized Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction 
in Poland and the United States.'' American Journal of Cardiology 
83:1180-1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Updated hospital cost-of-illness (COI), including median wage 
data. In previous benefits analyses, estimates of hospital charges and 
lengths of hospital stays were based on discharge statistics provided 
by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare 
Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for 
2000.\570\ The version of BenMAP (version 4.0.65) used in this analysis 
updated this information to use the 2007 database. The data source for 
the updated median annual income is the 2007 American Community Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \570\ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). 2000. 
HCUPnet, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Rockville, MD. 
Available on the Internet at http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits in Table VIII-1 include all of the estimated human 
health impacts we are able to quantify and monetize at this time. 
However, the full complement of human health effects associated with 
PM, ozone and other criteria pollutants 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 
these pollutants for which appropriate health impact functions are not 
available or which do not provide easily interpretable outcomes (e.g., 
changes in heart rate variability). These are listed in Table VIII-2. 
As a result of these omissions, the health benefits quantified in this 
section are likely underestimates of the total benefits attributable to 
the final standards.

                                           Table VIII-2--Estimated Quantified and Unquantified Health Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Effect has    Effect has
            Benefits category                    Specific effect            been          been                        More information
                                                                         quantified     monetized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Improved Human Health
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced incidence of premature mortality   Adult premature mortality        [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
 and morbidity from exposure to PM2.5.      based on cohort study
                                            estimates and expert
                                            elicitation estimates (age
                                            >25 or age >30).
                                           Infant mortality (age 18).
                                           Hospital admissions--            [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            respiratory (all ages).
                                           Hospital admissions--            [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            cardiovascular (age >20).
                                           Emergency department visits      [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            for asthma (all ages).
                                           Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)      [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                           Lower respiratory symptoms       [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            (age 7-14).
                                           Upper respiratory symptoms       [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            (asthmatics age 9-11).
                                           Asthma exacerbation              [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            (asthmatics age 6-18).
                                           Lost work days (age 18-65).      [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                           Minor restricted-activity        [check]       [check]   PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.
                                            days (age 18-65).
                                           Chronic Bronchitis (age      ............  ............  PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.\c\
                                            >26).
                                           Emergency department visits  ............  ............  PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.\c\
                                            for cardiovascular effects
                                            (all ages).

[[Page 23609]]

 
                                           Strokes and cerebrovascular  ............  ............  PM NAAQS RIA, Section 5.6.\c\
                                            disease (age 50-79).
                                           Other cardiovascular         ............  ............  PM ISA.\a\
                                            effects (e.g., other ages).
                                           Other respiratory effects    ............  ............  PM ISA.\a\
                                            (e.g., pulmonary function,
                                            non-asthma ER visits, non-
                                            bronchitis chronic
                                            diseases, other ages and
                                            populations).
                                           Reproductive and             ............  ............  PM ISA.\a\ \b\
                                            developmental effects
                                            (e.g., low birth weight,
                                            pre-term births, etc.).
                                           Cancer, mutagenicity, and    ............  ............  PM ISA.\a\ \b\
                                            genotoxicity effects.
Reduced incidence of premature mortality   Premature mortality based        [check]       [check]   Ozone ISA.
 and morbidity from exposure to ozone.      on short-term study         ............  ............  Ozone ISA.\c\
                                            estimates (all ages).
                                           Premature mortality based
                                            on long-term study
                                            estimates (age 30-99).
                                           Hospital admissions--            [check]       [check]   Ozone ISA.
                                            respiratory causes (age
                                            >65).
                                           Hospital admissions--            [check]       [check]   Ozone ISA.
                                            respiratory causes (age
                                            http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the second prospective analysis of the benefits and 
costs of the Clean Air Act,\572\ EPA conducted a case study analysis of 
the estimated 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.'' \573\ 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 final standards.\574\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \572\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2011). 
The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020. 
Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on the 
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>.
    \573\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory 
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). (2008). Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions 
in Houston, 1990-2020. EPA-COUNCIL-08-001. July. Available at 
/yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A83/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-08-001-
unsigned.pdf>.
    \574\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reduction in air pollution emissions that will result from the 
final program also is projected to have ``welfare'' co-benefits in 
addition to human health benefits, including changes in visibility, 
materials damage, ecological effects from PM deposition, ecological 
effects from nitrogen and sulfur emissions, vegetation effects from 
ozone exposure, and climate effects.\575\ Despite our goal to quantify 
and monetize as many of the benefits as possible for the final 
rulemaking, the welfare co-benefits of the Tier 3 standards remain 
unquantified and non-monetized due to data, methodology, and resource 
limitations. As a result, the benefits quantified in this analysis are 
likely underestimates of the total benefits attributable to the final 
program. We refer the reader to Chapter 6 of the PM NAAQS RIA for a 
complete discussion of these welfare co-benefits.\576\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \575\ We project that the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards will 
reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) 
emissions from vehicles. The reductions in these potent greenhouse 
gases will be offset to some degree by the increase in 
CO2 emissions from refineries. The combined impact is a 
net decrease on a CO2-equivalent basis and would yield a net benefit 
if these reductions were monetized.
    \576\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 
and Radiation, EPA-452/R-12-005. Retrieved August 14, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received many comments from the public and interested 
stakeholders, many of which were supportive of the benefits analysis 
conducted in support of the rulemaking and some that were adverse. 
Several commenters (primarily associated with the fuels industry) were 
critical of a number of EPA assumptions and other aspects of the 
analysis.
    As described more fully in the Summary and Analysis of Comments 
document that accompanies this rulemaking, EPA disagrees with the 
claims of these commenters. We base our analysis of the program's 
impact on human health and the environment on peer-reviewed studies of 
air quality and human health effects.577 578 Our benefits 
methods are consistent with the RIA that accompanied the final 
revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
Particulate Matter and the final ozone NAAQS. Our methods also undergo 
rigorous review by many independent expert panels, including the 
Science Advisory Board and the National Research Council. Our methods 
and assumptions reflect their guidance, review, and recommendations. As 
a result, we believe our analysis reflects the state of the science for 
health impacts and benefits assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \577\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 
and Radiation, EPA-452/R-12-005. Retrieved August 14, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
    \578\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone 
NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis. Prepared by: Office of Air and 
Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved 
March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0472-0238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency also received many comments supportive of the benefits 
that the Tier 3 standards will achieve. This includes broad support 
from many non-governmental institutions, state and local governments, 
and private citizens.

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 final 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 final standards would result 
in between 660 and 1,500 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 130 and 2,200 fewer 
premature mortalities in 2030 (see Table 8.8 in the RIA that 
accompanies this action). For ozone-related premature mortality in 
2030, we estimate a range of between 110 to 500 fewer premature 
mortalities.

        Table VIII-3--Estimated PM2.5-Related Health Impacts \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2030 Annual reduction in incidence
            Health effect                       (5th%-95th%ile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
 epidemiology literature \b\
    Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study                       660 (480-840)
     (Krewski et al., 2009).........
    Adult, age 25+, Six-Cities Study                   1,500 (860-2,100)
     (Lepeule et al., 2012).........

[[Page 23611]]

 
Infant, age 18) \d\..............
Emergency room visits for asthma                           340 (-58-660)
 (age 18 years and younger) \e\.....
Acute bronchitis, (children, age 8-                      980 (-35-2,000)
 12) \e\............................
Lower respiratory symptoms                         13,000 (6,000-19,000)
 (children, age 7-14)...............
Upper respiratory symptoms                         18,000 (5,600-30,000)
 (asthmatic children, age 9-18).....
Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic                     19,000 (2,300-37,000)
 children, age 6-18)................
Work loss days......................              81,000 (70,000-91,000)
Minor restricted activity days                 480,000 (400,000-550,000)
 (adults age 18-65).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
  incidence within the 48 contiguous United States.
\b\ PM-related adult mortality based upon the most recent American
  Cancer Society (ACS) Cohort Study (Krewski et al., 2009) and the most
  recent Six-Cities Study (Lepeule et al., 2012). 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).\579\
\c\ Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for
  chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma.
\d\ Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total
  cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease,
  dysrhythmias, and heart failure.
\e\ The negative estimates at the 5th percentile confidence estimates
  for these morbidity endpoints reflect the statistical power of the
  study used to calculate these health impacts. These results do not
  suggest that reducing air pollution results in additional health
  impacts.

        Table VIII-4--Estimated Ozone-Related Health Impacts \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2030 Annual reduction in incidence
            Health effect                       (5th%-95th%ile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality, All ages \b\
Multi-City Analyses
    Bell et al. (2004)--Non-                                110 (46-170)
     accidental.....................
    Huang et al. (2005)--                                   160 (74-250)
     Cardiopulmonary................
    Schwartz (2005)--Non-accidental.                        170 (68-270)
Meta-analyses:
    Bell et al. (2005)--All cause...                       350 (190-510)
    Ito et al. (2005)--Non-                                490 (320-660)
     accidental.....................
    Levy et al. (2005)--All cause...                       500 (360-630)
Hospital admissions--respiratory                          740 (87-1,400)
 causes (adult, 65 and older) \c\...
Hospital admissions--respiratory                           310 (160-450)
 causes (children, under 2).........
Emergency room visit for asthma (all                        330 (-8-990)
 ages) \d\..........................
Minor restricted activity days                 600,000 (290,000-910,000)
 (adults, age 18-65)................
School absence days.................            210,000 (92,000-300,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent
  incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S.
\b\ Estimates of ozone-related premature mortality are based upon
  incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et
  al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005); Bell et al. (2005);
  Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone-related
  premature mortality should therefore not be summed.
\c\ Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all
  respiratory causes and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia.
\d\ The negative estimate at the 5th percentile confidence estimate for
  this morbidity endpoint reflects the statistical power of the study
  used to calculate this health impact. This result does not suggest
  that reducing air pollution results in additional health impacts.

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 2011 dollars. 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 between $7.4 and $19 billion, 
assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $6.7 and $18 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \579\ Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. (1997). 
The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant 
Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States. 
Environmental Health Perspectives 105(6):608-612.

[[Page 23612]]

Table VIII-5--Estimated Monetary Value of Changes in Incidence of Health
                       and Welfare Effects in 2030
                         [Millions of 2011$] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2030 (5th and 95th
             Health Endpoints                        percentile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                PM[ihel2].[ihel5]-Related Health Effects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature Mortality--Derived from
 Epidemiology Studies: \b\ \c\
    Adult, age 30+--ACS study (Krewski et
     al., 2009)
        3% discount rate..................         $6,100 ($910-$14,000)
        7% discount rate..................         $5,500 ($820-$13,000)
    Adult, age 25+--Six-Cities study
     (Lepeule et al., 2012)
        3% discount rate..................      $14,000 ($2,000-$33,000)
        7% discount rate..................      $12,000 ($1,800-$30,000)
        Infant Mortality,  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

[[Page 23613]]

     Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential 
future actions to limit emissions.
    As Table VIII-5 indicates, total benefit estimates 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:
     We assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature 
mortality. This is an important assumption, because PM2.5 
varies considerably in composition across sources, but the scientific 
evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differential effects estimates 
by particle type. The 2009 PM ISA, which was twice reviewed by EPA's 
Science Advisory Board Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (SAB-
CASAC), concluded that ``many constituents of PM2.5 can be 
linked with multiple health effects, and the evidence is not yet 
sufficient to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources 
that are more closely related to specific outcomes.'' \580\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \580\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We assume that the health impact function for fine 
particles is log-linear without a threshold in this analysis. Thus, the 
estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas 
with varied concentrations of PM2.5, including both areas 
that do not meet the fine particle standard and those areas that are in 
attainment, down to the lowest modeled concentrations.
     We assume that there is a ``cessation'' lag between the 
change in PM exposures and the total realization of changes in 
mortality effects. Specifically, we assume that some of the incidences 
of premature mortality related to PM2.5 exposures occur in a 
distributed fashion over the 20 years following exposure based on the 
advice of EPA's Science Advisory Board Health Effects Subcommittee 
(SAB-HES),\581\ which affects the valuation of mortality benefits at 
different discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \581\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory 
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2004. Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance 
Analysis Response to Agency Request on Cessation Lag. EPA-COUNCIL-
LTR-05-001. December. Available on the Internet at /
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/
39F44B098DB49F3C85257170005293E0/$File/council--ltr--05--001.pdf>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     There is uncertainty in the magnitude of the association 
between ozone and premature mortality. The range of ozone benefits 
associated with the final standards is estimated based on the risk of 
several sources of ozone-related mortality effect estimates. In a 
report on the estimation of ozone-related premature mortality published 
by the National Research Council, a panel of experts and reviewers 
concluded that short-term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to 
contribute to premature deaths and that ozone-related mortality should 
be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone 
exposure.\582\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \582\ National Research Council (NRC), (2008). Estimating 
Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling 
Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the uncertainties described above, we believe this analysis 
provides a conservative estimate of the estimated criteria pollutant-
related health and environmental benefits of the standards in future 
years because of the exclusion of potentially significant benefit 
categories that are not quantifiable at this time. Acknowledging 
benefits omissions and uncertainties, we present a best estimate of the 
total benefits based on our interpretation of the best available 
scientific literature and methods supported by EPA's technical peer 
review panel, the Science Advisory 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.583 584 This 
analysis incorporates this work to the extent possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \583\ National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Estimating the 
Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. The 
National Academies Press: Washington, DC.
    \584\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Prepared by: Office of Air 
and Radiation, EPA-452/R-12-005. Retrieved August 14, 2013 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Illustrative Analysis of Estimated Monetized Impacts Associated With 
the Rule in 2018

    For illustrative purposes, this section presents the total 
estimated monetized benefits associated with the final standards in 
2018. As presented in Section III.B, the emissions impacts of the final 
standards in 2018 are primarily due to the effects of sulfur on the 
existing (pre-Tier 3) fleet.
    Table VIII-6 presents total aggregate monetized benefits of the 
program in 2018. Monetized estimates are presented in 2011$. Our 
estimate of total monetized benefits associated with the final 
standards in 2018, using the ACS and Six-Cities PM mortality studies 
and the range of ozone mortality assumptions, is between $2.1 and $5.6 
billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $1.9 and $5.3 
billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. For a more detailed 
presentation of the quantified and monetized impacts of the final 
standards in 2018, please refer to Chapter 8 of the RIA that 
accompanies this preamble.

  Table VIII-6--Total Estimated Monetized Ozone and PM-Related Benefits Associated With the Final Standards in
                                                    2018 \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2011$)--PM Mortality Derived From the ACS and Six-Cities Studies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       3% Discount rate                                         7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mean total    Ozone mortality                     Mean total
  Ozone mortality function       Reference         benefits         function        Reference        benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city..................  Bell et al.,          $2.1-$4.1   Multi-city.....  Bell et al.,          $1.9-$3.7
                               2004.                                              2004.
                              Huang et al.,         $2.3-$4.2                    Huang et al.,         $2.1-$3.9
                               2005.                                              2005.
                              Schwartz, 2005.       $2.3-$4.3                    Schwartz, 2005.       $2.1-$3.9
Meta-analysis...............  Bell et al.,          $3.1-$5.0   Meta-analysis..  Bell et al.,          $2.9-$4.7
                               2005.                                              2005.
                              Ito et al.,           $3.6-$5.6                    Ito et al.,           $3.4-$5.2
                               2005.                                              2005.
                              Levy et al.,          $3.6-$5.6                    Levy et al.,          $3.5-$5.3
                               2005.                                              2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23614]]

 
 Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)--PM Mortality Derived From Expert Elicitation (Lowest and Highest
                                                    Estimate)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       3% Discount rate                                         7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mean total    Ozone mortality                     Mean total
  Ozone mortality function       Reference         benefits         function        Reference        benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-city..................  Bell et al.,         $0.81-$5.8   Multi-city.....  Bell et al.,         $0.78-$5.3
                               2004.                                              2004.
                              Huang et al.,         $1.0-$6.0                    Huang et al.,        $0.98-$5.5
                               2005.                                              2005.
                              Schwartz, 2005.       $1.0-$6.0                    Schwartz, 2005.       $1.0-$5.5
Meta-analysis...............  Bell et al.,          $1.8-$6.8   Meta-analysis..  Bell et al.,          $1.8-$6.3
                               2005.                                              2005.
                              Ito et al.,           $2.3-$7.3                    Ito et al.,           $2.3-$6.8
                               2005.                                              2005.
                              Levy et al.,          $2.4-$7.4                    Levy et al.,          $2.4-$6.8
                               2005.                                              2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total includes estimated 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 (Krewski et al., 2009) or the Six-Cities study
  (Lepeule et al., 2012) or the lowest and highest mortality estimate across the range derived from the expert
  elicitation. Range also reflects alternative estimates of non-fatal heart attacks avoided based on either
  Peters et al. (2001) or a pooled estimate of four studies.

IX. Alternatives Analysis

    As described throughout this preamble, we have considered a number 
of regulatory alternatives in the development of this final rule, 
including alternatives related to timing and stringency of the 
standards, as well as alternative program design elements (e.g., 
averaging, banking, and trading). This section summarizes alternatives 
we have considered for both vehicle emission and fuel standards.

A. Vehicle Emission Standards

    The federal vehicle emission standards we are adopting are the most 
stringent feasible considering anticipated developments in motor 
vehicle emissions control technology. Consideration of alternatives 
focused less on the level of the fleet-average and 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, 
especially those of the California LEV III criteria emissions program 
and the EPA greenhouse gas (GHG) rules. 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.\585\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \585\ We note that the Tier 3 program includes additional phase-
in flexibility through the alternative phase-in schedules for light-
duty exhaust emissions standards, heavy-duty exhaust emissions 
standards, and light- and heavy-duty evaporative emissions 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we considered options for the Tier 3 vehicle standards, one of 
the important factors we considered was the degree of harmonization 
that would result between Tier 3 and the CARB LEV III program. As 
discussed earlier in this preamble, the auto manufacturing industry 
stressed throughout the development of the Tier 3 rule and in their 
comments on the proposed rule--both as individual companies and through 
their trade associations--the need for harmonization of the two 
programs as completely and as soon as possible.
    Another factor in our consideration of program options has been how 
the timing of the Tier 3 program aligns with the federal light-duty 
vehicle GHG rules. We believe that both programs will be more efficient 
and less costly if manufacturers have greater ability to coordinate 
their product planning to respond to the various regulatory 
requirements they face.
    For these reasons, we have focused on program alternatives that 
generally achieve close harmony with the California programs in the 
earliest appropriate time frame, and on a schedule matching those of 
the GHG rules as much as possible. The following paragraphs describe 
the major alternatives we have considered.
1. Shorter NMOG+NOX Standard Phase-In
    We originally considered requiring full implementation of the 
NMOG+NOX final fleet average standard by MY 2022. However, 
we determined that this would have disrupted the manufacturer's normal 
product design cycles,\586\ and it would not have allowed manufacturers 
to use consistent product design cycles for both the Tier 3 standards 
and the 2017 LD GHG standards, which reach full implementation in MY 
2025. We are adopting a phase-in schedule that gradually increases the 
stringency of the standards until MY 2025, as with the GHG program, in 
order to allow vehicle manufacturers to better integrate the compliance 
with Tier 3 into their product design cycles as well as to take 
advantage of additional learning to reduce costs. We believe this 
implementation schedule for the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX standards 
allows us to achieve the environmental objectives of the program 
without imposing unnecessary costs and burden on the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \586\ A light-duty vehicle product design cycle is the number of 
years between major redesigns of a vehicle. Typically, major 
redesigns are completed every 5 to 6 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NMOG+NOX Standards Phase-In and Early Tier 3 Credits
    The key agency goals in designing the structure of the Tier 3 
program are to facilitate the step-down in fleet average stringency in 
the initial model years and to create a program that is of equivalent 
stringency and aligned with LEV III as early as possible. We considered 
allowing manufacturers to generate early credits against the current 
Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average and to use generated early credits without 
limitation 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 delay achievement of the Tier 3 emission levels and 
also delay harmonization between the Tier 3 and LEV III programs for 
several years. Based on the fact that manufacturers are selling many 
vehicles today that are already cleaner than the existing Tier 2 Bin 5 
fleet average, we believe that there is a strong potential for them to 
generate an excessive amount of credits. Also, most manufacturers will 
already have begun to sell vehicles that meet the LEV III standards 
(and thus the Tier 3 standards). The use of such a ``windfall'' of 
credits would likely result in a substantial delay in achieving 
alignment between the LEV III and Tier 3 programs.
    To avoid this potential misalignment, we are finalizing as proposed 
a provision that any early credits

[[Page 23615]]

generated be capped starting in MY 2018 at the number of a 
manufacturer's LEV III credits, but adjusted by the ratio of California 
and other LEV III sales nationwide. (See Section IV.A.7.a for more 
detail on these early credit provisions.) This approach balances the 
need for meaningful 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. NMOG+NOX Standards
    We believe that the fleet-average NMOG+NOX standards 
that we are finalizing reflect the greatest degree of emission 
reduction achievable considering cost, developments in technology, and 
gasoline sulfur levels as required by this rule. We also believe the 
implementation schedule for the NMOG+NOX standards is as 
short as practicable, as explained above. We believe that more 
stringent or less stringent standards are not justified based on the 
information currently available, including comments received. 
Therefore, and consistent with our goal of harmonizing the Tier 3 
program with LEV III as much as possible, we are finalizing the 
declining FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOX standards and phase-in 
schedules as proposed, as discussed in Section IV.A.3 and IV.A.4 above.
4. PM Standards
    The FTP and SFTP (US06) PM standards that we are adopting are the 
most stringent technically feasible standards within their 
implementation timeframe and meet the EPA goal of bringing all vehicles 
to the FTP and US06 PM emission levels demonstrated by most vehicles 
today.
    We considered adopting for Tier 3 the 1 mg/mi FTP PM standard that 
the LEV III program will begin phasing-in in MY 2025. However, as 
explained in the proposal and in Section IV.A.3.b above, and upon 
further review of current test procedures and the public comments, we 
concluded that 3 mg/mi is the most stringent technologically feasible 
FTP PM standard. We will continue to work closely with CARB in this 
area. Specifically, our agencies will continue our parallel evaluations 
of how improved gravimetric PM measurement methods can reduce PM mass 
measurement variability at very low PM levels, and how this relates to 
the evolving technological capabilities of automakers to reach very low 
PM levels with sufficient compliance margins.
    As discussed in Section IV.A.4, we are finalizing numerically lower 
US06 standards than those we proposed. More recent test data shows that 
the levels of the final US06 standards better meet EPA's goal of 
capping US06 PM emissions at levels already being demonstrated by most 
vehicles in the current light-duty fleet. We proposed a 10 mg/mi US06 
PM standard for cars, and 20 mg/mi for trucks. Like the FTP PM 
standards, the US06 PM standards are per-vehicle caps and not fleet 
averages. The comments we received ranged from suggesting a numerically 
lower standard to maintaining the standards as proposed. CARB and other 
stakeholders recommended a standard of 4 mg/mi, and the International 
Council on Clean Transportation recommended that the standards be no 
higher than 6 mg/mi. The Alliance and Global Automakers supported the 
proposed standards. We considered all of the comments suggesting 
various levels for these standards, and we are finalizing standards of 
10 mg/mi through MY 2021 and of 6 mg/mi for 2022 and later model years, 
for both lighter and heavier vehicles, because they reflect the current 
US06 PM performance of most vehicles. We believe these standards will 
address current poor performing vehicles and ensure that future 
vehicles with future technologies will perform, at a minimum, at or 
near the level of PM emissions that is being demonstrated by current 
vehicles.
    Because the final standards maintain the same stringency relative 
to emission levels achieved currently, as we describe our goal for 
these standards in the proposal, there is no difference in the 
projected costs and benefits associated with the proposed and final 
US06 PM standard levels. The costs associated with meeting the final PM 
standards are driven by the vehicle performance over the FTP. That is, 
the 3 mg/mi FTP standard is the primary controlling factor in a 
vehicle's overall PM performance and manufacturer compliance 
strategies. The US06 PM standard is intended to supplement the FTP PM 
standard in that any additional level of PM control required to meet 
the US06 PM standard is expected to be accomplished through calibration 
and not through the use of additional hardware.
5. Higher Ethanol Content of Emissions Test Fuel
    We proposed and considered a change in the required ethanol content 
of emissions test fuel, from the current zero percent (E0) 
specification to a 15 percent ethanol (E15) specification. However, as 
discussed in Section IV.F above, the market fuel shift toward higher 
ethanol content has not materialized, and we are finalizing E10 as the 
Tier 3 gasoline test fuel to better match in-use fuels expected in the 
implementation timeframe of the Tier 3 standards. The adoption of E10 
in lieu of E15 not only creates a federal test fuel that more closely 
reflects the ethanol content of in-use fuel currently and in the 
foreseeable future, but also more closely aligns with California's LEV 
III test fuel.

B. Fuel Sulfur Standards

1. Annual Average Sulfur Standard
    As explained in Section V.B., we believe that a 10 ppm annual 
average standard is required to enable the vehicle fleet to meet the 
final 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. During the development of 
the proposed rule, we considered imposing a 10 ppm cap (i.e., no 
averaging, banking and trading), similar to the standard in Europe and 
Japan, as well as an average standard lower than 10 ppm average, 
because vehicle emission performance improves as sulfur is reduced.
    However, by allowing averaging to meet 10 ppm, we believe that the 
most challenged refiners would be able to avoid what could be 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 26 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 65,000 tons in 2018.
    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) treatment of additional 
(non-FCC) gasoline blendstocks; (3) essentially all refineries to 
reduce sulfur to 5 ppm, thereby eliminating much of the benefit of the 
ABT provisions; and potentially (4) more overcapacity and storage for 
reprocessing off-specification product. A 5 ppm standard would also 
warrant consideration of controlling the

[[Page 23616]]

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 about twice 
that for our final 10 ppm standard. This is 60 percent higher on a cost 
per ppm-gallon basis. The much higher cost is because a 5 ppm standard 
eliminates the practical ability for refineries to trade credits. That 
is, there would not be enough refineries overcomplying to generate 
credits and support a viable trading program. As a result, it could 
become prohibitively expensive for the more challenged refineries to 
comply, creating potential financial hardship situations. 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.
    Table IX-1 below summarizes the various alternative gasoline sulfur 
programs that we assessed and our estimated costs for those alternative 
programs.

                           Table IX-1--Summary of Costs for Alternative Fuel Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Per-gallon     Capital cost
                                         Sulfur level        Credit trading        cost (c/gal)        ($MM)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule Case.......................              10  Nationwide..............            0.65            2025
NPRM Case.............................              10  Intra-company Only......            0.75            2195
No ABT Case...........................              10  None....................            0.87            2990
Stringent Case........................               5  None....................            1.27            3805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IX-1 demonstrates that the ABT program has a profound impact 
on the cost of sulfur control. The estimated per-gallon cost and the 
capital costs for the case without an ABT program are 35 percent and 47 
percent higher, respectively, than the final rule case which assumes 
nationwide credit trading. The stringent sulfur control case, which 
modeled a 5 ppm average standard and assumes no ABT program, is 
estimated to cost about twice that of the final rule case. The final 
rule case, which provides a very flexible ABT program, achieves a 10 
ppm average sulfur standard at the lowest cost and therefore is the 
most cost-effective of the various options that we studied.
    Additionally, as discussed in Sections IV.A and V.B a standard 
above 10 ppm would not be sufficiently low to meet the Tier 3 emissions 
standards. The feasibility of the 30 mg/mi NMOG+NOX fleet 
average depends on exhaust catalyst systems that require gasoline with 
average sulfur levels of 10 ppm or less. Further, annual average sulfur 
levels greater than 10 ppm would significantly impair the emission 
control technology that we expect will be used to meet the Tier 3 
standards and to ensure in-use compliance over a vehicle's useful life. 
This is particularly a concern for some larger vehicles that will need 
to reduce NOX to near-zero levels, due to greater difficulty 
in reducing cold-start NMOG, in order to meet a combined 
NMOG+NOX standard. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, 
increasing gasoline sulfur to 20 or 30 ppm would make it impossible for 
vehicle manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards. Achieving Tier 3 
standards would require offsetting the resultant higher emissions, but 
EPA is not aware of existing or developing technology that could 
address these higher emissions when taking into consideration the 
entire vehicle fleet.
    Thus, we believe that a standard of 10 ppm is appropriate. When 
combined with the advances in emissions control technologies, a 10 ppm 
average sulfur standard is sufficient to allow vehicles meet the Tier 3 
emissions standards at the lowest cost.
2. Refinery Gate Sulfur Cap
    In addition to lower average sulfur standards, we also considered 
lowering the per-gallon cap standards. As discussed in Section V.C, we 
are maintaining the current per-gallon caps of 80 ppm at the refinery 
gate and 95 ppm downstream. We co-proposed refinery gate per-gallon cap 
standards of 50 ppm and 80 ppm (with downstream caps of 65 and 95, 
respectively), and we requested comment on a refinery gate cap of 20 
ppm.
    In assessing the potential of a lower refinery gate cap of 50 ppm, 
we found that it would directionally increase the costs of the Tier 3 
program. Our analysis shows that a 50 ppm cap would increase the cost 
of the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards by approximately 10 percent 
(see RIA Chapter 5). A cap at this level would result in higher capital 
costs for a number of refiners due to the decreased ability to handle 
off-spec product with a lower refinery gate cap. The need for 
installation of additional tankage and/or increased refinery processing 
capability would also be greater, as refiners must ensure that they can 
continue to produce saleable product and meet demand in the event of an 
upset or an off-spec batch of fuel.
    Additionally, the more stringent cap would unlikely provide 
significant additional emission benefits nationwide. As discussed 
previously in Sections III through V, the emissions benefits associated 
with the Tier 3 program are mainly associated with the reduction in the 
average sulfur content of gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm, since vehicle 
emissions are proportional to the sulfur content of the fuel; changes 
in the cap would not affect this. We anticipate that in most (if not 
all) cases refineries will make operational changes and/or investments 
in order to reduce their credit burden and reduce their compliance 
costs; thus, we anticipate that most refineries, including those using 
credits, will still average less than 20 or 30 ppm in their physical 
gasoline production. While there will certainly be some variations 
above and below 10 ppm (just as there are today relative to the 30 ppm 
standard under the current Tier 2 program), it is not possible for us 
to predict them in a way that we could quantify the associated 
emissions and air quality impacts. As a result, we cannot currently 
estimate the potential benefits of a 50 ppm cap. However, during the 
implementation of the program we will be monitoring in-use sulfur 
levels and further evaluating in-use sulfur levels and their impact on 
vehicle emissions. This will provide us additional information with 
which to evaluate the potential benefits of a lower sulfur cap, if 
warranted.

C. Program Start Date

    We are finalizing the Tier 3 vehicle emissions and fuel standards 
with a 2017 start date, considering the vehicle and its fuel together 
as an integrated system. As described in Section IX.A.1 and 2, we 
considered different phase-ins for the vehicle program. We have also 
considered the comments requesting additional lead time for the fuel

[[Page 23617]]

program. As discussed in Section V.L.3, we believe that the lead time 
provided is sufficient to meet a January 1, 2017, start date for the 
fuel sulfur standard, especially coupled with the flexibilities being 
offered as part of the program and the fact that only a few refineries 
will need to install grassroots equipment to meet the Tier 3 standards. 
As discussed in Section V.D, we did consider and are finalizing, in 
response to comments, a provision allowing refiners to carry over 
credits from Tier 2.
    Given that the lead time and associated programmatic flexibility we 
are finalizing is sufficient to allow industry to readily comply; we do 
not expect that a delay in the start date of the fuel standards would 
change the cost of compliance; any further delay in the program start 
date would simply delay the actions to comply. Furthermore, delaying 
the start of the program would forego significant emissions, air 
quality, and health benefits. Sections III and VIII describe the 
impacts of the Tier 3 standards in the year 2018. The majority of these 
impacts result from the effects of the fuel sulfur standard on the 
existing fleet, because there will be limited penetration of Tier 3 
vehicles in 2018, and even those vehicles will not yet be meeting fully 
phased-in standards. Thus, the 2018 estimates of emission reductions, 
air quality improvements, and health benefits are an approximation of 
the benefits that would be foregone for each year that the program is 
delayed. Because we believe the start of the Tier 3 program is feasible 
and appropriate, and its delay would forego significant benefits, we 
are finalizing, as proposed, fuel sulfur standards that take effect 
January 1, 2017.

X. Economic Impact Analysis

A. Introduction

    The rule will affect two sectors directly: Vehicle manufacturing 
and petroleum refining. For these two regulated sectors, the economic 
impact analysis discusses the market impacts from the rule: 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. 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 rule on employment in the regulated sectors.
    Some commenters suggest that the overall effects of Tier 3 on the 
economy are likely to be positive, because the standards encourage 
innovation and reduce emissions. In addition, they suggest that Tier 3 
will lead to greater employment to develop the emissions control 
technologies and to upgrade refineries. As discussed further below, 
other commenters suggest negative impacts, especially due to the fuel 
standards. The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association asks that 
the regulations ``be based on sound science and data and balance the 
public interest objectives with economic realities of manufacturers.'' 
EPA has used the best available information in developing these 
standards (including the use of peer reviewed literature, peer reviewed 
models, public comments received, etc.), and has documented its final 
estimates of the economic impacts from these standards in the RIA.

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 
standards at the aggregate market level. Vehicle manufacturers are 
expected to comply with the 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 
standards. These costs differ across years and range from $46 to $65 
for cars, $73 to $88 for trucks and $33 to $75 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.\587\ 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 increase in manufacturers' costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \587\ See, for instance, Gron, A., and Swenson, D. (2000), Cost 
Pass-Through in the U.S. Automobile Market. Review of Economics and 
Statistics 82, 316-324 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-0056), who found 
significantly less than full-cost pass-through using data from 1984-
1994. Using full-cost pass-through overstates costs and thus 
contributes to lower vehicle sales than using a lower estimate. To 
the extent that the auto industry has become more competitive over 
time, full-cost pass-through may be more appropriate than a result 
based on this older study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This increase in price is expected to lower the quantity of 
vehicles sold. Given that we expect that vehicle prices will not change 
by more than the cost increase, we expect that the decrease in vehicle 
sales will be negligible.
    The effect of this rule on the use and scrappage of older vehicles 
is 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.
    Commenters note that the incentives to go beyond the 8-year/80,000-
mile warranty could improve vehicle reliability and lower costs, in 
addition to improving air quality. Other commenters suggest that 
harmonizing standards across the whole U.S. will benefit the economy. 
EPA agrees that harmonized standards will simplify manufacturing and 
marketing decisions for automakers. The Manufacturers of Emission 
Controls Association points out that many SULEV- and PZEV-compliant 
vehicles have already been sold in the U.S. Commenters did not raise 
other concerns with the qualitative vehicle sales analysis.

C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production

    The key change for refiners from the standards is more stringent 
sulfur requirements. This change to fuels is expected to increase 
manufacturers' costs of gasoline production by about 0.65 cents per 
gallon (see Section VII.B).
    Some commenters raise concerns about the economic burdens to 
refineries and to consumers who must buy more expensive gasoline, in 
part based on estimates of the costs of the

[[Page 23618]]

standards as high as 6-9 cents per gallon. As discussed in Section 
VII.B of this preamble, EPA has considered the costs to refineries and 
has estimated that the additional cost of gasoline will be about 0.65 
cents per gallon. Though some refineries may face costs of up to 2.1 
cents per gallon, and one refinery up to 2.8 cents per gallon, most 
will face much lower costs, as the averaging, banking, and trading 
provisions of the standards significantly ease the challenge of 
refineries to meet the standards.
    In a perfectly competitive industry, this cost would be passed 
along 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.'' 
\588\ Thus the assumption of competitive markets has some foundation in 
this industry. We estimate that the price increase that consumers are 
likely to face should be positive and up to the increase in 
manufacturers' costs of gasoline production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \588\ Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics. (2004). The 
Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust 
Enforcement. Retrieved August 16, 2011 from Federal Trade Commission 
Web site: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/040813mergersinpetrolberpt.pdf (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-0055).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Emissions Control Technology Association (ECTA) and Northeast 
States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) note that previous 
Tier 2 standards, which required greater reductions in absolute 
magnitude, do not appear to have had measurable adverse impacts on 
refineries. ECTA cites a study by Navigant Economics that found no 
measurable impact on gasoline price from Tier 2. NESCAUM notes that 
refineries used a number of technologies and facility improvements to 
achieve the standards in a cost-effective manner, and notes that the 
North American refining industry is making significant new investments 
in response to favorable long-term conditions. Small increases in 
gasoline price due to standards may be very difficult to identify, 
because of the natural volatility of gasoline prices.
    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 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 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 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.\589\ 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 will use to comply with the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \589\ 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chevron Products Company states that we did not consider the 
economic context of the time when discussing our impacts. As we stated 
in the NPRM, we recognize the importance of context. 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.\590\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \590\ Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2011). A Guide to Economic 
and Policy Analysis of EPA's Transport Rule'' White paper 
commissioned by Excelon Corporation (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-
0054).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters (including unions, environmentalists, 
investor organizations, Medical Advocates for Health Air, NESCAUM, and 
the National Association of Clean Air Agencies) argue that the 
standards will increase employment, by stimulating auto companies and 
refiners to invest in pollution abatement equipment. As will be 
discussed further below, EPA agrees that the standards are likely to 
lead to more employment to provide abatement equipment, but employment 
due to production may also be reduced (although by very small amounts) 
due to incrementally higher prices for vehicles and fuel; we expect the 
net impact on employment in the regulated sectors to be small.
    Chevron Products Company states that we do not account for the 
hardship on local and regional economies due to the increase in 
refinery costs. Because we do not consider employment impacts to be 
large, even at local and regional scale, we do not expect large impacts 
on the economies at that scale.
    ECTA argues that job impacts will be not only positive in the auto 
and auto parts sectors, but substantially more positive than EPA 
states, based on Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS) 
multipliers that find increases of 5.9 jobs for every $1 million 
investment in new auto parts. Multiplier impacts trace the entire chain 
of job impacts

[[Page 23619]]

associated with an expenditure, including factors such as changes in 
employment in retail establishments due to changes in workers in the 
auto sector. Because the expenditures will occur when unemployment is 
still high, ECTA argues, it is important to consider the multiplier 
effects of the expenditures that are embedded in the RIMS multipliers. 
As discussed above, the multiplier impacts of expenditures depend 
heavily on the state of the macroeconomy. Because of uncertainty over 
the state of the economy when the increased expenditures will occur, 
EPA has not quantified the multiplier impacts due to changes in 
employment associated with these standards. As discussed again below, 
some expenditures, perhaps especially in the refinery sector, will 
occur before the standards take effect, to get the manufacturing 
processes in place to meet the standards. These near-term expenditures 
may have some multiplier effects, because they are more likely to have 
their impacts during the current period of above-average unemployment. 
In contrast, the ongoing costs of complying with the standards, which 
contribute most directly to price increases, are likely to come in 
future years, when it is expected that unemployment rates will be 
lower.
    The Mercatus Center at George Mason University recommended that we 
``acknowledge that both jobs gained and jobs destroyed are costs of the 
proposed regulation. Ideally, compliance jobs should be minimized, not 
viewed as a benefit of a regulation.'' This assertion is confusing, in 
that it implies that any effect on employment, positive or negative, is 
costly. Marathon Petroleum Company and the American Petroleum Institute 
with the Association of Fuel and Petroleum Manufacturers argue that 
employment impacts should not be counted as benefits. Our analysis of 
the employment impacts of the standards is intended to identify 
additional ways that these standards will affect the public. Employment 
clearly provides benefits to the people who are employed, and reducing 
unemployment is considered a desirable outcome in times of high 
unemployment. EPA disagrees that minimizing compliance jobs should be 
an independent objective of this rulemaking. The objective of the 
program is to improve air quality through reductions in vehicle 
emissions; we provide information concerning employment impacts as part 
of our overall analysis of economic impacts from the rule.\591\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \591\ We note that employment shows up in the benefit-cost 
analysis through labor costs, which are included in the costs of 
achieving the standards; any increases in employment are part of the 
increased expenditures due to the standards, and decreases in 
employment reduce expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Mercatus Center also requests that we consider the long-term 
effects of unemployment on workers who may lose jobs, and that we 
acknowledge that those who lose jobs may not be the same people who 
gain jobs. We recognize there are costs to workers who shift from one 
job to another,\592\ but we also note, as discussed further below, that 
we expect very small employment impacts from the standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \592\ E.g., Jacobson, Louis S., Robert J. LaLonde, and Daniel G. 
Sullivan, ``Earnings Losses of Displaced Workers.'' American 
Economic Review 83(4) (1993): 685-709 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing these comments, we conclude they have not 
identified any specific reason to depart from the approach to 
employment analysis that was used in the NPRM, though we here use a 
slightly modified theoretical framework. In the NPRM, we followed the 
theoretical structure in a study by Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) 
\593\ of the impacts of regulation in employment in the regulated 
sectors. We here shift to a very similar framework by Berman and 
Bui.\594\ RIA Chapter 9.1 provides additional background on this 
framework. In Berman and Bui's (2001, p. 274-75) theoretical model, the 
change in a firm's labor demand arising from a change in regulation is 
decomposed into two main components: Output and substitution 
effects.\595\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \593\ Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., & Shih, J. (2002). Jobs Versus 
the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective. Journal of 
Environmental Economics and Management 43, 412-436 (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0135-0057).
    \594\ Berman, E. and L. T. M. Bui (2001). ``Environmental 
Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from the South Coast Air 
Basin.'' Journal of Public Economics 79(2): 265-295 (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0135).
    \595\ The authors also discuss a third component, the impact of 
regulation on factor prices, but conclude that this effect is 
unlikely to be important for large competitive factor markets, such 
as labor and capital. Morgenstern, Pizer and Shih (2002) use a very 
similar model, but they break the employment effect into three 
parts: (1) The demand effect; (2) the cost effect; and (3) the 
factor-shift effect. See Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, 
and Jhih-Shyang Shih. ``Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry-
Level Perspective.'' Journal of Environmental Economics and 
Management 43 (2002): 412-436 (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-0057).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The output effect describes how, if labor-intensity of 
production is held constant, a decrease in output generally leads to a 
decrease in labor demand. However, as noted by Berman and Bui, although 
it is often assumed that regulation increases marginal cost, and 
thereby reduces output, it need not be the case. A regulation could 
induce a firm to upgrade to less polluting, and more efficient 
equipment that lowers marginal production costs, for example. In such a 
case, output could theoretically increase.
     The substitution effect describes how, holding output 
constant, regulation affects the labor-intensity of production. 
Although increased environmental regulation generally results in higher 
utilization of production factors such as pollution control equipment 
and energy to operate that equipment, the resulting impact on labor 
demand is ambiguous. For example, equipment inspection requirements, 
specialized waste handling, or pollution technologies that are added to 
the production process may affect the number of workers necessary to 
produce a unit of output. Berman and Bui (2001) model the substitution 
effect as the effect of regulation on pollution control equipment and 
expenditures that are required by the regulation and the corresponding 
change in labor-intensity of production.
    In summary, as the output and substitution effects may be both 
positive, both negative or some combination, standard neoclassical 
theory alone does not point to a definitive net effect of regulation on 
labor demand at regulated firms.
1. Employment Impacts in the Auto Sector
    Following the Berman and Bui (2001) framework, we consider two 
effects for the auto sector: The output effect and the substitution 
effect.
a. The Output Effect
    The output effect depends on the effects of this rule on vehicle 
sales. If vehicle sales decrease, employment associated with these 
activities will decrease. As discussed in Section X.B, we do not make a 
quantitative estimate on the effect of the 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 output effect to be small as well.
b. The Substitution Effect
    The output effect, above, measures the effect due to new vehicle 
sales only. The substitution effect measures the impacts due to the 
changes in technologies needed for vehicles to meet the standards, 
separate from the effect on output (that is, as though holding output 
constant). This effect includes both changes in employment due to 
incorporation of abatement technologies and overall changes in the 
labor intensity of manufacturing. We estimate

[[Page 23620]]

the substitution 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. This approach estimates the effects of 
increased expenditures while holding constant the labor intensity of 
manufacturing; it does not take into account changes in labor intensity 
due to changes in the nature of production. This latter effect could 
either increase or decrease the employment impacts estimated here.\596\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \596\ As noted above, Morgenstern et al. (2002) separate the 
effect of holding output constant into two effects: The cost effect, 
which holds labor intensity constant, and the factor shift effect, 
which estimates those changes in labor intensity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the costs of this rule will be spent directly in the auto 
manufacturing sector, but it is also likely that some of the costs will 
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. As discussed in the RIA, EPA examines several 
sources for these estimates: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS)'s Employment Requirements Matrix (ERM),\597\ the Census Bureau's 
Annual Survey of Manufactures \598\ (ASM), and its Economic Census. 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, or when manufacturing processes change 
sufficiently that labor intensity changes. For instance, the ratio for 
the motor vehicle manufacturing sector represents the ratio for all 
vehicle manufacturing, not just for emissions reductions associated 
with compliance activities. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \597\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Requirements 
Matrix. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm 
(Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135).
    \598\ U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufactures. http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-
0135).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\599\ As discussed in the RIA, trends in the BLS ERM are 
used to estimate productivity improvements over time that are used to 
adjust these ratios over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \599\ To estimate the proportion of domestic production affected 
by the change in sales, we use data from Ward's Automotive Group for 
total car and truck production in the U.S. compared to total car and 
truck sales in the U.S. For the period 2001-2010, the proportion is 
66.7 percent (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-0333).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table X-1 provides estimates of the substitution effect of this 
rule on employment. Chapter 2.1 of the 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 $1 million (2011$) (before adjustments for changes in 
productivity, after accounting for the share of domestic production) is 
1.771 if all the additional costs are in the parts sector; the minimum 
value is 0.389, if all the additional costs are in the light-duty 
vehicle manufacturing sector. Increased costs of vehicles and parts 
will, by itself, and holding labor intensity constant, be expected to 
increase employment between 2017 and 2025 by some hundreds of jobs each 
year.
    While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job-years, 
beginning with program implementation, some of these employment gains 
may occur earlier as auto manufacturers and parts suppliers hire staff 
in anticipation of compliance with the standard. A job-year is a way to 
calculate the amount of work needed to complete a specific task. For 
example, a job-year is one year of work for one person.

            Table X-1--Employment Effects Due to Increased Costs of Vehicles and Parts, in Job-Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Minimum employment
                                                                       Maximum employment      effect  (if all
                     Year                        Costs  (Millions of     effect  (if all     expenditures are in
                                                       2010$)          expenditures are in     the light duty
                                                                        the parts sector)    vehicle mfg sector)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016..........................................                   $21                     0                     0
2017..........................................                   297                   400                   100
2018..........................................                   615                   800                   200
2019..........................................                   653                   800                   200
2020..........................................                   697                   800                   200
2021..........................................                   725                   800                   200
2022..........................................                   758                   800                   200
2023..........................................                   751                   800                   200
2024..........................................                   761                   800                   200
2025..........................................                   773                   700                   200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Summary of Employment Effects in the Auto Sector
    The overall effect of the standards on auto sector employment 
depends on the relative magnitude of the output effect and the 
substitution effect. Because we do not have quantitative estimates of 
the output effect, and only a partial estimate of the substitution 
effect, we cannot reach a quantitative estimate of the overall 
employment effects of the standards on auto sector employment or even 
whether the total effect will 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 standards are not expected to provide incentives 
for

[[Page 23621]]

manufacturers to shift employment between domestic and foreign 
production. This is because the increased standards of the rule will 
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 rule, there may be some initial 
incentive for foreign production, but the opportunity for domestic 
manufacturers to sell in other markets might increase. To the extent 
that the requirements of this rule 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 for 
domestic production will not apply if other countries are not likely to 
have similar standards.
2. Refinery Employment Impacts
    The Berman and Bui (2001) framework of output and substitution 
effects can also be applied to the impact of the 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 output effect on refining sector employment is expected to be 
negative. The discussion in Section X.C above suggested that the 
standards will 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 will 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 these standards is 
expected to decrease by only a very small amount over any time horizon.
    The substitution effect of the standards on employment in the 
refining sector can be either positive or negative in the Berman and 
Bui framework; here, we expect a small, possibly positive impact. In 
order to satisfy the requirements of the rule, firms in the refining 
industry are expected to perform additional work that will require 
hiring more employees, especially perhaps in the short run. Section 
V.L.2.e discusses the expected employment needed to reduce the sulfur 
content of fuels; as noted there, to meet the Tier 3 sulfur standards, 
refiners are expected to invest $2 billion between 2012 and 2019 and 
utilize approximately 250 front-end design and engineering jobs and 
1,500 construction jobs. As the petroleum sector employed approximately 
71,000 workers in 2011, this temporary increase in employment will be 
small when compared to 2011 levels.
    Chevron Products Company states that we have not considered global 
competitive forces in our assessment. As we discussed in the NPRM, this 
rule is not expected to provide incentives to shift employment between 
domestic and foreign production. First, the standards will 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.\600\ In this case, what is relevant is whether the 
necessary modifications to comply with Tier 3 will be significantly 
cheaper overseas than in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \600\ While refinery capacity has been increasing around the 
world in recent years, it has been designed primarily to supply 
foreign markets other than the U.S. (e.g., increasing demand in 
China and India).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main impacts on capital and operating costs to comply with Tier 
3 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 output effect 
will lower employment, and the substitution effect will raise 
employment. As a whole then, it is not evident whether the standards 
will increase or decrease employment in the refining sector. However, 
given the small anticipated reduction in quantity sold, it appears that 
the standards will not have major employment consequences for this 
sector.
    The petroleum refining industry is one of the manufacturing 
industries studied by Berman and Bui (2001) when they looked at the 
effect of environmental expenditures on employment. They found that 
``Employment effects are very small, generally positive, but not 
statistically different from zero.'' (p. 281) [Berman and Bui, Table 
3]. Berman and Bui also state that the estimates rule out large 
negative effects (p. 282). Because most of the abatement cost of the 
regulations they analyze is incurred by refineries, in their sample, 
they report separate employment effects for refineries and non-
refineries ``which are also all small.'' (p. 282). Berman and Bui 
suggest some explanations for the zero or small estimates, particularly 
for oil refineries: they are capital-intensive industries with 
relatively little employment when compared to other manufacturing; they 
face relatively inelastic demand because they sell output in local 
markets and/or because there are no unregulated refineries to compete 
with; and, finally, regulations may have been associated with 
productivity gains in petroleum refineries. We note that the 
regulations that these estimates are derived from are not directly 
comparable to the current rule; they are based on the costs of

[[Page 23622]]

reductions in refinery air pollution emissions instead of changing fuel 
properties, and therefore may not be applicable for these standards. 
The American Petroleum Institute requested that we delete reference to 
use of analysis by Morgenstern et al. (2002) because it is based on 
temporary construction jobs and a single study. We had presented that 
figure not as a conclusive estimate, but rather as one estimate that we 
too consider of unclear applicability to the standards; we have 
substituted Berman and Bui's results. Several commenters cite a study 
by Navigant Economics that estimates 24,500 installation jobs during 
the first three years of the program, and 5,300 permanent jobs, 
associated with the refinery standards. These estimates include 
employment not just in the refinery sector, but also multiplier effects 
(discussed above) for suppliers, which EPA does not estimate. As noted 
above, EPA estimates approximately 250 front-end design and engineering 
jobs and 1,500 construction jobs.
    Section 5.3 of the 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 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 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 standards are 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 will 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 substitution 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 output effect will not start until 2017, when 
compliance will 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

    Many interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that 
culminates with this final rule. This process provided opportunity for 
submitting written public comments following the proposal that we 
published on May 21, 2013 (78 FR 29816), and we considered these 
comments in developing the final rule. In addition, we held public 
hearings on the proposed rulemaking on April 24 and 29, 2013, and we 
have considered comments presented at the hearing.
    Throughout the rulemaking process, EPA met with stakeholders 
including representatives from various industries (vehicle 
manufacturers, fuel refiners, fuel distributors, suppliers, engine 
manufacturers, etc.), states, non-governmental organizations, and 
others.
    We have prepared a detailed Summary and Analysis of Comments 
document, which describes the comments we received on the proposal and 
our responses. The Summary and Analysis of Comments is available in the 
docket for this rule at the Internet address listed under ADDRESSES, as 
well as on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/tier3.htm). In addition, comments and responses for 
key issues are included throughout this preamble.

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 RIA. A 
copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action is continuing existing information collection from the 
Tier 2 program, with additional changes as noted below. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information 
collection requirements contained in the existing the existing Tier 2 
gasoline rule (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), under the provisions of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICRs were 
assigned OMB Control Numbers 2060-0437 (fuels), 2060-0104 (light-duty 
vehicles), 2060-0287 (heavy-duty vehicles), and 2060-0086 (in-use 
verification program). The ICRs are being revised to reflect the 
changes being finalized today. The additional information collection 
requirements in this rule will be submitted for approval to OMB under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection requirements 
are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    This rule contains reporting and recordkeeping requirements to 
implement EPA's motor vehicle certification program and the 
manufacturers' in-use verification program (IUVP). Existing regulations 
require manufacturers to submit emissions information to EPA in 
conjunction with these two programs. Manufacturers must submit an 
application for emission certification prior to production. The 
application describes the major aspects of the product line, technical 
details of the emission control systems, and the results of tests to 
indicate compliance with the emissions limitations. The application and 
supporting test results are reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate 
of conformity is issued. Subsequently, low- and high-mileage vehicles 
in use are tested for emissions by manufacturers and the results of 
those tests reported to EPA. EPA estimates the total number of 
respondents to be 55, the total burden hours to be 73,567, and the 
total cost to respondents to be $7,690,934.
    As a result of the change in certification test fuel from 9 RVP E0 
to

[[Page 23623]]

9 RVP E10, EPA must assess the need to make test procedure adjustments 
related to fuel economy testing such that the change in test fuel 
quality does not impact the stringency of the CAFE standards. EPA 
recognized that this action was needed in the proposed rule, but 
deferred proposing a specific adjustment or set of adjustments because 
the data needed to determine the value(s) for the adjustments was not 
available. Historically, manufacturers have used criteria pollutant 
emission information from the exhaust emission testing for 
certification as part of the data needed to determine fuel economy 
values. The final rule sets a process in motion for EPA to gather the 
information need to develop any test procedure adjustments. While the 
basic data will likely be available in late 2015 or early 2016, any 
rule to enact potential test procedure adjustments will take additional 
time. During this interim period, any LEV III or early Tier 3 vehicles 
using E10 test fuel for exhaust emission certifications will have to be 
tested for fuel economy values on E0. EPA has studied the expected 
phase-in rates for these vehicles in LEV III and estimates that for the 
2015-2017 model years there will an average about 35 additional tests 
per year for the industry with an hour burden of about 30 hours per 
test. Thus, over this three-year period, the added hour burden is 1050 
hours and the sum of the cost of testing and the hour burden is 
$402,150.
    This rule also contains reporting, recordkeeping, and Product 
Transfer Document (PTD) requirements for refiners and importers of 
motor vehicle gasoline. This rule contains registration, reporting, 
recordkeeping, and PTD requirements for producers and importers of 
denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) and other oxygenates. This rule also 
contains registration, recordkeeping, and PTD requirements for 
producers of certified ethanol denaturants. This rule also contains 
recordkeeping and PTD requirements for producers of gasoline additives. 
The reporting, recordkeeping, and PTD requirements for refiners and 
importers of motor vehicle gasoline are the same requirements that 
exist under the Tier 2 sulfur program.\601\ The registration and 
reporting requirements for DFE producers and importers are new as are 
the registration requirements for producers and importers of certified 
ethanol denaturants. The recordkeeping and PTD requirements for 
gasoline additive producers, DFE manufacturers, ethanol denaturant 
manufacturers, and downstream parties under the Tier 3 program are new 
but should be minimal since we expect that they are already followed as 
part of normal business practices. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \601\ 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000; OMB Control Number: 2060-
0437; EPA ICR 1907.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this rule also contains provisions for qualifications of 
laboratories on test methods. We have adopted 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 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. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR supporting statements can be found in Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2011-0135.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICRs are 
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control numbers 
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this 
final rule.
    We did not receive any specific comments on the ICR; comments 
received regarding compliance-related provisions are discussed above in 
Sections IV and V.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Overview
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined 
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201 (see table below); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that 
is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small 
business categories potentially affected by this regulation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Defined as small
                                    NAICS \a\ Code     entity by SBA if
            Industry                    (2007)        less than or equal
                                                              to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline fuel refiners and        324110............  1,500 employees.
 importers.
Ethanol producers...............  325193............  1,000 employees.
Gasoline additive manufacturers.  325199............  1,000 employees.
                                  325998............  500 employees.
                                  424690............  100 employees.
Transmix processors.............  Varied............  1,500 employees.
Petroleum bulk stations and       424710............  100 employees.
 terminals.
Other warehousing and storage-    493190............  $25.5 million
 bulk petroleum storage.                               (annual
                                                       receipts).
Light-duty vehicle and light-     336111, 336112....  1,000 employees.
 duty truck manufacturers.

[[Page 23624]]

 
Independent commercial importers  811111, 811112 ,    $7 million (annual
                                   811198.             receipts).
Alternative fuel converters.....  335312............  1,000 employees.
                                  336312............  750 employees.
                                  336322............  ''
                                  336399............  ''
                                  811198............  $7 million (annual
                                                       receipts).
On-highway heavy-duty engine &    333618............  1,000 employees.
 vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR)
 manufacturers.
                                  336120............  ''
                                  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 \602\ in exchange for early compliance with the diesel 
program. Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the Tier 3 program is a 
comprehensive, systems-based approach to address the impact of light-
duty vehicles and certain heavy-duty vehicles on air quality and 
health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \602\ 66 FR 5136 (January 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and 
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and 
recommendations of representatives of the regulated small entities (see 
78 FR 29816, May 21, 2013). A detailed discussion of the Panel's advice 
and recommendations is found in the Panel Report, located in the 
rulemaking docket (document number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-0423). A 
summary of the Panel's recommendations is presented at 78 FR 29994 (May 
21, 2013).
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, we also prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for today's final rule. The FRFA 
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA, which was 
part of the proposal of this rule. The FRFA is available for review in 
the docket (see Chapter 10 of the RIA) and is summarized below.
3. Reason for Today's Rule
    This rule establishes more stringent vehicle emissions standards 
and reduces the sulfur content of 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 gasoline sulfur standards 
will make emission control systems more effective and enable more 
stringent vehicle emissions standards, and the vehicle standards will 
reduce vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions. This will 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 rule, please see Sections II and III of this preamble. The 
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 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 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.M of this preamble.
5. Summary of Potentially Affected Small Entities
    The table above lists industries/sectors potentially affected by 
the Tier 3 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 gasoline sulfur standards, this 
includes gasoline refiners and importers, distributors, fuel additive 
manufacturers, transmix processors, 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.
6. 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 
finalizing for manufacturers subject to this rule will include testing, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for manufacturers of vehicles 
covered by the Tier 3 regulations. Testing requirements for these 
manufacturers will include certification emission

[[Page 23625]]

(including deterioration factor) testing, in-use testing, and 
production line testing. Reporting requirements will include emission 
test data and technical data on the vehicles. Manufacturers must keep 
records of this information.
    Similarly for any fuel control program, EPA must have the assurance 
that fuel produced, distributed, sold and used meets the applicable 
standard. The recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of 
this rule are consistent with those in place today for other fuel 
programs. Further, we will 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 this final rule are: 
The Tier 2 Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur rulemaking (65 FR 6698, February 10, 
2000), the 2017 Light-duty Greenhouse Gas (LD GHG) rule (77 FR 62623), 
and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (HD GHG) rule 
(76 FR 57106).
    The LD GHG and HD GHG rules are coordinated efforts by EPA and the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to 
reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles 
and engines.
8. Steps Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Entities
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 
presented to SERs and Panel members. As described below, much of the 
Panel's recommendations were proposed, and many of those flexibilities 
are being finalized today. (The recommendations of the Panel are also 
located in Section 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel Report, which is 
available in the public docket.)
    In today's action we are also finalizing some additional 
flexibilities that were not discussed during the Panel process.
b. Outreach With Small Entities and the Panel Process
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we 
conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel on 
August 4, 2011 to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives 
of the small entities that would be subject to the Tier 3 requirements.
    As part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with 
representatives of small businesses that would be affected by the rule. 
We met with these SERs to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches 
and flexibility options to decrease the impact of the rulemaking on 
their industries. The SERs provided written comments to the Panel, 
specifically 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 full discussion 
of the regulatory alternatives and hardship provisions discussed and 
recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report, 
located in the rulemaking docket. A summary of the Panel's 
recommendations, what the Agency proposed, and what is being finalized 
today is discussed below. (A more detailed discussion of the final 
provisions for small entities can be found in Sections IV.G and V.E.)
    It should be noted that during the Panel process, two additional 
issues were discussed with SERs. 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 was proposed, thus the discussion of Panel recommendations below 
does not address these issues, however they are addressed in the Final 
Panel Report.
c. Panel Recommendations, Proposed Provisions, and Provisions Being 
Finalized Today
i. Tier 3 Fuels
(1) Lead Time--Sulfur
    The Panel recommended that EPA allow small refiners to postpone 
their compliance with the Tier 3 program for up to three years. EPA 
proposed, and is finalizing, this provision. Approved small refiners 
will have from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue 
production of gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the 
Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Compliance with the 10 ppm annual 
average sulfur standard will begin on January 1, 2020. As discussed 
further in Section V.D.6, small refiners may continue to generate 
sulfur credits relative to the 30 ppm sulfur standard through December 
31, 2019. Comments received on the small refiner provisions were 
generally supportive of the proposed three-year delay. However, 
commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal that small refiners could 
only generate early credits relative to the 10 ppm sulfur standard 
beginning January 1, 2017, and requested an early credit generation 
period for small refiners relative to the 30 ppm sulfur standard.
    As small refiners will still be subject to the 30 ppm sulfur 
standard when the Tier 3 program begins on January 1, 2017, we are 
finalizing that small refiners may continue to generate credits 
relative to 30 ppm through December 31, 2019. Additionally, from 
January 1, 2017 through December 1, 2019, small refiners may split 
their credit generation between both the 10 ppm and 30 ppm standards 
(without double-counting). For example, during this time period, a 
small refiner with an average gasoline sulfur level of 8 ppm could 
generate 20 ppm-volume credits (30-10 ppm, relative to the 30 ppm Tier 
2 sulfur standard) plus 2 ppm-volume credits (10-8 ppm, relative to the 
10 ppm Tier 3 sulfur standard).
(2) Provisions for Additive Manufacturers
    During the SBREFA Panel process, different requirements than those 
proposed (and being finalized today) were discussed for additive 
manufacturers. Thus, the provisions recommended by the Panel were not 
applicable to the provisions proposed and now finalized for these 
parties. More information on the Panel's recommendations for gasoline 
additive manufacturers can be found in the Final Panel Report, located 
in the rulemaking docket.

[[Page 23626]]

    We proposed that parties introducing additives to gasoline greater 
than 1.0 volume percent would be required to satisfy all of the 
obligations of a fuel manufacturer, including demonstration that the 
finished blend meets the applicable sulfur specification. We also 
proposed a maximum sulfur contribution of 3 ppm from the use of a 
gasoline additive added downstream of the refinery at less than 1.0 
volume percent (when added at the maximum recommended treatment rate). 
Lastly, we proposed that additive manufacturers would need to maintain 
records of their additive production quality control activities for 
five years.
    As discussed further in Section V.C., we are finalizing the 
requirement that manufacturers of gasoline additives used downstream of 
the refinery at less than 1.0 volume percent must limit the sulfur 
contribution to the finished gasoline from the use of the additive to 
less than 3 ppm when the additive is used at the maximum recommended 
treatment rate. For each batch of additive produced, the manufacturer 
must retain sulfur test records for five years, and must make these 
records available to EPA upon request. Parties that introduce additives 
to gasoline at over 1.0 volume percent will be required to satisfy all 
of the obligations of a fuel manufacturer, including demonstration that 
the finished blend meets the applicable sulfur specification.
(3) Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps
    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. The 
Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on additional refinery 
gate and downstream caps above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. The Panel 
expressed concern with a refinery gate cap as low as 20 ppm, because 
such a standard could cause operational problems for small refiners 
during a refinery turnaround or an upset--a cap of this level could 
result in a refiner not being able to produce gasoline. The Panel 
likewise expressed 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.
    In the proposal, EPA co-proposed caps of 80/95 ppm and 50/65 ppm 
and took comment on caps at 20/25 ppm. However, as discussed above in 
Section V.C, we are finalizing retaining the Tier 2 80 and 95 ppm caps. 
Since we are retaining the same caps from the Tier 2 program that 
entities in the fuel industry are currently complying with, we do not 
believe that additional flexibilities with respect to the refinery gate 
and downstream sulfur caps are needed.
(4) Hardship Provisions
    The Panel recommended that EPA 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. The Panel also recommended that 
if EPA were to propose lower refinery gate and downstream caps, EPA 
should also consider hardship relief in the form of long-term relief on 
the sulfur cap if the circumstances both warrant it and can be 
structured in a way to allow for it. EPA proposed, and is finalizing, 
both the extreme unforeseen circumstances and extreme hardship 
provisions for all gasoline refiners and importers. As described in 
Section V.E.2, hardship relief will be granted on a case-by-case basis 
following a showing that compliance (especially through the use of 
credits) is not feasible. If a hardship waiver is granted, EPA will 
determine appropriate hardship relief based on the refiner's hardship 
application and an assessment of the credit market at that time.
ii. Tier 3 Vehicles
    As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel Report, in addition to 
vehicle manufacturers, two categories that include small businesses are 
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 to small volume manufacturers 
(SVMs) 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 and SERs discussed several regulatory flexibility 
alternatives for small businesses that certify vehicles subject to the 
proposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described in Appendix A of the 
Panel Report, EPA sought comment from the SERs on allowing small 
entities to skip the Tier 3 phase-in and instead implement Tier 3 
requirements for all of their vehicles following the phase-in period. 
In addition, EPA sought comment on the following flexibilities: (1) A 
hardship relief provision that would allow these businesses to apply 
for additional time to meet the 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. 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 emissions testing requirements.
    The recommendations made by the Panel on these approaches are 
discussed in detail in Section XII.C of the NPRM. We consequently 
proposed small business and small volume manufacturer provisions based 
on these recommendations, as summarized in Section IV.G above. These 
proposed provisions consisted of additional lead time, reduced testing 
requirements, and opportunities for hardship relief, that would help 
small entities to leverage technological developments by others and to 
spread the availability of needed engineering, supplier, and capital 
resources. Based on the comments we subsequently received during the 
public comment period, we have improved on the proposed provisions and 
are finalizing Tier 3 vehicle provisions for small businesses and SVMs 
as described in detail in Section IV.G above, consisting of:
     An alternative NMOG+NOX light-duty fleet 
average standard phase-in schedule for small businesses and SVMs: 125 
mg/mi for MYs 2017-2021, 51 mg/mi for MYs 2022-2027, and 30 mg/mi 
thereafter;
     An optional delay of Tier 3 requirements until MY 2022 for 
small businesses and SVMs;
     EPA-assigned deterioration factors for small businesses 
and SVMs (as well as for small volume test groups);
     Reduced in-use testing requirements for SVMs with annual 
sales under 15,000, including no required testing for those with annual 
sales under 5,000;
     A PM testing waiver for small businesses and SVMs;
     An allowance for small alternative fuel vehicle converters 
to meet existing OBD requirements (40 CFR 86.1806-05) instead of new 
Tier 3 requirements;
     A provision for small businesses and SVMs in hardship 
situations to

[[Page 23627]]

apply for additional time to meet the Tier 3 standards;
     An extension of eligibility for the Tier 3 SVM provisions 
to small manufacturers that are owned by large manufacturers but are 
able to demonstrate that they are operationally independent.
    As required by section 212 of SBREFA, EPA also is preparing a Small 
Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. 
The Small Entity Compliance Guide will be available on EPA's Office of 
Policy's Small Entity Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/rfa/compliance-guides.html, and on the Tier 3 Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/tier3.htm) 60 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.

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. Accordingly, EPA has 
prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement of the cost-
benefit analysis, which can be found in Section VIII of this preamble, 
and in Chapter 8 of the RIA.
    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 rule 
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 program being finalized today represents the least 
costly, and least burdensome approach to achieve the statutory 
requirements of the rule. The costs and benefits associated with this 
rule are discussed above in Section VIII of this preamble, and in 
Chapter 8 of the RIA, as required by section 202 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and 
local governments in developing the rule. EPA also consulted with 
representatives from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies 
(NACAA, representing state and local air pollution officials), 
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean 
Air Association of the Northeast States), and the Ozone Transport 
Commission (OTC, a multi-state organization created under the CAA 
responsible for advising EPA on transport issues and for developing and 
implementing regional solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in 
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions).
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed action 
from State and local officials. These comments are in the rulemaking 
docket and are summarized in the Summary and Analysis of Comments 
document.

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 rule will 
be implemented at the Federal level and will impose compliance costs 
only on those in the gasoline production, distribution, and additive 
industry and in the engine and vehicle manufacturing industries. Tribal 
governments will 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 solicited additional comment from tribal officials in 
developing this action (however we did not receive any comments).

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 Tier 3 program 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.\603\ 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.\604\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \603\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). 
Metabolically-derived ventilation rates: a revised approach based 
upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington, DC: Office of Research 
and Development. EPA/600/R-06/129F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543.
    \604\ Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.; 
Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) Focusing on children's inhalation 
dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: an introduction. J 
Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149-165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children 
as well. Early lifestages (e.g., children) are thought to be more 
susceptible to tumor development than adults when exposed to 
carcinogenic chemicals that act through a mutagenic mode of 
action.\605\ Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead to 
a higher risk of developing cancer later in life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \605\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Supplemental 
guidance for assessing susceptibility from early-life exposure to 
carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-03/
003F. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe 
for children, particularly the youngest age groups, than adults. The 
Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria

[[Page 23628]]

Documents for a number of pollutants affected by this rule, including 
those for NO2, SO2, PM, ozone and CO, describe 
children as a group with greater susceptibility. Section II.B.6 
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.
    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. Within these highly exposed groups, 
children's exposure and susceptibility to health effects is greater 
than adults due to school-related and seasonal activities, behavior, 
and physiological factors.
    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.

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 finalized 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 rule's potential effects on energy supply, distribution, or 
use have been analyzed and are further discussed above in:
     Section V--fuel provisions of the rule and flexibilities, 
including hardship provisions.
     Section VII.B--estimated costs of the fuel program.
     Section X--economic impacts (specifically, Section X.C for 
fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D on employment impacts).
    Given the estimated costs and impacts of the Tier 3 program, as 
discussed in this preamble and in the RIA, we do not expect this rule 
to have an adverse effect on the supply or distribution of gasoline. 
This judgment is based on a comparison of the estimated impacts of the 
Tier 3 program to those required for the Tier 2 program, and a review 
of gasoline supply during the phase-in of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur 
program from 2003 through 2011. As the Tier 2 program reduced gasoline 
sulfur from levels as high as 450 ppm to a 30 ppm annual average, 
significant capital investments were required of many refineries to 
meet the 30 ppm sulfur standard. Both during and at the end of the Tier 
2 phase-in, the U.S. gasoline markets did not experience a loss in 
gasoline supply as refiners utilized the flexibilities offered by the 
Tier 2 program to stagger investments and unit turnarounds/shutdowns to 
limit supply impacts. As discussed further in Chapter 5 of the RIA, we 
do not believe that the Tier 3 program will significantly affect U.S. 
gasoline supply and/or distribution. Comments received on the proposal 
estimating the impacts of an even more stringent program than Tier 3 
support this conclusion.\606\ 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 our 
cost-benefit analyses, given by the sulfur reduction being finalized in 
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \606\ EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-4276; Attachment 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to 
update a number of regulations which already contain voluntary 
consensus standards to more recent versions of these standards. EPA is 
finalizing use of 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 rulemaking also involves environmental monitoring or 
measurement. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement 
System (``PBMS''), EPA has decided not to require the use of specific, 
prescribed analytic methods. Rather, the rule will 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. Comments received on this approach are discussed in Section 
VI and in the Summary and Analysis of Comments document.

[[Page 23629]]

 Table XII-1--Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel
                                  Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Fuel parameter                Designated analytical method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur in gasoline.................  ASTM D2622-10.
Sulfur in butane...................  ASTM D6667-10.
500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel.........  ASTM D2622-10.
Olefins in gasoline................  ASTM D1319-13.
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in         ASTM D5191-12, with the following
 gasoline.                            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 D86-12.
Benzene in gasoline................  ASTM D3606-10, except that
                                      instrument parameters shall be
                                      adjusted to ensure complete
                                      resolution of benzene, ethanol,
                                      and methanol peaks.
Aromatics in gasoline..............  ASTM D5769-10, except that sample
                                      chilling requirements in section 8
                                      of this standard are optional.
Oxygen and oxygenate content in      ASTM D5599-00 (2010).
 gasoline.
Aromatics in diesel fuel...........  ASTM D1319-13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final rule will 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 final rule will reduce emissions from 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). As a result, this 
rule increases the level of environmental protection for all 
populations. As discussed in Section III.C.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 final rule to increase the level of 
environmental protection for these populations.
    Thus, this final rule will not have a disproportionately high 
adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low-income 
populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective on June 27, 2014.

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, 
Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research, Warranties.

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.

[[Page 23630]]

40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Labeling, 
Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1039

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, 
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1042

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, 
Labeling, Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1048

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, 
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Warranties.

40 CFR Part 1054

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports, 
Labeling, Penalties, 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 3, 2014
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 79--REGISTRATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7524, 7545, and 7601.

0
2. Section 79.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  79.5  Periodic reporting requirements.

    (a) Fuel manufacturers. (1) For each calendar quarter (January 
through March, April through June, July through September, October 
through December) commencing after the date prescribed for a particular 
fuel in subpart D of this part, fuel manufacturers shall submit to the 
Administrator a report for each registered fuel showing the range of 
concentration of each additive reported under Sec.  79.11(a) and the 
volume of such fuel produced in the quarter. Reports shall be submitted 
by the required deadline as shown in the following table:

                              Table 1 to Sec.   79.5--Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Calendar quarter                   Time period covered                Quartely report deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter 1...........................  January 1-March 31..............  June 1.
Quarter 2...........................  April 1-June 30.................  September 1.
Quarter 3...........................  July 1-September 30.............  December 1.
Quarter 4...........................  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 Sec. Sec.  79.32(c) and (d) and 79.33(c) 
and (d) 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 subpart D of this part, 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 Sec.  
79.31(c) and (d) in the designation of the additive in subpart D of 
this part. 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 subpart D of this part, or the later registration of an 
additive is between October 1 and December 31, no report will be 
required for the period to the end of that year. These periodic reports 
shall not, however, be required for any additive that is:
* * * * *

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES

0
3. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7414, 7521(l), 7545, and 7601(a).

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
4. Section 80.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text and paragraphs (d), (w), (z), and 
(fff).
0
b. Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), (aaaa), (bbbb), 
(cccc), (dddd), (eeee), (ffff), (gggg), (hhhh), (iiii), and (kkkk).
0
c. Adding and reserving paragraph (jjjj).

Sec.  80.2  Definitions.

    Definitions apply in this part as described in this section.
* * * * *
    (d) Previously certified gasoline, or PCG, means conventional 
gasoline, reformulated gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB that previously has been 
included in a batch 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 D976.
* * * * *
    (z) Aromatic content of diesel fuel is the aromatic hydrocarbon 
content in volume percent as follows:
    (1) Through December 31, 2015, determine aromatic content of diesel 
fuel by ASTM D1319.
    (2) Beginning January 1, 2016, determine aromatic content of diesel 
fuel by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
* * * * *

[[Page 23631]]

    (fff) #1D means the distillate fuel classification relating to 
``No. 1-D'' diesel fuels as described in ASTM D975.
* * * * *
    (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 produced or imported for use in 
motor gasoline, and that meets the requirements of Sec.  80.1610.
    (www) Oxygenate producer means any person who owns, leases, 
operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate production facility.
    (xxx) Oxygenate production facility means any facility where 
oxygenate including DFE designated as transportation fuel is produced.
    (yyy) Oxygenate importer means a person who imports oxygenate from 
a foreign country into the United States (including the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern 
Mariana Islands).
    (zzz) Oxygenate import facility means any facility where oxygenate 
including DFE designated as transportation fuel is imported into the 
United States.
    (aaaa) CBOB means gasoline blendstock that could become 
conventional gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate.
    (bbbb) 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 facilities such 
as a natural gas production facility, a gas processing plant, a natural 
gas pipeline, or a refinery or similar facility. The higher temperature 
boiling components of NGL are sometimes referred to as ``natural 
gasoline''.
    (cccc) 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.
    (dddd) Butane blender means a refiner or refinery that produces 
gasoline by blending butane that meets the quality specifications in 
Sec.  80.82 with conventional gasoline, CBOB, reformulated gasoline, or 
RBOB, and that uses the streamlined provisions in Sec.  80.82 to meet 
some of the applicable sampling and testing requirements.
    (eeee) Pentane blender means a refiner or refinery that produces 
gasoline by blending pentane that meets the quality specifications in 
Sec.  80.86 with conventional gasoline, CBOB, reformulated gasoline, or 
RBOB, and that uses the streamlined provisions in Sec.  80.85 to meet 
some of the applicable sampling and testing requirements.
    (ffff) Blender-commercial grade pentane means pentane that meets 
the requirements in Sec.  80.86(a)(3) for pentane for use by a pentane 
blender pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.85.
    (gggg) Blender-non-commercial grade pentane means pentane that 
meets the requirements in Sec.  80.86(a)(4) for pentane for use by a 
pentane blender pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.85.
    (hhhh) Blender-grade pentane means pentane that meets the 
requirements for commercial grade pentane or non-commercial grade 
pentane pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.86.
    (iiii) Ethanol denaturant means previously certified gasoline 
(including previously certified blendstocks for oxygenate blending), 
gasoline blendstocks, or natural gasoline liquids that are added to 
neat (un-denatured) ethanol to make it unfit for human consumption in 
accordance with the requirements of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 
Trade Bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department.
    (jjjj) [Reserved]
    (kkkk) Materials incorporated by reference. The published materials 
identified in this section are incorporated by reference into this 
section 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, a document must be published in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved materials are available for inspection at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742. These approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials 
are available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (i) ASTM D975-13a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 
approved December 1, 2013.
    (ii) ASTM D976-06 (Reapproved 2011), Standard Test Method for 
Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels, approved October 1, 2011.
    (iii) ASTM D1319-13, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, approved 
May 1, 2013.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
5. Section 80.8 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  80.8  Sampling methods for gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel additives, 
and renewable fuels.

    The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to 
collect samples of gasoline, diesel fuel, blendstocks, 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 
D4057.
    (b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in 
pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures 
specified in ASTM D4177.
    (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 specified in ASTM 
D5842.
    (d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using 
the applicable procedures specified in ASTM D5854.
    (e) Materials incorporated by reference. The published materials 
identified in this section are incorporated by reference into this 
section 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, a document must be published in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved materials are available for inspection at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public

[[Page 23632]]

Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742. These approved materials are 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. In addition, these 
materials are available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (i) ASTM D4057-12, Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of 
Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved December 1, 2012.
    (ii) ASTM D4177-95 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Practice for 
Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 
2010.
    (iii) ASTM D5842-04 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Practice for 
Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved 
July 1, 2009.
    (iv) ASTM D5854-96 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Practice for Mixing 
and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, 
approved May 1, 2010.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
6. Section 80.46 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)(1), (f)(3), (g), and (h) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  80.46  Measurement of reformulated gasoline and conventional 
gasoline fuel parameters.

    (a) Sulfur. Sulfur content of gasoline and butane must be 
determined by use of the following methods:
    (1) Through December 31, 2015, the sulfur content of gasoline must 
be determined by ASTM D2622 or by one of the alternative test methods 
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Beginning January 1, 
2016, the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined by a test 
method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2) Through December 31, 2015, the sulfur content of butane must be 
determined by ASTM D6667 or by one of the alternative test methods 
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (3) Through December 31, 2015, any refiner or importer may use ASTM 
D3120, ASTM D5453, ASTM D6920, or ASTM D7039 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:
    (4) Beginning January 1, 2016, the sulfur content of butane must be 
determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47. Through 
December 31, 2015, any refiner or importer may determine the sulfur 
content of butane using ASTM D4468 or ASTM D3246; provided the refiner 
or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (b) Olefins. Olefin content must be determined by use of the 
following methods:
    (1) Through December 31, 2015, olefin content must be determined 
using ASTM D1319. Beginning January 1, 2016, the olefin content of 
gasoline may be determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2) Through December 31, 2015, any refiner or importer may 
determine olefin content using ASTM D6550 for purposes of meeting any 
testing requirements involving olefin content, provided that the 
refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section on a site-specific basis, in order 
to achieve an unbiased prediction of the result in volume percent, for 
the method specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). (1) Through December 31, 2015, Reid 
Vapor Pressure must be determined using ASTM D5191, 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 January 1, 2016, RVP may be determined by a test 
method approved under Sec.  80.47, except as provided in paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of this section.
    (i) For reporting purposes, the RVP test result computed from Sec.  
80.47 must continue to utilize the RVP correction equation in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (d) Distillation. Through December 31, 2015, distillation 
parameters must be determined using ASTM D86. Beginning January 1, 
2016, the distillation parameters may be determined by a test method 
approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (e) Benzene. Through December 31, 2015, benzene content must be 
determined using ASTM D3606, except that 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 D3606 when present. Beginning January 1, 2016, the benzene content 
may be determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (f)(1) Through December 31, 2015, aromatic content must be 
determined using ASTM D5769, except the sample chilling requirements in 
section 8 of this standard method are optional. Beginning January 1, 
2016, the aromatic content may be determined by a test method approved 
under Sec.  80.47.
* * * * *
    (3) Through December 31, 2015, any refiner or importer may 
determine aromatics content using ASTM D1319 for the purposes of 
meeting any test requirement involving aromatic content; provided that 
the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method 
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) Oxygen and oxygenate content analysis. (1) Through December 31, 
2015, oxygen and oxygenate content must be determined using ASTM D5599. 
Beginning January 1, 2016, oxygen and oxygenate content may be 
determined by a test method approved under Sec.  80.47.
    (2) Through December 31, 2015, when oxygenates present are limited 
to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-amyl alcohol and C1 to C4 alcohols, 
any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may determine oxygen and 
oxygen content using ASTM D4815 for purposes of meeting any testing 
requirement; provided that the refiner or importer test result is 
correlated with the method specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section.
    (h) Materials incorporated by reference. The published materials 
identified in this section are incorporated by reference into this 
section 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, a document must be published in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved materials are available for inspection at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The

[[Page 23633]]

telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. These 
approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials are 
available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (i) ASTM D86-12, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum 
Products at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2012.
    (ii) ASTM D1319-13, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, approved 
May 1, 2013.
    (iii) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, 
approved February 15, 2010.
    (iv) ASTM D3120-08, Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of 
Sulfur in Light Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative 
Microcoulometry, approved December 15, 2008.
    (v) ASTM D3246-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas 
by Oxidative Microcoulometry, approved June 1, 2011.
    (vi) ASTM D3606-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas 
Chromatography, approved October 1, 2010.
    (vii) ASTM D4468-85 (Reapproved 2011), Standard Test Method for 
Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and Rateometric 
Colorimetry, approved November 1, 2011.
    (viii) ASTM D4815-13, 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, 2013.
    (ix) ASTM D5191-13, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 
Petroleum Products (Mini Method), approved December 1, 2013.
    (x) ASTM D5453-12, 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 November 1, 
2012.
    (xi) ASTM D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and 
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection, approved October 1, 2010.
    (xii) ASTM D5769-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, approved May 1, 2010.
    (xiii) ASTM D6550-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography, 
approved October 1, 2010.
    (xiv) ASTM D6667-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum 
Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, approved October 1, 2010.
    (xv) ASTM D6920-13, Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in 
Naphthas, Distillates, Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and 
Motor Fuels by Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, 
approved September 15, 2013.
    (xvi) ASTM D7039-13, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline, 
Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel, Kerosine, Biodiesel, Biodiesel Blends, and 
Gasoline-Ethanol Blends by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray 
Fluorescence Spectrometry, approved September 15, 2013.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
7. Section 80.47 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  80.47  Performance-based Analytical Test Method Approach.

    All sample handling, testing procedures, and tests must be 
conducted using good laboratory practices.
    (a) Definitions. As used in this subpart D:
    (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, this is 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 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 D6708. 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

[[Page 23634]]

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 voluntary and non-voluntary consensus-
based standards bodies.
    (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 that 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 January 1, 
2016, for motor vehicle gasoline, gasoline blendstock, and gasoline 
fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at Sec.  80.195 
and Sec.  80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed 
from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (seven or 
fewer tests per week and two 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 (Example: A 10 ppm sulfur gasoline sample: 
Maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 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 January 1, 2016, for motor vehicle 
gasoline, gasoline blendstock, and gasoline fuel additives subject to 
the gasoline sulfur standard at Sec. Sec.  80.195 and 80.1603:
    (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially 
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1-10 ppm shall 
not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by 
more than 0.71 ppm sulfur;
    (ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 
tests performed using good laboratory practices on a commercially 
available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10-20 ppm shall 
not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur; 
and
    (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any 
known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
    (3) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(a)(1) and in use prior 
to October 28, 2013 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 January 1, 
2016, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at Sec. Sec.  
80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b) and 80.1603, the maximum allowable standard 
deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 
20 days (tests into no fewer than five batches or fewer tests each, 
with only one such batch allowed per day over the minimum of 20 days) 
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 (Example: A 80 ppm sulfur butane 
sample: Maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests 
2.77) = 4.99 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 January 1, 2016, for butane subject to the 
butane sulfur standard at Sec. Sec.  80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b) 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 70-80 ppm, say 75 
ppm, shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the 
standard by more than 4.68 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 80-90 ppm, say 85 
ppm, shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the 
standard by more than 5.31 ppm sulfur; and
    (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section, individual test results shall be compensated for any 
known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices.
    (3) The test method specified at Sec.  80.46(a)(2) and in use prior 
to October 28, 2013 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 January 1, 
2016, for motor vehicle gasoline, gasoline blendstock, 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 (tests may be arranged into no 
fewer than five batches or fewer tests each, with only one such batch 
allowed per day over the minimum of 20 days) on samples using good 
laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially 
available gasoline must be less than or equal to 0.3 times the 
reproducibility (R), where ``R'' equals the ASTM reproducibility of 
ASTM D1319 (Example: A gasoline containing 9 Vol% olefins: maximum 
allowable standard deviation of 20 tests or re-calibration conducted during the 
five months in SQC qualification time period is considered as part of 
in-control normal operation, and/or;
    (ii) If an assignable cause for `out of control' is found, 
mitigated, and the system is brought back in statistical quality 
control during the five month time period that the reference 
installation is attempting to meet the five month in-statistical-
control requirement, the five month time period does not re-start and 
the system is still considered to be `in-control'.
    (4) For a voluntary consensus standards body, such as ASTM, or for 
a commercially available industry crosscheck program, the summary 
statistics (mean and standard error = standard deviation/square root 
[number of results]) from the VCSB or commercially available inter-
laboratory cross-check program (ILCP) data may be used as is without 
imposing the reference installations requirements of this section, 
provided that the number of non-outlying results is greater than 16 for 
both the designated and alternative test methods. The determination of 
ARV of check standards as specified in ASTM D6299, clause 6.2.2.1 and 
Note 7 shall be followed for the inter-laboratory crosscheck program. 
The use of VCSB or commercially available ILCP data as described above 
is deemed suitable for an ASTM D6708 assessment of VCSB alternative 
test methods.
    (l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based 
(VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods. (1) Beginning January 1, 
2016, include full test method documentation by the Voluntary Consensus 
Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description of the 
technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional.
    (2) Include information reported in the test method that 
demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information 
for the method-defined fuel parameter as described in this section.
    (3) Include information reported in the test method that 
demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM D6708 and 
whether the comparison is a ``null'' result or whether a correlation 
equation needs to be applied that predicts designated test method 
results from the applicable method-defined alternative test method.
    (4) The test methods specified at Sec. Sec.  80.2(w) and 
80.46(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1) 
and in use prior to October 28, 2013 are exempt from the requirements 
of paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (m) Qualification criteria for Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard 
Based (non-VCSB) Method-Defined Parameter Test Methods. For a non-VCSB 
method to be approved, the following information must be submitted to 
the Administrator by each test facility for each method that it wishes 
to have approved.
    (1) Beginning January 1, 2016, full and thorough test method 
documentation, including a description of the technology and/or 
instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking 
experience with the test instrument would be able to replicate its 
results.
    (2) Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the 
test method meets the applicable precision information using good 
laboratory practices for the method-defined fuel parameter as described 
in this section.
    (3) Both the candidate method-defined Non-VCSB test method and its 
respective designated test method must be tested on a range of 
consensus named fuels or locally-named reference materials that are 
typical of those analyzed by the facility in practice using good 
laboratory practices and must meet the data requirements for 
variability as required in ASTM D6708.
    (4) The facility using the candidate method-defined non-VCSB test 
method must statistically establish through application of ASTM D6708 
that the

[[Page 23637]]

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 reveals that the candidate method-
defined non-VCSB test method has sample-specific biases due to matrix 
effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqualified. 
If however, it is determined that the candidate method-defined non-VCSB 
test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels 
while still meeting the data requirements for variability as required 
in ASTM D6708 (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 applicable 
designated test method as required in ASTM D6708, 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 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) Within 90 days of the receipt of materials required to be 
submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the 
Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under 
this section.
    (11) If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, 
within 90 days of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator will 
notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method. If 
the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 days of 
receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed 
approved.
    (12) The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under 
this section for cause, including, but not limited to, a determination 
by the Administrator that the approved test method has proved to be 
inadequate in practice.
    (13) An independent third-party scientific review and written 
report and verification of the information provided pursuant to 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section. The report and 
verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant 
documents and shall separately identify each item required by 
paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, describe how the 
independent third-party evaluated the accuracy of the information 
provided, state whether the independent third-party agrees with the 
information provided, and identify any exceptions between the 
independent third-party's findings and the information provided.
    (i) The information required under this section must be conducted 
by an independent third party who is a professional chemist and 
statistician, or who is a chemical engineer, with the following 
qualifications:
    (A) For a refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, and oxygenate 
blender, the independent third party must have at least a bachelor's 
degree in chemistry and statistics, or at least a bachelor's degree in 
chemical engineering, from an accredited college in the United States, 
or the independent third party must be a subject matter expert with 
equivalent knowledge and qualification, with professional work 
experience in the petroleum or oxygenate field, especially with a 
demonstrated good working knowledge of ASTM D6708 and ASTM D6299.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (ii) To be considered an independent third-party under this 
paragraph (m)(13):
    (A) The third-party shall not be employed by the refiner, importer, 
oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender, or any subsidiary or employee 
of the refiner, import facility, oxygenate producing facility, or 
oxygenate blender.
    (B) The third party shall be free from any interest in the 
refiner's, importer's, oxygenate producer's, or oxygenate blender's 
business.
    (C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender 
shall be free from any interest in the third-party's business.
    (D) Use of a third-party that is debarred, suspended, or proposed 
for debarment pursuant to the Government-wide Debarment and Suspension 
regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and 
Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR 
part 9 subpart 9.4, shall be deemed in noncompliance with the 
requirements of this section.
    (iii) The independent third-party shall retain all records 
pertaining to the verification required under this section for a period 
of five years from the date of creation and shall deliver such records 
to the Administrator upon request.
    (iv) The independent third party must provide EPA documentation of 
his or her qualifications as described in this paragraph (m) as part of 
the scientific review.
    (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 January 1, 
2016, 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) Every facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a 
commercially available gravimetric reference material, or check 
standard as defined in the ASTM D6299 at least three times a year 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

[[Page 23638]]

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 five 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 D6299 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 five 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 either construct an ``I'' chart as 
described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 of ASTM D6299, or follow the 
``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of ASTM D6299. 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.
    (iii) For test facilities opting to use the Q-procedure, the first 
run on the new QC batch should be validated by either an overlap in-
control result of the old batch, or by a single execution of an 
accompanying standard reference material. The new QC material result 
would be considered validated if the single result of the standard 
reference material is within the established site precision (R') of the 
Accepted Reference Value of the standard reference material, as 
determined by ASTM D6792.
    (iv) The expanded uncertainty of the accepted reference value of 
consensus named fuels shall have the following accuracy qualification 
criterion: Accuracy qualification criterion = square root 
[(0.75R)[caret]2+(0.75R)[caret]2/L], where L = 
the number of single results obtained from different labs used to 
calculate the consensus ARV.
    (v) These records must be kept by the facility for a period of five 
years.
    (o) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) 
Requirements for the Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method-
Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning January 1, 2016, 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 D6299 at least three times a year 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 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 five 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 D6299 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 five 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 either construct an ``I'' chart as 
described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 of ASTM D6299, or follow the 
``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of ASTM D6299. 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.
    (iii) For test facilities opting to use the Q-procedure, the first 
run on the new QC batch should be validated by either an overlap in-
control result of the old batch, or by a single execution of an 
accompanying standard reference material. The new QC material result 
would be considered validated if the single result of the standard 
reference material is within the established site precision (R') of the 
Accepted Reference Value of the standard reference material, as 
determined by ASTM D6792.
    (iv) The expanded uncertainty of the accepted reference value of 
consensus named fuels shall have the following accuracy qualification 
criterion: Accuracy qualification criterion = square root 
[(0.75R)[caret]2+(0.75R)[caret]2/L], where L = 
the number of single results obtained from different labs used to 
calculate the consensus ARV.
    (v) These records must be kept by the facility for a period of five 
years.
    (p) Accuracy and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) 
Requirements for the Non-Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (Non-VCSB) 
Method-Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning January 1, 2016, 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 D6299 at least three times a year 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 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 five years.

[[Page 23639]]

    (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 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. 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 
five 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 D6299 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 five 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 either construct an ``I'' chart as 
described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 of ASTM D6299, or follow the 
``Q-Procedure'' in Annex 1.9 of ASTM D6299. 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.
    (iii) For test facilities opting to use the Q-procedure, the first 
run on the new QC batch should be validated by either an overlap in-
control result of the old batch, or by a single execution of an 
accompanying standard reference material. The new QC material result 
would be considered validated if the single result of the standard 
reference material is within the established site precision (R') of the 
Accepted Reference Value of the standard reference material, as 
determined by ASTM D6792.
    (iv) The expanded uncertainty of the accepted reference value of 
consensus named fuels shall have the following accuracy qualification 
criterion: Accuracy qualification criterion = square root 
[(0.75R)[caret]2+(0.75R)[caret]2/L], where L = 
the number of single results obtained from different labs used to 
calculate the consensus ARV.
    (v) These records must be kept by the facility for a period of five 
years.
    (q) Record retention requirements for the test methods approved 
under this subpart. 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.
    (r) Materials incorporated by reference. The published materials 
identified in this section are incorporated by reference into this 
section 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, a document must be published in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved materials are available for inspection at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742. These approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials 
are available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (i) ASTM D86-12, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum 
Products at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2012.
    (ii) ASTM D1319-13, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, approved 
May 1, 2013.
    (iii) ASTM D3606-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas 
Chromatography, approved October 1, 2010.
    (iv) ASTM D5191-13, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 
Petroleum Products (Mini Method), approved December 1, 2013.
    (v) ASTM D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and 
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection, approved October 1, 2010.
    (vi) ASTM D6299-13, Standard Practice for Applying Statistical 
Quality Assurance and Control Charting Techniques to Evaluate 
Analytical Measurement System Performance, approved October 1, 2013.
    (vii) ASTM D6667-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum 
Gases by Ultraviolet Fluorescence, approved October 1, 2010.
    (viii) ASTM D6708-13, 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 May 1, 
2013.
    (ix) ASTM D6792-13, Standard Practice for Quality System in 
Petroleum Products and Lubricants Testing Laboratories, approved May 
15, 2013.

[[Page 23640]]

    (x) ASTM D7039-13, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline, 
Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel, Kerosine, Biodiesel, Biodiesel Blends, and 
Gasoline-Ethanol Blends by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray 
Fluorescence Spectrometry, approved September 15, 2013, approved 
September 15, 2013.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
8. Section 80.65 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(1).
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iv).
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(v).
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(3).
0
e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2) 
introductory text.
0
f. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4).
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(3)(iii)(A).
0
h. Adding a new paragraph (f)(5).
0
i. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text.
0
j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii).
0
k. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) introductory text and (i)(4)(ii)(A).
0
l. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(i).

Sec.  80.65  General requirements for refiners and importers.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) All gasoline produced or imported shall be properly designated 
as reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
    (2) * * *
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) For each of the following parameters, either gasoline or RBOB 
which meets the standard applicable to that parameter on a per-gallon 
basis or on average--
    (A) Toxics emissions performance;
    (B) NOX emissions performance in the case of gasoline 
certified using the complex model.
    (C) Benzene content; and
    (D) In the case of VOC-controlled gasoline or RBOB certified using 
the complex model, VOC emissions performance; and
* * * * *
    (3) Every batch of reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, 
RBOB, or CBOB produced or imported at each refinery or import facility 
shall be assigned a number (the ``batch number''), consisting of the 
EPA-assigned refiner or importer registration number, the EPA facility 
registration number, the last two digits of the year in which the batch 
was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the 
number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar year 
and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the 
next sequential number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 4321-54321-95-
000002, etc.).
    (e) * * *
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this 
section, each refiner or importer shall, for each batch of reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB produced or imported, determine the volume and the 
value of each of the properties specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of 
this section, except that the value for RVP must be determined only in 
the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is VOC-controlled. These 
determinations shall--
    (i) Be based on a representative sample of the reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB that is analyzed using the methodologies specified in 
Sec.  80.46 through December 31, 2015, or, beginning January 1, 2016, 
in either Sec.  80.46 or Sec.  80.47;
* * * * *
    (2) In the event that the value of any of these properties is 
determined by the refiner or importer and by an independent laboratory 
in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section--
* * * * *
    (3) Beginning January 1, 2013, API Gravity is not required to be 
measured or reported for the purpose of batch certification.
    (4) For the purposes of meeting the requirements of this paragraph 
(e) for any winter fuel parameter except benzene, oxygenate, RVP and 
sulfur, any refiner or importer may, prior to analysis, combine samples 
of gasoline collected from more than one batch of gasoline or 
blendstock (``composite sample''), and treat such composite sample as 
one batch of gasoline or blendstock provided that the refiner or 
importer meets all the following requirements:
    (i) Samples must be from a single reporting year, must be limited 
to non-VOC gasoline, and must be of a single grade of gasoline or of a 
single type of batch-produced blendstock.
    (ii) Combines samples of gasoline that are produced or imported 
over a period no longer than one month. Blendstock samples of a single 
blendstock type obtained from continuous processes over a calendar 
month may be mixed together to form one blendstock sample and the 
sample subsequently analyzed for the required fuel parameters.
    (iii)(A) Samples shall have been collected and stored using good 
laboratory practices in order to prevent change in product composition 
with regard to baseline properties and to minimize loss of volatile 
fractions of the sample.
    (B) Properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss 
of butane or pentane by comparing the RVP measured immediately after 
blending with the RVP determined at the time that the supplemental 
properties are measured.
    (C) The volume of each batch or shipment sampled, to the nearest 
gallon, shall have been noted and the sum of the volumes, in gallons, 
calculated.
    (iv) For each batch or shipment sampled, the ratio of its volume to 
the total volume determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(C) of this section 
shall be determined to three decimal places. This shall be the 
volumetric fraction of the shipment in the mixture.
    (v) The total minimum volume required to perform duplicate analyses 
to obtain values of all of the required fuel parameters shall be 
determined.
    (vi) The volumetric fraction determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of 
this section for each batch or shipment shall be multiplied by the 
value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section.
    (vii) The resulting value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of 
this section for each batch or shipment shall be the volume of each 
batch or shipment's sample to be added to the mixture. This volume 
shall be determined to the nearest milliliter.
    (viii) The appropriate volumes of each shipment's sample shall be 
thoroughly mixed and the solution analyzed per the methods required 
under Sec.  80.46 or Sec.  80.47, as applicable.
    (ix) Uses the total of the volumes of the batches of gasoline that 
comprise the composite sample, and the results of the analyses of the 
composite sample, for purposes of compliance calculations under this 
paragraph (e).
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Option 1. The refiner or importer shall, for each batch of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is produced or imported, have the 
value for each property specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 
section determined by an independent laboratory that collects and 
analyzes a representative sample from the batch using the methodologies 
specified in Sec.  80.46 through December 31, 2015, and the 
methodologies specified in Sec.  80.47 beginning January 1, 2016.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) For each compliance year beginning with the 2014 compliance

[[Page 23641]]

year, 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 perform testing required for compliance if all the 
following conditions are met:
    (i) The alternate independent laboratory meets all provisions of 
this section for designated independent laboratories.
    (ii) The alternate laboratory is used only when the designated 
independent laboratory per paragraph (f)(2) of this section is 
unavailable and cannot perform testing required for compliance, for 
example, when the primary designated laboratory is closed, the 
apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent laboratory 
personnel are not available.
    (iii) The alternate independent laboratory is not used to select a 
preferred test result.
* * * * *
    (i) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline. Any refiner who 
uses previously certified reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, 
RBOB, or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB must exclude the 
previously certified gasoline for purposes of demonstrating compliance 
with the standards under Sec.  80.41. This exclusion must be 
accomplished by the refiner as follows:
    (1) * * *
    (ii) In the case of previously certified reformulated gasoline or 
RBOB determine the emissions performances for toxics and 
NOX, except as provided in Sec.  80.41(e) and (f), and VOC 
for VOC-controlled gasoline, and the designations for VOC control.
    (iii) In the case of previously certified conventional gasoline or 
CBOB, determine the exhaust toxics and NOX emissions 
performances, except as provided in Sec.  80.101(c)(3) and (4).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Where a refiner uses previously certified conventional 
gasoline or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB--
    (A) The refiner must include the volume and properties of any batch 
of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB as a negative 
batch in the refiner's anti-dumping compliance calculations under Sec.  
80.101(g) for the refinery, or where applicable, the refiner's 
aggregation under Sec.  80.101(h); and
* * * * *
    (6)(i) Any refiner may use the procedures specified in this 
paragraph (i) to combine previously certified conventional gasoline or 
CBOB with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, to reclassify conventional 
gasoline or CBOB into reformulated gasoline or RBOB, or to change the 
designations of reformulated gasoline or RBOB with regard to VOC 
control.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 80.66 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.66  Calculation of reformulated gasoline properties.

* * * * *
    (f) Per-gallon RVP shall be determined based upon the measurement 
of RVP of a representative sample of a batch of gasoline. The total RVP 
value associated with a batch of gasoline (in RVP-gallons) is 
calculated by multiplying the RVP times the volume.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 80.74 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1).
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4).
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(8).

Sec.  80.74  Recordkeeping requirements.

    All parties in the gasoline distribution network and the 
distribution network for pentane for use by pentane blenders under 
Sec.  80.86, shall maintain records containing the information as 
required in this section. These records shall be retained for a period 
of five years from the date of creation, and shall be delivered to the 
Administrator of EPA or to the Administrator's authorized 
representative upon request.
    (a) All regulated parties. Any refiner, gasoline importer, 
oxygenate blender, producer of pentane for use by pentane blenders, 
importer of pentane for use by pentane blenders, carrier, distributor, 
reseller, retailer, or wholesale-purchaser-consumer who sells, offers 
for sale, dispenses, supplies, offers for supply, stores, blends, 
transports, or causes the transportation of any reformulated gasoline, 
RBOB, or pentane for use by pentane blenders shall maintain records 
containing the following information:
    (1) The product transfer documentation for all reformulated 
gasoline, RBOB, or pentane for use by pentane blenders for which the 
party is the transferor or transferee; and
* * * * *
    (3) For producers and importers of pentane for use by pentane 
blenders, in addition to the records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section, records demonstrating that each batch of such pentane is 
compliant with the standards in Sec.  80.86.
    (4) For pentane blenders, in addition to the records specified in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, records demonstrating compliance 
quality assurance program requirements in Sec.  80.85.
    (b) * * *
    (8) In the case of butane or pentane blended into reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB under Sec.  80.82 or Sec.  80.85, documentation of all 
the following:
    (i) The volume of butane added.
    (ii) The volume of the pentane added.
    (iii) The volume of reformulated gasoline or RBOB both prior to and 
subsequent to the butane or pentane blending.
    (iv) The purity and properties of the butane specified in Sec.  
80.82(c) and (d), as appropriate.
    (v) The purity and properties of the pentane specified in Sec.  
80.85(c) and (d), as appropriate.
    (vi) Compliance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  80.82 and 
80.85; and
* * * * *

0
11. Section 80.75 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text.
0
b. Revising paragraph (a).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (b).
0
d. Revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory text.
0
e. Revising paragraph (d).
0
f. Adding paragraph (e) introductory text and revising paragraph 
(e)(1).
0
g. Adding paragraph (g) introductory text.
0
h. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text.
0
i. Revising paragraph (i).
0
j. Removing and reserving paragraph (k).
0
k. Revising paragraph (l).
0
l. Revising paragraph (m).
0
m. Revising paragraph (o).
0
n. Adding paragraph (p).

Sec.  80.75  Reporting requirements.

    Any refiner, gasoline importer, producer of pentane for use by a 
pentane blender, and importer of pentane for use by a pentane blender 
shall report as specified in this section, and shall report such other 
information as the Administrator may require.
    (a) Quarterly reports for reformulated gasoline. Any refiner or 
importer that produces or imports any reformulated gasoline or RBOB 
shall submit quarterly reports to the Administrator for each refinery 
at which such reformulated gasoline or RBOB was produced and for all 
such reformulated gasoline or RBOB imported by each importer.

[[Page 23642]]

    (1) The quarterly reports shall be for all such reformulated 
gasoline or RBOB produced or imported during the following time 
periods:
    (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.
    (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.
    (2) All the following information shall be included in each 
quarterly report for each batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB which 
is included under paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
    (i) The batch number.
    (ii) The date of production.
    (iii) The volume of the batch.
    (iv) The grade of gasoline produced (i.e., premium, mid-grade, or 
regular).
    (v) For any refiner or importer, all the following:
    (A) Each designation of the gasoline, pursuant to Sec.  80.65.
    (B) The properties, along with identification of the test method 
used to measure those properties, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  80.65(e) and 
80.66.
    (vi) For any importer, the PADD in which the import facility is 
located.
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (viii) In the case of any previously certified gasoline used in a 
refinery operation under the terms of Sec.  80.65(i), all the following 
information relative to the previously certified gasoline when received 
at the refinery:
    (A) Identification of the previously certified gasoline as such.
    (B) The batch number assigned by the receiving refinery.
    (C) The date of receipt.
    (D) The volume, properties (along with identification of the test 
method used to measure those properties), and designation of the batch.
    (ix) In the case of butane blended with reformulated gasoline or 
RBOB under Sec.  80.82, all the following:
    (A) Identification of the butane batch as complying with the 
provisions of Sec.  80.82.
    (B) Identification of the butane batch as commercial or non-
commercial grade butane.
    (C) The batch number of the butane.
    (D) The date of production of the gasoline produced using the 
butane batch.
    (E) The volume of the butane batch.
    (F) The properties of the butane batch specified by the butane 
supplier, or the properties specified in Sec.  80.82(c) or (d), as 
appropriate, along with the identification of the test method used to 
measure those properties.
    (G) The volume of the gasoline batch subsequent to the butane 
blending.
    (x) In the case of any imported GTAB, identification of the 
gasoline as GTAB.
    (xi) In the case of pentane blended with reformulated gasoline or 
RBOB under Sec.  80.85, all the following:
    (A) Identification of the pentane batch as complying with the 
provisions of Sec.  80.85.
    (B) Identification of the pentane batch as commercial or non-
commercial grade pentane.
    (C) The batch number of the pentane.
    (D) The company and facility identification numbers of the supplier 
of the pentane batch.
    (E) The date of production of the gasoline produced using the 
pentane batch.
    (F) The volume of the pentane batch.
    (G) The properties of the pentane batch specified by the pentane 
supplier, or the properties specified in Sec.  80.82(c) or (d), as 
appropriate along with the test method used to measure these 
properties.
    (H) The volume of the gasoline batch subsequent to the pentane 
blending.
    (3) Information pertaining to gasoline produced or imported during 
1994 shall be included in the first quarterly report in 1995.
    (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 fourth 
quarter report pursuant to Sec.  80.75(a)(1)(iv). This information 
shall be reported separately for the following categories:
* * * * *
    (d) Benzene content averaging reports. Pursuant to Sec.  
80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to the 
applicable standards at Sec.  80.41(f)(1), the report required by this 
paragraph (d) is not required beginning January 1, 2014, or beginning 
January 1, 2016 for all other refiners.
    (1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the benzene content 
standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') shall submit 
to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a report for 
each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that 
was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period.
    (2) All the following information shall be reported:
    (i) The volume of averaged reformulated gasoline or RBOB in 
gallons.
    (ii) The compliance total content of benzene.
    (iii) The actual total content of benzene, along with 
identification of the test methods used to measure the content of 
benzene.
    (iv) The number of benzene credits generated as a result of actual 
total benzene being less than compliance total benzene.
    (v) The number of benzene credits required as a result of actual 
total benzene being greater than compliance total benzene.
    (vi) The number of benzene credits transferred to another refinery 
or importer.
    (vii) The number of benzene credits obtained from another refinery 
or importer.
    (e) Toxics emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to 
Sec.  80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to 
the applicable standards at Sec.  80.41(f)(1), the report required by 
this paragraph (e) is not required beginning January 1, 2014, or 
beginning January 1, 2016 for all other refiners.
    (1) Any refiner or importer that produced or imported any 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the toxics emissions 
performance standards on average (``averaged reformulated gasoline'') 
shall submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterly report, a 
report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated 
gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics 
averaging period.
* * * * *
    (g) NOX emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to

[[Page 23643]]

Sec.  80.41(f)(2), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to 
the applicable standards at Sec.  80.41(f)(1), the report required by 
this paragraph (g) is not required beginning January 1, 2014.
* * * * *
    (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 following information 
for any benzene credits that are transferred from or to another 
refinery or importer:
* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (k) [Reserved]
    (l) Reports for per-gallon compliance gasoline. In the case of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB for which compliance with each of the 
standards set forth in Sec.  80.41 is achieved on a per-gallon basis, 
the refiner or importer shall submit to the Administrator, by March 31 
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.
    (m) Reports of compliance audits. Any refiner or importer shall 
submit the report of the compliance audit required by Sec.  80.65(h) to 
the Administrator by June 1 of each year.
* * * * *
    (o) Additional reporting requirements for refiners that blend 
butane or pentane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB. For refiners that 
blend any butane or pentane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB under 
Sec.  80.82 or Sec.  80.85, the refiner shall submit to the 
Administrator, by March 31 of each year, a report for the refinery 
which includes all the following information for the previous calendar 
year:
    (1) The total volume of butane and the total volume of pentane 
blended with reformulated gasoline or RBOB at the refinery, separately 
for reformulated gasoline and RBOB.
    (2) The total volume of reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced 
using butane and the total volume of reformulated gasoline or RBOB 
produced using pentane, separately for reformulated gasoline and RBOB.
    (3) A statement that each gallon of reformulated gasoline or RBOB 
produced using butane or pentane met the applicable per-gallon 
standards under Sec.  80.41.
    (4) A statement that all butane and pentane blended with 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB at the refinery is included in the volume 
reported in paragraph (o)(2) of this section.
    (p) Reporting requirements for producers and importers of pentane 
for use by pentane blenders. Any producer of pentane for use by pentane 
blenders, or importer of pentane for use by a pentane blender that 
produces or imports any pentane for use by a pentane blender pursuant 
to the requirements of Sec.  80.86 shall submit annual reports to the 
Administrator for each facility at which pentane for use by pentane 
blenders was produced and for all such pentane imported by each 
importer.
    (1) All the following information shall be included in each annual 
report for each batch of pentane for use by pentane blenders which is 
produced or imported from January 1 to December 31 of each year:
    (i) The batch number.
    (ii) The date of production.
    (iii) The volume of the batch.
    (iv) Whether the batch was produced to the standards for blender-
commercial grade pentane pursuant to Sec.  80.86(a)(3) or blender non-
commercial grade pentane pursuant to Sec.  80.86(a)(4).
    (v) The properties, pursuant to the testing requirements of Sec.  
80.86(a)(3) or (a)(4) as applicable.
    (vi) A statement that the batch of pentane is composed solely of 
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.
    (vii) For any importer, the PADD in which the import facility is 
located.
    (2) Each annual report shall include the total volume of blender 
commercial grade pentane pursuant to Sec.  80.86(a)(3) or blender-non-
commercial grade pentane pursuant to Sec.  80.86(a)(4) for the 
reporting period.
    (3) Annual reports shall be submitted by March 31 of each year.

0
12. Section 80.77 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  80.77  Product transfer documentation.

    On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to any 
reformulated gasoline, RBOB, or pentane for use by a pentane blender 
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 the 
following information:
* * * * *
    (c) The volume of gasoline, RBOB, or pentane for use by a pentane 
blender which is being transferred;
    (d) The location of the gasoline or pentane for use by a pentane 
blender at the time of the transfer;
* * * * *
    (f) The proper identification of the product as reformulated 
gasoline, RBOB, or pentane for use by a pentane blender; and
* * * * *

0
13. Section 80.80 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  80.80  Penalties.

* * * * *
    (b) Any violation of a standard for average compliance during any 
averaging period, or for per-gallon compliance for any batch of 
gasoline or blender grade pentane, shall constitute a separate 
violation for each and every standard that is violated.
* * * * *
    (d)(1) Any violation of any per-gallon standard or of any per-
gallon minimum or per-gallon maximum, other than the standards 
specified in paragraph (e) of this section, shall constitute a separate 
day of violation for each and every day such gasoline or blender grade 
pentane giving rise to such violations remains any place in the 
gasoline or blender grade pentane distribution system, beginning on the 
day that the gasoline or blender grade pentane that violates such per-
gallon standard is produced or imported and distributed and/or offered 
for sale, and ending on the last day that any such gasoline or blender 
grade pentane is offered for sale or is dispensed to any ultimate 
consumer for use in any motor vehicle; unless the violation is 
corrected by altering the properties and characteristics of the 
gasoline or blender grade pentane giving rise to the violations and any 
mixture of gasolines or blender grade pentane that contains any of the 
gasoline or blender grade pentane giving rise to the violations such 
that said gasoline or mixture of gasolines or said blender grade 
pentane or mixture of blender grade pentanes has the properties and 
characteristics that would have existed if the gasoline or blender 
grade pentane giving rise to the violations had been

[[Page 23644]]

produced or imported in compliance with all per-gallon standards.
    (2) For the purposes of this paragraph (d), the length of time the 
gasoline or blender grade pentane in question remained in the gasoline 
or blender grade pentane distribution system shall be deemed to be 
twenty-five days; unless the respective party or EPA demonstrates by 
reasonably specific showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence, 
that the gasoline or blender grade pentane giving rise to the 
violations remained any place in the gasoline or blender grade pentane 
distribution system for fewer than or more than twenty-five days.
* * * * *

0
14. Section 80.82 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  80.82  Butane blending.

    A refiner for any refinery that produces gasoline by blending 
butane with previously certified gasoline (PCG) 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--
    (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 
the equivalent emissions performance of the butane batch, as determined 
using the provisions in Sec.  80.101(g)(3), meets the refinery's 
standards under Sec.  80.101 and the refiner meets all of the standards 
and requirements applicable to refiners of conventional gasoline under 
this part;
    (ii) Blend the butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, provided 
that the final batch of butane blended with reformulated gasoline or 
RBOB meets the applicable per-gallon standards in Sec.  80.41(e), as 
determined using the test methods in Sec.  80.46 or Sec.  80.47, as 
applicable.
    (c) Commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test 
results demonstrate that the butane is 95% pure and has all the 
following properties:
    (1) Olefins = 95 vol%.
    (ii) Olefins DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742. These approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials 
are available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (i) ASTM D5500-98 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for 
Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel 
for Intake Valve Deposit Formation, approved July 1, 2008.
    (ii) ASTM D5598-01 (Reapproved 2012), Standard Test Method for 
Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for 
Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling, approved November 1, 2012.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
24. Section 80.167 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.167  Confirmatory testing.

* * * * *
    (a) Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of 
detergent certifications under the national, PADD, or fuel-specific 
options under Sec. Sec.  80.163(a)(1) and 80.163(b) through (d) will 
generally entail a single vehicle test using the procedures detailed in 
Sec.  80.165. The test fuel(s) used in conducting such confirmatory 
certification testing will contain the specified fuel parameters at or 
below the minimum levels specified in Sec.  80.164, and will otherwise 
conform to the applicable certification test fuel specifications 
therein. Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of 
detergent certifications under the alternative national generic 
certification option in Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii) will generally entail a 
single test using the procedures detailed in Sec.  80.177. The test 
fuel(s) used in conducting such confirmatory certification testing will 
contain the specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels 
specified in Sec.  80.177, and will otherwise conform to the applicable 
certification test fuel specifications therein.
* * * * *

0
25. A new Sec.  80.175 is added to subpart G and reserved as follows:

Sec.  80.175  [Reserved]

0
26. A new Sec.  80.176 is added to subpart G to read as follows:

Sec.  80.176  Alternative certification test procedures and standards.

    This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and 
performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent 
additives for use in unleaded gasoline pursuant to Sec.  
80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)(2). These standards must be met in the context of 
the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section. Testing must be conducted and the performance standards 
met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuels 
meeting all relevant requirements of Sec.  80.177. Complete test 
documentation must be submitted by the certifying party within 30 days 
of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records.
    (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce no more than one inoperative injector when tested in 
accordance with the fuel injector deposit test procedure specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel 
must produce the accumulation of less than 50 mg of intake valve 
deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D6201. ASTM 
D6201-04 (Reapproved 2009), ``Standard Test Method for Dynamometer 
Evaluation of Unleaded Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve 
Deposit Formation,'' approved June 1, 2009, is incorporated by 
reference into this section 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, a document must 
be published in the Federal Register and the material must be available 
to the public. Copies are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr 
Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-
ASTM, http://www.astm.org. The

[[Page 23650]]

document is also available for inspection at the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742. The document 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.
    (1) Tests conducted for the intake valve deposit demonstration test 
pursuant to Sec.  80.177(b)(4) 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 D6201.
    (3) Test results shall be reported for individual intake valves and 
as an average of all intake valves.
    (c) Fuel injector deposit test procedure. (1) Summary of test 
procedure. After flushing the vehicle fuel system with the fuel to be 
tested and installing new injectors, an automatic starter control 
system starts the vehicle and lets it idle for five minutes. The engine 
is then shut off and allowed to soak for 25 minutes. This cycle is 
repeated for a total of 192 cycles (96 hours). During this time, the 
engine is kept at operating temperature with block heaters. After the 
96 hours of start/soak cycles, the engine is allowed to hot-soak for 48 
hours, during which time the engine is not started but is maintained at 
operating temperature. At the end of the 48-hour hot soak, the block 
heaters are turned off and the engine is allowed to cool naturally to 
room temperature. At the end of this 48-hour ambient temperature soak, 
an injector balance test is conducted to determine whether any poppet 
nozzles are stuck closed.
    (2) Facilities and equipment--(i) Location. A temperature-
controlled garage or large room is needed. A dynamometer is not needed, 
since this test is an idle test. The room temperature shall be 
maintained in the range of 68-75[emsp14][deg]F. The room shall be 
equipped with an exhaust system that connects to the vehicle tail pipe 
to remove the exhaust gases from the building. It is recommended that 
an interlock be provided so that if the building exhaust system fails, 
the vehicle test will shut down.
    (ii) Electrical power. Two 110-volt, 15-amp circuits are needed 
(20-amp circuits are recommended) to operate the four block heaters and 
a battery charger.
    (iii) Fuel drain facility. A facility is required to drain the fuel 
from the vehicle between tests. The fuel is drained from the service 
port on the fuel rail, near the back of the engine. A commercial cart 
equipped with a tank and a suction pump is recommended for this 
operation.
    (iv) Vehicle. A Chevrolet Astro or GMC Safari van, model year 1998-
2001, shall be used for the test. Either two-wheel drive or all-wheel 
drive is satisfactory, although the former allows easier installation 
of the block heaters.
    (v) Injectors. New injectors, General Motors part number 17091432, 
shall be used for each test.
    (vi) Block heaters. Four block heaters, General Motors part number 
12371293, are needed for each vehicle. Two heaters shall be installed 
on each side of the engine, in the freeze plug locations.
    (vii) Battery charger. Because of the large number of starts and 
the very short engine running time, a battery charger is needed. It is 
recommended that the charger be installed permanently on the vehicle 
and remain plugged in while the test is in progress.
    (viii) Starter controller. A system is needed to start the engine 
automatically and then shut it off after exactly five minutes of 
running. A commercial after-market remote starting system connected to 
a timer or computer can be used, or a one-of-a-kind system can be 
designed and built.
    (ix) Tech 2 analyzer. A General Motors Tech 2 analyzer, part number 
GM3000094, available from Kent-Moore, shall be used to conduct the 
injector balance test.
    (x) Fuel pressure gauge. A fuel pressure gauge capable of measuring 
fuel system pressure to the nearest 1 psi over the range of 45 to 65 
psi, shall be used with the Tech 2 analyzer when conducting the 
injector balance test. A pressure transducer shall not be used.
    (xi) Gaskets. The upper intake manifold gasket and injector body 
gasket will need to be replaced from time to time as they crack, tear, 
or wear out from frequent handling during injector replacement.
    (3) Initial vehicle preparation--(i) Diagnostics. To help determine 
whether a vehicle is satisfactory for use in this injector test 
procedure, a thorough inspection and engine diagnostic test shall be 
conducted as described in the service manual. Check the cooling system 
to be sure the coolant looks clean and there are no signs of rust.
    (ii) Block heaters. Install four electric block heaters, General 
Motors part number 12371293, in the coolant passages of the engine 
block, two on each side of the block. The heaters will be plugged into 
a heater control unit. Two of the heaters will remain on at all times 
during the first 144 hours of the injector fouling test, while the 
other two heaters will be turned on and off by the controller as needed 
to maintain an engine temperature of about 100-102 [deg]C during the 
soak periods of the test. (The temperature will drop while the engine 
is running, as the coolant from the radiator circulates through the 
engine. The temperature should recover to 100-102 [deg]C within about 
20 minutes after the engine shuts off.)
    (iii) Thermocouples. Install a 1/16-inch Type K thermocouple in a 
threaded bolt hole on the rear of the right cylinder head. This 
thermocouple provides the feedback signal to the controller to turn two 
block heaters on and off. Install another thermocouple in the other 
hole near the first thermocouple. This second thermocouple provides a 
signal to an over-temperature safety shut-off on the heater controller. 
If the engine temperature reaches the set point (110 [deg]C 
recommended), the heater controller will signal the starter controller 
to shut down the test.
    (iv) Fuel system flush. Drain the fuel from the fuel system through 
the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. Refuel 
with a non-detergent gasoline containing between 5 and 10 percent 
ethanol. Drive the vehicle for approximately 100 miles to thoroughly 
expose all parts of the fuel system to the fuel. The fuel pump and fuel 
filters should not be replaced unless there is a problem with them or 
if the vehicle history suggests that replacement would be prudent. If 
replacement is necessary, the new parts should first be conditioned by 
recirculating a 10% ethanol-gasoline blend (without deposit control 
additive) through them for one week.
    (v) Oil change. Change the engine oil and oil filter, using oil 
that meets the manufacturer's recommended service classification and 
viscosity grade.
    (vi) Battery charger. Install a battery charger in the vehicle so 
that it can be plugged in during the test and keep the battery at full 
charge.
    (vii) Radiator. Install cardboard or other suitable material on the 
front of

[[Page 23651]]

the radiator to block the flow of air through the radiator while the 
engine is running. This will help minimize the drop in coolant 
temperature.
    (viii) Starter controller. Make the necessary changes to the 
vehicle electrical system so that the engine can be started and stopped 
automatically on a programmed schedule. Install a starter controller or 
computer and program it to do the following:
    (A) Start the engine and let it run for 5 minutes, and then shut it 
off and let it hot-soak for 25 minutes.
    (B) Repeat the 5/25 cycle for a total of 192 cycles.
    (C) Allow a 48-hr hot soak during which the engine is not run but 
the engine temperature is maintained at 100-102 [deg]C.
    (D) Turn off the heaters for 48 hours.
    (E) Continuously count and display the number of cycles that have 
been completed throughout the test.
    (4) Test procedure. The steps described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) 
though (vi) of this section must be performed by the action described 
in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section so that the new injectors are 
exposed only to the new test fuel. Take the following additional steps:
    (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 injector and poppet nozzle are working properly, the 
fuel system pressure will decrease gradually and smoothly by about 8 to 
10 psi during the pulsing. If the pressure does not decrease, or 
decreases very suddenly but then stops decreasing before the pulsing is 
done, the poppet is stuck closed. This procedure, beginning with 
pressurizing the fuel system, is carried out for each injector.

0
27. A new Sec.  80.177 is added to subpart G to read as follows:

Sec.  80.177  Certification test fuels for use with the alternative 
test procedures and standards.

    (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for 
the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national 
generic certification option described in Sec.  80.163(a)(1)(iii).
    (1) The test fuel characteristics detailed in this section must be 
reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant 
to Sec.  80.161(b)(3).
    (2) The levels of the basic fuel parameters specified in this 
section (ethanol, olefins, aromatics, sulfur, and 90% evaporation 
distillation temperature) must be measured in accordance with 
applicable procedures in Sec.  80.46.
    (3) No detergent-active substance other than the detergent additive 
package undergoing testing may be added to a certification test fuel. 
Typical nondetergent additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion 
inhibitors, and metal deactivators, may be present in the test fuel at 
the discretion of the additive certifier. In addition, any nondetergent 
additives (other than oxygenate compounds) which are commonly blended 
into gasoline and which are known or suspected to affect IVD or PFID 
formation, or to reduce the ability of the detergent in question to 
control such deposits, should be added to the test fuel for 
certification testing.
    (4) Certification test requirements may be satisfied for a 
detergent additive using more than one batch of test fuel, provided 
that each batch satisfies all applicable test fuel requirements under 
this section.
    (5) Unless otherwise required by this section, finished test fuels 
must conform to the requirements for commercial gasoline described in 
ASTM D4814.
    (b) Test fuel for intake valve deposit testing. The following 
specifications apply for the test fuels required for use in the test 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.176(b):
    (1) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent and 
no more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. Commercial fuel grade 
denatured fuel ethanol must be used that conforms to the requirement of 
Sec.  80.1610 and ASTM D4806.
    (2) 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:
    (i) The FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial refiner 
as full range FCC gasoline or whole FCC gasoline, and must have a T90 
distillation temperature greater than 300[emsp14][deg]F.
    (ii) 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 all the following criteria:
    (A) The heavy FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial 
refiner as heavy FCC gasoline.
    (B) The heavy FCC gasoline must have an API gravity less than 45 
and a T90 distillation temperature greater than 325[emsp14][deg]F.
    (3) The test fuel must contain no less than 28 volume percent 
aromatics.
    (4) The test fuel must contain no less than 24 ppm sulfur. At least 
60 percent

[[Page 23652]]

of the sulfur must be derived from FCC gasoline that meets the 
specifications in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (5) The test fuel must have a T90 distillation temperature of no 
less than 290[emsp14][deg]F.
    (6) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must 
produce no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves when 
subjected to the intake valve deposit test specified in Sec.  
80.176(b).
    (7) 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.
    (c) Test fuel for fuel injector deposit testing: This paragraph 
provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.176(c). The test fuel must conform to 
the specifications in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this 
section. The same base test fuel must be used for deposit demonstration 
testing and for demonstrating compliance with the fuel injector deposit 
control standards in Sec.  80.176(a).
    (1) Option 1. (i) The test fuel must be a commercial full boiling 
range hydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending component, without 
oxygenates.
    (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must 
produce at least 5 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the 
fuel injector deposit test specified in Sec.  80.176(c).
    (2) Option 2. (i) The test fuel must meet the requirements for 
federal emissions test gasoline specified in Sec. Sec.  80.112 and 
80.113 into which 4-methylbenzenethiol has been blended as a 
concentration of 56 mg/L.
    (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must 
produce at least 4 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the 
fuel injector deposit test specified in Sec.  80.176(c).
    (d) Materials incorporated by reference. The published materials 
identified in this section are incorporated by reference into this 
section 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, a document must be published in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved materials are available for inspection at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 
566-1742. These approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials 
are available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org;
    (i) ASTM D4806-13a, Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel 
Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, approved June 15, 2013.
    (ii) ASTM D4814-13b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, approved December 1, 2013.
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart H--[Amended]

0
28. Section 80.330 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (d) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  80.330  What are the sampling and testing requirements for 
refiners and importers?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and 
importers shall use the method provided in Sec.  80.46(a)(1) or one of 
the alternative test methods listed in Sec.  80.46(a)(3) to measure the 
sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import through December 31, 
20. Beginning January 1, 2016, for purposes of paragraph (a) of this 
section, refiners and importers shall use an approved method in Sec.  
80.47.
* * * * *
    (d) Test method for sulfur in butane. (1) Refiners and importers 
shall use the method provided in Sec.  80.46(a)(2) through December 31, 
2015 to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane 
constitutes a batch of gasoline. Beginning January 1, 2016, refiners 
and importers shall use an approved method in Sec.  80.47 to measure 
the sulfur content of butane when the butane constitutes a batch of 
gasoline.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, any 
ASTM sulfur test method for gaseous fuels may be used for quality 
assurance testing under Sec. Sec.  80.340(b)(4) and 80.400, if the 
protocols of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative test 
method is correlated to the method provided in Sec.  80.46(a)(2) 
through December 31, 20, or in Sec.  80.47 beginning January 1, 2016.
* * * * *

0
29. Section 80.340 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  80.340  What standards and requirements apply to refiners 
producing gasoline by blending blendstocks into previously certified 
gasoline (PCG)?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The sulfur content of the butane received from the butane 
supplier must not exceed the following sulfur standards on a per-gallon 
basis as follows:
    (i)(A) 120 ppm in 2004;
    (B) 30 ppm from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; and
    (C) 10 ppm on or after January 1, 2017.
    (ii) Except that the per-gallon sulfur content of butane blended to 
PCG that is designated as GPA gasoline shall not exceed 150 ppm from 
January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2006.
* * * * *
    (d) Refiners who blend only blender-grade pentane into PCG pursuant 
to the requirements of Sec.  80.85 may meet the sampling and testing 
requirements by using sulfur test results of the pentane supplier 
pursuant to the requirements Sec.  80.85, provided that the following 
requirements are also met:
    (1) The sulfur content and volume of each batch of gasoline 
produced is that of the blender-grade pentane the refiner blends into 
gasoline for purposes of calculating compliance with the standards in 
Sec. Sec.  80.195 and 80.216.
    (2) If any of the requirements of this section are not met, in 
whole or in part, for any pentane blended into gasoline, that pentane 
is deemed in violation of the gasoline sulfur standards in Sec.  80.85, 
or Sec.  80.86, Sec.  80.195, Sec.  80.216 as applicable.

0
30. Section 80.370 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv).
0
b. Revising paragraph (d)(2).
0
c. Adding and reserving paragraph (e).
0
d. Revising paragraph (f).

Sec.  80.370  What are the sulfur reporting requirements?

* * * * *

[[Page 23653]]

    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, along with identification of 
the test method used to measure the sulfur content of the batch, as 
determined under Sec.  80.330; and
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 for the prior calendar year 
averaging period.
* * * * *
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest 
engagements required under Sec.  80.415 shall be submitted to the 
Administrator by June 1 of each year for the prior calendar year 
averaging period.

0
31. Section 80.385 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.385  What acts are prohibited under the gasoline sulfur 
program?

* * * * *
    (e) Denatured fuel ethanol violation. (1) Through December 31, 
2016, blend into gasoline any denatured fuel ethanol with a sulfur 
content higher than 30 ppm.
    (2) Beginning January 1, 2017 and thereafter, blend into gasoline 
any denatured fuel ethanol with a sulfur content higher than 10 ppm.
* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
32. Section 80.511 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(10) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.511  What are the per-gallon and marker requirements that 
apply to NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, and heating oil downstream 
of the refiner or importer?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this 
section, the per-gallon sulfur standard of Sec.  80.510(c) shall apply 
to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning August 1, 2014 for all downstream 
locations other than retail outlets or wholesale purchaser-consumer 
facilities, shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1, 
2014 for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities, 
and shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning December 1, 2014 for 
all locations. This paragraph (b)(4) does not apply to LM diesel fuel 
produced from transmix or interface fuel that is sold or intended for 
sale in areas other than those listed in Sec.  80.510(g)(1) or (g)(2), 
as provided by Sec.  80.513(f).
* * * * *
    (10) For the purposes of this subpart, on any occasion where a 
distributor directly dispenses fuel into vehicles or equipment from a 
mobile facility such as a tanker truck, the distributor shall be 
treated as a retailer, and the mobile facility shall be treated as a 
retail outlet.

0
33. Section 80.572 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.572  What labeling requirements apply to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of Motor Vehicle, NR, LM and NRLM diesel 
fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2010?

* * * * *
    (a) From June 1, 2010 through November 30, 2014, any retailer or 
wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale 
or dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur 
standard of Sec.  80.520(a)(1), must affix the following conspicuous 
and legible label, in block letters of no less than 24-point bold type, 
and printed in a color contrasting with the background, to each pump 
stand:

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)

    Required for use in all highway diesel vehicles and engines.
    Recommended for use in all diesel vehicles and engines.
* * * * *

0
34. Section 80.573 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.573  What labeling requirements apply to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil 
beginning June 1, 2012?

* * * * *
    (a) From June 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014, for pumps 
dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of 
Sec.  80.510(c):

ULTRA-LOW SULFUR NON-HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)

    Required for use in all model year 2011 and later nonroad diesel 
engines.
    Recommended for use in all other non-highway diesel engines.
WARNING
    Federal law prohibits use in highway vehicles or engines.
* * * * *

0
35. Section 80.574 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  80.574  What labeling requirements apply to retailers and 
wholesale purchaser-consumers of ECA marine fuel beginning June 1, 
2014?

    (a) Any retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer who sells, 
dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing ECA marine fuel must 
prominently and conspicuously display in the immediate area of each 
pump stand from which ECA marine fuel is offered for sale or 
dispensing, one of the following legible labels, as applicable, in 
block letters of no less than 24-point bold type, printed in a color 
contrasting with the background:
    (1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for pumps dispensing ECA marine 
fuel subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard of Sec.  80.510(k):

1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum).

    For use in Category 3 (C3) marine vessels only.
WARNING
    Federal law prohibits use in any engine that is not installed on a 
C3 marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur content greater than 
1,000 ppm in an ECA is prohibited except as allowed by 40 CFR part 
1043.
    (2) The labels required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be 
placed on the vertical surface of each pump housing and on each side 
that has gallon and price meters. The labels shall be on the upper two-
thirds of the pump, in a location where they are clearly visible.
    (b) Alternative labels to those specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section may be used as approved by EPA. Send requests to--
    (1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label 
Request, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
36. Section 80.580 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.580  What are the sampling and testing methods for sulfur?

* * * * *
    (e) Materials incorporated by reference. The published materials 
identified in this section are incorporated by reference into this 
section 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, a document must be published in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved materials are available for inspection at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation 
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The

[[Page 23654]]

telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. These 
approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials are 
available from the sources listed below.
    (1) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (i) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, 
approved February 15, 2010.
    (ii) ASTM D4294-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
and Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence 
Spectrometry, approved February 15, 2010.
    (iii) ASTM D5453-12, 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 
November 1, 2012.
    (iv) ASTM D6920-13, Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in 
Naphthas, Distillates, Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and 
Motor Fuels by Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, 
approved September 15, 2013.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
37. Section 80.585 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.585  What is the process for approval of a test method for 
determining the sulfur content of diesel or ECA marine fuel?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) The approval of any test method under paragraph (b) of this 
section shall be valid for five years from the date of approval by the 
Administrator. After the five year period has ceased, in order for the 
test method approval to remain valid, the test method must be 
resubmitted for approval with applicable precision and accuracy 
information contained in Sec.  80.584(a) and (b). If, however, the test 
method is later approved by a voluntary consensus-based standards body, 
the approval shall remain valid as long as the conditions of paragraph 
(a) of this section are met.
* * * * *

0
38. Section 80.604 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(4) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.604  What are the annual reporting requirements for refiners 
and importers of NRLM diesel fuel?

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Except for small refiners subject to Sec.  80.554(d), submitted 
to EPA by September 1 each year for the prior annual compliance period. 
Small refiners subject to the provisions of Sec.  80.554(d), reports 
must be submitted by September 1 for the previous reporting period.
    (4) With the exception of reports required under paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section, no reports will be required under this section after 
September 1, 2014.

Subpart L--[Amended]

0
39. Section 80.1235 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(2) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1235  What gasoline is subject to the benzene requirements of 
this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (6) Blendstock that is combined with PCG to produce gasoline must 
be sampled and tested in accordance with the provisions at Sec.  
80.1347(a)(5) or (6).
    (b) * * *
    (2) Oxygenate added to PCG downstream of the refinery that produced 
the PCG, or downstream of the import facility where the PCG was 
imported, shall not be included in a refiner's or importer's compliance 
calculations unless the refiner or importer that produced or imported 
the PCG complies with the requirements of Sec.  80.1238(b). On any 
occasion where any person downstream of the refinery or importer that 
produced or imported PCG adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not 
include the volume and benzene content of the oxygenate in any 
compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart.
* * * * *

0
40. Section 80.1238 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.1238  How is a refinery's or importer's average benzene 
concentration determined?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB, the 
refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of Sec.  
80.101(d)(4)(ii). The benzene content of the oxygenate must be 
determined using the applicable test method at Sec.  80.46 through 
December 31, 2015, and at Sec.  80.47 beginning January 1, 2016.
* * * * *

0
41. Section 80.1347 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and 
(a)(5) and adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1347  What are the sampling and testing requirements for 
refiners and importers?

    (a) * * *
    (3)(i) Each sample shall be tested in accordance with the 
methodology specified at Sec.  80.46(e) through December 31, 2015, to 
determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart. Beginning January 1, 2016, each sample 
shall be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at Sec.  
80.47 to determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the 
requirements of this subpart. Any negative test result must be reported 
as zero.
* * * * *
    (5) Previously certified gasoline (PCG) may be excluded as follows:
    (i) Any refiner who uses PCG to produce gasoline at a refinery, 
must exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the 
benzene standards at Sec.  80.1230.
    (ii) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of 
this section, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content 
of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume and benzene content of 
gasoline produced at the refinery, and use the compliance calculation 
procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and (iv) of this section.
    (iii) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the 
refiner must include the volume and benzene content of the PCG as a 
negative volume and a positive benzene content in the refiner's 
compliance calculations in accordance with the requirements at Sec.  
80.1238.
    (iv) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG 
and blendstock, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene 
content of the combined product and include each batch for purposes of 
benzene compliance in the refinery's compliance calculations at Sec.  
80.1240 without regard to the presence of previously certified gasoline 
in the batch.
    (v) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative 
batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to

[[Page 23655]]

Sec.  80.1240 as a component in gasoline production during the annual 
averaging period in which the PCG was included as a negative batch in 
the refiner's compliance calculations.
    (vi) Any negative annual average value must be reported as zero.
    (vii) The refiner must also comply with Sec.  80.65(i) when 
producing RBOB or RFG and Sec.  80.101(g)(9) when producing 
conventional gasoline.
    (6) As an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, a refiner who produces gasoline by 
blending one or more blendstocks into PCG may sample and test each 
batch of blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the 
volume and benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a 
separate batch for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the 
benzene standards in Sec.  80.1230, and for benzene reporting.
* * * * *

0
42. Section 80.1348 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1348  What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to 
refiners and importers?

    (a) Through December 31, 2015, the gasoline sample retention 
requirements specified in subpart H of this part for the gasoline 
sulfur provisions apply for the purpose of complying with the 
requirements of this subpart L, except that in addition to including 
the sulfur test result as provided by Sec.  80.335(a)(4)(ii), the 
refiner, importer, or independent laboratory shall also include with 
the retained sample the test result for benzene as conducted pursuant 
to Sec.  80.46(e).
    (b) Beginning January 1, 2016, pursuant to Sec.  80.47, the 
gasoline sample retention requirements specified in subpart O of this 
part for the gasoline sulfur provisions apply for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of this subpart L, except that in 
addition to including the sulfur test result as provided by Sec.  
80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory 
shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene 
as conducted pursuant to Sec.  80.47.

0
43. A new Sec.  80.1349 is added to subpart L to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1349  Alternative sampling and testing requirements for 
importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck.

    Importers who import conventional gasoline into the United States 
by truck may comply with the sampling and testing requirements in Sec.  
80.101(i)(3) instead of the requirements to sample and test every batch 
of gasoline under Sec.  80.1347. An importer that uses this approach 
must meet the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard on a per-gallon 
basis.

0
44. Section 80.1354 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (d)(2) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1354  What are the reporting requirements for the gasoline 
benzene program?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2)(i) The annual average benzene concentration, per Sec.  80.1238, 
along with identification of the test method(s) used to measure the 
annual average benzene concentration.
    (ii) The maximum average benzene concentration, per Sec.  
80.1240(b), along with identification of the test method(s) used to 
measure the maximum average benzene concentration.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Submitted to EPA by March 31 each year for the prior calendar 
year averaging period.
* * * * *

Subpart M--[Amended]

0
45. Section 80.1407 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.1407  How are the Renewable Volume Obligations calculated?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Blendstock (including butane, pentane, and gasoline treated as 
blendstock (GTAB)) that has been combined with other blendstock and/or 
finished gasoline to produce gasoline.
* * * * *

0
46. Section 80.1451 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) 
introductory text and (f)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  80.1451  What are the reporting requirements under the RFS 
program?

    (a) * * *
    (1) Annual compliance reports for the previous compliance period 
shall be submitted by March 31 of each year, except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(1)(xiv) of this section, and shall include all the 
following information:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Quarterly reports shall be submitted by the required deadline 
as shown in Table 1 of this section. 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 follows:

                            Table 1 to Sec.   80.1451--Quarterly Reporting Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Calendar quarter                       Time period covered              Quarterly report deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quarter 1...............................  January 1-March 31...................  June 1.
Quarter 2...............................  April 1-June 30......................  September 1.
Quarter 3...............................  July 1-September 30..................  December 1.
Quarter 4...............................  October 1-December 31................  March 31.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
47. Section 80.1464 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  80.1464  What are the attest engagement requirements under the 
RFS program?

* * * * *
    (d) For each compliance year, each party subject to the attest 
engagement requirements under this section shall cause the reports 
required under this section to be submitted to EPA by June 1 of the 
year following the compliance year, except as provided in paragraph (g) 
of this section.
* * * * *

0
48. 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 Applicability.
80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.

[[Page 23656]]

80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties 
downstream of refiners and importers.
80.1605 Deficit carryforward 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 and importers of 
denatured fuel ethanol and other oxygenates designated for use in 
transportation fuel.
80.1611 Standards and requirements for certified ethanol denaturant.
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.
80.1617-80.1619 [Reserved]
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.
80.1626-80.1629 [Reserved]
80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements for refiners, gasoline 
importers and producers and importers of certified ethanol 
denaturant.
80.1631 Gasoline, RBOB, and CBOB sample retention requirements.
80.1632-80.1639 [Reserved]
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 Sampling and testing requirements for producers and 
importers of denatured fuel ethanol and other oxygenates for use by 
oxygenate blenders.
80.1643 Sample retention requirements for oxygenate producers and 
importers.
80.1644 Sampling and testing requirements for producers and 
importers of certified ethanol denaturant.
80.1645 Sample retention requirements for producers and importers of 
denaturant designated as suitable for the manufacture of denatured 
fuel ethanol meeting federal quality requirements.
80.1646-80.1649 [Reserved]
80.1650 Registration.
80.1651 Product transfer document requirements.
80.1652 Reporting requirements for gasoline refiners, gasoline 
importers, oxygenate producers, and oxygenate importers.
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.
80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act.
80.1664 [Reserved]
80.1665 Penalties.
80.1666 Additional requirements for foreign small refiners and 
foreign small volume refineries.
80.1667 Attest engagement requirements.

Subpart O--Gasoline Sulfur

Sec.  80.1600  Additional definitions for subpart O.

    The definitions of Sec.  80.2 and the following additional 
definitions apply to this subpart O:
    California gasoline means any gasoline designated by a refiner or 
importer for use in California.
    Certified ethanol denaturant means ethanol denaturant that meets 
the requirements of Sec.  80.1611.
    Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  
80.1666(a)(5).
    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 produced or imported for use in 
motor gasoline, and that meets the requirements of Sec.  80.1610.
    Ethanol denaturant means previously certified gasoline (including 
previously certified blendstocks for oxygenate blending), gasoline 
blendstocks, or natural gasoline liquids that are added to neat (un-
denatured) ethanol to make it unfit for human consumption in accordance 
with the requirements of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 
of the U.S. Treasury Department.
    Foreign refiner is a person who meets the definition of refiner 
under Sec.  80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.
    Foreign refinery means a refinery that is located outside the 
United States. Note that the United States includes the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  
80.1666(a)(6).
    Non-Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  80.1666(a)(4).
    Sulfur-FRGAS has the meaning given in Sec.  80.1666(a)(3).
    Transmix has the meaning given at Sec.  80.84(a)(2).
    Transmix blender has the meaning given at Sec.  80.84(a)(7).
    Transmix gasoline product (TGP) has the meaning given at Sec.  
80.84(a)(3).
    Transmix processing facility has the meaning given at Sec.  
80.84(a)(4).
    Transmix processor has the meaning given at Sec.  80.84(a)(5).

Sec.  80.1601  Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.

    (a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are 
subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart:
    (1) Reformulated and conventional gasoline and RBOB, and CBOB 
(collectively called ``gasoline'' unless otherwise specified).
    (2) Any blendstock blended with PCG, as defined in Sec.  80.2(d).
    (3) Oxygenates blended with gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB.
    (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are not 
subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart:
    (1) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or 
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events, provided 
that--
    (i) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and 
any pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the 
gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or 
as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or 
racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events;
    (ii) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline 
throughout production, distribution and sale to the ultimate consumer; 
and
    (iii) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle 
gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor 
vehicles used only in sanctioned racing events.
    (2) California gasoline as defined in Sec.  80.1600 subject to the 
provisions of Sec.  80.1654.
    (3) Gasoline that is exported for sale and use outside the United 
States.
    (4) Exempt fuels under Sec. Sec.  80.1655 (national security 
exemptions), 80.1656 (gasoline used for research, development, or 
testing purposes), and 80.1658 (gasoline used in American Samoa, Guam, 
and the Northern Mariana Islands).

Sec.  80.1602  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart O shall apply beginning January 
1, 2017, unless otherwise provided.
    (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

[[Page 23657]]

comply with the standards and requirements under this subpart O.

Sec.  80.1603  Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.

    (a) Sulfur standards. (1) Annual average standard. (i) The refinery 
or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is 10.00 parts per 
million (ppm) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), except as provided in 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) The averaging period is a calendar year (January 1 through 
December 31).
    (iii) The refinery or importer annual average gasoline sulfur 
standard is the maximum average sulfur level allowed for gasoline 
produced at a refinery or imported by an importer during each calendar 
year beginning January 1, 2017, except as provided by the following:
    (A) The credit use provisions of Sec.  80.1616.
    (B) Beginning January 1, 2020, for small refiners and small volume 
refineries approved pursuant to the provisions of Sec.  80.1622. Small 
refiners and small volume refineries will continue to be subject to the 
provisions of subpart H of this part through December 31, 2019 (or 
until compliance with this subpart O begins).
    (C) Fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this 
subpart O as specified in Sec.  80.1601(b).
    (iv) The annual average sulfur level is calculated in accordance 
with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Per-gallon cap standard. (i) The refinery or importer per-
gallon cap standard is 80 ppm, on a per-gallon basis except as 
otherwise provided by this section.
    (ii) The per-gallon cap of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is 
the maximum sulfur level allowed for any batch of gasoline produced at 
a refinery or imported by an importer beginning January 1, 2017, except 
for fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart 
O as specified in Sec.  80.1601(b).
    (3) Use of credits. The refinery or importer annual average 
gasoline sulfur standard may be met using credits as provided under 
Sec.  80.1616. Credits cannot be used to meet the applicable per-gallon 
standard.
    (b) [Reserved]
    (c) Calculation of the annual average sulfur level. (1) The annual 
refinery or importer average gasoline sulfur level is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.141

Where:

Sa = The refinery or importer annual average sulfur level, in ppm 
(mg/kg).
Vi = The volume of gasoline produced or imported in batch i, in 
gallons.
Si = The sulfur content of batch i determined under Sec.  80.1630, 
in ppm (mg/kg).
n = The number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during 
the averaging period.
    i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period.

    (2) The annual average sulfur level calculation in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section shall be conducted to two decimal places using the 
rounding procedure specified in Sec.  80.9.
    (d) Oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import 
facility. A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream 
from the refinery or import facility when calculating the sulfur 
content of a batch, provided that the following requirements are met:
    (1) For oxygenate added to reformulated gasoline, RBOB, 
conventional gasoline, or CBOB, the refiner or importer shall calculate 
the sulfur content of the batch by volume weighting the sulfur content 
of the conventional gasoline or CBOB and the sulfur content of the 
added oxygenate pursuant to the following requirements:
    (i) The sulfur content of any reformulated gasoline, RBOB, 
conventional gasoline, or CBOB shall be determined by sampling and 
testing each batch pursuant to Sec.  80.46 or Sec.  80.47 as 
applicable.
    (ii) For each complete annual compliance period, the sulfur content 
of all the oxygenate added downstream of the refinery or import 
facility shall be determined by one of the following methods:
    (A) Testing the sulfur content of a sample of the oxygenate 
pursuant to Sec.  80.46 or Sec.  80.47, as applicable. The refiner or 
importer must demonstrate through records relating to sampling, 
testing, and blending that the test result was derived from a 
representative sample of the oxygenate that was blended with the batch 
of gasoline or BOB.
    (B) If the oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol, the sulfur content 
may be assumed to be 5.00 ppm.
    (iii) For denatured fuel ethanol, the refiner or importer may 
assume that the denatured fuel ethanol was blended with gasoline or BOB 
at a concentration of 10 volume percent, unless the refiner or importer 
can demonstrate that a different amount of denatured fuel ethanol was 
actually blended with a batch of gasoline or BOB.
    (iv) The refiner or importer of conventional gasoline or CBOB must 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  80.101(d)(4)(ii).
    (v) The refiner or importer of reformulated gasoline or RBOB must 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  80.69(a).
    (vi) Any reformulated gasoline, RBOB, conventional gasoline, or 
CBOB must meet the per-gallon sulfur standard of paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section prior to calculating any dilution from the oxygenate added 
downstream.
    (vii) The reported volume of the batch is the combined volume of 
the reformulated gasoline, RBOB, conventional gasoline, or CBOB and the 
downstream added oxygenate.
    (2) The refiner or importer who first certifies the gasoline, CBOB, 
or RBOB is the only person who may account for the downstream addition 
of oxygenate pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this 
section. On any occasion where any person downstream of the refinery or 
importer that produced or imported previously certified gasoline, CBOB 
or RBOB adds 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 the following:
    (1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery or imported by 
the importer.
    (2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (3) Blendstocks transferred to others, except RBOB and CBOB as 
provided in this subpart O.
    (4) Previously certified gasoline (PCG).
    (5) Gasoline exempted from standards under Sec.  80.1601(b).
    (f) Compliance calculation for the annual average sulfur standard. 
(1) Compliance by a refinery or importer with the gasoline sulfur 
annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is achieved 
if, for calendar year y, the compliance sulfur value is less than or 
equal to 10 times the total gasoline volume produced or imported, 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).

[[Page 23658]]

D(y-1) = Sulfur deficit from the previous reporting period, per 
Sec.  80.1605, in ppm-gallons.
OC = Sulfur credits obtained by the refinery or importer, in ppm-
gallons.

    (2) Sulfur credits used in the calculation specified in paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section must be used in accordance with the requirements 
at Sec.  80.1616.
    (3) Compliance with the gasoline sulfur annual average standard at 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not achieved, and a deficit is 
created per Sec.  80.1605, if for calendar year y, the compliance 
sulfur value is greater than 10 times the total gasoline volume 
produced or imported. The deficit value to be included in the following 
year's compliance calculation per paragraph (f) of this section is 
calculated as follows:

Dy = CSVy - (Vy x 10y)

Where:

Dy = Sulfur deficit created in compliance period y, in ppm-gallons.

Sec.  80.1604  Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties 
downstream of refiners and importers.

    (a) The sulfur standard for gasoline at any downstream location 
shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section. 
A downstream location is any point in the gasoline distribution system 
downstream from refineries and import facilities, including, but not 
limited to, facilities of any of the following parties:
    (1) Distributors.
    (2) Carriers.
    (3) Oxygenate blenders.
    (4) Retailers.
    (5) Wholesale purchaser-consumers.
    (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart O, the sulfur 
content of gasoline at any downstream location shall not exceed 95 ppm, 
on a per-gallon basis, beginning January 1, 2017.

Sec.  80.1605  Deficit carryforward for refiners and importers.

    (a) Deficit carryforward. A refiner or importer may exceed the 
annual average sulfur standard for a given calendar year, creating a 
compliance deficit, provided that, in the calendar year following the 
year the standard is not met, the refinery or importer--
    (1) Achieves compliance with the annual average sulfur standard in 
Sec.  80.1603(a)(1); and
    (2) Uses additional sulfur credits sufficient to offset the 
compliance deficit of the previous year.
    (b) The compliance deficit value shall be calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  80.1603(f)(3).

Sec.  80.1606  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1607  Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix 
processors and transmix blenders.

    Transmix processors and transmix blenders may comply with the 
following sampling and testing requirements and standards instead of 
the sampling and testing requirements and standards otherwise 
applicable to a refiner under this subpart O.
    (a) Any transmix processor who recovers transmix gasoline product 
(TGP) from transmix through transmix processing under Sec.  80.84(c) 
must show through sampling and testing (using the methods in Sec.  
80.1630) that the TGP meets the applicable sulfur standards under Sec.  
80.1604(b), prior to the TGP leaving the transmix processing facility.
    (b) The sampling and testing required under paragraph (a) of this 
section shall be conducted following each occasion TGP is produced.
    (c) Any transmix processor who produces gasoline by adding 
blendstock to TGP must, for such blendstock, comply with all 
requirements and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart 
O, and must meet the downstream sulfur standards under Sec.  80.1604 
for the gasoline produced by blending blendstock and TGP, prior to the 
gasoline leaving the transmix processing facility.
    (d) Any transmix processor who produces gasoline by blending 
blendstock into TGP must meet the sampling and testing requirements of 
this subpart O using one of the following methods:
    (1) Option 1. (i) Sample and test the blendstock that will be added 
to TGP during the compliance year when received at the transmix 
processing facility, using the methods specified in Sec.  80.1630, to 
determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each volume of 
blendstock that is blended into a volume of TGP as a separate batch for 
purposes of calculating and reporting compliance with the applicable 
annual average and per-gallon cap sulfur standards in Sec.  80.1603.
    (ii) Use sulfur test results of the blendstock supplier provided 
that all the following requirements are met:
    (A) Sampling and testing by the blendstock supplier is performed 
using the methods specified in Sec.  80.1630.
    (B) Testing for the sulfur content of the blendstock in the 
supplier's storage tank must be conducted following the last receipt of 
blendstock into the supplier's storage tank that supplies the transmix 
processor.
    (C) The transmix processor must obtain a copy of the blendstock 
supplier's test results, reflecting the sulfur content of each load of 
blendstock supplied to the transmix processor, at the time of each 
transfer of blendstock to the transmix processor.
    (D) The transmix processor must conduct a quality assurance program 
of sampling and testing for each blendstock supplier. The frequency of 
blendstock sampling and testing must be one sample for every 500,000 
gallons of blendstock received or one sample every 3 months, whichever 
results in more frequent sampling.
    (iii) If any of the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section are not met, in whole or in part, for any blendstock blended 
into TGP, the gasoline produced with that blendstock is deemed in 
violation of the gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O.
    (2) Option 2. (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.
    (iii) Calculate the sulfur content and the volume of the batch by 
subtracting the volume and sulfur content of the TGP from the volume 
and sulfur content of the gasoline after blendstock blending. For 
purposes of compliance and reporting, the sulfur content shall be the 
calculated volume and sulfur content of the blendstock, and the 
applicable standards shall be the average and cap standards in Sec.  
80.1603. The applicable cap standard of the gasoline blend shall be the 
cap standard under Sec.  80.1604.
    (iv) Tests shall be performed using the methods specified in Sec.  
80.1630, to determine the sulfur content of the batch.
    (v) The sulfur content of each batch of gasoline produced by 
blending blendstock into TGP must be no greater than the downstream 
sulfur standard under Sec.  80.1604 applicable to the designation of 
the TGP.
    (e) Any transmix blender who produces gasoline by blending 
transmix, or mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel described in 
Sec.  80.84(e), into previously certified gasoline under Sec.  80.84(d) 
must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under Sec.  
80.1604 for the gasoline produced by blending transmix and previously 
certified gasoline and the endpoint standard specified in Sec.  80.84.
    (f) Any transmix processor or transmix blender who adds any 
feedstock to its transmix other than gasoline, distillate fuel, or 
gasoline blendstocks from pipeline interface must meet all requirements 
and standards that apply to a refiner under

[[Page 23659]]

this subpart O for all gasoline it produces during a compliance period.

Sec.  80.1608  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1609  Oxygenate blender requirements.

    (a) Oxygenate blenders who blend only oxygenate that complies with 
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section into gasoline 
downstream of the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import 
facility where the gasoline was imported are not subject to the refiner 
or importer requirements of this subpart for such gasoline, but are 
subject to the requirements and prohibitions applicable to downstream 
parties in this subpart. Such oxygenate blenders are subject to the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements and 
prohibitions applicable to downstream parties, the requirements of 
Sec.  80.1603(d)(4), and the prohibition specified in Sec.  80.1660(e).
    (b) Beginning January 1, 2017, the DFE or other oxygenate used must 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  80.1610 and all of the other 
requirements of this subpart O. Prior to January 1, 2017, DFE is 
subject to the sulfur requirements of Sec.  80.385(e).

Sec.  80.1610  Standards and requirements for producers and importers 
of denatured fuel ethanol and other oxygenates designated for use in 
transportation fuel.

    Beginning January 1, 2017, producers and importers of denatured 
fuel ethanol (DFE) or other oxygenates designated for use in 
transportation fuel must comply with the following requirements:
    (a) Standards. (1) The sulfur content must not be greater than 10 
ppm.
    (2) The DFE or other oxygenate must be composed solely of carbon, 
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur.
    (3) In the case of DFE, only previously certified gasoline 
(including previously certified blendstocks for oxygenate blending), 
gasoline blendstocks, or natural gas liquids may be used as 
denaturants.
    (4) The concentration of all denaturants used in DFE is limited to 
a maximum of 3.0 volume percent.
    (b) Registration. Unless registered under Sec.  80.1450, the 
producer or importer of DFE or other oxygenate must register with EPA 
pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.1650.
    (c) PTDs. In addition to any other product transfer document 
requirements under this part, on each occasion when any person 
transfers custody or title to any oxygenate upstream of any oxygenate 
blending facility, the transferor shall provide to the transferee 
product transfer documents which include the following information:
    (1) For DFE, ``Denatured fuel ethanol, maximum 10 ppm sulfur.''; or
    (2) For oxygenates other than DFE, The name of the specific 
oxygenate must be identified on the PTD, followed by ``maximum 10 ppm 
sulfur''.
    (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.
    (4) Alternative PTD language to that specified in paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section may be used as approved by EPA.
    (d) Batch numbers. Every batch of oxygenate produced or imported at 
oxygenate production or import facility shall be assigned a number (the 
``batch number''), consisting of the EPA-assigned oxygenate producer or 
importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the 
last two digits of the year in which the batch was produced, and a 
unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for the 
first batch produced or imported each calendar year and each subsequent 
batch during the calendar year being assigned the next sequential 
number (e.g., 4321-54321-95-000001, 4321-54321-95-000002, etc.). An 
alternative batch numbering protocol may be used as approved by the 
Administrator.
    (e) Annual Reports. Submit annual reports to EPA pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1652.

Sec.  80.1611  Standards and requirements for certified ethanol 
denaturant.

    Producers and importers of ethanol denaturant that is suitable for 
the manufacture of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) meeting federal quality 
requirements may designate the denaturant as certified ethanol 
denaturant if the following requirements are met.
    (a) Standards. (1) The sulfur content must not be greater than 330 
ppm as determined in accordance with the test requirements of Sec.  
80.1630. If the denaturant manufacturer represents a batch of 
denaturant as having a sulfur content of less than 330 ppm in the PTD, 
then the actual sulfur content must be no greater than the stated value 
as determined in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  80.1644.
    (2) The ethanol denaturant must be composed solely of carbon, 
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur.
    (3) Only previously certified gasoline (including previously 
certified blendstocks for oxygenate blending), gasoline blendstocks, or 
natural gas liquids may be used as denaturants.
    (b) Registration. Unless registered under Sec.  80.76, Sec.  
80.103, or Sec.  80.1450, the producer or importer of ethanol 
denaturant must register with EPA pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  
80.1650.
    (c) PTDs. In addition to any other product transfer document 
requirements under this part 80, on each occasion when any person 
transfers custody or title to any ethanol denaturant designated as 
suitable for the production of DFE meeting federal quality requirements 
upstream of a DFE production or import facility, the transferor shall 
provide to the transferee product transfer documents which include all 
the following information.
    (1) The following statement: ``Certified Ethanol Denaturant 
suitable for use in the manufacture of denatured fuel ethanol meeting 
EPA standards.''.
    (2) If the certified ethanol denaturant manufacturer represents 
that a batch of ethanol denaturant has sulfur content less than 330 
ppm, then either the actual sulfur content of the denaturant must be 
clearly stated on the PTD, or the PTD must state the sulfur content is 
330 ppm or less.
    (3) Alternative PTD language to that specified in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section may be used as approved by EPA.
    (d) Batch numbers. Every batch of certified ethanol denaturant 
produced or imported at oxygenate production or import facility shall 
be assigned a number (the ``batch number''), consisting of the EPA-
assigned ethanol denaturant 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, 
4321-54321-95-000002, etc.).

Sec.  80.1612  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1613  Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive 
manufacturers and blenders.

    Gasoline additive manufacturers and blenders must meet the 
following requirements:
    (a) Gasoline additive manufacturers, as defined in 40 CFR 79.2(f), 
who manufacture additives with a maximum allowed treatment rate of 1.0 
volume percent or less must meet all the following requirements:
    (1) The additive must contribute no more than 3 ppm on a per gallon 
basis

[[Page 23660]]

to the sulfur content of gasoline when used at the maximum recommended 
treatment rate.
    (2) 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 to EPA upon request.
    (3) 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 be less than 1.0% by volume.
    (b) Any person who blends an additive that meets the requirements 
of paragraph (a) in this section into PCG is not subject to any 
requirement of this subpart O, except the downstream gasoline sulfur 
standard of Sec.  80.1604(b) and the prohibition in Sec.  80.1660(f), 
if all the following conditions are met:
    (1) The person blends the additive to PCG at a concentration of 
less than 1.0% by volume.
    (2) The person does not add any other blendstock or additive except 
for oxygenates meeting the requirements of Sec.  80.1610 and additives 
meeting the requirements of this section to PCG.
    (c) Any person who blends any additive that does not meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, is subject to 
all of the requirements of this subpart O, including the standards and 
requirements at Sec.  80.1640 that apply to refiners producing gasoline 
by blending blendstocks into PCG.
    (d) Oxygenates subject to the 10 ppm per-gallon sulfur standard and 
the requirements of Sec.  80.1610 are not subject to the provisions of 
this section. On any occasion where the additive blender is solely 
acting as an oxygenate blender, as defined in Sec.  80.2(mm), it is 
subject to the downstream gasoline sulfur standard of Sec.  80.1604(b) 
and the prohibition in Sec.  80.1660(e).

Sec.  80.1614  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1615  Credit generation.

    (a) Any of the following entities may generate credits under this 
subpart O:
    (1) U.S. refiners, including small refiners under Sec.  80.1620, 
and refiners owning small volume refineries under Sec.  80.1621.
    (2) Importers.
    (3) Credits may not be generated by transmix processors, producers 
or blenders of ethanol and other oxygenates, butane blenders using the 
flexibilities in Sec.  80.82, or pentane blenders using the 
flexibilities in Sec.  80.85.
    (b) Beginning with the 2014 annual averaging period, the number of 
credits generated for use in complying with the annual average 
standards of either subpart H of this part or Sec.  80.1603(a) shall be 
calculated annually for each applicable averaging period according to 
the following equation (pursuant to Sec.  80.310):

CRa = Va x (SCredit - Sa)

Where:

CRa = Credits generated for the averaging period.
Va = Total annual volume of gasoline produced at a 
refinery or imported during the averaging period.
SCredit =30.00 ppm.
Sa = Actual annual average sulfur level, calculated in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  80.205, for gasoline 
produced at a refinery or imported during the averaging period, 
exclusive of any credits. The value of Sa must be less 
than 30.00.

    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, beginning 
with the 2017 annual averaging period, the number of credits generated 
for use in complying with the annual average standards of Sec.  
80.1603(c)(1) shall be calculated annually for each applicable 
averaging period according to the following equation:

CRa = Va x (10 - Sa)

Where:

CRa = Credits generated for the averaging period for use 
in complying with the annual average standards of Sec.  80.1603(a).
Va = Total annual volume of gasoline produced at a 
refinery or imported during the averaging period.
Sa = Actual annual average sulfur level, calculated in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  80.1603(c)(1), for gasoline 
produced at a refinery or imported during the averaging period, 
exclusive of any credits. The value of Sa must be less 
than 10.00.

    (d) For approved small refiners and small volume refineries only, 
the number of credits generated from January 1, 2017 through December 
31, 2019 shall be calculated annually for each applicable averaging 
period as follows:
    (1) If a small refiner or small volume refinery has an annual 
average sulfur level (Sa) (Sa) less than 30.00 
ppm but greater than 10.00 ppm from January 1, 2017 through December 
31, 2019, the refiner may generate credits using the equation specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section for use in complying with the annual 
average standards of subpart H of this part.

    (2) If a small refiner or small volume refinery has an annual 
average sulfur level (Sa) less than 10.00 ppm from January 
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, the refiner may generate credits 
using the equation specified in paragraph (c) of this section for use 
in complying with the annual average standards of Sec.  80.1603(c)(1) 
and the following equation for complying with the annual average 
standards of subpart H of this part:

CRT2 = Va x (20.00)

Where:

CRT2 = Credits generated for the averaging period for use 
in complying with the annual average standards of subpart H of this 
part only.
Va = Total annual volume of gasoline produced at a 
refinery or imported during the averaging period.

    (For example: A small refiner with an annual average sulfur level 
of 8 ppm in 2018 may generate CRa = 2 ppm-volume credits 
(10-8) for compliance with the annual average standards of Sec.  
80.1603(c)(1) plus CRT2 = 20 ppm-volume credits (30-10) for 
compliance with the annual average sulfur standards of subpart H of 
this part.).
    (3) Beginning January 1, 2020, small refiners and small volume 
refineries must follow paragraph (c) of this section for calculating 
credits under this subpart O.
    (e) No credits shall be generated--
    (1) Under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section unless the 
value of CRa is positive.
    (2) Under paragraph (d)(2) of this section unless the value of 
CRT2 is positive.
    (f) The values of CRa and CRT2 shall be 
rounded to the nearest ppm-gallon in accordance with the rounding 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.9.
    (g) A refiner or importer that includes downstream added oxygenates 
in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively and Sec. Sec.  80.340 
and 80.1603(d), shall include the downstream added oxygenate for the 
purpose of generating credits under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section.

Sec.  80.1616  Credit use and transfer.

    (a) Credit use. (1) Only refiners and importers may generate, use, 
transfer or own credits generated under this subpart O.
    (2) CRa credits generated pursuant to subpart H of this 
part in the 2012 and 2013 averaging periods and generated pursuant to 
Sec.  80.1615 may be used by

[[Page 23661]]

refiners and importers to meet the applicable annual average sulfur 
standards of Sec.  80.1603(a)(1).
    (3) CRa credits generated under Sec.  80.1615 may be 
used to meet the requirements of either subpart H of this part or this 
subpart O, subject to the credit life restrictions in paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (5) Credits generated under Sec.  80.1615(c) may only be used to 
meet the requirements of this subpart O.
    (6) CRT2 credits generated under Sec.  80.1615(d) may 
only be used to meet the requirements of subpart H of this part.
    (b) Credit life. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, credits are valid for use for five years after the year in 
which they are generated.
    (2) Credits generated under Sec.  80.1615(b) through (d) are valid 
for use for five years after the year in which they are generated, 
except that any CRa credits generated in 2015 and 2016 and 
any remaining CRT2 credits will expire and become invalid 
after March 31, 2020, when the 2019 annual compliance report is due.
    (3) A refiner or importer possessing credits must use all credits 
prior to falling into a compliance deficit.
    (4) In no case may a credit be transferred more than twice before 
being used or terminated.
    (c) Credit transfers. (1) Credits obtained from other refiners or 
importers may be used to meet the annual average standards of this 
subpart O, if all 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 by March 31 following the 
calendar year averaging period when the credits are used.
    (iv) The credit has not been transferred between EPA registered 
companies more than twice. The first transfer by the refiner or 
importer who generated the credit (``transferor'') may only be made to 
a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit (``transferee''); 
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. Credit transfers that occur within a company are unlimited.
    (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 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 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.
    (3) CRT2 credits generated under Sec.  80.1615(d) from 
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 may only be traded to and 
ultimately used from January 1, 2017 through December 31 by small 
refiners and small volume refineries approved under Sec.  80.1622.

Sec. Sec.  80.1617-80.1619  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1620  Small refiner definition.

    (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small refiner is 
defined as any refiner who meets all the following criteria and has 
been approved by EPA as a small refiner per Sec.  80.1622:
    (1) Produces gasoline at its refineries by processing crude oil 
through refinery processing units.
    (2) Employed an average of no more than 1,500 people, based on the 
average number of employees for all pay periods for calendar year 2012 
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 2012.
    (b) For the purposes of this section, the term ``refiner'' shall 
include foreign refiners.
    (c) The number of employees and crude oil capacity under paragraph 
(a) of this section shall be determined as follows:
    (1) The refiner shall include the employees and crude oil capacity 
of any subsidiary companies, any parent company and subsidiaries of the 
parent company in which the parent has 50 percent or greater ownership, 
and any joint venture partners.
    (2) For any refiner owned by a governmental entity, the number of 
employees and total crude oil capacity as specified in paragraph (a) of 
this section shall include all employees and crude oil production of 
the government to which the governmental entity is a part.
    (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of 
this section, a refiner that acquires or reactivates a refinery that 
was shut down or non-operational during calendar year 2011, may apply 
for small refiner status under this subpart O.
    (e) The following are ineligible for small refiner provisions under 
this subpart O:
    (1) Refiners with refineries built or started up on or after 
January 1, 2012.
    (2) Persons who exceed the employee or crude oil capacity criteria 
under this section on January 1, 2012, but who meet these criteria 
after that date, regardless of whether the reduction in employees or 
crude oil capacity is due to operational changes at the refinery or a 
company sale or reorganization.
    (3) Importers.
    (4) Refiners who produce gasoline other than by processing crude 
oil through refinery processing units.
    (f)(1) A refiner approved as a small refiner under Sec.  80.1622 
who subsequently ceases production of gasoline from processing crude 
oil through refinery processing units, employs more than 1,500 people, 
or exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil capacity limit after January 1, 
2012 as a result of merger with or acquisition of or by another entity, 
is disqualified as a small refiner, except as provided for under 
paragraph (f)(4) of this section. If such disqualification occurs, the 
refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the 
disqualifying event.
    (2) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, any 
refiner whose status changes under this paragraph (f) shall meet the 
applicable standards of Sec.  80.1603 within a period of up to 30 
months from the disqualifying event for any of its

[[Page 23662]]

refineries that were previously subject to the small refiner standards 
of Sec.  80.1623.
    (3) A refiner may apply to EPA for up to an additional six months 
to comply with the standards of Sec.  80.1603 if more than 30 months 
would be required for the necessary engineering, permitting, 
construction, and start-up work to be completed. Such applications must 
include detailed technical information supporting the need for 
additional time. EPA will base a decision to approve additional time on 
information provided by the refiner and on other relevant information.
    (4) Disqualification under this paragraph (f) of this section shall 
not apply in the case of a merger between two previously approved small 
refiners.
    (5) If a refiner receives a delay per paragraphs (f)(2) and/or 
(f)(3) of this section, the refiner may not generate gasoline sulfur 
credits under this subpart O during that 30 or 36 month period.
    (6) All written notifications to EPA should be submitted to the 
address listed in Sec.  80.1622.

Sec.  80.1621  Small volume refinery definition.

    (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small volume 
refinery is defined as any refinery that meets all the following 
criteria, and has been approved by EPA as a small volume refinery per 
Sec.  80.1622:
    (1) Produces gasoline by processing crude oil through refinery 
processing units.
    (2) The average aggregate daily crude oil throughput, including 
feedstocks derived from crude oil, for the calendar year 2012 (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 O:
    (1) Refineries built or started up on or after January 1, 2013.
    (2) Persons who exceed the crude oil throughput under this section 
for calendar year 2012 but who meet these criteria after that date, 
regardless of whether the reduction in crude oil capacity is due to 
operational changes at the refinery or a company sale or 
reorganization.
    (3) Importers.
    (4) Refineries that produce gasoline other than by processing crude 
oil through refinery processing units.

Sec.  80.1622  Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery 
status.

    (a) Applications for small refiner or small volume refinery status 
under this subpart O must be submitted to EPA by January 1, 2015.
    (b) To qualify for small refiner status under this subpart a 
refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all 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, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
    (ii) The average number of employees at each location, based on the 
number of employees for each pay period for the period January 1, 2012 
through December 31, 2012.
    (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, 2012 through 
December 31, 2012. 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, 2012 through December 31, 2012, to 
the address 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, 
2012.
    (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 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, 2012 through 
December 31, 2012. 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, 2012 
through December 31, 2012, to the address 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, 
2012.
    (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and email 
address of a corporate contact person.
    (d) For foreign refiners, the small refiner or small volume 
refinery status application must contain all of the elements required 
in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as applicable, must 
demonstrate compliance with Sec.  80.1620, and must be submitted by 
June 1, 2016 to the address 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 the 
qualifying criteria as set out in Sec. Sec.  80.1620 and 80.1621 will 
be disqualified pursuant to Sec.  80.1620(f) or Sec.  80.1621(d).
    (1) In the event such disqualification occurs, the refiner shall 
notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the disqualifying 
event.
    (2) Disqualification under this paragraph (e) shall not apply in 
the case of a merger between two approved small refiners.
    (3) Any refiner that acquires a refinery from another refiner with 
approved

[[Page 23663]]

small refiner or small volume refinery status under this subpart shall 
notify EPA in writing no later than 20 days following the acquisition.
    (f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided false or inaccurate 
information in its small refiner status or small volume refinery status 
application under this subpart, the refiner's small refiner or small 
volume refinery status will be void as of the effective date of this 
subpart.
    (g) Small refiner and small volume refinery status applications, 
and any other correspondence required by this section, Sec.  80.1620, 
or Sec.  80.1621 shall be sent to the following address: U.S. EPA--
Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery Application), 
6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

Sec. Sec.  80.1623-80.1624  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1625  Hardship provisions.

    EPA may, at its discretion, grant a refiner of gasoline that 
processes crude oil through refinery processing units, for one or more 
of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the provisions 
of this subpart.
    (a) Extreme hardship circumstances. (1) EPA may, at its discretion, 
grant a refiner of gasoline that processes crude oil through refinery 
processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief 
from some or all of the provisions of this subpart. EPA may grant such 
relief provided that the refiner demonstrates all the following:
    (i) Unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship and 
significantly affect the refiner's ability to comply by the applicable 
date.
    (ii) It has made best efforts to comply with the requirements of 
this subpart.
    (2) The application must specify the factors that demonstrate a 
significant economic hardship and must provide a detailed discussion 
regarding the inability of the refinery to produce gasoline meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1603. Such an application must include, at a 
minimum, all 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 and evidence of 
efforts to pursue other means of financing.
    (ii) A detailed analysis of the reasons the refinery is unable to 
produce gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart O in 2017, 
including costs, specification of equipment still needed, potential 
equipment suppliers, and efforts already completed to obtain the 
necessary equipment.
    (iii) If unavailability of equipment is part of the reason for the 
inability to comply, a discussion of other options considered, and the 
reasons these other options are not feasible.
    (iv) If relevant, a demonstration that a needed or lower cost 
technology is immediately unavailable, but will be available in the 
near future, and full information regarding when and from what sources 
it will be available.
    (v) Schematic drawings of the refinery configuration as of January 
1, 2011, and as of the date of the hardship extension application, and 
any planned future additions or changes.
    (vi) If relevant, a demonstration that a temporary unavailability 
exists of engineering or construction resources necessary for design or 
installation of the needed equipment.
    (vii) A detailed analysis of the reasons the refinery is unable to 
use credits to meet the gasoline standards of this subpart O, including 
all avenues pursued to generate and/or procure credits, their cost, and 
ability to finance them.
    (viii) A discussion of any sulfur reductions that can be achieved 
from current levels.
    (ix) The date the refiner anticipates compliance with the standards 
in Sec.  80.1603 can be achieved at its refinery.
    (x) An analysis of the economic impact of compliance on the 
refiner's business (including financial statements from the last 5 
years, or for any time period up to 10 years, at EPA's request).
    (xi) Any other information regarding other strategies considered, 
including strategies or components of strategies that do not involve 
installation of equipment, and why meeting the standards in Sec.  
80.1603 beginning in 2017 (or 2020 for approved small refiners and 
small volume refineries) is infeasible.
    (3) Hardship applications under this paragraph (a) must be 
submitted to EPA by January 1, 2016 to the address 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 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) Applications. (1) 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.
    (2) Hardship applications under this section must be submitted in 
writing to the following address: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program 
(Hardship Application), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

Sec. Sec.  80.1626-80.1629  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1630  Sampling and testing requirements for refiners, gasoline 
importers and producers and importers of certified ethanol denaturant.

    (a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline and certified ethanol 
denaturant. (1) Refiners and importers shall collect a representative 
sample from each batch of gasoline produced or imported and test each 
sample to determine its sulfur content for compliance with requirements 
under this subpart prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import 
facility, using the sampling and testing methods provided in this 
section or Sec. Sec.  80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing).
    (2) Producers and importers of certified ethanol denaturant shall 
collect a representative sample from each batch of certified ethanol 
denaturant produced

[[Page 23664]]

or imported and test each sample to determine its sulfur content for 
compliance with requirements under this subpart prior to the certified 
ethanol denaturant leaving the certified ethanol denaturant production 
or import facility, using the sampling and testing methods provided in 
this section or Sec. Sec.  80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing).
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the 
requirements of this section apply beginning January 1, 2017 for 
gasoline refiners and importers. For producers and importers of 
certified ethanol denaturants, the requirements of this section apply 
beginning January 1, 2017, or the first date that certified ethanol 
denaturant is introduced into commerce, whichever is earlier.
    (4)(i) Beginning January 1, 2017, any refiner who produces gasoline 
using computer-controlled in-line blending equipment is exempt from the 
requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section to obtain the test 
results required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section prior to the 
gasoline leaving the refinery, provided that the refiner obtains an 
exemption from this requirement from EPA. To obtain such exemption, the 
refiner must--
    (A) Have been granted an in-line blending exemption under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4); or
    (B) If the refiner has not been granted an exemption under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4), submit to EPA all of the information required under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4)(i)(A). A letter signed by the president, chief operating 
officer or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her designee, 
stating that the information contained in the submission is true to the 
best of his/her belief must accompany any submission under this 
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B).
    (ii) Refiners who seek an exemption under paragraph (a)(4)(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)(4)(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)(4)(ii) of this section. In the absence of such notification from 
EPA, the effective date of an exemption under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of 
this section for refiners who do not hold an exemption under Sec.  
80.65(f)(4) is 60 days from EPA's receipt of the refiner's submission 
under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section.
    (iv) EPA reserves the right to modify the requirements of an 
exemption under paragraph (a)(4)(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 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, gasoline importers, and producers and importers of 
certified ethanol denaturant shall sample each batch of gasoline by 
using one of the methods specified in Sec.  80.8. Alternative methods 
for sampling batches of certified ethanol denaturant may be used as 
approved by the Administrator.
    (c) Test method for measuring sulfur content of gasoline and 
certified ethanol denaturant. (1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this 
section, refiners, gasoline importers, and producers and importers of 
certified ethanol denaturant shall use the method provided in Sec.  
80.47, as applicable, to measure the sulfur content of gasoline or 
certified ethanol denaturant they produce or import.
    (2) Sulfur content shall be reported to the nearest ppm.
    (3) Alternative methods for the measurement of the sulfur content 
of certified ethanol denaturants may be used as approved by the 
Administrator.

Sec.  80.1631  Gasoline, RBOB, and CBOB sample retention requirements.

    (a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2017, or 
January 1 of the first year credits are generated under Sec.  80.1615, 
whichever is earlier, any refiner or importer shall do all the 
following:
    (1) Collect a representative portion of each sample analyzed under 
Sec.  80.1630, of at least 330 milliliters in volume.
    (2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples 
collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day 
period, whichever is greater, not to exceed 90 days for any given 
sample.
    (3) Comply with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures 
under Sec.  80.1630 for each sample portion retained.
    (4) Comply with any request by EPA to--
    (i) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's 
authorized representative; and
    (ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within two working days 
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or 
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by 
EPA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample 
determined under Sec.  80.1630.
    (b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent 
analysis requirements. (1) Any refiner or importer who meets the 
independent analysis requirements under Sec.  80.65(f) for any batch of 
reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory 
meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the 
gasoline batch; except that the retained RBOB sample for purposes of 
this subpart O must be a sample of the RBOB prior to hand blending with 
oxygenate.
    (2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under this 
paragraph (b), the test results required to be submitted under 
paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results determined 
under Sec.  80.65(e).
    (c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer 
shall include with each annual report filed under Sec.  80.1652, the 
following statement, which must accurately reflect the facts and must 
be signed and dated by the same person who signs the annual report:
    I certify that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give me 
knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline samples, and 
I further certify that the procedures meet the requirements of the ASTM 
procedures required under 40 CFR 80.1630.
    (d) Requirements for refiners who analyze composited samples. Prior 
to January 1, 2017, for purposes of complying with the requirements of 
this section, refiners who analyze composited samples under Sec.  
80.1630 must retain portions of the composited samples. Portions of 
samples of each batch comprising the composited samples are not 
required to be retained.
    (e) Requirements for RBOB. For purposes of complying with the 
requirements of this section for RBOB, a sample of each RBOB batch 
produced must be retained.

[[Page 23665]]

Sec. Sec.  80.1632-80.1639  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1640  Standards and requirements that apply to refiners 
producing gasoline by blending blendstocks into previously certified 
gasoline (PCG).

    (a) Any refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into 
PCG, as defined at Sec.  80.2(d), must meet the requirements of Sec.  
80.1630 to sample and test every batch of gasoline as follows:
    (1) Exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with 
the sulfur standards of this subpart O.
    (2) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5) of 
this section, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur content 
of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume of and sulfur content of 
the gasoline produced at the refinery, and use the compliance 
calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section.
    (3) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the 
refiner must include the volume and sulfur content of the PCG as a 
negative volume and a positive sulfur content in the refiner's 
compliance calculations in accord with the requirements at Sec.  
80.1603.
    (4) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG 
and blendstock, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur 
content of the combined product and include each batch of combined 
product for purposes of sulfur compliance in the refinery's compliance 
calculations at Sec.  80.1603 without regard to the presence of 
previously certified gasoline in the batch.
    (5) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative 
batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to Sec.  80.1603 as a 
component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in 
which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner's 
compliance calculations.
    (6) The refiner must also comply with Sec.  80.65(i) when producing 
RBOB or RFG and Sec.  80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline 
or CBOB.
    (7) Any negative annual average sulfur value shall be reported as 
zero and not as a negative result.
    (b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of 
blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and 
sulfur content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch 
for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average sulfur 
standard and for reporting. This alternative applies only if every 
batch of blendstock used at a refinery during an averaging period has a 
sulfur content that is equal to, or less than, the applicable per-
gallon cap standard under Sec.  80.1603.
    (c) Refiners who blend only butane into PCG may meet the sampling 
and testing requirements of this subpart O for sulfur by using sulfur 
test results of the butane supplier, provided that the requirements of 
Sec.  80.82 are met.
    (d) Refiners who blend only blender grade pentane into PCG may meet 
the sampling and testing requirements of this subpart O for sulfur by 
using sulfur test results of the pentane supplier, provided that the 
requirements of Sec.  80.85 are met.

Sec.  80.1641  Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply 
to importers who transport gasoline by truck.

    Importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck may 
comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements to 
sample and test every batch of gasoline under Sec.  80.1630, and the 
annual sulfur average and per-gallon cap standards otherwise applicable 
to importers under Sec.  80.1603:
    (a) Alternative standards. The imported gasoline must comply with 
the following standards:
    (1) The annual average standard of 10 ppm and the per-gallon 
standard of 80 ppm as provided by Sec.  80.1603; or
    (2) A per-gallon standard of 10 ppm.
    (b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for sulfur 
content testing conducted by the terminal operator, for gasoline 
contained in the storage tank from which trucks used to transport 
gasoline into the United States are loaded, for purposes of 
demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph (a) of this 
section, provided all the following conditions are met:
    (1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each receipt 
of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer 
of gasoline to the importer's truck.
    (2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods 
specified in Sec. Sec.  80.8 and 80.47, respectively.
    (3) At the time of each transfer of gasoline to the importer's 
truck for import to the United States, 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 for each truck loading terminal as follows:
    (1) Quality assurance samples must be obtained from the truck-
loading terminal and tested by the importer, or by an independent 
laboratory, and the terminal operator must not know in advance when 
samples are to be collected.
    (2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods 
specified in Sec. Sec.  80.8 and 80.47, respectively.
    (3) The quality assurance test results for sulfur must differ from 
the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM reproducibility of 
the terminal's test results, as determined by the following equation:

R = 105 x ((S + 2)/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 
Sec.  80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than 
21 days after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests 
conducted.
    (e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each 
truckload of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of 
reporting under Sec.  80.1652 and assigning batch numbers and 
maintaining records under Sec.  80.1653.
    (f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and 
auditors conducting attest engagements under Sec.  80.1667, must be 
given full and immediate access to the truck-loading terminal and any 
laboratory at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are 
analyzed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records, 
collect gasoline samples, and perform audits. These inspections or 
audits may be either announced or unannounced.
    (g) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. This section does not apply to 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (h) Reporting requirements. Any importer who elects to comply with 
the alternative standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply 
with all the following requirements:
    (1) All importer recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 
Sec. Sec.  80.1652 and 80.1653, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) 
of this section.
    (2) An importer who elects to comply with the alternative standards 
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must certify in the annual report 
whether it is in compliance with the applicable

[[Page 23666]]

per-gallon batch standard set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, in lieu of providing the information required by Sec.  80.1652 
regarding annual average sulfur content and compliance with the average 
standard under Sec.  80.1603.
    (i) Effect of noncompliance. If any of the requirements of this 
section are not met, all gasoline imported by the truck importer during 
the time any requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the 
gasoline sulfur average and per-gallon cap standards in Sec.  80.1603. 
Additionally, if any requirement is not met, EPA may notify the 
importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled 
within 10 days of notification, the truck importer may not in the 
future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu 
of the provisions in Sec.  80.1630.

Sec.  80.1642  Sampling and testing requirements for producers and 
importers of denatured fuel ethanol and other oxygenates for use by 
oxygenate blenders.

    Beginning January 1, 2017, producers and importers of denatured 
fuel ethanol (DFE) and other oxygenates for use by oxygenate blenders 
must satisfy the sampling and testing requirements in this section 
prior to the addition of the oxygenate to gasoline or blendstocks for 
oxygenate blending.
    (a) Sampling requirements. Producers and importers of oxygenates 
for use by oxygenate blenders shall collect a representative sample 
from each batch of oxygenate produced or imported prior to the 
oxygenate leaving the oxygenate production or import facility, using 
the sampling methods specified in Sec.  80.8 or Sec.  80.47.
    (b) Determination of oxygenate sulfur content. Producers and 
importers of oxygenates must test each batch of oxygenate they produce 
or import to determine its sulfur content to the nearest ppm using a 
test method provided in Sec.  80.47, or, with respect to DFE may use 
the alternative means of determining the sulfur content contained in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Alternative means of determining the sulfur content of DFE. As 
an alternative to testing each batch of DFE pursuant to the 
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the sulfur content of 
batches of DFE produced using certified denaturant meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1611 may be determined as follows:
    (1) The sulfur content of the batch of DFE shall be calculated by 
volume weighting the sulfur contribution from the denaturant), and the 
neat ethanol used.
    (2) The sulfur content of the neat (un-denatured) ethanol used in 
the calculation in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may be assumed to 
be negligible or assumed to be some specific value for the purposes of 
calculating the sulfur content of the DFE batch provided that the DFE 
manufacturer or importer conducts production quality control which 
demonstrates that such an assumption is valid. Otherwise, the sulfur 
content of the neat ethanol must be determined in accordance with the 
test requirements of Sec.  80.1630.
    (3) The sulfur content of the certified denaturant(s) used in the 
calculation in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be consistent with 
the PTD(s) obtained from a registered certified ethanol denaturant 
producer(s) or importer(s) in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
80.1611. If the PTD from the certified ethanol denaturant states that 
the sulfur content is 330 ppm, then the sulfur content of the sulfur 
content of the ethanol denaturant must be assumed to be 330 ppm.
    (4) A sample of each batch of DFE must be retained pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1643.
    (5) The sulfur content of each batch of DFE shall be reported to 
the nearest ppm.

Sec.  80.1643  Sample retention requirements for oxygenate producers 
and importers.

    (a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2017, any 
producer or importer of oxygenate shall do all the following:
    (1) Retain a representative portion of each sample analyzed under 
Sec.  80.1642(b), of at least 330 milliliters in volume.
    (2) Retain a representative sample of each batch of DFE for which 
the DEF producer or importer used the alternative means of determining 
the sulfur contents of the DFE batch pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec.  80.1642(c), of at least 330 milliliters in volume.
    (3) 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.
    (4) Comply with the DFE sample handling and storage procedures 
under Sec.  80.1642 for each sample portion retained.
    (5) 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 two working days 
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or 
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by 
EPA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample 
determined under Sec.  80.1642 or the calculated sulfur content of the 
batch from which the sample was drawn determined pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1611(e).
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1644  Sampling and testing requirements for producers and 
importers of certified ethanol denaturant.

    (a) Sample and test each batch of certified ethanol denaturant. (1) 
Producers and importers of certified ethanol denaturant shall collect a 
representative sample from each batch of certified ethanol denaturant 
produced or imported and test each sample to determine its sulfur 
content for compliance with requirements under this subpart prior to 
the ethanol denaturant leaving the production or import facility, using 
the sampling and testing methods provided in this section or Sec. Sec.  
80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing).
    (2) The requirements of this section apply beginning January 1, 
2017 or on the first day that an ethanol denaturant manufacturer 
designates a batch of ethanol denaturant as compliant with the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1611, whichever is earlier.
    (b) Determination of certified ethanol denaturant sulfur content. 
Producers and importers of certified ethanol denaturant who are 
required to test each batch of certified ethanol denaturant they 
produce or import to determine its sulfur content pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1611 shall use the testing methods specified 
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Test method for measuring sulfur content of certified ethanol 
denaturant. (1) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, 
producers and importers of certified ethanol denaturant shall use the 
method provided in Sec.  80.47 to measure the sulfur content of 
certified ethanol denaturant they produce or import. Alternative test 
methods may be used as approved by the Administrator.
    (2) The sulfur content of each batch of ethanol denaturant shall be 
reported to the nearest ppm.

Sec.  80.1645  Sample retention requirements for producers and 
importers of denaturant designated as suitable for the manufacture of 
denatured fuel ethanol meeting federal quality requirements.

    Beginning January 1, 2017, or on the first day that any producer or 
importer of ethanol denaturant designates a batch of ethanol denaturant 
as suitable for the manufacture of denatured fuel ethanol

[[Page 23667]]

meeting federal quality requirements, whichever is earlier, the ethanol 
denaturant producer or importer shall do all the following:
    (a) Retain a representative portion of each sample collected under 
Sec.  80.1644, of at least 330 milliliters in volume.
    (b) 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.
    (c) Comply with the ethanol denaturant sample handling and storage 
procedures under Sec.  80.1644 for each sample portion retained.
    (d) Comply with any request by EPA to--
    (1) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's 
authorized representative; and
    (2) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within two working days 
of the date of the request, by an overnight shipping service or 
comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified by 
EPA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample 
determined under Sec.  80.1644.

Sec. Sec.  80.1646-80.1649  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1650  Registration.

    The following registration requirements apply under this subpart:
    (a) Registration. 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, 
unless already registered as a gasoline refiner or importer under Sec.  
80.76 or Sec.  80.103.
    (2) Oxygenate producer or importer having any oxygenate production 
facility or import facility subject to the oxygenate sulfur standards 
under Sec.  80.1610.
    (3) Oxygenate blender who has any oxygenate blending facility that 
blends oxygenate into gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB where the resulting 
gasoline is subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart 
O, unless already registered as an oxygenate blender under Sec.  80.76.
    (4) Producer or importer of certified.
    (b) Registration dates. (1) Any gasoline refiner or importer 
required to register shall do so by December 1, 2016, or at least 30 
days in advance of the first date that such person will produce or 
import reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB, 
whichever is earlier. If a previously unregistered refiner or importer 
intends to generate credits prior to January 1, 2017 (pursuant to Sec.  
80.1615), registration must occur at least 90 days prior to submitting 
an annual compliance report demonstrating credit generation.
    (2) Any oxygenate producer or importer required to register shall 
do so by November 1, 2016, or at least 60 days in advance of the first 
date that such person will produce or import oxygenate, whichever is 
earlier.
    (3) Any oxygenate blender required to register shall do so by 
November 1, 2016, or at least 90 days in advance of the first date that 
such person will blend oxygenate into RBOB, whichever is earlier.
    (4) Any ethanol denaturant producer or importer required to 
register shall do so by November 1, 2016, or at least 60 days in 
advance of the first date that such person will produce or import 
ethanol denaturant, whichever is earlier.
    (c) Refiner registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms and 
use procedures prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all 
the following information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the refiner.
    (ii) For each separate refinery, the facility name, physical 
location, contact name, email address, telephone number, and type of 
facility.
    (iii) For each separate refinery--
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the refinery.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number.
    (iv) For each separate refinery that produces reformulated gasoline 
and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the independent laboratory used to meet the 
independent analysis requirements of Sec.  80.65(f).
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each refiner, 
and a facility registration number for each refinery that is 
identified. These registration numbers shall be used in all reports to 
the Administrator.
    (3)(i) Any refiner 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 (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 and use procedures prescribed by the Administrator, and shall 
include all the following information:
    (i) The name, business address, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number of the importer.
    (ii) For each importer's operations in a single PADD:
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site at the registered address or 
off-site.
    (B) If records are kept off-site, the primary off-site storage 
facility name, physical location, contact name, email address, and 
telephone number.
    (C) For importers that import reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, 
the name, address, contact name and telephone number of the independent 
laboratory used to meet the independent analysis requirements of Sec.  
80.65(f).
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each importer. 
This registration number shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (3)(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 and use procedures 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.
    (iv) The type and chemical composition of the oxygenate.
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each oxygenate 
producer, and a facility registration number for each oxygenate 
production facility that is identified. These registration numbers or 
those provided under Sec.  80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (3) Any oxygenate producer shall submit updated registration 
information to the Administrator within thirty days

[[Page 23668]]

of any occasion when the registration information previously supplied 
becomes incomplete or inaccurate.
    (f) Oxygenate importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on 
forms and use procedures 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.
    (iii) The type and chemical composition of the oxygenate.
    (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 and use procedures 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.
    (iv) The type and chemical composition of the oxygenate.
    (2) EPA will supply a company registration number to each oxygenate 
blender, and a facility registration number for each oxygenate blending 
facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those 
provided under Sec.  80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the 
Administrator.
    (3) 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.
    (h) Certified ethanol denaturant producer registration. (1) 
Registration shall be on forms and use procedures 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 ethanol denaturant producer.
    (ii) For each separate ethanol denaturant production facility, the 
facility name, physical location, contact name, telephone number, and 
type of facility.
    (iii) For each separate ethanol denaturant production facility--
    (A) Whether records are kept on-site or off-site of the ethanol 
denaturant production facility.
    (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 ethanol 
denaturant producer, and a facility registration number for each 
ethanol denaturant production facility that is identified. These 
registration numbers or those provided under Sec.  80.1450 shall be 
used in all reports to the Administrator.
    (3) Any ethanol denaturant 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.
    (i) Ethanol denaturant importer registration. (1) Registration 
shall be on forms and use procedures 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.

Sec.  80.1651  Product transfer document requirements.

    (a) Gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, and oxygenates. In addition to any other 
product transfer document requirements under this part 80, 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) Gasoline for export or with an exemption and California 
gasoline. In addition to any other product transfer document 
requirements under this part 80, on each occasion when any person 
transfers custody or title to any gasoline for export or with an 
exemption under Sec. Sec.  80.1654, 80.1655, 80.1656, or 80.1658, any 
of the following statements must be included on the product transfer 
document:
    (1) For gasoline with a national security exemption under Sec.  
80.1655, ``This gasoline is for use in vehicles, engines, or equipment 
under an EPA-approved national security exemption only.''
    (2) For gasoline with a research, development, or testing exemption 
under Sec.  80.1656, ``This gasoline is for research, development, or 
testing purposes only.''
    (3) For gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under Sec.  80.1658, 
``This is gasoline for use only in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Northern Mariana Islands.''
    (4) For gasoline for export purposes, ``This gasoline is for export 
only.''
    (5) For gasoline for racing purposes, ``This gasoline is for racing 
purposes only.''
    (6) For California gasoline, pursuant to Sec.  80.1654, 
``California gasoline''.
    (c) Gasoline additive. 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 the gasoline additive 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.
    (d) Ethanol denaturant. On each occasion when any person transfers 
custody or title to any ethanol denaturant designated as suitable for 
use in the manufacture of denatured fuel ethanol meeting federal 
quality requirements pursuant to Sec.  80.1611, the transferor shall 
provide to the transferee documents which include all the following 
information:
    (1) The name and address of the transferor.

[[Page 23669]]

    (2) The name and address of the transferee.
    (3) The volume of ethanol denaturant which is being transferred.
    (4) The location of the ethanol denaturant at the time of the 
transfer.
    (5) The date of the transfer.
    (6) A statement identifying the batch as ``Ethanol denaturant 
suitable for the manufacture of denatured fuel ethanol meeting federal 
quality requirements'', or anther identifying statement as approved by 
EPA consistent with the requirements of Sec.  80.1611.
    (7) Information on the sulfur content of the ethanol denaturant, as 
applicable, pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.1611.
    (e) Oxygenate. On each occasion when any person transfers custody 
or title to any oxygenate, 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 oxygenate which is being transferred.
    (4) The location of the oxygenate at the time of the transfer.
    (5) The date of the transfer.
    (6) For denatured fuel ethanol, a statement identifying the batch 
as ``Denatured fuel ethanol, maximum 10 ppm sulfur''.
    (7) For oxygenates other than DFE, the name of the specific 
oxygenate must be identified on the PTD, followed by ``maximum 10 ppm 
sulfur''.
    (8) Alternative PTD language to that specified in paragraphs (e)(6) 
and (7) of this section may be used as approved by EPA consistent with 
the requirements of Sec.  80.1610.

Sec.  80.1652  Reporting requirements for gasoline refiners, gasoline 
importers, oxygenate producers, and oxygenate importers.

    Beginning with the 2017 averaging period or the first year credits 
are generated under Sec.  80.1615 (whichever is earlier), and 
continuing for each averaging period thereafter, any gasoline refiner 
or importer shall submit to EPA annual reports that contain the 
information required in this section, and any other information as EPA 
may require. Beginning with the 2017 calendar year and continuing each 
calendar year thereafter, 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. Reporting 
shall be on forms and use procedures prescribed by the Administrator.
    (a) Gasoline refiner and importer annual reports. Any refiner, for 
each of its refineries, and any importer for the gasoline it imports, 
shall submit a report for each calendar year averaging period that 
includes all the following information:
    (1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration 
numbers.
    (2) The average standard under Sec.  80.1603, reported to two 
decimal places.
    (3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported, reported to 
the nearest whole number.
    (4) The annual average sulfur level of the gasoline produced or 
imported, reported to two decimal places.
    (5) The annual average sulfur level after inclusion of any credits, 
reported to two decimal places.
    (6) Separately provided information for credits, and separately by 
year of creation, as follows:
    (i) The number of credits at the beginning of the averaging period, 
reported to the nearest whole number.
    (ii) The number of credits generated, reported to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iii) The number of credits used, reported to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iv) If any credits were obtained from or transferred to other 
parties; and for each other party, its name and EPA refiner or importer 
registration number, and the number of credits obtained from or 
transferred to the other party.
    (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging 
period, reported to the nearest whole number.
    (vi) The number of credits that will carry over into the subsequent 
averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number.
    (7) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the 
averaging period, all the following:
    (i) The batch number assigned under Sec.  80.65(d)(3); except that 
if composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple 
batches produced subsequent to December 31, 2003, are tested under 
Sec.  80.101(i)(2) for anti-dumping compliance purposes, for purposes 
of this subpart a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch 
using the batch numbering procedures under Sec.  80.65(d)(3).
    (ii) The date the batch was produced.
    (iii) The volume of the batch, reported to the nearest whole 
number.
    (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, reported to two decimal 
places, along with identification of the test method used to determine 
the sulfur content of the batch, as determined under Sec.  80.1630.
    (8) All values measured or calculated pursuant to the requirements 
of this paragraph (a) shall be in accordance with the rounding 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.9.
    (9) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) from January 
1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, any importer shall exclude Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (b) Additional reporting requirements for gasoline importers. From 
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, importers shall report all 
the following information for Sulfur-FRGAS imported during an annual 
averaging period:
    (1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each 
foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was 
produced.
    (2) The total gallons of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS and Non-Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery, reported 
to one decimal place.
    (c) Oxygenate refiner and importer annual reports. Any oxygenate 
producer, for each of its production facilities, and any importer for 
the oxygenate it imports, shall submit a report for each calendar year 
period that includes all the following information:
    (1) The EPA oxygenate importer, or producer and producer facility 
registration numbers.
    (2) The total volume of oxygenate produced or imported, reported to 
the nearest whole number.
    (3) For each batch of oxygenate produced or imported during the 
calendar year, all the following:
    (i) The batch number assigned under Sec.  80.1610(d).
    (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.
    (v) For oxygenates other than denatured fuel ethanol, the 
identification of the test method used to determine the sulfur content 
of the batch pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.1642(c).
    (vi) For denatured fuel ethanol, either the identification of the 
test method used to determine the sulfur content of the batch (pursuant 
to Sec.  80.1642), or the information used to calculate the sulfur 
content pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  80.1642(c).
    (4) All values measured or calculated pursuant to the requirements 
of this paragraph (c) shall be in accordance with the rounding 
procedure specified in Sec.  80.9.
    (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

[[Page 23670]]

subpart by the owner or a responsible corporate officer of the refiner, 
gasoline importer, oxygenate producer, oxygenate importer, denaturant 
producer, or denaturant importer; and
    (2) Submitted to EPA no later than the March 31 each year for the 
prior calendar year.
    (e) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest 
engagements required under Sec.  80.1667 shall be submitted to the 
Administrator by June 1 of each year for the prior calendar year.

Sec.  80.1653  Recordkeeping.

    Unless otherwise provided for in this section, the records required 
by this section shall be retained for a period of five years from the 
date of creation, and shall be delivered to the Administrator of EPA or 
to the Administrator's authorized representative upon request.
    (a) Records that must be kept by gasoline refiners, importers, and 
parties in the gasoline distribution system. 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 containing the information as 
required in this section.
    (1) The product transfer document information required under Sec.  
80.1651.
    (2) All the following information for any sampling and testing for 
sulfur content required under this subpart O:
    (i) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck 
identification for each sample collected.
    (ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and 
the person who performed the test.
    (iii) The results of the test as originally printed by the testing 
apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as 
originally recorded by the person who performed the test.
    (iv) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is 
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of 
this section.
    (v) The test methodology used.
    (b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep. 
Beginning January 1, 2014, or January 1 of the first year credits are 
generated under Sec.  80.1615, whichever is earlier, any refiner for 
each of its refineries and any importer for the gasoline it imports, 
shall keep records that include all the following information:
    (1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported--
    (i) The batch volume.
    (ii) The batch number assigned under Sec.  80.65(d)(3) and the 
appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section; 
except that for composite samples of conventional gasoline representing 
multiple batches, that are tested under Sec.  80.101(i)(2) for purposes 
of this subpart, a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch 
using the batch numbering procedures under Sec.  80.65(d)(3).
    (iii) The date of production or importation.
    (iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as California 
gasoline under Sec.  80.1654, exempt gasoline for national security 
purposes under Sec.  80.1655, exempt gasoline for research and 
development under Sec.  80.1656, or for export outside the United 
States.
    (v) The test methodology used.
    (2) Information regarding credits, separately kept according to the 
year of creation; and for credit generation or use starting in 2014. 
The following information shall be kept separately for each type of 
credit generated under Sec.  80.1615:
    (i) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's possession 
at the beginning of the averaging period.
    (ii) The number of credits generated.
    (iii) The number of credits used.
    (iv) If any credits were obtained from or transferred to other 
parties, all the following for each other party:
    (A) The party's name.
    (B) The party's EPA refiner or importer registration number.
    (C) The number of credits obtained from, or transferred to, the 
party.
    (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging 
period.
    (vi) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's 
possession that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period.
    (vii) Contracts or other commercial documents that establish each 
transfer of credits from the transferor to the transferee.
    (3) The calculations used to determine compliance with the 
applicable sulfur average standards of Sec.  80.1603 or Sec.  80.1604.
    (4) The calculations used to determine the number of credits 
generated under Sec.  80.1615.
    (5) A copy of all reports submitted to EPA under Sec.  80.1652.
    (6) In the case of parties who process transmix, records of any 
sampling and testing required under Sec.  80.1607.
    (c) Additional records gasoline importers must keep. Any importer 
shall keep records that identify and verify the source of each batch of 
certified Sulfur-FRGAS and non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS imported and 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements for importers under Sec.  
80.1666.
    (d) Records that producers and importers of denatured fuel ethanol 
and other oxygenates must keep. Beginning January 1, 2017 or the first 
date when DFE is introduced into commerce that is represented on the 
product transfer document as meeting the standards in Sec.  80.1610 
(whichever is earlier), records of all the following must be kept for 
each batch of oxygenate produced or imported by oxygenate producers and 
importers:
    (1) The date the batch was produced.
    (2) The batch number.
    (3) The batch volume.
    (4) The product transfer document for the batch.
    (5) The sulfur content of the batch as determined pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1642.
    (6) The following records shall be kept if the sulfur content of 
the batch was determined by analytical testing:
    (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 (d)(5)(iii) of 
this section.
    (v) The test methodology used.
    (7) For denatured fuel ethanol, the following records shall be kept 
if the sulfur content of the batch was determined by the alternative 
means of demonstrating compliance with the sulfur requirements pursuant 
to the requirements of Sec.  80.1642(c):
    (i) The name and title of the person who calculated the sulfur 
content of the batch.
    (ii) The date the calculation was performed.
    (iii) The calculated sulfur content.
    (iv) The sulfur content of the neat (un-denatured) ethanol.
    (v) The date each batch of neat ethanol was produced.
    (vi) The neat ethanol batch number.
    (vii) The neat ethanol batch volume.
    (viii) As applicable, the neat ethanol production quality control 
records, or the test results on the neat ethanol including--
    (A) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck 
identification for each sample collected.

[[Page 23671]]

    (B) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and 
the person who performed the test.
    (C) 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.
    (D) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is 
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (d)(7)(v) of this 
section.
    (E) The test methodology used.
    (v) The sulfur content of the denaturant(s) used, and the volume 
percent at which the denaturant(s) were added to neat (un-denatured) 
ethanol to produce denatured fuel ethanol.
    (vi) The product transfer documents for the denaturants used.
    (e) Records that parties who take custody of oxygenates in the 
oxygenate distribution system must keep. Beginning January 1, 2017 or 
the first date when a party takes custody of oxygenate that is 
represented on the product transfer document as meeting the standards 
in Sec.  80.1610 (whichever is earlier), 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) Records that must be kept by producers and importers of ethanol 
denaturant designated as suitable for use in the manufacturer of 
denatured fuel ethanol meeting federal quality requirements. Beginning 
January 1, 2017 or the first date when a producer or importer of 
ethanol denaturant designated as suitable for use in the manufacturer 
of denatured fuel ethanol meeting federal quality requirements pursuant 
to the requirements of Sec.  80.1611 introduces such denaturant into 
commerce, records of all the following must be kept for each batch of 
such denaturant produced or imported:
    (1) The date each batch was produced.
    (2) The batch number.
    (3) The batch volume.
    (4) The product transfer document for the batch.
    (5) The sulfur content of the batch.
    (6) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck 
identification for each sample collected.
    (7) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and 
the person who performed the test.
    (8) 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.
    (9) Any record that contains a test result for the sample that is 
not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (f)(5) of this 
section.
    (10) The test methodology used.
    (g) Records that parties who take custody of ethanol denaturants 
designated as suitable for use in the manufacturer of denatured fuel 
ethanol meeting federal quality requirements. Beginning January 1, 
2017, all parties that take custody of denaturants designated as 
suitable for use in the manufacture of DFE pursuant to Sec.  80.1611 
must keep the following records:
    (1) The product transfer document for the denaturant.
    (2) As applicable, the volume percent at which the denaturant was 
added to neat ethanol.
    (h) Records that producers and importers of gasoline additives as 
defined in 40 CFR 79.2(f) must keep. Beginning January 1, 2017 
producers and importers of gasoline additives must keep the following 
records:
    (1) The date the batch was produced.
    (2) The volume of the batch.
    (3) The product transfer document for the batch.
    (4) The maximum recommended treatment rate.
    (5) Records of the additive manufacturer's control practices which 
demonstrate that the additive will 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.
    (i) Records that parties who take custody of gasoline additives in 
the gasoline additive distribution system must keep. Beginning January 
1, 2017, all parties that take custody of gasoline additives for bulk 
addition to gasoline from the producer through to the party that adds 
the additive to gasoline must keep the following records; these 
requirements of do not apply for gasoline additives packaged for 
addition to gasoline in the vehicle fuel tank:
    (1) The product transfer document for each batch of gasoline 
additive.
    (2) As applicable, the treatment at which the additive was added to 
gasoline.
    (3) As applicable, the volume of gasoline that was treated with the 
additive. A new record shall be initiated in cases where a new batch of 
additives is mixed into a storage tank from which the additive is drawn 
to be injected into gasoline.
    (j) Records regarding credits. 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) Credits generated prior to January 1, 2017. (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) When credits generated prior to January 1, 2017 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.
    (k) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA, the records 
required in this section shall be provided to the Administrator's 
authorized representative. For records that are electronically 
generated or maintained, the equipment and software necessary to read 
the records shall be made available; or, if requested by EPA, 
electronic records shall be converted to paper documents which shall be 
provided to the Administrator's authorized representative.

Sec.  80.1654  California gasoline requirements.

    (a) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that 
complies with all the requirements of this section is exempt from all 
other provisions of this subpart O.
    (b) Requirements for California gasoline. (1) Each batch of 
California gasoline must be designated as such by its refiner or 
importer.
    (2) Designated California gasoline must be kept segregated from 
gasoline that is not California gasoline, at all points in the 
distribution system.
    (3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the 
State of California and not used elsewhere.
    (4) For California gasoline produced outside the State of 
California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product 
transfer document requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
    (5)(i) Any refiner that operates a refinery located outside the 
State of California at which California gasoline (as defined in Sec.  
80.1600) is produced must provide to any person to whom custody or 
title of such gasoline has transferred, and each transferee must 
provide to any subsequent transferee,

[[Page 23672]]

documents which include all the following information:
    (A) The name and address of the transferor.
    (B) The name and address of the transferee.
    (C) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred.
    (D) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer.
    (E) The date and time of the transfer.
    (F) The identification of the gasoline as California gasoline.
    (ii) Each refiner and transferee of California gasoline must 
maintain copies of the product transfer documents required to be 
provided by paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section for a period of five 
years from the date of creation and shall deliver such documents to the 
Administrator or to the Administrator's authorized representative upon 
request.
    (6) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any part of the United 
States outside of the State of California must comply with the 
standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any 
designation as California gasoline.
    (c) Use of California test methods and offsite sampling procedures. 
In the case of any gasoline that is not California gasoline and that is 
either produced at a refinery located in the State of California or is 
imported from outside the United States into the State of California, 
the refiner or importer may, with regard to such gasoline--
    (1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of 
the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing 
methods required under Sec.  80.1630; and
    (2) Determine the sulfur content of gasoline at offsite tankage 
(which would otherwise be prohibited under Sec.  80.65(e)(1)). Note 
that the requirements of Sec.  80.65(e)(1), regarding when the 
properties of a batch of reformulated gasoline must be determined, 
specify that the properties of a batch of gasoline be determined prior 
to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility; however, under 
this section, a refiner of California gasoline may determine the 
properties of gasoline as specified under Sec.  80.65(e)(1) at offsite 
tankage provided that--
    (i) 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
    (ii) The refiner provides a copy of the protocol agreement to EPA 
upon request.

Sec.  80.1655  National security exemption.

    (a) The standards of Sec.  80.1603 do not apply to gasoline that is 
produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for 
supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in any of the 
following:
    (1) Tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment having an EPA 
national security exemption from the gasoline emission standards under 
40 CFR part 86.
    (2) Tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not 
subject to a national security exemption from vehicle or engine 
emissions standards as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section 
but, for national security purposes (for purposes of readiness for 
deployment overseas), need to be fueled on the same gasoline as the 
vehicles, engines, or equipment for which EPA has granted such a 
national security exemption.
    (b) The exempt fuel must meet all the following conditions:
    (1) It must be accompanied by product transfer documents as 
required under Sec.  80.1651.
    (2) It must be segregated from non-exempt gasoline at all points in 
the distribution system.
    (3) It must be dispensed from a fuel pump stand, fueling truck, or 
tank that is labeled with the appropriate designation of the fuel.
    (4) It may not be used in any vehicles, engines, or equipment other 
than those referred to in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Any national security exemptions approved under subpart H of 
this part will remain in place under this subpart O.

Sec.  80.1656  Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, 
or testing purposes.

    (a) Written request for a research and development exemption. Any 
person may receive an exemption from the provisions of this subpart for 
gasoline used for research, development, or testing (``R&D'') purposes 
by submitting the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section 
to EPA. Applications for R&D exemptions must be submitted to the 
address 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 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 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 the following, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the 
scope of the program:
    (i) An estimate of the program's beginning and ending dates.
    (ii) An estimate of the maximum number of vehicles or engines 
involved in the program and the number of miles and engine hours that 
will be accumulated on each.
    (iii) The sulfur content of the gasoline expected to be used in the 
program.
    (iv) The quantity of gasoline which does not comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  80.1603.
    (v) The manner in which the information on vehicles and engines 
used in the program will be recorded and made available to the 
Administrator upon request.
    (4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the program 
affords EPA a monitoring capability, including all the following:
    (i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the 
program.
    (ii) The site(s) of the program (including facility name, street 
address, city, county, state, and zip code).
    (iii) The manner in which information on the fuel used in the 
program (including quantity, fuel properties, name, address, telephone 
number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from 
the supplier), will be recorded and made available to the Administrator 
upon request.
    (iv) The manner in which the party will ensure that the research 
and development fuel will be segregated from gasoline meeting the 
standards of this subpart and how fuel pumps will be labeled to ensure 
proper use of the research and development fuel.

[[Page 23673]]

    (v) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the person(s) 
in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further 
information on the application may be obtained.
    (vi) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the 
person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is 
responsible for recording and making available the information 
specified in this paragraph (c), and the location where such 
information will be maintained.
    (d) Additional requirements. (1) The product transfer documents 
associated with research and development gasoline must comply with 
requirements of Sec.  80.1651(c).
    (2) The research and development gasoline must be designated by the 
refiner or supplier, as applicable, as exempt research and development 
gasoline.
    (3) The research and development gasoline must be kept segregated 
from non-exempt gasoline at all points in the distribution system.
    (4) The research and development gasoline must not be sold, 
distributed, offered for sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied, 
offered for supply, transported to or from, or stored by a fuel retail 
outlet, or by a wholesale purchaser-consumer facility, unless the 
wholesale purchaser-consumer facility is associated with the research 
and development program that uses the gasoline.
    (5) At the completion of the program, any emission control systems 
or elements of design which are damaged or rendered inoperative shall 
be replaced on vehicles remaining in service, or the responsible person 
will be liable for a violation of the Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) 
(42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)) unless sufficient evidence is supplied that the 
emission controls or elements of design were not damaged.
    (e) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D 
exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section 
have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a 
memorandum of exemption signed by the applicant and the Administrator 
(or delegate), which may include such terms and conditions as the 
Administrator determines necessary to monitor the exemption and to 
carry out the purposes of this section, including restoration of 
emission control systems.
    (1) The volume of fuel subject to the approval shall not exceed the 
estimated amount under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, unless EPA 
grants a greater amount in writing.
    (2) Any exemption granted under this section will expire at the 
completion of the test program or three years from the date of 
approval, whichever occurs first, and may only be extended upon re-
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 the following address: U.S. EPA--Attn: Tier 3 Program 
(R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

Sec.  80.1657  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1658  Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, 
Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

    The gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O do not apply to 
gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, 
offered for supply, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in the 
Territories of Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, provided that such gasoline meets all the following 
requirements:
    (a) The gasoline is designated by the refiner or importer as high 
sulfur gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    (b) The gasoline is used only in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    (c) The gasoline is accompanied by documentation that complies with 
the product transfer document requirements of Sec.  80.1651(c)(3).
    (d) The gasoline is segregated from non-exempt high sulfur gasoline 
at all points in the distribution system from the point the fuel is 
designated as gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, while the fuel is in the 
United States but outside these Territories.

Sec.  80.1659  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1660  Prohibited acts.

    No person shall--
    (a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline that does not 
comply with the applicable sulfur average standard under Sec.  80.1603.
    (b) Cap standard violation. Produce, import, sell, offer for sale, 
dispense, supply, offer for supply, store or transport gasoline, 
oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant that does not comply with the 
applicable sulfur cap standards under Sec.  80.1603, Sec.  80.1604, 
Sec.  80.1610, or Sec.  80.1611.
    (c) Causing violating gasoline, oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant to 
be in the distribution system. Cause gasoline, oxygenate, or ethanol 
denaturant to be in the distribution system which does not comply with 
an applicable sulfur cap standard under Sec.  80.1603, Sec.  80.1604, 
Sec.  80.1610, or Sec.  80.1611.
    (d) Oxygenate violation. Starting March 1, 2017, blend into 
gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB any oxygenate, including but not limited to 
denatured fuel ethanol, that has a sulfur content higher than 10 ppm.
    (e) Additive blender violation. Unless acting in the capacity of a 
gasoline refiner or importer under Sec.  80.1613, introduce an additive 
other than an oxygenate compound into gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB which 
contributes more than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished 
gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB.
    (f) Additive manufacturer violation. Introduce an additive with a 
maximum allowed treatment rate of less than 1.0 volume percent into 
gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB which contributes more than 3 ppm to the sulfur 
content of the finished gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB, or introduce more than 
1.0 volume percent of any

[[Page 23674]]

additive other than an oxygenate into gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB without 
complying with all the requirements of this subpart O, including the 
standards and requirements at Sec.  80.1640 that apply to refiners 
producing gasoline by blending blendstocks into PCG.
    (g) Denaturant violation. Cause or contribute to the introduction 
into commerce of an ethanol denaturant designated as suitable for the 
production manufacture of denatured fuel ethanol meeting federal 
quality requirements which does not comply with the requirements of 
Sec.  80.1611.
    (h) Credit violation. Generate, transfer, or use invalid credits or 
improperly transfer or use credits.
    (i) Export violation. Distribute or dispense gasoline intended for 
export (pursuant to Sec.  80.1603(b)(3)) for use in the United States.
    (j) Failure to meet a requirement. Fail to meet a requirement that 
applies to that person under this subpart.

Sec.  80.1661  What evidence may be used to determine compliance with 
the prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for 
violations of this subpart?

    (a) Compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O shall be 
determined based on the sulfur level, measured or otherwise determined 
as applicable using the methodologies specified in Sec. Sec.  80.47, 
80.1611, 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, ethanol denaturant, or oxygenate 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 or other sulfur determination methodology as 
applicable had been correctly performed. Such evidence may be obtained 
from any source or location and may include, but is not limited to, 
test results using methods other than those specified in Sec. Sec.  
80.47 and 80.1630, business records, and commercial documents.
    (b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this 
subpart other than the sulfur standards, and determinations of 
liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on 
information obtained from any source or location. Such information may 
include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial 
documents.

Sec.  80.1662  Liability for violations.

    The following persons are liable for violations under this subpart:
    (a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts. (1) Averaging 
violation. Any refiner or importer who violates Sec.  80.1660(a) is 
liable for the violation.
    (2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner, importer, 
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, 
oxygenate blender, ethanol denaturant producer, or ethanol denaturant 
importer who causes another party to violate Sec.  80.1660(a), is 
liable for a violation of Sec.  80.1660(c).
    (3) Cap standard violation. Any refiner, gasoline importer, 
distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, 
oxygenate producer, oxygenate importer, oxygenate blender, ethanol 
denaturant producer, ethanol denaturant importer, additive 
manufacturer, or additive blender who owned, leased, operated, 
controlled or supervised a facility where a violation of Sec.  
80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of Sec.  80.1660(b).
    (4) Causing a cap standard violation. Any refiner, gasoline 
importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale 
purchaser-consumer, oxygenate producer, oxygenate importer, oxygenate 
blender, ethanol denaturant producer, ethanol denaturant importer, 
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, oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant that violates Sec.  
80.1660(b), is deemed in violation of Sec.  80.1660(c).
    (5) Branded refiner/importer liability. Any refiner or importer 
whose corporate, trade, or brand name, or whose marketing subsidiary's 
corporate, trade, or brand name appeared at a facility where a 
violation of Sec.  80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of Sec.  
80.1660(b).
    (6) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution system. 
Any refiner, gasoline importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, 
oxygenate producer, oxygenate importer, oxygenate blender, ethanol 
denaturant producer, ethanol denaturant importer, additive 
manufacturer, or additive blender who owned, leased, operated, 
controlled or supervised a facility from which gasoline, oxygenate, or 
ethanol denaturant was released into the distribution system which does 
not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard or a sulfur averaging 
standard is deemed in violation of Sec.  80.1660(d).
    (7) Carrier causation. In order for a carrier to be liable under 
paragraph (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, EPA must 
demonstrate, by reasonably specific showing by direct or circumstantial 
evidence, that the carrier caused the violation.
    (8) Oxygenate blender violation. Any oxygenate blender who violates 
Sec.  80.1660(e) is liable for the violation.
    (9) Additive manufacturer violation. Any additive manufacturer who 
violates Sec.  80.1660(g) is deemed liable for the violation.
    (10) Additive blender violation. Any additive blender who violates 
Sec.  80.1660(f) is deemed liable for the violation.
    (11) Credit violation. Any refiner or importer who violates Sec.  
80.1660(h) is liable for the violation.
    (12) Parent corporation liability. Any parent corporation is liable 
for any violations of this subpart that are committed by any of its 
wholly-owned subsidiaries.
    (13) Joint venture and joint owner liability. Each partner to a 
joint venture, or each owner of a facility owned by two or more owners, 
is jointly and severally liable for any violation of this subpart that 
occurs at the joint venture facility or facility owned by the joint 
owners, or is committed by the joint venture operation or any of the 
joint owners of the facility.
    (b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this 
subpart. Any person who--
    (1) Fails to comply with a provision of this subpart not addressed 
in paragraph (a) of this section is liable for a violation of that 
provision.
    (2) Causes another person to fail to meet a requirement of this 
subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section is liable for 
causing a violation of that provision.

Sec.  80.1663  Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act.

    (a) Any person deemed liable for a violation of a prohibition under 
Sec.  80.1662(a)(3) through (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,

[[Page 23675]]

provided that the quality assurance program is carried out properly. 
Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers are not required to conduct 
sampling and testing of gasoline as part of their quality assurance 
programs.
    (b) In the case of a violation found at a facility operating under 
the corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner or importer, or a 
refiner's or importer's marketing subsidiary, the refiner or importer 
must show, in addition to the defense elements required under 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (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, gasoline 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, oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant 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 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.

Sec.  80.1664  [Reserved]

Sec.  80.1665  Penalties.

    (a) Any person liable for a violation under Sec.  80.1662 is 
subject to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air 
Act (42 U.S.C. 7524) for every day of each such violation and the 
amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation.
    (b) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(1) or (a)(2) for a 
violation of the applicable sulfur averaging standard or causing 
another party to violate that standard during any averaging period, is 
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the 
averaging period. Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(11) or (b) 
for a failure to fulfill any requirement for credit generation, 
transfer, use, banking, or deficit correction, is subject to a separate 
day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period in 
which invalid credits are generated or used.
    (c)(1) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(3) through (10) for 
a violation of an applicable sulfur per gallon cap standard under this 
subpart O or of causing another party to violate a cap standard, is 
subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day the non-
complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution 
system.
    (2) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(a)(6) for causing 
gasoline, oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant 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, oxygenate, or 
ethanol denaturant remains any place in the gasoline, oxygenate, or 
ethanol denaturant distribution system.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph (c), the length of time the 
gasoline, oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant in question remained in the 
gasoline, oxygenate, or ethanol denaturant 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, oxygenate, or 
ethanol denaturant remained in the gasoline, oxygenate, or ethanol 
denaturant distribution system for fewer than or more than twenty-five 
days.
    (d) Any person liable under Sec.  80.1662(b) for failure to meet, 
or causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for 
a separate day of violation for each and every day such provision 
remains unfulfilled.

Sec.  80.1666  Additional requirements for foreign small refiners and 
foreign small volume refineries.

    The provisions of this section apply to certain foreign refiners 
and importers during the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 
2019. After December 31, 2019, foreign refiners are not subject to 
compliance requirements under subpart H of this part, or this subpart 
O; instead, the importer of any foreign-produced gasoline shall be 
responsible for compliance with the standards and requirements of this 
subpart O that relate to importers.
    (a) Definitions. (1) Foreign small refiner is a foreign refiner 
that meets the definition of a small refiner under Sec.  80.1620.
    (2) Foreign small volume refinery is a foreign refinery that meets 
the definition of a small volume refinery under Sec.  80.1621.
    (3) Sulfur-FRGAS, for this subpart, means gasoline produced from 
January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, at a foreign refinery of a 
refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or a small volume 
refinery under Sec.  80.1622, and that is imported into the United 
States.
    (4) Non-Sulfur-FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign 
refinery that has not been approved as a small refiner refinery or 
small volume refinery under Sec.  80.1622, gasoline produced at a 
foreign refinery of an approved small

[[Page 23676]]

refiner or at an approved small volume refinery under Sec.  80.1622 
that is not imported into the United States, and gasoline produced at a 
foreign refinery that is approved during a year when the foreign 
refiner has opted to not participate in the Sulfur-FRGAS program under 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (5) Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means Sulfur-FRGAS the foreign refiner 
intends to include in the foreign refinery's sulfur compliance 
calculations under Sec. Sec.  80.195 and 80.205 and does include in 
these compliance calculations when reported to EPA.
    (6) Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS means Sulfur-FRGAS that is not 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (b) Petition for approval of small refiner or small volume refinery 
status. To be approved for small refiner status or small volume 
refinery status a foreign refiner must submit a petition for approval 
as provided under Sec.  80.1622 and this section. If small refiner 
status or small volume refinery status is approved, the foreign refiner 
may produce gasoline for export to the United States, during the period 
starting January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2019, that is subject 
to the sulfur content standards of subpart H of this part at Sec.  
80.195 that were applicable to refiners from 2006 through 2016. A 
foreign refiner is not eligible to generate sulfur credits under 
subpart H of this part or this subpart O, as this occurs through the 
importer.
    (c) General requirements for foreign refiners approved as small 
refiners or small volume refinery status. A foreign refiner of a 
refinery that has been approved as a small refiner refinery or a small 
volume refinery must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign 
refinery that is exported to the United States as either Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, except as provided in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (1) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the foreign refiner must 
meet the sulfur standards of subpart H of this part as described in 
paragraph (b) of this section and the requirements of this section.
    (2) In the case of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the foreign refiner 
shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner 
shall substitute the name Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS for the names 
``reformulated gasoline'' or ``RBOB'' wherever they appear in the 
following provisions:
    (i) The designation requirements in this section.
    (ii) The recordkeeping requirements under Sec.  80.1653.
    (iii) The reporting requirements in Sec.  80.1652 and this section.
    (iv) The product transfer document requirements in Sec.  80.1651 
and this section.
    (v) The prohibitions in Sec.  80.1660 and this section.
    (vi) The independent audit requirements under Sec.  80.415 and 
paragraph (h) of this section; and the attest engagement provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  80.125 through 80.127, 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 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 shall take effect 
at the beginning of the next calendar year.
    (d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner 
certification. (1) Any approved foreign small refiner or any foreign 
refiner having an approved small volume refinery under this subpart O 
must designate each batch of Sulfur-FRGAS as such at the time the 
gasoline is produced, unless the refinery has elected to classify no 
gasoline exported to the United States as Sulfur-FRGAS under paragraph 
(c)(3)(i) of this section.
    (2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody or title to 
any Sulfur-FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States, it 
must include all the following information as part of the product 
transfer document information in this section:
    (i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery 
where the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced.
    (3) On each occasion when Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or 
other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the 
foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the 
Sulfur-FRGAS that meets all the following requirements:
    (i) The certification shall include the report of the independent 
third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and all the following 
additional information:
    (A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that 
produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or 
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) The volume of Sulfur-FRGAS being transported, in gallons.
    (D) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, the sulfur content as 
determined under paragraph (f) of this section, and a declaration that 
the Sulfur-FRGAS is being included in the compliance calculations under 
Sec.  80.205 for the refinery that produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer 
documents for the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (e) Transfers of Sulfur-FRGAS to non-U.S. markets. The foreign 
refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified as 
Sulfur-FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner may 
remove the Sulfur-FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not be 
imported into the United States, but only if--
    (1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes the volume and sulfur content 
of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under Sec.  80.205.
    (ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall 
be on the basis of the sulfur content and volumes determined under 
paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of 
documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United 
States.
    (f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery 
identification. (1) On each occasion Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a 
vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have 
an independent third party do all the following:
    (i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and determine the volume of 
any tank bottoms.
    (ii) Determine the volume of Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto the vessel 
(exclusive of any tank bottoms present before vessel loading).
    (iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign 
refinery.
    (iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel 
used to transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States.

[[Page 23677]]

    (v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving 
the foreign refinery.
    (2) On each occasion Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel 
for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an 
independent third party--
    (i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and 
prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign 
refinery.
    (ii) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the 
compartment samples, and determine the value for sulfur in accordance 
with the methodology and requirements specified in Sec.  80.1630, by 
either of the following:
    (A) The third party analyzing the sample.
    (B) The third party observing the foreign refiner analyzing the 
sample.
    (iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage 
of the certified Sulfur-FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and 
from this review determine all the following:
    (A) The refinery at which the Sulfur-FRGAS was produced.
    (B) That the Sulfur-FRGAS remained segregated from Non-Sulfur-
FRGAS, Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, and 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 the following:
    (i) Be approved in advance by EPA, based on a demonstration of 
ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f).
    (ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in Sec.  
80.65(f)(2)(iii).
    (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in 
paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and 
documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this 
paragraph (f).
    (g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1)(i) 
Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any 
foreign refiner and any U.S. 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 U.S. port of entry, and the conditions 
of paragraph (g)(2) of this section are met at the first U.S. port of 
entry, the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this section do not 
apply at subsequent ports of entry if the U.S. 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 U.S. port of entry and the 
subsequent port of entry.
    (2) The U.S. importer and the foreign refiner shall treat the 
gasoline as Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall 
exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline sulfur 
compliance calculations under Sec.  80.205 under either of the 
following circumstances:
    (i) The temperature-corrected volumes determined at the port of 
entry and at the load port differ by more than one percent.
    (ii) 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.
    (h) Attest requirements. All the following additional procedures 
shall be carried out by any foreign refiner of Sulfur-FRGAS as part of 
the applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under Sec.  
80.415:
    (1) The inventory reconciliation analysis under the attest 
engagement provisions of Sec.  80.128(b) and the tender analysis under 
Sec.  80.128(c) shall include Non-Sulfur-FRGAS in addition to the 
gasoline types listed in Sec.  80.128(b) and (c).
    (2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS, and of Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS. Agree the total volume of 
tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation 
analysis in the attest engagement provisions of Sec.  80.128(b), and to 
the volumes determined by the third party under paragraph (f)(1) of 
this section.
    (3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where 
the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the 
name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of 
Sulfur-FRGAS loaded onto each vessel.
    (4) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guidelines in Sec.  
80.127, and for each vessel selected perform all the following:
    (i) Obtain the report of the independent third party, under 
paragraph (f) of this section, and of the U.S. importer under paragraph 
(n) of this section.
    (A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel 
identification, gasoline volumes and test results.
    (B) Identify, and report as a finding, each occasion the load port 
and port of entry parameter and volume results differ by more than the 
amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether 
the foreign refiner adjusted its refinery calculations as required in 
paragraph (g) of this section.
    (ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third party to 
determine transportation and storage of the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS from 
the refinery to the load port, under paragraph (f) of this section. 
Obtain tank activity records for any storage tank where the Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for any pipeline 
used to transport the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, prior to being loaded 
onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether the Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the subject of the 
attest engagement, and whether the Certified Sulfur-FRGAS was mixed 
with any Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, or any Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS produced at a different refinery.
    (5) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in 
paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport certified and Non-
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement 
guidelines of Sec.  80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the 
following:
    (i) Obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists 
vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and date of 
departure of the vessel, and the port of entry and date of arrival of 
the vessel.

[[Page 23678]]

    (ii) Agree the vessel's departure and arrival locations and dates 
from the independent third party and U.S. importer reports to the 
information contained in the commercial document.
    (6) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, 
and perform all the following:
    (i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the 
gasoline inventory reconciliation analysis in Sec.  80.128(b).
    (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under this paragraph 
(h)(6) where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel. Select a 
sample from this listing in accordance with the guidelines in Sec.  
80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general circulation that 
lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and 
date of departure and the ports and dates where the gasoline was off 
loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and report as a finding the 
country where the gasoline was off loaded for each vessel selected.
    (7) In order to complete the requirements of this paragraph (h) an 
auditor must--
    (i) Be independent of the foreign refiner.
    (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United 
States and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance by 
EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures 
required in the attest engagement provisions of Sec. Sec.  80.125 
through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h).
    (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in 
this paragraph (h) with regard to activities and documents relevant to 
compliance with the requirements of the attest engagement provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h).
    (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit 
to and comply with the following provisions as a condition to being 
approved for small refiner status or small volume refinery status:
    (1) Any U.S. EPA inspector or auditor will be given 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 the following:
    (A) Approval of the refiner as a small refiner or approval of the 
refinery as a small volume refinery.
    (B) The volume and sulfur content of Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Sulfur-FRGAS or 
as not being Sulfur-FRGAS, or as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (D) Transfers of title or custody to Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (E) Sampling and testing of Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third 
parties and by independent auditors under the requirements of this 
section and Sec.  80.415, including work papers.
    (G) Reports prepared for submission to EPA, and any work papers 
related to such reports.
    (vi) Inspections and audits by EPA may include taking samples of 
gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing employees.
    (vii) Any employee of the foreign refiner must be made available 
for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a 
reasonable time period.
    (viii) English language translations of any documents must be 
provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working 
days.
    (ix) English language interpreters must be provided to accompany 
EPA inspectors and auditors, on request.
    (2) An agent for service located in the District of Columbia will 
be named. 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) The substantive and procedural laws of the United States 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 18 U.S.C. 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 following 
requirements as a condition to being approved for

[[Page 23679]]

small refiner or small volume refinery status:
    (l) The foreign refiner shall post a bond of the amount calculated 
using the following equation:

Bond = G x $ 0.01

Where:

Bond = Amount of the bond in U. S. dollars.
G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery 
and exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single 
calendar year among the most recent of the following calendar years, 
up to a maximum of three calendar years: the calendar year 
immediately preceding the date the approval petition is submitted, 
the calendar year the approval petition is submitted, and each 
succeeding calendar year.

    (2) Bonds shall be posted by performing any of the following:
    (i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United 
States.
    (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party 
surety agent that is payable to satisfy U.S. 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 18 U.S.C. 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 U.S. 
Department of Treasury Circular 570 ``Companies Holding Certificates of 
Authority as 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.
    (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) U.S. importer requirements. Any U.S. importer shall meet the 
following requirements:
    (1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the 
importer as being Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-Sulfur-FRGAS, and each batch 
classified as Sulfur-FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS or as Non-certified Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Sulfur-FRGAS or as 
Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS according to the designation by the foreign 
refiner if this designation is supported by product transfer documents 
prepared by the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this 
section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non-Certified Sulfur-
FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section.
    (3) For each gasoline batch classified as Sulfur-FRGAS, any U.S. 
importer shall perform the following procedures:
    (i) In the case of both Certified and Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, 
have an independent third party--
    (A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel.
    (B) Use the foreign refiner's Sulfur-FRGAS certification to 
determine the name and EPA-assigned registration number of the foreign 
refinery that produced the Sulfur-FRGAS.
    (C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel 
used to transport the Sulfur-FRGAS to the United States.
    (D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the U.S. port 
of entry.
    (ii) In the case of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS, have an independent 
third party-
    (A) Collect a representative sample from each vessel compartment 
subsequent to the vessel's arrival at the U.S. port of entry and prior 
to off loading any gasoline from the vessel.
    (B) Prepare a volume-weighted vessel composite sample from the 
compartment samples.
    (C) Determine the sulfur value using the methodologies specified in 
Sec.  80.1630, by the third party analyzing the sample, or by 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 U.S. 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 U.S. importer shall meet the applicable requirements of 
this subpart O, including sulfur content standards specified in Sec.  
80.1603, for any imported gasoline that is not classified as Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS under paragraph (n)(2) of this section.
    (o) Truck imports of Certified Sulfur-FRGAS produced by a foreign 
small refiner or foreign small volume refinery. (1) Any refiner whose 
Certified Sulfur-FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck 
may petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet all the 
following requirements:
    (i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5) of this section.
    (ii) Load port and port of entry sampling and testing under 
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section.
    (iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this section.
    (iv) Importer testing under paragraph (n)(3) of this section.
    (2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Sulfur-FRGAS 
remains segregated from Non-Certified Sulfur-FRGAS and from Non-Sulfur-
FRGAS until it is imported into the United States. The petition will be 
evaluated based on whether it adequately addresses all 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

[[Page 23680]]

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 U.S. import documents for Certified Sulfur-FRGAS to ensure that 
such gasoline is only loaded into trucks making deliveries to the 
United States.
    (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annually by an independent 
third party that review loading records and import documents based on 
volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Certified 
Sulfur-FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution system and 
is only loaded into trucks for import into the United States.
    (3) The petition required by this section must be submitted to EPA 
along with the application for small refiner status or small volume 
refinery status under Sec.  80.1622 and this section.
    (p) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery's small refiner 
or small volume refinery status approval. EPA may withdraw or suspend 
approval where any of the following occur:
    (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any requirement of this 
section.
    (2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided 
in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim, 
sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this 
subpart O.
    (4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that 
is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph 
(k) of this section.
    (q) [Reserved]
    (r) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and 
certificates. Any petition for approval, any alternative procedures 
under paragraph (o) of this section, and any certification under 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be--
    (1) Submitted in accordance with procedures specified by the 
Administrator, including use of any forms that may be specified by the 
Administrator; and
    (2) Be signed by the president or owner of the foreign refiner 
company, or by that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the 
following declaration:
    I hereby certify: (1) That I have actual authority to sign on 
behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to 
all statements contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the 
information contained herein is being certified, or submitted to the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR part 80, subparts H and O, and that the 
information is material for determining compliance under these 
regulations; and (3) that I have read and understand the information 
being certified or submitted, and this information is true, complete 
and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief after I have taken 
reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the accuracy thereof.
    I affirm that I have read and understand the provisions of 40 CFR 
part 80, subpart O, including 40 CFR 80.1666 [insert name of foreign 
refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and 18 U.S.C. 1001, 
the penalty for furnishing false, incomplete or misleading information 
in this certification or submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or 
imprisonment for up to five years.

Sec.  80.1667  Attest engagement requirements.

    In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply 
to refiners and importers under Sec. Sec.  80.125 through 80.130, 
80.1666, and other sections of this part 80 the attest engagements for 
importers and refiners must include the following procedures and 
requirements each year.
    (a) Refiners subject to national standards and Small Refiner and 
Small Volume Refinery Status. (1) If the refiner asserts small refinery 
status or small volume refinery status for the refinery, obtain the EPA 
approval letter for the refinery to determine the refinery's applicable 
annual average standard and credit generation status.
    (2) Determine whether the refinery applied the correct annual 
average sulfur standard and whether it was eligible to generate credits 
and report the finding.
    (3) If the annual average sulfur standard is incorrect or credit 
generation was inappropriate, recalculate compliance using the 
appropriate sulfur standard and using appropriate credits and report as 
a finding.
    (b) EPA reports. (1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or 
importer's annual sulfur reports filed with EPA for the year.
    (2) Agree the yearly volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the 
sulfur reports with the inventory reconciliation analysis under the 
attest engagement provisions of Sec.  80.128.
    (3) Calculate the annual average sulfur level for all gasoline and 
agree that value with the value reported to EPA.
    (4) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery's or importer's sulfur 
credit report.
    (5) Agree the information in the refinery's or importer's batch 
reports filed with EPA under Sec. Sec.  80.75 and 80.105, and any 
laboratory test results, with the information contained in the annual 
sulfur report required under Sec.  80.1652.
    (c) Credit generation before 2017. In the case of a refinery that 
generates credits during 2014 through 2016--
    (1) Obtain a written representation from the company representative 
stating the refinery produces gasoline from crude oil.
    (2) Obtain the annual average sulfur level from paragraph (b)(3) of 
this section.
    (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur 
credits generated, and agree this value with the value reported to EPA.
    (d) Credit generation in 2017 and thereafter. The following 
procedures shall be completed for a refinery or importer that generates 
credits in 2017 and thereafter:
    (1) Obtain the annual average sulfur level for gasoline from 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (2) If the sulfur value under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is 
less than 10 ppm, compute and report as a finding the difference 
between the sulfur level under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 10 
ppm.
    (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur 
credits generated, and agree this number with the number reported to 
EPA.
    (e) Credit purchases and sales. The following attest procedures 
shall be completed for a refinery or importer that is a transferor or 
transferee of credits during an averaging period:
    (1) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits transferred 
to another refinery or importer during the year being reviewed; compute 
and report as a finding the number and year of creation of credits 
represented in these documents as being transferred away; and agree 
with the report to EPA.
    (2) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits received 
during the year being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the 
number and year of creation of credits represented in these documents 
as being received; and agree with the report to EPA.
    (f) Credit expiration. A refinery or importer that possesses 
credits during an averaging period must obtain a list of

[[Page 23681]]

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.

PART 85--CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES

0
49. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
50. Section 85.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  85.510  Exemption provisions for new and relatively new vehicles/
engines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) OBD requirements. (i) The OBD system must properly detect and 
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain 
systems or components including any new monitoring capability necessary 
to identify potential emission problems associated with the new fuel.
    (ii) Conduct all OBD testing necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with 40 CFR 86.010-18 or 86.1806-05.
    (iii) Submit the applicable OBD reporting requirements set forth in 
40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S, and submit the following statement of 
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
    The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has 
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *
    51. Section 85.515 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9)(iii) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  85.515  Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/
engines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this 
paragraph (b)(9), you must submit to EPA the following statement of 
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
    The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has 
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *

0
52. Section 85.520 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  85.520  Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/
engines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this 
paragraph (b)(4), you must submit to EPA the following statement of 
compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD-
equipped:
    The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has 
fully functional OBD systems and therefore meets the OBD requirements 
specified in 40 CFR part 86 when operating on the alternative fuel.
* * * * *

Subpart P--[Amended]

0
53. Section 85.1515 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  85.1515  Emission standards and test procedures applicable to 
imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.

    (a) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, any 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conditionally imported pursuant 
to Sec.  85.1505 or Sec.  85.1509 and required to be emission tested 
shall be tested using the FCT at 40 CFR part 86 applicable to current 
model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines at the time of 
testing or reduced testing requirements as follows:
    (1) ICIs are eligible for reduced testing under this paragraph (a) 
subject to the following conditions:
    (i) The OEM must have a valid certificate of conformity covering 
the vehicle.
    (ii) The vehicle must be in its original configuration as certified 
by the OEM. This applies for all emission-related components, including 
the electronic control module, engine calibrations, and all 
evaporative/refueling control hardware. It also applies for OBD 
software and hardware, including all sensors and actuators.
    (iii) The vehicle modified as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section must fully comply with all applicable emission standards 
and requirements.
    (iv) Vehicles must have the proper OBD systems installed and 
operating. When faults are present, the ICI must test and verify the 
system's ability to find the faults (such as disconnected components), 
set codes, and illuminate the light, and set readiness codes as 
appropriate for each vehicle. When no fault is present, the ICI must 
verify that after sufficient prep driving (typically one FTP test 
cycle), all OBD readiness codes are set and the OBD system does not 
indicate a malfunction (i.e., no codes set and no light illuminated).
    (v) The ICI may not modify more than 300 vehicles in any given 
model year using reduced testing provisions in this paragraph (a).
    (vi) The ICI must state in the application for certification that 
it will meet all the conditions in this paragraph (a)(1).
    (2) The following provisions allow for ICIs to certify vehicles 
with reduced testing:
    (i) In addition to the test waivers specified in 40 CFR 86.1829, 
you may provide a statement in the application for certification, 
supported by engineering analysis, that vehicles comply with any of the 
following standards that apply instead of submitting test data:
    (A) Cold temperature CO and NMHC emission standards specified in 40 
CFR 86.1811.
    (B) SFTP emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816 
for all pollutants.
    (C) For anything other than diesel-fueled vehicles, PM emission 
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816.
    (D) Any running loss, refueling, spitback, bleed emissions, and 
leak

[[Page 23682]]

standards specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S.
    (ii) You must perform testing and submit test data as follows to 
demonstrate compliance with emission standards:
    (A) Exhaust and fuel economy tests. You must measure emissions over 
the FTP driving cycle and the highway fuel economy driving cycle as 
specified in 40 CFR 600.109 to meet the fuel economy requirements in 40 
CFR part 600 and demonstrate compliance with the exhaust emission 
standards in 40 CFR part 86 (other than PM). Measure exhaust emissions 
and fuel economy with the same test procedures used by the original 
manufacturer to test the vehicle for certification. However, you must 
use an electric dynamometer meeting the requirements of Sec.  86.108 or 
40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, unless we approve a different dynamometer 
based on excessive compliance costs. If you certify based on testing 
with a different dynamometer, you must state in the application for 
certification that all vehicles in the emission family will comply with 
emission standards if tested on an electric dynamometer.
    (B) Evaporative emission test. You may measure evaporative 
emissions as specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to demonstrate 
compliance with the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 
instead of the otherwise specified procedures. Use measurement 
equipment for evaporative measurements specified in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart B, except that the evaporative emission enclosure does not need 
to accommodate varying ambient temperatures. The evaporative 
measurement procedure is integral to the procedure for measuring 
exhaust emissions over the FTP driving cycle as described in paragraph 
(a)(ii)(2)(A) of this section. Perform canister preconditioning using 
the same 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[emsp14][deg]F, either by exposing the vehicle to 
increasing ambient temperatures or by applying heat directly to the 
fuel tank. Measure hot soak emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.138-
96(k). We may approve alternative measurement procedures that are 
equivalent to or more stringent than the specified procedures if the 
specified procedures are impractical for particular vehicle models or 
measurement facilities. The sum of the measured diurnal and hot soak 
values must meet the appropriate emission standard as specified in this 
section.
    (b) The emission standards applicable to nonconforming light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks imported pursuant to this subpart are 
outlined in tables 1 and 2 of this section, respectively. The useful 
life as specified in tables 1 and 2 of this section is applicable to 
imported light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, respectively.
    (c)(1) Nonconforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines of 
1994 OP year and later conditionally imported pursuant to Sec.  85.1505 
or Sec.  85.1509 shall meet all of the emission standards specified in 
40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle or motor vehicle engine. 
The useful life specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the 
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine is applicable where useful life 
is not designated in this subpart.
    (2)(i) Nonconforming light-duty vehicles and light light-duty 
trucks (LDV/LLDTs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004, 2005 or 
2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 9 in Tables 
S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the evaporative emission 
standards for light-duty vehicles and light light-duty trucks specified 
in 40 CFR 86.1811-01(e)(5).
    (ii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty 
passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004 
through 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in 
Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the applicable 
evaporative emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(5). 
For 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs where modifications commence on the 
first vehicle of a test group before December 21, 2003, this 
requirement does not apply to the 2004 OP year. ICIs opting to bring 
all of their 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs into compliance with the 
exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 
CFR 86.1811-04, may use the optional higher NMOG values for their 2004-
2006 OP year LDT2s and 2004-2008 LDT4s.
    (iii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium-duty 
passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP years 2007 and 
2008 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 8 in Tables 
S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04 and the applicable evaporative 
standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e)(5).
    (iv) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 
2007 through 2021 and nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally 
manufactured in OP year 2009 through 2021 must meet the FTP exhaust 
emission standards of bin 5 in Tables S04-1 and S04-2 in 40 CFR 
86.1811-04, and the evaporative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(e)(1) through (4).
    (v) ICIs are exempt from the Tier 2 and the interim non-Tier2 
phase-in intermediate percentage requirements for exhaust, evaporative, 
and refueling emissions described in 40 CFR 86.1811-04.
    (vi) In cases where multiple standards exist in a given model year 
in 40 CFR part 86 due to phase-in requirements of new standards, the 
applicable standards for motor vehicle engines required to be certified 
to engine-based standards are the least stringent standards applicable 
to the engine type for the OP year.
    (vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 
2009 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table 
S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e). However, LDV/LLDTs originally 
manufactured in OP years 2009 and 2010 and imported by ICIs who qualify 
as small-volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-01 are 
exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative emission standards in Table S09-1 
in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative 
emission standards in Table S04-3 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e).
    (viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP 
years 2010 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in 
Table S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e). However, HLDTs and MDPVs 
originally manufactured in OP years 2010 and 2011 and imported by ICIs, 
who qualify as small-volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838-
01, are exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs evaporative emission standards 
in Table S09-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 
evaporative emission standards in Table S04-3 in 40 CFR 86.1811-04(e).
    (ix) Nonconforming LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete heavy-duty 
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR originally manufactured in OP 
years 2022 and later must meet the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative 
emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18.
    (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

[[Page 23683]]

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 
carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1860-04(e).
    (7) The Administrator may condition the certificates of conformity 
issued to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject to 
paragraph (c) of this section comply with the appropriate average 
NOX standard for each model year.
    (8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 
2010 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission standards 
in Table S10-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g).
    (ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP 
years 2012 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission 
standards in Table S10-1 in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g).
    (iii) ICIs, which qualify as small-volume manufacturers, are exempt 
from the cold temperature NMHC phase-in intermediate percentage 
requirements described in 40 CFR 86.1811-10(g)(3). See 40 CFR 86.1811-
04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii).
    (iv) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) 
and (ii) of this section, ICIs may elect to meet a cold temperature 
NMHC family emission level below the cold temperature NMHC fleet 
average standards specified in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 and 
bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10. An ICI may not 
meet a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than the 
fleet average standards in Table S10-1 of 40 CFR 86.1811-10 as 
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless it 
demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it 
has obtained appropriate and sufficient NMHC credits from another 
manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the 
current model year and not traded them to another manufacturer or used 
them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864-10.
    (v) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity 
using a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than 
specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, but does 
not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles imported under such 
certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the ICI 
has also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified 
using a cold temperature NMHC family emission level lower than that 
required under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. The ICI 
may then import vehicles to the higher cold temperature NMHC family 
emission level only to the extent that it has generated sufficient 
credits from vehicles certified to a family emission level lower than 
the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard during the same model 
year.
    (vi) ICIs using cold temperature NMHC family emission levels higher 
than the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standards specified in 
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section must monitor their 
imports so that they do not import more vehicles certified to such 
family emission levels than their available credits can cover. ICIs 
must not have a credit deficit at the end of a model year and are not 
permitted to use the deficit carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 
86.1864-10.
    (vii) The Administrator may condition the certificates of 
conformity issued to ICIs as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject 
to this paragraph (c)(8) comply with the applicable cold temperature 
NMHC fleet average standard for each model year.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, ICI's must 
not participate in emission-related programs for emissions averaging, 
banking and trading, or nonconformance penalties.

                        Table 1 to Sec.   85.1515--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Motor Vehicles\1\ \2\ \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Oxides of            Diesel          Evaporative      Useful life  (years/
            OP Year                  Hydrocarbon       Carbon monoxide        nitrogen         particulate        hydrocarbon             miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-1976......................  1.5 gpm...........  15 gpm............  3.1 gpm..........  .................  6.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
1977-1979......................  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
1982-1986......................  0.41 gpm..........  3.4 gpm...........  1.0 gpm..........  0.60 gpm.........  2.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
1987-1993......................  0.41 gpm..........  3.4 gpm...........  1.0 gpm..........  0.20 gpm.........  2.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
1994 and later.................  (\4\).............  (\4\).............  (\4\)............  (\4\)............  (\4\)............  (\4\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty vehicles. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled
  light-duty vehicles. For alternative fueled light-duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon
  equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty vehicle.
\3\ All light-duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high-altitudes according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR
  part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing.
\4\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.

[[Page 23684]]

                        Table 2 to Sec.   85.1515--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Trucks\1\ \2\ \3\ \4\ \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Oxides of            Diesel          Evaporative       Useful life  (years/
            OP Year                  Hydrocarbon      Carbon  monoxide       nitrogen         particulate        hydrocarbon              miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-78........................  2.0 gpm...........  20 gpm...........  3.1 gpm..........  .................  6.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
1979-80........................  1.7 gpm...........  18 gpm...........  2.3 gpm..........  .................  6.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
1981...........................  1.7 gpm...........  18 gpm...........  2.3 gpm..........  .................  2.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
1982-1983......................  1.7 gpm...........  18 gpm...........  2.3 gpm..........  0.60 gpm.........  2.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
                                 (2.0).............  (26).............  (2.3)............  (0.60)...........  (2.6)............
1984...........................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  2.3 gpm..........  0.60 gpm.........  2.0 g/test.......  5/50,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (2.3)............  (0.60)...........  (2.6)............
1985-1986......................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  2.3 gpm..........  0.60 gpm.........  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (2.3)............  (0.60)...........  (2.6)............
1987...........................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  2.3 gpm..........  0.26 gpm.........  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (2.3)............  (0.26)...........  (2.6)............
1988-1989......................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  1.2 gpm \6\......  0.26 gpm \7\.....  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (1.2)............  (2.0)............  (2.6)............
1988-1989......................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  1.7 gpm \6\......  0.45 gpm \7\.....  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (1.7)............  (0.26)...........  (2.6)............
1988-1989......................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  2.3 gpm \6\......  0.45 gpm \7\.....  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (2.3)............  (0.26)...........  (2.6)............
1990-1993......................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  1.2 gpm \8\......  0.26 gpm \7\.....  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (1.2)............  (0.26)...........  (2.6)............
1990-1993......................  0.80 gpm..........  10 gpm...........  1.7 gpm \8\......  0.45 gpm \7\.....  2.0 g/test.......  11/120,000
                                 (1.0).............  (14).............  (1.7)............  (0.26)...........  (2.6)............
1994 and later.................  (\9\).............  (\9\)............  (\9\)............  (\9\)............  (\9\)............  (\9\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled light-
  duty trucks. For alternative fueled light-duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent
  grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty truck.
\3\ A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later model year light-duty trucks sold to, or owned
  by, an importer for principal use at other than a designated high-altitude location. This requirement is effective for light-duty trucks sold to, or
  owned by an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location beginning with the 1988 model year.
\4\ All 1982 OP year and later light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location shall meet
  high-altitude emission standards according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light-duty trucks at the time of
  testing.
\5\ Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location. These
  standards must be met at high-altitude according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of
  testing.
\6\ The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds
  GVWR. The 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; the 2.3 gpm
  standard applies to light-duty trucks above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
\7\ The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard
  applies to light-duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight.
\8\ The NOX standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty
  trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight.
\9\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.

0
54. Subpart W is revised to consist of Sec. Sec.  85.2201, 85.2207, 
85.2222, 85.2223, and 85.2231, to read as follows:
Subpart W--Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests
Sec.
85.2201 Applicability.
85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards.
85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures.
85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report.
85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.

Subpart W--Emission Control System Performance Warranty Short Tests

Sec.  85.2201  Applicability.

    (a) This subpart describes the test provisions to be employed in 
conjunction with the Emissions Performance Warranty in subpart V of 
this part. These provisions generally rely on a vehicle's onboard 
diagnostic system (OBD) to indicate whether a vehicle passes or fails 
the test.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart may be used to establish 
warranty eligibility for light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
medium-duty passenger vehicles when tested during the useful life as 
prescribed in subpart V of this part.

Sec.  85.2207  Onboard diagnostic test standards.

    (a) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if it is a 1996 or newer 
vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing, has been tampered with, 
or is otherwise inoperable.
    (b) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the malfunction indicator 
light (MIL) is commanded to be illuminated and it is not visually 
illuminated according to visual inspection.
    (c) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the MIL is commanded to be 
illuminated for one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as 
described in 40 CFR 86.1806.

Sec.  85.2222  Onboard diagnostic test procedures.

    The test sequence for the OBD inspection shall consist of the 
following steps:
    (a) The OBD inspection shall be conducted with the key-on/engine 
running, with the exception of inspecting for MIL illumination as 
required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, during which the 
inspection shall be conducted with the key-on/engine off.
    (b) The inspector shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the 
test system into the connector.
    (c) The test system shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in 
accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the OBD evaluation status. 
The test system shall determine what monitors are supported by the OBD 
system, and perform the

[[Page 23685]]

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 be illuminated but is not, the vehicle shall 
fail the OBD inspection.
    (4) If the MIL does not illuminate at all when the vehicle is in 
the key-on/engine-off condition, the vehicle shall fail the OBD 
inspection, even if no DTCs are present and the MIL has not been 
commanded on.

Sec.  85.2223  Onboard diagnostic test report.

    (a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the OBD test described in Sec.  
85.2222 shall be provided with the OBD test results, including the 
codes retrieved, the name of the component or system associated with 
each DTC, the status of the MIL illumination command, and the customer 
alert statement as stated in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) In addition to any codes that were retrieved, the test report 
shall include the following language:

    Your vehicle's computerized self-diagnostic system (OBD) 
registered the faults listed below. The faults are probably an 
indication of a malfunction of an emission component. However, 
multiple and/or seemingly unrelated faults may be an indication of 
an emission-related problem that occurred previously, but upon 
further evaluation by the OBD system was determined to be only 
temporary. Therefore, proper diagnosis by a qualified technician is 
required to positively identify the source of any emission-related 
problem.

Sec.  85.2231  Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.

    (a) The test system interface to the vehicle shall include a plug 
that conforms to the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.
    (b) The test system shall be capable of communicating with the 
standard data link connector of vehicles with certified OBD systems.
    (c) The test system shall be capable of checking for OBD monitors 
and the evaluation status of supported monitors (test complete/test not 
complete) in Mode $01 PID $01, as well as be able to request the DTCs, 
consistent with the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.

PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES 
AND ENGINES

0
55. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
56. Section 86.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1  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, a document must be published 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) ASTM International material. The following standards are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585, or http://www.astm.org/:
    (1) ASTM C1549-09, Standard Test Method for Determination of Solar 
Reflectance Near Ambient Temperature Using a Portable Solar 
Reflectometer, approved August 1, 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1869-
12(b).
    (2) ASTM D86-12, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum 
Products at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a), 86.113-94(b), 86.213(a), and 
86.513(a).
    (3) ASTM D93-13, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky- 
Martens Closed Cup Tester, approved July 15, 2013, IBR approved for 
Sec.  86.113-94(b).
    (4) ASTM D445-12, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity), 
approved April 15, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  86.113-94(b).
    (5) ASTM D613-13, Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel 
Fuel Oil, approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  86.113-
94(b).
    (6) ASTM D975-13a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 
approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1910(c).
    (7) ASTM D976-06 (Reapproved 2011), Standard Test Method for 
Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels, approved October 1, 2011, 
IBR approved for Sec.  86.113-94(b).
    (8) ASTM D1319-13, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, approved 
May 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a), 86.213(a), and 
86.513(a).
    (9) ASTM D1945-03 (reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, approved January 1, 
2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-94(e) and 86.513(d).
    (10) ASTM D2163-07, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Hydrocarbons in Liquefied Petroleum

[[Page 23686]]

(LP) Gases and Propane/Propene Mixtures by Gas Chromatography, approved 
December 1, 2007, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-94(f).
    (11) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, 
approved February 15, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a), 
86.113-94(b), 86.213(a), and 86.513(a).
    (12) ASTM D2699-13b, Standard Test Method for Research Octane 
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a) and 86.213(a).
    (13) ASTM D2700-13b, Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number 
of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2013, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a) and 86.213(a).
    (14) ASTM D3231-13, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in 
Gasoline, approved June 15, 2013, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-
04(a), 86.213(a), and 86.513(a).
    (15) ASTM D3237-12, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline by 
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, approved June 1, 2012, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a), 86.213(a), and 86.513(a).
    (16) ASTM D4052-11, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative 
Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter, approved 
October 15, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  86.113-94(b).
    (17) 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, approved April 15, 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  86.113-
94(b).
    (18) ASTM D5191-13, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 
Petroleum Products (Mini Method), approved December 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.113-04(a), 86.213(a), and 86.513(a).
    (19) ASTM E29-93a, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits 
in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications, approved 
March 15, 1993, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.004-15(c), 86.007-11(a), 
86.007-15(m), 86.1803-01, 86.1823-01(a), 86.1824-01(c), 86.1825-01(c).
    (20) ASTM E903-96, Standard Test Method for Solar Absorptance, 
Reflectance, and Transmittance of Materials Using Integrating Spheres, 
approved April 10, 1996, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1869-12(b).
    (21) ASTM E1918-06, Standard Test Method for Measuring Solar 
Reflectance of Horizontal and Low-Sloped Surfaces in the Field, 
approved August 15, 2006, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1869-12(b).
    (c) ANSI material. The following standards are available from 
American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New 
York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or http://www.ansi.org:
    (1) ANSI NGV1-2006, Standard for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle 
(NGV) Fueling Connection Devices, 2nd edition, reaffirmed and 
consolidated March 2, 2006, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1813-17(f).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) California Air Resources Board. The following documents are 
available from the California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, 
Sacramento, CA 95812, (916) 322-2884, or http://www.arb.ca.gov:
    (1) California Requirements Applicable to the LEV III Program, 
including the following documents:
    (i) LEV III exhaust emission standards are in Title 13 Motor 
Vehicles, Division 3 Air Resources Board, Chapter 1 Motor Vehicle 
Pollution Control Devices, Article 2 Approval of Motor Vehicle 
Pollution Control Devices (New Vehicles), Sec.  1961.2 Exhaust Emission 
Standards and Test Procedures--2015 and Subsequent Model Passenger 
Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, effective as of 
December 31, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1803-01.
    (ii) LEV III evaporative emission standards for model year 2015 and 
later vehicles are in Title 13 Motor Vehicles, Division 3 Air Resources 
Board, Chapter 1 Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices, Article 2 
Approval of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices (New Vehicles) 
Sec.  1976 Standards and Test Procedures for Motor Vehicle Fuel 
Evaporative Emissions, effective as of December 31, 2012, IBR approved 
for Sec.  86.1803-01.
    (2) California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National 
Low Emission Vehicle Program, October 1996, IBR approved for Sec.  
86.113-04(a).
    (3) California Regulatory Requirements known as Onboard Diagnostics 
II (OBD-II), Approved on April 21, 2003, Title 13, California Code of 
Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic System 
Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-
Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD-II), IBR 
approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(j).
    (4) California Regulatory Requirements known as Onboard Diagnostics 
II (OBD-II), Approved on November 9, 2007, Title 13, California Code of 
Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic System 
Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-
Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD-II), IBR 
approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(j).
    (5) California Regulatory Requirements known as Onboard Diagnostics 
II (OBD-II), Title 13, Motor Vehicles, Division 3, Air Resources Board, 
Chapter 1, Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices, Article 2, Approval 
of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices (New Vehicles), Sec.  1968.2 
Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements--2004 and Subsequent 
Model-Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles 
and Engines, effective as of July 31, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  
86.1806-17(a).
    (e) ISO material. The following standards are available from 
International Organization for Standardization, Case Postale 56, CH-
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, 41-22-749-01-11, or http://www.iso.org:
    (1) ISO 13837:2008(E), Road Vehicles--Safety glazing materials--
Method for the determination of solar transmittance, First edition, 
April 15, 2008, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1869-12(b).
    (2) ISO 15765-4:2005(E), Road Vehicles--Diagnostics on Controller 
Area Networks (CAN)--Part 4: Requirements for emissions-related 
systems, January 15, 2005, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-18(k) and 
86.1806-05(h).
    (f) NIST material. The following documents are available from 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, or http://www.nist.gov:
    (1) NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use 
of the International System of Units (SI), March 2008, IBR approved for 
Sec.  86.1901(d).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (g) SAE International material. The following standards are 
available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 
15096-0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776-4970 (outside 
the U.S. and Canada), or http://www.sae.org:
    (1) SAE J1151, Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography, 
stabilized September 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  86.111-94(b).
    (2) SAE J1349, Engine Power Test Code--Spark Ignition and 
Compression Ignition--As Installed Net Power Rating, revised September 
2011, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1803-01.
    (3) SAE J1850, Class B Data Communication Network Interface, 
Revised May 2001, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(h).

[[Page 23687]]

    (4) SAE J1877, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle 
Identification Number Label, July 1994, IBR approved for Sec.  86.095-
35(i).
    (5) SAE J1892, Recommended Practice for Bar-Coded Vehicle Emission 
Configuration Label, October 1993, IBR approved for Sec.  86.095-35(i).
    (6) SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, 
Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, Revised May 1998, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.1808-01(f), 86.1808-07(f).
    (7) SAE J1930, Electrical/Electronic Systems Diagnostic Terms, 
Definitions, Abbreviations, and Acronyms--Equivalent to ISO/TR 15031-2: 
April 30, 2002, Revised April 2002, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-
18(k) and 86.1806-05(h).
    (8) SAE J1939, Recommended Practice for a Serial Control and 
Communications Vehicle Network, Revised October 2007, IBR approved for 
Sec.  86.010-18(k).
    (9) SAE J1939-11, Physical Layer--250K bits/s, Shielded Twisted 
Pair, Revised October 1999, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(h).
    (10) SAE J1939-13, Off-Board Diagnostic Connector, July 1999, IBR 
approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(h).
    (11) SAE J1939-13, Off-Board Diagnostic Connector, Revised March 
2004, IBR approved for Sec.  86.010-18(k).
    (12) SAE J1939-21, Data Link Layer, Revised April 2001, IBR 
approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(h).
    (13) SAE J1939-31, Network Layer, Revised December 1997, IBR 
approved for Sec.  86.1806-05(h).
    (14) SAE J1939-71, Vehicle Application Layer (Through February 
2007), Revised January 2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-38(j) 
and 86.1806-05(h).
    (15) SAE J1939-73, Application Layer--Diagnostics, Revised 
September 2006, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-18(k), 86.010-38(j), 
and 86.1806-05(h).
    (16) SAE J1939-81, Network Management, Revised May 2003, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-38(j) and 86.1806-05(h).
    (17) SAE J1962, Diagnostic Connector Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-3; 
December 14, 2001, Revised April 2002, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
86.010-18(k) and 86.1806-05(h).
    (18) SAE J1978, OBD II Scan Tool--Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-4; 
December 14, 2001, Revised April 2002, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
86.010-18(k) and 86.1806-05(h).
    (19) SAE J1979, E/E Diagnostic Test Modes, Revised September 1997, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.1808-01(f) and 86.1808-07(f).
    (20) SAE J1979, (R) E/E Diagnostic Test Modes, Revised May 2007, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.010-18(k) and 86.1806-05(h).
    (21) SAE J2012, (R) Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions Equivalent 
to ISO/DIS 15031-6: April 30, 2002, Revised April 2002, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  86.010-18(k) and 86.1806-05(h).
    (22) SAE J2064 FEB2011, R134a Refrigerant Automotive Air-
Conditioned Hose, Revised February 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  
86.1867-12(a) and (b).
    (23) SAE J2284-3, High Speed CAN (HSC) for Vehicle Applications at 
500 KBPS, May 2001, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.1808-01(f) and 
86.1808-07(f).
    (24) SAE J2403, Medium/Heavy-Duty E/E Systems Diagnosis 
Nomenclature--Truck and Bus, Revised August 2007, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  86.010-18(k), 86.010-38(j), and 86.1806-05(h).
    (25) SAE J2534, Recommended Practice for Pass-Thru Vehicle 
Programming, February 2002, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  86.1808-01(f) 
and 86.1808-07(f).
    (26) SAE J2727 FEB2012, Mobile Air Conditioning System Refrigerant 
Emission Charts for R-134a and R-1234yf, Revised February 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec.  86.1867-12(a) and (b).
    (27) SAE J2765 OCT2008, Procedure for Measuring System COP 
[Coefficient of Performance] of a Mobile Air Conditioning System on a 
Test Bench, issued October 2008, IBR approved for Sec.  86.1868-12(h).
    (h) Truck and Maintenance Council material. The following documents 
are available from the Truck and Maintenance Council, 950 North Glebe 
Road, Suite 210, Arlington, VA 22203-4181, or (703) 838-1754:
    (1) TMC RP 1210B, Revised June 2007, WINDOWSTMCOMMUNICATION API, 
IBR approved for Sec.  86.010-38(j).
    (2) [Reserved]

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
57. Section 86.000-7 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1).
0
c. By revising paragraph (h)(6).
0
d. By removing paragraph (h)(7).

Sec.  86.000-7  Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right 
of entry.

    Section 86.000-7 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.091-7 or Sec.  86.094-7. Where a paragraph in 
Sec.  86.091-7 or Sec.  86.094-7 is identical and applicable to Sec.  
86.000-7, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding 
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  
86.091-7.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  86.094-7.''
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to 
Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or 
refueling test procedure and accompanying evaporative and/or refueling 
standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in Sec.  86.098-10 for 
which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this 
section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon 
request.

Sec. Sec.  86.000-8, 86.000-9, 86.000-16  [Removed]

0
58. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.000-8, 86.000-9, and 86.000-16.

Sec.  86.000-24  [Amended]

0
59. Section 86.000-24 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(1) introductory text, 
and (b)(1)(iii) through (f).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
0
d. By removing paragraph (h).

Sec. Sec.  86.000-26 and 86.000-28  [Removed]

0
60A. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.000-26 and 86.000-28.

Sec.  86.001-9  [Removed]

0
60B. Remove Sec.  86.001-9.

Sec.  86.001-22  [Removed]

0
60C. Remove Sec.  86.001-22.

0
61. Section 86.001-23 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
adding a heading to paragraph (c) and removing and reserving paragraphs 
(c)(1), (f), and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.001-23  Required data.

    Section 86.001-23 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.098-23. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.098-23 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.001-23, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.098-23.''
* * * * *
    (c) Emission data--
* * * * *

Sec. Sec.  86.001-25, 86.001-26, 86.001-28, and 86.001-30  [Removed]

0
62A. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.001-25, 86.001-26, 86.001-28, and 86.001-30.

Sec.  86.004-9  [Removed]

0
62B. Remove Sec.  86.004-9.

[[Page 23688]]

0
63. Section 86.004-11 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) 
introductory text and (b)(4) introductory text and adding paragraph 
(b)(4)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.004-11  Emission standards for 2004 and later model year 
diesel heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) This paragraph (b)(3) applies as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. 
Evaporative emissions (total of non-oxygenated hydrocarbons plus 
methanol) from heavy-duty vehicles equipped with methanol-fueled diesel 
engines shall not exceed the following standards. The standards apply 
equally to certification and in-use vehicles. The spitback standard 
also applies to newly assembled vehicles.
* * * * *
    (4) This paragraph (b)(4) applies as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. 
Evaporative emissions from 2004 and later model year heavy-duty 
vehicles equipped with natural gas-fueled or liquefied petroleum gas-
fueled HDEs shall not exceed the following standards. The standards 
apply equally to certification and in-use vehicles.
* * * * *
    (iv) Compressed natural gas vehicles must meet the requirements for 
fueling connection devices as specified in Sec.  86.1813-17(f)(1). 
Vehicles meeting these requirements are deemed to comply with 
evaporative emission standards.
* * * * *

0
64. Section 86.004-21 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i).
0
c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(v).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l).

Sec.  86.004-21  Application for certification.

    Section 86.004-21 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.094-21. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.094-21 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.004-21, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.094-21.''
* * * * *

Sec.  86.004-25  [Amended]

0
65. Section 86.004-25 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iv).
0
66. Section 86.004-26 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b).
0
c. By revising paragraph (d).

Sec.  86.004-26  Mileage and service accumulation; emission 
measurements.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) This paragraph (d) applies for heavy-duty engines.
    (2)(i) The results of all emission testing shall be supplied to the 
Administrator. The manufacturer shall furnish to the Administrator 
explanation for voiding any test. The Administrator will determine if 
voiding the test was appropriate based upon the explanation given by 
the manufacturer for the voided test. Tests between test points may be 
conducted as required by the Administrator. Data from all tests 
(including voided tests) may be submitted weekly to the Administrator, 
but shall be delivered to the Administrator within 7 days after 
completion of the test. In addition, all test data shall be compiled 
and provided to the Administrator in accordance with Sec.  86.007-23. 
Where the Administrator conducts a test on a durability data vehicle at 
a prescribed test point, the results of that test will be used in the 
calculation of the deterioration factor.
    (ii) The results of all emission tests shall be recorded and 
reported to the Administrator. These test results shall be rounded as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to the number of decimal places contained 
in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional 
significant figure.
    (3) Whenever a manufacturer intends to operate and test a vehicle 
(or engine) that may be used for emission data, the manufacturer shall 
retain in its records all information concerning all emission tests and 
maintenance, including vehicle (or engine) alterations to represent 
other vehicle (or engine) selections. This information shall be 
submitted, including the vehicle (or engine) description and 
specification information required by the Administrator, to the 
Administrator following the emission test.
    (4) Emission testing of any type with respect to any certification 
vehicle or engine other than that specified in this subpart is not 
allowed except as such testing may be specifically authorized by the 
Administrator.

Sec.  86.004-28  [Amended]

0
67. Section 86.004-28 is amended by removing the introductory text and 
by removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), (f), and (g).

0
68. Section 86.004-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(10)(i), and 
(a)(11)(i) and (a)(12) through (a)(16).
0
c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii).
0
e. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(ii)(D).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4).

Sec.  86.004-30  Certification.

    Section 86.004-30 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.094-30. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.094-30 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.004-30, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.094-30.''
* * * * *

0
69. Section 86.004-38 is amended by removing the introductory text, 
removing and reserving paragraph (g), and adding paragraph (i) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  86.004-38  Maintenance instructions.

* * * * *
    (i) For each new diesel-fueled engine subject to the standards 
prescribed in Sec.  86.007-11, as applicable, the manufacturer shall 
furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser a statement 
that ``This engine must be operated only with ultra low-sulfur diesel 
fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 
15 ppm sulfur cap).''

0
70. Section 86.005-10 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.005-10  Emission standards for 2005 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

    Section 86.005-10 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.099-10. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.099-10 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.005-10, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.099-10.''
* * * * *
    (c) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient 
atmosphere from any new 1998 or later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty 
engine.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.005-17  [Removed]

0
71. Remove Sec.  86.005-17.

0
72. Section 86.007-17 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 23689]]

Sec.  86.007-17  Onboard 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 onboard diagnostic requirements as specified in Sec.  
86.1806.

Sec.  86.007-21  [Amended]

0
73. Section 86.007-21 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10).

0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l).
0
74. Section 86.007-23 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(2), (f), (g), and (l) and revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.007-23  Required data.

    Section 86.007-23 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.098-23 or Sec.  86.001-23. Where a paragraph in 
Sec.  86.098-23 or Sec.  86.001-23 is identical and applicable to Sec.  
86.007-23, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding 
paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  
86.098-23.'' or ``[Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  86.001-23.''.
* * * * *
    (c) Emission data from certification vehicles and engines. The 
manufacturer shall submit emission data for each applicable emission 
standard from vehicles and engines tested in accordance with applicable 
test procedures and in such numbers as specified. These data shall 
include zero-mile or zero-hour data, if generated, and emission data 
generated for certification as required under Sec.  86.004-26. However, 
manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for 
certification that vehicles and engines comply with the following 
standards instead of submitting test data, provided that the statement 
is supported by previous emission tests, development tests, or other 
appropriate information, and good engineering judgment:
    (1) Idle CO, smoke, or particulate matter emissions from methanol-
fueled or gaseous-fueled diesel-cycle certification engines.
    (2) Particulate matter emissions from Otto-cycle certification 
engines or gaseous-fueled certification engines.
    (3) CO emissions from diesel-cycle certification engines.
    (4) Formaldehyde emissions from petroleum-fueled engines.
    (5) Particulate matter and formaldehyde emissions when conducting 
Selective Enforcement Audit testing of Otto-cycle engines.
    (6) Smoke from methanol-fueled or petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle 
certification engines.
    (7) Smoke when conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing of 
diesel-cycle engines.
    (8) Evaporative emissions from vehicles fueled by natural gas, 
liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.007-30  [Amended]

0
75. Section 86.007-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), 
(a)(10)(i), (a)(11)(i), and (a)(12) through (a)(16).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and 
(b)(4).
0
d. By removing paragraph (f).

0
76. Section 86.007-35 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).
0
c. By revising paragraph (c).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (f), and (i).

Sec.  86.007-35  Labeling.

* * * * *
    (a) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) 
subject to the applicable emission standards (and family emission 
limits, as appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the time of 
manufacture, affix a permanent legible label, of the type and in the 
manner described below, containing the information hereinafter 
provided, to all production models of such vehicles (or engines) 
available for sale to the public and covered by a Certificate of 
Conformity under Sec.  86.007-30(a).
* * * * *
    (c) Vehicles powered by model year 2007 through 2013 diesel-fueled 
engines must include permanent, readily visible labels on the dashboard 
(or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state ``Use Ultra 
Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only''; or ``Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel 
Only''.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.007-38  [Removed]

0
77. Remove Sec.  86.007-38.

0
78. Section 86.008-10 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the introductory text.
0
b. By revising paragraph (b) introductory text.
0
c. By adding paragraph (b)(5).
0
d. By revising paragraph (e).

Sec.  86.008-10  Emission standards for 2008 and later model year Otto-
cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) This paragraph (b) applies as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. 
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.
* * * * *
    (5) Compressed natural gas vehicles must meet the requirements for 
fueling connection devices as specified in Sec.  86.1813-17(f)(1). 
Vehicles meeting these requirements are deemed to comply with 
evaporative emission standards.
* * * * *
    (e) The standards described in this section do not apply to Otto-
cycle medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) that are subject to 
regulation under subpart S of this part, except as specified in subpart 
S of this part. The standards described in this section also do not 
apply to Otto-cycle engines used in such MDPVs, except as specified in 
subpart S of this part. The term ``medium-duty passenger vehicle'' is 
defined in Sec.  86.1803.
* * * * *

0
79. Section 86.010-38 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) and (i) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.010-38  Maintenance instructions.

* * * * *
    (g) Manufacturers are subject to the service-information 
requirements of Sec.  86.1808-01(f) beginning in the 2005 model year 
for manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines 
weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that are 
subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
* * * * *
    (i) Through model year 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or 
cause to

[[Page 23690]]

be furnished to the ultimate purchaser the following statement for each 
new diesel-fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed in Sec.  
86.007-11, as applicable: ``This engine must be operated only with 
ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway 
diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).''
* * * * *
    80. Section 86.016-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), 
and (c) and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.016-1  General applicability.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply for certain 
types of new heavy-duty engines and vehicles as described in this 
paragraph (a). Note that this subpart does not apply for light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, or medium-duty passenger vehicles (see 
subpart S of this part for requirements that apply for those vehicles). 
In some cases, manufacturers of heavy-duty engines and vehicles can 
choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or the 
requirements of subpart S of this part; those provisions are therefore 
considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers comply 
with the other set of requirements. In cases where a provision applies 
only for a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle 
class, motor fuel, engine type, or other distinguishing 
characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate 
section. The provisions of this subpart apply for certain heavy-duty 
engines and vehicles as follows:
    (1) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission 
standards apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines 
installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR; however, these vehicles 
may instead be certified under subpart S of this part as specified in 
Sec.  86.1801.
    (2) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission 
standards apply for engines that will be installed in incomplete 
vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR; however, these vehicles may 
instead be certified under subpart S of this part as specified in Sec.  
86.1801.
    (3) Diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle complete heavy-duty vehicles at or 
below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the corresponding engines are not subject 
to the provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission 
standards, except that these provisions are optional for diesel-cycle 
engines installed in such vehicles until those vehicles become subject 
to the Tier 3 standards under Sec.  86.1816-18.
    (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 vehicles at or below 14,000 
pounds GVWR.
    (ii) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative 
emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. This involves 
meeting the standards specified in Sec. Sec.  86.008-10(b) and 86.007-
11(b)(3) and (4) until the Tier 3 standards in Sec.  86.1813 start to 
apply.
    (iii) Note that diesel-fueled vehicles are not subject to 
evaporative emissions under this part.
    (5) The provisions of this subpart related to onboard diagnostics 
apply for diesel-cycle and Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and vehicles 
as follows:
    (i) Engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR must 
meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in Sec.  86.010-18.
    (ii) Engines installed in vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR 
must meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in Sec.  
86.1806.
    (b) Relationship to subpart S of this part. Unless specified 
otherwise, if engines are not subject to provisions of this subpart or 
if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of this subpart 
as described in paragraph (a) of this section, those engines must be 
installed in vehicles meeting the corresponding requirements under 
subpart S of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine comply 
with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart S of this 
part, the vehicle must be certified under subpart S of this part, and 
the engine does not need to be certified separately.
    (c) Greenhouse gas emission standards. See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 
1037 for greenhouse gas emission standards that apply for heavy-duty 
engines and vehicles.
* * * * *
    (g) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this 
subpart also apply for clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 
40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (h) Turbine engines. Turbine engines are deemed to be compression-
ignition engines for purposes of this part.

Sec.  86.079-36  [Removed]

0
81. Remove Sec.  86.079-36.

0
82. Section 86.082-2 is amended by adding definitions for ``Round'' and 
``United States'' in alphabetical order to read as follows.

Sec.  86.082-2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless otherwise 
specified.
* * * * *
    United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.085-2  [Amended]

0
83. Section 86.085-2 is amended by removing the definition for 
``Incomplete gasoline-fueled heavy-duty vehicle''.
* * * * *

0
84. Section 86.085-20 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.085-20  Incomplete vehicles, classification.

    For purposes of this part:
    (a) A heavy-duty gasoline-fueled vehicle is considered to be a 
complete vehicle if it has the primary load carrying device or 
container attached at the time the vehicle leaves the control of the 
manufacturer of the engine, and is considered to be an incomplete 
vehicle if it does not.
    (b) For all other heavy-duty vehicles, a vehicle that has the 
primary load carrying device or container attached at the time the 
vehicle is introduced into U.S. commerce is considered to be a complete 
vehicle. Vehicles not considered to be complete vehicles are incomplete 
vehicles. For purposes of determining when a vehicle is introduced into 
U.S. commerce, an assembly of motor vehicle parts is deemed to be a 
vehicle if either of the following applies:
    (1) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use on 
highways becomes a vehicle when it includes at least an engine, a 
transmission, and a frame. (Note: For purposes of this definition, any 
electrical, mechanical, and/or hydraulic devices attached to engines 
for the purpose of powering wheels are considered to be transmissions.)
    (2) A piece of equipment that is intended for self-propelled use on 
highways becomes a vehicle when it includes a passenger compartment 
attached to a frame with axles.

Sec.  86.085-37  [Amended]

0
85. Section 86.085-37 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b).

Sec.  86.087-2  [ Removed]

0
86. Remove Sec.  86.087-2.

Sec.  86.091-29  [Amended]

0
87. Section 86.091-29 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a).

[[Page 23691]]

0
88. Section 86.094-7 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(6) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.094-7  Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right 
of entry.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (6) EPA may void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to 
Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or 
refueling test procedure and accompanying evaporative and/or refueling 
standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in Sec.  86.098-10 for 
which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this 
section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon 
request.

Sec.  86.094-13  [Removed]

0
89. Remove Sec.  86.094-13.

Sec.  86.094-14  [Amended]

0
90. Section 86.094-14 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(c)(5) and (c)(7)(i)(A)(1).

Sec.  86.094-16  [Removed]

0
91. Remove Sec.  86.094-16.

Sec.  86.094-21  [Amended]

0
92. Section 86.094-21 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) and 
by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(iii)(B), (b)(8), 
(d), and (g).

Sec.  86.094-25  [Amended]

0
93. Section 86.094-25 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(3)(i)(A), and 
(b)(3)(ii).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (b)(3)(vii).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6), (d), and 
(g).

Sec. Sec.  86.094-26 and 86.094-28  [Removed]

0
94. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.094-26 and 86.094-28.

Sec.  86.094-30  [Amended]

0
95. Section 86.094-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5), and 
(a)(7).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(14).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and 
(b)(4).
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).

Sec. Sec.  86.095-23, 86.095-26, and 86.095-30  [Removed]

0
96. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.095-23, 86.095-26, and 86.095-30.
0
97. Section 86.095-35 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).
0
b. By adding paragraph (a)(4) introductory text.
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (e), and (f).
0
d. By adding paragraph (g) introductory text.

Sec.  86.095-35  Labeling.

    (a) * * *
    (1)--(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) Heavy-duty vehicles employing a fuel or fuels covered by 
evaporative emission standards. This paragraph (a)(4) applies for 
vehicles subject to evaporative emission standards under this subpart, 
as described in Sec.  86.016-1(a)(4). See 40 CFR part 1037 for 
provisions that apply in later model years.
* * * * *
    (d)--(f) [Reserved]
    (g) Incomplete vehicle fuel tank capacity. This paragraph (g) 
applies for vehicles subject to evaporative emission standards under 
this subpart, as described in Sec.  86.016-1(a)(4). See 40 CFR part 
1037 for provisions that apply in later model years.
* * * * *

Sec. Sec.  86.096-7, 86.096-8, and 86.096-21  [Removed]

0
98. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.096-7, 86.096-8, and 86.096-21.

Sec.  86.096-24  [Amended]

0
99. Section 86.096-24 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(11).
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(14)(ii), (a)(14)(iii), and 
(a)(14)(vii).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and 
(d).
0
d. By removing paragraphs (g) and (h).

Sec. Sec.  86.096-26, 86.096-30, 86.096-35, 86.096-38, and 86.097-
9  [Removed]

0
100. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.096-26, 86.096-30, 86.096-35, 86.096-38, and 
86.097-9.

Sec.  86.098-23  [Amended]

0
101. Section 86.098-23 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(b)(1)(i), (e)(2), and (e)(3).

Sec. Sec.  86.098-24, 86.098-25, 86.098-26, 86.098-28, 86.098-30, 
86.098-35, 86.099-8, and 86.099-9  [Removed]

0
102A. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.098-24, 86.098-25, 86.098-26, 86.098-28, 
86.098-30, 86.098-35, 86.099-8, and 86.099-9.

Sec.  86.099-17  [Removed]

0
102B. Remove Sec.  86.099-17.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
103. Section 86.101 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.101  General applicability.

    (a) General provisions. This subpart describes test procedures for 
measuring exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions from motor 
vehicles subject to emission standards under subpart S of this part. 
This generally includes light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and 
complete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. The 
following provisions apply for all testing under this subpart:
    (1) Provisions of this subpart apply to tests performed by both the 
Administrator and manufacturers.
    (2) References in this subpart to engine families and emission 
control systems 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) For exhaust emission testing, measure emissions for all 
pollutants with an applicable emission standard.
    (6) All emission control systems designed for production vehicles 
must be functioning during testing. Maintenance to correct component 
malfunction or failure must be authorized in accordance with Sec.  
86.1834.
    (7) 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.
    (8) 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, perform diagnostics in your evaporative 
emission enclosure with ethanol and propane.
    (9) For exhaust emission testing with ethanol-gasoline blends that 
have less than 25% ethanol by volume, if you use NMHC-to-NMOG 
conversion factors instead of measuring oxygenates as described in 40 
CFR 1066.635, the

[[Page 23692]]

testing specifications and diagnostic requirements in this part 86 that 
are specific to ethanol-gasoline blends do not apply.
    (b) Migration to 40 CFR parts 1065 and 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 or, using 
good engineering judgment, elements of both. For any EPA testing before 
model year 2022, EPA will use the manufacturer's selected procedures 
for determining road load parameters and applying acceptable speed-
tolerance 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, determine overall driver accuracy 
based on driven cycle energy as described in 40 CFR 1066.425(j).
    (ii) Equipment specifications and measurement procedures that are 
specific 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.
    (iii) Use 40 CFR 1066.635 to determine NMOG for any vehicles 
certified to the Tier 3 NMOG+NOX emission standards 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 1066.985.
    (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 40 CFR 
parts 1065 and 1066. The following requirements from this subpart also 
apply:
    (1) Use fuel for testing and service accumulation as specified in 
Sec.  86.113.
    (2) Perform evaporative emission tests as follows:
    (i) Use evaporative testing equipment meeting the specifications in 
Sec.  86.107. This equipment must meet calibration requirements as 
specified in Sec.  86.117.
    (ii) Generate fuel test temperature profiles as described in Sec.  
86.129-94(d).
    (iii) Follow the general provisions and driving schedules described 
in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart I. Evaporative testing consists of vehicle 
preconditioning as described in Sec.  86.132, diurnal measurement as 
described in Sec.  86.133, running loss testing as described in Sec.  
86.134, and hot soak testing as described in Sec.  86.138.
    (iv) Calculate emission results as described in Sec.  86.143.
    (3) Keep records as described in Sec.  86.142
    (4) Perform refueling emission tests, calculate emission results, 
and keep associated records as described in Sec.  86.146 through 
86.157.

0
104. Section 86.102 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.102  Definitions.

    The definitions in Sec.  86.1803 apply to this subpart.

Sec.  86.106-00  [Removed]

0
105. Section 86.106-00 is removed.
0
106. Section 86.106-96 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  86.106-96  Equipment required; overview.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Fuel, analytical gas, and driving schedule specifications. Fuel 
specifications for exhaust and evaporative emission testing and for 
mileage accumulation for petroleum-fueled and methanol-fueled vehicles 
are specified in Sec.  86.113. Analytical gases are specified in Sec.  
86.114. The Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), US06, and SC03 
driving schedules, for use in exhaust emission tests, and the New York 
City Cycle (NYCC), for use with the UDDS in running loss tests, are 
specified in Sec. Sec.  86.115, 86.130, 86.159, 86.160, and appendix I 
to this part.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.107-96  [Amended]

0
107. Section 86.107-96 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(e).

Sec.  86.108-79  [Removed]

0
108A. Section 86.108-79 is removed.

Sec.  86.110-90  [Removed]

0
108B. Section 86.110-90 is removed.
0
109. Section 86.110-94 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(6)(i) and 
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.110-94  Exhaust gas sampling system; diesel-cycle vehicles, 
and Otto-cycle vehicles requiring particulate emissions measurements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i) Sized to permit development of turbulent flow (Reynolds No. 
>>4000) and complete mixing of the exhaust and dilution air between the 
mixing orifice and each of the two sample probes (i.e., the particulate 
probe and the heated THC sample probe). It is recommended that uniform 
mixing be demonstrated by the user.
* * * * *
    (d) Filters, particulate sampling. Use fluorocarbon-coated glass 
fiber filters or fluorocarbon-based (membrane) filters to collect 
particulate matter, as follows:
    (1) Use primary and back-up test filters as follows for particulate 
measurements:
    (i) During each phase of the UDDS, sample dilute exhaust 
simultaneously with paired primary and back-up test filters.
    (ii) Position the back-up filter holder 3 to 4 inches downstream of 
the primary filter holder.
    (iii) Determine the net weight of particulate material collected on 
each primary test filter and each back-up test filter using the 
procedure described in Sec.  86.139.
    (iv) Determine a ratio of net weights using the following formula:

[[Page 23693]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.142

    (v) If the ratio is greater than 0.95, base the particulate 
emission calculations on the net weight of the primary filter only.
    (vi) If the ratio is less than 0.95, base the particulate emission 
calculations on the combined net weights of the back-up test filter and 
the primary test filter.
    (2) The particulate filter must have a 47 mm diameter (37 mm stain 
area).

Sec.  86.111-90  [Removed]

0
110. Section 86.111-90 is removed.
0
111. Section 86.111-94 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3)(vii) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.111-94  Exhaust gas analytical system.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vii) Using a methane analyzer consisting of a gas chromatograph 
combined with a FID, measure methane according to SAE J1151 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1).
* * * * *

0
112. Section 86.113-04 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) 
and (a)(3)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.113-04  Fuel specifications.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Gasoline meeting the following specifications, or substantially 
equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator, must be used 
for exhaust and evaporative emission testing:

   Table 1 of Sec.   86.113-04--Test Fuel Specifications for Gasoline
                             Without Ethanol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reference procedure
              Item                    Regular               \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research octane, Minimum \2\...  93..............  ASTM D2699
Octane sensitivity \2\.........  7.5.............  ASTM D2700
Distillation Range ([deg]F):
    Evaporated initial boiling   75-95...........
     point \3\.
    10% evaporated.............  120-135.........
    50% evaporated.............  200-230.........  ASTM D86
    90% evaporated.............  300-325.........
    Evaporated final boiling     415 Maximum.....
     point.
Hydrocarbon composition (vol
 %):
    Olefins....................  10% Maximum.....
    Aromatics..................  35% Maximum.....  ASTM D1319
    Saturates..................  Remainder.......
Lead, g/gallon (g/liter),        0.050...........  ASTM D3237
 Maximum.
                                 (0.013).........
Phosphorous, g/gallon (g/        0.005...........  ASTM D3231
 liter), Maximum.
                                 (0.0013)........
Total sulfur, wt. % \4\........  0.0015-0.008....  ASTM D2622
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent    60.0-63.4.......  ASTM D5191
 (DVPE), kPa (psi) \5\.
                                 (8.7-9.2).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1.
\2\ Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing.
\3\ For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m (4000 feet), the specified
  range is 75-105[deg] F.
\4\ Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 weight percent for EPA
  testing.
\5\ For testing unrelated to evaporative emission control, the specified
  range is 54.8-63.7 kPa (8.0-9.2 psi). For testing at altitudes above
  1,219 m (4000 feet), the specified range is 52.0-55.4 kPa (7.6-8.0
  psi). Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the
  measured total vapor pressure, pT, using the following equation: DVPE
  (kPa) = 0.956[middot]pT-2.39 (or DVPE (psi) = 0.956[middot]pT-0.347).
  DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a
  different test method.

    (2) Manufacturers may use California test fuels, as follows:
    (i) For model year 2014 and earlier vehicles certified for 50-state 
sale, manufacturers may perform exhaust emission tests using California 
Phase 2 gasoline as specified in Chapter 4 of the California Regulatory 
Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, 
October 1996 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1). However, the 
Administrator may use or require the use of test fuel meeting the 
specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for confirmatory 
testing, selective enforcement auditing and in-use testing.
    (ii) For model year 2015 and later, manufacturers may certify 50-
state Tier 2 vehicles based on testing used to meet California's LEV 
III standards, subject to the following provisions:
    (A) Manufacturers may perform exhaust and evaporative emission 
tests using California Phase 2 gasoline or California LEV III gasoline. 
The Administrator may use or require the use of test fuel meeting the 
specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for confirmatory 
testing, selective enforcement auditing and in-use testing.
    (B) All evaporative testing with California fuel must be conducted 
with temperatures meeting the specifications adopted by the California 
Air Resources Board.
    (C) The vehicles must also meet exhaust and evaporative emission 
standards at high-altitude conditions as specified in Sec. Sec.  
86.1811-17 and 86.1813-17, except that testing is based on the fuel 
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (D) The vehicle must meet the applicable cold temperature standards 
using test fuel specified for cold temperature testing in Sec.  86.213.
    (3) * * *
    (i) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, gasoline 
representative

[[Page 23694]]

of commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail 
outlets must be used in service accumulation. Unless otherwise approved 
by the Administrator, where the vehicle is to be used for evaporative 
emission durability demonstration, such fuel must contain ethanol as 
required by Sec.  86.1824-08(f)(1).
* * * * *

Sec.  86.113-07  [Removed]

0
113. Remove Sec.  86.113-07.

0
114. A new Sec.  86.113-15 is added to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  86.113-15  Fuel specifications.

    Section 86.113-15 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.113-94. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.113-94 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.113-15, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.113-94.''
    (a) Gasoline fuel. This paragraph (a) describes how to transition 
to an ethanol-blend test fuel for vehicles certified under subpart S of 
this part. You may use the test fuels specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a) 
for vehicles that are not yet subject to testing with the new fuel. You 
may use the specified ethanol-blend test fuel anytime earlier than we 
specify as long as you use the corresponding procedures for measuring 
and calculating emission results. See 40 CFR 600.117 for special 
provisions that apply for emission measurements related to fuel economy 
and greenhouse gases. Manufacturers must certify using E10 test fuel as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, and service accumulation fuel 
meeting applicable specifications as follows:
    (1) Except as allowed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, Use 
E10 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards as specified in Sec.  86.1811 and 86.1816, and to 
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards 
as specified in Sec.  86.1813.
    (2) You may use California test fuels to demonstrate compliance 
with Tier 3 emission standards as follows:
    (i) For vehicles certified for 50-state sale, you may instead use 
California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) as adopted in California's LEV III 
program for exhaust emission testing. Through model year 2019, we will 
also use this E10 fuel for any low-altitude exhaust emission testing 
with such vehicles. Starting in model year 2020, we may use test fuel 
meeting either California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) or the gasoline (E10) 
test fuel specified in this paragraph (a). For cold temperature testing 
and for exhaust emission tests at high-altitude conditions, you may 
certify vehicles through model year 2019 based on testing with the 
gasoline (E0) test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a); for such 
vehicles, we may use test fuel meeting either the gasoline (E0) test 
fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a) or the gasoline (E10) test fuel 
specified in this paragraph (a).
    (ii) For vehicles that were certified to SULEV exhaust emission 
standards with a 150,000 mile useful life under California's LEV II 
program and that are eligible to use that carryover data for continued 
certification, you may use that carryover data to demonstrate 
compliance with the exhaust emission standards that apply for Bin 30 
vehicles under Sec.  86.1811-17 for model years 2015 through 2019. The 
test fuel specifications that applied for the original emission 
measurements under the LEV II program also apply for any additional 
exhaust testing under the Tier 3 program, including confirmatory 
testing, selective enforcement auditing, and in-use testing. For 
vehicles certified under this paragraph (a)(2)(ii), use the E10 test 
fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 for cold temperature testing and 
high-altitude testing.
    (iii) For vehicles certified for 50-state sale, you may instead use 
California test fuel for evaporative emission testing as follows:
    (A) If you originally certified vehicles in California in model 
year 2015 or 2016 to PZEV standards with California Phase 2 gasoline, 
you may use that data with carryover vehicles to certify to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards through model year 2019. We will use 
this same fuel to measure diurnal, hot soak, running loss, and SHED rig 
emissions at low-altitude conditions for such vehicles. For refueling, 
spitback, and high-altitude testing, you may use test fuel meeting 
either the gasoline (E0) test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a) or 
the gasoline (E10) test fuel specified in this paragraph (a); we may 
use either of the specified fuels for our testing. For leak testing, 
you must use the gasoline (E10) test fuel specified in this paragraph 
(a).
    (B) If you certify vehicles to LEV III standards with California 
Phase 3 gasoline (E10), you may use that collection of data to certify 
to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Through model year 2019, 
we will use this same fuel to measure diurnal, hot soak, running loss, 
SHED rig, and canister bleed emissions (as appropriate) at low-altitude 
conditions; starting in model year 2020, we may use either California 
Phase 3 gasoline (E10) or the gasoline (E10) test fuel specified in 
this paragraph (a) for our testing with such vehicles. For refueling, 
spitback, high-altitude, and leak testing, you must use the gasoline 
(E10) test fuel specified in this paragraph (a), except that you may 
instead use the gasoline (E0) test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a) 
for model year 2015 and 2016; we will use your selected fuel for our 
testing. Note that you may no longer certify vehicles to the Tier 3 
standards based on California's rig-testing procedures after model year 
2021, as described in Sec.  86.1813-17(g).
    (C) For evaporative emission testing with California test fuels, 
perform tests based on the test temperatures specified by the 
California Air Resources Board.
    (3) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section 
and in this paragraph (a)(3), use E10 test fuel to demonstrate 
compliance with the refueling and spitback emission standards for any 
vehicles that must be certified to meet the diurnal plus hot soak 
standards with E10 test fuel under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section. You may delay using E10 test fuel until model year 2022 for 
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles not certified to refueling emission 
standards.
    (4) If a vehicle uses E10 test fuel for evaporative emission 
testing and E0 is the applicable test fuel for exhaust emission 
testing, 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.
    (5) For service accumulation, use a commercially available fuel, 
subject to the additional specification in Sec.  86.1824-08(f) for 
evaporative emissions.
    (b) through (g) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec.  86.113-94.
    115. Section 86.113-94 is amended by removing and reserving 
paragraphs (a) and (d) and revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (e), and 
(f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.113-94  Fuel specifications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A diesel fuel designated as ``Type 2-D'' grade meeting the 
following specifications, or substantially equivalent specifications 
approved by the Administrator, must be used for exhaust emission 
testing:

[[Page 23695]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Reference  procedure
               Property                           Unit                  Type 2-D                   \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Cetane Number.....................  .......................  40-50.................  ASTM D613
(ii) Cetane Index.....................  .......................  40-50.................  ASTM D976
(iii) Distillation range:
    (A) IBP...........................                           340-400 (171.1-204.4).  ASTM D86
    (B) 10 pct. point.................  [deg]F ([deg]C)          400-460 (204.4-237.8).
    (C) 50 pct. point.................                           470-540 (243.3-282.2).
    (D) 90 pct. point.................                           560-630 (293.3-332.2).
    EP................................                           610-690 (321.1-365.6).
(iv) Gravity..........................  [deg]API...............  32-37.................  ASTM D4052
(v) Total sulfur......................  ppm....................  7-15..................  ASTM D2622
(vi) Hydrocarbon composition:           pct....................  27....................  ASTM D5186
 Aromatics, minimum (Remainder shall
 be paraffins, naphthenes, and
 olefins).
(vii) Flashpoint, min.................  [deg]F ([deg]C)........  130 (54.4)............  ASTM D93
(viii) Viscosity......................  centistokes............  2.0-3.2...............  ASTM D445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1.

    (3) A diesel fuel designated as ``Type 2-D'' grade meeting the 
following specifications, or substantially equivalent specifications 
approved by the Administrator, must be used for service accumulation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Property                           Unit                  Type 2-D         Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Cetane Number.....................  .......................  38-58.................  ASTM D613
(ii) Cetane Index, minimum............  .......................  40....................  ASTM D976
(iii) 90 percent distillation.........  [deg]F.................  540-630...............  ASTM D86
(iv) Gravity..........................  [deg]API...............  30-39.................  ASTM D4052
(v) Total sulfur......................  Ppm....................  7-15..................  ASTM D2622
(vi) Flashpoint, minimum..............  [deg]F ([deg]C)........  130 (54.4)............  ASTM D93
(vii) Viscosity.......................  centistokes............  1.5-4.5...............  ASTM D445
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1.

* * * * *
    (e) Natural gas. (1) A natural gas fuel meeting the following 
specifications, or substantially equivalent specifications approved by 
the Administrator, must be used for exhaust and evaporative emission 
testing:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Item                               Value \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane, CH4..............................  Minimum, 89.0 mole percent.
Ethane, C2H6..............................  Maximum, 4.5 mole percent.
C3 and higher.............................  Maximum, 2.3 mole percent.
C6 and higher.............................  Maximum, 0.2 mole percent.
Oxygen....................................  Maximum, 0.6 mole percent.
Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2)...........  Maximum, 4.0 mole percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All parameters are based on the reference procedures in ASTM D1945
  (incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1).

    (2) The natural gas at ambient conditions must have a distinctive 
odor potent enough for its presence to be detected down to a 
concentration in air of not over one-fifth of the lower limit of 
flammability.
    (3) Natural gas representative of commercially available natural 
gas fuel generally available through retail outlets shall be used in 
service accumulation for natural gas-fueled vehicles.
    (4) A natural gas fuel meeting different specifications may be used 
for testing and service accumulation if all the following conditions 
are met:
    (i) The alternate test fuel is commercially available.
    (ii) Information acceptable to the Administrator is provided to 
show that only the designated fuel will be used in customer service.
    (iii) The Administrator must provide advance written approval for 
the alternate test fuel.
    (f) * * *
    (3) The specification range of the fuel to be used under paragraphs 
(f)(1) and (2) of this section shall be measured in accordance with 
ASTM D2163 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1).
* * * * *

Sec.  86.115-00  [Removed]

    116. Section 86.115-00 is removed.

0
117. Section 86.115-78 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  86.115-78  EPA dynamometer driving schedules.

    (a) The driving schedules for the Urban Dynamometer Driving 
Schedule, US06, SC03, and the New York City Cycles are specified in 
appendix I of this part. The driving schedules are defined by a smooth 
trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time relationships. They 
each consist of a distinct non-repetitive series of idle, acceleration, 
cruise, and deceleration modes of various time sequences and rates.
    (b) The driver should attempt to follow the target schedule as 
closely as possible (refer to Sec.  86.128 for additional cycle driving 
instructions). The speed tolerance at any given time for these 
schedules, or for a driver's aid chart approved by the Administrator, 
are as follows:
* * * * *

0
118. Section 86.117-96 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1)(vii), and (c)(1)(ix) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  86.117-96  Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.

    The calibration of evaporative emission enclosures consists of 
three parts: initial and periodic determination of enclosure background 
emissions (hydrocarbons and methanol); initial determination of 
enclosure internal volume; and periodic hydrocarbon and methanol 
retention check and calibration. Ethanol retention checks may be 
performed instead of methanol

[[Page 23696]]

retention checks. Alcohol retentions may be omitted if no alcohol-
fueled vehicles will be tested in the evaporative enclosure. For 
evaporative and refueling emission tests with ethanol-gasoline blends 
that have less than 25% ethanol by volume, if you account for ethanol 
with a mathematical adjustment as described in Sec.  86.1813-
17(a)(1)(iv) instead of measuring ethanol, the testing specifications 
and diagnostic requirements in this part 86 that are specific to 
ethanol-gasoline blends do not apply. 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) Hydrocarbon and methanol (organic gas) retention check and 
calibration. The hydrocarbon and methanol (if the enclosure is used for 
methanol-fueled vehicles) retention check provides a check upon the 
calculated volume and also measures the leak rate. The enclosure leak 
rate shall be determined prior to its introduction into service, 
following any modifications or repairs to the enclosure that may affect 
the integrity of the enclosure, and at least monthly thereafter. The 
methanol retention check must be performed only upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance, consistent with good 
engineering judgment. If six consecutive monthly retention checks are 
successfully completed without corrective action, the enclosure leak 
rate may be determined quarterly thereafter as long as no corrective 
action is required.
    (1) * * *
    (vii) Inject into the enclosure 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure methanol 
at a recommended temperature of at least 150[emsp14][deg]F (65 [deg]C) 
and/or 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure propane at lab ambient temperature. The 
injected quantity may be measured by volume flow or by mass 
measurement. The method used to measure the quantity of methanol and 
propane must have an accuracy of 0.5 percent of the 
measured value (less accurate methods may be used with the advance 
approval of the Administrator).
* * * * *
    (ix) To verify the enclosure calibration, calculate the mass of 
propane and the mass of methanol using the measurements taken in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (viii) of this section. See paragraph (d) of 
this section. This quantity must be within 2 percent of 
that measured in paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section for propane and 
5 percent for methanol. Evaluate long-term trends using 
good engineering judgment to minimize measurement bias. Keep records to 
document such evaluations and make them available to EPA upon request.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.118-78  [Removed]

0
119A. Section 86.118-78 is removed.

Sec.  86.127-96 and 86.128-00  [Removed]

0
119B. Sections 86.127-96 and 86.128-00 are removed.

0
120. Section 86.128-79 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.128-79  Transmissions.

* * * * *
    (d) The vehicle shall be driven with appropriate accelerator pedal 
movement necessary to achieve the speed versus time relationship 
prescribed by the driving schedule. Both smoothing of speed variations 
and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.129-80  [Amended]

0
121. Section 86.129-80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a).

Sec.  86.130-00  [Removed]

0
122. Section 86.130-00 is removed.

0
123. Section 86.130-96 is amended by adding introductory text, revising 
paragraph (e), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.130-96  Test sequence; general requirements.

    Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are applicable to 
vehicles tested for the FTP test. Paragraph (e) of this section is 
applicable to vehicles tested for the SFTP supplemental tests of air 
conditioning (SC03) and aggressive driving (US06). Paragraph (f) of 
this section is applicable to all emission testing.
* * * * *
    (e) The supplemental tests for exhaust emissions related to 
aggressive driving (US06) and air conditioning (SC03) use are conducted 
as stand-alone tests as described in Sec. Sec.  86.158 through 86.160. 
These tests may be performed in any sequence that maintains the 
appropriate preconditioning requirements as specified in Sec.  86.132.
    (f) If tests are invalidated after collection of emission data from 
previous test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those 
data points needed to complete emission measurements. Compliance with 
emission standards may be determined by combining emission measurements 
from different test runs. If any emission measurements are repeated, 
the new measurements supersede previous values.

Sec.  86.131-00  [Removed]

0
124. Section 86.131-00 is removed.
0
125. Section 86.131-96 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.131-96  Vehicle preparation.

* * * * *
    (f) For vehicles to be tested for aggressive driving emissions 
(US06), provide a throttle position sensing signal that is compatible 
with the test dynamometer. This signal provides the input information 
that controls dynamometer dynamic inertia weight adjustments (see 
Sec. Sec.  86.108-00(b)(2)(ii) and 86.129-00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer 
chooses not to implement dynamic inertia adjustments for a portion or 
all of their product line, this requirement is not applicable.
    (g) You may disable any AECDs that have been approved solely for 
emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of 
defeat device in Sec.  86.1803. The emission standards do not apply 
when any of these AECDs are active.

Sec.  86.132-96  [Amended]

0
126. Section 86.132-96 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(k).

0
127. Section 86.134-96 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1)(vi), 
(g)(1)(xvi), and (g)(2)(vi) and adding paragraph (g)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.134-96  Running loss test.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) Set vehicle air conditioning controls as described in 40 CFR 
1066.835.
* * * * *
    (xvi) Fuel tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of water during 
the running loss test, except that temporary exceedances are allowed 
for vehicles whose tank pressure remained below 10 inches of water 
during the entire outdoor driving period specified in Sec.  86.129. 
These temporary pressure exceedances may not occur for more than 10 
percent of the total driving time.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *

[[Page 23697]]

    (vi) Set vehicle air conditioning controls as described in 40 CFR 
1066.835.
* * * * *
    (4) High-altitude testing. For testing under high-altitude 
conditions, decrease the target ambient and fuel temperatures by 
5[emsp14][deg]F. For example, the fuel temperature profile should be 
adjusted downward based on a nominal starting temperature of 
90[emsp14][deg]F, and the nominal temperature in the enclosure should 
be 90[emsp14][deg]F.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.135-00  [Removed]

0
128. Section 86.135-00 is removed.

0
129. Section 86.135-90 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.135-90  Dynamometer procedure.

    (a) The dynamometer run consists of two tests--a ``cold'' start 
test, after a minimum 12-hour and a maximum 36-hour soak according to 
the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.132 and 86.133, and a ``hot'' start 
test following the ``cold'' start by 10 minutes. Engine startup (with 
all accessories turned off), operation over the UDDS and engine 
shutdown make a complete cold-start test. Engine startup and operation 
over the first 505 seconds of the driving schedule complete the hot 
start test. The exhaust emissions are diluted with ambient air in the 
dilution tunnel as shown in Figure B94-5 and Figure B94-6. A dilution 
tunnel is not required for testing vehicles waived from the requirement 
to measure particulate matter. Six particulate samples are collected on 
filters for weighing; the first sample plus backup is collected during 
the first 505 seconds of the cold-start test; the second sample plus 
backup is collected during the remainder of the cold-start test 
(including shutdown); the third sample plus backup is collected during 
the hot start test. Continuous or batch proportional samples of gaseous 
emissions are collected for analysis during each test phase. Use the 
following measurement procedures for each type of engine:
    (1) For gasoline-fueled, natural gas-fueled and liquefied petroleum 
gas-fueled Otto-cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in bags 
are analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, CH4, and 
NOX.
    (2) For petroleum-fueled diesel-cycle vehicles (optional for 
natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and methanol-fueled 
diesel-cycle vehicles), THC is sampled and analyzed continuously 
according to the provisions of Sec.  86.110. Parallel samples of the 
dilution air are similarly analyzed for THC, CO, CO2, 
CH4, and NOX.
    (3) For natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled and 
methanol-fueled vehicles, bag samples are collected and analyzed for 
THC (if not sampled continuously), CO, CO2, CH4, 
and NOX.
    (4) For methanol-fueled vehicles, methanol and formaldehyde samples 
are taken for both exhaust emissions and dilution air (a single 
dilution air formaldehyde sample, covering the total test period may be 
collected). Parallel bag samples of dilution air are analyzed for THC, 
CO, CO2, CH4, and NOX.
* * * * *
    (d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be 
performed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for 
the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the 
proper speed-time relationship, or to permit sampling system 
adjustment. Both smoothing of speed variations and excessive 
accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided. When using two-roll 
dynamometers a truer speed-time trace may be obtained by minimizing the 
rocking of the vehicle in the rolls; the rocking of the vehicle changes 
the tire rolling radius on each roll. This rocking may be minimized by 
restraining the vehicle horizontally (or nearly so) by using a cable 
and winch.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.135-94  [Removed]

0
130A. Section 86.135-94 is removed.

Sec.  86.137-90  [Removed]

0
130B. Section 86.137-90 is removed.
0
131. Section 86.137-94 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(16) 
through (b)(24) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.137-94  Dynamometer test run, gaseous and particulate 
emissions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (16) Immediately after the end of the sample period, turn off the 
cooling fan and close the engine compartment cover.
    (17) Turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the 
tailpipe(s) of the vehicle.
    (18) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(12) of this 
section for the hot start test, except only two evacuated sample bags, 
two methanol sample impingers, two formaldehyde sample impingers, and 
one pair of particulate sample filters, as appropriate, are required. 
The step in paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall begin between 9 and 
11 minutes after the end of the sample period for the cold-start test.
    (19) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur at 505 
seconds, simultaneously turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and 
the petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1; mark the 
petroleum-fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart and turn off the No. 
1 particulate sample pump, if applicable) and position the sample 
selector valve to the ``standby'' position. (Engine shutdown is not 
part of the hot start test sample period.) Record the measured roll or 
shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow measurement 
instrument). Carefully remove the third pair of particulate sample 
filters from the holder and place in a clean petri dish and cover, if 
applicable.
    (20) As soon as possible, transfer the hot start ``transient'' 
exhaust and dilution air samples to the analytical system and process 
the samples according to Sec.  86.140, obtaining a stabilized reading 
of the exhaust bag sample on all analyzers within 20 minutes of the end 
of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and 
formaldehyde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end 
of the sample period. If it is not possible to perform analysis on the 
methanol and formaldehyde samples within 24 hours, the samples should 
be stored in a dark, cold (4-10 [deg]C) environment until analysis. 
Analyze the samples within fourteen days.
    (21) As soon as possible, and in no case longer than one hour after 
the end of the hot start phase of the test, transfer the six 
particulate filters to the weighing chamber for post-test conditioning, 
if applicable.
    (22) Disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and 
drive the vehicle from dynamometer.
    (23) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired.
    (24) Vehicles to be tested for evaporative emissions proceed 
according to Sec.  86.134; vehicles to be tested with the supplemental 
two-diurnal test sequence for evaporative emissions proceed according 
to Sec.  86.138-96(k). For all others, this completes the test 
sequence.

Sec.  86.137-96  [Removed]

0
132. Section 86.137-96 is removed.

0
133. Section 86.142-90 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.142-90  Records required.

* * * * *
    (d) Test results. Also include a comparison of drive cycle energy 
and

[[Page 23698]]

target cycle energy relative to both inertia and road load forces as 
specified in 40 CFR 1066.425 for each drive cycle or test phase, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *

0
134. Section 86.143-96 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.143-96  Calculations; evaporative emissions.

* * * * *
    (c) If the test fuel contains at least 25% oxygenated compounds by 
volume, measure the concentration of oxygenated compounds directly 
using a photoacoustic analyzer specified in 40 CFR 1065.269 or using 
impingers as described in 40 CFR 1065.805(f). Calculate total 
hydrocarbon equivalent emissions with the following equation, using 
density values specified in 40 CFR 1066.1005(f):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.005

Where:

mTHCE = the sum of the mass of THCE in the SHED.
mTHC = the mass of THC and all oxygenated hydrocarbons in 
the SHED, as measured by the FID. Calculate THC mass based on 
[rho]THC.
[rho]THC = the effective C1-equivalent density 
of THC as specified in 40 CFR 1066.1005(f).
mOHCi = the mass of oxygenated species i in the SHED.
[rho]OHCi = 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 1065.845.
* * * * *

0
135. Section 86.153-98 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.153-98  Vehicle and canister preconditioning; refueling test.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Manufacturers may use the procedures described in this 
paragraph (b) to demonstrate compliance with the seal test for vehicles 
with fuel tanks exceeding 35 gallons nominal fuel tank capacity, and 
for any incomplete vehicles.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.162-00  [Removed]

0
136A. Section 86.162-00 is removed.

Sec.  86.167-17  [Removed]

0
136B. Section 86.167-17 is removed.

0
137. Subpart C is revised to consist of Sec. Sec.  86.201 and 86.213 to 
read as follows:
Subpart C--Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model Year Gasoline-
Fueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks and New Medium-
Duty Passenger Vehicles; Cold Temperature Test Procedures
Sec.
86.201 General applicability.
86.213 Fuel specifications.

Subpart C--Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model Year 
Gasoline-Fueled New Light-Duty Vehicles, New Light-Duty Trucks and 
New Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles; Cold Temperature Test 
Procedures

Sec.  86.201  General applicability.

    (a) Vehicles are subject to cold temperature 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) Perform intermediate temperature testing as follows:
    (1) For testing during ambient temperatures of less than 50[deg]F 
(10 [deg]C), perform testing as described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart 
H.
    (2) For testing at temperatures of 50[deg]F (10 [deg]C) or higher, 
perform FTP testing as described in 40 CFR part 1066.
    (c) Through model year 2021, manufacturers may certify vehicles 
based on data collected according to previously published cold 
temperature and intermediate temperature testing procedures. In 
addition, we may approve the use of previously published cold 
temperature and intermediate temperature testing procedures for later 
model years as an alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c).
    (d) Section 86.213 describes special provisions related to test 
fuel specifications.

Sec.  86.213  Fuel specifications.

    (a) Gasoline. Use a gasoline test fuel with ethanol (low-level 
blend only) or without ethanol as follows:
    (1) You must certify using service accumulation fuel and E10 test 
fuel as specified in Sec.  86.113 for any vehicles required to use a 
low-level ethanol-gasoline blend test fuel for measuring exhaust 
emissions. You may use this test fuel any time earlier than we specify.
    (2) You may use the test fuel specified in this paragraph (a)(2) 
for vehicles that are not yet subject to exhaust testing with an 
ethanol-blend test fuel under Sec.  86.113. Manufacturers may certify 
based on this fuel using carryover data until testing with the ethanol-
blend test fuel is required. The following specifications apply for 
gasoline test fuel without ethanol:

        Table 1 of Sec.   86.213--Cold Temperature Test Fuel Specifications for Gasoline Without Ethanol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Item                          Regular                 Premium          Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(RON+MON)/2 \2\......................  87.80.3...  92.30.5...  ASTM D2699
Sensitivity``\3\.....................  7.5...................  7.5...................  ASTM D2700
Distillation Range ([deg]F):
    Evaporated initial boiling point.  76-96.................  76-96.................
    10% evaporated...................  98-118................  105-125...............
    50% evaporated...................  179-214...............  195-225...............  ASTM D86
    90% evaporated...................  316-346...............  316-346...............
    Evaporated final boiling point...  413 Maximum...........  413 Maximum...........
Hydrocarbon composition (vol %):
    Olefins..........................  12.50.5...  10.50.5...
    Aromatics........................  26.44.0...  32.04.0...  ASTM D1319
    Saturates........................  Remainder.............  Remainder.............
Lead, g/gallon.......................  0.01, Maximum.........  0.01, Maximum.........  ASTM D3237

[[Page 23699]]

 
Phosphorous, g/gallon................  0.005 Maximum.........  0.005 Maximum.........  ASTM D3231
Total sulfur, wt. % \3\..............  0.0015-0.008..........  0.0015-0.008..........  ASTM D2622
RVP, psi.............................  11.50.3...  11.50.3...  ASTM D5191
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1.
\2\ Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing. The premium fuel specifications apply for
  vehicles designed to use high-octane premium fuel.
\3\ Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 weight percent for EPA testing.

    (3) Manufacturers may use the E0 gasoline test fuel specified in 
Sec.  86.113 for certification instead of the fuel specified in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as long as the change in test fuel 
does not cause cold temperature NMHC, CO, or CO2 emissions 
to decrease; manufacturers must keep records documenting these emission 
effects and make them available to EPA upon request.
    (4) We may approve alternate fuel specifications that are 
substantially equivalent to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this section 
for a manufacturer's testing.
    (b) Diesel fuel. Diesel fuel for testing under this subpart must 
meet the specifications for low-temperature test fuel in 40 CFR 
1065.703.

Subpart D--[Removed and reserved]

0
138. Subpart D is removed and reserved.

Subpart F--[Amended]

Sec.  86.505-78  [Removed]

0
139. Remove Sec.  86.505-78.

0
140. Section 86.513-94 is redesignated as Sec.  86.513, and the newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.513 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  86.513  Fuel and engine lubricant specifications.

    (a) Gasoline. (1) Gasoline meeting the following specifications, or 
substantially equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator, 
must be used for exhaust and evaporative emission testing:

       Table 1 of Sec.   86.513--Gasoline Test Fuel Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Item                      Value           Procedure \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Range:
1. Initial boiling point, [deg]C.  23.9--35.0 \2\...
2. 10% point, [deg]C.............  48.9--57.2.......
3. 50% point, [deg]C.............  93.3-110.0.......  ASTM D86
4. 90% point, [deg]C.............  1148.9-162.8.....
5. End point, [deg]C.............  212.8 maximum....
Hydrocarbon composition:
    1. Olefins, volume %.........  10 maximum.......
    2. Aromatics, volume %.......  35 maximum.......  ASTM D1319
    3. Saturates.................  Remainder........
Lead (organic), g/liter..........  0.013 maximum....  ASTM D3237
Phosphorous, g/liter.............  0.0013 maximum...  ASTM D3231
Sulfur, weight %.................  0.008 maximum....  ASTM D2622
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent      55.2 to 63.4\3\..  ASTM D5191
 (DVPE), kPa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1.
\2\ For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m, the specified initial
  boiling point range is (23.9 to 40.6) [deg]C.
\3\ For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m, the specified volatility
  range is 52 to 55 kPa. Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE,
  based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, using the following
  equation: DVPE (kPa) = 0.956[middot]pT--2.39 (or DVPE (psi) =
  0.956[middot]pT--0.347). DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid
  Vapor Pressure using a different test method.

    (2) The following specifications apply for fuels used during 
service accumulation for certification:
    (i) Unleaded gasoline and engine lubricants representative of 
commercial fuels and engine lubricants which will be generally 
available through retail outlets shall be used in service accumulation.
    (ii) The octane rating of the gasoline used shall be no higher than 
4.0 Research octane numbers above the minimum recommended by the 
manufacturer.
    (iii) The Reid Vapor Pressure of the gasoline used shall be 
characteristic of commercial gasoline fuel during the season in which 
the service accumulation takes place.
* * * * *
    (d) Natural gas fuel. (1) Natural gas meeting the following 
specifications, or substantially equivalent specifications approved by 
the Administrator, must be used for exhaust and evaporative emission 
testing:

     Table 2 of Sec.   86.513--Natural Gas Test Fuel Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Item                              Value \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane, CH4.........................  Minimum, 89.0 mole percent.
Ethane, C2H6.........................  Maximum, 4.5 mole percent.
C3 and higher........................  Maximum, 2.3 mole percent.
C6 and higher........................  Maximum, 0.2 mole percent.
Oxygen...............................  Maximum, 0.6 mole percent.

[[Page 23700]]

 
Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2)......  Maximum, 4.0 mole percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All parameters are based on the reference procedures in ASTM D1945
  (incorporated by reference in Sec.   86.1).

    (2) The natural gas at ambient conditions must have a distinctive 
odor potent enough for its presence to be detected down to a 
concentration in air of not over one-fifth of the lower limit of 
flammability.
    (3) Natural gas fuel and engine lubricants representative of 
commercial fuels and engine lubricants generally available through 
retail outlets shall be used in service accumulation.
    (4) A natural gas fuel meeting different specifications may be used 
for testing and service accumulation if all the following conditions 
are met:
    (i) The alternate test fuel is commercially available.
    (ii) Information, acceptable to the Administrator, is provided to 
show that only the designated fuel will be used in customer service.
    (iii) The Administrator must provide advance written approval for 
the alternate test fuel.
* * * * *

0
141. Section 86.515-78 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  86.515-78  EPA urban dynamometer driving schedule.

    (a) The dynamometer driving schedules are listed in appendix I. The 
driving schedules are defined by a smooth trace drawn through the 
specified speed vs. time relationships. They consist of a nonrepetitive 
series of idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes of various 
time sequences and rates. Appropriate driving schedules are as follows:
    (1) Class I--Appendix I(b).
    (2) Class II--Appendix I(a)(2).
    (3) Class III--Appendix I(a)(2).
* * * * *
    (d) For motorcycles with an engine displacement less than 50 cc and 
a top speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), the speed indicated for 
each second of operation on the applicable Class I driving trace (speed 
versus time sequence) specified in appendix I(b) shall be adjusted 
downward by the ratio of actual top speed to specified maximum test 
speed. Calculate the ratio with three significant figures by dividing 
the top speed of the motorcycle in km/hr by 58.7. For example, for a 
motorcycle with a top speed of 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), the ratio would be 
48.3/58.7 = 0.823. The top speed to be used under this section shall be 
indicated in the manufacturer's application for certification, and 
shall be the highest sustainable speed of the motorcycle with an 80 kg 
rider on a flat paved surface. If the motorcycle is equipped with a 
permanent speed governor that is unlikely to be removed in actual use, 
measure the top speed in the governed configuration; otherwise measure 
the top speed in the ungoverned configuration.

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
142. Section 86.608-98 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.608-98  Test procedures.

    (a) The prescribed test procedures are the Federal Test Procedure, 
as described in subpart B of this part, and the cold temperature CO 
test procedure as described in subpart C of this part. For purposes of 
Selective Enforcement Audit testing, the manufacturer shall not be 
required to perform any of the test procedures in subpart B of this 
part relating to evaporative emission testing, other than refueling 
emissions testing, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) The Administrator may omit any of the testing procedures 
described in paragraph (a) of this section. Further, the Administrator 
may, on the basis of a written application by a manufacturer, approve 
optional test procedures other than those in subparts B and C of this 
part for any motor vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory 
testing using the procedures in subparts B and C of this part.
    (2) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart B of 
this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing:
    (i) For mileage accumulation, the manufacturer may use test fuel 
meeting the specifications for mileage and service accumulation fuels 
of Sec.  86.113. Otherwise, the manufacturer may use fuels other than 
those specified in this section only with the advance approval of the 
Administrator.
    (ii) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel 
at other than the approximate mid-volume of the fuel tank, as specified 
in Sec.  86.131-96(a) with only a single temperature sensor, and may 
drain the test fuel from other than the lowest point of the tank, as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  86.131-96(b) and 86.152-98(a), provided an 
equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be 
maintained by the manufacturers and shall be made available to the 
Administrator upon request. Additionally, for any test vehicle that has 
remained under laboratory ambient temperature conditions for at least 6 
hours prior to testing, the vehicle soak described in Sec.  86.132-
96(c) may be eliminated upon approval of the Administrator. In such 
cases, the vehicle shall be operated through the preconditioning drive 
described in Sec.  86.132-96(c) immediately following the fuel drain 
and fill procedure described in Sec.  86.132-96(b).
    (iii) The manufacturer may perform additional preconditioning on 
Selective Enforcement Audit test vehicles other than the 
preconditioning specified in Sec.  86.132 only if the additional 
preconditioning was performed on certification test vehicles of the 
same configuration.
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) The manufacturer may substitute slave tires for the drive wheel 
tires on the vehicle as specified in Sec.  86.135-90(e): Provided, that 
the slave tires are the same size.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (vii) In performing exhaust sample analysis under Sec.  86.140-94.
    (A) When testing diesel vehicles, or methanol-fueled Otto-cycle 
vehicles, the manufacturer shall allow a minimum of 20 minutes warm-up 
for the HC analyzer, and for diesel vehicles, a minimum of two hours 
warm-up for the CO, CO2 and NOX analyzers. (Power is 
normally left on infrared and chemiluminescent analyzers. When not in 
use, the chopper motors of the infrared analyzers are turned off and 
the phototube high voltage supply to the chemiluminescent analyzers is 
placed in the standby position.)
    (B) The manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from 
condensing in the sample collection bags.
    (viii) The manufacturer need not comply with Sec.  86.142 or Sec.  
86.155, since the records required therein are provided under other 
provisions of this subpart G.
    (ix) If a manufacturer elects to perform the background 
determination procedure described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi) of this 
section in addition to performing the refueling emissions test 
procedure, the elapsed time between the initial and final FID readings 
shall be recorded, rounded to the nearest second rather than minute as 
described in Sec.  86.154-98(e)(8). In addition, the vehicle soak 
described in Sec.  86.153-98(e) shall be conducted with the windows and 
luggage compartment of the vehicle open.

[[Page 23701]]

    (x) The Administrator may elect to perform a seal test, described 
in Sec.  86.153-98(b), of both integrated and non-integrated systems 
instead of the full refueling test. When testing non-integrated 
systems, a manufacturer may conduct the canister purge described in 
Sec.  86.153-98(b)(1) directly following the preconditioning drive 
described in Sec.  86.132-96(e) or directly following the exhaust 
emissions test described in Sec.  86.137-96.
    (xi) In addition to the refueling test, a manufacturer may elect to 
perform the following background emissions determination immediately 
prior to the refueling measurement procedure described in Sec.  86.154, 
provided EPA is notified of this decision prior to the start of testing 
in an SEA.
    (A) The SHED shall be purged for several minutes immediately prior 
to the background determination. Warning: If at any time the 
concentration of hydrocarbons, of methanol, or of methanol and 
hydrocarbons exceeds 15,000 ppm C, the enclosure should be immediately 
purged. This concentration provides a 4:1 safety factor against the 
lean flammability limit.
    (B) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon analyzer shall be zeroed and 
spanned immediately prior to the background determination. If not 
already on, the enclosure mixing fan and the spilled fuel mixing blower 
shall be turned on at this time.
    (C) Place the vehicle in the SHED. The ambient temperature level 
encountered by the test vehicle during the entire background emissions 
determination shall be 80[emsp14][deg]F 3[emsp14][deg]F. 
The windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle must be open and the 
gas cap must be secured.
    (D) Seal the SHED. Immediately analyze the ambient concentration of 
hydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the initial background 
hydrocarbon concentration.
    (E) Soak the vehicle for ten minutes 1 minute.
    (F) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon analyzer shall be zeroed and 
spanned immediately prior to the end of the background determination.
    (G) Analyze the ambient concentration of hydrocarbons in the SHED 
and record. This is the final background hydrocarbon concentration.
    (H) The total hydrocarbon mass emitted during the background 
determination is calculated according to Sec.  86.156. To obtain a per-
minute background emission rate, divide the total hydrocarbon mass 
calculated in this paragraph by the duration of the soak, rounded to 
the nearest second, described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi)(G) of this 
section.
    (I) The background emission rate is multiplied by the duration of 
the refueling measurement obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this 
section. This number is then subtracted from the total grams of 
emissions calculated for the refueling test according to Sec.  86.156-
98(a) to obtain the adjusted value for total refueling emissions. The 
final results for comparison with the refueling emission standard shall 
be computed by dividing the adjusted value for total refueling mass 
emissions by the total gallons of fuel dispensed in the refueling test 
as described in Sec.  86.156-98(b).
    (xii) In addition to the requirements of subpart B of this part, 
the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline-fueled and methanol-fueled 
vehicles as follows prior to emission testing:
    (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel system to ensure the 
absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a 
pressure of 14.50.5 inches of water (3.60.1 
kPa) to the fuel system, allowing the pressure to stabilize, and 
isolating the fuel system from the pressure source. Following isolation 
of the fuel system, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of 
water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall 
perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section and report this action in accordance with Sec.  86.609-98(d).
    (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall 
exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling 
emission control systems.
    (C) The manufacturer may not modify the test vehicle's evaporative 
or refueling emission control systems by component addition, deletion, 
or substitution, except to comply with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section if approved in advance by the Administrator.
    (3) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart C of 
this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing:
    (i) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel 
at other than the approximate mid-volume of the fuel tank, as specified 
in Sec.  86.107-96(e), and may drain the test fuel from other than the 
lowest point of the fuel tank, provided an equivalent method is used. 
Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by the manufacturer and 
shall be made available to the Administrator upon request.
    (ii) In performing exhaust sample analysis under Sec.  86.140, the 
manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from condensing in 
the sample collection bags.
    (iii) The manufacturer need not comply with Sec.  86.142 since the 
records required therein are provided under other provisions of this 
subpart G.
    (iv) In addition to the requirements of subpart C of this part, the 
manufacturer shall prepare gasoline-fueled vehicles as follows prior to 
exhaust emission testing:
    (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel system to ensure the 
absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a 
pressure of 14.50.5 inches of water (3.60.1 
kPa) to the fuel system allowing the pressure to stabilize and 
isolating the fuel system from the pressure source. Following isolation 
of the fuel system, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of 
water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall 
perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section and report this action in accordance with Sec.  86.609-98(d).
    (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall 
exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling 
emission control system.
    (C) The manufacturer shall not modify the test vehicle's 
evaporative or refueling emission control system by component addition, 
deletion, or substitution, except if approved in advance by the 
Administrator, to comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section.
* * * * *

0
143. Section 86.609-98 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.609-98  Calculation and reporting of test results.

    (a) Initial test results are calculated following the test 
procedures specified in Sec.  86.608-98(a). Round the initial test 
results to the number of decimal places contained in the applicable 
emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure.
    (b) Final test results for each test vehicle are calculated by 
summing the initial test results derived in paragraph (a) of this 
section for each test vehicle, dividing by the number of times that 
specific test has been conducted on the vehicle, and rounding to the 
same number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard 
expressed to one additional significant figure.
    (c) Final deteriorated test results. (1) For each test vehicle. The 
final deteriorated test results for each light-duty vehicle tested for 
exhaust

[[Page 23702]]

emissions and/or refueling emissions according to subpart B, subpart C, 
or subpart R of this part are calculated by first multiplying or 
adding, as appropriate, the final test results by or to the appropriate 
deterioration factor derived from the certification process for the 
engine or evaporative/refueling family and model year to which the 
selected configuration belongs, and then by multiplying by the 
appropriate reactivity adjustment factor, if applicable, and rounding 
to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable 
emission standard. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), if a 
multiplicative deterioration factor as computed during the 
certification process is less than one, that deterioration factor is 
one. If an additive deterioration factor as computed during the 
certification process is less than zero, that deterioration factor will 
be zero.
    (2) Exceptions. There are no deterioration factors for light-duty 
vehicle emissions obtained during spitback testing in accordance with 
Sec.  86.146. Accordingly, for the fuel dispensing spitback test, the 
term ``final deteriorated test results'' means the final test results 
derived in paragraph (b) of this section for each test vehicle, rounded 
to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable 
emission standard.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.610-98  [Amended]

0
144. Section 86.610-98 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(c)(2).
0
145. Section 86.612-97 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.612-97  Suspension and revocation of certificates of 
conformity.

    (a) The certificate of conformity is immediately suspended with 
respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to Sec.  86.610-98(b) effective 
from the time that testing of that vehicle is completed.
    (b) The Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity for 
a configuration that does not pass a selective enforcement audit 
pursuant to Sec.  86.610-98(c) based on the first test, or all tests, 
conducted on each vehicle. This suspension will not occur before ten 
days after failure to pass the audit.
    (c) If the results of vehicle testing pursuant to the requirements 
of this subpart indicate the vehicles of a particular configuration 
produced at more than one plant do not conform to the regulations with 
respect to which the certificate of conformity was issued, the 
Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity with respect to 
that configuration for vehicles manufactured by the manufacturer in 
other plants of the manufacturer.
    (d) The Administrator will notify the manufacturer in writing of 
any suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity in whole or 
in part: Except, that the certificate of conformity is immediately 
suspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to Sec.  86.610-
98(b) and as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (e) The Administrator may revoke a certificate of conformity for a 
configuration when the certificate has been suspended pursuant to 
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the proposed remedy for the 
nonconformity, as reported by the manufacturer to the Administrator, is 
one requiring a design change(s) to the engine and/or emission control 
system as described in the Application for Certification of the 
affected configuration.
    (f) Once a certificate has been suspended for a failed vehicle as 
provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer must 
take the following actions:
    (1) Before the certificate is reinstated for that failed vehicle--
    (i) Remedy the nonconformity; and
    (ii) Demonstrate that the vehicle's final deteriorated test results 
conform to the applicable emission standards or family particulate 
emission limits, as defined in this part 86 by retesting the vehicle in 
accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
    (2) Submit a written report to the Administrator within thirty days 
after successful completion of testing on the failed vehicle, which 
contains a description of the remedy and test results for the vehicle 
in addition to other information that may be required by this subpart.
    (g) Once a certificate has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) 
or (c) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following 
actions before the Administrator will consider reinstating such 
certificate:
    (1) Submit a written report to the Administrator which identifies 
the reason for the noncompliance of the vehicles, describes the 
proposed remedy, including a description of any proposed quality 
control and/or quality assurance measures to be taken by the 
manufacturer to prevent the future occurrence of the problem, and 
states the date on which the remedies will be implemented.
    (2) Demonstrate that the engine family or configuration for which 
the certificate of conformity has been suspended does in fact comply 
with the requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from 
normal production runs of that engine family or configuration at the 
plant(s) or the facilities specified by the Administrator, in 
accordance with: the conditions specified in the initial test order 
pursuant to Sec.  86.603 for a configuration suspended pursuant to 
paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
    (3) If the Administrator has not revoked the certificate pursuant 
to paragraph (e) of this section and if the manufacturer elects to 
continue testing individual vehicles after suspension of a certificate, 
the certificate is reinstated for any vehicle actually determined to 
have its final deteriorated test results in conformance with the 
applicable standards through testing in accordance with the applicable 
test procedures.
    (h) Once a certificate for a failed engine family or configuration 
has been revoked under paragraph (e) of this section and the 
manufacturer desires to introduce into commerce a modified version of 
that engine family or configuration, the following actions will be 
taken before the Administrator may issue a certificate for the new 
engine family or configuration:
    (1) If the Administrator determines that the proposed change(s) in 
vehicle design may have an effect on emission performance deterioration 
and/or fuel economy, he/she shall notify the manufacturer within five 
working days after receipt of the report in paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section whether subsequent testing under this subpart will be 
sufficient to evaluate the proposed change(s) or whether additional 
testing will be required.
    (2) After implementing the change(s) intended to remedy the 
nonconformity, the manufacturer shall demonstrate, if the certificate 
was revoked pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, that the 
modified vehicle configuration does in fact conform with the 
requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal 
production runs of that modified vehicle configuration in accordance 
with the conditions specified in the initial test order pursuant to 
Sec.  86.603. The Administrator shall consider this testing to satisfy 
the testing requirements of Sec.  86.079-32 or Sec.  86.079-33 if the 
Administrator had so notified the manufacturer. If the subsequent 
testing results in a pass decision pursuant to the criteria in Sec.  
86.610-98(c), the Administrator shall reissue or amend the certificate, 
if necessary, to include that configuration: Provided, that the 
manufacturer has satisfied the testing requirements specified in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section. If the subsequent audit results in a 
fail decision pursuant to the criteria in Sec.  86.610-98(c), the 
revocation remains in effect. Any design change

[[Page 23703]]

approvals under this subpart are limited to the modification of the 
configuration specified by the test order.
    (i) A manufacturer may at any time subsequent to an initial 
suspension of a certificate of conformity with respect to a test 
vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, but not later than 
fifteen (15) days or such other period as may be allowed by the 
Administrator after notification of the Administrator's decision to 
suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity in whole or in part 
pursuant to paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of this section, request that the 
Administrator grant such manufacturer a hearing as to whether the tests 
have been properly conducted or any sampling methods have been properly 
applied.
    (j) After the Administrator suspends or revokes a certificate of 
conformity pursuant to this section or notifies a manufacturer of his 
intent to suspend, revoke or void a certificate of conformity under 
Sec.  86.007-30(e) or Sec.  86.1850, and prior to the commencement of a 
hearing under Sec.  86.614, if the manufacturer demonstrates to the 
Administrator's satisfaction that the decision to suspend, revoke or 
void the certificate was based on erroneous information, the 
Administrator shall reinstate the certificate.
    (k) To permit a manufacturer to avoid storing non-test vehicles 
when conducting testing of an engine family or configuration subsequent 
to suspension or revocation of the certificate of conformity for that 
engine family or configuration pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (e) 
of this section, the manufacturer may request that the Administrator 
conditionally reinstate the certificate for that engine family or 
configuration. The Administrator may reinstate the certificate subject 
to the condition that the manufacturer consents to recall all vehicles 
of that engine family or configuration produced from the time the 
certificate is conditionally reinstated if the engine family or 
configuration fails the subsequent testing and to remedy any 
nonconformity at no expense to the owner.

Subpart H--[Removed and reserved]

0
146. Subpart H is removed and reserved.

Subpart L--[Amended]

0
147. Section 86.1102-87 is amended by adding a definition of ``Round'' 
to paragraph (b) in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1102-87  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001.
* * * * *

0
148. Section 86.1105-87 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.1105-87  Emission standards for which nonconformance penalties 
are available.

* * * * *
    (e) The values of COC50, COC90, and 
MC50 in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section are expressed 
in December 1984 dollars. The values of COC50, 
COC90, and MC50 in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this 
section are expressed in December 1989 dollars. The values of 
COC50, COC90, and MC50 in paragraph 
(f) of this section are expressed in December 1991 dollars. The values 
of COC50, COC90, and MC50 in 
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section are expressed in December 1994 
dollars. The values of COC50, COC90, and 
MC50 in paragraph (i) of this section are expressed in 
December 2001 dollars. The values of COC50, 
COC90, and MC50 in paragraph (j) of this section 
are expressed in December 2011 dollars. These values shall be adjusted 
for inflation to dollars as of January of the calendar year preceding 
the model year in which the NCP is first available by using the change 
in the overall Consumer Price Index, and rounded to the nearest whole 
dollar.
* * * * *

Subpart M--[Removed and reserved]

0
149. Subpart M is removed and reserved.

Subpart N--Exhaust Test Procedures for Heavy-duty Engines

0
150. The heading of subpart N is revised to read as set forth above.
0
151. Section 86.1305-2010 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1305, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1305 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1305  Introduction; structure of subpart.

    (a) This subpart specifies the equipment and procedures for 
performing exhaust-emission tests on Otto-cycle and diesel-cycle heavy-
duty engines. Subpart A of this part sets forth the emission standards 
and general testing requirements to comply with EPA certification 
procedures.
    (b) Use the applicable equipment and procedures for spark-ignition 
or compression-ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine 
whether engines meet the duty-cycle emission standards in subpart A of 
this part. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the duty cycles and procedures 
specified in Sec. Sec.  86.1333, 86.1360, and 86.1362. Adjust emission 
results from engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent 
regeneration events as described in Sec.  86.004-28.
    (c) The provisions in Sec. Sec.  86.1370 and 86.1372 apply for 
determining whether an engine meets the applicable not-to-exceed 
emission standards.
    (d) Measure smoke using the procedures in subpart I of this part 
for evaluating whether engines meet the smoke standards in subpart A of 
this part.
    (e) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid 
tests, as follows:
    (1) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commercially 
available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in-use engines 
will use.
    (2) For diesel-fueled engines, use the ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing.
    (3) For gasoline-fueled engines, use the appropriate E10 fuel 
specified in 40 CFR part 1065; however, through model year 2021 you may 
instead use the appropriate E0 fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065, with 
the exception that the E0 fuel must have sulfur concentration between 
0.0015 and 0.008 weight percent and research octane of at least 93. 
Starting in model year 2022, you may certify up to 5 percent of your 
nationwide sales volume of engines certified under subpart A of this 
part in a given model year based on this E0 test fuel if those engines 
are certified with carryover data.
    (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 as needed to 
conform to the procedures that were specified at the time of emission 
testing for the model year in question.
    (g) This subpart applies to you as a manufacturer, and to anyone 
who does testing for you.
    (h) For testing conducted with engines installed in vehicles, 
including field testing conducted to measure emissions under Not-To-
Exceed test procedures, use the test procedures and equipment specified 
in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.

Sec. Sec.  86.1305-90, 86.1305-2004  [Removed]

0
152A. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1305-90 and 86.1305-2004.

[[Page 23704]]

Sec. Sec.  86.1306-07, 86.1306-96, 86.1308-84, 86.1309-90, 86.1310-90, 
86.1310-2007, 86.1311-94, 86.1312-88, 86.1312-2007, 86.1313-94, 
86.1313-98, 86.1313-2004, 86.1313-2007, 86.1314-94, 86.1316-94, 
86.1318-84, 86.1319-90, 86.1320-90, 86.1321-94, 86.1322-84, 86.1323-84, 
86.1323-2007, 86.1324-84, 86.1325-94, 86.1326-90, 86.1327-96, 86.1327-
98, 86.1330-90, and 86.1332-90  [Removed]

0
152B. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1306-07, 86.1306-96, 86.1308-84, 86.1309-90, 
86.1310-90, 86.1310-2007, 86.1311-94, 86.1312-88, 86.1312-2007, 
86.1313-94, 86.1313-98, 86.1313-2004, 86.1313-2007, 86.1314-94, 
86.1316-94, 86.1318-84, 86.1319-90, 86.1320-90, 86.1321-94, 86.1322-84, 
86.1323-84, 86.1323-2007, 86.1324-84, 86.1325-94, 86.1326-90, 86.1327-
96, 86.1327-98, 86.1330-90, and 86.1332-90.
0
153. Section 86.1333-2010 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1333, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1333 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), 
(c), and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1333  Transient test cycle generation.

    (a) * * *
    (1) To unnormalize rpm, use the following equations:
    (i) For diesel engines:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.006
    
Where:

Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 
1065.
    (ii) For Otto-cycle engines:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.007
    
Where:

Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 
1065.
* * * * *
    (c) Clutch operation. Manual transmission engines may be tested 
with a clutch. If used, the clutch shall be disengaged at all zero 
percent speeds, zero percent torque points, but may be engaged up to 
two points preceding a non-zero point, and may be engaged for time 
segments with zero percent speed and torque points of durations less 
than four seconds.
    (d) Determine idle speeds as specified in 40 CFR 1065.510.

Sec. Sec.  86.1333-90, 86.1334-84, 86.1335-90, 86.1336-84, 86.1337-96, 
86.1337-2007, 86.1338-84, 86.1338-2007, 86.1339-90, 86.1340-90, 
86.1340-94, 86.1341-90, 86.1341-98, 86.1342-90, 86.1342-94, 86.1343-88, 
and 86.1344-94  [Removed]

0
154. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1333-90, 86.1334-84, 86.1335-90, 86.1336-84, 
86.1337-96, 86.1337-2007, 86.1338-84, 86.1338-2007, 86.1339-90, 
86.1340-90, 86.1340-94, 86.1341-90, 86.1341-98, 86.1342-90, 86.1342-94, 
86.1343-88, and 86.1344-94.
0
155. Section 86.1360-2007 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1360, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1360 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), 
(c), and (f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1360  Supplemental emission test; test cycle and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Perform testing as described in Sec.  86.1362 for determining 
whether an engine meets the applicable standards when measured over the 
supplemental emission test.
* * * * *
    (c) The engine speeds A, B and C, referenced in the table in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be determined as follows:

Speed A = nlo + 0.25 x (nhi - nlo)
Speed B = nlo + 0.50 x (nhi - nlo)
Speed C = nlo + 0.75 x (nhi - nlo)

Where: nhi = High speed as determined by calculating 70% 
of the maximum power. The highest engine speed where this power 
value occurs on the power curve is defined as nhi.
nlo = Low speed as determined by calculating 50% of the 
maximum power. The lowest engine speed where this power value occurs 
on the power curve is defined as nlo.
Maximum power = the maximum observed power calculated according to 
the engine mapping procedures defined in 40 CFR 1065.510.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) If the Maximum Allowable Emission Limit for any point, as 
calculated under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, is greater 
than the applicable Not-to-Exceed limit (if within the Not-to-Exceed 
control area defined in Sec.  86.1370(b)), then the Maximum Allowable 
Emission Limit for that point shall be defined as the applicable Not-
to-Exceed limit.
* * * * *

0
156. Section 86.1362-2010 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1362, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1362 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1362  Steady-state testing with a ramped-modal cycle.

    This section describes how to test engines under steady-state 
conditions.
    (a) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with 
the following ramped-modal duty cycle to determine whether it meets the 
applicable steady-state emission standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Time in mode
              RMC Mode                   (seconds)      Engine speed \1\ \2\        Torque (percent) \2\ \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Steady-state....................               170  Warm Idle.............  0.
1b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
2a Steady-state....................               173  A.....................  100.
2b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
3a Steady-state....................               219  B.....................  50.
3b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
4a Steady-state....................               217  B.....................  75.
4b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.

[[Page 23705]]

 
5a Steady-state....................               103  A.....................  50.
5b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
6a Steady-state....................               100  A.....................  75.
6b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
7a Steady-state....................               103  A.....................  25.
7b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
8a Steady-state....................               194  B.....................  100.
8b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
9a Steady-state....................               218  B.....................  25.
9b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
10a Steady-state...................               171  C.....................  100.
10b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
11a Steady-state...................               102  C.....................  25.
11b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
12a Steady-state...................               100  C.....................  75.
12b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
13a Steady-state...................               102  C.....................  50.
13b Transition.....................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
14 Steady-state....................               168  Warm Idle.............  0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
\2\ Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command
  a linear progression from the speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of
  the next mode.
\3\ The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.

    (b) Perform the ramped-modal test as described in 40 CFR part 1065.
    (c) For 2007 through 2010 model years, manufacturers may follow the 
mode order described in this paragraph (c) instead of the mode order 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section. Any EPA testing with these 
engines will rely on the same procedure used by the manufacturer for 
certification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Time in mode
              RMC Mode                   (seconds)      Engine speed \1\ \2\        Torque (percent) \2\ \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a Steady-state....................               170  Warm Idle.............  0.
1b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
2a Steady-state....................               170  A.....................  100.
2b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
3a Steady-state....................               102  A.....................  25.
3b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
4a Steady-state....................               100  A.....................  75.
4b Transition......................                20  A.....................  Linear Transition.
5a Steady-state....................               103  A.....................  50.
5b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
6a Steady-state....................               194  B.....................  100.
6b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
7a Steady-state....................               219  B.....................  25.
7b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
8a Steady-state....................               220  B.....................  75.
8b Transition......................                20  B.....................  Linear Transition.
9a Steady-state....................               219  B.....................  50.
9b Transition......................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
10a Steady-state...................               171  C.....................  100.
10b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
11a Steady-state...................               102  C.....................  25.
11b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
12a Steady-state...................               100  C.....................  75.
12b Transition.....................                20  C.....................  Linear Transition.
13a Steady-state...................               102  C.....................  50.
13b Transition.....................                20  Linear Transition.....  Linear Transition.
14 Steady-state....................               168  Warm Idle.............  0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065.
\2\ Advance from one mode to the next within a 20-second transition phase. During the transition phase, command
  a linear progression from the speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of
  the next mode.
\3\ The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.

Sec. Sec.  86.1362-2007 and 86.1363-2007  [Removed]

0
157. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1362-2007 and 86.1363-2007.

0
158. Section 86.1370-2007 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1370, and newly 
redesignated Sec.  86.1370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), 
(b)(3), (b)(6), and (f) introductory text to read as follows:

[[Page 23706]]

Sec.  86.1370  Not-To-Exceed test procedures.

    (a) General. The purpose of this test procedure is to measure in-
use emissions of heavy-duty diesel engines while operating within a 
broad range of speed and load points (the Not-To-Exceed Control Area) 
and under conditions which can reasonably be expected to be encountered 
in normal vehicle operation and use. Emission results from this test 
procedure are to be compared to the Not-To-Exceed Limits specified in 
Sec.  86.007-11(a)(4), or to later Not-To-Exceed Limits. The Not-To-
Exceed Limits do not apply for engine-starting conditions. Tests 
conducted using the procedures specified in this subpart are considered 
valid Not-To-Exceed tests (Note: duty cycles and limits on ambient 
conditions do not apply for Not-To-Exceed tests).
    (b) * * *
    (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 
this section, all operating speed and load points with brake specific 
fuel consumption (BSFC) values within 5% of the minimum BSFC value of 
the engine. For the purposes of this requirement, BFSC must be 
calculated under the general test cell conditions specified in 40 CFR 
part 1065. The manufacturer may petition the Administrator at 
certification to exclude such points if the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points 
in normal vehicle operation and use. Engines equipped with drivelines 
with multi-speed manual transmissions or automatic transmissions with a 
finite number of gears are not subject to the requirements of this 
paragraph (b)(3).
* * * * *
    (6)(i) For petroleum-fueled diesel cycle engines, the manufacturer 
may identify particular engine-vehicle combinations and may petition 
the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the 
Not-to-Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of 
this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not 
capable of operating at such points when used in the specified engine-
vehicle combination(s).
    (ii) For diesel cycle engines that are not petroleum-fueled, the 
manufacturer may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude 
operating points from the Not-to-Exceed Control Area defined in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can 
demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points 
in normal vehicle operation and use.
* * * * *
    (f) NTE cold temperature operating exclusion. Engines equipped with 
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) whose operation within the NTE control 
area specified in paragraph (b) of this section when operating during 
cold temperature conditions as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section are not subject to the NTE emission limits during the specified 
cold temperature conditions.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.1372-2007  [Redesignated as Sec.  86.1372]

0
159. Section 86.1372-2007 is redesignated as Sec.  86.1372.

Sec. Sec.  86.1375-2007 and 86.1380-2004  [Removed]

0
160. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1375-2007 and 86.1380-2004.

Subpart O--[Removed and reserved]

0
161. Subpart O is removed and reserved.

Subpart R--[Removed and reserved]

0
162. Subpart R is removed and reserved.

Subpart S--[Amended]

0
163. Section 86.1801-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through 
(d) and adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1801-12  Applicability.

    (a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain 
types of new vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Where the 
provisions apply for a type of vehicle, they apply for vehicles powered 
by any fuel, unless otherwise specified. In some cases, manufacturers 
of heavy-duty engines and vehicles can choose whether to meet the 
requirements of this subpart or the requirements of subpart A of this 
part; those provisions are therefore considered optional, but only to 
the extent that manufacturers comply with the other set of 
requirements. In cases where a provision applies only to a certain 
vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, 
engine type, or other distinguishing characteristics, the limited 
applicability is cited in the appropriate section. References in this 
subpart to 40 CFR part 86 generally apply to Tier 2 and older vehicles, 
while references to 40 CFR part 1066 generally apply to Tier 3 and 
newer vehicles; see 40 CFR 86.101 for detailed provisions related to 
this transition. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain 
vehicles as follows:
    (1) The provisions of this subpart apply for light-duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks.
    (2) The provisions of this subpart apply for medium-duty passenger 
vehicles. The provisions of this subpart also apply for other complete 
heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as follows:
    (i) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel-cycle 
vehicles through model year 2017; however, if you are using the 
provisions of Sec.  86.1811-17(b)(9) or Sec.  86.1816-18(b)(8) to 
transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, the provisions of 
this subpart are optional for those diesel-cycle vehicles until the 
start of the Tier 3 phase-in for those vehicles.
    (ii) 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) Heavy duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and all sizes of 
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles may be optionally certified to the 
exhaust emission standards in this subpart that apply for heavy-duty 
vehicles.
    (ii) The evaporative emission standards apply for incomplete heavy-
duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Evaporative emission 
standards also apply for complete and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles 
above 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103.
    (iii) Refueling emission standards apply for complete heavy-duty 
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. All 
sizes of incomplete heavy-duty vehicles may be optionally certified to 
the refueling emission standards in this subpart.
    (iv) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart apply for 
incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, but not for any 
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.
    (4) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel-fueled 
Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles in a given model year if those vehicles are 
equipped with engines certified to the appropriate standards in Sec.  
86.007-11 for which less than half of the engine family's sales for the 
model year in the United States are for complete Class 3 heavy-duty 
vehicles. This includes engines sold to all vehicle manufacturers. If 
you are the original manufacturer of the engine and

[[Page 23707]]

the vehicle, base this showing on your sales information. If you 
manufacture the vehicle but are not the original manufacturer of the 
engine, you must use your best estimate of the original manufacturer's 
sales information.
    (5) If you optionally certify vehicles to standards under this 
subpart, those vehicles are subject to all the regulatory requirements 
as if the standards were mandatory.
    (b) Relationship to subpart A of this part. Unless specified 
otherwise, if heavy-duty vehicles are not subject to provisions of this 
subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of 
this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the engines 
installed in those vehicles must meet the corresponding requirements 
under subpart A of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine 
comply with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart A of 
this part, the vehicle must be certified under this subpart, and the 
engine does not need to be certified separately.
    (c) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this 
subpart also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 
40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (d) Small-volume manufacturers. Special certification procedures 
are available for small-volume manufacturers as described in Sec.  
86.1838.
    (e) You. The term ``you'' in this subpart refers to manufacturers 
subject to the emission standards and other requirements of this 
subpart.
    (f) Vehicle. The term ``vehicle'', when used generically, does not 
exclude any type of vehicle for which the regulations apply (such as 
light-duty trucks).
    (g) Complete and incomplete vehicles. Several provisions in this 
subpart, including the applicability provisions described in this 
section, are different for complete and incomplete vehicles. We 
differentiate these vehicle types as described in Sec.  86.085-20.
* * * * *

0
164. Section 86.1803-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the definition for ``Certification Short Test (CST)''.
0
b. By adding definitions for ``Class 2b'' and ``Class 3'' in 
alphabetical order.
0
c. By removing the definition for ``Complete heavy-duty vehicle''.

0
d. By revising the definitions for ``Emergency vehicle'', ``Family 
emission limit (FEL)'', ``Heavy-duty vehicle'', and ``Hybrid electric 
vehicle (HEV)''.
0
e. By removing the definitions for ``Incomplete heavy-duty vehicle'' 
and ``Incomplete truck''.
0
f. By adding definitions for ``LEV III'' and ``Low-altitude 
conditions'' in alphabetical order.
0
g. By removing the definition for ``Low altitude conditions''.
0
h. By revising the definition for ``Non-methane organic gases (NMOG)''.
0
i. By adding a definition for ``Rated power'' in alphabetical order.
0
j. By removing the definition for ``Round, rounded or rounding''.
0
k. By adding definitions for ``Round (rounded, rounding)'', ``Section 
177 states'', ``Tier 3'', and ``United States'' in alphabetical order.
0
l. By revising the definition for ``U.S. sales''.
0
m. By adding definitions for ``Volatile liquid fuel'' and ``We (us, 
our)'' in alphabetical order.

Sec.  86.1803-01  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Class 2b means relating to heavy-duty vehicles at or below 10,000 
pounds GVWR.
    Class 3 means relating to heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds 
GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.
* * * * *
    Emergency vehicle means one of the following:
    (1) For the greenhouse gas emission standards in Sec.  86.1818, 
emergency vehicle means a motor vehicle manufactured primarily for use 
as an ambulance or combination ambulance-hearse or for use by the U.S. 
Government or a State or local government for law enforcement.
    (2) For the OBD requirements in Sec.  86.1806, emergency vehicle 
means a motor vehicle manufactured primarily for use in medical 
response or for use by the U.S. Government or a State or local 
government for law enforcement or fire protection.
* * * * *
    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. This includes plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles.
* * * * *
    LEV III means relating to the LEV III emission standards in Title 
13, Sec. Sec.  1961.2 and 1976 of the California Code of Regulations, 
as adopted by the California Air Resources Board (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  86.1).
* * * * *
    Low-altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters 
(1,800 feet).
* * * * *
    Non-methane organic gases (NMOG) means the sum of oxygenated and 
non-oxygenated hydrocarbons contained in a gas sample as measured using 
the procedures described in 40 CFR 1066.635.
* * * * *
    Rated power means an engine's maximum power output in an installed 
configuration, as determined by using SAE J1349 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  86.1).
* * * * *
    Round (rounded, rounding) has the meaning given in 40 CFR 
1065.1001, unless otherwise specified.
* * * * *
    Section 177 states means the states that have adopted California's 
motor vehicle standards for a particular model year under section 177 
of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7507).
* * * * *
    Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 emission standards described in 
Sec. Sec.  86.1811-17, 86.1813-17, and 86.1816-18.
* * * * *
    United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30.
* * * * *
    U.S. sales means, unless otherwise specified, sales in any state or 
territory 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 23708]]

    We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.1805-01  [Removed]

0
165. Remove Sec.  86.1805-01.

0
166. A new Sec.  86.1805-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1805-17  Useful life.

    (a) General provisions. The useful life values specified in this 
section apply for all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and OBD emission 
requirements described in this subpart, except for standards that are 
specified to apply only at certification. These useful life 
requirements also apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, air 
conditioning efficiency credits, and other credit programs used by the 
manufacturer to comply with the fleet-average CO2 emission 
standards in Sec.  86.1818. Useful life values are specified as a given 
number of calendar years and miles of driving, whichever comes first.
    (b) Greenhouse gas pollutants. The emission standards in Sec.  
86.1818 apply for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDV 
and LLDT and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDT and HDV. Manufacturers 
may alternatively certify based on a longer useful life as specified in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) Cold temperature emission standards. The cold temperature NMHC 
emission standards in Sec.  86.1811 apply for a useful life of 10 years 
or 120,000 miles for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR, and 11 
years or 120,000 miles for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. The cold 
temperature CO emission standards in Sec.  86.1811 apply for a useful 
life of 5 years or 50,000 miles.
    (d) Criteria pollutants. The useful life provisions of this 
paragraph (d) apply for all emission standards not covered by paragraph 
(b) or (c) of this section. Except as specified in paragraph (f) of 
this section and in Sec. Sec.  86.1811, 86.1813, and 86.1816, the 
useful life for LDT2, HLDT, MDPV, and HDV 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 LDV and LDT1 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 covered by this paragraph 
(d).
    (e) Intermediate useful life. Where exhaust emission standards are 
specified for an intermediate useful life, these standards apply for 
five years or 50,000 miles.
    (f) Interim provisions. The useful life provisions of Sec.  
86.1805-12 apply for vehicles not yet subject to Tier 3 requirements. 
For example, vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR are not subject to the 
useful life provisions in this section until model year 2019 unless 
manufacturers voluntarily certify to the Tier 3 requirements earlier 
than the regulations require. Also, where the transition to Tier 3 
standards involves a phase-in percentage for a given standard, vehicles 
not included as part of the phase-in portion of the fleet continue to 
be subject to the useful life provisions of Sec.  86.1805-12 with 
respect to that standard. The useful life values for a set of vehicles 
may be different for exhaust and evaporative emission standards in 2021 
and earlier model years; if vehicles have different useful life values 
for evaporative and exhaust emission standards, the evaporative useful 
life applies for the OBD requirements related to the leak standard and 
the exhaust useful life applies for all other OBD requirements.

Sec. Sec.  86.1806-01 and 86.1806-04  [Removed]

0
167. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1806-01 and 86.1806-04.

0
168. Section 86.1806-05 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (b) introductory text, (h), and (j) and adding paragraph 
(k)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1806-05  Onboard diagnostics.

* * * * *
    (b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD system must detect and 
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain 
systems or components according to the following malfunction 
definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test 
procedures set forth in subpart B of this part (chassis-based test 
procedures), excluding those test procedures defined as 
``Supplemental'' test procedures in Sec.  86.004-2 and codified in 
Sec. Sec.  86.158, 86.159, and 86.160. For clean alternative fuel 
conversion manufacturers, your OBD system is expected to detect and 
identify malfunctions in all monitored emission-related powertrain 
systems or components according to the malfunction definitions 
described in this paragraph (b) as measured and calculated in 
accordance with the chassis-based test procedures set forth in subpart 
B of this part to the extent feasible, excluding the elements of the 
Supplemental FTP (see Sec.  86.1803). However, at a minimum, systems 
must detect and identify malfunctions as described in paragraph (k)(7) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) Incorporation by reference. The following additional 
requirements apply based on industry standard specifications, which are 
incorporated by reference in Sec.  86.1:
    (1) The following requirements apply for standardized on-board to 
off-board communications:
    (i) Starting in model year 2008, light-duty vehicles and light-duty 
trucks must comply with ISO 15765-4:2005(E), ``Road Vehicles-
Diagnostics on Controller Area Network (CAN)--Part 4: Requirements for 
emission-related systems'', January 15, 2005.
    (ii) Starting in model year 2008, heavy-duty vehicles must comply 
with the protocol described in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, or 
the following set of SAE standards: SAE J1939-11, Revised October 1999; 
SAE J1939-13, July 1999; SAE J1939-21, Revised April 2001; SAE J1939-
31, Revised December 1997; SAE J1939-71, Revised January 2008; SAE 
J1939-73, Revised September 2006; SAE J1939-81, May 2003.
    (iii) Note that for model years 1996 through 2007 manufacturers 
could instead comply with the protocols specified in SAE J1850, ISO 
9141-2, or ISO 14230-4.
    (2) Light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks must meet the 
following additional specifications:
    (i) Basic diagnostic data (as specified in Sec. Sec.  86.094-17(e) 
and (f)) shall be provided in the format and units in SAE J1979 ``E/E 
Diagnostic Test Modes--Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-5: Revised, May 
2007.
    (ii) Diagnostic trouble codes shall be consistent with SAE J2012 
``Diagnostic Trouble Code Definitions--Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-6: 
April 30, 2002'', (Revised, April 2002).
    (iii) The connection interface between the OBD system and test 
equipment and diagnostic tools shall meet the functional requirements 
of SAE J1962 ``Diagnostic Connector--Equivalent to ISO/DIS 15031-3: 
December 14, 2001'' (Revised, April 2002).
    (iv) SAE J1930, Revised April 2002. All acronyms, definitions and 
abbreviations shall be formatted according to this industry standard. 
Alternatively, manufacturers may use SAE J2403, Revised August 2007.
    (v) All equipment used to interface, extract, and display OBD-
related information shall meet SAE J1978 ``OBD II Scan Tool'' 
Equivalent to ISO 15031-4: December 14, 2001'', (Revised, April 2002).
* * * * *

[[Page 23709]]

    (j) California OBDII compliance option. Manufacturers may comply 
with California's OBD requirements instead of meeting the requirements 
of this section as follows:
    (1) Through the 2006 model year, demonstration of compliance with 
California OBDII requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations 
Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April 
21, 2003 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  86.1), shall satisfy the 
requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak 
detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering 
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this 
section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not 
apply. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of 
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies only to 
vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
    (2) For 2007 through 2012 model year vehicles, demonstration of 
compliance with California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California 
Code of Regulations Sec.  1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), approved on November 
9, 2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  86.1), shall satisfy the 
requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak 
detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering 
protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this 
section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) do not 
apply. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of 
proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies only to 
vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
    (3) Beginning with the 2013 model year, manufacturers may 
demonstrate compliance with California's 2013 OBD requirements as 
described in Sec.  86.1806-17(a).
    (4) For all model years, the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) 
of this section and the evaporative leak detection requirement of 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, if applicable, apply to manufacturers 
selecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance.
    (k) * * *
    (7) For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers (e.g., 
natural 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) Diesel. (A) 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) Misfire. (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 onboard 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 onboard computer, or renders the entire 
onboard computer and its functions inoperative.
    (viii) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must use 
good engineering judgment to induce malfunctions and may perform more 
stringent malfunction demonstrations than described in this paragraph 
(k)(7). In addition, the Administrator reserves the right to request a 
clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer to perform stricter 
demonstration requirements, to the extent feasible, on clean 
alternative fuel conversions.
* * * * *

0
169. A new Sec.  86.1806-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1806-17  Onboard 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 trouble codes 
corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators 
appropriately.
    (a) Vehicles must comply with the 2013 OBD requirements adopted for 
California as described in this paragraph (a). California's 2013 OBD-II 
requirements are part of Title 13, Sec.  1968.2 of the California Code 
of Regulations, approved on July 31, 2013 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  86.1). The following clarifications and exceptions apply for 
vehicles certified under this subpart:
    (1) For vehicles not certified in California, references to 
vehicles meeting certain California Air Resources Board emission 
standards are understood to refer to the corresponding EPA emission 
standards for a given family, where applicable. Use good

[[Page 23710]]

engineering judgment to correlate the specified standards with the bin 
standards that apply under this subpart.
    (2) Vehicles must comply with OBD requirements throughout the 
useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805. If the specified useful life 
is different for evaporative and exhaust emissions, the useful life 
specified for evaporative emissions applies for monitoring related to 
fuel-system leaks and the useful life specified for exhaust emissions 
applies for all other parameters.
    (3) The purpose and applicability statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a) 
and (b) do not apply.
    (4) The anti-tampering provisions in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not 
apply.
    (5) The requirement to verify proper alignment between the camshaft 
and crankshaft described in 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C) applies only 
for vehicles equipped with variable valve timing.
    (6) The deficiency provisions described in paragraph (c) of this 
section apply instead of 13 CCR 1968.2(k).
    (7) For emergency vehicles only, the provisions of 13 CCR 
1968.2(e)(6.2.1) related to monitoring and identification of air-fuel 
ratio cylinder imbalance, as part of the fuel system monitoring, do not 
apply until model year 2020, unless the vehicle met the requirements in 
2016 or earlier model years.
    (8) Apply thresholds for exhaust emission malfunctions from Tier 3 
vehicles based on the thresholds calculated for the corresponding bin 
standards in the California LEV II program as prescribed for the latest 
model year in CCR 1968.2(e)(1) through (3). For example, for Tier 3 Bin 
160 standards, apply the threshold that applies for the LEV standards. 
For cases involving Tier 3 standards that have no corresponding bin 
standards from the California LEV II program, use the next highest LEV 
II bin. For example, for Tier 3 Bin 50 standards, apply the threshold 
that applies for the ULEV standards. You may apply thresholds that are 
more stringent than we require under this paragraph (a)(8).
    (b) The following additional provisions apply:
    (1) Model year 2017 and later vehicles must meet the OBD system 
requirements described in this paragraph (b)(1). When monitoring 
conditions are satisfied, test vehicles must detect the presence of a 
leak with an effective leak diameter at or above 0.020 inches, 
illuminate the MIL, and store the appropriate confirmed diagnostic 
trouble codes (DTCs) (13 CCR 1968.2 refers to these as fault codes). 
For a 0.020 inch leak, the DTC(s) shall be a generic SAE J2012 DTC that 
is specific to an EVAP system very small leak (e.g., P0456, P04EE, or 
P04EF) or an equivalent manufacturer-specific DTC that we approve. 
Conduct testing using an O'Keefe Controls Co. metal ``Type B'' orifice 
with a diameter of 0.020 inches or an alternate orifice diameter 
approved under 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4.2.3) or (e)(4.2.4).
    (i) Use the methodology specified in 13 CCR 1968.2(h)(2.2) to 
select test vehicles to demonstrate that the OBD system is capable of 
detecting a 0.020 inch leak installed in the evaporative system, except 
that the manufacturer may use production-representative vehicles 
instead of the vehicle options specified in 13 CCR 1968.2(h)(2.3).
    (ii) Perform tests in the laboratory, with or without a 
dynamometer, or on an outdoor road surface, as necessary to exercise 
the vehicle's ability to detect leaks in the evaporative system.
    (iii) Perform at least two tests to evaluate the OBD system for 
leaks that are installed near the fuel fill pipe and near the canister. 
The implanted leak near the fuel fill pipe must be at the fuel cap or 
between the fuel cap and the fuel tank. The implanted leak near the 
canister must be in the vapor line between the canister and the fuel 
tank, or between the canister and the purge valve). If a vehicle has 
multiple canisters or fuel fill pipes, repeat the testing to evaluate 
the system for implanted leaks corresponding to each canister and fuel 
fill pipe. You may propose to implant leaks in different locations 
(e.g., near the purge valve); we will approve your alternate leak 
location if it more effectively demonstrates leak detection for your 
particular fuel system design.
    (iv) If vehicle operation is needed to fulfill preconditioning 
(i.e., when engine-off tests require driving before vehicle shutdown to 
enable the engine-off monitor) or monitoring conditions for leak 
detection under this paragraph (b)(1) utilize an FTP cycle, Unified 
cycle, or some other specified operating cycle that will satisfy the 
approved monitoring or preconditioning conditions without the 
interference of approved deficiencies. Continue vehicle operation as 
needed to illuminate the MIL and store the appropriate DTCs.
    (v) Emission measurements are not required during this OBD 
evaporative system leak monitoring demonstration testing.
    (vi) For test groups not selected for testing in a given model 
year, you may instead provide a statement in the application for 
certification, consistent with good engineering judgment, that vehicles 
meet leak-detection requirements based on previous OBD tests, 
development tests, or other appropriate information. For any untested 
test groups, the statement specified in Sec.  86.1844-01(d)(8) applies 
with regard to the leak monitoring requirement. We may ask you to 
provide the data and other information that formed the basis for your 
statement. Select test groups in later model years such that testing 
will rotate to cover your whole product line over time.
    (vii) Submit the following information in the application for 
certification:
    (A) Describe the test sequence.
    (B) Identify the driving cycle used and the time expired and 
distance driven before the MIL illuminated.
    (C) Identify the ranges of in-use environmental and vehicle 
operating conditions for which the vehicle will not meet the leak-
detection specifications described in this paragraph (b)(1). To meet 
this requirement, you may give us the same information you gave the 
California Air Resources Board regarding enable conditions for the 
evaporative system leak monitor.
    (D) Identify the confirmed and permanent DTCs set by the OBD system 
during testing.
    (E) Include the freeze frame information stored at the point the 
fault is detected.
    (F) Include the SAE J1979 test results (e.g., Mode/Service $06) 
corresponding to the DTCs that were stored during the test.
    (viii) If you have one or more vehicle models in model year 2016 
that do not comply with the leak requirements in 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4), 
you may comply with the requirements of this paragraph (b)(1) in model 
year 2017 by substituting model year 2016 vehicles on an equal-
percentage basis. Demonstrate this by calculating the percentage of 
vehicles subject to OBD requirements under this subpart that meet the 
requirements of this paragraph (b)(1) in model years 2016 and 2017; the 
sum of these two percentage values must be at or above 100 percent. Any 
model year 2017 vehicles not meeting the requirements of this paragraph 
(b)(1), as allowed by this paragraph (b)(1)(viii), may not be counted 
as compliant Tier 3 vehicles under the alternative phase-in specified 
in Sec.  86.1813-17(g)(2)(ii).
    (2) For vehicles subject to the leak standard in Sec.  86.1813, OBD 
systems must record in computer memory the result of the most recent 
successfully completed diagnostic check for a 0.020 inch leak. Someone 
must be able to use the data to determine the miles driven since the 
last check occurred, the pass/fail result, and whether there has been

[[Page 23711]]

a check since the computer memory was last cleared (e.g., from a scan 
tool command or battery disconnect). The system may be designed to keep 
data only from the previous 750 miles of driving. (Note: This 750 mile 
requirement is related to the use of the OBD evaporative leak monitor 
in the leak test and should not be confused with either the minimum or 
maximum distance values specified in Table G-19 of SAE J1979.) The data 
must be reported in a standardized format consistent with other data 
required for the OBD system. The results must be scan-readable.
    (3) For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel 
tank capacity, you may request our approval for a leak threshold 
greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. We 
will generally approve a leak threshold equal to the standard that 
applies under Sec.  86.1813.
    (c) You may ask us to accept as compliant a vehicle that does not 
fully meet specific requirements under this section. Such deficiencies 
are intended to allow for minor deviations from OBD standards under 
limited conditions. We expect vehicles to have functioning OBD systems 
that meet the objectives stated in this section. The following 
provisions apply regarding OBD system deficiencies:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, we will 
not approve a deficiency that involves the complete lack of a major 
diagnostic monitor, such as monitors related to exhaust aftertreatment 
devices, oxygen sensors, air-fuel ratio sensors, NOX 
sensors, engine misfire, evaporative leaks, and diesel EGR (if 
applicable).
    (2) We will approve a deficiency only if you show us that full 
compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant 
factors, such as the technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the 
lead time and production cycles of vehicle designs and programmed 
computing upgrades.
    (3) Our approval for a given deficiency applies only for a single 
model year, though you may continue to ask us to extend a deficiency 
approval in renewable one-year increments. We may approve an extension 
if you demonstrate an acceptable level of effort toward compliance and 
show that the necessary hardware or software modifications would pose 
an unreasonable burden.
    (d) For alternative-fuel vehicles, manufacturers may request a 
waiver from specific requirements for which monitoring may not be 
reliable for operation with the alternative fuel. However, we will not 
waive requirements that we judge to be feasible for a particular 
manufacturer or vehicle model.
    (e) For alternative-fuel conversions, manufacturers may meet the 
requirements of Sec.  86.1806-05 instead of the requirements of this 
section.
    (f) You may ask us to waive certain requirements in this section 
for emergency vehicles. We will approve your request for an appropriate 
duration if we determine that the OBD requirement in question could 
harm system performance in a way that would impair a vehicle's ability 
to perform its emergency functions.
    (g) The following interim provisions describe an alternate 
implementation schedule for the requirements of this section in certain 
circumstances:
    (1) Manufacturers may delay complying with all the requirements of 
this section, and instead meet all the requirements that apply under 
Sec.  86.1806-05, for any heavy-duty vehicles that are not yet subject 
to the Tier 3 standards in Sec.  86.1816.
    (2) Except as specified in this paragraph (g)(2), small-volume 
manufacturers may delay complying with all the requirements of this 
section until model year 2022, and instead meet all the requirements 
that apply under Sec.  86.1806-05 during those years. This provision 
does not apply for a vehicle model if it is identical to a 2016 vehicle 
model that was certified to meet California's OBD requirements under 
Sec.  86.1806-05(j)(3). A vehicle model is considered identical to one 
from model year 2016 if it is certified in the current year based on 
the same test data for exhaust or evaporative emissions under the 
carryover data provisions of this subpart.
    (3) Manufacturers may disregard the requirements of this section 
that apply above 8,500 pounds GVWR before model year 2019 and instead 
meet all the requirements that apply under Sec.  86.1806-05. This also 
applies for model year 2019 vehicles from a test group with vehicles 
that have a Job 1 date on or before March 3, 2018 (see 40 CFR 85.2304).

Sec.  86.1807-01  [Amended]

0
170. Section 86.1807-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(3)(ix).

0
171. Section 86.1808-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3) introductory text, 
(f)(6)(ii)(D), (f)(7)(i) introductory text, (f)(7)(ii)(B), (f)(10)(ii), 
(f)(13) introductory text, (f)(13)(iv), and (f)(16)(i).
0
b. By adding paragraph (g).

Sec.  86.1808-01  Maintenance instructions.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Applicability. Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of 
this paragraph (f) for 1996 model year for and later light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks. Manufacturers are subject to the 
provisions of this paragraph (f) for 2005 model year and later heavy-
duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the corresponding 
engines that are subject to the OBD requirements of this part.
* * * * *
    (3) Information dissemination. Each manufacturer shall provide or 
cause to be provided to the persons specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of 
this section and to any other interested parties a manufacturer-
specific Web site containing the information specified in paragraph 
(f)(2)(i) of this section for vehicles identified in paragraph (f)(1) 
of this section that 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. Each 
manufacturer Web site shall--
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Any alternative means proposed by a manufacturer must be 
available to aftermarket technicians at a fair and reasonable price.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) All information required to be made available by this section 
shall be made available at a fair and reasonable price. In determining 
whether a price is fair and reasonable, consideration may be given to 
relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following:
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) The Administrator will act on the request within 180 days 
following receipt of a complete request or following receipt of any 
additional information requested by the Administrator.
* * * * *
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Provide on the manufacturer's Web site an index of all 
emissions-related training information available for purchase by 
aftermarket service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. The required 
information must be made available for purchase within 3 months of 
model introduction and then must be made available at the same time it 
is made available to manufacturer-franchised dealerships, whichever is 
earlier. The index shall describe the title

[[Page 23712]]

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. 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.
* * * * *
    (g) Through model year 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or 
cause to be furnished to the purchaser the following statement for each 
new diesel-fueled Tier 2 vehicle (certified using a test fuel with 15 
ppm sulfur or less): ``This vehicle must be operated only with ultra 
low sulfur diesel fuel (that is, diesel fuel meeting EPA specifications 
for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).''

Sec.  86.1808-07  [Removed]

0
172. Remove Sec.  86.1808-07.

0
173. Section 86.1809-12 is amended by revising paragraph (c) 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1809-12  Prohibition of defeat devices.

* * * * *
    (c) For cold temperature CO and cold temperature NMHC emission 
control, the Administrator will use a guideline to determine the 
appropriateness of the CO and NMHC emission control at ambient 
temperatures between 25 [deg]F (the upper bound of the FTP test 
temperature range) and 68 [deg]F (the lower bound of the FTP test 
temperature range). The guideline for CO emission congruity across the 
intermediate temperature range is the linear interpolation between the 
CO standard applicable at 25 [deg]F and the CO standard applicable at 
68 [deg]F. The guideline for NMHC emission congruity across the 
intermediate temperature range is the linear interpolation between the 
NMHC FEL pass limit (e.g., 0.3499 g/mi for a 0.3 g/mi FEL) applicable 
at 20 [deg]F and the Tier 2 NMOG standard or the Tier 3 
NMOG+NOX bin standard to which the vehicle was certified at 
68 [deg]F, where the intermediate temperature NMHC level is rounded to 
the nearest hundredth for comparison to the interpolated line. For 
vehicles that exceed this CO emissions guideline or this NMHC emissions 
guideline upon intermediate temperature testing:
* * * * *

0
174. Section 86.1810-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(m), and revising paragraphs (f), (k)(3), and (o) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1810-01  General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe 
condition; waivers.

* * * * *
    (f) Altitude requirements. Unless otherwise specified, emission 
standards apply at low-altitude conditions and at high-altitude 
conditions. The following exceptions apply:
    (1) The supplemental exhaust emission standards as described in 
Sec.  86.1811-04(f) apply only at low-altitude conditions;
    (2) The cold temperature NMHC emission standards as described in 
Sec.  86.1811-10(g) apply only at low-altitude conditions;
    (3) The evaporative emission standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-
09(e) apply at low-altitude conditions. The evaporative emission 
standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-04(e) continue to apply at high-
altitude conditions for 2009 and later model year vehicles.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) Refueling receptacle requirements. Compressed natural gas 
vehicles must meet the requirements for fueling connection devices as 
specified in Sec.  86.1813-17(f)(1).
* * * * *
    (o) NMOG measurement procedures. Measure NMOG emissions using the 
procedures described in 40 CFR 1065.635.
* * * * *

0
175. A new Sec.  86.1810-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1810-17  General requirements.

    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) Vehicles may not discharge crankcase emissions into the ambient 
atmosphere.
    (e) All vehicles must have an onboard diagnostic system as 
described in Sec.  86.1806.
    (f) Emission standards apply at low-altitude conditions and at 
high-altitude conditions, except as noted in this subpart.
    (g) The cold temperature CO and 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) must comply with all the requirements

[[Page 23713]]

established for each consumed fuel (and blend of fuels for flexible-
fueled vehicles). The following specific provisions apply for flexible-
fueled vehicles that operate on ethanol and gasoline:
    (1) For exhaust emissions, we may identify the worst-case fuel 
blend for testing in addition to what is required for gasoline-fueled 
vehicles. The worst-case fuel blend may be the fuel specified in 40 CFR 
1065.725, or it may consist of a combination of the fuels specified in 
40 CFR 1065.710(b) and 1065.725. We may waive testing with the worst-
case blended fuel for US06 and/or SC03 duty cycles; if we waive only 
SC03 testing, substitute the SC03 emission result using the standard 
test fuel for gasoline-fueled vehicles to calculate composite SFTP 
emissions.
    (2) For refueling emissions, we may identify the worst-case fuel 
blend for testing in addition to what is required for gasoline-fueled 
vehicles. The worst-case fuel blend may consist of a combination of the 
fuels specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(c) and 1065.725. This is generally 
expected to be a fuel blend with 10 percent ethanol and a nominal Dry 
Vapor Pressure Equivalent of 10 psi. You may prepare such a worst-case 
fuel blend by mixing it before dispensing into the vehicle's fuel tank, 
or by consecutively dispensing appropriate amounts of the two specified 
fuels into a fuel tank.
    (3) No additional spitback or evaporative emission testing is 
required beyond the emission measurements with the gasoline test fuel 
specified in 40 CFR 1065.710.
    (i) Where we specify requirements based on a percentage of total 
sales volume in a given model year, you may instead ask us to calculate 
the percentage based on production volumes instead of sales volumes.

Sec.  86.1811-01  [Removed]

0
176. Remove Sec.  86.1811-01.

0
177. Section 86.1811-04 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (e)(3)(i).
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (h).
0
c. By revising paragraphs (j), (n), and (o)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1811-04  Emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-
duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) For gasoline-fueled and methanol-fueled LDV, LDT and MDPV: 0.20 
grams hydrocarbon per gallon (0.053 grams per liter) of fuel dispensed. 
This standard also applies for diesel-fueled LDV.
* * * * *
    (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 measure emissions from hybrid electric 
vehicles (including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) as described in 
40 CFR part 1066, subpart F, except that these procedures do not apply 
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles during charge-depleting operation.
    (o) * * *
    (1) Manufacturers must measure NMOG emissions using the procedures 
described in 40 CFR 1066.635.
* * * * *

0
178. A new Sec.  86.1811-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1811-17  Exhaust emission standards for light-duty vehicles, 
light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

    (a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes 
exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2017 and later 
light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger 
vehicles. MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section 
that apply to LDT4. Some of the provisions of this section also apply 
to heavy-duty vehicles as specified in Sec.  86.1816. See Sec.  86.1818 
for greenhouse gas emission standards. See Sec.  86.1813 for 
evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may apply to 
vehicles from model years earlier than 2017 as specified in paragraph 
(b)(11) 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 
40 CFR part 1066, as follows:
    (i) Establish appropriate load settings based on loaded vehicle 
weight (see Sec.  86.1803).
    (ii) Use appropriate driving schedules. Measurements involve 
testing over multiple driving schedules. The Federal Test Procedure 
(FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 
(UDDS). The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) involves testing 
with the UDDS, the US06 driving schedule, and the SC03 driving 
schedule. See 40 CFR 1066.801 for further information on these test 
cycles.
    (iii) Calculate SFTP emissions as a composite of test results over 
the driving schedules identified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 
section based on the following calculation:

SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35 x FTP + 0.28 x US06 + 0.37 x SC03

    (A) For test vehicles that do not have air conditioning, you may 
omit SC03 testing. To calculate composite SFTP emissions for such 
vehicles, use FTP emission results to substitute for the SC03 value in 
the equation.
    (B) You may also use FTP emission results to substitute for the 
SC03 value in the equation for the types of vehicles identified in 40 
CFR 600.115 that automatically qualify for the derived 5-cycle method 
for determining fuel economy label values. Such vehicles remain subject 
to the SFTP standard when tested over the SC03 driving schedule. Other 
vehicles remain subject to the litmus-test provisions in 40 CFR 
600.115.
    (iv) Use E10 test fuel as required in Sec.  86.113, except as 
specified in this section.
    (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, 
for certain vehicles you may measure exhaust emissions based on 
nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.635.
    (vi) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles (including 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) as described in 40 CFR part 1066, 
subpart F, except that these procedures do not apply for plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles during charge-depleting operation.
    (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:

[[Page 23714]]

                 Table 1 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Fully Phased-in Tier 3 Exhaust Emission Standards
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NMOG+NOX                                 PM                           CO            Formaldehyde
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     FTP \1\              SFTP               FTP                US06               SFTP               FTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          0.030              0.050              0.003              0.006                4.2              0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fleet-average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is 0.026 g/mile for any LDV or LDT1 test group
  certified to standards based on a useful life of 120,000 miles or 10 years in a given model year.

    (3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply for testing 
at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions as specified in 
paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The SFTP standards specified in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section apply only for testing at low-altitude 
conditions.
    (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is based on a 
fleet average for a given model year. You must specify a family 
emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the 
emission standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP 
testing. Calculate your fleet-average emission level as described in 
Sec.  86.1860 based on the FEL that applies for low-altitude testing to 
show that you meet the specified standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, 
calculate fleet-average emission levels based only on emission levels 
for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate emission 
credits for banking and trading and you may use banked or traded 
credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with 
the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX. You comply with the 
emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to 
show that your fleet-average emission level is at or below the 
applicable standard. You may exchange FTP credits between or among any 
test groups subject to standards under this section. You may not 
exchange FTP and SFTP credits.
    (i) Specify one of the identified values from Table 2 of this 
section as the FEL for demonstrating that your fleet-average emission 
level complies with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX 
under low-altitude conditions. These FEL values define emission bins 
that also determine corresponding emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX emissions under high-altitude conditions, and for 
CO emissions, as follows:

                             Table 2 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   NMOG+NOX FELs
                            FEL Name                                  for low      NMOG+NOX for   CO for low and
                                                                     altitude      high altitude   high altitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 160.........................................................           0.160           0.160             4.2
Bin 125.........................................................           0.125           0.160             2.1
Bin 70..........................................................           0.070           0.105             1.7
Bin 50..........................................................           0.050           0.070             1.7
Bin 30..........................................................           0.030           0.050             1.0
Bin 20..........................................................           0.020           0.030             1.0
Bin 0...........................................................           0.000           0.000             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Manufacturers earn a compliance credit of 0.005 g/mile 
NMOG+NOX for vehicles that are certified for a useful life 
of 150,000 miles or 15 years and that are covered by an extended 
warranty over the same period for all components whose failure triggers 
MIL illumination. Manufacturers may apply the compliance credit as 
follows:
    (A) You may reduce your official FTP emission result for 
certification by the amount of the compliance credit if that allows you 
to certify to a more stringent bin. In that case, you may use the more 
stringent bin standard for calculating the fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX emission level. For any compliance testing with 
these vehicles, the applicable FTP bin standard for NMOG+NOX 
is higher than the specified bin standard by the amount of the 
compliance credit. For example, if the official FTP emission result for 
NMOG+NOX is 0.052 g/mile, this qualifies for an FEL of 0.050 
g/mile for calculating the fleet average and the vehicle is subject to 
an FTP bin standard of 0.055 g/mile.
    (B) If the amount of the compliance credit does not allow you to 
certify to a more stringent bin, calculate the fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX emission level using an FEL for these vehicles that 
is smaller than the bin standard by the amount of the compliance 
credit. For any compliance testing with these vehicles, the specified 
bin standard applies. For example, if the official FTP emission result 
for NMOG+NOX is 0.038 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 emission credits for banking and trading and you may use 
banked or traded credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 for 
demonstrating compliance with the SFTP emission standard for 
NMOG+NOX. You comply with the emission standard for a given 
model

[[Page 23715]]

year if you have enough credits to show that your fleet-average 
emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange 
SFTP credits between or among any test groups subject to standards 
under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP credits. The SFTP 
standards described in this section apply only for testing at low-
altitude conditions.
    (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and formaldehyde; it also includes 
measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life (for some 
vehicles). Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final 
Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements 
are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. Paragraphs (b)(7) through (13) 
of this section describe how to comply with standards during a phase-in 
period.
    (7) 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. In model years 2017 and 2018, an interim US06 PM standard 
of 0.010 g/mile applies. Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard 
for PM must also meet the Tier 3 US06 standard for PM. In model year 
2017, the phase-in requirement applies only for vehicles at or below 
6,000 pounds GVWR; however, you may meet an alternative phase-in 
requirement of 10 percent in model year 2017 based on your full 
production of vehicles subject to standards under this section.
    (ii) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in 
paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an 
indexed PM phase-in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(ii). 
To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2017, 
and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase-in 
schedule. You comply with the indexed phase-in schedule by calculating 
a PM phase-in index at or above 540 using the following equation for 
model years 2017 through 2021:

PM phase-in index = 5[middot]APP2017 + 
4[middot]APP2018 + 3[middot]APP2019 + 
2[middot]APP2020 + APP2021

Where:

APP = The 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)(7)(i) of this section.

    (iii) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those 
standards over the useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805. Note that 
Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for PM 
emission standards than for other emission standards.
    (iv) Any vehicles not included for demonstrating compliance with 
the Tier 3 PM 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.
    (v) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test fuel 
specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this section 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)(9) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards on a different schedule.
    (8) 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)(8)(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. Through model year 2019, you may also 
certify to transitional Bin 85 or Bin 110 standards, which consist of 
all-altitude FTP emission standards for NMOG+NOX of 0.085 or 
0.110 g/mile, respectively; additional FTP standards for PM, CO, and 
formaldehyde apply as specified in this section for vehicles certified 
to Bin 125 standards. Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease 
through the phase-in period as shown in the following table:

    Table 3 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Declining Fleet-Average Tier 3 FTP
                     Emission Standards for NMOG+NOX
                                [g/mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model year                  LDV, LDT1 \1\    LDT2, HLDT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 \2\................................           0.086           0.101
2018....................................           0.079           0.092
2019....................................           0.072           0.083
2020....................................           0.065           0.074
2021....................................           0.058           0.065
2022....................................           0.051           0.056
2023....................................           0.044           0.047
2024....................................           0.037           0.038
2025....................................           0.030           0.030
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Calculate the adjusted fleet-average standard for LDV and LDT1 test
  groups certified to standards based on a useful life of 120,000 miles
  or 10 years in a given model year 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 or 10 years.
\2\ Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards
  starting with model year 2018.

    (ii) SFTP phase-in. The fleet-average SFTP emission standard for 
NMOG+NOX phases in over several years as described in this 
paragraph (b)(8)(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)(8)(ii)(C) of this 
section. For model year 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000 
pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator).
    (B) Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease through the 
phase-in period as shown in the following table:

    Table 4 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Declining Fleet-Average Tier 3 SFTP
                           Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NMOG+NOX (g/
                       Model year                              mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 \1\................................................           0.103
2018....................................................           0.097
2019....................................................           0.090
2020....................................................           0.083
2021....................................................           0.077
2022....................................................           0.070
2023....................................................           0.063
2024....................................................           0.057
2025....................................................           0.050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards
  starting with model year 2018.

    (C) You may use the Option 1 provisions specified in the LEV III

[[Page 23716]]

program to demonstrate compliance with EPA's SFTP standards. Do not 
include any such test groups when demonstrating compliance with the 
phased-in fleet-average SFTP standards specified in this paragraph 
(b)(8)(ii). Note that this option is not available for vehicles 
certified to the transitional bins described in paragraph (b)(8)(i) of 
this section.
    (iii) Interim provisions. (A) For LDT2 and HLDT certified to bins 
higher than Bin 70 under this section through model year 2019, the Tier 
2 useful life period applies as specified in Sec.  86.1805-12 for all 
criteria pollutants other than PM. A similar provisions applies for LDV 
and LDT1, as described in Table 3 of this section.
    (B) You may use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113 through 
model year 2019 for gasoline-fueled vehicles certified to bins higher 
than Bin 70. You may not certify these vehicles using carryover data 
after model year 2019.
    (iv) You may use the alternative phase-in provisions described in 
paragraph (b)(9) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust 
emission standards on a different schedule.
    (9) This paragraph (b)(9) describes an alternative approach to 
phasing in the Tier 3 emission standards for vehicles above 6,000 
pounds GVWR. If you choose this approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 
standards for all your vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR that are 
subject to this section according to this schedule. Under this 
alternative phase-in, you must meet the fully phased-in standards 
specified in this paragraph (b) with 40, 70, and 100 percent of your 
projected nationwide sales of all vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR that 
are subject to this section in model years 2019 through 2021, 
respectively. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the 
phase-in period must continue to comply with the Tier 2 standards in 
Sec.  86.1811-04(c) and (f), including the Tier 2 SFTP emission 
standards for NMHC+NOX and CO for 4,000-mile testing as 
specified in Sec.  86.1811-04(f)(1). Vehicles subject to Tier 2 
standards under this paragraph (b)(9) are subject to the useful life 
provisions in Sec.  86.1805-12 relative to exhaust emission standards. 
Each vehicle counting toward the phase-in percentage under this 
paragraph (b)(9) must meet all the standards that apply throughout the 
useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805-17, and must use the Tier 3 
test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-07. The following exceptions and 
special provisions apply under this paragraph (b)(9):
    (i) For model year 2019, you may exclude from the phase-in 
calculation any test groups with vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR that 
have a Job 1 date on or before March 3, 2018 (see 40 CFR 85.2304).
    (ii) The FTP and SFTP emission standards for NMOG+NOX 
are fleet-average standards. Calculate your fleet-average values based 
on all the vehicles that are subject to the standard in a given year. 
You may not generate credits for banking or trading in model years 2019 
or 2020, and you may not use banked or traded credits to demonstrate 
compliance with the standards in those years.
    (iii) The US06 emission standard for PM is 0.010 g/mile in model 
years 2019 through 2021, and 0.006 g/mile starting in model year 2022. 
The other standards described in this paragraph (b)(9) apply to all 
your vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR in model years 2022 through 2024.
    (10) 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)(10). 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. Vehicles certified 
to the Tier 2 standards must meet all the Tier 2 requirements in Sec.  
86.1811-10, including the fleet-average Tier 2 standards. Calculate 
early Tier 3 emission credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 by 
subtracting the appropriate Tier 2 fleet-average value for FTP 
emissions of NMOG+NOX 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. You may use these early 
credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with 
the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX starting in model 
year 2017. For model years 2018 and later, you may use these early 
credits for banking or trading subject to a limitation based on credits 
generated in California, as follows:
    (i) For the applicable model years in which you generate emission 
credits relative to California's LEV III fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX standard, determine the actual California sales of 
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks and the actual nationwide 
sales of those same vehicles. In 2015, count sales only from vehicle 
models at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each model year, multiply the 
credits generated under the California program by the ratio of 
nationwide vehicle sales to LEV III vehicle sales to calculate an 
effective nationwide quantity. Sum these results for model years 2015 
through 2017. Note that this calculation results in a maximum credit 
quantity based on vehicle sales in all states, even though the initial 
credit calculation does not include vehicle sales in California or the 
section 177 states. If you comply with the LEV III standards based on 
pooled emission credits for California and the section 177 states, use 
those pooled emission credits and corresponding sales for calculating 
the maximum credit quantity under this paragraph (b)(10)(i).
    (ii) You may not use more early credits generated under this 
paragraph (b)(10) for banking or trading to demonstrate compliance with 
Tier 3 emission standards than the calculated value of the effective 
nationwide credit quantity summed in paragraph (b)(10)(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)(10) 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 banking or trading relative to the Tier 3 standards, subject to the 
five-year credit life described in Sec.  86.1861.
    (11) You may certify vehicles to the Tier 3 standards starting in 
model year 2015. To do this, you may either sell all your LEV III 
vehicles models nationwide, or you may certify a subset of your fleet 
to alternate fleet-average emission standards as follows:
    (i) The alternate fleet-average FTP emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX are 0.100 g/mile in 2015 and 0.093 g/mile in 2016 
for LDV and LDT1.
    (ii) The alternate fleet-average FTP emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX are 0.119 g/mile in 2015, 0.110 g/mile in 2016, and 
0.101 g/mile in 2017 for LDT2 and HLDT.
    (iii) The alternate fleet-average SFTP emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX are 0.140 in 2015 for LDV and LDT1, 0.110 in 2016 
for all vehicles, and 0.103 in 2017 for LDT2 and HLDT.
    (iv) The vehicles must meet FTP and SFTP standards for PM as 
specified in Sec.  86.1811-04. The PM testing provisions of Sec.  
86.1829-01(b)(1)(iii)(B) apply for these vehicles.
    (v) Vehicles not certified to the Tier 3 standards in a given model 
year must meet all the requirements that apply for Tier 2 vehicles in 
that model year.
    (vi) For cold temperature testing and for high-altitude testing, 
you may use the E0 fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-04(a)

[[Page 23717]]

or Sec.  86.213 instead of the E10 test fuel specified in Sec.  86.113-
07.
    (vii) For vehicles certified under this paragraph (b)(11), you may 
generate emission credits and use those credits for demonstrating 
compliance with Tier 3 standards as described in paragraph (b)(10) of 
this section.
    (12) The following alternate standards apply for in-use testing:
    (i) Alternate in-use FTP standards for NMOG+NOX apply 
for 2021 and earlier model year 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.
    (ii) The alternate in-use FTP standard for PM is 0.006 g/mile for 
2021 and earlier model year vehicles.
    (iii) The in-use US06 standard for PM is 0.010 g/mile for 2023 and 
earlier model year vehicles.
    (13) 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 FTP bin standard for 
NMOG+NOX. Demonstrate compliance with this standard for low-
mileage vehicles by applying the appropriate deterioration factor. For 
vehicles not certified to any Tier 3 emission standards specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, the provisions of Sec.  86.1811-04(j) 
apply instead of this paragraph (c).
    (d) Special provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The special 
provisions described in this paragraph (d) apply for vehicles with 
Otto-cycle engines. For vehicles not certified to any Tier 3 emission 
standards, the provisions of Sec.  86.1810-01(i)(6), (i)(13), and 
(i)(14) apply instead of this paragraph (d).
    (1) Enrichment limits. The nominal air-fuel ratio throughout the 
US06 cycle may not be richer than the leanest air-fuel mixture required 
for lean best torque, except as allowed under paragraph (d)(2) of this 
section. Unless we approve otherwise in advance, lean best torque is 
the leanest air-fuel ratio required at any speed and load point with a 
fixed spark advance to make peak torque. The allowable tolerance around 
the nominal value for any given speed and load point over the US06 
cycle for a particular vehicle is 4 percent, which is calculated as the 
nominal mass-based air-fuel ratio for lean best torque divided by 1.04.
    (2) Engine protection. AECDs that use commanded enrichment to 
protect the engine or emission control hardware must not use enrichment 
more frequently or to a greater degree than is needed for this purpose. 
For purposes of this section, commanded enrichment includes intended 
engine operation at air-fuel ratios rich of stoichiometry, except the 
following:
    (i) Cycling back and forth in a narrow window between rich and lean 
operation as a result of feedback controls targeted to maintain overall 
engine operation at stoichiometry.
    (ii) Small changes in the target air-fuel ratio to optimize vehicle 
emissions or drivability. This may be called ``closed-loop biasing.''
    (iii) Temporary enrichment in response to rapid throttle motion.
    (iv) Enrichment during cold-start and warm-up conditions.
    (v) Temporary enrichment for running OBD checks to comply with 
Sec.  86.1806.
    (3) A/C-on specific calibrations. (i) A/C-on specific calibrations 
(e.g., air-fuel ratio, spark timing, and exhaust gas recirculation) 
that differ from A/C-off calibrations may be used for a given set of 
engine operating conditions (e.g., engine speed, manifold pressure, 
coolant temperature, air charge temperature, and any other parameters). 
Such calibrations must not unnecessarily reduce emission control 
effectiveness during A/C-on operation when the vehicle is operated 
under conditions that may reasonably be expected during normal 
operation and use. If emission control effectiveness decreases as a 
result of such calibrations, the manufacturer must describe in the 
Application for Certification the circumstances under which this occurs 
and the reason for using these calibrations.
    (ii) For AECDs involving commanded enrichment, these AECDs must not 
operate differently for A/C-on operation than for A/C-off operation, 
except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This 
includes both the sensor inputs for triggering enrichment and the 
degree of enrichment employed.
    (4) ``Lean-on-cruise'' calibration strategies. Manufacturers may 
use ``lean-on-cruise'' strategies subject to the following 
specifications:
    (i) A ``lean-on-cruise'' strategy is defined as the use of an air-
fuel ratio significantly leaner than stoichiometry during non-
deceleration conditions at speeds above 40 mph.
    (ii) You must not employ ``lean-on-cruise'' strategies during 
vehicle operation in normal driving conditions, including A/C usage, 
unless at least one of the following conditions is met:
    (A) Such strategies are substantially employed during the FTP, 
US06, or SC03 duty cycle.
    (B) Such strategies are demonstrated not to significantly reduce 
vehicle emission control effectiveness over the operating conditions in 
which they are employed.
    (C) Such strategies are demonstrated to be necessary to protect the 
vehicle occupants, engine, or emission control hardware.
    (iii) If you propose to use a ``lean-on-cruise'' strategy, you must 
describe 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 LDV and LDT1, the standard is 10.0 g/mile CO.
    (ii) For LDT2, LDT3 and LDT4, the standard is 12.5 grams per mile 
CO.
    (2) Cold temperature NMHC standards. Fleet average cold temperature 
NMHC standards are applicable only to gasoline-fueled vehicles, and 
apply equally to certification and in-use except as otherwise specified 
in Sec.  86.1811-10(u) for in-use standards for applicable phase-in 
models. Testing with other fuels such as a high-level ethanol-gasoline 
blend, or testing on diesel vehicles, is not required. Multi-fuel, bi-
fuel or dual-fuel vehicles must comply with requirements using gasoline 
only.

[[Page 23718]]

    (i) The standards are shown in the following table:

    Table 5 of Sec.   86.1811-17--Fleet Average Cold Temperature NMHC
                       Exhaust Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Cold temperature
                                                          NMHC sales-
               Vehicle weight category                   weighted fleet
                                                        average standard
                                                            (g/mile)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV and LLDT.........................................                0.3
HLDT.................................................                0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold 
temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in Sec.  86.1864-10(m).
    (iii) The standards specified in this paragraph (g)(2) apply only 
for testing at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must 
submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration 
approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation from low 
altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary 
emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. 
Any AECD specific to high altitude must require engineering emission 
data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and validity of 
the AECD.
    (h) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers may use 
the following Tier 3 phase-in provisions:
    (1) Instead of the fleet-average FTP standards for 
NMOG+NOX specified in this section, small-volume 
manufacturers may meet alternate fleet-average standards of 0.125 g/
mile through model year 2021, and 0.051 g/mile for model years 2022 
through 2027. The following additional provisions apply for vehicles 
certified under this paragraph (h)(1):
    (i) Vehicles are subject to exhaust emission standards over the 
useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805-12 through model year 2021, 
and as specified in this section starting in model year 2022.
    (ii) Gasoline-fueled vehicles may use the E0 test fuel specified in 
Sec.  86.113-04 for vehicles certified to bins higher than Bin 70 
through model year 2021.
    (iii) Vehicles certified under this paragraph (h)(1) may generate 
emission credits and they may use banked or traded emission credits 
relative to the alternate fleet-average FTP standard for 
NMOG+NOX only in model years 2022 through 2027.
    (iv) Vehicles are subject to all the other requirements specified 
in this section.
    (2) Small-volume manufacturers may delay complying with all the 
requirements of this section until model year 2022, and instead meet 
all the requirements that apply to Tier 2 vehicles under Sec.  86.1811-
10 for 2021 and earlier model years.
    (3) If meeting the Tier 3 standards would cause severe economic 
hardship, small-volume manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended 
compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except 
that the solvency criterion does not apply and there is no maximum 
duration of the hardship relief.

Sec. Sec.  86.1812-01 and 86.1813-01  [Removed]

0
179. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1812-01 and 86.1813-01.

0
180. A new Sec. 86.1813-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1813-17  Evaporative and refueling emission standards.

    Vehicles must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as 
specified in this section. These standards apply for heavy duty 
vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in Sec.  86.1801. The 
emission standards apply for total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE) 
measurements using the test procedures specified in subpart B of this 
part, as appropriate. Note that Sec.  86.1829 allows you to certify 
without testing in certain circumstances. Except as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, evaporative and refueling emission 
standards do not apply for diesel-fueled vehicles. Unless otherwise 
specified, MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section 
that apply to LDT4.
    (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:
    (i) Follow the vehicle preconditioning and exhaust testing 
procedures as described in subpart B of this part.
    (ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emissions as shown 
in Sec.  86.130. This includes separate measurements for the two-
diurnal test sequence and the three-diurnal test sequence; however, 
gaseous-fueled vehicles are not subject to evaporative emission 
standards using the two-diurnal test sequence.
    (iii) For gasoline-fueled vehicles, use E10 test fuel as required 
in Sec.  86.113, except as specified in this section.
    (iv) Emissions are generally measured with a flame ionization 
detector (FID). In the case of diurnal, hot soak, and running loss 
testing with E10 test fuel, multiply measured (unspeciated) FID values 
by 1.08 to account for the FID's reduced response to ethanol. You may 
instead determine total hydrocarbon equivalent for E10 testing based on 
speciated measurements as described in Sec.  86.143-96(c). You must use 
the same method (with or without speciation) for all of the specified 
evaporative testing for a given evaporative/refueling family. 
Similarly, any evaporative/refueling families certified in later model 
years using carryover data must use the same method that was used for 
the original testing. We may do testing with or without speciation, but 
we will apply the 1.08 correction factor to unspeciated measurements 
only if you also use it to determine your final test results.
    (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 evaporative family. 
The FEL serves as the emission standard for the evaporative family with 
respect to all required diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate your 
fleet average emission level as described in Sec.  86.1860 based on the 
FEL that applies for low-altitude testing to show that you meet the 
specified standard. For multi-fueled vehicles, calculate fleet-average 
emission levels based only on emission levels for testing with 
gasoline. You may generate emission credits for banking and trading and 
you may use banked or traded credits for demonstrating compliance with 
the diurnal plus hot soak emission standard for vehicles required to 
meet the Tier 3 standards, other than electric vehicles and gaseous-
fueled vehicles, as described in Sec.  86.1861 starting in model year 
2017. 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 evaporative families within an averaging set as 
described in Sec.  86.1861. Separate diurnal plus hot soak emission 
standards apply as shown for high-altitude conditions. The sum of 
diurnal and hot soak measurements may not exceed the following fleet-
average Tier 3 standards:

[[Page 23719]]

   Table 1 of Sec.   86.1813-17--Tier 3 Diurnal Plus Hot Soak Emission
                       Standards (grams per test)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Low-        High-
               Vehicle category                   altitude     altitude
                                                 conditions   conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV, LDT1.....................................        0.300         0.65
LDT2..........................................        0.400         0.85
HLDT..........................................        0.500     1.15 \1\
HDV...........................................        0.600        1.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1.25 g/test for MDPVs.

    (ii) Specify FELs as follows:
    (A) You may specify the low-altitude FEL in increments of 0.025 g 
above or below the otherwise applicable Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak 
standard, up to the maximum values specified in the following table:

 Table 2 of Sec.   86.1813-17--Tier 3 FEL Caps for Low-Altitude Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Vehicle category                         FEL Caps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV.....................................................           0.500
LLDT....................................................           0.650
HLDT....................................................           0.900
MDPV....................................................           1.000
HDV.....................................................             1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Calculate the FEL for testing at high-altitude conditions based 
on the difference between the low-altitude FEL and the standard. For 
example, if a light-duty vehicle was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g 
instead of the 0.300 g standard, the FEL for testing under high-
altitude conditions would be 0.75 g (0.65+0.10).
    (iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not exceed 0.020 g for LDV and LDT 
and 0.030 g for HDV when tested using the Bleed Emission Test Procedure 
adopted by the California Air Resources Board as part of the LEV III 
program. 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 canisters, the bleed emission test and standard do 
not apply to the refueling canister. You may perform the Bleed Emission 
Test Procedure using the analogous test temperatures and the E10 test 
fuel specified in subpart B of this part.
    (3) Running losses may not exceed 0.05 g per mile when measured 
using the test procedures specified in Sec.  86.134. This standard does 
not apply for gaseous-fueled vehicles.
    (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 1066.985. 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 evaporative families are at the applicable standard (neither 
generating nor using emission credits), the phase-in requirements are 
based on projected sales. Also, if you certify vehicles above 6,000 
pounds GVWR to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in model year 
2017, you may count projected U.S. sales of those vehicles toward your 
calculation for meeting the 40 percent requirement in 2017 (numerator 
only). Manufacturers may meet this requirement using the additional 
alternative phase-in provisions in paragraph (g) of this section. 
Vehicles from the identified model years not certified to the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards continue to be subject to the 
evaporative emission standards specified in Sec.  86.1811-09(e) or 
Sec.  86.1816-08(d), including the useful life provisions of Sec.  
86.1805-12. Note that this subjects LDV and LDT1 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. See paragraph (g) of this section for additional provisions 
that apply for model year 2017 and the rest of the phase-in.

   Table 3 of Sec.   86.1813-17--Default Phase-In Schedule for Tier 3
                     Evaporative Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Minimum
                                                         percentage of
                     Model year                        vehicles subject
                                                        to  the Tier 3
                                                           standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017................................................              1,2 40
2018................................................                  60
2019................................................                  60
2020................................................                  80
2021................................................                  80
2022................................................                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The phase-in percentage for model year 2017 applies only for
  vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR.
\2\ The leak standard specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section does
  not apply for model year 2017.

    (6) For model year 2017, exclude vehicle sales from California and 
section 177 states from the calculation to demonstrate compliance with 
the phase-in schedule in paragraph (a)(5) or (g) of this section, and 
from the credit calculation in Sec.  86.1860.
    (b) Refueling emissions. Light-duty vehicles, light-duty trucks, 
and complete heavy-duty vehicles must meet the refueling emission 
standards in this paragraph (b) when measured over the procedure 
specified in Sec.  86.150. These standards apply starting with model 
year 2018 for vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR. The following 
refueling standards apply:
    (1) 0.20 g THCE per gallon of fuel dispensed for vehicles using 
volatile liquid fuels. This standard also applies for diesel-fueled 
LDV.
    (2) 0.15 g THC per gallon of fuel dispensed for liquefied petroleum 
gas-fueled vehicles and natural gas-fueled vehicles.
    (c) Fuel spitback. For vehicles fueled by volatile liquid fuels, 
fuel spitback emissions may not exceed 1.0 g THCE when measured using 
the test procedures specified in Sec.  86.146. The fuel spitback 
standard applies only to newly assembled vehicles.
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel systems. The provisions of 
40 CFR 1037.103(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.
    (f) Refueling provisions for gaseous-fueled vehicles. The following 
provisions apply specifically for gaseous-fueled vehicles:
    (1) Compressed natural gas vehicles must meet the requirements for 
fueling connection devices as specified in ANSI NGV1-2006 (incorporated 
by reference in Sec.  86.1).
    (2) [Reserved]

[[Page 23720]]

    (3) With our advance approval, liquefied petroleum gas-fueled 
vehicles with gauges or valves that can be opened to release fuel or 
fuel vapor during refueling (such as fixed liquid level gauges) may be 
tested for refueling emissions without opening such gauges or valves, 
as outlined in Sec.  86.157-98(d)(2). We will approve your request if 
you can show that such gauges or valves will not be open during in-use 
refueling due to inaccessibility or other design features that would 
prevent them from opening or make this very unlikely.
    (g) Alternative phase-in options for Tier 3 evaporative emission 
standards. You may use any of the following alternative methods to 
transition to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards:
    (1) Starting in model year 2015, you may earn an ``allowance'' for 
each vehicle that you certify early under this paragraph (g)(1). For 
each allowance you earn, you may count it as one compliant vehicle in a 
later model year during the phase-in period. 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 under the phase-in 
schedule described in paragraph (g)(5) of this section, except that you 
may not use those allowances to increase the value of the phase-in 
index from 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 for banking or trading. Allowances may not be traded to another 
company. You may earn allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) for early-
compliant vehicles as follows:
    (i) Model year 2015 and 2016 vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR 
meeting the Tier 3 standards in paragraph (a) of this section or the 
equivalent California standards as specified in paragraph (g)(4) of 
this section earn allowances, as long as the vehicles are not sold in 
California or any of the section 177 states.
    (ii) Model year 2015 through 2017 LDV and LDT above 6,000 pounds 
GVWR meeting the Tier 3 standards in paragraph (a) of this section or 
the equivalent California standards as specified in paragraph (g)(4) of 
this section earn allowances, as long as the vehicles are not sold in 
California or any of the section 177 states.
    (iii) Model year 2015 through 2017 MDPV and HDV meeting the Tier 3 
standards in paragraph (a) of this section or the equivalent California 
standards as specified in paragraph (g)(4) of this section earn 
allowances for vehicles sold in any state.
    (iv) 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.
    (v) For HDV above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds 
GVWR that you certify to the refueling emission standards in paragraph 
(b) of this section in model years 2015 through 2017 and sell outside 
of California and the section 177 states, a single vehicle may produce 
two allowances if it is certified to the Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak 
standard. Allowances earned under this paragraph (g)(1)(v) may 
alternatively be used in model years 2018 through 2022 to phase in the 
refueling standard, except that a single early-compliant vehicle 
produces only a single allowance.
    (vi) Complete HDV above 14,000 pounds GVWR and all sizes of 
incomplete HDV earn allowances as described in paragraph (g)(1)(v) of 
this section if they are certified to the refueling emission standards 
in paragraph (b) of this section in model years 2015 through 2021.
    (2) The following alternative phase-in options apply for model year 
2017:
    (i) 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, but they may not 
generate or use emission credits. LDV and LDT1 that comply under this 
paragraph (g)(2)(i) may not generate allowances under paragraph (g)(1) 
of this section, regardless of the calculated percentage of compliant 
vehicles in model year 2017.
    (ii) You may comply with the phase-in requirement for model year 
2017 by meeting the Tier 3 emission standards for diurnal plus hot 
soak, running loss, and bleed emissions (or the equivalent set of 
California standards as allowed in this section) with 20 percent of 
vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR, and by meeting the leak 
standard in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section with 20 percent of 
vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. You may optionally include 
vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR under this paragraph (g)(2)(ii) to 
calculate the percentage (numerator only) if they meet the leak and/or 
evaporative emission standards in model year 2017. Vehicles complying 
with Tier 3 evaporative emission standards may generate or use emission 
credits relative to the diurnal plus hot soak standard as specified in 
this section, but they may not generate allowances. You may apply this 
option and use the alternative phase-in calculation in paragraph (g)(4) 
of this section, subject to the following conditions:
    (A) You must meet or exceed the 20 percent threshold for both 
evaporative emissions and the leak standard.
    (B) All the vehicles meeting the leak standard must also meet the 
Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and the OBD requirements in Sec.  
86.1806-17(b)(1).
    (C) Determine the appropriate percentage for calculating compliance 
under paragraph (g)(4) of this section by adding 20 to the percentage 
of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards to 
account for vehicles meeting the leak standard. Do not increase the 
percentage based on meeting the leak standard with more than 20 percent 
of your vehicles in model year 2017.
    (3) If you certify model year 2021 or earlier vehicles to the LEV 
III evaporative 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 high-
altitude standards in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and the leak 
standard specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. You may not 
certify vehicles under this paragraph (g)(3) after model year 2021. 
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). Vehicles may be certified under this paragraph (g)(3) 
based on the rig test (``Option 1'') if they are certified to LEV III 
standards based on the rig test before model year 2017; this 
certification option applies through model year 2021. Include these 
Option 1 vehicles in the calculation of fleet average emissions by 
using the appropriate Tier 3 emission standard as the FEL. Note that 
the rig test is considered a diurnal test with

[[Page 23721]]

respect to the provisions to account for ethanol emissions as described 
in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (4) If you fall short of the phase-in percentage specifications in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section, you may designate the requisite 
number of Tier 2 vehicles as Tier 3 vehicles for purposes of 
demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards in this section. To 
do this, factor those Tier 2 vehicles into the Tier 3 fleet-average 
emission calculation using an FEL that is equal to the applicable 
diurnal plus hot soak standard from the two-day test sequence. The Tier 
3 emission standards do not apply to these Tier 2 vehicles. In 
addition, you may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section if you instead comply based on one of 
the following alternative measures:
    (i) You may comply with an alternate phase-in schedule described in 
this paragraph (g)(4)(i). To do this, you must give us a detailed plan 
for describing how you will meet the alternate phase-in schedule. You 
comply with the alternate phase-in schedule by calculating an 
evaporative phase-in index using the following equation that is at or 
above 1,280 for model years 2017 through 2022 (or 1,040 for model years 
2018 through 2022 if you use the provisions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of 
this section):

Evaporative phase-in index = 6[middot]APP2017 + 
5[middot]APP2018 + 4[middot]APP2019 + 
3[middot]APP2020 + 2[middot]APP2021 + 
APP2022

Where:

APP = The phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards for the indicated model year, based 
on actual sales, as described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (ii) You may comply with an alternate phase-in schedule described 
in this paragraph (g)(4)(ii). To do this, you must give us a detailed 
plan for describing how you will meet the alternate phase-in schedule. 
You comply with the alternate phase-in schedule by calculating an 
evaporative phase-in index using the following equation that is at or 
above 420 for model years 2017 through 2022 (or 380 for model years 
2018 through 2022 if you use the provisions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of 
this section):

Evaporative phase-in index = APP2017 + APP2018 + 
APP2019 + APP2020 + APP2021 + 
APP2022

Where:

APP = The phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 
evaporative emission standards for the indicated model year, based 
on actual sales, as described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.

    (5) This paragraph (g)(5) describes an alternative approach to 
phasing in the evaporative and refueling emission standards for 
gaseous-fueled vehicles above 8,500 pounds GVWR. Under this alternative 
phase-in, you may disregard the requirements of this section related to 
evaporative emission standards that apply for these vehicles before 
model year 2019. Similarly, you may disregard the refueling emission 
standards of this section before model year 2019 for vehicles above 
10,000 pounds GVWR. For model year 2019, you may exclude from the 
phase-in calculation any evaporative families with vehicles that have a 
Job 1 date on or before March 3, 2018 (see 40 CFR 85.2304). Any 
vehicles not subject to Tier 3 evaporative emission standards during 
this phase-in period must continue to comply with the evaporative 
emission standards in Sec.  86.1816-08(d); such vehicles are subject to 
the useful life provisions in Sec.  86.1805-12 relative to evaporative 
emission standards. Each vehicle counting toward the phase-in 
percentage under this paragraph (g)(5) must meet all the standards that 
apply throughout the useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805-17.
    (h) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting 
the eligibility requirements in Sec.  86.1838 may delay complying with 
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. If meeting the 
Tier 3 standards would cause severe economic hardship, such 
manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline 
under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency 
criterion does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the 
hardship relief.

Sec. Sec.  86.1814-01, 86.1814-02, 86.1815-01, and 86.1815-
02  [Removed]

0
181. Remove Sec. Sec.  86.1814-01, 86.1814-02, 86.1815-01, and 86.1815-
02.
0
182. A new Sec.  86.1816-18 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1816-18  Emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

    (a) Applicability and general provisions. This section describes 
exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2018 and later 
complete heavy-duty vehicles. These standards are optional for 
incomplete heavy-duty vehicles and for heavy duty vehicles above 14,000 
pounds GVWR as described in Sec.  86.1801. Greenhouse gas emission 
standards are specified in Sec.  86.1818 for MDPVs and in 40 CFR 
1037.104 for other HDV. See Sec.  86.1813 for evaporative and refueling 
emission standards. This section may apply to vehicles before model 
year 2018 as specified in paragraph (b)(11) of this section. Separate 
requirements apply for MDPVs as specified in Sec.  86.1811. See subpart 
A of this part for requirements that apply for incomplete heavy-duty 
vehicles and for heavy-duty engines certified independent of the 
chassis. The following general provisions apply:
    (1) Test all vehicles as described in this section using a chassis 
dynamometer; establish appropriate load settings based on adjusted 
loaded vehicle weight (see Sec.  86.1803).
    (2) Some provisions apply differently depending on the vehicle's 
power-to-weight ratio. Determine a vehicle's power-to-weight ratio by 
dividing the engine's rated power by the vehicle's GVWR (in hp/pound). 
For purposes of this section, if a test group includes multiple 
configurations, use the vehicle with the highest power-to-weight ratio 
to characterize the test group.
    (3) Use E10 test fuel as required in Sec.  86.113, except as 
specified in this section.
    (4) Measure emissions from hybrid electric vehicles (including 
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) as described in 40 CFR part 1066, 
subpart F, except that these procedures do not apply for plug-in hybrid 
electric vehicles during charge-depleting operation.
    (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. Exhaust emissions may not 
exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows:
    (1) Measure emissions using the procedures of subpart B of this 
part, using specific driving schedules and additional procedures as 
follows:
    (i) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the 
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) specified in paragraph (a) of 
Appendix I of this part.
    (ii) The Heavy-Duty Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (HD-SFTP) 
involves testing with the UDDS, the SC03 driving schedule specified in 
paragraph (h) of Appendix I of this part, and one of the following 
additional driving schedules:
    (A) For Class 2b vehicles, the US06 driving schedule specified in 
paragraph (g) of Appendix I of this part.
    (B) For Class 2b vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 
0.024 hp/pound that are certified to optional standards under 
paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) of this section, the highway portion of the 
US06 driving schedule characterized as the ``second bag'' in Sec.  
86.159-08(a).
    (C) For Class 3 vehicles, the LA-92 driving schedule as specified 
in paragraph (c) of Appendix I of this part.

[[Page 23722]]

    (iii) HD-SFTP emissions are calculated as a composite of test 
results over these driving schedules based on the following 
calculation:

HD-SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35[middot]FTP + 0.28[middot]HDSIM + 0.37[middot]SC03

Where:

HDSIM = the appropriate driving schedule specified in paragraph 
(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section.

    (iv) You may alternatively use FTP emission results to substitute 
for the SC03 value in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 
this section for a given vehicle for any testing under this section. 
Such vehicles remain subject to the SFTP standard when tested over the 
SC03 driving schedule.
    (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 1066.635.
    (2) Table 1 of this section describes fully phased-in Tier 3 
standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the 
identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOX 
apply on a fleet-average basis using discrete bin standards as 
described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards 
include additional emission standards for CO emissions, and for 
NMOG+NOX standards when testing over the HD-SFTP driving 
schedule. Table 1 follows:

               Table 1 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Fully Phased-in Tier 3 HDV Exhaust Emission Standards
                                                    [Tg/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fleet-average                PM                 Formaldehyde
                                                     NMOG+NOX    -----------------------------------------------
                    HDV class                    ----------------
                                                        FTP             FTP           HD-SFTP           FTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b..............................................           0.178           0.008       \1\ 0.010           0.006
3...............................................           0.247           0.010           0.007           0.006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving
  schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the HD-SFTP standard for PM is 0.007 g/mile
  instead of the value specified in the table.

    (3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply equally for 
testing at low-altitude conditions and high-altitude conditions. The 
HD-SFTP standards described in this section apply only for testing at 
low-altitude conditions.
    (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX is based on a 
fleet average in a given model year. You must specify a family emission 
limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission 
standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP testing. 
Calculate your fleet-average emission level as described in Sec.  
86.1860 to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi-fueled 
vehicles, calculate fleet-average emission levels based only on 
emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may 
generate or use emission credits for banking and trading and you may 
use banked or traded credits for demonstrating compliance with the FTP 
emission standard for NMOG+NOX as described in Sec.  
86.1861. 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. Specify one of the identified values from Table 2 or Table 3 
of this section as the FEL for demonstrating that your fleet-average 
emission level complies with the FTP emission standard for 
NMOG+NOX. These FEL values define emission bins that also 
determine corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOX 
emissions over the HD-SFTP driving schedule and for CO emissions, as 
follows:

                          Table 2 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Tier 3 Bin Standards--Class 2b
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NMOG+NOX                           CO
                    FEL Name                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTP (FEL)      HD-SFTP \1\         FTP           HD-SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 250.........................................           0.250           0.800             6.4            22.0
Bin 200.........................................           0.200           0.800             4.2            22.0
Bin 170.........................................           0.170           0.450             4.2            12.0
Bin 150.........................................           0.150           0.450             3.2            12.0
Bin 0 \2\.......................................           0.000           0.000             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving
  schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the following HD-SFTP bin standards for
  NMOG+NOX apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.350 g/mile for Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.550 g/
  mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250.
\2\ Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the
  standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

                           Table 3 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Tier 3 Bin Standards--Class 3
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NMOG+NOX                           CO
                    FEL Name                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTP (FEL)        HD-SFTP           FTP           HD-SFTP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin 400.........................................           0.400           0.550             7.3             6.0
Bin 270.........................................           0.270           0.550             4.2             6.0
Bin 230.........................................           0.230           0.350             4.2             4.0

[[Page 23723]]

 
Bin 200.........................................           0.200           0.350             3.7             4.0
Bin 0\1\........................................           0.000           0.000             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the
  standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for 
NMOG+NOX, PM, CO, and formaldehyde; it also includes 
measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life. Vehicles 
meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. 
Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered 
Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several 
years. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 PM standards during the 
phase-in period must continue to comply with the PM standards in Sec.  
86.1816-08. Paragraph (b)(7) of this section describes how to 
transition to Tier 3 standards for emissions other than PM. The 
following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the 
Tier 3 PM standards:
    (i) You must meet the FTP emission standard for PM with 20, 40, 70, 
and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles 
subject to this section in model years 2018 through 2021, respectively. 
Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet the 
Tier 3 HD-SFTP standard for PM.
    (ii) You may disregard the phase-in percentages specified in 
paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an 
indexed PM phase-in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). 
To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2018, 
and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase-in 
schedule. You comply with the indexed phase-in schedule by calculating 
a PM phase-in index at or above 440 using the following equation for 
model years 2018 through 2021:

PM phase-in index = 4[middot]APP2018 + 
3[middot]APP2019 + 2[middot]APP2020 + 
APP2021

Where:

APP = The phase-in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM 
standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales.

    (iii) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those 
standards over the useful life as specified in Sec.  86.1805. Note that 
Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for PM 
emission standards than for other emission standards.
    (iv) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test 
fuel used for measuring NMOG+NOX emissions.
    (v) You may certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover 
data.
    (vi) 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 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; these vehicles are 
subject to FTP emission standards for PM and formaldehyde as described 
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. You may use the E0 test fuel 
specified in Sec.  86.113 for gasoline-fueled vehicles certified to the 
transitional bins; the useful life period for these vehicles is 120,000 
miles or 11 years. Fleet-average FTP emission standards decrease as 
shown in the following table:

   Table 4 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Declining Fleet-Average FTP Emission
                         Standards for NMOG+NOX
                                [g/mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Model Year                    Class 2b         Class 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 \1\................................           0.333           0.548
2017 \1\................................           0.310           0.508
2018....................................           0.278           0.451
2019....................................           0.253           0.400
2020....................................           0.228           0.349
2021....................................           0.203           0.298
2022....................................           0.178           0.247
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fleet-average standards are shown for 2016 and 2017 for purposes of
  voluntary early compliance as described in paragraph (b)(11) of this
  section.

                       Table 5 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Transitional Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards
                                                  [g/mile] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Class                       FEL Name              NMOG+NOX           NOX \2\             CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b..............................  Bin 395                              0.395               0.2               6.4
                                  Bin 340                              0.340               0.2               6.4
3...............................  Bin 630                              0.630               0.4               7.3
                                  Bin 570                              0.570               0.4               7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vehicles certified to Transitional Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to HD-SFTP standards.
\2\ The NOX standard applies only for certification testing with emission-data vehicles.

[[Page 23724]]

    (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 the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach, 
you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to 
this section according to this schedule. Under this alternative phase 
in, you must meet all the 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 emission 
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. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase-
in period must continue to comply with the gaseous exhaust emission 
standards in Sec.  86.1816-08. Each vehicle counting toward the PM 
phase-in percentage under this paragraph (b)(8) in model years 2019 and 
2020 must also be included in the portion of the fleet meeting the Tier 
3 standards for pollutants other than PM. Each vehicle counting toward 
the phase-in percentage for any pollutant must use the Tier 3 test fuel 
specified in Sec.  86.113-07. The following exceptions and special 
provisions apply under this paragraph (b)(8):
    (i) For model year 2019, you may exclude from the phase-in 
calculation any test groups that have a Job 1 date on or before March 
3, 2018 (see 40 CFR 85.2304).
    (ii) You may generate Tier 3 emission credits during the phase-in 
period if all your pre-Tier 3 vehicles in a given model year have FELs 
at or below the NOX and NMHC standards in Sec.  86.1816-08. 
Determine emission credits by calculating fleet-average emission levels 
for Tier 3 and pre-Tier 3 vehicles together; for pre-Tier 3 vehicles 
use an NMOG+NOX equivalent FEL of 0.395 g/mile for Class 2b 
vehicles and 0.630 g/mile for Class 3 vehicles.

                           Table 6 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Alternative Phase-In Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Class 2b                               Class 3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Model Year                                    Other than PM                         Other than PM
                                        PM  (percent)        (percent)        PM  (percent)        (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019................................                 40                 65                 40                 60
2020................................                 70                 77                 70                 73
2021................................                100                 88                100                 87
2022................................                100                100                100                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (9) You may not use credits generated from vehicles certified under 
Sec.  86.1816-08 for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 
standards.
    (10) [Reserved]
    (11) You may voluntarily certify your vehicles under this section 
in model years 2016 and 2017. If you do this, the fleet-average FTP 
emission standards for NMOG+NOX apply to all your heavy-duty 
vehicles under this section 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 this paragraph (b)(11) must comply 
with the PM standards specified in Sec.  86.1816-08 instead of the Tier 
3 PM standards specified in this section.
    (12) Alternate standards apply for in-use testing with 2022 and 
earlier model year vehicles as described in this paragraph (b)(12). 
These alternate standards apply in the first model year that a test 
group is certified to Tier 3 FTP or HD-SFTP standards for 
NMOG+NOX or PM under this section. The alternate in-use 
standards also apply in the following model year (but not beyond 2022) 
for carryover test groups certified to the same bin standards. If you 
certify a test group to more stringent bin standards under this section 
in a given model year, the alternate in-use standards apply as if that 
were the first model year of certifying to the Tier 3 standards. The 
provisions of this section apply separately for NMOG+NOX and 
PM. This paragraph (b)(12) does not apply for Bin 0 vehicles.
    (i) The alternate in-use FTP standards for PM are 0.016 g/mile for 
Class 2b vehicles and 0.020 g/mile for Class 3 vehicles.
    (ii) The alternate in-use HD-SFTP standards for PM are 0.012 g/mile 
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, and 0.015 g/mile for other Class 2b 
vehicles. The alternate in-use HD-SFTP standard for PM is 0.012 g/mile 
for Class 3 vehicles. Alternate in-use HD-SFTP standards do not apply 
for vehicles certified to the transitional bins described in paragraph 
(b)(7) of this section.
    (iii) Alternate in-use FTP and HD-SFTP standards for 
NMOG+NOX apply as specified in the following table:

                        Table 7 of Sec.   86.1816-18--Alternate In-Use NMOG+NOX Standards
                                                    [g/mile]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Class                                  FEL Name                    FTP         HD-SFTP \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2b............................................  Bin 250.........................           0.370           1.120
                                                Bin 200.........................           0.300           1.120
                                                Bin 170.........................           0.250           0.630
                                                Bin 150.........................           0.220           0.630

[[Page 23725]]

 
3.............................................  Bin 400.........................           0.600           0.770
                                                Bin 270.........................           0.400           0.770
                                                Bin 230.........................           0.340           0.490
                                                Bin 200.........................           0.300           0.490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 following alternate in-use FTP standards for
  NMOG+NOX apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.490 g/mile for Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.770 g/
  mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250. Note that vehicles certified to transitional Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to
  HD-SFTP standards.

    (13) 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. For vehicles 
certified to any of the Tier 3 standards specified in paragraph (b) of 
this section, NMOG+NOX emissions measured on the highway 
test cycle in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable 
NMOG+NOX bin standard for FTP testing. Demonstrate 
compliance with this standard for low-mileage vehicles by applying the 
appropriate deterioration factor.
    (d) Provisions for Otto-cycle engines. The special provisions 
described in Sec.  86.1811-17(d) apply to vehicles with Otto-cycle 
engines that are certified under this section.
    (e) Small-volume manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers meeting 
the eligibility requirements in Sec.  86.1838 may delay complying with 
the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also 
applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in Sec.  
86.113 through model year 2021. If meeting the Tier 3 standards would 
cause severe economic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to 
approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 
1068.250, except that the solvency criterion does not apply and there 
is no maximum duration of the hardship relief.

0
183. Section Sec.  86.1817-08 is amended by revising the introductory 
text to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1817-08  Complete heavy-duty vehicle averaging, trading, and 
banking program.

    Section 86.1817-08 includes text that specifies requirements that 
differ from Sec.  86.1817-05. Where a paragraph in Sec.  86.1817-05 is 
identical and applicable to Sec.  86.1817-08, this may be indicated by 
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved]. 
For guidance see Sec.  86.1817-05.'' This section does not apply for 
NOX or NMOG+NOX emissions for vehicles certified 
to the Tier 3 standards in Sec.  86.1816-18, including those vehicles 
that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018. See 
Sec. Sec.  86.1860 and 86.1861 for provisions that apply for vehicles 
certified to the Tier3 standards.
* * * * *

0
184. Section 86.1818-12 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.1818-12  Greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles.

    (a) Applicability. (1) This section contains standards and other 
regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as 
the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous 
oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 
hexafluoride. This section applies to 2012 and later model year LDV, 
LDT and MDPV, including multi-fuel vehicles, vehicles fueled with 
alternative fuels, hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric 
vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. Unless otherwise 
specified, multi-fuel vehicles must comply with all requirements 
established for each consumed fuel. The provisions of this section, 
except paragraph (c), also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions 
as defined in 40 CFR 85.502, of all model year light-duty vehicles, 
light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. Manufacturers 
that qualify as a small business according to the requirements of Sec.  
86.1801-12(j) are exempt from the emission standards in this section. 
Manufacturers that have submitted a declaration for a model year 
according to the requirements of Sec.  86.1801-12(k) for which approval 
has been granted by the Administrator are conditionally exempt from the 
emission standards in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for 
the approved model year.
    (2) The standards specified in this section apply only for testing 
at low-altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an 
engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches 
are utilized at high altitude. Any deviation from low altitude emission 
control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control 
device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD 
specific to high altitude requires engineering emission data for EPA 
evaluation to quantify any emission impact and determine the validity 
of the AECD.
* * * * *

0
185. Section Sec.  86.1821-01 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(b) introductory text an adding paragraphs (b)(10) and (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.1821-01  Evaporative/refueling family determination.

    (a) The gasoline-, ethanol-, methanol-, liquefied petroleum gas-, 
and natural gas-fueled vehicles described in a certification 
application will be divided into groupings expected to have similar 
evaporative and/or refueling emission characteristics (as applicable) 
throughout their useful life. Each group of vehicles with similar 
evaporative and/or refueling emission characteristics shall be defined 
as a separate evaporative/refueling family. Manufacturers shall use 
good engineering judgment to determine evaporative/refueling families.
    (b) For vehicles that operate on volatile liquid fuels to be 
classed in the same evaporative/refueling family, they must be similar 
with respect to all the following items:
* * * * *
    (10) Evaporative emission standard or family emission limit (FEL).
* * * * *
    (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.

[[Page 23726]]

0
186. Section Sec.  86.1823-08 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (g).
0
c. By adding paragraph (n).

Sec.  86.1823-08  Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust 
emissions.

    This section describes durability demonstration procedures for 
exhaust emissions. Eligible small-volume manufacturers or small-volume 
test groups may optionally meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  86.1826 
and 86.1838 instead of the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (m) 
of this section. A separate durability demonstration is required for 
each durability group.
* * * * *
    (n) Emission component durability. [Reserved]. For guidance see 40 
CFR 86.1823-01(e).

0
187. Section Sec.  86.1824-08 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text.
0
b. By revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(1).
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraph (h).
0
d. By adding paragraph (k).

Sec.  86.1824-08  Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative 
emissions.

    This section describes durability demonstration procedures for 
evaporative emissions. Eligible small-volume manufacturers or small-
volume test groups may optionally meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
86.1826 and 86.1838 instead of the requirements of paragraphs (a) 
through (j) of this section. A separate durability demonstration is 
required for each evaporative/refueling family.
    (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 except the bleed emission test. The 
standard for bleed emissions applies for the full useful life, but 
manufacturers do not need to establish deterioration factors for bleed 
emissions. The requirements of this section do not apply for spitback 
or leak standards.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) For gasoline fueled vehicles certified to meet the evaporative 
emission standards set forth in this subpart, any mileage accumulation 
method for evaporative emissions must employ gasoline fuel for the 
entire mileage accumulation period which contains ethanol in, at least, 
the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and 
that is commercially available in any state in the United States. 
Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must 
determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the 
highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar 
year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage 
accumulation. The manufacturer must also provide information acceptable 
to the Administrator to indicate that the mileage accumulation method 
is of sufficient design, duration and severity to stabilize the 
permeability of all non-metallic fuel and evaporative system components 
to the mileage accumulation fuel constituents.
* * * * *
    (k) Emission component durability. [Reserved]. For guidance see 40 
CFR 86.1824-01(d).

0
188. Section Sec.  86.1826-01 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1826-01  Assigned deterioration factors for small-volume 
manufacturers and small-volume test groups.

    (a) Applicability. This program is an option available for small-
volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups as described in Sec.  
86.1838.
    (b) Determination of deterioration factors. No service accumulation 
method or vehicle/component selection method is required. Deterioration 
factors for all types of regulated emissions are assigned using the 
provisions in this paragraph (b). A separate assigned deterioration 
factor is required for each durability group. Manufacturers shall use 
good engineering judgment in applying deterioration factors. 
Manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that the 
Administrator determines and prescribes.
    (1) The deterioration factors will be the Administrator's estimate, 
periodically updated and published in a guidance document, of the 70th 
percentile deterioration factors calculated using the industry-wide 
database of previously completed durability data vehicles or engines 
used for certification.
    (2) The Administrator may use discretion to develop assigned 
deterioration factors using alternative methods if there is 
insufficient information to calculate an appropriate industry-wide 
deterioration factor (for example: a new engine technology coupled with 
a proven emission control system). These methods may include the use of 
assigned deterioration factors based on similar durability vehicles.
    (3) Alternatively, with advance approval from the Administrator, a 
manufacturer may use deterioration factors developed by another 
manufacturer. The manufacturer seeking to use these deterioration 
factors must--
    (i) Demonstrate that the engines from the two manufacturers share 
technical parameters to the degree that would support the conclusion 
that a common deterioration factor should apply for both vehicle 
configurations as defined in Sec.  86.1803.
    (ii) Provide supporting information, such as histograms of exhaust 
temperature data, comparisons of vehicle weight and road load 
horsepower, or comparisons of powertrains and emission control systems.

0
189. Section 86.1828-01 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1828-01  Emission data vehicle selection.

* * * * *
    (g) Cold temperature NMHC testing. For cold temperature NMHC 
exhaust emission compliance for each durability group, the manufacturer 
must select the vehicle expected to emit the highest NMHC emissions at 
20 [deg]F on candidate in-use vehicles from the test vehicles specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section. When the expected worst-case cold 
temperature NMHC vehicle is also the expected worst-case cold 
temperature CO vehicle as selected in paragraph (c) of this section, 
then cold temperature 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.

Sec.  86.1828-10  [Removed]

0
190. Remove Sec.  86.1828-10.

0
191. Section 86.1829-01 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C).
0
b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i).
0
c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv).
0
d. By revising paragraph (b)(4).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).

Sec.  86.1829-01  Durability and emission testing requirements; 
waivers.

* * * * *

[[Page 23727]]

    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Testing at low altitude. One EDV in each evaporative/refueling 
family and evaporative/refueling emission control system combination 
must be tested in accordance with the evaporative/refueling test 
procedure requirement of subpart B of this part. The configuration of 
the EDV will be determined under the provisions of Sec.  86.1828-01. 
The EDV must also be tested for exhaust emission compliance using the 
FTP and SFTP procedures of subpart B of this part. In lieu of testing 
natural gas or hydrogen fueled vehicles to demonstrate compliance with 
the evaporative and refueling emission standards specified in this 
subpart, a manufacturer may provide a statement in its application for 
certification that, based on the manufacturer's engineering evaluation 
of appropriate testing and/or design parameters, all light-duty 
vehicles, light-duty trucks, and complete heavy-duty vehicles comply 
with applicable emission standards. This same testing exemption applies 
for vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, except that refueling 
tests are required for systems that allow venting during the refueling 
operation.
* * * * *
    (iv) For diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles, a manufacturer may 
provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles 
comply with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test 
data. Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, 
development tests, or other appropriate information, and good 
engineering judgment.
* * * * *
    (4) Electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. For electric vehicles 
and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may provide a statement in the 
application for certification that vehicles comply with all the 
requirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data. Such a 
statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, 
or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment.
* * * * *

0
192. A new Sec.  86.1829-15 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1829-15  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 on good 
engineering judgment.
    (a) One durability demonstration is required for each durability 
group. The configuration of the DDV is determined according to Sec.  
86.1822. The DDV shall be tested and accumulate service mileage 
according to the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825, 
and 86.1831. Small-volume manufacturers and small-volume test groups 
may optionally use the alternative durability provisions of Sec.  
86.1838.
    (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 PM standards in Sec. Sec.  
86.1811, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for 
certification that vehicles comply with applicable PM standards instead 
of submitting PM test data for a certain number of vehicles. However, 
each manufacturer must test vehicles from a minimum number of 
durability data groups as follows:
    (i) Manufacturers with a single durability data group subject to 
the Tier 3 PM standards in Sec.  86.1811 must submit PM test data for 
that group.
    (ii) Manufacturers with two to eight durability data groups subject 
to the Tier 3 PM standards in Sec.  86.1811 must submit PM test data 
for at least two durability data groups each 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 a 
manufacturer's whole 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), subject to the selection of 
durability data groups.
    (iii) Manufacturers with nine or more durability data groups 
subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in Sec.  86.1811 must submit PM test 
data for at least 25 percent of those durability data groups each model 
year. We will work with the manufacturer to select durability data 
groups for testing as described in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (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. 
Compressed natural gas vehicles meeting the requirements for fueling 
connection devices in Sec.  86.1813-17(f)(1) are deemed to comply with 
evaporative and refueling emission standards.

[[Page 23728]]

    (3) For vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, a manufacturer 
may provide a statement in the application for certification that 
vehicles comply with evaporative and refueling emission standards 
instead of submitting test data, except that refueling tests are 
required for systems that allow venting during the refueling operation.
    (4) Manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for 
certification that vehicles comply with the leak standard in Sec.  
86.1813 instead of submitting test data.
    (5) For vehicles certified to the refueling emission standards in 
Sec. Sec.  86.1811 or 86.1813, a manufacturer may provide a statement 
in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the fuel 
dispensing spitback standard instead of submitting test data.
    (6) In lieu of testing vehicles for the supplemental two-diurnal 
test sequence, a manufacturer may optionally provide a statement of 
compliance in its application for certification that, based on the 
manufacturer's good engineering judgment, all vehicles in the 
evaporative/refueling emission family comply with the evaporative 
emission standard for the supplemental two-diurnal test sequence.
    (i) The option to provide a statement of compliance in lieu of 2-
diurnal evaporative certification test data is limited to vehicles with 
conventional evaporative emission control systems (as determined by the 
Administrator). EPA may perform confirmatory 2-diurnal evaporative 
emission testing on test vehicles certified using this option. If data 
shows noncompliance, it will be addressed through Sec.  86.1851. Also, 
if data shows noncompliance, EPA will generally disallow subsequent 
waivers for the applicable evaporative family.
    (ii) Manufacturers shall supply information if requested by EPA in 
support of the statement of compliance described in this paragraph 
(e)(6). This information shall include evaporative calibration 
information for the emission-data vehicle and for other vehicles in the 
evaporative/refueling family, including, but not limited to, canister 
type, canister volume, canister working capacity, canister shape and 
internal configuration, 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.
    (7) 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 using the test procedures specified in this part.
    (8) 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.
    (9) For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 35 gallons nominal fuel 
tank capacity, and for any incomplete vehicles, a manufacturer may 
provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles 
comply with refueling emission standards instead of submitting test 
data, consistent with 40 CFR 1037.103(c).
    (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. Tailpipe emissions of regulated pollutants from vehicles 
powered solely by electricity are deemed to be zero.

0
193. Section 86.1837-01 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.1837-01  Rounding of emission measurements.

    (a) Unless otherwise specified, the results of all emission tests 
shall be rounded to the number of places to the right of the decimal 
point indicated by expressing the applicable emission standard of this 
subpart to one additional significant figure, in accordance with 40 CFR 
1065.20.
* * * * *

0
194. Section 86.1838-01 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1838-01  Small-volume manufacturer certification procedures.

    (a) Overview. The small-volume manufacturer certification 
procedures described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are 
optional. Small-volume manufacturers may use these optional procedures 
to demonstrate compliance with the general standards and specific 
emission requirements contained in this subpart.
    (b) Eligibility requirements--(1) Small-volume manufacturers. (i) 
Optional small-volume manufacturer certification procedures apply for 
vehicles produced by manufacturers with the following number of 
combined sales of vehicles subject to standards under this subpart in 
all states and territories of the United States in the model year for 
which certification is sought, including all vehicles and engines 
imported under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509:
    (A) 5,000 units for the Tier 3 standards described in Sec. Sec.  
86.1811, 86.1813, and 86.1816. This volume threshold applies for 
phasing in the Tier 3 standards and for determining the corresponding 
deterioration factors. 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. See Sec.  86.1845 for 
separate provisions that apply for in-use testing.
    (ii) If a manufacturer's aggregated sales in the United States, as 
determined

[[Page 23729]]

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 manufacturer that qualifies as a small business under the 
Small Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR Part 121 is 
eligible for all the provisions that apply for small-volume 
manufacturers under this subpart. See Sec.  86.1801-12(j) to determine 
whether companies qualify as small businesses.
    (iv) The sales volumes specified in this section are based on 
actual sales, unless otherwise specified.
    (v) Except for delayed implementation of new emission standards, an 
eligible manufacturer must transition out of the special provisions 
that apply for small-volume manufacturers as described in Sec.  
86.1801-12(k)(2)(i) through (iii) if sales volumes increase above the 
applicable threshold.
    (2) Small-volume test groups. (i) If the aggregated sales in all 
states and territories of the United States, as determined in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section are equal to or greater than 15,000 units, then 
the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in 
an aggregated relationship) will be allowed to certify a number of 
units under the small-volume test group certification procedures in 
accordance with the criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (ii) If there are no additional manufacturers in an aggregated 
relationship meeting the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, then the manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose 
total aggregated sales (including heavy-duty engines) are less than 
15,000 units using the small-volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this 
section.
    (iii) If there is an aggregated relationship with another 
manufacturer which satisfies the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, then the following provisions shall apply:
    (A) If none of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another 
manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then each manufacturer may 
certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including 
heavy-duty engines) are less than 15,000 units using the small-volume 
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (B) If any of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another 
manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then the limit of 14,999 
units must be shared among the manufacturers in such a relationship. In 
total for all the manufacturers involved in such a relationship, 
aggregated sales (including heavy-duty engines) of up to 14,999 units 
may be certified using the small-volume provisions of paragraph (c) of 
this section. Only whole test groups shall be eligible for small-volume 
status under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (iv) In the case of a joint venture arrangement (50/50 ownership) 
between two manufacturers, each manufacturer retains its eligibility 
for 14,999 units under the small-volume test group certification 
procedures, but the joint venture must draw its maximum 14,999 units 
from the units allocated to its parent manufacturers. Only whole test 
groups shall be eligible for small-volume status under paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (3) Sales aggregation for related manufacturers. The projected or 
actual sales from different firms shall be aggregated in the following 
situations:
    (i) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms, one of 
which is 10 percent or greater part owned by another;
    (ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by any two or more firms if a 
third party has equity ownership of 10 percent or more in each of the 
firms;
    (iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by two or more firms having 
a common corporate officer(s) who is (are) responsible for the overall 
direction of the companies;
    (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 provisions. Small-volume manufacturers and small-
volume test groups shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable 
sections of this subpart, with the following exceptions:
    (1) Durability demonstration. Use the provisions of Sec.  86.1826 
rather than the requirements of Sec. Sec.  86.1823, 86.1824, and 
86.1825.
    (2) In-use verification testing. Measure emissions from in-use 
vehicles as described in Sec.  86.1845, subject to the following 
additional provisions:
    (i) 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 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 
procurement of in-use verification test vehicles that have a lower 
minimum odometer reading based on such data.
    (iii) The provisions of Sec.  86.1845-04(c)(2) that require one 
vehicle of each test group during high mileage in-use verification 
testing to have a minimum odometer mileage do not apply.
    (iv) Manufacturers intending to use the provisions of this 
paragraph (c) shall submit to the Agency a plan detailing how these 
provisions will be met before submitting an application for 
certification for the subject vehicles.
    (d) Operationally independent manufacturers. Manufacturers may 
submit an application to EPA requesting treatment as an operationally 
independent manufacturer. A manufacturer that is granted operationally 
independent status may qualify for all the regulatory provisions of 
this subpart that apply for small-volume manufacturers on the basis of 
its own vehicle production and/or sales volumes, and would not require 
aggregation with related manufacturers. In this paragraph (d), the term 
``related manufacturer(s)'' means manufacturers that would qualify for 
aggregation under the requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
195. Section 86.1843-01 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.1843-01  General information requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Recordkeeping. (1) This subpart includes various requirements 
to record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store 
these records in any format and on any media and keep them readily 
available for eight years after you send an associated application for 
certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do 
not support an application for certification. You must promptly send us 
organized, written records in English upon request. We may review them 
at any time.
    (2) Upon written request by the Administrator, a manufacturer shall 
submit any information as described in Sec.  86.1844-01 within 15 
business days. A manufacturer may request the Administrator to grant an 
extension. The request must clearly indicate the

[[Page 23730]]

circumstances necessitating the extension.
* * * * *

0
196. Section 86.1844-01 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)(7), 
(d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(11), and (d)(16)(i) introductory text, removing 
paragraph (d)(16)(iv), and adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1844-01  Information requirements: Application for 
certification and submittal of information upon request.

    (a) All the information listed in this section must be submitted to 
the Agency according to the requirements specified in Sec.  86.1843; 
however, we may ask you to include less information than we specify, as 
long as you keep the specified records.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (7) A comprehensive list of all test results, including official 
certification levels, and the applicable intermediate and full useful 
life emission standards to which the test group is to be certified as 
required in Sec.  86.1829. Include the following additional information 
related to testing:
    (i) Include a comparison of drive cycle energy and target cycle 
energy relative to both inertia and road load forces as specified in 40 
CFR 1066.425 for each drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate.
    (ii) For gasoline-fueled Tier 3 vehicles, identify the method of 
accounting for ethanol in determining evaporative emissions, as 
described in Sec.  86.1813.
    (iii) Identify any aspects of testing for which the regulations 
obligate EPA testing to conform to your selection of test methods.
    (8) A statement that all applicable vehicles will conform to the 
emission standards for which emission data is not being provided, as 
allowed under Sec.  86.1806 or Sec.  86.1829. The statement shall 
clearly identify the standards for which emission testing was not 
completed.
    (9) Information describing each emission control diagnostic system 
required by Sec.  86.1806, including all of the following:
    (i) A description of the functional operation characteristics of 
the diagnostic system, with additional information demonstrating that 
the system meets the requirements specified in Sec.  86.1806. Include 
all testing and demonstration data submitted to the California Air 
Resources Board for certification.
    (ii) The general method of detecting malfunctions for each 
emission-related powertrain component.
    (iii) Any deficiencies, including resolution plans and schedules.
    (iv) A statement that the diagnostic system is adequate for the 
performance warranty test described in 40 CFR Part 85, subpart W.
    (v) For vehicles certified to meet the leak standard in Sec.  
86.1813, a description of the anticipated test procedure. The 
description must include, at a minimum, a method for accessing the fuel 
system for measurements and a method for pressurizing the fuel system 
to perform the procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.985. The recommended 
test method must include at least two separate points for accessing the 
fuel system, with additional access points as appropriate for multiple 
fuel tanks and multiple evaporative or refueling canisters.
* * * * *
    (11) A list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) 
installed on any applicable vehicles, including a justification for 
each AECD, the parameters they sense and control, a detailed 
justification of each AECD that results in a reduction in effectiveness 
of the emission control system, and rationale for why it is not a 
defeat device as defined under Sec.  86.1809. The following specific 
provisions apply for AECDs:
    (i) For any AECD uniquely used at high altitudes, EPA may request 
engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity 
of the AECD.
    (ii) For any AECD uniquely used on multi-fuel vehicles when 
operated on fuels other than gasoline, EPA may request engineering 
emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD.
    (iii) For Tier 3 vehicles with spark-ignition engines, describe how 
AECDs are designed to comply with the requirements of Sec.  86.1811-
17(d). Identify which components need protection through enrichment 
strategies; describe the temperature limitations for those components; 
and describe how the enrichment strategy corresponds to those 
temperature limitations. We may also require manufacturers to submit 
this information for certification related to Tier 2 vehicles.
* * * * *
    (16) * * *
    (i) A statement indicating that the manufacturer has conducted an 
engineering analysis of the complete exhaust system to ensure that the 
exhaust system has been designed-
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (7) The results of any production vehicle evaluation testing 
required for OBD systems under Sec.  86.1806.
* * * * *

Sec.  86.1845-01  [Removed]

0
197. Remove Sec.  86.1845-01.

0
198. Section 86.1845-04 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), 
(a)(3), (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (c), 
and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1845-04  Manufacturer in-use verification testing 
requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Manufacturers of LDV, LDT, MDPV and complete HDV must test, or 
cause to have tested, a specified number of vehicles. Such testing must 
be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) The following provisions apply regarding the possibility of 
residual effects from varying fuel sulfur levels:
    (i) Vehicles certified to Tier 3 standards under Sec.  86.1811 must 
always measure emissions over the FTP, then over the HFET (if 
applicable), then over the US06 portion of the SFTP. If a Tier 3 
vehicle meets all the applicable emission standards except the FTP or 
HFET emission standard for NMOG+NOX, and a fuel sample from 
the tested vehicle (representing the as-received condition) has a 
measured fuel sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when measured as described 
in 40 CFR 1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat the FTP and HFET 
measurements and use the new emission values as the official results 
for that vehicle. For all other cases of testing Tier 3 vehicles, 
measured emission levels from the first test will be considered the 
official results for the test vehicle, regardless of any test results 
from additional test runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, the vehicle 
may operate for up to two US06 cycles (with or without measurement) 
before repeating the FTP and HFET measurements. The repeat measurements 
must include both FTP and HFET, even if the vehicle failed only one of 
those tests, unless the HFET is not required for a particular vehicle. 
Tier 3 vehicles may not undergo any other vehicle preconditioning to 
eliminate fuel sulfur effects on the emission control system, unless we 
approve it in advance.
    (ii) Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in-use 
testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre-conditioning 
procedures designed solely to remove the effects of high sulfur in 
gasoline from vehicles

[[Page 23731]]

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 HDV. For model year 2007 and later Tier 2 vehicles, this 
provision can be used only in American Samoa, Guam, and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and then only if low 
sulfur gasoline is determined by the Administrator to be unavailable in 
that specific location.
    (b) * * *
    (3) Number of test vehicles. For each test group, the minimum 
number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04-06 and 
Table S04-07 of this paragraph (b)(3). After testing the minimum number 
of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04-06 or 
S04-07 of this paragraph (b)(3), a manufacturer may test additional 
vehicles upon request and approval by the Agency prior to the 
initiation of the additional testing. Any additional testing must be 
completed within the testing completion requirements shown in Sec.  
86.1845-04(b)(4). The request and Agency approval (if any) shall apply 
to test groups on a case by case basis and apply only to testing under 
this paragraph. Separate approval will be required to test additional 
vehicles under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition to any 
testing that is required under Table S04-06 and Table S04-07, a 
manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling 
family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes 
it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the 
required number of vehicles in a test group, the manufacturer may 
request, subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for 
that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods 
the manufacturer has used to procure the required number of vehicles. 
The approval of any such request, and the substitution of an 
alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based 
on a review of the procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to 
determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the 
required test group size. Tables S04-06 and S04-07 follow:
* * * * *
    (4) Completion of testing. Testing of the vehicles in a test group 
and evaporative/refueling family must be completed within 12 months of 
the end of production of that test group (or evaporative/refueling 
family) for that model year.
    (5) Testing. (i) Each test vehicle of a test group shall be tested 
in accordance with the FTP and the US06 portion of the SFTP 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 HFET as described in part 600, subpart B, of this 
chapter.
    (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 
driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under 
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must 
demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in Sec.  
86.1813, if applicable, as described in this paragraph (b)(5)(iii). 
Manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph 
(b)(5)(i) of this section, except that leak testing is not required for 
vehicles tested under paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section for diurnal 
emissions. 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 leak-related fault code as specified in 
Sec.  86.1806-17(b), the vehicle is presumed to have failed the leak 
test. Manufacturers may perform the leak measurement procedure 
described in 40 CFR 1066.985 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 nongaseous-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 procedures described in subpart B of 
this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with 
applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this 
subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling 
testing requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted when 
determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified 
in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section 
for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section only if the 
vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
    (6) Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified 
in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as-received 
condition.
    (7) A manufacturer may conduct subsequent diagnostic maintenance 
and/or testing of any vehicle. Any such maintenance and/or testing 
shall be reported to the Agency as specified in Sec.  86.1847.
    (c) High-mileage testing--(1) Test groups. Testing must be 
conducted for each test group.
    (2) Vehicle mileage. All test vehicles must have a minimum odometer 
mileage of 50,000 miles. At least one vehicle of each test group must 
have a minimum odometer mileage of 105,000 miles or 75 percent of the 
full useful life mileage, whichever is less. See Sec.  86.1838-01(c)(2) 
for small-volume manufacturer mileage requirements.
    (3) Number of test vehicles. For each test group, the minimum 
number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04-06 and 
Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. After testing the 
minimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in 
Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a 
manufacturer may test additional vehicles upon request and approval by 
the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. Any 
additional testing must be completed within the testing completion 
requirements shown in Sec.  86.1845-04(c)(4). The request and Agency 
approval (if any) shall apply to

[[Page 23732]]

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 FTP and the US06 portion of the SFTP 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 HFET as 
described in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B. One test vehicle from each 
test group shall be tested over the FTP at high altitude. The test 
vehicle tested at high altitude is not required to be one of the same 
test vehicles tested at low altitude. The test vehicle tested at high 
altitude is counted when determining the compliance with the 
requirements shown in Table S04-06 and Table S04-07 in paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section or the expanded sample size as provided for in this 
paragraph (c).
    (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 
driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under 
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must 
evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section 
to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in 
Sec.  86.1813, except that leak testing is not required for vehicles 
tested under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section for diurnal 
emissions. 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 nongaseous-fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each 
evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the 
supplemental 2-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission procedures 
described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested 
for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling 
standards under this subpart. For gaseous-fueled vehicles, one test 
vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in 
accordance with the 3-diurnal-plus-hot-soak evaporative emission 
procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle 
is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and 
refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to 
fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph 
(b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum 
number of vehicles as specified in Table S04-06 and table S04-07 in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) 
of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust 
emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this 
section.
    (6) Test condition. Each test vehicle not rejected based on the 
criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in 
as-received condition.
    (7) Diagnostic maintenance. A manufacturer may conduct subsequent 
diagnostic maintenance and/or testing on any vehicle. Any such 
maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified 
in Sec.  86.1847-01.
* * * * *
    (f)(1) A manufacturer must conduct in-use testing on a test group 
by determining NMOG exhaust emissions as described in 40 CFR 1066.635.
    (2) For flexible-fueled vehicles certified to NMOG (or 
NMOG+NOX) standards, the manufacturer may ask for EPA 
approval to demonstrate compliance using an equivalent NMOG emission 
result calculated from a ratio of ethanol NMOG exhaust emissions to 
gasoline NMHC exhaust emissions. Ethanol NMOG exhaust emissions are 
measured values from testing with the ethanol test fuel, expressed as 
NMOG. Gasoline NMHC exhaust emissions are measured values from testing 
with the gasoline test fuel, expressed as NMHC. This ratio must be 
established during certification for each emission-data vehicle for the 
applicable test group. Use good engineering judgment to establish a 
different ratio for each duty cycle or test interval as appropriate. 
Identify the ratio values you develop under this paragraph (f)(1) and 
describe the duty cycle or test interval to which they apply in the 
Part II application for certification. Calculate the equivalent NMOG 
emission result by multiplying the measured gasoline NMHC exhaust 
emissions for a given duty cycle or test interval by the appropriate 
ratio.
    (3) If the manufacturer measures NMOG as described in 40 CFR 
1066.635(a), it must also measure and report HCHO emissions. As an 
alternative to measuring the HCHO content, if the manufacturer measures 
NMOG as permitted in 40 CFR 1066.635(c), the Administrator may approve, 
upon submission of supporting data by a manufacturer, the use of HCHO 
to NMHC ratios. To request the use of HCHO to NMHC ratios, the 
manufacturer must establish during certification testing the ratio of 
measured HCHO exhaust emissions to measured NMHC exhaust emissions for 
each emission-data vehicle for the applicable test group. The results 
must be submitted to the Administrator with the Part II application for 
certification. Following approval of the application for certification, 
the manufacturer may conduct in-use testing on the test group by 
measuring NMHC exhaust emissions rather than HCHO exhaust emissions. 
The measured NMHC exhaust emissions must be multiplied by the HCHO to 
NMHC ratio submitted in the application for certification for the test 
group to determine the equivalent HCHO exhaust emission values for the 
test vehicle. The equivalent HCHO exhaust emission values must be 
compared to the HCHO exhaust emission standard applicable to the test 
group.

0
199. Section 86.1846-01 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1846-01  Manufacturer in-use confirmatory testing 
requirements.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Manufacturers must test, or cause 
testing to be conducted, under this section when the emission levels 
shown by a test group sample from testing under Sec.  86.1845 exceeds 
the criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The testing 
required under this section applies separately to each test

[[Page 23733]]

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 starting with 
model year 2007. These provisions do not apply to emissions of 
CO2, CH4, and N2O.
    (2) The provisions of Sec.  86.1845-04(a)(3) regarding fuel sulfur 
effects apply equally to testing under this section.
    (b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) A manufacturer shall test 
a test group or a subset of a test group as described in paragraph (j) 
of this section when the results from testing conducted under Sec.  
86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions for that test group of any 
pollutant(s) (except CO2, CH4, and 
N2O) to be equal to or greater than 1.30 times the 
applicable in-use standard and a failure rate, among the test group 
vehicles, for the corresponding pollutant(s) of fifty percent or 
greater.
    (i) Additional testing is not required under this paragraph (b)(1) 
based on Supplemental FTP testing or evaporative/refueling testing. 
Testing conducted at high altitude under the requirements of Sec.  
86.1845-04(b) will be included in determining if a test group meets the 
criteria triggering testing required under this section.
    (ii) The vehicle tested under the requirements of Sec.  86.1845-
04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer miles of 75% of useful life will not 
be included in determining if a test group meets the triggering 
criteria.
    (iii) The SFTP composite emission levels shall include the IUVP FTP 
emissions, the IUVP US06 emissions, and the values from the SC03 Air 
Conditioning EDV certification test (without DFs applied). The 
calculations shall be made using the equations prescribed in Sec.  
86.164. If more than one set of certification SC03 data exists (due to 
running change testing or other reasons), the manufacturer shall choose 
the SC03 result to use in the calculation from among those data sets 
using good engineering judgment.
    (2) If fewer than 50 percent of the vehicles from a leak family 
pass either the leak test or the diurnal test under Sec.  86.1845, EPA 
may require further leak testing under this paragraph (b)(2). Testing 
under this section must include five vehicles from the family. If all 
five of these vehicles fail the test, the manufacturer must test five 
additional vehicles.
    EPA will determine whether to require further leak testing under 
this section after providing the manufacturer an opportunity to discuss 
the results, including consideration of any of the following 
information, or other items that may be relevant:
    (i) Detailed system design, calibration, and operating information, 
technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed 
the leak standard.
    (ii) Comparison of the subject vehicles to other similar models 
from the same manufacturer.
    (iii) Data or other information on owner complaints, technical 
service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs, 
warranty repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other 
manufacturer-specific programs or initiatives.
    (iv) Evaporative emission test data on any individual vehicles that 
did not pass leak testing during IUVP.
    (c) Useful life. Vehicles tested under the provisions of this 
section must be within the useful life specified for the emission 
standards which were exceeded in the testing under Sec.  86.1845. 
Testing should be within the useful life specified, subject to sections 
207(c)(5) and (c)(6) of the Clean Air Act where applicable.
    (d) Number of test vehicles. A manufacturer must test a minimum of 
ten vehicles of the test group or Agency-designated subset. A 
manufacturer may, at the manufacturer's discretion, test more than ten 
vehicles under this paragraph for a specific test group or Agency-
designated subset. If a manufacturer chooses to test more than the 
required ten vehicles, all testing must be completed within the time 
designated in the testing completion requirements of paragraph (g) of 
this section. Any vehicles which are eliminated from the sample either 
prior to or subsequent to testing, or any vehicles for which test 
results are determined to be void, must be replaced in order that the 
final sample of vehicles for which test results acceptable to the 
Agency are available equals a minimum of ten vehicles. A manufacturer 
may cease testing with a sample of five vehicles if the results of the 
first five vehicles tested show mean emissions for each pollutant to be 
less than 75.0 percent of the applicable standard, with no vehicles 
exceeding the applicable standard for any pollutant.
    (e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle of a test group or Agency-
designated subset shall be tested in accordance with the FTP and/or the 
SFTP (whichever of these tests performed under Sec.  86.1845 produces 
emission levels requiring testing under this section) as described in 
subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance 
with applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart.
    (f) Geographical limitations. (1) Test groups or Agency-designated 
subsets certified to 50-state standards: For low altitude testing no 
more than 50 percent of the test vehicles may be procured from 
California. The test vehicles procured from the 49 state area must be 
procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual 
average equal to or greater than 4000.
    (2) Test groups or Agency-designated subsets certified to 49 state 
standards: For low-altitude testing all vehicles shall be procured from 
a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or 
greater than 4000.
    (3) Vehicles procured for high altitude testing may be procured 
from any area provided that the vehicle's primary area of operation was 
above 4000 feet.
    (g) Testing. Testing required under this section must commence 
within three months of completion of the testing under Sec.  86.1845 
which triggered the confirmatory testing and must be completed within 
seven months of the completion of the testing which triggered the 
confirmatory testing. Any industry review of the results obtained under 
Sec.  86.1845 and any additional vehicle procurement and/or testing 
which takes place under the provisions of Sec.  86.1845 which the 
industry believes may affect the triggering of required confirmatory 
testing must take place within the three month period. The data and the 
manufacturers reasoning for reconsideration of the data must be 
provided to the Agency within the three month period.
    (h) Limit on manufacturer conducted testing. For each manufacturer, 
the maximum number of test group(s) (or Agency-designated subset(s)) of 
each model year for which testing under this section shall be required 
is limited to 50 percent of the total number of test groups of each 
model year required to be tested by each manufacturer as prescribed in 
Sec.  86.1845, rounded to the next highest whole number where 
appropriate. For each manufacturer with only one test group under Sec.  
86.1845, such manufacturer shall have a maximum potential testing 
requirement under this section of one test group (or Agency-designated 
subset) per model year.
    (i) Testing plan. Prior to beginning in-use confirmatory testing 
the manufacturer must, after consultation with the Agency, submit a 
written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement, 
maintenance, and testing procedures (not otherwise specified by 
regulation) it intends to use. EPA must approve the test plan before 
the manufacturer may start further testing.

[[Page 23734]]

    (j) Testing a subset. EPA may designate a subset of the test group 
based on transmission type for testing under this section in lieu of 
testing the entire test group when the results for the entire test 
group from testing conducted under Sec.  86.1845 show mean emissions 
and a failure rate which meet these criteria for additional testing.

0
200. Section 86.1848-10 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(7) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  86.1848-10  Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of 
certification.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) All certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon 
compliance with all the provisions of Sec. Sec.  86.1811 through 
86.1816 and Sec. Sec.  86.1860 through 86.1862 both during and after 
model year production. The manufacturer bears the burden of 
establishing to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms 
and conditions upon which each certificate was issued were satisfied. 
For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate 
of conformity will continue to be held to the standards stated or 
referenced in the certificate that otherwise would have applied to the 
vehicles.
    (i) Failure to meet the applicable fleet average standard will be 
considered to be a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon 
which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold in violation of 
the fleet average standard will not be covered by the certificate.
    (ii) Failure to comply fully with the prohibition against selling 
credits that it has not generated or that are not available, as 
specified in Sec.  86.1861, will be considered a failure to satisfy the 
terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the 
vehicles sold in violation of this prohibition will not be covered by 
the certificate.
    (iii) Failure to comply fully with the phase-in requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  86.1811 through 86.1816 will be considered a failure to 
satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued 
and the vehicles sold that do not comply with the applicable standards, 
up to the number needed to comply, will not be covered by the 
certificate.
* * * * *

0
201. A new Sec.  86.1860-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1860-17  How to comply with the Tier 3 fleet-average 
standards.

    (a) You must show that you meet the applicable fleet-average 
NMOG+NOX standards from Sec. Sec.  86.1811 and 86.1816 and 
the fleet-average evaporative emission standards from Sec.  86.1813 as 
described in this section. Note that separate fleet-average 
calculations are required for the FTP and SFTP exhaust emission 
standards under Sec.  86.1811.
    (b) Calculate your fleet-average value for each model year for all 
vehicle models subject to a separate fleet-average standard using the 
following equation, rounded to the nearest 0.001 g/mile for 
NMOG+NOX emissions and the nearest 0.001 g/test for 
evaporative emissions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.008

Where:

i = A counter associated with each separate Tier 3 test group or 
evaporative family.
b = The number of separate Tier 3 test groups or evaporative 
families from a given averaging set to which you certify your 
vehicles.
Ni = The actual nationwide sales for the model year for 
test group or evaporative family i. Include allowances for 
evaporative emissions as described in Sec.  86.1813.
FELi = The FEL selected for test group or evaporative 
family 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 from the averaging set, except as 
described in paragraph (c) of this section. The pool of vehicle 
models included in Ntotal may vary by model year, and it 
may be different for evaporative standards, FTP exhaust standards, 
and SFTP exhaust standards in a given model year.

    (c) Do not include any of the following vehicles to calculate your 
fleet-average value:
    (1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the standards of this part 
because they are permanently exempted under 40 CFR part 85 or part 
1068.
    (2) Exported vehicles.
    (3) Vehicles excluded under Sec.  86.1801.
    (4) For model year 2017, do not include vehicle sales in California 
or the section 177 states for calculating the fleet average value for 
evaporative emissions.
    (d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, your 
calculated fleet-average value may not exceed the corresponding fleet-
average standard for the model year.
    (e) You may generate or use emission credits related to your 
calculated fleet-average value as follows:
    (1) You may generate emission credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 
if your fleet-average value is below the corresponding fleet-average 
standard.
    (2) You may use emission credits as described in Sec.  86.1861 if 
your fleet-average value is above the corresponding fleet-average 
standard. Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, you 
must use enough credits for each model year to show that your adjusted 
fleet average value does not exceed the fleet-average standard.
    (3) The following provisions apply if you do not have enough 
emission credits to demonstrate compliance with a fleet-average 
standard in a given model year:
    (i) You may have a credit deficit for up to three model years 
within an averaging set under Sec.  86.1861-17(c). 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.
    (ii) You must notify us in writing how you plan to eliminate the 
credit deficit within the specified time frame. If we determine that 
your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic, we may deny an application 
for certification for a test group or evaporative family if its bin 
standard or FEL would increase your credit deficit. We may determine 
that your plan is unreasonable or unrealistic based on a consideration 
of past and projected use of specific technologies, the historical 
sales mix of your vehicle models, your commitment to limit sales of 
higher-emission vehicles, and expected access to traded

[[Page 23735]]

credits. We may also consider your plan unreasonable if your fleet-
average emission level increases relative to the first model year of a 
credit deficit or any later model year. We may require that you send us 
interim reports describing your progress toward resolving your credit 
deficit over the course of a model year.
    (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) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, the 
following actions are all considered to occur at the expiration of the 
deadline for offsetting a deficit as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of 
this section:
    (1) Failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section.
    (2) Failing to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate was 
issued relative to offsetting a deficit.
    (3) Selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering into U.S. 
commerce, or importing vehicles that are found not to be covered by a 
certificate as a result of failing to offset a deficit.

0
202. A new Sec.  86.1861-17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1861-17  How do the NMOG+NOX and evaporative 
emission credit programs work?

    You may use emission credits for purposes of certification to show 
compliance with the applicable fleet-average NMOG+NOX 
standards from Sec. Sec.  86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet-average 
evaporative emission standards from Sec.  86.1813 as described in 40 
CFR part 1037, subpart H, with certain exceptions and clarifications as 
specified in this section. MDPVs are subject to the same provisions of 
this section that apply to LDT4.
    (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 credits relative to the applicable fleet-average 
standard. Calculate positive emission credits if your fleet-average 
level is below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits if 
your fleet-average value is above the standard. Calculate credits 
separately for each type of standard and for each averaging set. 
Calculate emission credits using the following equation, rounded to the 
nearest whole number:
    Emission credit = Volume[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 or evaporative families covered by the fleet-average 
value, as described in Sec.  86.1860.

    (b) The following restrictions apply instead of those specified in 
40 CFR 1037.740:
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, 
emission credits may be exchanged only within an averaging set, as 
follows:
    (i) HDV represent a separate averaging set with respect to all 
emission standards.
    (ii) LDV and LDT certified to standards based on a useful life of 
150,000 miles and 15 years together represent a single averaging set 
with respect to NMOG+NOX emission standards. Note that FTP 
and SFTP credits are not interchangeable.
    (iii) LDV and LDT1 certified to standards based on a useful life of 
120,000 miles and 10 years together represent a single averaging set 
with respect to NMOG+NOX emission standards. Note that FTP 
and SFTP credits are not interchangeable.
    (iv) 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 
after 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) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 
credits expire after five years. For example, credits you generate in 
model year 2018 may be used only through model year 2023.
    (4) For the Tier 3 declining fleet-average FTP and SFTP emission 
standards for NMOG+NOX described in Sec.  86.1811-17(b)(8), 
credits generated in model years 2017 through 2024 expire after eight 
years, or after model year 2030, whichever comes first; however, these 
credits may not be traded after five years. This extended credit life 
also applies for small-volume manufacturers generating credits under 
Sec.  86.1811-17(h)(1) in model years 2022 through 2024. Note that the 
longer credit life does not apply for heavy-duty vehicles, for vehicles 
certified under the alternate phase-in described in Sec.  86.1811-
17(b)(9), or for vehicles generating early Tier 3 credits under Sec.  
86.1811-17(b)(11) in model year 2017.
    (c) The credit-deficit provisions 40 CFR 1037.745 apply to the 
NMOG+NOX and evaporative emission standards for Tier 3 
vehicles.
    (d) The reporting and recordkeeping provisions of Sec.  86.1862 
apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.730 and 1037.735.
    (e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.645 do not apply.

0
203. Section 86.1862-04 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1862-04  Maintenance of records and submittal of information 
relevant to compliance with fleet-average standards.

    (a) Overview. This section describes reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for vehicles subject to the following standards:
    (1) Tier 2 NOX emission standard for LDV and LDT in 
Sec.  86.1811-04.
    (2) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for LDV 
and LDT in Sec.  86.1811.
    (3) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for LDV 
and LDT (including MDPV) in Sec.  86.1811.
    (4) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in Sec.  86.1813.
    (5) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOX for HDV 
(other than MDPV) in Sec.  86.1816.
    (6) Cold temperature NMHC standards in Sec.  86.1811.
    (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 or evaporative family, as applicable.
    (iv) Assembly plant.
    (v) Vehicle identification number.
    (vi) The FEL and the fleet-average standard to which the vehicle is 
certified.

[[Page 23736]]

    (vii) Information on the point of first sale, including the 
purchaser, city, and state.
    (3) The manufacturer must retain all records required to be 
maintained under this section for a period of eight years from the due 
date for the annual report. Records may be stored in any format and on 
any media, as long as manufacturers can promptly send EPA organized 
written records in English if we ask for them. Manufacturers must keep 
records readily available as EPA may review them at any time.
    (4) The Administrator may require the manufacturer to retain 
additional records or submit information not specifically required by 
this section.
    (5) EPA may void ab initio a certificate of conformity for a 
vehicle certified to emission standards as set forth or otherwise 
referenced in this subpart for which the manufacturer fails to retain 
the records required in this section, to provide such information to 
the Administrator upon request, or to submit the reports required in 
this section in the specified time period.
    (c) Reporting. (1) Each manufacturer must submit an annual report. 
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the annual 
report must contain, for each applicable fleet average standard, the 
fleet average value achieved, all values required to calculate the 
fleet-average value, the number of credits generated or debits 
incurred, all the values required to calculate the credits or debits, 
and sufficient information to show compliance with all phase-in 
requirements, if applicable. The annual report must also contain the 
resulting balance of credits or debits.
    (2) When a manufacturer calculates compliance with the fleet-
average standard using the provisions in Sec.  86.1860-04(c)(2) or 
Sec.  86.1860-17(f), the annual report must state that the manufacturer 
has elected to use such provision and must contain the fleet-average 
standard as the fleet-average value for that model year.
    (3) For each applicable fleet-average standard, the annual report 
must also include documentation on all credit transactions the 
manufacturer has engaged in since those included in the last report. 
Information for each transaction must include all the following 
information:
    (i) Name of credit provider.
    (ii) Name of credit recipient.
    (iii) Date the transfer occurred.
    (iv) Quantity of credits transferred.
    (v) Model year in which the credits were earned.
    (4) Unless a manufacturer reports the data required by this section 
in the annual production report required under Sec.  86.1844-01(e) and 
subsequent model year provisions, a manufacturer must submit an annual 
report for each model year after production ends for all affected 
vehicles produced by the manufacturer subject to the provisions of this 
subpart and no later than May 1 of the calendar year following the 
given model year. Annual reports must be submitted to: Director, 
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 
Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
    (5) Failure by a manufacturer to submit the annual report in the 
specified time period for all vehicles subject to the provisions in 
this section is a violation of Clean Air Act section 203(a)(1) (42 
U.S.C 7522(a)(1)) for each subject vehicle produced by that 
manufacturer.
    (6) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error 
occurred on an annual report previously submitted to EPA, the 
manufacturer's credit or debit calculations will be recalculated. EPA 
may void erroneous credits, unless transferred, and must adjust 
erroneous debits. In the case of transferred erroneous credits, EPA 
must adjust the selling manufacturer's credit or debit balance to 
reflect the sale of such credits and any resulting generation of 
debits.
    (d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. Any voiding of the 
certificate under paragraph (a)(6) of this section will be made only 
after EPA has offered the manufacturer concerned an opportunity for a 
hearing conducted in accordance with Sec.  86.614 for light-duty 
vehicles and light-duty trucks and with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, 
for heavy-duty vehicles.

0
204. Section 86.1863-07 is amended by revising the section heading and 
adding introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1863-07  Optional chassis certification for diesel vehicles.

    This section does not apply for vehicles certified to the Tier 3 
standards in Sec.  86.1816-18, including those vehicles that certify to 
the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018.
* * * * *

0
205. Section 86.1864-10 is amended by revising paragraph (p) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  86.1864-10  How to comply with the fleet average cold temperature 
NMHC standards.

* * * * *
    (p) Reporting and recordkeeping. Keep records and submit 
information for demonstrating compliance with the fleet average cold 
temperature NMHC standard as described in Sec.  86.1862-04.

0
206. Section 86.1868-12 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and 
(g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  86.1868-12  CO2 credits for improving the efficiency 
of air conditioning systems.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The manufacturer shall perform the AC17 test specified in 40 
CFR 1066.845 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 1066.845 
must also be reported. In each subsequent model year

[[Page 23737]]

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. When all unique air 
conditioning system designs within a platform have been tested, no 
additional testing is required within that platform, and credits may be 
carried over to subsequent model years until there is a significant 
change in the platform design, at which point a new sequence of testing 
must be initiated. No more than one vehicle from each credit-generating 
platform is required to be tested in each model year.
* * * * *
    (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 1066.845, according to the requirements of this paragraph 
(g).
* * * * *

0
207. Appendix I to part 86 is amended by revising the appendix heading 
and the heading of paragraph (a), adding paragraph (a) introductory 
text and paragraphs (a)(1) through (3), revising paragraphs (b) and 
(c), and removing and reserving 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
197.....................................................            38.6
198.....................................................            40.7
199.....................................................            42.0
200.....................................................            43.6
201.....................................................            45.1
202.....................................................            46.7
203.....................................................            47.7
204.....................................................            48.5
205.....................................................            49.2
206.....................................................            49.2
207.....................................................            49.0
208.....................................................            48.9
209.....................................................            48.7
210.....................................................            48.7
211.....................................................            48.7
212.....................................................            48.7
213.....................................................            48.7
214.....................................................            48.9
215.....................................................            49.1
216.....................................................            49.6
217.....................................................            50.2
218.....................................................            50.9
219.....................................................            51.3
220.....................................................            51.8
221.....................................................            52.4
222.....................................................            52.8
223.....................................................            53.4
224.....................................................            54.1
225.....................................................            55.1
226.....................................................            56.0
227.....................................................            56.6
228.....................................................            56.9
229.....................................................            57.0
230.....................................................            56.9
231.....................................................            56.6
232.....................................................            56.6
233.....................................................            56.8
234.....................................................            57.1
235.....................................................            57.5
236.....................................................            57.7
237.....................................................            58.1
238.....................................................            58.3
239.....................................................            58.6
240.....................................................            58.7
241.....................................................            58.7
242.....................................................            58.5
243.....................................................            58.5
244.....................................................            58.5
245.....................................................            58.5
246.....................................................            58.5
247.....................................................            58.5
248.....................................................            58.4
249.....................................................            58.1
250.....................................................            57.8
251.....................................................            57.1
252.....................................................            56.6
253.....................................................            56.2
254.....................................................            55.9
255.....................................................            55.6
256.....................................................            55.5
257.....................................................            55.8
258.....................................................            55.9
259.....................................................            56.0
260.....................................................            56.0
261.....................................................            55.7
262.....................................................            55.3
263.....................................................            54.9
264.....................................................            54.5
265.....................................................            54.0
266.....................................................            54.3
267.....................................................            53.9
268.....................................................            53.8
269.....................................................            53.6
270.....................................................            53.4
271.....................................................            53.5
272.....................................................            53.7
273.....................................................            54.0
274.....................................................            54.4
275.....................................................            54.9
276.....................................................            55.4
277.....................................................            55.9
278.....................................................            56.9
279.....................................................            57.4
280.....................................................            57.6
281.....................................................            58.0
282.....................................................            58.0
283.....................................................            57.8
284.....................................................            57.2
285.....................................................            56.5
286.....................................................            55.5
287.....................................................            54.4
288.....................................................            53.4
289.....................................................            53.4
290.....................................................            53.4
291.....................................................            52.9
292.....................................................            51.9
293.....................................................            51.8
294.....................................................            51.9
295.....................................................            51.8
296.....................................................            51.4
297.....................................................            51.3
298.....................................................            51.3
299.....................................................            51.3
300.....................................................            50.9
301.....................................................            50.3
302.....................................................            49.8
303.....................................................            48.9
304.....................................................            47.8

[[Page 23738]]

 
305.....................................................            46.6
306.....................................................            45.4
307.....................................................            44.1
308.....................................................            43.0
309.....................................................            41.8
310.....................................................            39.9
311.....................................................            38.3
312.....................................................            36.5
313.....................................................            35.0
314.....................................................            33.7
315.....................................................            32.6
316.....................................................            31.7
317.....................................................            31.6
318.....................................................            31.1
319.....................................................            30.0
320.....................................................            28.5
321.....................................................            25.7
322.....................................................            22.3
323.....................................................            20.8
324.....................................................            19.8
325.....................................................            19.2
326.....................................................            17.6
327.....................................................            16.1
328.....................................................            12.9
329.....................................................            11.2
330.....................................................             8.3
331.....................................................             4.9
332.....................................................             1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) EPA driving schedule for class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. This 
driving schedule is also known as the LA-92 cycle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Time  (sec.)                         Speed  (mph)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................             0.0
2.......................................................             0.0
3.......................................................             0.0
4.......................................................             0.0
5.......................................................             0.0
6.......................................................             0.0
7.......................................................             0.0
8.......................................................             0.0
9.......................................................             0.0
10......................................................             0.0
11......................................................             0.0
12......................................................             0.0
13......................................................             0.0
14......................................................             0.0
15......................................................             0.0
16......................................................             0.0
17......................................................             0.0
18......................................................             0.0
19......................................................             0.0
20......................................................             0.0
21......................................................             1.2
22......................................................             4.2
23......................................................             7.3
24......................................................             8.8
25......................................................            10.8
26......................................................            12.3
27......................................................            13.1
28......................................................            12.3
29......................................................            12.3
30......................................................            11.5
31......................................................            11.5
32......................................................            11.1
33......................................................            11.1
34......................................................            11.1
35......................................................            13.1
36......................................................            15.0
37......................................................            16.9
38......................................................            16.9
39......................................................            16.1
40......................................................            15.7
41......................................................            15.4
42......................................................            15.0
43......................................................            13.8
44......................................................            10.8
45......................................................             8.4
46......................................................             6.1
47......................................................             4.2
48......................................................             3.5
49......................................................             3.5
50......................................................             1.5
51......................................................             0.0
52......................................................             0.0
53......................................................             0.0
54......................................................             0.0
55......................................................             0.0
56......................................................             0.0
57......................................................             0.0
58......................................................             0.0
59......................................................             0.0
60......................................................             0.0
61......................................................             0.0
62......................................................             0.0
63......................................................             1.2
64......................................................             3.5
65......................................................             7.7
66......................................................            11.1
67......................................................            13.8
68......................................................            16.5
69......................................................            18.4
70......................................................            20.4
71......................................................            20.7
72......................................................            19.6
73......................................................            17.3
74......................................................            12.3
75......................................................             8.1
76......................................................             6.1
77......................................................             9.6
78......................................................            12.7
79......................................................            15.7
80......................................................            18.0
81......................................................            20.4
82......................................................            21.9
83......................................................            23.4
84......................................................            23.8
85......................................................            24.6
86......................................................            25.0
87......................................................            26.1
88......................................................            26.1
89......................................................            26.9
90......................................................            26.9
91......................................................            26.9
92......................................................            26.5
93......................................................            25.7
94......................................................            21.9
95......................................................            16.5
96......................................................            10.0
97......................................................             4.6
98......................................................             1.5
99......................................................             0.4
100.....................................................             0.0
101.....................................................             0.0
102.....................................................             0.0
103.....................................................             0.0
104.....................................................             0.0
105.....................................................             0.0
106.....................................................             0.0
107.....................................................             0.0
108.....................................................             0.4
109.....................................................             1.2
110.....................................................             1.9
111.....................................................             3.8
112.....................................................             7.7
113.....................................................            11.5
114.....................................................            14.6
115.....................................................            18.0
116.....................................................            21.5
117.....................................................            25.0
118.....................................................            28.4
119.....................................................            30.7
120.....................................................            31.9
121.....................................................            32.3
122.....................................................            32.3
123.....................................................            31.9
124.....................................................            30.3
125.....................................................            28.0
126.....................................................            24.2
127.....................................................            20.0
128.....................................................            16.1
129.....................................................            11.5
130.....................................................             8.1
131.....................................................             5.0
132.....................................................             3.5
133.....................................................             1.9
134.....................................................             0.0
135.....................................................             0.0
136.....................................................             0.0
137.....................................................             0.0
138.....................................................             0.0
139.....................................................             0.0
140.....................................................             0.0
141.....................................................             0.0
142.....................................................             0.0
143.....................................................             1.5
144.....................................................             6.9
145.....................................................            12.7
146.....................................................            16.5
147.....................................................            20.0
148.....................................................            23.0
149.....................................................            25.7
150.....................................................            28.0
151.....................................................            30.7
152.....................................................            32.6
153.....................................................            34.2
154.....................................................            35.3
155.....................................................            36.9
156.....................................................            36.9
157.....................................................            37.2
158.....................................................            37.6
159.....................................................            37.6
160.....................................................            37.6
161.....................................................            37.2
162.....................................................            37.2
163.....................................................            36.9
164.....................................................            36.5
165.....................................................            36.5
166.....................................................            34.9
167.....................................................            33.4
168.....................................................            31.9
169.....................................................            29.2
170.....................................................            25.0
171.....................................................            25.0
172.....................................................            26.1
173.....................................................            27.6
174.....................................................            29.2
175.....................................................            31.1
176.....................................................            32.3
177.....................................................            34.2
178.....................................................            34.9

[[Page 23739]]

 
179.....................................................            35.7
180.....................................................            36.5
181.....................................................            36.9
182.....................................................            36.9
183.....................................................            37.2
184.....................................................            37.6
185.....................................................            37.2
186.....................................................            37.6
187.....................................................            38.0
188.....................................................            38.4
189.....................................................            39.2
190.....................................................            39.6
191.....................................................            39.9
192.....................................................            40.7
193.....................................................            40.3
194.....................................................            41.1
195.....................................................            41.1
196.....................................................            40.7
197.....................................................            31.9
198.....................................................            23.9
199.....................................................            15.9
200.....................................................             7.9
201.....................................................             2.7
202.....................................................             0.4
203.....................................................             0.4
204.....................................................             2.7
205.....................................................             3.8
206.....................................................             3.8
207.....................................................             1.5
208.....................................................             0.0
209.....................................................             0.0
210.....................................................             0.0
211.....................................................             0.0
212.....................................................             0.0
213.....................................................             0.0
214.....................................................             0.0
215.....................................................             0.0
216.....................................................             0.0
217.....................................................             0.0
218.....................................................             0.0
219.....................................................             0.0
220.....................................................             0.0
221.....................................................             0.0
222.....................................................             0.0
223.....................................................             0.0
224.....................................................             0.0
225.....................................................             0.0
226.....................................................             0.0
227.....................................................             0.0
228.....................................................             0.0
229.....................................................             0.0
230.....................................................             0.0
231.....................................................             0.0
232.....................................................             0.0
233.....................................................             0.0
234.....................................................             0.0
235.....................................................             0.0
236.....................................................             0.0
237.....................................................             0.0
238.....................................................             1.5
239.....................................................             5.0
240.....................................................             8.8
241.....................................................            11.5
242.....................................................            14.2
243.....................................................            15.4
244.....................................................            16.1
245.....................................................            16.1
246.....................................................            16.9
247.....................................................            16.5
248.....................................................            16.9
249.....................................................            18.0
250.....................................................            19.2
251.....................................................            20.4
252.....................................................            20.4
253.....................................................            21.1
254.....................................................            21.1
255.....................................................            22.3
256.....................................................            23.0
257.....................................................            23.8
258.....................................................            24.2
259.....................................................            24.6
260.....................................................            25.0
261.....................................................            25.7
262.....................................................            25.7
263.....................................................            26.5
264.....................................................            27.6
265.....................................................            28.4
266.....................................................            29.2
267.....................................................            30.3
268.....................................................            31.1
269.....................................................            31.1
270.....................................................            30.7
271.....................................................            31.1
272.....................................................            29.6
273.....................................................            29.2
274.....................................................            29.2
275.....................................................            28.8
276.....................................................            28.0
277.....................................................            23.0
278.....................................................            21.1
279.....................................................            21.5
280.....................................................            20.7
281.....................................................            20.7
282.....................................................            19.6
283.....................................................            16.5
284.....................................................            13.1
285.....................................................             9.6
286.....................................................             7.3
287.....................................................             3.8
288.....................................................             0.8
289.....................................................             0.0
290.....................................................             0.0
291.....................................................             0.0
292.....................................................             0.0
293.....................................................             0.0
294.....................................................             0.0
295.....................................................             0.0
296.....................................................             0.0
297.....................................................             0.0
298.....................................................             0.0
299.....................................................             0.0
300.....................................................             0.0
301.....................................................             0.0
302.....................................................             0.0
303.....................................................             0.0
304.....................................................             0.0
305.....................................................             0.0
306.....................................................             0.0
307.....................................................             0.0
308.....................................................             0.0
309.....................................................             0.0
310.....................................................             0.0
311.....................................................             0.0
312.....................................................             0.0
313.....................................................             0.4
314.....................................................             2.7
315.....................................................             7.3
316.....................................................            11.5
317.....................................................            15.4
318.....................................................            18.4
319.....................................................            20.7
320.....................................................            24.2
321.....................................................            26.9
322.....................................................            29.6
323.....................................................            31.1
324.....................................................            32.6
325.....................................................            33.8
326.....................................................            34.9
327.....................................................            36.9
328.....................................................            39.2
329.....................................................            41.1
330.....................................................            43.0
331.....................................................            43.8
332.....................................................            44.5
333.....................................................            45.3
334.....................................................            45.3
335.....................................................            44.9
336.....................................................            44.5
337.....................................................            43.8
338.....................................................            43.4
339.....................................................            42.6
340.....................................................            41.9
341.....................................................            41.5
342.....................................................            40.7
343.....................................................            40.3
344.....................................................            41.1
345.....................................................            41.5
346.....................................................            42.6
347.....................................................            43.4
348.....................................................            44.2
349.....................................................            44.9
350.....................................................            45.7
351.....................................................            46.5
352.....................................................            46.8
353.....................................................            47.2
354.....................................................            48.0
355.....................................................            47.6
356.....................................................            48.4
357.....................................................            48.0
358.....................................................            47.2
359.....................................................            46.1
360.....................................................            45.7
361.....................................................            44.9
362.....................................................            44.2
363.....................................................            43.8
364.....................................................            44.5
365.....................................................            44.9
366.....................................................            45.3
367.....................................................            46.5
368.....................................................            48.0
369.....................................................            48.8
370.....................................................            49.5
371.....................................................            49.9
372.....................................................            49.9
373.....................................................            49.9
374.....................................................            49.5
375.....................................................            49.5
376.....................................................            48.8
377.....................................................            48.8
378.....................................................            48.8
379.....................................................            48.4
380.....................................................            48.8
381.....................................................            49.5
382.....................................................            50.3
383.....................................................            50.7
384.....................................................            51.8
385.....................................................            52.6
386.....................................................            53.4
387.....................................................            54.1
388.....................................................            55.3
389.....................................................            55.3
390.....................................................            56.1
391.....................................................            56.4
392.....................................................            56.4
393.....................................................            56.4
394.....................................................            57.2
395.....................................................            56.8
396.....................................................            57.6
397.....................................................            57.6

[[Page 23740]]

 
398.....................................................            57.6
399.....................................................            58.0
400.....................................................            58.0
401.....................................................            58.4
402.....................................................            58.4
403.....................................................            58.8
404.....................................................            59.1
405.....................................................            58.8
406.....................................................            58.8
407.....................................................            58.0
408.....................................................            58.0
409.....................................................            57.6
410.....................................................            57.6
411.....................................................            57.6
412.....................................................            57.6
413.....................................................            57.6
414.....................................................            59.1
415.....................................................            59.5
416.....................................................            59.9
417.....................................................            60.3
418.....................................................            60.3
419.....................................................            61.1
420.....................................................            60.3
421.....................................................            59.9
422.....................................................            59.5
423.....................................................            59.1
424.....................................................            59.1
425.....................................................            59.5
426.....................................................            59.5
427.....................................................            59.5
428.....................................................            59.9
429.....................................................            60.3
430.....................................................            60.7
431.....................................................            60.7
432.....................................................            61.4
433.....................................................            61.8
434.....................................................            61.8
435.....................................................            61.8
436.....................................................            61.8
437.....................................................            61.1
438.....................................................            60.7
439.....................................................            60.3
440.....................................................            60.3
441.....................................................            60.3
442.....................................................            59.5
443.....................................................            58.8
444.....................................................            59.1
445.....................................................            58.8
446.....................................................            58.8
447.....................................................            58.8
448.....................................................            58.4
449.....................................................            58.0
450.....................................................            58.0
451.....................................................            58.0
452.....................................................            58.4
453.....................................................            59.1
454.....................................................            59.5
455.....................................................            59.9
456.....................................................            59.9
457.....................................................            60.3
458.....................................................            61.1
459.....................................................            61.1
460.....................................................            61.1
461.....................................................            61.4
462.....................................................            61.4
463.....................................................            61.1
464.....................................................            60.7
465.....................................................            59.9
466.....................................................            59.1
467.....................................................            59.1
468.....................................................            59.1
469.....................................................            59.9
470.....................................................            59.5
471.....................................................            59.9
472.....................................................            58.8
473.....................................................            58.0
474.....................................................            57.6
475.....................................................            56.8
476.....................................................            56.1
477.....................................................            55.3
478.....................................................            54.1
479.....................................................            52.6
480.....................................................            49.2
481.....................................................            46.1
482.....................................................            43.0
483.....................................................            37.2
484.....................................................            29.6
485.....................................................            21.5
486.....................................................            16.5
487.....................................................            15.7
488.....................................................            18.4
489.....................................................            21.5
490.....................................................            25.0
491.....................................................            27.3
492.....................................................            29.2
493.....................................................            30.7
494.....................................................            31.5
495.....................................................            31.1
496.....................................................            31.1
497.....................................................            30.3
498.....................................................            30.0
499.....................................................            30.0
500.....................................................            29.6
501.....................................................            30.0
502.....................................................            28.8
503.....................................................            28.8
504.....................................................            28.0
505.....................................................            28.4
506.....................................................            28.0
507.....................................................            28.4
508.....................................................            28.4
509.....................................................            28.8
510.....................................................            28.4
511.....................................................            28.4
512.....................................................            28.0
513.....................................................            26.5
514.....................................................            24.2
515.....................................................            22.7
516.....................................................            20.4
517.....................................................            17.7
518.....................................................            15.7
519.....................................................            13.1
520.....................................................            10.8
521.....................................................             8.4
522.....................................................             7.3
523.....................................................             5.0
524.....................................................             3.8
525.....................................................             3.5
526.....................................................             1.9
527.....................................................             0.8
528.....................................................             0.0
529.....................................................             0.0
530.....................................................             0.0
531.....................................................             0.8
532.....................................................             1.9
533.....................................................             3.8
534.....................................................             6.9
535.....................................................             9.6
536.....................................................            11.1
537.....................................................            11.1
538.....................................................            10.4
539.....................................................             8.8
540.....................................................             9.2
541.....................................................            10.0
542.....................................................            10.4
543.....................................................            10.4
544.....................................................             5.4
545.....................................................             1.9
546.....................................................             0.0
547.....................................................             0.0
548.....................................................             0.0
549.....................................................             0.0
550.....................................................             0.0
551.....................................................             0.0
552.....................................................             0.0
553.....................................................             0.0
554.....................................................             0.0
555.....................................................             0.0
556.....................................................             0.0
557.....................................................             0.0
558.....................................................             0.0
559.....................................................             0.0
560.....................................................             0.0
561.....................................................             0.0
562.....................................................             0.0
563.....................................................             0.0
564.....................................................             0.0
565.....................................................             0.0
566.....................................................             0.0
567.....................................................             0.0
568.....................................................             0.0
569.....................................................             0.0
570.....................................................             0.0
571.....................................................             0.0
572.....................................................             0.4
573.....................................................             1.5
574.....................................................             3.5
575.....................................................             6.1
576.....................................................            10.4
577.....................................................            14.2
578.....................................................            16.9
579.....................................................            19.2
580.....................................................            20.0
581.....................................................            21.5
582.....................................................            23.4
583.....................................................            24.6
584.....................................................            24.2
585.....................................................            20.0
586.....................................................            16.9
587.....................................................            13.4
588.....................................................            13.4
589.....................................................            15.7
590.....................................................            18.4
591.....................................................            21.1
592.....................................................            23.4
593.....................................................            25.3
594.....................................................            27.6
595.....................................................            28.8
596.....................................................            30.3
597.....................................................            30.7
598.....................................................            31.5
599.....................................................            31.1
600.....................................................            31.1
601.....................................................            30.3
602.....................................................            30.3
603.....................................................            30.3
604.....................................................            30.7
605.....................................................            31.1
606.....................................................            32.3
607.....................................................            32.6
608.....................................................            32.6
609.....................................................            32.6
610.....................................................            31.1
611.....................................................            26.9
612.....................................................            22.3
613.....................................................            18.0
614.....................................................            13.8
615.....................................................             9.6
616.....................................................             4.6

[[Page 23741]]

 
617.....................................................             6.1
618.....................................................            10.0
619.....................................................            14.2
620.....................................................            17.3
621.....................................................            20.0
622.....................................................            21.5
623.....................................................            22.3
624.....................................................            22.3
625.....................................................            22.3
626.....................................................            22.3
627.....................................................            23.0
628.....................................................            23.0
629.....................................................            22.7
630.....................................................            22.3
631.....................................................            21.9
632.....................................................            22.7
633.....................................................            23.8
634.....................................................            25.0
635.....................................................            25.3
636.....................................................            25.7
637.....................................................            26.5
638.....................................................            26.9
639.....................................................            27.3
640.....................................................            28.0
641.....................................................            29.2
642.....................................................            30.0
643.....................................................            30.0
644.....................................................            29.6
645.....................................................            29.6
646.....................................................            28.8
647.....................................................            28.4
648.....................................................            28.0
649.....................................................            27.3
650.....................................................            25.7
651.....................................................            24.6
652.....................................................            25.0
653.....................................................            26.5
654.....................................................            28.0
655.....................................................            29.6
656.....................................................            30.7
657.....................................................            32.3
658.....................................................            33.0
659.....................................................            34.2
660.....................................................            34.6
661.....................................................            35.3
662.....................................................            36.1
663.....................................................            36.1
664.....................................................            36.9
665.....................................................            36.9
666.....................................................            37.6
667.....................................................            37.6
668.....................................................            38.4
669.....................................................            38.0
670.....................................................            37.6
671.....................................................            37.6
672.....................................................            37.2
673.....................................................            36.9
674.....................................................            36.1
675.....................................................            35.7
676.....................................................            36.1
677.....................................................            35.7
678.....................................................            35.7
679.....................................................            35.7
680.....................................................            36.1
681.....................................................            36.1
682.....................................................            35.7
683.....................................................            35.7
684.....................................................            34.9
685.....................................................            34.6
686.....................................................            34.2
687.....................................................            33.8
688.....................................................            33.4
689.....................................................            33.0
690.....................................................            30.3
691.....................................................            29.2
692.....................................................            28.4
693.....................................................            25.0
694.....................................................            21.1
695.....................................................            16.9
696.....................................................            13.4
697.....................................................            13.1
698.....................................................            12.3
699.....................................................            12.7
700.....................................................            15.7
701.....................................................            19.2
702.....................................................            22.3
703.....................................................            24.6
704.....................................................            25.7
705.....................................................            26.5
706.....................................................            26.5
707.....................................................            26.9
708.....................................................            27.3
709.....................................................            27.3
710.....................................................            27.6
711.....................................................            28.4
712.....................................................            28.8
713.....................................................            28.8
714.....................................................            29.2
715.....................................................            28.8
716.....................................................            28.8
717.....................................................            28.0
718.....................................................            28.0
719.....................................................            27.6
720.....................................................            26.5
721.....................................................            24.6
722.....................................................            20.7
723.....................................................            16.5
724.....................................................            15.0
725.....................................................            14.2
726.....................................................            14.2
727.....................................................            13.8
728.....................................................            13.8
729.....................................................            11.9
730.....................................................             8.4
731.....................................................             4.2
732.....................................................             1.2
733.....................................................             0.0
734.....................................................             0.0
735.....................................................             0.0
736.....................................................             0.0
737.....................................................             0.0
738.....................................................             0.0
739.....................................................             0.0
740.....................................................             0.0
741.....................................................             0.0
742.....................................................             0.0
743.....................................................             0.0
744.....................................................             0.0
745.....................................................             0.0
746.....................................................             0.0
747.....................................................             0.0
748.....................................................             0.0
749.....................................................             0.0
750.....................................................             0.0
751.....................................................             0.0
752.....................................................             0.0
753.....................................................             0.0
754.....................................................             0.0
755.....................................................             0.0
756.....................................................             0.0
757.....................................................             0.0
758.....................................................             0.0
759.....................................................             0.0
760.....................................................             0.0
761.....................................................             0.0
762.....................................................             0.0
763.....................................................             1.5
764.....................................................             5.4
765.....................................................             9.2
766.....................................................            11.5
767.....................................................            14.6
768.....................................................            17.3
769.....................................................            19.2
770.....................................................            21.1
771.....................................................            20.7
772.....................................................            20.7
773.....................................................            19.6
774.....................................................            18.4
775.....................................................            16.9
776.....................................................            16.9
777.....................................................            16.5
778.....................................................            16.9
779.....................................................            16.9
780.....................................................            16.9
781.....................................................            17.3
782.....................................................            19.2
783.....................................................            20.4
784.....................................................            21.1
785.....................................................            22.3
786.....................................................            22.3
787.....................................................            22.7
788.....................................................            22.3
789.....................................................            22.7
790.....................................................            22.3
791.....................................................            23.8
792.....................................................            25.7
793.....................................................            27.6
794.....................................................            29.6
795.....................................................            30.0
796.....................................................            29.2
797.....................................................            27.6
798.....................................................            25.0
799.....................................................            23.8
800.....................................................            23.4
801.....................................................            24.2
802.....................................................            23.4
803.....................................................            23.0
804.....................................................            20.4
805.....................................................            18.8
806.....................................................            17.3
807.....................................................            15.0
808.....................................................            13.1
809.....................................................             9.2
810.....................................................             6.9
811.....................................................             4.6
812.....................................................             4.6
813.....................................................             4.6
814.....................................................             4.2
815.....................................................             5.4
816.....................................................             4.6
817.....................................................             3.5
818.....................................................             2.3
819.....................................................             2.3
820.....................................................             1.9
821.....................................................             3.1
822.....................................................             6.1
823.....................................................             4.6
824.....................................................             2.7
825.....................................................             2.3
826.....................................................             2.3
827.....................................................             3.1
828.....................................................             4.2
829.....................................................             3.5
830.....................................................             3.8
831.....................................................             4.2
832.....................................................             3.5
833.....................................................             3.5
834.....................................................             3.5
835.....................................................             4.6

[[Page 23742]]

 
836.....................................................             5.8
837.....................................................             3.5
838.....................................................             0.8
839.....................................................             3.5
840.....................................................             3.8
841.....................................................             2.3
842.....................................................             0.0
843.....................................................             1.2
844.....................................................             6.9
845.....................................................            13.8
846.....................................................            18.8
847.....................................................            23.8
848.....................................................            27.3
849.....................................................            30.7
850.....................................................            33.8
851.....................................................            37.6
852.....................................................            40.7
853.....................................................            43.8
854.....................................................            46.1
855.....................................................            48.0
856.....................................................            49.5
857.....................................................            51.5
858.....................................................            53.0
859.....................................................            54.5
860.....................................................            55.7
861.....................................................            56.8
862.....................................................            58.0
863.....................................................            59.1
864.....................................................            60.3
865.....................................................            61.1
866.....................................................            61.8
867.....................................................            61.8
868.....................................................            61.8
869.....................................................            61.8
870.....................................................            62.6
871.....................................................            63.4
872.....................................................            63.0
873.....................................................            63.0
874.....................................................            62.6
875.....................................................            61.8
876.....................................................            61.8
877.....................................................            62.2
878.....................................................            62.2
879.....................................................            62.6
880.....................................................            63.7
881.....................................................            64.5
882.....................................................            64.9
883.....................................................            66.0
884.....................................................            66.0
885.....................................................            66.8
886.....................................................            66.4
887.....................................................            66.8
888.....................................................            67.2
889.....................................................            66.4
890.....................................................            66.4
891.....................................................            66.0
892.....................................................            65.7
893.....................................................            65.7
894.....................................................            66.4
895.....................................................            66.0
896.....................................................            65.7
897.....................................................            65.3
898.....................................................            65.3
899.....................................................            64.5
900.....................................................            64.5
901.....................................................            64.1
902.....................................................            63.7
903.....................................................            63.7
904.....................................................            63.7
905.....................................................            64.5
906.....................................................            64.5
907.....................................................            64.9
908.....................................................            64.5
909.....................................................            64.1
910.....................................................            64.9
911.....................................................            65.3
912.....................................................            65.3
913.....................................................            65.3
914.....................................................            64.1
915.....................................................            63.4
916.....................................................            63.0
917.....................................................            63.4
918.....................................................            64.1
919.....................................................            64.9
920.....................................................            65.3
921.....................................................            64.5
922.....................................................            64.1
923.....................................................            63.4
924.....................................................            63.7
925.....................................................            63.4
926.....................................................            63.4
927.....................................................            63.4
928.....................................................            63.4
929.....................................................            63.7
930.....................................................            64.5
931.....................................................            65.3
932.....................................................            64.9
933.....................................................            63.7
934.....................................................            63.0
935.....................................................            59.9
936.....................................................            55.3
937.....................................................            50.7
938.....................................................            49.2
939.....................................................            48.0
940.....................................................            46.1
941.....................................................            44.2
942.....................................................            41.1
943.....................................................            39.9
944.....................................................            36.1
945.....................................................            32.6
946.....................................................            29.2
947.....................................................            24.6
948.....................................................            20.7
949.....................................................            19.2
950.....................................................            16.5
951.....................................................            15.0
952.....................................................            11.9
953.....................................................             9.6
954.....................................................             8.4
955.....................................................             5.8
956.....................................................             1.2
957.....................................................             0.0
958.....................................................             0.0
959.....................................................             0.0
960.....................................................             1.2
961.....................................................             3.1
962.....................................................             5.0
963.....................................................             8.4
964.....................................................            11.5
965.....................................................            14.6
966.....................................................            16.9
967.....................................................            18.8
968.....................................................            21.1
969.....................................................            23.8
970.....................................................            26.5
971.....................................................            28.0
972.....................................................            29.6
973.....................................................            30.7
974.....................................................            32.6
975.....................................................            34.2
976.....................................................            35.3
977.....................................................            36.1
978.....................................................            36.9
979.....................................................            38.0
980.....................................................            38.0
981.....................................................            38.0
982.....................................................            38.0
983.....................................................            38.0
984.....................................................            37.2
985.....................................................            36.9
986.....................................................            36.1
987.....................................................            35.7
988.....................................................            34.9
989.....................................................            34.9
990.....................................................            33.8
991.....................................................            31.5
992.....................................................            28.8
993.....................................................            25.7
994.....................................................            24.6
995.....................................................            23.4
996.....................................................            22.3
997.....................................................            21.5
998.....................................................            20.0
999.....................................................            20.0
1000....................................................            19.2
1001....................................................            19.2
1002....................................................            18.0
1003....................................................            11.9
1004....................................................             6.9
1005....................................................             2.7
1006....................................................             0.8
1007....................................................             0.4
1008....................................................             0.0
1009....................................................             0.0
1010....................................................             0.0
1011....................................................             0.0
1012....................................................             0.0
1013....................................................             0.0
1014....................................................             0.0
1015....................................................             0.0
1016....................................................             0.0
1017....................................................             0.0
1018....................................................             0.0
1019....................................................             0.0
1020....................................................             0.0
1021....................................................             0.0
1022....................................................             0.0
1023....................................................             0.4
1024....................................................             2.7
1025....................................................             6.1
1026....................................................             9.2
1027....................................................            11.5
1028....................................................            14.2
1029....................................................            16.1
1030....................................................            18.0
1031....................................................            20.0
1032....................................................            21.5
1033....................................................            23.0
1034....................................................            24.2
1035....................................................            25.0
1036....................................................            25.7
1037....................................................            26.9
1038....................................................            27.6
1039....................................................            27.6
1040....................................................            28.4
1041....................................................            29.2
1042....................................................            29.2
1043....................................................            30.0
1044....................................................            29.6
1045....................................................            29.6
1046....................................................            28.8
1047....................................................            28.0
1048....................................................            23.8
1049....................................................            18.8
1050....................................................            11.9
1051....................................................             6.1
1052....................................................             1.5
1053....................................................             1.5
1054....................................................             4.2

[[Page 23743]]

 
1055....................................................             8.1
1056....................................................            10.4
1057....................................................            13.1
1058....................................................            15.4
1059....................................................            18.0
1060....................................................            20.4
1061....................................................            23.0
1062....................................................            25.3
1063....................................................            27.3
1064....................................................            28.8
1065....................................................            30.3
1066....................................................            31.1
1067....................................................            32.3
1068....................................................            31.9
1069....................................................            32.3
1070....................................................            31.9
1071....................................................            31.1
1072....................................................            28.8
1073....................................................            25.0
1074....................................................            22.7
1075....................................................            18.8
1076....................................................            15.4
1077....................................................            13.4
1078....................................................            11.9
1079....................................................             8.8
1080....................................................             5.0
1081....................................................             1.9
1082....................................................             2.3
1083....................................................             2.7
1084....................................................             3.5
1085....................................................             6.5
1086....................................................            10.8
1087....................................................            13.8
1088....................................................            16.1
1089....................................................            18.4
1090....................................................            20.4
1091....................................................            21.9
1092....................................................            21.9
1093....................................................            20.7
1094....................................................            17.3
1095....................................................            13.1
1096....................................................             9.6
1097....................................................             8.8
1098....................................................            10.8
1099....................................................            12.7
1100....................................................            14.2
1101....................................................            14.6
1102....................................................            13.1
1103....................................................            11.1
1104....................................................            11.1
1105....................................................            11.1
1106....................................................            13.1
1107....................................................            15.7
1108....................................................            18.4
1109....................................................            20.7
1110....................................................            23.8
1111....................................................            25.7
1112....................................................            28.0
1113....................................................            30.0
1114....................................................            31.1
1115....................................................            32.3
1116....................................................            34.2
1117....................................................            35.7
1118....................................................            36.9
1119....................................................            38.8
1120....................................................            40.3
1121....................................................            41.5
1122....................................................            42.2
1123....................................................            43.0
1124....................................................            43.8
1125....................................................            43.8
1126....................................................            43.4
1127....................................................            43.0
1128....................................................            42.2
1129....................................................            41.9
1130....................................................            41.5
1131....................................................            41.9
1132....................................................            41.9
1133....................................................            41.9
1134....................................................            42.2
1135....................................................            42.6
1136....................................................            42.6
1137....................................................            42.6
1138....................................................            42.6
1139....................................................            42.6
1140....................................................            42.6
1141....................................................            42.6
1142....................................................            42.2
1143....................................................            43.0
1144....................................................            43.4
1145....................................................            43.0
1146....................................................            42.6
1147....................................................            41.9
1148....................................................            40.7
1149....................................................            36.9
1150....................................................            32.6
1151....................................................            28.0
1152....................................................            23.4
1153....................................................            18.4
1154....................................................            14.6
1155....................................................            12.3
1156....................................................             9.2
1157....................................................             5.8
1158....................................................             1.9
1159....................................................             0.4
1160....................................................             0.0
1161....................................................             0.0
1162....................................................             0.0
1163....................................................             0.0
1164....................................................             0.0
1165....................................................             0.4
1166....................................................             4.2
1167....................................................             9.2
1168....................................................            11.9
1169....................................................            14.2
1170....................................................            15.7
1171....................................................            15.0
1172....................................................            14.2
1173....................................................            13.4
1174....................................................            13.8
1175....................................................            14.6
1176....................................................            14.6
1177....................................................            14.2
1178....................................................            16.1
1179....................................................            15.7
1180....................................................            15.7
1181....................................................            14.6
1182....................................................            13.1
1183....................................................            10.0
1184....................................................             7.3
1185....................................................             3.5
1186....................................................             0.8
1187....................................................             0.0
1188....................................................             0.0
1189....................................................             0.0
1190....................................................             0.0
1191....................................................             0.4
1192....................................................             2.7
1193....................................................             7.3
1194....................................................            11.5
1195....................................................            15.4
1196....................................................            19.2
1197....................................................            21.9
1198....................................................            23.8
1199....................................................            25.0
1200....................................................            26.1
1201....................................................            27.3
1202....................................................            28.8
1203....................................................            30.0
1204....................................................            29.6
1205....................................................            29.6
1206....................................................            28.8
1207....................................................            26.1
1208....................................................            22.3
1209....................................................            19.2
1210....................................................            16.5
1211....................................................            12.7
1212....................................................             9.6
1213....................................................             6.9
1214....................................................             4.2
1215....................................................             2.3
1216....................................................             0.8
1217....................................................             0.0
1218....................................................             0.0
1219....................................................             0.0
1220....................................................             0.0
1221....................................................             0.0
1222....................................................             0.0
1223....................................................             0.0
1224....................................................             0.0
1225....................................................             0.0
1226....................................................             0.0
1227....................................................             0.0
1228....................................................             0.0
1229....................................................             0.0
1230....................................................             0.0
1231....................................................             0.0
1232....................................................             0.0
1233....................................................             0.0
1234....................................................             0.0
1235....................................................             0.0
1236....................................................             0.0
1237....................................................             0.0
1238....................................................             0.0
1239....................................................             0.0
1240....................................................             3.5
1241....................................................            10.4
1242....................................................            15.4
1243....................................................            17.3
1244....................................................            17.3
1245....................................................            18.4
1246....................................................            21.5
1247....................................................            24.6
1248....................................................            27.3
1249....................................................            30.0
1250....................................................            31.5
1251....................................................            31.9
1252....................................................            32.6
1253....................................................            33.4
1254....................................................            34.9
1255....................................................            36.5
1256....................................................            37.6
1257....................................................            39.2
1258....................................................            40.3
1259....................................................            40.7
1260....................................................            41.1
1261....................................................            40.7
1262....................................................            40.7
1263....................................................            40.7
1264....................................................            41.5
1265....................................................            42.6
1266....................................................            43.0
1267....................................................            44.5
1268....................................................            45.3
1269....................................................            45.3
1270....................................................            44.9
1271....................................................            43.4
1272....................................................            40.3
1273....................................................            38.0

[[Page 23744]]

 
1274....................................................            36.1
1275....................................................            36.5
1276....................................................            38.0
1277....................................................            39.2
1278....................................................            40.7
1279....................................................            42.2
1280....................................................            43.4
1281....................................................            44.9
1282....................................................            45.7
1283....................................................            46.1
1284....................................................            46.8
1285....................................................            46.5
1286....................................................            46.5
1287....................................................            46.5
1288....................................................            46.1
1289....................................................            46.1
1290....................................................            46.1
1291....................................................            46.8
1292....................................................            47.6
1293....................................................            48.0
1294....................................................            48.4
1295....................................................            48.0
1296....................................................            48.0
1297....................................................            47.2
1298....................................................            46.5
1299....................................................            46.8
1300....................................................            47.2
1301....................................................            48.4
1302....................................................            48.4
1303....................................................            48.8
1304....................................................            48.4
1305....................................................            47.6
1306....................................................            46.5
1307....................................................            44.2
1308....................................................            42.2
1309....................................................            41.5
1310....................................................            41.1
1311....................................................            40.7
1312....................................................            40.3
1313....................................................            39.6
1314....................................................            39.2
1315....................................................            38.8
1316....................................................            38.0
1317....................................................            37.6
1318....................................................            37.2
1319....................................................            36.5
1320....................................................            34.6
1321....................................................            31.5
1322....................................................            29.6
1323....................................................            29.2
1324....................................................            28.8
1325....................................................            28.8
1326....................................................            28.0
1327....................................................            28.0
1328....................................................            28.4
1329....................................................            29.6
1330....................................................            30.0
1331....................................................            30.3
1332....................................................            29.2
1333....................................................            26.5
1334....................................................            25.3
1335....................................................            25.0
1336....................................................            24.6
1337....................................................            24.6
1338....................................................            25.3
1339....................................................            26.1
1340....................................................            27.3
1341....................................................            28.4
1342....................................................            29.2
1343....................................................            29.2
1344....................................................            29.6
1345....................................................            30.0
1346....................................................            31.1
1347....................................................            32.6
1348....................................................            33.8
1349....................................................            34.6
1350....................................................            34.9
1351....................................................            34.6
1352....................................................            34.9
1353....................................................            34.6
1354....................................................            34.9
1355....................................................            34.9
1356....................................................            34.9
1357....................................................            34.2
1358....................................................            33.8
1359....................................................            32.6
1360....................................................            31.5
1361....................................................            30.0
1362....................................................            28.8
1363....................................................            27.3
1364....................................................            23.8
1365....................................................            23.0
1366....................................................            23.0
1367....................................................            22.3
1368....................................................            20.4
1369....................................................            18.8
1370....................................................            17.7
1371....................................................            16.1
1372....................................................            14.6
1373....................................................            12.7
1374....................................................            11.1
1375....................................................             9.2
1376....................................................             8.8
1377....................................................             7.3
1378....................................................             6.1
1379....................................................             5.0
1380....................................................             4.2
1381....................................................             3.5
1382....................................................             2.7
1383....................................................             2.3
1384....................................................             1.5
1385....................................................             1.2
1386....................................................             0.0
1387....................................................             1.2
1388....................................................             4.2
1389....................................................             7.3
1390....................................................             8.8
1391....................................................            10.8
1392....................................................            12.3
1393....................................................            13.1
1394....................................................            12.3
1395....................................................            12.3
1396....................................................            11.5
1397....................................................            11.5
1398....................................................            11.1
1399....................................................            11.1
1400....................................................            11.1
1401....................................................            13.1
1402....................................................            15.0
1403....................................................            16.9
1404....................................................            16.9
1405....................................................            16.1
1406....................................................            15.7
1407....................................................            15.4
1408....................................................            15.0
1409....................................................            13.8
1410....................................................            10.8
1411....................................................             8.4
1412....................................................             6.1
1413....................................................             4.2
1414....................................................             3.5
1415....................................................             3.5
1416....................................................             1.5
1417....................................................             0.0
1418....................................................             0.0
1419....................................................             0.0
1420....................................................             0.0
1421....................................................             0.0
1422....................................................             0.0
1423....................................................             0.0
1424....................................................             0.0
1425....................................................             0.0
1426....................................................             0.0
1427....................................................             0.0
1428....................................................             0.0
1429....................................................             0.0
1430....................................................             0.0
1431....................................................             0.0
1432....................................................             0.0
1433....................................................             0.0
1434....................................................             0.0
1435....................................................             0.0
1436....................................................             0.0
1437....................................................             0.0
1438....................................................             0.0
1439....................................................             0.0
1440....................................................             0.0
1441....................................................             0.0
1442....................................................             0.0
1443....................................................             0.0
1444....................................................             0.0
1445....................................................             0.0
1446....................................................             0.0
1447....................................................             0.0
1448....................................................             0.0
1449....................................................             0.0
1450....................................................             0.0
1451....................................................             0.0
1452....................................................             0.0
1453....................................................             0.0
1454....................................................             0.0
1455....................................................             0.0
1456....................................................             1.2
1457....................................................             4.2
1458....................................................             7.3
1459....................................................             8.8
1460....................................................            10.8
1461....................................................            12.3
1462....................................................            13.1
1463....................................................            12.3
1464....................................................            12.3
1465....................................................            11.5
1466....................................................            11.5
1467....................................................            11.1
1468....................................................            11.1
1469....................................................            11.1
1470....................................................            13.1
1471....................................................            15.0
1472....................................................            16.9
1473....................................................            16.9
1474....................................................            16.1
1475....................................................            15.7
1476....................................................            15.4
1477....................................................            15.0
1478....................................................            13.8
1479....................................................            10.8
1480....................................................             8.4
1481....................................................             6.1
1482....................................................             4.2
1483....................................................             3.5
1484....................................................             3.5
1485....................................................             1.5
1486....................................................             0.0
1487....................................................             0.0
1488....................................................             0.0
1489....................................................             0.0
1490....................................................             0.0
1491....................................................             0.0
1492....................................................             0.0

[[Page 23745]]

 
1493....................................................             0.0
1494....................................................             0.0
1495....................................................             0.0
1496....................................................             0.0
1497....................................................             0.0
1498....................................................             1.2
1499....................................................             3.5
1500....................................................             7.7
1501....................................................            11.1
1502....................................................            13.8
1503....................................................            16.5
1504....................................................            18.4
1505....................................................            20.4
1506....................................................            20.7
1507....................................................            19.6
1508....................................................            17.3
1509....................................................            12.3
1510....................................................             8.1
1511....................................................             6.1
1512....................................................             9.6
1513....................................................            12.7
1514....................................................            15.7
1515....................................................            18.0
1516....................................................            20.4
1517....................................................            21.9
1518....................................................            23.4
1519....................................................            23.8
1520....................................................            24.6
1521....................................................            25.0
1522....................................................            26.1
1523....................................................            26.1
1524....................................................            26.9
1525....................................................            26.9
1526....................................................            26.9
1527....................................................            26.5
1528....................................................            25.7
1529....................................................            21.9
1530....................................................            16.5
1531....................................................            10.0
1532....................................................             4.6
1533....................................................             1.5
1534....................................................             0.4
1535....................................................             0.0
1536....................................................             0.0
1537....................................................             0.0
1538....................................................             0.0
1539....................................................             0.0
1540....................................................             0.0
1541....................................................             0.0
1542....................................................             0.0
1543....................................................             0.4
1544....................................................             1.2
1545....................................................             1.9
1546....................................................             3.8
1547....................................................             7.7
1548....................................................            11.5
1549....................................................            14.6
1550....................................................            18.0
1551....................................................            21.5
1552....................................................            25.0
1553....................................................            28.4
1554....................................................            30.7
1555....................................................            31.9
1556....................................................            32.3
1557....................................................            32.3
1558....................................................            31.9
1559....................................................            30.3
1560....................................................            28.0
1561....................................................            24.2
1562....................................................            20.0
1563....................................................            16.1
1564....................................................            11.5
1565....................................................             8.1
1566....................................................             5.0
1567....................................................             3.5
1568....................................................             1.9
1569....................................................             0.0
1570....................................................             0.0
1571....................................................             0.0
1572....................................................             0.0
1573....................................................             0.0
1574....................................................             0.0
1575....................................................             0.0
1576....................................................             0.0
1577....................................................             0.0
1578....................................................             1.5
1579....................................................             6.9
1580....................................................            12.7
1581....................................................            16.5
1582....................................................            20.0
1583....................................................            23.0
1584....................................................            25.7
1585....................................................            28.0
1586....................................................            30.7
1587....................................................            32.6
1588....................................................            34.2
1589....................................................            35.3
1590....................................................            36.9
1591....................................................            36.9
1592....................................................            37.2
1593....................................................            37.6
1594....................................................            37.6
1595....................................................            37.6
1596....................................................            37.2
1597....................................................            37.2
1598....................................................            36.9
1599....................................................            36.5
1600....................................................            36.5
1601....................................................            34.9
1602....................................................            33.4
1603....................................................            31.9
1604....................................................            29.2
1605....................................................            25.0
1606....................................................            25.0
1607....................................................            26.1
1608....................................................            27.6
1609....................................................            29.2
1610....................................................            31.1
1611....................................................            32.3
1612....................................................            34.2
1613....................................................            34.9
1614....................................................            35.7
1615....................................................            36.5
1616....................................................            36.9
1617....................................................            36.9
1618....................................................            37.2
1619....................................................            37.6
1620....................................................            37.2
1621....................................................            37.6
1622....................................................            38.0
1623....................................................            38.4
1624....................................................            39.2
1625....................................................            39.6
1626....................................................            39.9
1627....................................................            40.7
1628....................................................            40.3
1629....................................................            41.1
1630....................................................            41.1
1631....................................................            40.7
1632....................................................            31.9
1633....................................................            23.9
1634....................................................            15.9
1635....................................................             7.9
1636....................................................             2.7
1637....................................................             0.4
1638....................................................             0.4
1639....................................................             2.7
1640....................................................             3.8
1641....................................................             3.8
1642....................................................             1.5
1643....................................................             0.0
1644....................................................             0.0
1645....................................................             0.0
1646....................................................             0.0
1647....................................................             0.0
1648....................................................             0.0
1649....................................................             0.0
1650....................................................             0.0
1651....................................................             0.0
1652....................................................             0.0
1653....................................................             0.0
1654....................................................             0.0
1655....................................................             0.0
1656....................................................             0.0
1657....................................................             0.0
1658....................................................             0.0
1659....................................................             0.0
1660....................................................             0.0
1661....................................................             0.0
1662....................................................             0.0
1663....................................................             0.0
1664....................................................             0.0
1665....................................................             0.0
1666....................................................             0.0
1667....................................................             0.0
1668....................................................             0.0
1669....................................................             0.0
1670....................................................             0.0
1671....................................................             0.0
1672....................................................             0.0
1673....................................................             1.5
1674....................................................             5.0
1675....................................................             8.8
1676....................................................            11.5
1677....................................................            14.2
1678....................................................            15.4
1679....................................................            16.1
1680....................................................            16.1
1681....................................................            16.9
1682....................................................            16.5
1683....................................................            16.9
1684....................................................            18.0
1685....................................................            19.2
1686....................................................            20.4
1687....................................................            20.4
1688....................................................            21.1
1689....................................................            21.1
1690....................................................            22.3
1691....................................................            23.0
1692....................................................            23.8
1693....................................................            24.2
1694....................................................            24.6
1695....................................................            25.0
1696....................................................            25.7
1697....................................................            25.7
1698....................................................            26.5
1699....................................................            27.6
1700....................................................            28.4
1701....................................................            29.2
1702....................................................            30.3
1703....................................................            31.1
1704....................................................            31.1
1705....................................................            30.7
1706....................................................            31.1
1707....................................................            29.6
1708....................................................            29.2
1709....................................................            29.2
1710....................................................            28.8
1711....................................................            28.0

[[Page 23746]]

 
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) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Appendix XIII through Appendix XVIII to Part 86--[Removed]

0
208. Appendix XIII through Appendix XVIII to part 86 are removed.

PART 600--FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF 
MOTOR VEHICLES

0
209. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32901--23919q, Pub. L. 109-58.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
210. Section 600.001 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  600.001  General applicability.

* * * * *
    (e) You. The term ``you'' in this part refers to manufacturers 
subject to the requirements of this part.

0
211. Section 600.002 is amended by revising the definitions for 
``Alcohol'' and ``Alcohol-fueled automobile'' and adding a definition 
for ``We (us, our)'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  600.002  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Alcohol means a mixture containing 85 percent or more by volume 
methanol, denatured ethanol, or other alcohols, in any combination.
    Alcohol-fueled automobile means an automobile designed to operate 
on alcohol, but not on gasoline.
* * * * *
    We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.
* * * * *

0
212. Section 600.011 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(2), and 
(c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  600.011  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) ASTM International material. The following documents are 
available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585, or http://www.astm.org/.
    (1) ASTM D975-13a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 
approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  600.107-08(b).
    (2) ASTM D1298-12b, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative 
Density, or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum 
Products by Hydrometer Method, approved June 1, 2012, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  600.113-12(f) and 600.510-12(g).
    (3) ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography, approved January 1, 
2010, IBR approved for Sec.  600.113-12(f) and (k).
    (4) ASTM D3338/D3338M-09, Standard Test Method for Estimation of 
Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels, approved April 15, 2009, IBR 
approved for Sec.  600.113-12(f).
    (5) ASTM D3343-05 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels, approved October 1, 
2010, IBR approved for Sec.  600.113-12(f).
    (c) * * *
    (2) SAE J1634, Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and 
Range Test Procedure, revised October 2012, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
600.116-12(a) and 600.311-12(j) and (k).
    (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust 
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, revised June 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
600.114-12(c) and (f), 600.116-12(b) and (c), and 600.311-12(c), (j), 
and (k).
* * * * *

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
213. Section 600.111-08 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  600.111-08  Test procedures.

    This section describes test procedures for the FTP, highway fuel 
economy test (HFET), US06, SC03, and the cold temperature FTP tests. 
Perform testing according to test procedures and other requirements 
contained in this part 600 and in 40 CFR parts 86 and 1066, including 
the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subparts B, C, and S. Manufacturers 
may certify vehicles based on data collected according to previously 
published test procedures for model years through 2021. In addition, we 
may approve the use of previously published test procedures for later 
model years as an alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c). See 40 
CFR 86.101 and 86.201 for detailed provisions related to this 
transition.
    (a) FTP testing procedures. Conduct FTP testing as described in 40 
CFR 1066.810 through 1066.820. You may omit evaporative emission 
measurements for testing under this part 600 unless we specifically 
require it.
    (b) Highway fuel economy testing procedures. Conduct HFET testing 
as described in 40 CFR 1066.840.
    (c) US06 testing procedures. Conduct US06 testing as described in 
40 CFR 1066.830 and 1066.831.
    (d) SC03 testing procedures. Conduct SC03 testing as described in 
40 CFR 1066.830 and 835.
    (e) Cold temperature FTP procedures. Conduct cold temperature FTP 
testing as described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart H.
    (f) Testing with alternative fuels. For vehicles designed to 
operate on an alternative fuel in addition to gasoline or diesel fuel, 
perform FTP and HFET testing as described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section for each type of fuel on which the vehicle is designed to 
operate. No US06, SC03, or cold temperature FTP testing is required on 
the alternative fuel.
    (g) Testing for vehicles with rechargeable energy storage systems. 
Test electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles as described in 
Sec.  600.116.
    (h) Special test procedures. We may allow or require you to use 
procedures other than those specified in this section as described in 
40 CFR 1066.10(c). For example, special test procedures may be used for 
advanced technology vehicles, including, but not limited to fuel cell 
vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles using hydraulic energy storage, and 
vehicles equipped with hydrogen internal combustion engines. 
Additionally, we may conduct fuel economy and carbon-related exhaust 
emission testing using the special test procedures approved for a 
specific vehicle.

Sec.  600.113-08  [Removed]

0
214A. Remove Sec.  600.113-08.

Sec.  600.114-08  [Removed]

0
214B. Remove 600.114-08.

[[Page 23747]]

0
215. Section 600.116-12 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(5).
0
c. By redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), 
respectively.
0
d. By adding a new paragraph (b).
0
e. By revising the redesignated paragraphs (c) introductory text, 
(c)(1) introductory text, and (c)(2) introductory text.
0
f. By revising the redesignated paragraph (c)(5).
0
g. By adding paragraph (c)(9).

Sec.  600.116-12  Special procedures related to electric vehicles and 
hybrid electric vehicles.

    (a) * * *
    (5) We may approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to 
electric vehicles if they are necessary or appropriate for meeting the 
objectives of this part. For example, we may approve the use of an 
earlier version of SAE J1634 for carryover vehicles, or if you show 
that it is equivalent for your vehicle.
* * * * *
    (b) Determine performance values for hybrid electric vehicles that 
have no plug-in capability as specified in Sec. Sec.  600.210 and 
600.311 using the procedures for charge-sustaining operation from SAE 
J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  600.011). We may approve 
alternate measurement procedures with respect to these vehicles if that 
is necessary or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this part. 
For example, we may approve alternate Net Energy Change tolerances for 
charge-sustaining operation as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this 
section.
    (c) Determine performance values for hybrid electric vehicles that 
have plug-in capability as specified in Sec. Sec.  600.210 and 600.311 
using the procedures of SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  
600.011), with the following clarifications and modifications:
    (1) To determine fuel economy and CREE values to demonstrate 
compliance with CAFE and GHG standards, calculate composite values 
representing combined operation during charge-depleting and charge-
sustaining operation using the following utility factors except as 
specified in this paragraph (c):
* * * * *
    (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 
(c):
* * * * *
    (5) The End-of-Test criterion is based on a 1 percent Net Energy 
Change as specified in Section 3.8 of SAE J1711. We may approve 
alternate Net Energy Change tolerances as specified in Section 3.9.1 or 
Appendix C of SAE J1711 if the 1 percent threshold is insufficient or 
inappropriate for marking the end of charge-depleting operation. For 
charge-sustaining tests, we may approve the use of alternate Net Energy 
Change tolerances as specified in Appendix C of SAE J1711 to correct 
final fuel economy values, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related 
exhaust emissions. For charge-sustaining tests, do not use alternate 
Net Energy Change tolerances to correct emissions of criteria 
pollutants. Additionally, if we approve an alternate End-of-Test 
criterion or Net Energy Change tolerances for a specific vehicle, we 
may use the alternate criterion or tolerances for any testing we 
conduct on that vehicle.
* * * * *
    (9) The utility factors described in this paragraph (c) are derived 
from equations in SAE J2841. You may alternatively calculate utility 
factors directly from the corresponding equations in SAE J2841.
* * * * *

0
216. A new Sec.  600.117 is added to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  600.117  Interim provisions.

    The following provisions apply instead of other provisions 
specified in this part through model year 2019:
    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, 
manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with greenhouse gas emission 
standards and determine fuel economy values using gasoline test fuel as 
specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a), regardless of any testing with Tier 3 
test fuel under paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Manufacturers may demonstrate that vehicles comply with Tier 3 
emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, during 
fuel economy measurements using the gasoline test fuel specified in 40 
CFR 86.113-04(a), as long as this test fuel is used for all the duty 
cycles specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. If a vehicle fails to 
meet a Tier 3 emission standard using the gasoline test fuel specified 
in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a), the manufacturer must retest the vehicle using 
the Tier 3 test fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b) to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable emission standards over that test cycle.
    (c) If a manufacturer demonstrates compliance with emission 
standards for criteria pollutants over all five test cycles using the 
Tier 3 test fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.710(b), the manufacturer may 
use the derived five-cycle calculations to demonstrate compliance with 
greenhouse gas emission standards and determine fuel economy values. 
This also applies for fuel economy labeling, as long as the test group 
meets the criteria described in Sec.  600.115. Vehicles tested over the 
FTP and HFET cycles with the test fuel specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a) 
under this paragraph (b) must meet the Tier 3 emission standards over 
those test cycles.
    (d) Manufacturers may perform testing with either gasoline test 
fuel specified in 40 CFR 86.113-04(a) or in 40 CFR 1065.710(b) to 
evaluate whether their vehicles meet the criteria for derived 5-cycle 
testing under 40 CFR 600.115; however, all five tests must use test 
fuel meeting the same specifications.
    (e) For IUVP testing under Sec.  86.1845, manufacturers may 
demonstrate compliance with greenhouse gas emission standards using a 
test fuel meeting specifications for demonstrating compliance with 
emission standards for criteria pollutants.

Subpart C--[Amended]

Sec.  600.206-08  [Removed]

0
217A. Remove Sec.  600.206-08.

Sec.  600.207-08  [Removed]

0
217B. Remove Sec.  600.207-08.

Sec.  600.208-08  [Removed]

0
217C. Remove Sec.  600.208-08.

Sec.  600.209-08  [Removed]

0
217D. Remove Sec.  600.209-08.

Sec.  600.210-08  [Removed]

0
217D. Remove Sec.  600.210-08.

Subpart D--[Amended]

Sec.  600.302-08  [Removed]

0
218A. Remove Sec.  600.302-08.

Sec.  600.311-08  [Removed]

0
218B. Remove Sec.  600.311-08.

0
219. Section 600.311-12 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 23748]]

Sec.  600.311-12  Determination of values for fuel economy labels.

* * * * *
    (g) Smog rating. Establish a rating for exhaust emissions other 
than CO2 based on the applicable emission standards for the 
appropriate model year as shown in Tables 1 through 3 of this section. 
For Independent Commercial Importers that import vehicles not subject 
to Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. 
Similarly, if a manufacturer certifies vehicles to emission standards 
that are less stringent than all the identified standards for any 
reason, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. If EPA or California emission 
standards change in the future, we may revise the emission levels 
corresponding to each rating for future model years as appropriate to 
reflect the changed standards. If this occurs, we would publish the 
revised ratings as described in Sec.  600.302-12(k), allowing 
sufficient lead time to make the changes; we would also expect to 
initiate a rulemaking to update the smog rating in the regulation.

        Table 1 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Year 2025 and Later
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       U.S. EPA tier 3 emission       California air resources board LEV III
               Rating                          standard                          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.
10.................................  Bin 0......................  ZEV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Table 2 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Years 2018-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 U.S. EPA tier 3     U.S EPA tier 2     California air resources board LEV III
            Rating              emission standard  emission standard               emission standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Bin 160..........  Bin 5 through Bin  LEV 160.
                                                    8.
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.
10............................  Bin 0............  Bin 1............  ZEV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           Table 3 of Sec.   600.311-12--Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating Through Model Year 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     California air
                                 U.S. EPA tier 2    resources board     California air resources board LEV III
            Rating              emission standard   LEV II emission                emission standard
                                                        standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  .................  ULEV & LEV II
                                                    large trucks.
2.............................  Bin 8............  SULEV II large
                                                    trucks.
3.............................  Bin 7............
4.............................  Bin 6............  LEV II, option 1.
5.............................  Bin 5............  LEV II...........  LEV160.
6.............................  Bin 4............  ULEV II..........  ULEV125.
7.............................  Bin 3............  .................  ULEV70, ULEV50.
8.............................  Bin 2............  SULEV II.........  SULEV30.
9.............................  .................  PZEV.............  SULEV20, PZEV.
10............................  Bin 1............  ZEV..............  ZEV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

Sec.  600.507-08  [Removed]

0
220A. Remove Sec.  600.507-08.

Sec.  600.509-08  [Removed]

0
220B. Remove Sec.  600.509-08.

Sec.  600.510-08  [Removed]

0
220C. Remove Sec.  600.510-08.

Sec.  600.512-08  [Removed]

0
220D. Remove Sec.  600.512-08.

Appendix IV and Appendix V to Part 600--[Removed and Reserved]

0
221. Remove and reserve Appendix IV and Appendix V to part 600.

PART 1036--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HEAVY-DUTY 
HIGHWAY ENGINES

0
222. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
223. Section 1036.115 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1036.115  Other requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) You must design and produce your engines to comply with 
evaporative emission standards as follows:
    (1) For complete heavy-duty vehicles you produce, you must certify 
the vehicles to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103.
    (2) For incomplete heavy-duty vehicles, and for engines used in

[[Page 23749]]

vehicles you do not produce, you do not need to certify your engines to 
evaporative emission standards or otherwise meet those standards. 
However, vehicle manufacturers certifying their vehicles with your 
engines may depend on you to produce your engines according to their 
specifications. Also, your engines must meet applicable exhaust 
emission standards in the installed configuration.

PART 1037--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY-DUTY MOTOR VEHICLES

0
224. The authority citation for part 1037 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
225. Section 1037.101 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and 
adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  1037.101  Overview of emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Fuel evaporative emissions. These requirements are described in 
40 CFR part 86 and Sec.  1037.103.
    (c) * * *
    (3) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated 
based on the type of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile 
liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative emission 
standards. Vehicles up to a certain size that are fueled with gasoline, 
diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, or LPG are subject to refueling 
emission standards.

0
226. A new Sec.  1037.103 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  1037.103  Evaporative and refueling emission standards.

    (a) Applicability. Evaporative and refueling emission standards 
apply to heavy-duty vehicles as follows:
    (1) Complete and incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 
pounds GVWR must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as 
specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, instead of the requirements 
specified in this section.
    (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 and refueling 
emission standards as specified in this section.
    (b) Emission standards. The evaporative and refueling emission 
standards and measurement procedures specified in 40 CFR 86.1813 apply 
for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as described in this 
section. The evaporative emission standards phase in over model years 
2018 through 2022, with provisions allowing for voluntary compliance 
with the standards as early as model year 2015. 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. The following 
provisions apply instead of what is specified in 40 CFR 86.1813:
    (1) The refueling standards in 40 CFR 86.1813(b) apply to complete 
vehicles starting in model year 2022; they are optional for incomplete 
vehicles.
    (2) The leak standard in 40 CFR 86.1813(a)(4) does not apply.
    (3) The FEL cap relative to the diurnal plus hot soak standard for 
low-altitude testing is 1.9 grams per test.
    (4) The diurnal plus hot soak standard for high-altitude testing is 
2.3 grams per test.
    (5) Testing does not require measurement of exhaust emissions. 
Disregard references in subpart B of this part 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.
    (6) Vehicles not yet subject to the Tier 3 standards in 40 CFR 
86.1813 must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  86.008-10(b) and 86.007-11(b)(3) and (4).
    (c) Compliance demonstration. You may provide a statement in the 
application for certification that vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR 
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) CNG refueling requirement. Compressed natural gas vehicles must 
meet the requirements for fueling connection devices as specified in 40 
CFR 86.1813-17(f)(1). Vehicles meeting these requirements are deemed to 
comply with evaporative and refueling emission standards.
    (e) 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.
    (f) 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 of this section are those that apply for 
criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86.
    (g) Auxiliary engines and separate fuel systems. The provisions of 
this paragraph (g) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This 
includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that 
contribute no motive power through the vehicle's transmission.
    (1) Auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components must be 
installed when testing complete vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws 
fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must fill the extra fuel tank 
before the start of diurnal testing as described for the vehicle's main 
fuel tank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that any nonmetal 
portions of the fuel system related to the auxiliary engine have 
reached stabilized levels of permeation emissions. The auxiliary engine 
must not operate during the running loss test or any other portion of 
testing under this section.
    (2) For testing with incomplete vehicles, you may omit installation 
of auxiliary engines and associated fuel-system components as long as 
those components installed in the final configuration are certified to 
meet the applicable emission standards for Small SI equipment described 
in 40 CFR 1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 CFR 1048.105. For any 
fuel-system components that you do not install, your installation 
instructions must describe this certification requirement.

[[Page 23750]]

0
227. Section 1037.104 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(2) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1037.104  Exhaust emission standards for CO[bdi2], CH[bdi4], and 
N[bdi2]O for heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) The evaporative and refueling emission standards in Sec.  
1037.103.
* * * * *

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
228. Section 1037.230 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1037.230  Vehicle families, sub-families, and configurations.

* * * * *
    (e) Divide your vehicles that are subject to evaporative emission 
standards into groups of vehicles with similar physical features 
expected to affect evaporative emissions. Group vehicles in the same 
evaporative emission family if they are the same in all the following 
aspects, unless we approve a better way of grouping vehicles into 
families that have similar emission control characteristics:
    (1) Method of vapor storage, including the number of vapor storage 
devices, the working material, and the total working capacity of vapor 
storage (as determined under 40 CFR 86.132-96(h)(1)(iv)). You may 
consider the working capacity to be the same if the values differ by 20 
grams or less.
    (2) Method of purging stored vapors.
    (3) Material for liquid and vapor fuel lines.
* * * * *

0
229. A new Sec.  1037.243 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  1037.243  Demonstrating compliance with evaporative emission 
standards.

    (a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is 
considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in 
subpart B of this part if you prepare an engineering analysis showing 
that your vehicles in the family will comply with applicable standards 
throughout the useful life, and there are no test results from an 
emission-data vehicle representing the family that exceed an emission 
standard.
    (b) Your evaporative emission family is deemed not to comply if 
your engineering analysis is not adequate to show that all the vehicles 
in the family will comply with applicable emission standards throughout 
the useful life, or if a test result from an emission-data vehicle 
representing the family exceeds an emission standard.
    (c) To compare emission levels with emission standards, apply 
deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. Establish an 
additive deterioration factor based on an engineering analysis that 
takes into account the expected aging from in-use vehicles.
    (d) Apply the deterioration factor to the official emission result, 
as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted 
figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. 
Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each 
emission-data vehicle.
    (e) Your analysis to demonstrate compliance with emission standards 
must take into account your design strategy for vehicles that require 
testing. Specifically, vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR are presumed 
to need the same technologies that are required for heavy-duty vehicles 
at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly, your analysis to establish a 
deterioration factor must take into account your testing to establish 
deterioration factors for smaller vehicles.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
230. Section 1037.501 is amended by adding paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1037.501  General testing and modeling provisions.

* * * * *
    (a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1066 
to determine whether vehicles meet the evaporative and refueling 
emission standards specified in Sec.  1037.103.
* * * * *

PART 1039--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD 
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES

0
231. The authority citation for part 1039 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
232. Section 1039.505 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1039.505  How do I test engines using steady-state duty cycles, 
including ramped-modal testing?

    This section describes how to test engines under steady-state 
conditions. In some cases, we allow you to choose the appropriate 
steady-state duty cycle for an engine; you may also choose between 
discrete-mode and ramped-modal testing. In all cases, you must use the 
duty cycle you select in your application for certification for all 
testing you perform for that engine family. If we test your engines to 
confirm that they meet emission standards, we will use the duty cycle 
you select for your own testing. If you submit certification test data 
using more than one duty cycle, any of the selected duty cycles may be 
used for any subsequent testing. We may also perform other testing as 
allowed by the Clean Air Act.
    (a) You may perform steady-state testing with either discrete-mode 
or ramped-modal cycles as described in 40 CFR part 1065.
    (b) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with 
one of the following duty cycles to determine whether it meets the 
steady-state emission standards in Sec.  1039.101(b):
    (1) Use the 5-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal 
cycle described in paragraph (a) of Appendix II of this part for 
constant-speed engines. Note that these cycles do not apply to all 
engines used in constant-speed applications, as described in Sec.  
1039.801.
    (2) Use the 6-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal 
cycle described in paragraph (b) of Appendix II of this part for 
variable-speed engines below 19 kW. You may instead use the 8-mode duty 
cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal cycle described in appendix IV 
of this part if some engines from your engine family will be used in 
applications that do not involve governing to maintain engine operation 
around rated speed.
    (3) Use the 8-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal 
cycle described in paragraph (c) of Appendix II of this part for 
variable-speed engines at or above 19 kW.
    (c) For constant-speed engines whose design prevents full-load 
operation for extended periods, you may ask for approval under 40 CFR 
1065.10(c) to replace full-load operation with the maximum load for 
which the engine is designed to operate for extended periods.
    (d) To allow non-motoring dynamometers on cycles with idle, you may 
omit additional points from the duty-cycle regression as follows:
    (1) For variable-speed engines with low-speed governors, you may 
omit speed, torque, and power points from the duty-cycle regression 
statistics if the following are met:
    (i) The engine operator demand is at its minimum.
    (ii) The dynamometer demand is at its minimum.
    (iii) It is an idle point fnref = 0% (idle) and 
Tref = 0% (idle).
    (iv) Trefmaxmapped.

[[Page 23751]]

    (2) For variable-speed engines without low-speed governors, you may 
omit torque and power points from the duty-cycle regression statistics 
if the following are met:
    (i) The dynamometer demand is at its minimum.
    (ii) It is an idle point fnref = 0% (idle) and 
Tref = 0% (idle).
    (iii) fnref - (2% [middot] fntest) nnref + (2% [middot] fntest).
    (iv) Trefmaxmapped.

Sec.  1039.510--[Amended]  

0
233. Section 1039.510 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

PART 1042--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE MARINE 
COMPRESSION-IGNITION ENGINES AND VESSELS

0
234. The authority citation for part 1042 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
235. Section 1042.505 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1042.505  Testing engines using discrete-mode or ramped-modal 
duty cycles.

    This section describes how to test engines under steady-state 
conditions. In some cases, we allow you to choose the appropriate 
steady-state duty cycle for an engine; you may also choose between 
discrete-mode and ramped-modal testing. In all cases, you must use the 
duty cycle you select in your application for certification for all 
testing you perform for that engine family. If we test your engines to 
confirm that they meet emission standards, we will use the duty cycles 
you select for your own testing. If you submit certification test data 
using more than one duty cycle, any of the selected duty cycles may be 
used for any subsequent testing. We may also perform other testing as 
allowed by the Clean Air Act.
    (a) You may perform steady-state testing with either discrete-mode 
or ramped-modal cycles as described in 40 CFR Part 1065.
    (b) Measure emissions by testing the engine on a dynamometer with 
one of the following duty cycles (as specified) to determine whether it 
meets the emission standards in Sec. Sec.  1042.101 or 1042.104:
    (1) General cycle. Use the 4-mode duty cycle or the corresponding 
ramped-modal cycle described in paragraph (a) of Appendix II of this 
part for commercial propulsion marine engines that are used with (or 
intended to be used with) fixed-pitch propellers, propeller-law 
auxiliary engines, and any other engines for which the other duty 
cycles of this section do not apply. Use this duty cycle also for 
commercial variable-speed propulsion marine engines that are used with 
(or intended to be used with) controllable-pitch propellers or with 
electrically coupled propellers, unless these engines are not intended 
for sustained operation (e.g., for at least 30 minutes) at all four 
modes when installed in the vessel.
    (2) Recreational marine engines. Except as specified in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section, use the 5-mode duty cycle or the corresponding 
ramped-modal cycle described in paragraph (b) of Appendix II of this 
part for recreational marine engines with maximum engine power at or 
above 37 kW.
    (3) Controllable-pitch and electrically coupled propellers. Use the 
4-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal cycle described in 
paragraph (c) of Appendix II of this part for constant-speed propulsion 
marine engines that are used with (or intended to be used with) 
controllable-pitch propellers or with electrically coupled propellers. 
Use this duty cycle also for variable-speed propulsion marine engines 
that are used with (or intended to be used with) controllable-pitch 
propellers or with electrically coupled propellers if the duty cycles 
in paragraph (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section do not apply.
    (4) Constant-speed auxiliary engines. Use the 5-mode duty cycle or 
the corresponding ramped-modal cycle described in 40 CFR Part 1039, 
Appendix II, paragraph (a) for constant-speed auxiliary engines.
    (5) Variable-speed auxiliary engines. (i) Use the duty cycle 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for propeller-law 
auxiliary engines.
    (ii) Use the 6-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal 
cycle described in 40 CFR Part 1039, Appendix II, paragraph (b) for 
variable-speed auxiliary engines with maximum engine power below 19 kW 
that are not propeller-law engines.
    (iii) Use the 8-mode duty cycle or the corresponding ramped-modal 
cycle described in 40 CFR Part 1039, Appendix III, paragraph (c) for 
variable-speed auxiliary engines with maximum engine power at or above 
19 kW that are not propeller-law engines.
    (c) For constant-speed engines whose design prevents full-load 
operation for extended periods, you may ask for approval under 40 CFR 
1065.10(c) to replace full-load operation with the maximum load for 
which the engine is designed to operate for extended periods.

PART 1048--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, LARGE NONROAD SPARK-
IGNITION ENGINES

0
236. The authority citation for part 1048 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
237. Section 1048.505 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a) and (c) and removing paragraphs (d) through (g) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  1048.505  How do I test engines using steady-state duty cycles, 
including ramped-modal testing?

    This section describes how to test engines under steady-state 
conditions. In some cases, we allow you to choose the appropriate 
steady-state duty cycle for an engine; you may also choose between 
discrete-mode and ramped-modal testing. In all cases, you must use the 
duty cycle you select in your application for certification for all 
testing you perform for that engine family. If we test your engines to 
confirm that they meet emission standards, we will use the duty cycles 
you select for your own testing. If you submit certification test data 
using more than one duty cycle, any of the selected duty cycles may be 
used for any subsequent testing. We may also perform other testing as 
allowed by the Clean Air Act.
    (a) You may perform steady-state testing with either discrete-mode 
or ramped-modal cycles described in 40 CFR Part 1065.
* * * * *
    (c) For full-load operating modes, operate the engine at wide-open 
throttle.

PART 1054--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW, SMALL NONROAD SPARK-
IGNITION ENGINES AND EQUIPMENT

0
238. The authority citation for part 1054 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
239. Section 1054.505 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  1054.505  How do I test engines?

    (a) This section describes how to test engines under steady-state 
conditions. For handheld engines you must perform

[[Page 23752]]

tests with discrete-mode sampling. For nonhandheld engines we allow you 
to perform tests with either discrete-mode or ramped-modal testing 
methods, as described in 40 CFR Part 1065. You must use the same modal 
testing method for certification and all other testing you perform for 
an engine family. If we test your engines to confirm that they meet 
emission standards, we will use the modal testing method you select for 
your own testing. If you submit certification test data collected with 
both discrete-mode and ramped-modal testing (either in your original 
application or in an amendment to your application), either method may 
be used for subsequent testing. We may also perform other testing as 
allowed by the Clean Air Act. Conduct duty-cycle testing as follows:
    (1) For discrete-mode testing, sample emissions separately for each 
mode, then calculate an average emission level for the whole cycle 
using the weighting factors specified for each mode. Control engine 
speed as specified in this section. Use one of the following methods 
for confirming torque values for nonhandheld engines:
    (i) Calculate torque-related cycle statistics and compare with the 
established criteria as specified in 40 CFR 1065.514 to confirm that 
the test is valid.
    (ii) Evaluate each mode separately to validate the duty cycle. All 
torque feedback values recorded during non-idle sampling periods must 
be within 2 percent of the reference value or within 0.27 N[middot]m of the reference value, whichever is greater. 
Also, the mean torque value during non-idle sampling periods must be 
within 1 percent of the reference value or 0.12 
N[middot]m of the reference value, whichever is greater. Control torque 
during idle as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Unless we specify otherwise, you may simulate the governor for 
ramped-modal testing consistent with good engineering judgment.
* * * * *

PART 1065--ENGINE-TESTING PROCEDURES

0
240. The authority citation for part 1065 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
241. Section 1065.1 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (h) This part describes procedures and specifications for measuring 
an engine's exhaust emissions. While the measurements are geared toward 
engine-based measurements (in units of g/kW[middot]hr), many of these 
provisions apply equally to vehicle-based measurements (in units of g/
mile or g/kilometer). 40 CFR Part 1066 describes the analogous 
procedures for vehicle-based emission measurements, and in many cases 
states that specific provisions of this part 1065 also apply for those 
vehicle-based measurements. Where material from this part 1065 applies 
for vehicle-based measurements under 40 CFR Part 1066, it is sometimes 
necessary to include parenthetical statements in this part 1065 to 
properly cite secondary references that are different for vehicle-based 
testing. See 40 CFR Part 1066 and the standard-setting part for 
additional information.

0
242. Section 1065.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  1065.2  Submitting information to EPA under this part.

* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *

0
243. Section 1065.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(7) 
introductory text, and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.10  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 engines 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.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) You may request to use alternate procedures that are equivalent 
to the specified procedures, or procedures that are more accurate or 
more precise than the specified procedures. We may perform tests with 
your engines using either the approved alternate procedures or the 
specified procedures. The following provisions apply to requests for 
alternate procedures:
* * * * *
    (d) Advance approval. If we require you to request approval to use 
other procedures under paragraph (c) of this section, you may not use 
them until we approve your request.

0
244. Section 1065.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d) 
introductory text, and (e) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.12  Approval of alternate procedures.

    (a) To get approval for an alternate procedure under Sec.  
1065.10(c), send the Designated Compliance Officer an initial written 
request describing the alternate procedure and why you believe it is 
equivalent to the specified procedure. Anyone may request alternate 
procedure approval. This means that an individual engine manufacturer 
may request to use an alternate procedure. This also means that an 
instrument manufacturer may request to have an instrument, equipment, 
or procedure approved as an alternate procedure to those specified in 
this part. We may approve your request based on this information alone, 
whether or not it includes all the information specified in this 
section. Where we determine that your original submission does not 
include enough information for us to determine that the alternate 
procedure is equivalent to the specified procedure, we may ask you to 
submit supplemental information showing that your alternate procedure 
is consistently and reliably at least as accurate and repeatable as the 
specified procedure.
* * * * *
    (d) If we do not approve your proposed alternate procedure based on 
the information in your initial request, we may ask you to send 
additional information to fully evaluate your request. While we 
consider the information specified in this paragraph (d) and the 
statistical criteria of paragraph (e) of this section to be sufficient 
to demonstrate equivalence, it may not be necessary to include all the

[[Page 23753]]

information or meet the specified statistical criteria. For example, 
systems that do not meet the statistical criteria in paragraph (e) of 
this section because they have a small bias toward high emission 
results could be approved since they would not adversely affect your 
ability to demonstrate compliance with applicable standards.
* * * * *
    (e) Absent any other directions from us, use a t-test and an F-test 
calculated according to Sec.  1065.602 to evaluate whether your 
proposed alternate procedure is equivalent to the specified procedure. 
We may give you specific directions regarding methods for statistical 
analysis, or we may approve other methods that you propose. Such 
alternate methods may be more or less stringent than those specified in 
this paragraph (e). In determining the appropriate statistical 
criteria, we will consider the repeatability of measurements made with 
the reference procedure. For example, less stringent statistical 
criteria may be appropriate for measuring emission levels being so low 
that they adversely affect the repeatability of reference measurements. 
We recommend that you consult a statistician if you are unfamiliar with 
these statistical tests. Perform the tests as follows:
* * * * *

0
245. Section 1065.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.15  Overview of procedures for laboratory and field testing.

* * * * *
    (a) In the standard-setting part, we set brake-specific emission 
standards in g/(kW[middot]hr) (or g/(hp[middot]hr)), for the following 
constituents:
    (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
    (2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be expressed in the following ways:
    (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
    (ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting 
methane, CH4, from THC.
    (iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from 
adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from 
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (3) Particulate matter, 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.
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (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. You may 
extract and store a proportional sample of exhaust in an appropriate 
container, such as a bag, and then measure NOX, HC, CO, 
CO2, CH4, N2O, and CH2O 
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.
* * * * *

0
246. Section 1065.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b) 
introductory text, (c), (f)(1) and (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.20  Units of measure and overview of calculations.

    (a) * * *
    (3) We generally designate temperatures in units of degrees Celsius 
([deg]C) unless a calculation requires an absolute temperature. In that 
case, we designate temperatures in units of Kelvin (K). For conversion 
purposes throughout this part, 0 [deg]C equals 273.15 K. Unless 
specified otherwise, always use absolute temperature values for 
multiplying or dividing by temperature.
    (b) Concentrations. This part does not rely on amounts expressed in 
parts per million. Rather, we express such amounts in the following SI 
units:
* * * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (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.
* * * * *
    (g) Scaling of specifications with respect to an applicable 
standard. Because this part 1065 is applicable to a wide range of 
engines and emission standards, some of the specifications in this part 
are scaled with respect to an engine's applicable standard or maximum 
power. This ensures that the specification will be adequate to 
determine compliance, but not overly burdensome by requiring 
unnecessarily high-precision equipment. Many of these specifications 
are given with respect to a ``flow-weighted mean'' that is expected at 
the standard or during testing. Flow-weighted mean is the mean of a 
quantity after it is weighted proportional to a corresponding flow 
rate. For example, if a gas concentration is measured continuously from 
the raw exhaust of an engine, its flow-weighted mean concentration is 
the sum of the products (dry-to-wet corrected, if applicable) of each 
recorded concentration times its respective exhaust flow rate, divided 
by the sum of the recorded flow rates. As another example, the bag 
concentration from a CVS system is the same as the flow-weighted mean 
concentration, because the CVS system itself flow-weights the bag 
concentration. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for information needed to 
estimate and calculate flow-weighted means. Wherever a specification is 
scaled to a value based upon an applicable standard, interpret the 
standard to be the family emission limit if the engine is certified 
under an emission credit program in the standard-setting part.

0
247. Section 1065.25 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.25  Recordkeeping.

    (a) The procedures in this part include various requirements to 
record data or other information. Refer to the standard-setting part 
and Sec.  1065.695 regarding specific recordkeeping requirements.
    (b) You must promptly send us organized, written records in English 
if we ask for them. We may review them at any time.
    (c) We may waive specific reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
we determine to be unnecessary for the purposes of this part and the 
standard-setting part. Note that while we will generally keep the 
records required by this part, we are not obligated to keep records we 
determine to be unnecessary for us to keep. For example, while we

[[Page 23754]]

require you to keep records for invalid tests so that we may verify 
that your invalidation was appropriate, it is not necessary for us to 
keep records for our own invalid tests.

Subpart B--[Amended]

0
248. Section 1065.130 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c)(6) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.130  Engine exhaust.

    (a) General. Use the exhaust system installed with the engine or 
one that represents a typical in-use configuration. This includes any 
applicable aftertreatment devices. We refer to exhaust piping as an 
exhaust stack; this is equivalent to a tailpipe for vehicle 
configurations.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) We recommend that you connect multiple exhaust stacks from a 
single engine into one stack upstream of any emission sampling. For raw 
or dilute partial-flow emission sampling, to ensure mixing of the 
multiple exhaust streams before emission sampling, 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. You 
may configure the exhaust system with turbulence generators, such as 
orifice plates or fins, to achieve good mixing; inclusion of turbulence 
generators may be required for Re  less than 4000 
to ensure good mixing. Re  is defined in Sec.  
1065.640. For dilute full-flow (CVS) emission sampling, you may 
configure the exhaust system without regard to mixing in the laboratory 
section of the raw exhaust. For example you may size the laboratory 
section to reduce its pressure drop even if the Re 
, in the laboratory section of the raw exhaust is 
less than 4000.
* * * * *

0
249. Section 1065.140 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.140  Dilution for gaseous and PM constituents.

    (a) General. You may dilute exhaust with ambient air, purified air, 
or nitrogen. References in this part to ``dilution air'' may include 
any of these. For gaseous emission measurement, the dilution air must 
be at least 15 [deg]C. Note that the composition of the dilution air 
affects some gaseous emission measurement instruments' response to 
emissions. We recommend diluting exhaust at a location as close as 
possible to the location where ambient air dilution would occur in use. 
Dilution may occur in a single stage or in multiple stages. For 
dilution in multiple stages, the first stage is considered primary 
dilution and later stages are considered secondary dilution.
    (b) Dilution-air conditions and background concentrations. Before 
dilution air is mixed with exhaust, you may precondition it by 
increasing or decreasing its temperature or humidity. You may also 
remove constituents to reduce their background concentrations. The 
following provisions apply to removing constituents or accounting for 
background concentrations:
    (1) You may measure constituent concentrations in the dilution air 
and compensate for background effects on test results. See Sec.  
1065.650 for calculations that compensate for background concentrations 
(40 CFR 1066.610 for vehicle testing).
    (2) Measure these background concentrations the same way you 
measure diluted exhaust constituents, or measure them in a way that 
does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable standards. For example, you may use the following 
simplifications for background sampling:
    (i) You may disregard any proportional sampling requirements.
    (ii) You may use unheated gaseous sampling systems.
    (iii) You may use unheated PM sampling systems.
    (iv) You may use continuous sampling if you use batch sampling for 
diluted emissions.
    (v) You may use batch sampling if you use continuous sampling for 
diluted emissions.
    (3) For removing background PM, we recommend that you filter all 
dilution air, including primary full-flow dilution air, with high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that have an initial minimum 
collection efficiency specification of 99.97% (see Sec.  1065.1001 for 
procedures related to HEPA-filtration efficiencies). Ensure that HEPA 
filters are installed properly so that background PM does not leak past 
the HEPA filters. If you choose to correct for background PM without 
using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that the background PM in the 
dilution air contributes less than 50% to the net PM collected on the 
sample filter. You may correct net PM without restriction if you use 
HEPA filtration.
    (c) Full-flow dilution; constant-volume sampling (CVS). You may 
dilute the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution tunnel that maintains 
a nominally constant volume flow rate, molar flow rate or mass flow 
rate of diluted exhaust, as follows:
    (1) Construction. Use a tunnel with inside surfaces of 300 series 
stainless steel. Electrically ground the entire dilution tunnel. We 
recommend a thin-walled and insulated dilution tunnel to minimize 
temperature differences between the wall and the exhaust gases. You may 
not use any flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of the PM 
sample probe. You may use nonconductive flexible tubing downstream of 
the PM sample probe and upstream of the CVS flow meter; use good 
engineering judgment to select a tubing material that is not prone to 
leaks, and configure the tubing to ensure smooth flow at the CVS flow 
meter.
    (2) Pressure control. Maintain static pressure at the location 
where raw exhaust is introduced into the tunnel within 1.2 
kPa of atmospheric pressure. You may use a booster blower to control 
this pressure. If you test using more careful pressure control and you 
show by engineering analysis or by test data that you require this 
level of control to demonstrate compliance at the applicable standards, 
we will maintain the same level of static pressure control when we 
test.
    (3) Mixing. Introduce raw exhaust into the tunnel by directing it 
downstream along the centerline of the tunnel. If you dilute directly 
from the exhaust stack, the end of the exhaust stack is considered to 
be the start of the dilution tunnel. You may introduce a fraction of 
dilution air radially from the tunnel's inner surface to minimize 
exhaust interaction with the tunnel walls. You may configure the system 
with turbulence generators such as orifice plates or fins to achieve 
good mixing. We recommend a minimum Reynolds number, Re 
, of 4000 for the diluted exhaust stream, where Re 
 is based on the inside diameter of the dilution 
tunnel. Re  is defined in Sec.  1065.640.
    (4) Flow measurement preconditioning. You may condition the diluted 
exhaust before measuring its flow rate, as long as this conditioning 
takes place downstream of any heated HC or PM sample probes, as 
follows:
    (i) You may use flow straighteners, pulsation dampeners, or both of 
these.
    (ii) You may use a filter.
    (iii) You may use a heat exchanger to control the temperature 
upstream of any flow meter, but you must take steps to prevent aqueous 
condensation as described in paragraph (c)(6) of this section.
    (5) Flow measurement. Section 1065.240 describes measurement 
instruments for diluted exhaust flow.
    (6) Aqueous condensation. This paragraph (c)(6) describes how you 
must address aqueous condensation in the

[[Page 23755]]

CVS. As described below, you may meet these requirements by preventing 
or limiting aqueous condensation in the CVS from the exhaust inlet to 
the last emission sample probe. See that paragraph for provisions 
related to the CVS between the last emission sample probe and the CVS 
flow meter. You may heat and/or insulate the dilution tunnel walls, as 
well as the bulk stream tubing downstream of the tunnel to prevent or 
limit aqueous condensation. Where we allow aqueous condensation to 
occur, use good engineering judgment to ensure that the condensation 
does not affect your ability to demonstrate that your engines comply 
with the applicable standards (see Sec.  1065.10(a)).
    (i) Preventing aqueous condensation. To prevent condensation, you 
must keep the temperature of internal surfaces, excluding any sample 
probes, above the dew point of the dilute exhaust passing through the 
CVS tunnel. Use good engineering judgment to monitor temperatures in 
the CVS. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), assume that aqueous 
condensation is pure water condensate only, even though the definition 
of ``aqueous condensation'' in Sec.  1065.1001 includes condensation of 
any constituents that contain water. No specific verification check is 
required under this paragraph (c)(6)(i), but we may ask you to show how 
you comply with this requirement. You may use engineering analysis, CVS 
tunnel design, alarm systems, measurements of wall temperatures, and 
calculation of water dew point to demonstrate compliance with this 
requirement. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you may use the lowest 
water temperature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to determine the 
minimum internal surface temperature.
    (ii) Limiting aqueous condensation. This paragraph (c)(6)(ii) 
specifies limits of allowable condensation and requires you to verify 
that the amount of condensation that occurs during each test interval 
does not exceed the specified limits.
    (A) Use chemical balance equations in Sec.  1065.655 to calculate 
the mole fraction of water in the dilute exhaust continuously during 
testing. Alternatively, you may continuously measure the mole fraction 
of water in the dilute exhaust prior to any condensation during 
testing. Use good engineering judgment to select, calibrate and verify 
water analyzers/detectors. The linearity verification requirements of 
Sec.  1065.307 do not apply to water analyzers/detectors used to 
correct for the water content in exhaust samples.
    (B) Use good engineering judgment to select and monitor locations 
on the CVS tunnel walls prior to the last emission sample probe. If you 
are also verifying limited condensation from the last emission sample 
probe to the CVS flow meter, use good engineering judgment to select 
and monitor locations on the CVS tunnel walls, optional CVS heat 
exchanger, and CVS flow meter. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you 
may use the lowest water temperature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to 
determine the minimum internal surface temperature. Identify the 
minimum surface temperature on a continuous basis.
    (C) Identify the maximum potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust 
lost on a continuous basis during the entire test interval. This value 
must be less than or equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous basis the 
mole fraction of water that would be in equilibrium with liquid water 
at the measured minimum surface temperature. Subtract this mole 
fraction from the mole fraction of water that would be in the exhaust 
without condensation (either measured or from the chemical balance), 
and set any negative values to zero. This difference is the potential 
mole fraction of the dilute exhaust that would be lost due to water 
condensation on a continuous basis.
    (D) Integrate the product of the molar flow rate of the dilute 
exhaust and the potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost, and 
divide by the totalized dilute exhaust molar flow over the test 
interval. This is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust 
that would be lost due to water condensation over the entire test 
interval. Note that this assumes no re-evaporation. This value must be 
less than or equal to 0.005.
    (7) Flow compensation. Maintain nominally constant molar, 
volumetric or mass flow of diluted exhaust. You may maintain nominally 
constant flow by either maintaining the temperature and pressure at the 
flow meter or by directly controlling the flow of diluted exhaust. You 
may also directly control the flow of proportional samplers to maintain 
proportional sampling. For an individual test, verify proportional 
sampling as described in Sec.  1065.545.
    (d) Partial-flow dilution (PFD). You may dilute a partial flow of 
raw or previously diluted exhaust before measuring emissions. Section 
1065.240 describes PFD-related flow measurement instruments. PFD may 
consist of constant or varying dilution ratios as described in 
paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section. An example of a constant 
dilution ratio PFD is a ``secondary dilution PM'' measurement system.
    (1) Applicability. (i) You may use PFD to extract a proportional 
raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous PM emission sampling 
over any transient duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, or any 
ramped-modal cycle.
    (ii) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample 
for any batch or continuous gaseous emission sampling over any 
transient duty cycle, any steady-state duty cycle, or any ramped-modal 
cycle.
    (iii) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample 
for any batch or continuous field-testing.
    (iv)You may use PFD to extract a proportional diluted exhaust 
sample from a CVS for any batch or continuous emission sampling.
    (v) You may use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust 
sample for any continuous emission sampling.
    (vi) You may use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust 
sample for any steady-state emission sampling.
    (2) Constant dilution-ratio PFD. Do one of the following for 
constant dilution-ratio PFD:
    (i) Dilute an already proportional flow. For example, you may do 
this as a way of performing secondary dilution from a CVS tunnel to 
achieve overall dilution ratio for PM sampling.
    (ii) Continuously measure constituent concentrations. For example, 
you might dilute to precondition a sample of raw exhaust to control its 
temperature, humidity, or constituent concentrations upstream of 
continuous analyzers. In this case, you must take into account the 
dilution ratio before multiplying the continuous concentration by the 
sampled exhaust flow rate.
    (iii) Extract a proportional sample from a separate constant 
dilution ratio PFD system. For example, you might use a variable-flow 
pump to proportionally fill a gaseous storage medium such as a bag from 
a PFD system. In this case, the proportional sampling must meet the 
same specifications as varying dilution ratio PFD in paragraph (d)(3) 
of this section.
    (iv) For each mode of a discrete-mode test (such as a locomotive 
notch setting or a specific setting for speed and torque), use a 
constant dilution ratio for any PM sampling. You must change the 
overall PM sampling system dilution ratio between modes so that the 
dilution ratio on the mode with the highest exhaust flow rate meets 
Sec.  1065.140(e)(2) and the dilution ratios on all other modes is 
higher than this (minimum) dilution ratio by the ratio of the maximum 
exhaust flow rate to the exhaust flow rate of the corresponding other 
mode. This is the same dilution ratio requirement for RMC or field 
transient testing. You must account for

[[Page 23756]]

this change in dilution ratio in your emission calculations.
    (3) Varying dilution-ratio PFD. All the following provisions apply 
for varying dilution-ratio PFD:
    (i) Use a control system with sensors and actuators that can 
maintain proportional sampling over intervals as short as 200 ms (i.e., 
5 Hz control).
    (ii) For control input, you may use any sensor output from one or 
more measurements; for example, intake-air flow, fuel flow, exhaust 
flow, engine speed, and intake manifold temperature and pressure.
    (iii) Account for any emission transit time in the PFD system, as 
necessary.
    (iv) You may use preprogrammed data if they have been determined 
for the specific test site, duty cycle, and test engine from which you 
dilute emissions.
    (v) We recommend that you run practice cycles to meet the 
verification criteria in Sec.  1065.545. Note that you must verify 
every emission test by meeting the verification criteria with the data 
from that specific test. Data from previously verified practice cycles 
or other tests may not be used to verify a different emission test.
    (vi) You may not use a PFD system that requires preparatory tuning 
or calibration with a CVS or with the emission results from a CVS. 
Rather, you must be able to independently calibrate the PFD.
    (e) Dilution air temperature, dilution ratio, residence time, and 
temperature control of PM samples. Dilute PM samples at least once 
upstream of transfer lines. You may dilute PM samples upstream of a 
transfer line using full-flow dilution, or partial-flow dilution 
immediately downstream of a PM probe. In the case of partial-flow 
dilution, you may have up to 26 cm of insulated length between the end 
of the probe and the dilution stage, but we recommend that the length 
be as short as practical. The intent of these specifications is to 
minimize heat transfer to or from the emission sample before the final 
stage of dilution, other than the heat you may need to add to prevent 
aqueous condensation. This is accomplished by initially cooling the 
sample through dilution. Configure dilution systems as follows:
    (1) Set the dilution air temperature to (25 5) [deg]C. 
Use good engineering judgment to select a location to measure this 
temperature that is as close as practical upstream of the point where 
dilution air mixes with raw exhaust.
    (2) For any PM dilution system (i.e., CVS or PFD), add dilution air 
to the raw exhaust such that the minimum overall ratio of diluted 
exhaust to raw exhaust is within the range of (5:1 to 7:1) and is at 
least 2:1 for any primary dilution stage. Base this minimum value on 
the maximum engine exhaust flow rate for a given test interval. Either 
measure the maximum exhaust flow during a practice run of the test 
interval or estimate it based on good engineering judgment (for 
example, you might rely on manufacturer-published literature).
    (3) Configure any PM dilution system to have an overall residence 
time of (1.0 to 5.5) s, as measured from the location of initial 
dilution air introduction to the location where PM is collected on the 
sample media. Also configure the system to have a residence time of at 
least 0.50 s, as measured from the location of final dilution air 
introduction to the location where PM is collected on the sample media. 
When determining residence times within sampling system volumes, use an 
assumed flow temperature of 25 [deg]C and pressure of 101.325 kPa.
    (4) Control sample temperature to a (47 5) [deg]C 
tolerance, as measured anywhere within 20 cm upstream or downstream of 
the PM storage media (such as a filter). Measure this temperature with 
a bare-wire junction thermocouple with wires that are (0.500 0.025) mm diameter, or with another suitable instrument that has 
equivalent performance.

0
250. Section 1065.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1), 
(c)(2)(ii), (d)(1)(ii), (e)(2)(ii), and (e)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.145  Gaseous and PM probes, transfer lines, and sampling 
system components.

    (a) Continuous and batch sampling. Determine the total mass of each 
constituent with continuous or batch sampling. Both types of sampling 
systems have probes, transfer lines, and other sampling system 
components that are described in this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Probe design and construction. Use sample probes with inside 
surfaces of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw exhaust sampling, 
use any nonreactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust 
temperatures. Locate sample probes where constituents are mixed to 
their mean sample concentration. Take into account the mixing of any 
crankcase emissions that may be routed into the raw exhaust. Locate 
each probe to minimize interference with the flow to other probes. We 
recommend that all probes remain free from influences of boundary 
layers, wakes, and eddies--especially near the outlet of a raw-exhaust 
stack where unintended dilution might occur. Make sure that purging or 
back-flushing of a probe does not influence another probe during 
testing. You may use a single probe to extract a sample of more than 
one constituent as long as the probe meets all the specifications for 
each constituent.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) For probes that extract hydrocarbons for THC or NMHC analysis 
from the diluted exhaust of compression-ignition engines, two-stroke 
spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or 
below 19 kW, we recommend heating the probe to minimize hydrocarbon 
contamination consistent with good engineering judgment. If you 
routinely fail the contamination check in the 1065.520 pretest check, 
we recommend heating the probe section to approximately 190 [deg]C to 
minimize contamination.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) For THC transfer lines for testing compression-ignition 
engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-
ignition engines at or below 19 kW, maintain a wall temperature 
tolerance throughout the entire line of (191 11) [deg]C. If 
you sample from raw exhaust, you may connect an unheated, insulated 
transfer line directly to a probe. Design the length and insulation of 
the transfer line to cool the highest expected raw exhaust temperature 
to no lower than 191 [deg]C, as measured at the transfer line's outlet. 
For dilute sampling, you may use a transition zone between the probe 
and transfer line of up to 92 cm to allow your wall temperature to 
transition to (191 11) [deg]C.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Thermal chiller. You may use a thermal chiller upstream of 
some gas analyzers and storage media. You may not use a thermal chiller 
upstream of a THC measurement system for compression-ignition engines, 
two-stroke spark-ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition 
engines at or below 19 kW. If you use a thermal chiller upstream of an 
NO2-to-NO converter or in a sampling system without an 
NO2-to-NO converter, the chiller must meet the 
NO2 loss-performance check specified in Sec.  1065.376. 
Monitor the dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, p 
total, downstream of a thermal chiller. You may use 
continuously recorded

[[Page 23757]]

values of Tdew and ptotal in the amount of water 
calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. If it is valid to assume the 
degree of saturation in the thermal chiller, you may calculate T 
dew based on the known chiller performance and continuous 
monitoring of chiller temperature, Tchiller. If it is valid 
to assume a constant temperature offset between Tchiller and 
Tdew, due to a known and fixed amount of sample reheat 
between the chiller outlet and the temperature measurement location, 
you may factor in this assumed temperature offset value into emission 
calculations. If we ask for it, you must show by engineering analysis 
or by data the validity of any assumptions allowed by this paragraph 
(e)(2)(ii). For our testing we may use average temperature and pressure 
values over the test interval or a nominal pressure value that we 
estimate as the dryer's average pressure expected during testing as 
constant values in the calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. For 
your testing you may use the maximum temperature and minimum pressure 
values observed during a test interval or duty cycle or the high alarm 
temperature setpoint and the low alarm pressure setpoint as constant 
values in the amount of water calculations specified in Sec.  1065.645. 
For your testing you may also use a nominal ptotal, which 
you may estimate as the dryer's lowest absolute pressure expected 
during testing.
    (3) * * *
    (ii) For testing compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-
ignition engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 
kW, if you use a THC sample pump upstream of a THC analyzer or storage 
medium, its inner surfaces must be heated to a tolerance of (191 11) [deg]C.
* * * * *

0
251. Section 1065.170 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) 
including Table 1, (c)(1)(i), and Figure 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.170  Batch sampling for gaseous and PM constituents.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Verify proportional sampling after an emission test as 
described in Sec.  1065.545. Use good engineering judgment to select 
storage media that will not significantly change measured emission 
levels (either up or down). For example, do not use sample bags for 
storing emissions if the bags are permeable with respect to emissions 
or if they off gas emissions to the extent that it affects your ability 
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable gaseous emission 
standards. As another example, do not use PM filters that irreversibly 
absorb or adsorb gases to the extent that it affects your ability to 
demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM emission standard.
* * * * *
    (b) Gaseous sample storage media. Store gas volumes in sufficiently 
clean containers that minimally off-gas or allow permeation of gases. 
Use good engineering judgment to determine acceptable thresholds of 
storage media cleanliness and permeation. To clean a container, you may 
repeatedly purge and evacuate a container and you may heat it. Use a 
flexible container (such as a bag) within a temperature-controlled 
environment, or use a temperature controlled rigid container that is 
initially evacuated or has a volume that can be displaced, such as a 
piston and cylinder arrangement. Use containers meeting the 
specifications in the Table 1 of this section, noting that you may 
request to use other container materials under Sec.  1065.10. Sample 
temperatures must stay within the following ranges for each container 
material:
    (1) Up to 40 [deg]C for TedlarTM and KynarTM.
    (2) (191 11) [deg]C for TeflonTM and 300 
series stainless steel used with measuring THC or NMHC from 
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and 
four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW. For all other 
engines and pollutants, these materials may be used for sample 
temperatures up to 202 [deg]C.

    Table 1 of Sec.   1065.170--Container Materials for Gaseous Batch
                                Sampling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Engine type
                                 --------------------
                                     Compression-
                                    ignition  Two-
            Emissions                stroke spark-     All other engines
                                    ignition  Four-
                                     stroke spark-
                                    ignition at or
                                      below 19 kW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO, CO2, O2, CH4, C2H6, C3H8,     TedlarTM, KynarTM,  TedlarTM, KynarTM,
 NO, NO2, N2O.                     TeflonTM, or 300    TeflonTM, or 300
                                   series stainless    series stainless
                                   steel..             steel.
THC, NMHC.......................  TeflonTM or 300     TedlarTM, KynarTM,
                                   series stainless    TeflonTM, or 300
                                   steel.              series stainless
                                                       steel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) If you expect that a filter's total surface concentration of PM 
will exceed 400 [mu]g, assuming a 38 mm diameter filter stain area, for 
a given test interval, you may use filter media with a minimum initial 
collection efficiency of 98%; otherwise you must use a filter media 
with a minimum initial collection efficiency of 99.7%. Collection 
efficiency must be measured as described in ASTM D2986 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1065.1010), though you may rely on the sample-media 
manufacturer's measurements reflected in their product ratings to show 
that you meet this requirement.
* * * * *

[[Page 23758]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.009

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
252. Section 1065.201 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e), 
and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.201  Overview and general provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) Instrument types. You may use any of the specified instruments 
as described in this subpart to perform emission tests. If you want to 
use one of these instruments in a way that is not specified in this 
subpart, or if you want to use a different instrument, you must first 
get us to approve your alternate procedure under Sec.  1065.10. Where 
we specify more than one instrument for a particular measurement, we 
may identify which instrument serves as the reference for comparing 
with an alternate procedure. You may generally use instruments with 
compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous 
measurements and the known or assumed fuel properties for the test 
fuel. The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0% (that is,

[[Page 23759]]

no bias high and no bias low), regardless of the uncompensated signal's 
bias.
* * * * *
    (d) Redundant systems. For all measurement instruments described in 
this subpart, you may use data from multiple instruments to calculate 
test results for a single test. If you use redundant systems, use good 
engineering judgment to use multiple measured values in calculations or 
to disregard individual measurements. Note that you must keep your 
results from all measurements. This requirement applies whether or not 
you actually use the measurements in your calculations.
    (e) Range. You may use an instrument's response above 100% of its 
operating range if this does not affect your ability to show that your 
engines comply with the applicable emission standards. Note that we 
require additional testing and reporting if an analyzer responds above 
100% of its range. Auto-ranging analyzers do not require additional 
testing or reporting.
* * * * *
    (h) Recommended practices. This subpart identifies a variety of 
recommended but not required practices for proper measurements. We 
believe in most cases it is necessary to follow these recommended 
practices for accurate and repeatable measurements. However, we do not 
specifically require you to follow these recommended practices to 
perform a valid test, as long as you meet the required calibrations and 
verifications of measurement systems specified in subpart D of this 
part. Similarly, we are not required to follow all recommended 
practices, as long as we meet the required calibrations and 
verifications. Our decision to follow or not follow a given 
recommendation when we perform a test does not depend on whether you 
followed it during your testing.

0
253. Section 1065.202 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.202  Data updating, recording, and control.

    Your test system must be able to update data, record data and 
control systems related to operator demand, the dynamometer, sampling 
equipment, and measurement instruments. Use data acquisition and 
control systems that can record at the specified minimum frequencies, 
as follows:

                   Table 1 of Sec.   1065.202--Data Recording and Control Minimum Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Minimum  command
Applicable test protocol section       Measured values          and control       Minimum  recording  frequency
                                                               frequency \a\                 \b\ \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1065.510.................  Speed and torque during   1 Hz..............  1 mean value per step.
                                   an engine step-map.
Sec.   1065.510.................  Speed and torque during   5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
                                   an engine sweep-map.
Sec.   1065.514; Sec.   1065.530  Transient duty cycle      5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
                                   reference and feedback
                                   speeds and torques.
Sec.   1065.514; Sec.   1065.530  Steady-state and ramped-  1 Hz..............  1 Hz.
                                   modal duty cycle
                                   reference and feedback
                                   speeds and torques.
Sec.   1065.520; Sec.             Continuous                ..................  1 Hz.
 1065.530; Sec.   1065.550.        concentrations of raw
                                   or dilute analyzers.
Sec.   1065.520; Sec.   1065.530  Batch concentrations of   ..................  1 mean value per test interval.
Sec.   1065.550.................   raw or dilute analyzers.
Sec.   1065.530; Sec.   1065.545  Diluted exhaust flow      ..................  1 Hz.
                                   rate from a CVS with a
                                   heat exchanger upstream
                                   of the flow measurement.
Sec.   1065.530; Sec.   1065.545  Diluted exhaust flow      5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
                                   rate from a CVS without
                                   a heat exchanger
                                   upstream of the flow
                                   measurement.
Sec.   1065.530; Sec.   1065.545  Intake-air or raw-        ..................  1 Hz means.
                                   exhaust flow rate.
Sec.   1065.530; Sec.   1065.545  Dilution air flow if      5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
                                   actively controlled
                                   (for example, a partial-
                                   flow PM sampling
                                   system) \d\.
Sec.   1065.530; Sec.   1065.545  Sample flow from a CVS    1 Hz..............  1 Hz.
                                   that has a heat
                                   exchanger.
Sec.   1065.530; Sec.   1065.545  Sample flow from a CVS    5 Hz..............  1 Hz means.
                                   that does not have a
                                   heat exchanger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The specifications for minimum command and control frequency do not apply for CFVs that are not using active
  control.
\b\ 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of 1 s mean
  values at a rate of 1 Hz.
\c\ For CFVs in a CVS, the minimum recording frequency is 1 Hz. The minimum recording frequency does not apply
  for CFVs used to control sampling from a CVS utilizing CFVs.
\d\ Dilution air flow specifications do not apply for CVS dilution air.

0
254. Section 1065.205 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.205  Performance specifications for measurement instruments.

    Your test system as a whole must meet all the calibrations, 
verifications, and test-validation criteria specified outside 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.

[[Page 23760]]

                             Table 1 of Sec.   1065.205--Recommended Performance Specifications for Measurement Instruments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Complete system
                                     Measured       rise time (t10	90)    Recording update
     Measurement instrument       quantity symbol     and fall time          frequency           Accuracy \b\      Repeatability \b\       Noise \b\
                                                       (t90	10) \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed transducer........  fn..............  1 s................  1 Hz means.........  2% of pt. or 0.5%    1% of pt. or 0.25%  0.05% of max.
                                                                                              of max.              of max.
Engine torque transducer.......  T...............  1 s................  1 Hz means.........  2% of pt. or 1% of   1% of pt. or 0.5%   0.05% of max.
                                                                                              max.                 of max.
Electrical work (active-power    W...............  1 s................  1 Hz means.........  2% of pt. or 0.5%    1% of pt. or 0.25%  0.05% of max.
 meter).                                                                                      of max.              of max.
General pressure transducer      p...............  5 s................  1 Hz...............  2% of pt. or 1% of   1% of pt. or 0.5%   0.1% of max.
 (not a part of another                                                                       max.                 of max.
 instrument).
Atmospheric pressure meter for   patmos..........  50 s...............  5 times per hour...  50 Pa..............  25 Pa.............  5 Pa
 PM-stabilization and balance
 environments.
General purpose atmospheric      patmos..........  50 s...............  5 times per hour...  250 Pa.............  100Pa.............  50 Pa
 pressure meter.
Temperature sensor for PM-       T...............  50 s...............  0.1 Hz.............  0.25 K.............  0.1 K.............  0.1 K
 stabilization and balance
 environments.
Other temperature sensor (not a  T...............  10 s...............  0.5 Hz.............  0.4% of pt. K or     0.2% of pt. K or    0.1% of max.
 part of another instrument).                                                                 0.2% of max K.       0.1% of max K.
Dewpoint sensor for intake air,  Tdew............  50 s...............  0.1 Hz.............  0.25 K.............  0.1 K.............  0.02 K
 PM-stabilization and balance
 environments.
Other dewpoint sensor..........  Tdew............  50 s...............  0.1 Hz.............  1 K................  0.5 K.............  0.1 K
Fuel flow meter \c\ (Fuel        m...............  5 s................  1 Hz...............  2% of pt. or 1.5%    1% of pt. or 0.75%  0.5% of max.
 totalizer).                                       (--)...............  (--)...............   of max.              of max.
Total diluted exhaust meter      n...............  1 s................  1 Hz means.........  2% of pt. or 1.5%    1% of pt. or 0.75%  1% of max.
 (CVS) \c\ (With heat exchanger                    (5 s)..............  (1 Hz).............   of max.              of max.
 before meter).
Dilution air, inlet air,         n...............  1 s................  1 Hz means of 5 Hz   2.5% of pt. or 1.5%  1.25% of pt. or     1% of max.
 exhaust, and sample flow                                                samples.             of max.              0.75% of max.
 meters \c\.
Continuous gas analyzer........  x...............  5 s................  1 Hz...............  2% of pt. or 2% of   1% of pt. or 1% of  1% of max.
                                                                                              meas.                meas.
Batch gas analyzer.............  x...............  ...................  ...................  2% of pt. or 2% of   1% of pt. or 1% of  1% of max.
                                                                                              meas.                meas.
Gravimetric PM balance.........  mPM.............  ...................  ...................  See Sec.   1065.790  0.5 [mu]g           ..................
Inertial PM balance............  mPM.............  5 s................  1 Hz...............  2% of pt. or 2% of   1% of pt. or 1% of  0.2% of max
                                                                                              meas.                meas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The performance specifications identified in the table apply separately for rise time and fall time.
\b\ Accuracy, repeatability, and noise are all determined with the same collected data, as described in Sec.   1065.305, and based on absolute values.
  ``pt.'' refers to the overall flow-weighted mean value expected at the standard; ``max'' refers to the peak value expected at the standard over any
  test interval, not the maximum of the instrument's range; ``meas'' refers to the actual flow-weighted mean measured over any test interval.
\c\ The procedure for accuracy, repeatability and noise measurement described in Sec.   1065.305 may be modified for flow meters to allow noise to be
  measured at the lowest calibrated value instead of zero flow rate.

0
255. Section 1065.210 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.210  Work input and output sensors.

* * * * *
    (c) Electrical work. Use a watt-hour meter output to calculate 
total work according to Sec.  1065.650. Use a watt-hour meter that 
outputs active power. Watt-hour meters typically combine a Wheatstone 
bridge voltmeter and a Hall-effect clamp-on ammeter into a single 
microprocessor-based instrument that analyzes and outputs several 
parameters, such as alternating or direct current voltage, current, 
power factor, apparent power, reactive power, and active power.
* * * * *

0
256. Section 1065.225 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.225  Intake-air flow meter.

    (a) Application. You may use an intake-air flow meter in 
combination with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet air, and exhaust to 
calculate raw exhaust flow as described in Sec.  1065.655(e) and (f), 
as follows:
    (1) Use the actual value of calculated raw exhaust in the following 
cases:
    (i) For multiplying raw exhaust flow rate with continuously sampled 
concentrations.
    (ii) For multiplying total raw exhaust flow with batch-sampled 
concentrations.
    (iii) For verifying minimum dilution ratio for PM batch sampling as 
described in Sec.  1065.546.

[[Page 23761]]

    (iv) For calculating the dilution air flow for background 
correction as described in Sec.  1065.667.
    (2) In the following cases, you may use an intake-air flow meter 
signal that does not give the actual value of raw exhaust, as long as 
it is linearly proportional to the exhaust flow rate's actual 
calculated value:
    (i) For feedback control of a proportional sampling system, such as 
a partial-flow dilution system.
    (ii) For multiplying with continuously sampled gas concentrations, 
if the same signal is used in a chemical-balance calculation to 
determine work from brake-specific fuel consumption and fuel consumed.
* * * * *

0
257. Section 1065.230 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.230  Raw exhaust flow meter.

* * * * *
    (d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool raw exhaust upstream of a raw-
exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following 
provisions:
    (1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling.
    (2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 [deg]C to 
decrease to below 180 [deg]C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the 
cooling for compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition 
engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW.
    (3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensation.

0
258. Section 1065.240 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.240  Dilution air and diluted exhaust flow meters.

* * * * *
    (d) Exhaust cooling. You may cool diluted exhaust upstream of a 
dilute-exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following 
provisions:
    (1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling.
    (2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 [deg]C to 
decrease to below 180 [deg]C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the 
cooling for compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition 
engines, or four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW.
    (3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensation as described in 
Sec.  1065.140(c)(6).

0
259. Section 1065.250 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.250  Nondispersive infrared analyzer.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDIR 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that your NDIR-based system must meet the calibration and 
verifications in Sec. Sec.  1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must also meet 
the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.

0
260. Section 1065.260 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and 
(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.260  Flame-ionization detector.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a FID 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that your FID-based system for measuring THC, THCE, or 
CH4 must meet all the verifications for hydrocarbon 
measurement in subpart D of this part, and it must also meet the 
linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.
    (c) Heated FID analyzers. For measuring THC or THCE from 
compression-ignition engines, two-stroke spark-ignition engines, and 
four-stroke spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kW, you must use 
heated FID analyzers that maintain all surfaces that are exposed to 
emissions at a temperature of (191 11) [deg]C.
* * * * *
    (e) NMHC and NMOG. For demonstrating compliance with NMHC 
standards, you may either measure THC and CH4 and determine 
NMHC as described in Sec.  1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or you may measure 
THC and determine NMHC mass as described in Sec.  1065.660(b)(1). See 
40 CFR 1066.635 for methods to demonstrate compliance with NMOG 
standards for vehicle testing.
* * * * *

0
261. Section 1065.267 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.267  Gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a GC-FID that 
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205 and that the 
measurement be done according to SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference 
in Sec.  1065.1010). The GC-FID must meet the linearity verification in 
Sec.  1065.307.

0
262. A new Sec.  1065.269 is added to subpart C under the center header 
``Hydrocarbon Measurements'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.269  Photoacoustic analyzer for ethanol and methanol.

    (a) Application. You may use a photoacoustic analyzer to measure 
ethanol and/or methanol concentrations in diluted exhaust for batch 
sampling.
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a 
photoacoustic analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of 
Sec.  1065.205. Note that your photoacoustic system must meet the 
verification in Sec.  1065.369 and it must also meet the linearity 
verification in Sec.  1065.307. Use an optical wheel configuration that 
gives analytical priority to measurement of the least stable components 
in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds. 
Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when 
determining flush times for your instrument.

0
263. Section 1065.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.270  Chemiluminescent detector.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a CLD that 
meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. Note that your 
CLD-based system must meet the quench verification in Sec.  1065.370 
and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307. You 
may use a heated or unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD that operates 
at atmospheric pressure or under a vacuum.
* * * * *

0
264. Section 1065.272 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.272  Nondispersive ultraviolet analyzer.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use an NDUV 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that your NDUV-based system must meet the verifications in Sec.  
1065.372 and it must also meet the linearity verification in Sec.  
1065.307.
* * * * *

0
265. Section 1065.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.275  N[bdi2]O 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

[[Page 23762]]

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 pulsed-mode high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared analyzers, and 
modulated continuous wave high-resolution narrow band mid-infrared 
analyzers.
    (4) Photoacoustic analyzer. Use an optical wheel configuration that 
gives analytical priority to measurement of the least stable components 
in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds. 
Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when 
determining flush times for your instrument.
    (5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You may use a gas chromatograph 
with an electron-capture detector (GC-ECD) to measure N2O 
concentrations of diluted exhaust for batch sampling.
    (i)You may use a packed or porous layer open tubular (PLOT) column 
phase of suitable polarity and length to achieve adequate resolution of 
the N2O peak for analysis. Examples of acceptable columns 
are a PLOT column consisting of bonded polystyrene-divinylbenzene or a 
Porapack Q packed column. Take the column temperature profile and 
carrier gas selection into consideration when setting up your method to 
achieve adequate N2O peak resolution.
    (ii) Use good engineering judgment to zero your instrument and 
correct for drift. You do not need to follow the specific procedures in 
Sec. Sec.  1065.530 and 1065.550(b) that would otherwise apply. For 
example, you may perform a span gas measurement before and after sample 
analysis without zeroing and use the average area counts of the pre-
span and post-span measurements to generate a response factor (area 
counts/span gas concentration), which you then multiply by the area 
counts from your sample to generate the sample concentration.
* * * * *

0
266. Section 1065.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.280  Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O[bdi2] detection 
analyzers.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD 
analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. 
Note that it must meet the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.

0
267. Section 1065.284 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.284  Zirconia (ZrO[bdi2]) analyzer.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a 
ZrO2 analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of 
Sec.  1065.205. Note that your ZrO2-based system must meet 
the linearity verification in Sec.  1065.307.

0
268. Section 1065.295 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.295  PM inertial balance for field-testing analysis.

* * * * *
    (b) Component requirements. We recommend that you use a balance 
that meets the specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205. Note that 
your balance-based system must meet the linearity verification in Sec.  
1065.307. If the balance uses an internal calibration process for 
routine spanning and linearity verifications, the process must be NIST-
traceable.
* * * * *

Subpart D--[Amended]

0
269. Section 1065.303 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.303  Summary of required calibration and verifications.

    The following table summarizes the required and recommended 
calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates 
when these have to be performed:

     Table 1 of Sec.   1065.303--Summary of Required Calibration and
                              Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Type of calibration or verification         Minimum frequency \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1065.305: Accuracy,               Accuracy: Not required, but
 repeatability and noise.                 recommended for initial
                                          installation.
                                         Repeatability: Not required,
                                          but recommended for initial
                                          installation.
                                         Noise: Not required, but
                                          recommended for initial
                                          installation.
Sec.   1065.307: Linearity 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.
Sec.   1065.308: Continuous gas          Upon initial installation or
 analyzer system response and updating-   after system modification that
 recording verification--for gas          would affect response.
 analyzers not continuously compensated
 for other gas species.

[[Page 23763]]

 
Sec.   1065.309: Continuous gas          Upon initial installation or
 analyzer system-response and updating-   after system modification that
 recording verification--for gas          would affect response.
 analyzers continuously compensated for
 other gas species.
Sec.   1065.310: Torque................  Upon initial installation and
                                          after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.315: Pressure, temperature,  Upon initial installation and
 dewpoint.                                after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.320: Fuel flow.............  Upon initial installation and
                                          after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.325: Intake flow...........  Upon initial installation and
                                          after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.330: Exhaust flow..........  Upon initial installation and
                                          after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow    Upon initial installation and
 (CVS).                                   after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.341: CVS and batch sampler   Upon initial installation,
 verification \3\.                        within 35 days before testing,
                                          and after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.342 Sample dryer             For thermal chillers: upon
 verification.                            installation and after major
                                          maintenance.
                                         For osmotic membranes; upon
                                          installation, within 35 days
                                          of testing, and after major
                                          maintenance.
Sec.   1065.345: Vacuum leak...........  For laboratory testing: upon
                                          initial installation of the
                                          sampling system, within 8
                                          hours before the start of the
                                          first test interval of each
                                          duty-cycle sequence, and after
                                          maintenance such as pre-filter
                                          changes.
                                         For field testing: after each
                                          installation of the sampling
                                          system on the vehicle, prior
                                          to the start of the field
                                          test, and after maintenance
                                          such as pre-filter changes.
Sec.   1065.350: CO2 NDIR H2O            Upon initial installation and
 interference.                            after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.355: CO NDIR CO2 and H2O     Upon initial installation and
 interference.                            after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.360: FID calibration.......  Calibrate all FID analyzers:
THC FID optimization, and THC FID         upon initial installation and
 verification.                            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.
Sec.   1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O2      For all FID analyzers: upon
 interference.                            initial installation, and
                                          after major maintenance.
                                         For THC FID analyzers: upon
                                          initial installation, after
                                          major maintenance, and after
                                          FID optimization according to
                                          Sec.   1065.360.
Sec.   1065.365: Nonmethane cutter       Upon initial installation,
 penetration.                             within 185 days before
                                          testing, and after major
                                          maintenance.
Sec.   1065.369: H2O, CO, and CO2        Upon initial installation and
 interference verification for ethanol    after major maintenance.
 photoacoustic analyzers.
Sec.   1065.370: CLD CO2 and H2O quench  Upon initial installation and
                                          after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.372: NDUV HC and H2O         Upon initial installation and
 interference.                            after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.375: N2O analyzer            Upon initial installation and
 interference.                            after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.376: Chiller NO2             Upon initial installation and
 penetration.                             after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.378: NO2-to-NO converter     Upon initial installation,
 conversion.                              within 35 days before testing,
                                          and after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.390: PM balance and          Independent verification: upon
 weighing.                                initial installation, within
                                          370 days before testing, and
                                          after major maintenance.
                                         Zero, span, and reference
                                          sample verifications: within
                                          12 hours of weighing, and
                                          after major maintenance.
Sec.   1065.395: Inertial PM balance     Independent verification: upon
 and weighing.                            initial installation, within
                                          370 days before testing, and
                                          after major maintenance.
                                         Other verifications: upon
                                          initial installation and after
                                          major maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently than we
  specify, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and
  good engineering judgment.
\2\ Perform linearity verification either for electrical power or for
  current and voltage.
\3\ The CVS verification described in Sec.   1065.341 is not required
  for systems that agree within 2% based on a chemical
  balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted
  exhaust.

0
270. Section 1065.305 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(10)(i) to 
read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) * * *
    (i) Your measurement systems meet all the other required 
calibration, verification, and validation specifications that apply as 
specified in the regulations.
* * * * *

0
271. Section 1065.307 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.307  Linearity verification.

    (a) Scope and frequency. Perform linearity verification on each 
measurement system listed in Table 1 of this section at least as 
frequently as indicated in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.303, consistent with 
measurement system manufacturer's recommendations and good engineering 
judgment. The intent of linearity verification is to determine that a 
measurement system responds accurately and proportionally over the 
measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generally 
consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a 
measurement system. The measurement system quantifies each reference 
value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the 
reference values by using a least-squares linear regression and the 
linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section.
    (b) Performance requirements. If a measurement system does not meet 
the applicable linearity criteria referenced in Table 1 of this 
section, correct the deficiency by re-calibrating, servicing,

[[Page 23764]]

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) Use good engineering judgment to operate a measurement system 
at normal operating conditions. This may include any specified 
adjustment or periodic calibration of the measurement system.
    (3) If applicable, zero the instrument as you would before an 
emission test by introducing a zero signal. Depending on the 
instrument, this may be a zero-concentration gas, a reference signal, a 
set of reference thermodynamic conditions, or some combination of 
these. For gas analyzers, use a zero gas that meets the specifications 
of Sec.  1065.750 and introduce it directly at the analyzer port.
    (4) If applicable, span the instrument as you would before an 
emission test by introducing a span signal. Depending on the 
instrument, this may be a span-concentration gas, a reference signal, a 
set of reference thermodynamic conditions, or some combination of 
these. For gas analyzers, use a span gas that meets the specifications 
of Sec.  1065.750 and introduce it directly at the analyzer port.
    (5) If applicable, after spanning the instrument, check zero with 
the same signal you used in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Based on 
the zero reading, use good engineering judgment to determine whether or 
not to rezero and or re-span the instrument before continuing.
    (6) For all measured quantities, use the instrument manufacturer's 
recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference 
values, yrefi, that cover a range of values that you expect would 
prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission testing. We 
recommend selecting a zero reference signal as one of the reference 
values for the linearity verification. For pressure, temperature, 
dewpoint, power, current, voltage, photoacoustic analyzers, and GC-ECD 
linearity verifications, we recommend at least three reference values. 
For all other linearity verifications select at least ten reference 
values.
    (7) Use the instrument manufacturer's recommendations and good 
engineering judgment to select the order in which you will introduce 
the series of reference values. For example, you may select the 
reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous 
measurements and to avoid hysteresis; you may select reference values 
in ascending or descending order to avoid long settling times of 
reference signals; or you may select values to ascend and then descend 
to incorporate the effects of any instrument hysteresis into the 
linearity verification.
    (8) Generate reference quantities as described in paragraph (d) of 
this section. For gas analyzers, use gas concentrations known to be 
within the specifications of Sec.  1065.750 and introduce them directly 
at the analyzer port.
    (9) Introduce a reference signal to the measurement instrument.
    (10) Allow time for the instrument to stabilize while it measures 
the value at the reference condition. Stabilization time may include 
time to purge an instrument and time to account for its response.
    (11) At a recording frequency of at least f Hz, specified in Table 
1 of Sec.  1065.205, measure the value at the reference condition for 
30 seconds (you may select a longer sampling period if the recording 
update frequency is less than 0.5 Hz) and record the arithmetic mean of 
the recorded values, yi. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for an 
example of calculating an arithmetic mean.
    (12) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(9) though (11) of this 
section until measurements are complete at each of the reference 
conditions.
    (13) Use the arithmetic means, yi, and reference values, yrefi, to 
calculate least-squares linear regression parameters and statistical 
values to compare to the minimum performance criteria specified in 
Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations described in Sec.  
1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may weight the results 
of individual data pairs (i.e. (yrefi, yi,)), in the linear 
regression calculations.
    (d) Reference signals. This paragraph (d) describes recommended 
methods for generating reference values for the linearity-verification 
protocol in paragraph (c) of this section. Use reference values that 
simulate actual values, or introduce an actual value and measure it 
with a reference-measurement system. In the latter case, the reference 
value is the value reported by the reference-measurement system. 
Reference values and reference-measurement systems must be NIST-
traceable. We recommend using calibration reference quantities that are 
NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty, if not specified elsewhere in 
this part 1065. Use the following recommended methods to generate 
reference values or use good engineering judgment to select a different 
reference:
    (1) Speed. Run the engine or dynamometer at a series of steady-
state speeds and use a strobe, photo tachometer, or laser tachometer to 
record reference speeds.
    (2) Torque. Use a series of calibration weights and a calibration 
lever arm to simulate engine torque. You may instead use the engine or 
dynamometer itself to generate a nominal torque that is measured by a 
reference load cell or proving ring in series with the torque-
measurement system. In this case, use the reference load cell 
measurement as the reference value. Refer to Sec.  1065.310 for a 
torque-calibration procedure similar to the linearity verification in 
this section.
    (3) Electrical power, current, and voltage. You must perform 
linearity verification for either electrical power meters, or for 
current and voltage meters. Perform linearity verifications using a 
reference meter and controlled sources of current and voltage. We 
recommend using a complete calibration system that is suitable for the 
electrical power distribution industry.
    (4) Fuel rate. Operate the engine at a series of constant fuel-flow 
rates or re-circulate fuel back to a tank through the fuel flow meter 
at different flow rates. Use a gravimetric reference measurement (such 
as a scale, balance, or mass comparator) at the inlet to the fuel-
measurement system. Use a stopwatch or timer to measure the time 
intervals over which reference masses of fuel are introduced to the 
fuel measurement system. The reference fuel mass divided by the time 
interval is the reference fuel flow rate.
    (5) Flow rates--inlet air, dilution air, diluted exhaust, raw 
exhaust, or sample flow. Use a reference flow meter with a blower or 
pump to simulate flow rates. Use a restrictor, diverter valve, a 
variable-speed blower or a variable-speed pump to control the range of 
flow rates. Use the reference meter's response as the reference values.
    (i) Reference flow meters. Because the flow range requirements for 
these various flows are large, we allow a variety of reference meters. 
For

[[Page 23765]]

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 and its calibration 
is NIST-traceable. If you use the difference of two flow measurements 
to determine a net flow rate, you may use one of the measurements as a 
reference for the other.
    (ii) Reference flow values. Because the reference flow is not 
absolutely constant, sample and record values of nrefi for 
30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, nref, 
as the reference value. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for an example of 
calculating arithmetic mean.
    (6) Gas division. Use one of the two reference signals:
    (i) At the outlet of the gas-division system, connect a gas 
analyzer that meets the linearity verification described in this 
section and has not been linearized with the gas divider being 
verified. For example, verify the linearity of an analyzer using a 
series of reference analytical gases directly from compressed gas 
cylinders that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend 
using a FID analyzer or a PMD or MPD O2 analyzer because of 
their inherent linearity. Operate this analyzer consistent with how you 
would operate it during an emission test. Connect a span gas to the 
gas-divider inlet. Use the gas-division system to divide the span gas 
with purified air or nitrogen. Select gas divisions that you typically 
use. Use a selected gas division as the measured value. Use the 
analyzer response divided by the span gas concentration as the 
reference gas-division value. Because the instrument response is not 
absolutely constant, sample and record values of xref for 30 
seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, xref, as 
the reference value. Refer to Sec.  1065.602 for an example of 
calculating arithmetic mean.
    (ii) Using good engineering judgment and the gas divider 
manufacturer's recommendations, use one or more reference flow meters 
to measure the flow rates of the gas divider and verify the gas-
division value.
    (7) Continuous constituent concentration. For reference values, use 
a series of gas cylinders of known gas concentration or use a gas-
division system that is known to be linear with a span gas. Gas 
cylinders, gas-division systems, and span gases that you use for 
reference values must meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750.
    (8) Temperature. You may perform the linearity verification for 
temperature measurement systems with thermocouples, RTDs, and 
thermistors by removing the sensor from the system and using a 
simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable simulator that is 
independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-junction-
compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature 
must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this option, you 
must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than 
0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard calibration curve.
    (9) Mass. For linearity verification for gravimetric PM balances, 
use external calibration weights that meet the requirements in Sec.  
1065.790.
    (e) Measurement systems that require linearity verification. Table 
1 of this section indicates measurement systems that require linearity 
verification, subject to the following provisions:
    (1) Perform linearity verification more frequently based on the 
instrument manufacturer's recommendation or good engineering judgment.
    (2) The expression ``xmin'' refers to the reference 
value used during linearity verification that is closest to zero. This 
is the value used to calculate the first tolerance in Table 1 of this 
section using the intercept, a0. Note that this value may be 
zero, positive, or negative depending on the reference values. For 
example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure 
transducer vary from -10 to -1 kPa, xmin is -1 kPa. If the 
reference values used to validate a 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 0.9812% 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 gaseous and PM sampling, including CVS, 
double-dilution, and partial-flow systems.
    (D) PM sample.
    (E) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling systems that use thermal 
chillers to dry samples and use chiller temperature to calculate the 
dewpoint at the outlet of the chiller. For your testing, if you choose 
to use a high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as 
a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the 
emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to verify the 
accuracy of the high alarm temperature setpoint instead of linearity 
verification on the chiller temperature. To verify that the alarm trip 
point value is no less than 2.0 [deg]C below the reference value at the 
trip point, we recommend that you input a reference simulated 
temperature signal below the alarm trip point and increase this signal 
until the high alarm trips.
    (ii) Linearity verification is required for the following 
temperature measurements if these temperature measurements are 
specified by the engine manufacturer:
    (A) Fuel inlet.
    (B) Air outlet to the test cell's charge air cooler air outlet, for 
engines tested

[[Page 23766]]

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 as required in Sec.  1065.130(h).
    (C) Barometer.
    (D) CVS inlet gage pressure where the raw exhaust enters the 
tunnel.
    (E) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling systems that use either 
osmotic-membrane or thermal chillers to dry samples. For your testing, 
if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer 
pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed 
from the emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to 
verify the accuracy of the low alarm pressure setpoint instead of 
linearity verification on the sample dryer pressure. To verify that the 
trip point value is no more than 4.0 kPa above the reference value at 
the trip point, we recommend that you input a reference pressure signal 
above the alarm trip point and decrease this signal until the low alarm 
trips.
    (ii) Linearity verification is required for the following pressure 
measurements if these pressure measurements are specified by the engine 
manufacturer:
    (A) The test cell's charge air cooler and interconnecting pipe 
pressure drop, for turbo-charged engines tested with a laboratory heat 
exchanger that simulates an installed charge air cooler.
    (B) Fuel outlet.

               Table 1 of Sec.   1065.307--Measurement Systems That Require Linearity Verification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linearity criteria
      Measurement system            Quantity    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   xmin(a1-1)+a 0         a1             SEE            r \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed.........................  fn.............  = 0.990
                                                  fnmax.                           fnmax.
Torque........................  T..............  = 0.990
                                                  Tmax.                            Tmax.
Electrical power..............  P..............  = 0.990
                                                  Pmax                             Pmax
Current.......................  I..............  = 0.990
                                                  Imax                             Imax
Voltage.......................  U..............  = 0.990
                                                  Umax.                            Umax.
Fuel flow rate................  mb.............  = 0.990
                                                  mbmax.                           mbmax.
Intake-air....................  nb.............  = 0.990
 flow rate\1\.................                    nbmax.                           nbmax.
Dilution air flow rate \1\....  nb.............  = 0.990
                                                  nbmax.                           nbmax.
Diluted exhaust flow rate \1\.  nb.............  = 0.990
                                                  nbmax.                           nbmax.
Raw exhaust flow rate \1\.....  nb.............  = 0.990
                                                  nbmax.                           nbmax.
Batch sampler flow rates \1\..  nb.............  = 0.990
                                                  nbmax.                           nbmax.
Gas dividers..................  x/xspan........  = 0.990
                                                  xmax/xspan.                      xmax/xspan.
Gas analyzers for laboratory    x..............  = 0.998
 testing.                                         xmax.                            xmax.
Gas analyzers for field         x..............  = 0.998
 testing.                                         xmax.                            xmax.
PM balance....................  m..............  = 0.998
                                                  mmax.                            mmax.
Pressures.....................  p..............  = 0.998
                                                  pmax.                            pmax.
Dewpoint for intake air, PM-    Tdew...........  = 0.998
 stabilization and balance                        Tdewmax.                         Tdewmax.
 environments.
Other dewpoint measurements...  Tdew...........  = 0.998
                                                  Tdewmax-.                        Tdewmax-.
Analog-to-digital conversion    T..............  = 0.998
 of temperature signals.                          Tmax.                            Tmax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For flow meters that determine volumetric flow rate, Vbstd, you may substitute Vbstd for nb as the quantity
  and substitute Vbstdmax for nbmax.

0
272. Section 1065.308 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) and 
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.308  Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-
recording verification--for gas analyzers not continuously compensated 
for other gas species.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Equipment setup. We recommend using minimal lengths of gas 
transfer lines between all connections and fast-acting three-way valves 
(2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases 
to the sample system's probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the 
probe. If you inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you 
may correct the transformation time, t50, for an estimate of 
the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas 
flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is 
overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower 
than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to 
account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We 
recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final 
gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being measured. 
You may use binary or multi-gas span gases. You may use a gas blending 
or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or mixing device 
is recommended when blending span gases diluted in N2 with 
span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas span gas, such as 
NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-CH4, to 
verify multiple analyzers at the same time. If you use standard binary 
span gases, you must run separate response tests for each analyzer. In 
designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to 
stopping the flow through the gas-blending device. The change in gas 
concentration must be at least 20% of the analyzer's range.
* * * * *
    (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

[[Page 23767]]

alternate procedure, the following provisions apply:
    (1) If your probe is sampling from a continuously flowing gas 
stream (e.g., 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 (e.g., 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 being drawn into the probe inlet. This avoids errors 
associated with overflowing span gas out of the probe inlet and drawing 
it back in when sampling ambient air.
    (3) When sampling ambient air or ambient air mixed with 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 rise and stabilized 
reading, followed by switching back to purified N2 and 
observing the analyzer's fall and stabilized reading.

0
273. Section 1065.309 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) 
and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.309  Continuous gas analyzer system-response and updating-
recording verification--for gas analyzers continuously compensated for 
other gas species.

    (a) Scope and frequency. This section describes a verification 
procedure for system response and updating-recording frequency for 
continuous gas analyzers that output a single gas species mole fraction 
(i.e., concentration) based on a continuous combination of multiple gas 
species measured with multiple detectors (i.e., gas analyzers 
continuously compensated for other gas species). See Sec.  1065.308 for 
verification procedures that apply to continuous gas analyzers that are 
not continuously compensated for other gas species or that use only one 
detector for gaseous species. Perform this verification to determine 
the system response of the continuous gas analyzer and its sampling 
system. This verification is required for continuous gas analyzers used 
for transient or ramped-modal testing. You need not perform this 
verification for batch gas analyzers or for continuous gas analyzers 
that are used only for discrete-mode testing. For this check we 
consider water vapor a gaseous constituent. This verification does not 
apply to any processing of individual analyzer signals that are time-
aligned to their t50 times and were verified according to 
Sec.  1065.308. For example, this verification does not apply to 
correction for water removed from the sample done in post-processing 
according to Sec.  1065.659 (40 CFR 1066.620 for vehicle testing) and 
it does not apply to NMHC determination from THC and CH4 
according to Sec.  1065.660. Perform this verification after initial 
installation (i.e., test cell commissioning) and after any 
modifications to the system that would change the system response.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Equipment setup. We recommend using minimal lengths of gas 
transfer lines between all connections and fast-acting three-way valves 
(2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases 
to the sample system's probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the 
probe. If you inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you 
may correct the transformation time, t50, for an estimate of 
the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas 
flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is 
overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower 
than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to 
account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We 
recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final 
gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being continuously 
combined, other than H2O. Select concentrations of 
compensating species that will yield concentrations of these species at 
the analyzer inlet that covers the range of concentrations expected 
during testing. You may use binary or multi-gas span gases. You may use 
a gas blending or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or 
mixing device is recommended when blending span gases diluted in 
N2 with span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi-gas 
span gas, such as NO-CO-CO2-C3H8-
CH4, to verify multiple analyzers at the same time. In 
designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to 
stopping the flow through the gas blending device. The change in gas 
concentration must be at least 20% of the analyzer's range. If 
H2O correction is applicable, then span gases must be 
humidified before entering the analyzer; however, you may not humidify 
NO2 span gas by passing it through a sealed humidification 
vessel that contains water. You must humidify NO2 span gas 
with another moist gas stream. We recommend humidifying your NO-CO-
CO2-C3H8-CH4, balance 
N2 blended gas by flowing the gas mixture through a sealed 
vessel that humidifies the gas by bubbling it through distilled water 
and then mixing the gas with dry NO2 gas, balance purified 
air. If your system does not use a sample dryer to remove water from 
the sample gas, you must humidify your span gas to the highest sample 
H2O content that you estimate during emission sampling. If 
your system uses a sample dryer during testing, it must pass the sample 
dryer verification check in Sec.  1065.342, and you must humidify your 
span gas to an H2O content greater than or equal to the 
level determined in Sec.  1065.145(e)(2). If you are humidifying span 
gases without NO2, use good engineering judgment to ensure 
that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves 
from the humidifying system to the probe are above the dewpoint 
required for the target H2O content. If you are humidifying 
span gases with NO2, use good engineering judgment to ensure 
that there is no condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or 
valves from the point where humidified gas is mixed with NO2 
span gas to the probe. We recommend that you design your setup so that 
the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 
the humidifying system to the probe are at least 5 [deg]C above the 
local sample gas dewpoint. Operate the measurement and sample handling 
system as you do for emission testing. Make no modifications to the 
sample handling system to reduce the risk of condensation. Flow 
humidified gas through the sampling system before this check to allow 
stabilization of the measurement system's sampling handling system to 
occur, as it would for an emission test.
* * * * *
    (g) Optional procedure. Follow the optional procedures in Sec.  
1065.308(g), noting that you may use compensating gases mixed with 
ambient air for oxygen analyzers.
    (h) Analyzers with H2O compensation sampling downstream of a sample 
dryer. You may omit humidifying the span gas as described in this 
paragraph (h). If an analyzer compensates only for H2O, you 
may apply the requirements of Sec.  1065.308 instead of the 
requirements of this section. You may omit humidifying the span gas if 
you meet the following conditions:

[[Page 23768]]

    (1) The analyzer is located downstream of a sample dryer.
    (2) The maximum value for H2O mole fraction downstream 
of the dryer must be less than or equal to 0.010. Verify this during 
each sample dryer verification according to Sec.  1065.342.

0
274. Section 1065.310 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.310  Torque calibration.

    (a) Scope and frequency. Calibrate all torque-measurement systems 
including dynamometer torque measurement transducers and systems upon 
initial installation and after major maintenance. Use good engineering 
judgment to repeat the calibration. Follow the torque transducer 
manufacturer's instructions for linearizing your torque sensor's 
output. We recommend that you calibrate the torque-measurement system 
with a reference force and a lever arm.
    (b) Recommended procedure to quantify lever-arm length. Quantify 
the lever-arm length, NIST-traceable within 0.5% 
uncertainty. The lever arm's length must be measured from the 
centerline of the dynamometer to the point at which the reference force 
is measured. The lever arm must be perpendicular to gravity (i.e., 
horizontal), and it must be perpendicular to the dynamometer's 
rotational axis. Balance the lever arm's torque or quantify its net 
hanging torque, NIST-traceable within 1% uncertainty, and 
account for it as part of the reference torque.
    (c) Recommended procedure to quantify reference force. We recommend 
dead-weight calibration, but you may use either of the following 
procedures to quantify the reference force, NIST-traceable within 
0.5% uncertainty.
    (1) Dead-weight calibration. This technique applies a known force 
by hanging known weights at a known distance along a lever arm. Make 
sure the weights' lever arm is perpendicular to gravity (i.e., 
horizontal) and perpendicular to the dynamometer's rotational axis. 
Apply at least six calibration-weight combinations for each applicable 
torque-measuring range, spacing the weight quantities about equally 
over the range. Oscillate or rotate the dynamometer during calibration 
to reduce frictional static hysteresis. Determine each weight's 
reference force by multiplying its NIST-traceable mass by the local 
acceleration of Earth's gravity, as described in Sec.  1065.630. 
Calculate the reference torque as the weights' reference force 
multiplied by the lever arm reference length.
    (2) Strain gage, load transducer, or proving ring calibration. This 
technique applies force either by hanging weights on a lever arm (these 
weights and their lever arm length are not used as part of the 
reference torque determination) or by operating the dynamometer at 
different torques. Apply at least six force combinations for each 
applicable torque-measuring range, spacing the force quantities about 
equally over the range. Oscillate or rotate the dynamometer during 
calibration to reduce frictional static hysteresis. In this case, the 
reference torque is determined by multiplying the force output from the 
reference meter (such as a strain gage, load transducer, or proving 
ring) by its effective lever-arm length, which you measure from the 
point where the force measurement is made to the dynamometer's 
rotational axis. Make sure you measure this length perpendicular to the 
reference meter's measurement axis and perpendicular to the 
dynamometer's rotational axis.

0
275. Section 1065.315 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  1065.315  Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint calibration.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Temperature. We recommend digital dry-block or stirred-liquid 
temperature calibrators, with data logging capabilities to minimize 
transcription errors. We recommend using calibration reference 
quantities that are NIST-traceable within 0.5% uncertainty. You may 
perform linearity verification for temperature measurement systems with 
thermocouples, RTDs, and thermistors by removing the sensor from the 
system and using a simulator in its place. Use a NIST-traceable 
simulator that is independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold-
junction compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute 
temperature must be less than 0.5% of Tmax. If you use this 
option, you must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to 
better than 0.5% of Tmax compared with their standard 
calibration curve.
* * * * *

0
276. Section 1065.341 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (d) introductory text, and (f)(3) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  1065.341  CVS, PFD, and batch sampler verification (propane 
check).

    (a) A propane check serves as a CVS verification to determine if 
there is a discrepancy in measured values of diluted exhaust flow. You 
may use the same procedure to verify PFDs and batch samplers. For 
purposes of PFD and batch sampler verification, read the term CVS to 
mean PFD or batch sampler as appropriate. A propane check also serves 
as a batch-sampler verification to determine if there is a discrepancy 
in a batch sampling system that extracts a sample from a CVS, as 
described in paragraph (g) of this section. Using good engineering 
judgment and safe practices, this check may be performed using a gas 
other than propane, such as CO2 or CO. A failed propane 
check might indicate one or more problems that may require corrective 
action, as follows:
* * * * *
    (d) If you performed the vacuum-side leak verification of the HC 
sampling system as described in paragraph (c)(8) of this section, you 
may use the HC contamination procedure in Sec.  1065.520(f) to verify 
HC contamination. Otherwise, zero, span, and verify contamination of 
the HC sampling system, as follows:
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Calculate total C3H8 mass based on your 
CVS and HC data as described in Sec.  1065.650 (40 CFR 1066.605 for 
vehicle testing) and Sec.  1065.660, using the molar mass of 
C3H8, MC3H8, instead the effective 
molar mass of HC, MHC.
* * * * *

0
277. Section 1065.350 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding 
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.350  H[bdi2]O interference verification for CO[bdi2] NDIR 
analyzers.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
    (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO2 NDIR analyzer 
as you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a 
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with 
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec.  1065.342. Operate the 
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may 
also run this verification test without the sample dryer.
    (2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling zero gas that meets 
the specifications in Sec.  1065.750 through distilled H2O 
in a sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the maximum expected during 
emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at

[[Page 23769]]

least as high as the level determined in Sec.  1065.145(e)(2) for that 
dryer.
    (3) Introduce the humidified test gas into the sample system. You 
may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if one is used during 
testing.
    (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this 
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction, 
xH2O, of the humidified test gas, as close as possible to 
the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure dewpoint, 
Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to calculate 
xH2O. Verify that the H2O content meets the 
requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is 
passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify 
that the H2O content of the humidified test gas downstream 
of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section 
based on either direct measurement of the H2O content (e.g., 
dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and 
temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the 
H2O content. For example, you may use previous direct 
measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's level of 
saturation.
    (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use 
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer 
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where xH2O is 
measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your system so 
the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from 
the point where xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at 
least 5 [deg]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
    (6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize. 
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to 
account for analyzer response.
    (7) While the analyzer measures the sample's concentration, record 
30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data. 
The analyzer meets the interference verification if this value is 
within (0.0 0.4) mmol/mol.
    (e) Exceptions. The following exceptions apply:
    (1) You may omit this verification if you can show by engineering 
analysis that for your CO2 sampling system and your 
emission-calculation procedures, the H2O interference for 
your CO2 NDIR analyzer always affects your brake-specific 
emission results within 0.5% of each of the applicable 
standards. This specification also applies for vehicle testing, except 
that it relates to emission results in g/mile or g/kilometer.
    (2) You may use a CO2 NDIR analyzer that you determine 
does not meet this verification, as long as you try to correct the 
problem and the measurement deficiency does not adversely affect your 
ability to show that engines comply with all applicable emission 
standards.
0
278. Section 1065.355 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2) and 
(d)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.355  H[bdi2]O and CO[bdi2] interference verification for CO 
NDIR analyzers.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Create a humidified CO2 test gas by bubbling a 
CO2 span gas that meets the specifications in Sec.  1065.750 
through distilled H2O in a sealed vessel. If the sample is 
not passed through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel 
temperature to generate an H2O level at least as high as the 
maximum expected during emission testing. If the sample is passed 
through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel temperature 
to generate an H2O level at least as high as the level 
determined in Sec.  1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use a CO2 
span gas concentration at least as high as the maximum expected 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 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.
* * * * *
    279. Section 1065.360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), 
(b), (d), and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.360  FID optimization and verification.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Verify the CH4 response within 185 days before 
testing as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (b) Calibration. Use good engineering judgment to develop a 
calibration procedure, such as one based on the FID-analyzer 
manufacturer's instructions and recommended frequency for calibrating 
the FID. Alternately, you may remove system components for off-site 
calibration. For a FID that measures THC, calibrate using 
C3H8 calibration gases that meet the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.750. For a FID that measures 
CH4, calibrate using CH4 calibration gases that 
meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer 
zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O2 expected during testing. If you use a 
FID to measure CH4 downstream of a nonmethane cutter, you 
may calibrate that FID using CH4 calibration gases with the 
cutter. Regardless of the calibration gas composition, calibrate on a 
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a 
C3H8 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, 
span the FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. As another 
example, if you use a CH4 span gas with a concentration of 
200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/
mol.
* * * * *
    (d) THC FID CH 4 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, RF CH4[THC-FID], after FID 
optimization. Use the most recent RFCH4[THC-FID] measured 
according to this section in the calculations for HC determination 
described in Sec.  1065.660 to compensate for CH4 response. 
Determine RF CH4[THC-FID] as follows, noting that you do not 
determine RF CH4[THC-FID] for FIDs that are calibrated and 
spanned using CH4 with a nonmethane cutter:
    (1) Select a C3 H8 span gas concentration 
that you use to span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only 
span gases that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Record the 
C3H8 concentration of the gas.
    (2) Select a CH4 span gas concentration that you use to 
span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span gases that 
meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Record the CH4 
concentration of the gas.
    (3) Start and operate the FID analyzer according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Confirm that the FID analyzer has been calibrated using 
C3H8. Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one 
(C1). For example, if you use a C3 H8 
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with 
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.

[[Page 23770]]

    (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, RF 
CH4[THC-FID].
    (e) THC FID CH4 response verification. This procedure is 
only for FID analyzers that measure THC. Verify 
RFCH4[THC-FID] as follows:
    (1) Perform a CH4 response factor determination as 
described in paragraph (d) of this section. If the resulting value of 
RFCH4[THC-FID] 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 RF CH4[THC-FID] was 1.05 and it increased by 0.05 to 
become 1.10 or it decreased by 0.05 to become 1.00, either case would 
be acceptable because 4.8% is less than 5%.
    (2) If RF CH4[THC-FID] is not within the tolerance 
specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, use good engineering 
judgment to verify that the flow rates and/or pressures of FID fuel, 
burner air, and sample are at their most recent previously recorded 
values, as determined in paragraph (c) of this section. You may adjust 
these flow rates as necessary. Then determine the RF 
CH4[THC-FID] as described in paragraph (d) of this section 
and verify that it is within the tolerance specified in this paragraph 
(e).
    (3) If RF CH4[THC-FID] is not within the tolerance 
specified in this paragraph (e), re-optimize the FID response as 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (4) Determine a new RFCH4[THC-FID] as described in 
paragraph (d) of this section. Use this new value of RF 
CH4[THC-FID] in the calculations for HC determination, as 
described in Sec.  1065.660.
    (5) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the 
procedure in this paragraph (e) only on a single range.
    280. Section 1065.362 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(15) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  1065.362  Non-stoichiometric raw exhaust FID O[bdi2] interference 
verification.

* * * * *
    (d) * *
    (15) For analyzers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the 
procedure in this paragraph (d) only on a single range.
    281. Section 1065.365 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), 
(d)(1), (e)(1), (f) introductory text, and (f)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.365  Nonmethane cutter penetration fractions.

    (a) Scope and frequency. If you use a FID analyzer and a nonmethane 
cutter (NMC) to measure methane (CH4), determine the 
nonmethane cutter's penetration fractions of CH4, 
PFCH4, and ethane, PFC2H6. As detailed in this 
section, these penetration fractions may be determined as a combination 
of NMC penetration fractions and FID analyzer response factors, 
depending on your particular NMC and FID analyzer configuration. 
Perform this verification after installing the nonmethane cutter. 
Repeat this verification within 185 days of testing to verify that the 
catalytic activity of the cutter has not deteriorated. Note that 
because nonmethane cutters can deteriorate rapidly and without warning 
if they are operated outside of certain ranges of gas concentrations 
and outside of certain temperature ranges, good engineering judgment 
may dictate that you determine a nonmethane cutter's penetration 
fractions more frequently.
    (b) Measurement principles. A nonmethane cutter is a heated 
catalyst that removes nonmethane hydrocarbons from an exhaust sample 
stream before the FID analyzer measures the remaining hydrocarbon 
concentration. An ideal nonmethane cutter would have a CH4 
penetration fraction, PFCH4, of 1.000, and the penetration 
fraction for all other nonmethane hydrocarbons would be 0.000, as 
represented by PFC2H6. The emission calculations in Sec.  
1065.660 use the measured values from this verification to account for 
less than ideal NMC performance.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical 
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of 
Sec.  1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would 
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a 
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak 
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the 
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple 
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission 
testing.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical 
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of 
Sec.  1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would 
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a 
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak 
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard and the 
C2H6 concentration typical of the peak total 
hydrocarbon (THC) concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or 
equal to the THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers 
with multiple ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used 
for emission testing.
* * * * *
    (f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with CH4, bypassing 
the NMC. If you use a FID with an NMC that is calibrated with 
CH4, by bypassing the NMC, determine its combined ethane 
(C2H6) response factor and penetration fraction, 
RFPFC2H6[NMC-FID], as well as its CH4 penetration 
fraction, PFCH4[NMC-FID], as follows:
    (1) Select CH4 and C2H6 analytical 
gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of 
Sec.  1065.750. Select a CH4 concentration that you would 
use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a 
C2H6 concentration that is typical of the peak 
NMHC concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the 
THC analyzer's span value. For CH4 analyzers with multiple 
ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission 
testing.
* * * * *

0
282. A new Sec.  1065.369 is added to subpart D under the center header 
``Hydrocarbon Measurements'' to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.369  H[bdi2]O, CO, and CO[bdi2] 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

[[Page 23771]]

photoacoustic analyzer by causing a response similar to ethanol or 
methanol. If the photoacoustic analyzer uses compensation algorithms 
that utilize measurements of other gases to meet this interference 
verification, simultaneously conduct these other measurements to test 
the compensation algorithms during the analyzer interference 
verification.
    (c) System requirements. Photoacoustic analyzers must have combined 
interference that is within (0.0  0.5) [micro]mol/mol. We 
strongly recommend a lower interference that is within (0.0  0.25) [micro]mol/mol.
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification by following 
the procedure in Sec.  1065.375(d), comparing the results to paragraph 
(c) of this section.

0
283. Section 1065.370 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(9) and 
(e)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.370  CLD CO[bdi2] and H[bdi2]O quench verification.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (9) While flowing NO and CO2 through the gas divider, 
stabilize the output of the gas divider. Determine the CO2 
concentration from the gas divider output, applying gas property 
correction as necessary to ensure accurate gas division, or measure it 
using an NDIR. Record this concentration, xCO2act, and use 
it in the quench verification calculations in Sec.  1065.675. 
Alternatively, you may use a simple gas blending device and use an NDIR 
to determine this CO2 concentration. If you use an NDIR, it 
must meet the requirements of this part for laboratory testing and you 
must span it with the CO2 span gas from paragraph (d)(4) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) Humidify the NO span gas by bubbling it through distilled 
H2O in a sealed vessel. If the humidified NO span gas sample 
does not pass through a sample dryer for this verification test, 
control the vessel temperature to generate an H2O level 
approximately equal to the maximum mole fraction of H2O 
expected during emission testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample 
does not pass through a sample dryer, the quench verification 
calculations in Sec.  1065.675 scale the measured H2O quench 
to the highest mole fraction of H2O expected during emission 
testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample passes through a dryer 
for this verification test, control the vessel temperature to generate 
an H2O level at least as high as the level determined in 
Sec.  1065.145(e)(2). For this case, the quench verification 
calculations in Sec.  1065.675 do not scale the measured H2O 
quench.
* * * * *

0
284. Section 1065.375 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.375  Interference verification for N[bdi2]O analyzers.

* * * * *
    (d) Procedure. Perform the interference verification as follows:
    (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the N2O analyzer as 
you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a 
dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with 
the dryer if it meets the requirements of Sec.  1065.342. Operate the 
dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may 
also run this verification test without the sample dryer.
    (2) Create a humidified test gas by bubbling a multi component span 
gas that incorporates the target interference species and meets the 
specifications in Sec.  1065.750 through distilled H2O in a 
sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the maximum expected during 
emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during 
emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an 
H2O level at least as high as the level determined in Sec.  
1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use interference span gas concentrations 
that are at least as high as the maximum expected during testing.
    (3) Introduce the humidified interference test gas into the sample 
system. You may introduce it downstream of any sample dryer, if one is 
used during testing.
    (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this 
verification test, measure the H2O mole fraction, 
xH2O, of the humidified interference test gas as 
close as possible to the inlet of the analyzer. For example, measure 
dewpoint, Tdew, and absolute pressure, ptotal, to 
calculate xH2O. Verify that the H2O 
content meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If 
the sample is passed through a dryer during this verification test, you 
must verify that the H2O content of the humidified test gas 
downstream of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of 
this section based on either direct measurement of the H2O 
content (e.g., dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the 
vessel pressure and temperature. Use good engineering judgment to 
estimate the H2O content. For example, you may use previous 
direct measurements of H2O content to verify the vessel's 
level of saturation.
    (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use 
good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer 
lines, fittings, or valves from the point where 
xH2O is measured to the analyzer. We recommend 
that you design your system so that the wall temperatures in the 
transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the point where 
xH2O is measured to the analyzer are at least 5 
[ordm]C above the local sample gas dewpoint.
    (6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize. 
Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to 
account for analyzer response.
    (7) While the analyzer measures the sample's concentration, record 
its output for 30 seconds. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data. 
When performed with all the gases simultaneously, this is the combined 
interference.
    (8) The analyzer meets the interference verification if the result 
of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph 
(c) of this section.
    (9) You may also run interference procedures separately for 
individual interference gases. If the interference gas levels used are 
higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, you may scale 
down each observed interference value (the arithmetic mean of 30 second 
data described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section) by multiplying the 
observed interference by the ratio of the maximum expected 
concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You 
may run separate interference concentrations of H2O (down to 
0.025 mol/mol H2O content) that are lower than the maximum 
levels expected during testing, but you must scale up the observed 
H2O interference by multiplying the observed interference by 
the ratio of the maximum expected H2O concentration value to 
the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the scaled 
interference values must meet the tolerance for combined interference 
as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

0
285. Section 1065.376 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), 
(d)(2)(vi), and (d)(2)(viii) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.376  Chiller NO[bdi2] penetration.

* * * * *
    (b) Measurement principles. A chiller removes H2O, which 
can otherwise

[[Page 23772]]

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) * * *
    (vi) Next saturate the sampling system by overflowing a dewpoint 
generator's output, set at a dewpoint of 50 [deg]C, to the gas sampling 
system's probe or overflow fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator's 
output through the sampling system and chiller for at least 10 minutes 
until the chiller is expected to be removing a constant rate of 
H2O.
* * * * *
    (viii) Correct x NOXmeas to x NOXdry based 
upon the residual H2O vapor that passed through the chiller 
at the chiller's outlet temperature and pressure.
* * * * *

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
286. Section 1065.405 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.405  Test engine preparation and maintenance.

    This part 1065 describes how to test engines for a variety of 
purposes, including certification testing, production-line testing, and 
in-use testing. Depending on which type of testing is being conducted, 
different preparation and maintenance requirements apply for the test 
engine.
    (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 your engine is equipped 
with multiple user-selectable governor types and if the governor does 
not manipulate the emission control system (i.e., the governor only 
modulates an ``operator demand'' signal such as commanded fuel rate, 
torque, or power), choose the governor type that allows the test cell 
to most accurately follow the duty cycle. If the governor manipulates 
the emission control system, treat it as an adjustable parameter. See 
paragraph (b) of this section for guidance on setting adjustable 
parameters. If you do not install governors on production engines, 
simulate a governor that is representative of a governor that others 
will install on your production engines. In certain circumstances, you 
may incorporate test cell components to simulate an in-use 
configuration, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, 
Sec. Sec.  1065.122 and 1065.125 allow the use of test cell components 
to represent engine cooling and intake air systems. The provisions in 
Sec.  1065.110(e) also apply to emission-data engines for 
certification.
    (b) We may set adjustable parameters to any value in the valid 
range, and you are responsible for controlling emissions over the full 
valid range. For each adjustable parameter, if the standard-setting 
part has no unique requirements and if we have not specified a value, 
use good engineering judgment to select the most common setting. If 
information on the most common setting is not available, select the 
setting representing the engine's original shipped configuration. If 
information on the most common and original settings is not available, 
set the adjustable parameter in the middle of the valid range.
    (c) Testing generally occurs only after the test engine has 
undergone a stabilization step (or in-use operation). If the engine has 
not already been stabilized, run the test engine, with all emission 
control systems operating, long enough to stabilize emission levels. 
Note that you must generally use the same stabilization procedures for 
emission-data engines for which you apply the same deterioration 
factors so low-hour emission-data engines are consistent with the low-
hour engine used to develop the deterioration factor.
    (1) Unless otherwise specified in the standard-setting part, you 
may consider emission levels stable without measurement after 50 h of 
operation. If the engine needs less operation to stabilize emission 
levels, record your reasons and the methods for doing this, and give us 
these records if we ask for them. If the engine will be tested for 
certification as a low-hour engine, see the standard-setting part for 
limits on testing engines to establish low-hour emission levels.
    (2) You may stabilize emissions from a catalytic exhaust 
aftertreatment device by operating it on a different engine, consistent 
with good engineering judgment. Note that good engineering judgment 
requires that you consider both the purpose of the test and how your 
stabilization method will affect the development and application of 
deterioration factors. For example, this method of stabilization is 
generally not appropriate for production engines. We may also allow you 
to stabilize emissions from a catalytic exhaust aftertreatment device 
by operating it on an engine-exhaust simulator.
    (d) Record any maintenance, modifications, parts changes, 
diagnostic or emissions testing and document the need for each event. 
You must provide this information if we request it.
    (e) For accumulating operating hours on your test engines, select 
engine operation that represents normal in-use operation for the engine 
family.
    (f) If your engine will be used in a vehicle equipped with a 
canister for storing evaporative hydrocarbons for eventual combustion 
in the engine and the test sequence involves a cold-start or hot-start 
duty cycle, attach a canister to the engine before running an emission 
test. You may omit using an evaporative canister for any hot-stabilized 
duty cycles. You may request to omit using an evaporative canister 
during testing if you can show that it would not affect your ability to 
show compliance with the applicable emission standards. You may operate 
the engine without an installed canister for service accumulation. 
Prior to an emission test, use the following steps to precondition a 
canister and attach it to your engine:
    (1) Use a canister and plumbing arrangement that represents the in-
use configuration of the largest capacity canister in all expected 
applications.
    (2) Precondition the canister as described in 40 CFR 86.132-96(j).
    (3) Connect the canister's purge port to the engine.
    (4) Plug the canister port that is normally connected to the fuel 
tank.
    (g) This paragraph (g) defines the components that are considered 
to be part of the engine for laboratory testing. See Sec.  1065.110 for 
provisions related to system boundaries with respect to work inputs and 
outputs.
    (1) This paragraph (g)(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. Except as 
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section, an engine-related 
component meeting both 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 controlling 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

[[Page 23773]]

exclude radiators not described in an application for certification.
    (2) This paragraph (g)(2) applies for engine-related components 
that meet the criteria of paragraph (g)(1) of this section, but that 
are part of the laboratory setup or are used for other engines. Such 
components are considered to be part of the test engine for 
preconditioning, but not for engine stabilization. For example, if you 
test your engines using the same laboratory exhaust tubing for all 
tests, there would be no restrictions on the number of test hours that 
could be accumulated with the tubing, but it would need to be 
preconditioned separately for each engine.

0
287. Section 1065.410 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.410  Maintenance limits for stabilized test engines.

* * * * *
    (c) If you inspect an engine, keep a record of the inspection and 
update your application to document any changes that result. You may 
use any kind of equipment, instrument, or tool to identify bad engine 
components or perform maintenance if it is available at dealerships and 
other service outlets.
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
288. Section 1065.501 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.501  Overview.

    (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure engine 
emissions over a specified duty cycle. Refer to subpart J of this part 
for field test procedures that describe how to measure emissions during 
in-use engine operation. This section describes how to:
    (1) Map your engine, if applicable, by recording specified speed 
and torque data, as measured from the engine's primary output shaft.
    (2) Transform normalized duty cycles into reference duty cycles for 
your engine by using an engine map.
    (3) Prepare your engine, equipment, and measurement instruments for 
an emission test.
    (4) Perform pre-test procedures to verify proper operation of 
certain equipment and analyzers.
    (5) Record pre-test data.
    (6) Start or restart the engine and sampling systems.
    (7) Sample emissions throughout the duty cycle.
    (8) Record post-test data.
    (9) Perform post-test procedures to verify proper operation of 
certain equipment and analyzers.
    (10) Weigh PM samples.
    (b) 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 also allows you to 
ensure that a regeneration event does not occur during an emission 
test.
    (c) An emission test generally consists of measuring emissions and 
other parameters while an engine follows one or more duty cycles that 
are specified in the standard-setting part. There are two general types 
of duty cycles:
    (1) Transient cycles. Transient duty cycles are typically specified 
in the standard-setting part as a second-by-second sequence of speed 
commands and normalized torque (or power) commands. Operate an engine 
over a transient cycle such that the speed and torque of the engine's 
primary output shaft follows the target values. Proportionally sample 
emissions and other parameters and use the calculations in subpart G of 
this part to calculate emissions. Start a transient test according to 
the standard-setting part, as follows:
    (i) A cold-start transient cycle where you start to measure 
emissions just before starting an engine that has not been warmed up.
    (ii) A hot-start transient cycle where you start to measure 
emissions just before starting a warmed-up engine.
    (iii) A hot running transient cycle where you start to measure 
emissions after an engine is started, warmed up, and running.
    (2) Steady-state cycles. Steady-state duty cycles are typically 
specified in the standard-setting part as a list of discrete operating 
points (modes or notches), where each operating point has one value of 
a normalized speed command and one value of a normalized torque (or 
power) command. Ramped-modal cycles for steady-state testing also list 
test times for each mode and transition times between modes where speed 
and torque are linearly ramped between modes, even for cycles with % 
power. Start a steady-state cycle as a hot running test, where you 
start to measure emissions after an engine is started, warmed up and 
running. Run a steady-state duty cycle as a discrete-mode cycle or a 
ramped-modal cycle, as follows:
    (i) Discrete-mode cycles. Before emission sampling, stabilize an 
engine at the first discrete mode of the duty cycle specified in the 
standard-setting part. Sample emissions and other parameters for that 
mode in the same manner as a transient cycle, with the exception that 
reference speed and torque values are constant. Record data for that 
mode, transition to the next mode, and then stabilize the engine at the 
next mode. Continue to sample each mode discretely as a separate test 
interval and calculate composite brake-specific emission results 
according to Sec.  1065.650(g)(2).
    (A) Use good engineering judgment to determine the time required to 
stabilize the engine. You may make this determination before starting 
the test based on prior experience, or you may make this determination 
in real time based an automated stability criteria. If needed, you may 
continue to operate the engine after reaching stability to get 
laboratory equipment ready for sampling.
    (B) Collect PM on separate PM sample media for each mode.
    (C) The minimum sample time is 60 seconds. We recommend that you 
sample both gaseous and PM emissions over the same test interval. If 
you sample gaseous and PM emissions over different test intervals, 
there must be no change in engine operation between the two test 
intervals. These two test intervals may completely or partially 
overlap, they may run consecutively, or they may be separated in time.
    (ii) Ramped-modal cycles. Perform ramped-modal cycles similar to 
the way you would perform transient cycles, except that ramped-modal 
cycles involve mostly steady-state engine operation. Generate a ramped-
modal duty cycle as a sequence of second-by-second (1 Hz) reference 
speed and torque points. Run the ramped-modal duty cycle in the same 
manner as a transient cycle and use the 1 Hz reference speed and torque 
values to validate the cycle, even for cycles with % power. 
Proportionally sample emissions and other parameters during the cycle 
and use the calculations in subpart G of this part to calculate 
emissions.
    (d) Other subparts in this part identify how to select and prepare 
an engine for testing (subpart E), how to perform the required engine 
service accumulation (subpart E), and how to calculate emission results 
(subpart G).
    (e) Subpart J of this part describes how to perform field testing.

0
289. Section 1065.510 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  1065.510  Engine mapping.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

[[Page 23774]]

    (5) * * *
    (ii) For any constant-speed engine, you may perform an engine map 
with a continuous torque sweep by continuing to record the mean 
feedback speed and torque at 1 Hz or more frequently. Use the 
dynamometer to increase torque. Increase the reference torque at a 
constant rate from no-load to the endpoint torque as defined in 
paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section. You may continue mapping at higher 
torque setpoints. Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, 
target a torque sweep rate equal to the manufacturer-declared test 
torque (or a torque derived from your published power level if the 
declared test torque is not known) divided by 180 seconds. Stop 
recording after you complete the sweep. Verify that the average torque 
sweep rate over the entire map is within 7% of the target 
torque sweep rate. Use linear interpolation to determine intermediate 
values from this series of mean feedback speed and torque values. Use 
this series of mean feedback speeds and torques to generate the power 
map as described in paragraph (e) of this section.
* * * * *

0
290. Section 1065.512 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  1065.512  Duty cycle generation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Ramped-modal cycles. For ramped-modal cycles, generate 
reference speed and torque values at 1 Hz and use this sequence of 
points to run the cycle and validate it in the same manner as with a 
transient cycle. During the transition between modes, linearly ramp the 
denormalized reference speed and torque values between modes to 
generate reference points at 1 Hz. Do not linearly ramp the normalized 
reference torque values between modes and then denormalize them. Do not 
linearly ramp normalized or denormalized reference power points. These 
cases will produce nonlinear torque ramps in the denormalized reference 
torques. If the speed and torque ramp runs through a point above the 
engine's torque curve, continue to command the reference torques and 
allow the operator demand to go to maximum. Note that you may omit 
power and either torque or speed points from the cycle-validation 
criteria under these conditions as specified in Sec.  1065.514.
* * * * *

0
291. A new Sec.  1065.516 is added to subpart F to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.516  Sample system decontamination and preconditioning.

    This section describes how to manage the impact of sampling system 
contamination on emission measurements. Use good engineering judgment 
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. Note that 
although this section focuses on avoiding excessive contamination of 
sampling systems, you must also use good engineering judgment to avoid 
loss of sample to a sampling system that is too clean. The goal of 
decontamination is not to perfectly clean the sampling system, but 
rather to achieve equilibrium between the sampling system and the 
exhaust so emission components are neither lost to nor entrained from 
the sampling 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 concentration expected at the HC standard.
    (ii) The PM emission level exceeds 5% of the level expected at the 
standard and exceeds 20 [mu]g on a 47 mm PTFE membrane filter.
    (b) To precondition or decontaminate sampling systems, use the 
following recommended procedure or select a different procedure using 
good engineering judgment:
    (1) Start the engine and use good engineering judgment to operate 
it at a condition that generates high exhaust temperatures at the 
sample probe inlet.
    (2) Operate any dilution systems at their expected flow rates. 
Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution systems.
    (3) Operate any PM sampling systems at their expected flow rates.
    (4) Sample PM for at least 10 min using any sample media. You may 
change sample media at any time during this process and you may discard 
them without weighing them.
    (5) You may purge any gaseous sampling systems that do not require 
decontamination during this procedure.
    (6) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle 
equipment or analyzers during this procedure.
    (c) If your sampling system is still contaminated following the 
procedures specified in paragraph (b) of this section, you may use more 
aggressive procedures to decontaminate the sampling system, as long as 
the decontamination does not cause the sampling system to be cleaner 
than an equilibrium condition such that artificially low emission 
measurements may result.

0
292. A new Sec.  1065.518 is added to subpart F to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.518  Engine preconditioning.

    (a) This section applies for engines where measured emissions are 
affected by prior operation, such as with a diesel engine that relies 
on urea-based selective catalytic reduction. Note that Sec.  
1065.520(e) allows you to run practice duty cycles before the emission 
test; this section recommends how to do this for the purpose of 
preconditioning the engine. 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 and emission controls over the duty 
cycle and to reduce bias.
    (c) This paragraph (c) specifies the engine preconditioning 
procedures for different types of duty cycles. You must identify the 
amount of preconditioning before starting to precondition. You must run 
the predefined amount of preconditioning. You may measure emissions 
during preconditioning. You may not abort an emission test sequence 
based on emissions measured during preconditioning. For confirmatory 
testing, you may ask us to run more preconditioning cycles than we 
specify in this paragraph (c); we will agree to this only if you show 
that additional preconditioning cycles are required to meet the intent 
of paragraph (b) of this section, for example, due to the effect of DPF 
regeneration on NH3 storage in the SCR catalyst. Perform 
preconditioning as follows, noting that the specific cycles for 
preconditioning are the same ones that apply for emission testing:

[[Page 23775]]

    (1) Cold-start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running 
at least one hot-start transient cycle. We will precondition your 
engine by running two hot-start transient cycles. Immediately after 
completing each preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and 
complete the engine-off soak period. Immediately after completing the 
last preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and begin the cold 
soak as described in Sec.  1065.530(a)(1).
    (2) Hot-start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running 
at least one hot-start transient cycle. We will precondition your 
engine by running two hot-start transient cycles. Immediately after 
completing each preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine, then start 
the next cycle (including the emission test) as soon as practical. For 
any repeat cycles, start the next cycle within 60 seconds after 
completing the last preconditioning cycle (this is optional for 
manufacturer testing).
    (3) Hot-running transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running 
at least one hot-running transient cycle. We will precondition your 
engine by running two hot-running transient cycles. Do not shut down 
the engine between cycles. Immediately after completing each 
preconditioning cycle, start the next cycle (including the emission 
test) as soon as practical. For any repeat cycles, start the next cycle 
within 60 seconds after completing the last preconditioning cycle (this 
is optional for manufacturer testing). See Sec.  1065.530(a)(1)(iii) 
for additional instructions if the cycle begins and ends under 
different operating conditions.
    (4) Discrete-mode cycle for steady-state testing. Precondition the 
engine at the same operating condition as the next test mode, unless 
the standard-setting part specifies otherwise. We will precondition 
your engine by running it for at least five minutes before sampling.
    (5) Ramped-modal cycle for steady-state testing. Precondition the 
engine by running at least the second half of the ramped-modal cycle, 
based on the number of test modes. For example, for the five-mode cycle 
specified in 40 CFR 1039.505(b)(1), the second half of the cycle 
consists of modes three through five. We will precondition your engine 
by running one complete ramped-modal cycle. Do not shut down the engine 
between cycles. Immediately after completing each preconditioning 
cycle, start the next cycle (including the emission test) as soon as 
practical. For any repeat cycles, start the next cycle within 60 
seconds after completing the last preconditioning cycle. See Sec.  
1065.530(a)(1)(iii) for additional instructions if the cycle begins and 
ends under different operating conditions.
    (d) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle 
equipment or analyzers during engine preconditioning.

0
293. Section 1065.520 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.520  Pre-test verification procedures and pre-test data 
collection.

    (a) For tests in which you measure PM emissions, follow the 
procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing according to 
Sec.  1065.590.
    (b) 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 (b). 
For purposes of this paragraph (b), ``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 of (20 to 30) [deg]C. See Sec.  1065.530(j) 
for circumstances under which ambient temperatures must remain within 
this range during the test.
    (2) Atmospheric pressure of (80.000 to 103.325) kPa and within 
5 kPa of the value recorded at the time of the last engine 
map. You are not required to verify atmospheric pressure prior to a hot 
start test interval for testing that also includes a cold start.
    (3) Dilution air conditions as specified in Sec.  1065.140, except 
in cases where you preheat your CVS before a cold start test. We 
recommend verifying dilution air conditions just prior to the start of 
each test interval.
    (c) You may test engines at any intake-air humidity, and we may 
test engines at any intake-air humidity.
    (d) Verify that auxiliary-work inputs and outputs are configured as 
they were during engine mapping, as described in Sec.  1065.510(a).
    (e) You may perform a final calibration of the speed, torque, and 
proportional-flow control systems, which may include performing 
practice duty cycles (or portions of duty cycles). This may be done in 
conjunction with the preconditioning in Sec.  1065.518.
    (f) Verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination in 
the exhaust and background HC sampling systems within 8 hours before 
the start of the first test interval of each duty-cycle sequence for 
laboratory tests. You may verify the contamination of a background HC 
sampling system by reading the last bag fill and purge using zero gas. 
For any NMHC measurement system that involves separately measuring 
CH4 and subtracting it from a THC measurement or for any 
CH4 measurement system that uses an NMC, verify the amount 
of THC contamination using only the THC analyzer response. There is no 
need to operate any separate CH4 analyzer for this 
verification; however, you may measure and correct for THC 
contamination in the CH4 sample path for the cases where 
NMHC is determined by subtracting CH4 from THC or, where 
CH4 is determined, using an NMC as configured in Sec.  
1065.365(d), (e), and (f); and using the calculations in Sec.  
1065.660(b)(2). Perform this verification as follows:
    (1) Select the HC analyzer range for measuring the flow-weighted 
mean concentration expected at the HC standard.
    (2) Zero the HC analyzer at the analyzer zero or sample port. Note 
that FID zero and span balance gases may be any combination of purified 
air or purified nitrogen that meets the specifications of Sec.  
1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer zero and span gases that contain 
approximately the flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 
expected during testing.
    (3) Span the HC analyzer using span gas introduced at the analyzer 
span or sample port. Span on a carbon number basis of one 
(C1). For example, if you use a C3H8 
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with 
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
    (4) Overflow zero gas at the HC probe inlet or into a tee near the 
probe outlet.
    (5) Measure the THC concentration in the sampling and background 
systems as follows:
    (i) For continuous sampling, record the mean THC concentration as 
overflow zero gas flows.
    (ii) For batch sampling, fill the sample medium (e.g., bag) and 
record its mean THC concentration.
    (iii) For the background system, record the mean THC concentration 
of the last fill and purge.
    (6) Record this value as the initial THC concentration, 
xTHC[THC-FID]init, and use it to correct measured values as 
described in Sec.  1065.660.
    (7) You may correct the measured initial THC concentration for 
drift as follows:
    (i) For batch and continuous HC analyzers, after determining the 
initial THC concentration, flow zero gas to the analyzer zero or sample 
port. When the analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer 
value.
    (ii) Flow span gas to the analyzer span or sample port. When the 
analyzer reading is stable, record the mean analyzer value.
    (iii) Use mean analyzer values from paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), 
(f)(7)(i), and

[[Page 23776]]

(f)(7)(ii) of this section to correct the initial THC concentration 
recorded in paragraph (f)(6) of this section for drift, as described in 
Sec.  1065.550.
    (8) If any of the xTHC[THC-FID]init values exceed the 
greatest of the following values, determine the source of the 
contamination and take corrective action, such as purging the system 
during an additional preconditioning cycle or replacing contaminated 
portions:
    (i) 2% of the flow-weighted mean concentration expected at the HC 
(THC or NMHC) standard.
    (ii) 2% of the flow-weighted mean concentration of HC (THC or NMHC) 
measured during testing.
    (iii) 2 [mu]mol/mol.
    (9) If corrective action does not resolve the deficiency, you may 
request to use the contaminated system as an alternate procedure under 
Sec.  1065.10.

0
294. Section 1065.526 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.526  Repeating of void modes or test intervals.

    (a) Test modes and test intervals can be voided because of 
instrument malfunction, engine stalling, emissions exceeding instrument 
ranges, and other unexpected deviations from the specified procedures. 
This section specifies circumstances for which a test mode or test 
interval can be repeated without repeating the entire test.
    (b) This section is intended to result in replicate test modes and 
test intervals that are identical to what would have occurred if the 
cause of the voiding had not occurred. It does not allow you to repeat 
test modes or test intervals in any circumstances that would be 
inconsistent with good engineering judgment. For example, the 
procedures specified here for repeating a mode or interval may not 
apply for certain engines that include hybrid energy storage features 
or emission controls that involve physical or chemical storage of 
pollutants. This section applies for circumstances in which emission 
concentrations exceed the analyzer range only if it is due to operator 
error or analyzer malfunction. It does not apply for circumstances in 
which the emission concentrations exceed the range because they were 
higher than expected.
    (c) If one of the modes of a discrete-mode duty cycle is voided 
while running the duty cycle as provided in this section, you may void 
the results for that individual mode and continue the duty cycle as 
follows:
    (1) If the engine has stalled or been shut down, restart the 
engine.
    (2) Use good engineering judgment to restart the duty cycle using 
the appropriate steps in Sec.  1065.530(b).
    (3) Stabilize the engine by operating it at the mode at which the 
duty cycle was interrupted and continue with the duty cycle as 
specified in the standard-setting part.
    (d) If an individual mode of a discrete-mode duty cycle sequence is 
voided after running the full duty cycle, you may void results for that 
mode and repeat testing for that mode as follows:
    (1) Use good engineering judgment to restart the test sequence 
using the appropriate steps in Sec.  1065.530(b).
    (2) Stabilize the engine by operating it at that mode.
    (3) Sample emissions over an appropriate test interval.
    (4) If you sampled gaseous and PM emissions over separate test 
intervals for a voided mode, you must void both test intervals and 
repeat sampling of both gaseous and PM emissions for that mode.
    (e) If a transient or ramped-modal cycle test interval is voided as 
provided in this section, you may repeat the test interval as follows:
    (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.
    (2) Complete the remainder of the test according to the provisions 
in this subpart.
    (f) Keep records from the voided test mode or test interval in the 
same manner as required for unvoided tests.

0
295. Section 1065.530 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.530  Emission test sequence.

    (a) Time the start of testing as follows:
    (1) Perform one of the following if you precondition the engine as 
described in Sec.  1065.518:
    (i) For cold-start duty cycles, shut down the engine. Unless the 
standard-setting part specifies that you may only perform a natural 
engine cooldown, you may perform a forced engine cooldown. Use good 
engineering judgment to set up systems to send cooling air across the 
engine, to send cool oil through the engine lubrication system, to 
remove heat from coolant through the engine cooling system, and to 
remove heat from any exhaust aftertreatment systems. In the case of a 
forced aftertreatment cooldown, good engineering judgment would 
indicate that you not start flowing cooling air until the 
aftertreatment system has cooled below its catalytic activation 
temperature. For platinum-group metal catalysts, this temperature is 
about 200 [deg]C. Once the aftertreatment system has naturally cooled 
below its catalytic activation temperature, good engineering judgment 
would indicate that you use clean air with a temperature of at least 15 
[deg]C, and direct the air through the aftertreatment system in the 
normal direction of exhaust flow. Do not use any cooling procedure that 
results in unrepresentative emissions (see Sec.  1065.10(c)(1)). You 
may start a cold-start duty cycle when the temperatures of an engine's 
lubricant, coolant, and aftertreatment systems are all between (20 and 
30) [deg]C.
    (ii) For hot-start emission measurements, shut down the engine 
immediately after completing the last preconditioning cycle. For any 
repeat cycles, start the hot-start transient emission test within 60 
seconds after completing the last preconditioning cycle (this is 
optional for manufacturer testing).
    (iii) For testing that involves hot-stabilized emission 
measurements, such as any steady-state testing with a ramped-modal 
cycle, start the hot-stabilized emission test within 60 seconds after 
completing the last preconditioning cycle (the time between cycles is 
optional for manufacturer testing). If the hot-stabilized cycle begins 
and ends with different operating conditions, add a linear transition 
period of 20 seconds between hot-stabilized cycles where you linearly 
ramp the (denormalized) reference speed and torque values over the 
transition period. See Sec.  1065.501(c)(2)(i) for discrete-mode 
cycles.
    (2) If you do not precondition the engine as described in Sec.  
1065.518, perform one of the following:
    (i) For cold-start duty cycles, prepare the engine according to 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
    (ii) For hot-start duty cycles, first operate the engine at any 
speed above peak-torque speed and at (65 to 85) % of maximum mapped 
power until either the engine coolant, block, or head absolute 
temperature is within 2% of its mean value for at least 2 
min or until the engine thermostat controls engine temperature. Shut 
down the engine. Start the duty cycle within 20 min of engine shutdown.
    (iii) For testing that involves hot-stabilized emission 
measurements, bring the engine either to warm idle or the first 
operating point of the duty cycle.

[[Page 23777]]

Start the test within 10 min of achieving temperature stability. 
Determine temperature stability either as the point at which the engine 
coolant, block, or head absolute temperature is within 2% 
of its mean value for at least 2 min, or as the point at which the 
engine thermostat controls engine temperature.
    (b) Take the following steps before emission sampling begins:
    (1) For batch sampling, connect clean storage media, such as 
evacuated bags or tare-weighed filters.
    (2) Start all measurement instruments according to the instrument 
manufacturer's instructions and using good engineering judgment.
    (3) Start dilution systems, sample pumps, cooling fans, and the 
data-collection system.
    (4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat exchangers in the sampling system to 
within their operating temperature tolerances for a test.
    (5) Allow heated or cooled components such as sample lines, 
filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize at their operating 
temperatures.
    (6) Verify that there are no significant vacuum-side leaks 
according to Sec.  1065.345.
    (7) Adjust the sample flow rates to desired levels, using bypass 
flow, if desired.
    (8) Zero or re-zero any electronic integrating devices, before the 
start of any test interval.
    (9) Select gas analyzer ranges. You may automatically or manually 
switch gas analyzer ranges during a test only if switching is performed 
by changing the span over which the digital resolution of the 
instrument is applied. During a test you may not switch the gains of an 
analyzer's analog operational amplifier(s).
    (10) Zero and span all continuous analyzers using NIST-traceable 
gases that meet the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Span FID 
analyzers on a carbon number basis of one (1), C1. For 
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 
concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 
600 [mu]mol/mol. Span FID analyzers consistent with the determination 
of their respective response factors, RF, and penetration fractions, 
PF, according to Sec.  1065.365.
    (11) We recommend that you verify gas analyzer responses after 
zeroing and spanning by sampling a calibration gas that has a 
concentration near one-half of the span gas concentration. Based on the 
results and good engineering judgment, you may decide whether or not to 
re-zero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas analyzer before starting a 
test.
    (12) Drain any accumulated condensate from the intake air system 
before starting a duty cycle, as described in Sec.  1065.125(e)(1). If 
engine and aftertreatment preconditioning cycles are run before the 
duty cycle, treat the preconditioning cycles and any associated soak 
period as part of the duty cycle for the purpose of opening drains and 
draining condensate. Note that you must close any intake air condensate 
drains that are not representative of those normally open during in-use 
operation.
    (c) Start and run each test interval as described in this paragraph 
(c). The procedure varies depending on whether the test interval is 
part of a discrete-mode cycle, and whether the test interval includes 
engine starting. Note that the standard-setting part may apply 
different requirements for running test intervals. For example, 40 CFR 
part 1033 specifies a different way to perform discrete-mode testing.
    (1) For steady-state discrete-mode duty cycles, start the duty 
cycle with the engine warmed-up and running as described in Sec.  
1065.501(c)(2)(i). Run each mode in the sequence specified in the 
standard-setting part. This will require controlling engine speed, 
engine load, or other operator demand settings as specified in the 
standard-setting part. Simultaneously start any electronic integrating 
devices, continuous data recording, and batch sampling. We recommend 
that you stabilize the engine for at least 5 minutes for each mode. 
Once sampling begins, sample continuously for at least 1 minute. Note 
that longer sample times may be needed for accurately measuring very 
low emission levels.
    (2) For transient and steady-state ramped-modal duty cycles that do 
not include engine starting, start the test interval with the engine 
running as soon as practical after completing engine preconditioning. 
Simultaneously start any electronic integrating devices, continuous 
data recording, batch sampling, and execution of the duty cycle.
    (3) If engine starting is part of the test interval, simultaneously 
start any electronic integrating devices, continuous data recording, 
and batch sampling before attempting to start the engine. Initiate the 
sequence of points in the duty cycle when the engine starts.
    (4) For batch sampling systems, you may advance or delay the start 
and end of sampling at the beginning and end of the test interval to 
improve the accuracy of the batch sample, consistent with good 
engineering judgment.
* * * * *
0
296. Section 1065.545 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.545  Verification of proportional flow control for batch 
sampling.

    For any proportional batch sample such as a bag or PM filter, 
demonstrate that proportional sampling was maintained using one of the 
following, noting that you may omit up to 5% of the total number of 
data points as outliers:
    (a) For any pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow 
rates, where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw 
exhaust sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or 
their 1 Hz means with the statistical calculations in Sec.  1065.602. 
Determine the standard error of the estimate, SEE, of the sample flow 
rate versus the total flow rate. For each test interval, demonstrate 
that SEE was less than or equal to 3.5% of the mean sample flow rate.
    (b) For any pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow 
rates, where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw 
exhaust sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or 
their 1 Hz means to demonstrate that each flow rate was constant within 
2.5% of its respective mean or target flow rate. You may 
use the following options instead of recording the respective flow rate 
of each type of meter:
    (1) Critical-flow venturi option. For critical-flow venturis, you 
may use recorded venturi-inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. 
Demonstrate that the flow density at the venturi inlet was constant 
within 2.5% of the mean or target density over each test 
interval. For a CVS critical-flow venturi, you may demonstrate this by 
showing that the absolute temperature at the venturi inlet was constant 
within 4% of the mean or target absolute temperature over 
each test interval.
    (2) Positive-displacement pump option. You may use recorded pump-
inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. Demonstrate that the flow density 
at the pump inlet was constant within 2.5% of the mean or 
target density over each test interval. For a CVS pump, you may 
demonstrate this by showing that the absolute temperature at the pump 
inlet was constant within 2% of the mean or target absolute 
temperature over each test interval.
    (c) Using good engineering judgment, demonstrate with an 
engineering analysis that the proportional-flow control system 
inherently ensures proportional sampling under all circumstances 
expected during testing. For example, you might use CFVs for

[[Page 23778]]

both sample flow and total dilute exhaust (CVS) flow and demonstrate 
that they always have the same inlet pressures and temperatures and 
that they always operate under critical-flow conditions.

0
297. Section 1065.546 is amended by revising the section heading and 
the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.546  Verification of minimum dilution ratio for PM batch 
sampling.

    Use continuous flows and/or tracer gas concentrations for transient 
and ramped-modal cycles to verify the minimum dilution ratios for PM 
batch sampling as specified in Sec.  1065.140(e)(2) over the test 
interval. You may use mode-average values instead of continuous 
measurements for discrete mode steady-state duty cycles. Determine the 
minimum primary and minimum overall dilution ratios using one of the 
following methods (you may use a different method for each stage of 
dilution):
* * * * *

0
298. Section 1065.550 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.550  Gas analyzer range verification and drift verification.

    (a) Range verification. If an analyzer operated above 100% of its 
range at any time during the test, perform the following steps:
    (1) For batch sampling, re-analyze the sample using the lowest 
analyzer range that results in a maximum instrument response below 
100%. Report the result from the lowest range from which the analyzer 
operates below 100% of its range.
    (2) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next 
higher analyzer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100% of its 
range, repeat the test using the next higher range. Continue to repeat 
the test until the analyzer always operates at less than 100% of its 
range.
    (b) Drift verification. Gas analyzer drift verification is required 
for all gaseous exhaust constituents for which an emission standard 
applies. It is also required for CO2 even if there is no 
CO2 emission standard. It is not required for other gaseous 
exhaust constituents for which only a reporting requirement applies 
(such as CH4 and N2O).
    (1) Verify drift using one of the following methods:
    (i) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the mass of 
a single component, perform drift verification based on the regulated 
constituent. For example, when NOX mass is determined with a 
dry sample measured with a CLD and the removed water is corrected based 
on measured CO2, CO, THC, and NOX concentrations, 
you must verify the calculated NOX value.
    (ii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the masses 
of multiple subcomponents, perform the drift verification based on 
either the regulated constituent or all the mass subcomponents. For 
example, when NOX is measured with separate NO and 
NO2 analyzers, you must verify either the NOX 
value or both the NO and NO2 values.
    (iii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the 
concentrations of multiple gaseous emission subcomponents prior to 
performing mass calculations, perform drift verification on the 
regulated constituent. You may not verify the concentration 
subcomponents (e.g., THC and CH4 for NMHC) separately. For 
example, for NMHC measurements, perform drift verification on NMHC; do 
not verify THC and CH4 separately.
    (2) Drift verification requires two sets of emission calculations. 
For each set of calculations, include all the constituents in the drift 
verification. Calculate one set using the data before drift correction 
and calculate the other set after correcting all the data for drift 
according to Sec.  1065.672. Note that for purposes of drift 
verification, you must leave unaltered any negative emission results 
over a given test interval (i.e., do not set them to zero). These 
unaltered results are used when verifying either test interval results 
or composite brake-specific emissions over the entire duty cycle for 
drift. For each constituent to be verified, both sets of calculations 
must include the following:
    (i) Calculated mass (or mass rate) emission values over each test 
interval.
    (ii) If you are verifying each test interval based on brake-
specific values, calculate brake-specific emission values over each 
test interval.
    (iii) If you are verifying over the entire duty cycle, calculate 
composite brake-specific emission values.
    (3) The duty cycle is verified for drift if you satisfy the 
following criteria:
    (i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust constituent, you must 
satisfy one of the following:
    (A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference 
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission 
values of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of 
the uncorrected value or the applicable emissions standard, whichever 
is greater. Alternatively, the difference between the uncorrected and 
the corrected emission mass (or mass rate) values of the regulated 
constituent must be within 4% of the uncorrected value or 
the composite work (or power) multiplied by the applicable emissions 
standard, whichever is greater. For purposes of verifying each test 
interval, you may use either the reference or actual composite work (or 
power).
    (B) For each test interval of the duty cycle and for each mass 
subcomponent of the regulated constituent, the difference between the 
uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific emission values must be 
within 4% of the uncorrected value. Alternatively, the 
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected emissions mass (or 
mass rate) values must be within 4% of the uncorrected 
value.
    (C) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the 
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific emission values 
of the regulated constituent must be within 4% of the 
uncorrected value or applicable emission standard, whichever is 
greater.
    (D) For the entire duty cycle and for each subcomponent of the 
regulated constituent, the difference between the uncorrected and the 
corrected composite brake-specific emission values must be within 
4% of the uncorrected value.
    (ii) Where no emission standard applies for CO2, you 
must satisfy one of the following:
    (A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference 
between the uncorrected and the corrected brake-specific CO2 
values must be within 4% of the uncorrected value; or the 
difference between the uncorrected and the corrected CO2 
mass (or mass rate) values must be within 4% of the 
uncorrected value.
    (B) For the entire duty cycle, the difference between the 
uncorrected and the corrected composite brake-specific CO2 
values must be within 4% of the uncorrected value.
    (4) If the test is not verified for drift as described in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section, you may consider the test results for the duty 
cycle to be valid only if, using good engineering judgment, the 
observed drift does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance 
with the applicable emission standards. For example, if the drift-
corrected value is less than the standard by at least two times the 
absolute difference between the uncorrected and corrected values, you 
may consider the data to be verified for demonstrating compliance with 
the applicable standard.

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
299. Section 1065.601 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 23779]]

Sec.  1065.601  Overview.

* * * * *
    (b) You may use data from multiple systems to calculate test 
results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering 
judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch 
sample, such as multiple weighings of a PM filter or multiple readings 
from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple 
measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from 
multiple emission tests to report emissions.
    (1) We allow weighted means where appropriate.
    (2) You may discard statistical outliers, but you must report all 
results.
    (3) For emission measurements related to durability testing, we may 
allow you to exclude certain test points other than statistical 
outliers relative to compliance with emission standards, consistent 
with good engineering judgment and normal measurement variability; 
however, you must include these results when calculating the 
deterioration factor. This would allow you to use durability data from 
an engine that has an intermediate test result above the standard that 
cannot be discarded as a statistical outlier, as long as good 
engineering judgment indicates that the test result does not represent 
the engine's actual emission level. Note that good engineering judgment 
would preclude you from excluding endpoints. Also, if normal 
measurement variability causes emission results below zero, include the 
negative result in calculating the deterioration factor to avoid an 
upward bias. These provisions related to durability testing are 
intended to address very stringent standards where measurement 
variability is large relative to the emission standard.
* * * * *

0
300. Section 1065.602 is amended by revising paragraphs (f), (j), (k), 
and (l)(1)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.602  Statistics.

* * * * *
    (f) t-test. Determine if your data passes a t-test by using the 
following equations and tables:
    (1) For an unpaired t-test, calculate the t statistic and its 
number of degrees of freedom, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.010

    (2) For a paired t-test, calculate the t statistic and its number 
of degrees of freedom, as follows, noting that the [egr]i are the 
errors (e.g., differences) between each pair of yrefi and 
yi:

[[Page 23780]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.011

[[Page 23781]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.012

 Table 1 of Sec.   1065.602--Critical t Values Versus Number of Degrees
                            of Freedom, v \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Confidence
                     [nu]                      -------------------------
                                                    90%          95%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................        6.314       12.706
2.............................................        2.920        4.303
3.............................................        2.353        3.182
4.............................................        2.132        2.776
5.............................................        2.015        2.571
6.............................................        1.943        2.447
7.............................................        1.895        2.365
8.............................................        1.860        2.306
9.............................................        1.833        2.262
10............................................        1.812        2.228
11............................................        1.796        2.201
12............................................        1.782        2.179
13............................................        1.771        2.160
14............................................        1.761        2.145
15............................................        1.753        2.131
16............................................        1.746        2.120
18............................................        1.734        2.101
20............................................        1.725        2.086
22............................................        1.717        2.074
24............................................        1.711        2.064
26............................................        1.706        2.056
28............................................        1.701        2.048
30............................................        1.697        2.042
35............................................        1.690        2.030
40............................................        1.684        2.021
50............................................        1.676        2.009
70............................................        1.667        1.994
100...........................................        1.660        1.984
1000+.........................................        1.645        1.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Use linear interpolation to establish values not shown here.

* * * * *
    (j) Standard estimate of error. Calculate a standard estimate of 
error, SEE, as follows:

[[Page 23782]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.013

[[Page 23783]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.014

    (l) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Based on your engine design, estimate maximum power, 
Pmax, the design speed at maximum power, fnmax, 
the design maximum intake manifold boost pressure, pinmax, 
and temperature, Tinmax. Also, estimate a mean fraction of 
power that is lost due to friction and pumping, pfrict. Use 
this information along with the engine displacement volume, 
Vdisp, an approximate volumetric efficiency, 
[eta]V, and the number of engine strokes per power stroke 
(two-stroke or four-stroke), Nstroke, to estimate the 
maximum raw exhaust molar flow rate, nexhmax.
* * * * *

0
301. Section 1065.610 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 
introductory text, (a)(1), (c)(3), and (d)(3)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.610  Duty cycle generation.

* * * * *
    (a) Maximum test speed, fntest. This section generally 
applies to duty cycles for variable-speed engines. For constant-speed 
engines subject to duty cycles that specify normalized speed commands, 
use the no-load governed speed as the measured fntest. This 
is the highest engine speed where an engine outputs zero torque. For 
variable-speed engines, determine fntest as follows:
    (1) Develop a measured value for fntest as follows:
    (i) Determine maximum power, Pmax, from the engine map 
generated according to Sec.  1065.510 and calculate the value for power 
equal to 98% of Pmax.
    (ii) Determine the lowest and highest engine speeds corresponding 
to 98% of Pmax, using linear interpolation as appropriate.
    (iii) Determine the engine speed corresponding to maximum power, 
fnPmax, by calculating the average of the two speed values 
from paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) Transform the map into a normalized power-versus-speed map by 
dividing power terms by Pmax and dividing speed terms by 
fnPmax. Use the following equation to calculate a quantity 
representing the sum of squares from the normalized map:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.015

    (v) Determine the maximum value for the sum of the squares from the 
map and multiply that value by 0.98.

[[Page 23784]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.016

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Intermediate speed. Based on the map, determine maximum torque, 
Tmax, and the corresponding speed, fnTmax, 
calculated as the average of the lowest and highest speeds at which 
torque is equal to 98% of Tmax. Use linear interpolation 
between points to determine the speeds where torque is equal to 98% of 
Tmax. Identify your reference intermediate speed as one of 
the following values:
    (i) fnTmax if it is between (60 and 75) % of maximum 
test speed.
    (ii) 60% of maximum test speed if fnTmax is less than 
60% of maximum test speed.
    (iii) 75% of maximum test speed if fnTmax is greater 
than 75% of maximum test speed.
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) If the cycle begins with a set of contiguous idle points 
(zero-percent speed, and zero-percent torque), leave the reference 
torques set to zero for this initial contiguous idle segment. This is 
to represent free idle operation with the transmission in neutral or 
park at the start of the transient duty cycle, after the engine is 
started. If the initial idle segment is longer than 24 seconds, change 
the reference torques for the remaining idle points in the initial 
contiguous idle segment to CITT (i.e., change idle points corresponding 
to 25 seconds to the end of the initial idle segment to CITT). This is 
to represent shifting the transmission to drive.
* * * * *

0
302. Section 1065.630 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 23785]]

Sec.  1065.630  Local acceleration of gravity.

    (a) The acceleration of Earth's gravity, ag, varies 
depending on the test location. Determine ag at your 
location by entering latitude, longitude, and elevation data into the 
U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's surface 
gravity prediction Web site at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/grav_pdx.prl.
    (b) If the Web site specified in paragraph (a) of this section is 
unavailable, you may calculate ag for your latitude as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.143

Where:

[thgr] = Degrees north or south latitude.
Example:
[thgr] = 45[deg]
ag = 9.7803267715 [middot] (1 + 5.2790414 [middot] 
10-\3\[middot]sin\2\ (45) + 2.32718 [middot] 
10-\5\[middot]sin\4\ (45) + 1.262 [middot] 
10-\7\[middot]sin\6\ (45) + 7 [middot] 
10-\10\[middot]sin\8\ (45)
ag = 9.8061992026 m/s \2\

0
303. Section 1065.640 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.640  Flow meter calibration calculations.

    This section describes the calculations for calibrating various 
flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter using these calculations, 
use the calculations described in Sec.  1065.642 to calculate flow 
during an emission test. Paragraph (a) of this section first describes 
how to convert reference flow meter outputs for use in the calibration 
equations, which are presented on a molar basis. The remaining 
paragraphs describe the calibration calculations that are specific to 
certain types of flow meters.
    (a) Reference meter conversions. The calibration equations in this 
section use molar flow rate, nref, as a reference quantity. 
If your reference meter outputs a flow rate in a different quantity, 
such as standard volume rate, Vstdref, actual volume rate, 
Vactref, or mass rate, mref, convert your 
reference meter output to a molar flow rate using the following 
equations, noting that while values for volume rate, mass rate, 
pressure, temperature, and molar mass may change during an emission 
test, you should ensure that they are as constant as practical for each 
individual set point during a flow meter calibration:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.017

Where:

nref = reference molar flow rate.
Vstdref = reference volume flow rate, corrected to a 
standard pressure and a standard temperature.
Vactref = reference volume flow rate at the actual 
pressure and temperature of the flow rate.
mref = reference mass flow.
pstd = standard pressure.
pact = actual pressure of the flow rate.
Tstd = standard temperature.
Tact = actual temperature of the flow rate.
R = molar gas constant.
Mmix = molar mass of the flow rate.

[[Page 23786]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.018

[[Page 23787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.019

    (3) Perform a least-squares regression of PDP volume pumped per 
revolution, Vrev, versus PDP slip correction factor, 
Ks, by calculating slope, a1, and intercept, 
a0, as described in Sec.  1065.602.
    (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section for every speed that you run your PDP.
    (5) The following example illustrates these calculations:

       Table 1 of Sec.   1065.640--Example of PDP Calibration Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  a1 (m\3\/   a0 (m\3\/
              f8nPDP (revolution/s)                   s)     revolution)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.6............................................      0.841       0.056
16.5............................................      0.831      -0.013
20.9............................................      0.809       0.028
23.4............................................       .788      -0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the 
corresponding slope, a1, and intercept, a0, to 
calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in Sec.  
1065.642.
    (c) Venturi governing equations and permissible assumptions. This 
section describes the governing equations and permissible assumptions 
for calibrating a venturi and calculating flow using a venturi. Because 
a subsonic venturi (SSV) and a critical-flow venturi (CFV)

[[Page 23788]]

both operate similarly, their governing equations are nearly the same, 
except for the equation describing their pressure ratio, r (i.e., 
rSSV versus rCFV). These governing equations 
assume one-dimensional isentropic inviscid compressible flow of an 
ideal gas. In paragraph (c)(4) of this section, we describe other 
assumptions that you may make, depending upon how you conduct your 
emission tests. If we do not allow you to assume that the measured flow 
is an ideal gas, the governing equations include a first-order 
correction for the behavior of a real gas; namely, the compressibility 
factor, Z. If good engineering judgment dictates using a value other 
than Z=1, you may either use an appropriate equation of state to 
determine values of Z as a function of measured pressures and 
temperatures, or you may develop your own calibration equations based 
on good engineering judgment. Note that the equation for the flow 
coefficient, Cf, is based on the ideal gas assumption that 
the isentropic exponent, [gamma], is equal to the ratio of specific 
heats, Cp/Cv. If good engineering judgment 
dictates using a real gas isentropic exponent, you may either use an 
appropriate equation of state to determine values of [gamma] as a 
function of measured pressures and temperatures, or you may develop 
your own calibration equations based on good engineering judgment. 
Calculate molar flow rate, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.020

Where:

Cd = discharge coefficient, as determined in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section.
Cf = flow coefficient, as determined in paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section.
At = venturi throat cross-sectional area.
pin = venturi inlet absolute static pressure.
Z = compressibility factor.
Mmix = molar mass of gas mixture.
R = molar gas constant.
Tin = venturi inlet absolute temperature.

    (1) Using the data collected in Sec.  1065.340, calculate Cd using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.021

Where:

nref = a reference molar flow rate.

    (2) Determine Cf using one of the following methods:
    (i) For CFV flow meters only, determine CfCFV from the 
following table based on your values for [beta] and [gamma], using 
linear interpolation to find intermediate values:

Table 2 of Sec.   1065.640--CfCFV Versus [beta] and [gamma] for CFV Flow
                                 Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CfCFV
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             [gamma]dexh
                                                 [gamma]exh       =
                     [beta]                        = 1.385    [gamma]air
                                                               = 1.399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000..........................................      0.6822      0.6846
0.400..........................................      0.6857      0.6881
0.500..........................................      0.6910      0.6934
0.550..........................................      0.6953      0.6977
0.600..........................................      0.7011      0.7036
0.625..........................................      0.7047      0.7072
0.650..........................................      0.7089      0.7114
0.675..........................................      0.7137      0.7163
0.700..........................................      0.7193      0.7219
0.720..........................................      0.7245      0.7271
0.740..........................................      0.7303      0.7329
0.760..........................................      0.7368      0.7395
0.770..........................................      0.7404      0.7431
0.780..........................................      0.7442      0.7470
0.790..........................................      0.7483      0.7511
0.800..........................................      0.7527      0.7555
0.810..........................................      0.7573      0.7602
0.820..........................................      0.7624      0.7652
0.830..........................................      0.7677      0.7707
0.840..........................................      0.7735      0.7765
0.850..........................................      0.7798      0.7828
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) For any CFV or SSV flow meter, you may use the following 
equation to calculate Cf:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.022

Where:

[gamma] = isentropic exponent. For an ideal gas, this is the ratio 
of specific heats of the gas mixture, Cp/Cv.
r = pressure ratio, as determined in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section.
[beta] = ratio of venturi throat to inlet diameters.

    (3) Calculate r as follows:
    (i) For SSV systems only, calculate rSSV using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.023

Where:

[Delta]pSSV = Differential static pressure; venturi inlet 
minus venturi throat.

    (ii) For CFV systems only, calculate rCFV iteratively 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.024

    (4) You may make any of the following simplifying assumptions of 
the governing equations, or you may use good engineering judgment to 
develop more appropriate values for your testing:
    (i) For emission testing over the full ranges of raw exhaust, 
diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume that the gas mixture 
behaves as an ideal gas: Z = 1.
    (ii) For the full range of raw exhaust you may assume a constant 
ratio of specific heats of [gamma] = 1.385.
    (iii) For the full range of diluted exhaust and air (e.g., 
calibration air or dilution air), you may assume a constant ratio of 
specific heats of [gamma] = 1.399.
    (iv) For the full range of diluted exhaust and air, you may assume 
the molar mass of the mixture is a function only of the amount of water 
in the dilution air or calibration air, xH2O, determined as 
described in Sec.  1065.645, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.144

Example:

Mair = 28.96559 g/mol
xH2O = 0.0169 mol/mol
MH2O = 18.01528 g/mol
Mmix = 28.96559 [middot] (1 - 0.0169) + 18.01528 [middot] 
0.0169
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol

    (v) For the full range of diluted exhaust and air, you may assume a 
constant molar mass of the mixture,

[[Page 23789]]

Mmix, for all calibration and all testing as long as your 
assumed molar mass differs no more than 1% from the 
estimated minimum and maximum molar mass during calibration and 
testing. You may assume this, using good engineering judgment, if you 
sufficiently control the amount of water in calibration air and in 
dilution air or if you remove sufficient water from both calibration 
air and dilution air. The following table gives examples of permissible 
ranges of dilution air dewpoint versus calibration air dewpoint:

Table 3 of Sec.   1065.640--Examples of Dilution Air and Calibration Air
            Dewpoints at Which You May Assume a Constant Mmix
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     assume the      for the following
If calibration Tdew ([deg]C) is .     following        ranges of Tdew
               . .                  constant Mmix     ([deg]C) during
                                    (g/mol) . . .    emission tests \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dry..............................        28.96559  dry to 18.
0................................        28.89263  dry to 21.
5................................        28.86148  dry to 22.
10...............................        28.81911  dry to 24.
15...............................        28.76224  dry to 26.
20...............................        28.68685  -8 to 28.
25...............................        28.58806  12 to 31.
30...............................        28.46005  23 to 34.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Range valid for all calibration and emission testing over the
  atmospheric pressure range (80.000 to 103.325) kPa.

    (5) The following example illustrates the use of the governing 
equations to calculate the discharge coefficient, Cd of an 
SSV flow meter at one reference flow meter value. Note that calculating 
Cd for a CFV flow meter would be similar, except that 
Cf would be determined from Table 2 of this section or 
calculated iteratively using values of [beta] and [gamma] as described 
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

Example:

nref = 57.625 mol/s
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
Tin = 298.15 K
At = 0.01824 m\2\
pin = 99.132 kPa = 99132.0 Pa = 99132 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
[gamma] = 1.399
[beta] = 0.8
[Delta]p = 2.312 kPa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.025

[[Page 23790]]

    (d) SSV calibration. Perform the following steps to calibrate an 
SSV flow meter:
    (1) Calculate the Reynolds number, Re, for each 
reference molar flow rate, nref, using the throat diameter 
of the venturi, dt. Because the dynamic viscosity, [mu], is 
needed to compute Re, you may use your own fluid 
viscosity model to determine [mu] for your calibration gas (usually 
air), using good engineering judgment. Alternatively, you may use the 
Sutherland three-coefficient viscosity model to approximate [mu], as 
shown in the following sample calculation for Re:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.026

Where:

[mu]0 = Sutherland reference viscosity.
T0 = Sutherland reference temperature.
S = Sutherland constant.

               Table 4 of Sec.   1065.640--Sutherland Three-Coefficient Viscosity Model Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Temp range
                                                                                           within
                   Gas \a\                         [mu]0           T0           S          2%    limit \b\
                                                                                         error \b\
                                                         kg/            K            K            K          kPa
                                                (m[middot]s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air.........................................  1.716[middot]1          273          111  170 to 1900       0 = 1.716[middot]10-5 kg/(m[middot]s)

[[Page 23791]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.027

    (3) Perform a least-squares regression analysis to determine the 
best-fit coefficients for the equation and calculate the equation's 
regression statistic, SEE, according to Sec.  1065.602.
    (4) If the equation meets the criterion of SEE dmax, you may use the equation to determine Cd 
for emission tests, as described in Sec.  1065.642.
    (5) If the equation does not meet the specified statistical 
criterion, 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 statistical criterion. This 
will usually involve narrowing the range of flow rates for a better 
curve fit.
    (6) Take corrective action if the equation does not meet the 
specified statistical criterion 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 process, we 
recommend applying tighter tolerances to measurements and allowing more 
time for flows to stabilize.
    (7) Once you have an equation that meets the specified statistical 
criterion, you may use the equation only for the corresponding range of 
Re.
    (e) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single 
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis,

[[Page 23792]]

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 the 
venturis. (D). To determine the Cd for a single venturi or a 
single combination of venturis, perform the following steps:
    (1) Use the data collected at each calibration set point to 
calculate an individual Cd for each point using Eq. 
1065.640-4.
    (2) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the 
Cd values according to Eqs. 1065.602-1 and 1065.602-2.
    (3) If the standard deviation of all the Cd values is 
less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean Cd, use the mean 
Cd in Eq. 1065.642-4, and use the CFV only up to the highest 
r measured during calibration using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.028

Where:

[Delta]pCFV = Differential static pressure; venturi inlet 
minus venturi outlet.

    (4) If the standard deviation of all the Cd values 
exceeds 0.3% of the mean Cd, omit the Cd value 
corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured 
during calibration.
    (5) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take 
corrective action by checking your calibration data or repeating the 
calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we 
recommend checking for leaks, applying tighter tolerances to 
measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize.
    (6) If the number of remaining Cd values is seven or 
greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining 
Cd values.
    (7) If the standard deviation of the remaining Cd values 
is less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean of the remaining 
Cd, use that mean Cd in Eq. 1065.642-4, and use 
the CFV values only up to the highest r associated with the remaining 
Cd.
    (8) If the standard deviation of the remaining Cd still 
exceeds 0.3% of the mean of the remaining Cd values, repeat 
the steps in paragraph (e)(4) through (8) of this section.

0
304. Section 1065.642 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.642  SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow rate calculations.

    This section describes the equations for calculating molar flow 
rates from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter 
according to Sec.  1065.640, use the calculations described in this 
section to calculate flow during an emission test.
    (a) PDP molar flow rate. Based upon the speed at which you operate 
the PDP for a test interval, select the corresponding slope, 
a1, and intercept, a0, as calculated in Sec.  
1065.640, to calculate molar flow rate, n as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.029

[[Page 23793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.030

Example:

At = 0.01824 m\2\
pin = 99.132 kPa = 99132 Pa = 99132 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
Tin = 298.15 K
Re = 7.232[middot]10\5\
[gamma] = 1.399
[beta] = 0.8
[Delta]p = 2.312 kPa

Using Eq. 1065.640-7,
rssv = 0.997

Using Eq. 1065.640-6,
Cf = 0.274

[[Page 23794]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.031

    (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 
the venturis (D).
    (1) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or one 
combination of venturis, use its respective mean Cd and 
other constants you determined according to Sec.  1065.640 and 
calculate its molar flow rate n during an emission test, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.033

    (2) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or a 
combination of venturis, you may use its respective mean, 
Kv, and other constants you determined according to Sec.  
1065.640 and calculate its molar flow rate during an emission test. 
Note that if you follow the permissible ranges of dilution air dewpoint 
versus calibration air

[[Page 23795]]

dewpoint in Table 3 of Sec.  1065.640, you may set Mmix-cal 
and Mmix equal to 1. Calculate n as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.034

Vstdref = volume flow rate of the standard at reference 
conditions of 293.15 K and 101.325 kPa.
Tin-cal = venturi inlet temperature during calibration.
Pin-cal = venturi inlet pressure during calibration.
Mmix-cal = molar mass of gas mixture used during 
calibration.
Mmix = molar mass of gas mixture during the emission test 
calculated using Equation 1065.640-9.

Example:
Vstdref = 0.4895 m\3\
Tin-cal = 302.52 K
Pin-cal = 99.654 kPa = 99654 Pa = 99654 kg/
(m[middot]s\2\)
pin = 98.836 kPa = 98836 Pa = 98836 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
pstd = 101.325 kPa = 101325 Pa = 101325 kg/
(m[middot]s\2\)
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[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.035

0
305. Section 1065.644 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.644  Vacuum-decay leak rate.

    This section describes how to calculate the leak rate of a vacuum-
decay leak verification, which is described in Sec.  1065.345(e). Use 
the following equation to calculate the leak rate nleak, and 
compare it to the criterion specified in Sec.  1065.345(e):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.036

Where:

Vvac = geometric volume of the vacuum-side of the 
sampling system.
R = molar gas constant.
p2 = vacuum-side absolute pressure at time t2.
T2 = vacuum-side absolute temperature at time 
t2.
p1 = vacuum-side absolute pressure at time t1.
T1 = vacuum-side absolute temperature at time 
t1.
t2 = time at completion of vacuum-decay leak verification 
test.
t1 = time at start of vacuum-decay leak verification 
test.

Example:

Vvac = 2.0000 L = 0.00200 m\3\
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
p2 = 50.600 kPa = 50600 Pa = 50600 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
T2 = 293.15 K
p1 = 25.300 kPa = 25300 Pa = 25300 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
T1 = 293.15 K
t2 = 10:57:35 a.m.
t1 = 10:56:25 a.m.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.037

[[Page 23796]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.038

0
306. Section 1065.645 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.645  Amount of water in an ideal gas.

    This section describes how to determine the amount of water in an 
ideal gas, which you need for various performance verifications and 
emission calculations. Use the equation for the vapor pressure of water 
in paragraph (a) of this section or another appropriate equation and, 
depending on whether you measure dewpoint or relative humidity, perform 
one of the calculations in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. 
Paragraph (d) of this section provides an equation for determining 
dewpoint from relative humidity and dry bulb temperature measurements. 
The equations for the vapor pressure of water as presented in this 
section are derived from equations in ``Saturation Pressure of Water on 
the New Kelvin Temperature Scale'' (Goff, J.A., Transactions American 
Society of Heating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Vol. 63, No. 1607, 
pages 347-354). Note that the equations were originally published to 
derive vapor pressure in units of atmospheres and have been modified to 
derive results in units of kPa by converting the last term in each 
equation.
    (a) Vapor pressure of water. Calculate the vapor pressure of water 
for a given saturation temperature condition, Tsat, as 
follows, or use good engineering judgment to use a different 
relationship of the vapor pressure of water to a given saturation 
temperature condition:
    (1) For humidity measurements made at ambient temperatures from (0 
to 100) [deg]C, or for humidity measurements made over super-cooled 
water at ambient temperatures from (-50 to 0) [deg]C, use the following 
equation:

[[Page 23797]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.039

    (2) For humidity measurements over ice at ambient temperatures from 
(-100 to 0) [deg]C, use the following equation:

[[Page 23798]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.040

* * * * *
    (d) Dewpoint determination from relative humidity and dry bulb 
temperature. This paragraph (d) describes how to calculate dewpoint 
temperature from relative humidity, RH%. This is based on ``ITS-90 
Formulations for Vapor Pressure, Frostpoint Temperature, Dewpoint 
Temperature, and Enhancement Factors in the Range -100 to +100 [deg]C'' 
(Hardy, B., The Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on 
Humidity & Moisture, Teddington, London, England, April 1998). 
Calculate pH20sat as described in paragraph (a) of this 
section based on setting Tsat equal to Tamb. 
Calculate pH20scaled by multiplying pH20sat by 
RH%. Calculate the dewpoint, Tdew, from pH20 
using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.041

Where:

ln(pH2O) = 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.

[[Page 23799]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.042

0
307. Section 1065.650 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), 
(c)(1)(ii), and (f)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.650  Emission calculations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Correct all gaseous emission analyzer concentration readings, 
including continuous readings, sample bag readings, and dilution air 
background readings, for drift as described in Sec.  1065.672. Note 
that you must omit this step where brake-specific emissions are 
calculated without the drift correction for performing the drift 
validation according to Sec.  1065.550(b). When applying the initial 
THC and CH4 contamination readings according to Sec.  
1065.520(f), use the same values for both sets of calculations. You may 
also use as-measured values in the initial set of calculations and 
corrected values in the drift-corrected set of calculations as 
described in Sec.  1065.520(g)(7).
    (ii) Correct all THC and CH4 concentrations for initial 
contamination as described in Sec.  1065.660(a), including continuous 
readings, sample bags readings, and dilution air background readings.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Example. The following example shows how to calculate mass of 
emissions using proportional values:

N = 3000
[fnof]record = 5 Hz
efuel = 285 g/(kW[middot]hr)
wfuel = 0.869 g/g
Mc = 12.0107 g/mol
n1 = 3.922 mol/s = 14119.2 mol/hr
[chi]Ccombdry1 = 91.634 mmol/mol = 0.091634 
mol/mol
[chi]H2Oexh1 = 27.21 mmol/mol = 0.02721 mol/
mol

Using Eq. 1065.650-5,
[Delta]t = 0.2 s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.043

W = 5.09 (kW[middot]hr)
* * * * *

0
308. Section 1065.655 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) 
introductory text, (c)(3), (d), (e), and (f)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.655  Chemical balances of fuel, intake air, and exhaust.

* * * * *
    (c) Chemical balance procedure. The calculations for a chemical 
balance involve a system of equations that require iteration. We 
recommend using a computer to solve this system of equations. You must 
guess the initial values of up to three quantities: The amount of water 
in the measured flow, [chi]H2Oexh, fraction of 
dilution air in diluted exhaust, xdil/exh, and the amount of 
products on a C1 basis per dry mole of dry measured flow, 
[chi]Ccombdry. You may use time-weighted mean 
values of combustion air humidity and dilution air humidity in the 
chemical balance; as long as your combustion air and dilution air 
humidities remain within tolerances of 0.0025 mol/mol of 
their respective mean values over the test interval. For each emission 
concentration, [chi], and amount of water, 
[chi]H2Oexh, you must determine their completely 
dry concentrations, [chi]dry and 
[chi]H2Oexhdry. You must also use your fuel's 
atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, [alpha], oxygen-to-carbon ratio, 
[beta], sulfur-to-carbon ratio, [gamma], and nitrogen-to-carbon ratio, 
[delta]. You may calculate [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] based 
on measured fuel composition as described in paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) 
of this section, or you may use default values for a given fuel as 
described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. Use the following steps 
to complete a chemical balance:
* * * * *

[[Page 23800]]

    (3) Use the following symbols and subscripts in the equations for 
this paragraph (c):

[chi]dil/exh = amount of dilution gas or 
excess air per mole of exhaust.
[chi]H2Oexh = amount of H2O in 
exhaust per mole of exhaust.
[chi]Ccombdry = amount of carbon from fuel in 
the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust.
[chi]H2dry = amount of H2 in 
exhaust per amount of dry exhaust.
    KH2Ogas = water-gas reaction equilibrium coefficient. 
You may use 3.5 or calculate your own value using good engineering 
judgment.
[chi]H2Oexhdry = amount of H2O in 
exhaust per dry mole of dry exhaust.
[chi]prod/intdry = amount of dry 
stoichiometric products per dry mole of intake air.
[chi]dil/exhdry = amount of dilution gas and/
or excess air per mole of dry exhaust.
[chi]int/exhdry = amount of intake air 
required to produce actual combustion products per mole of dry (raw 
or diluted) exhaust.
[chi]raw/exhdry = amount of undiluted exhaust, 
without excess air, per mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust.
[chi]O2int = amount of intake air 
O2 per mole of intake air.
[chi]CO2intdry = amount of intake air 
CO2 per mole of dry intake air. You may use 
[chi]CO2intdry = 375 [mu]mol/mol, but we recommend 
measuring the actual concentration in the intake air.
[chi]H2Ointdry = amount of intake air 
H2O per mole of dry intake air.
[chi]CO2int = amount of intake air 
CO2 per mole of intake air.
[chi]CO2dil = amount of dilution gas 
CO2 per mole of dilution gas.
[chi]CO2dildry = amount of dilution gas 
CO2 per mole of dry dilution gas. If you use air as 
diluent, you may use xCO2dildry = 375 [mu]mol/mol, but we 
recommend measuring the actual concentration in the intake air.
[chi]H2Odildry = amount of dilution gas 
H2O per mole of dry dilution gas.
[chi]H2Odil = amount of dilution gas 
H2O per mole of dilution gas.
[chi][emission]meas = amount of measured 
emission in the sample at the respective gas analyzer.
[chi][emission]dry = amount of emission per 
dry mole of dry sample.
[chi]H2O[emission]meas = amount of 
H2O in sample at emission-detection location. Measure or 
estimate these values according to Sec.  1065.145(e)(2).
[chi]H2Oint = amount of H2O in the 
intake air, based on a humidity measurement of intake air.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
* * * * *
    (d) Carbon mass fraction and fuel composition. Determine carbon 
mass fraction of fuel, wc, and fuel composition represented 
by [alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] using one of the following 
methods:
    (1) You may calculate wc as described in this paragraph 
(d)(1) based on measured fuel properties. To do so, you must determine 
values for [alpha] and [beta] in all cases, but you may set [gamma] and 
[delta] to zero if the default value listed in Table 1 of this section 
is zero. Calculate wc using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.044

Where:

wc = carbon mass fraction of fuel.
MC = molar mass of carbon.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MH = molar mass of hydrogen.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MO = molar mass of oxygen.
[gamma] = atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MS = molar mass of sulfur.
[delta] = atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) 
being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.
MN = molar mass of nitrogen.

[[Page 23801]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.045

    (2) Determine a fuel's elemental mass fractions and values for 
[alpha], [beta], [gamma], and [delta] as follows:
    (i) For gaseous fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta], 
[gamma], and [delta] in Table 1 of this section or use good engineering 
judgment to determine those values based on measurement.
    (ii) Determine mass fractions of liquid fuels as follows:
    (A) You may determine the carbon and hydrogen mass fractions 
according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1065.1010). 
When using ASTM D5291 to determine carbon and hydrogen mass fractions 
of gasoline (with or without blended ethanol), use good engineering 
judgment to adapt the method as appropriate.
    (B) Determine oxygen mass fraction of gasoline (with or without 
blended ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, determine the oxygen mass 
fraction using good engineering judgment.
    (C) Determine the nitrogen mass fraction according to ASTM D4629 or 
ASTM D5762 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1065.1010) for all 
liquid fuels. Select the correct method based on the expected nitrogen 
content.
    (D) Determine the sulfur mass fraction according to subpart H of 
this part.
    (iii) For liquid fuels, use the default values for [alpha], [beta], 
[gamma], and [delta] in Table 1 of this section, or you may determine 
the value for any of these parameters based on measurement. Calculate 
these values using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.046

[[Page 23802]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.047

[[Page 23803]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.048

   Table 1 of Sec.   1065.655--Default Values of [alpha], [beta], [gamma], [delta], and wc, for Various Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Atomic hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen-to-    Carbon mass
                    Fuel                       carbon ratios  CH[alpha]O[beta]S[gamma]N[delta]  fraction, wc g/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, 
nexh, based on the measured intake air molar flow rate, 
nint, or the measured fuel mass flow rate, mfuel, 
and the values calculated using the chemical balance in paragraph (c) 
of this section. The chemical balance must be based on raw exhaust gas 
concentrations. Solve for the chemical balance in paragraph (c) of this 
section at the same frequency that you update and record or 
nint or mfuel. For laboratory tests, calculating 
raw exhaust molar flow rate using measured fuel mass flow rate is valid 
only for steady-state testing. See Sec.  1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for 
application to field testing.
    (1) Crankcase flow rate. If engines are not subject to crankcase 
controls under the standard-setting part, you may calculate raw exhaust 
flow based on nint or mfuel using one of the 
following:
    (i) You may measure flow rate through the crankcase vent and 
subtract it from the calculated exhaust flow.
    (ii) You may estimate flow rate through the crankcase vent by 
engineering analysis as long as the uncertainty in your calculation 
does not adversely affect your ability to show that your engines comply 
with applicable emission standards.
    (iii) You may assume your crankcase vent flow rate is zero.

[[Page 23804]]

    (2) Intake air molar flow rate calculation. Calculate 
nexh based on nint using the following equation: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.049

Where:

nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you 
measured emissions.
nint = intake air molar flow rate including humidity in 
intake air.

Example:

nint = 3.780 mol/s
xint/exhdry = 0.69021 mol/mol
xraw/exhdry = 1.10764 mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.050

Where:
nexh = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you 
measured emissions.
mfuel = fuel mass flow rate.

Example:

mfuel = 7.559 g/s
wc = 0.869 g/g
MC = 12.0107 g/mol
xCcombdry = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987 mol/mol
xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.051

nexh = 6.066 mol/s

    (f) * * *
    (2) Dilute exhaust and intake air molar flow rate calculation. 
Calculate nexh as follows: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.052

Example:

nint = 7.930 mol/s
xraw/exhdry = 0.1544 mol/mol
xint/exhdry = 0.1451 mol/mol
xH20/exh = 32.46 mmol/mol = 0.03246 mol/mol
ndexh = 49.02 mol/s
nexh = (0.1544 - 0.1451) [middot] (1 - 0.03246) [middot] 
49.02 + 7.930 = 0.4411 + 7.930 = 8.371 mol/s

0
309. Section 1065.659 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  1065.659  Removed water correction.

    (a) If you remove water upstream of a concentration measurement, x, 
correct for the removed water. Perform this correction based on the 
amount of water at the concentration measurement, 
xH2O[emission]meas, and at the flow meter, 
xH2Oexh, 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,

[[Page 23805]]

even if you use one of the options in Sec.  1065.145(e)(2) that results 
in a constant value for xH2O[emission]meas because 
xH2Oexh varies over the test interval. For batch analyzers, 
determine the flow-weighted average based on the continuous 
xH2Oexh values determined as described in paragraph (c) of 
this section. For batch analyzers, you may determine the flow-weighted 
average xH2Oexh based on a single value of 
xH2Oexh determined as described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) 
of this section, using flow-weighted average or batch concentration 
inputs.
* * * * *
    (d) Perform a removed water correction to the concentration 
measurement using the following equation: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.053

0
310. Section 1065.665 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.665  THCE and NMHCE determination.

    (a) If you measured an oxygenated hydrocarbon's mass concentration, 
first calculate its molar concentration in the exhaust sample stream 
from which the sample was taken (raw or diluted exhaust), and convert 
this into a C1-equivalent molar concentration. Add these 
C1-equivalent molar concentrations to the molar 
concentration of non-oxygenated total hydrocarbon (NOTHC). The result 
is the molar concentration of total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE). 
Calculate THCE concentration using the following equations, noting that 
Eq. 1065.665-3 is required only if you need to convert your oxygenated 
hydrocarbon (OHC) concentration from mass to moles:

[[Page 23806]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.054

Where:

xTHCE = The sum of the C1-equivalent 
concentrations of non-oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols, and 
aldehydes.
xNOTHC = The sum of the C1-equivalent 
concentrations of NOTHC.
xOHCi = The C1-equivalent concentration of 
oxygenated species i in diluted exhaust, not corrected for initial 
contamination.
xOHCi-init = The C1-equivalent concentration 
of the initial system contamination (optional) of oxygenated species 
i, dry-to-wet corrected.
xTHC[THC-FID]cor = The C1-equivalent response 
to NOTHC and all OHC in diluted exhaust, HC contamination and dry-
to-wet corrected, as measured by the THC-FID.
RFOHCi[THC-FID] = The response factor of the FID to 
species i relative to propane on a C1-equivalent basis.
C = the mean number of carbon atoms in the particular compound.
Mdexh = The molar mass of diluted exhaust as determined 
in Sec.  1065.340.
mdexhOHCi = The mass of oxygenated species i in dilute 
exhaust.
MOHCi = The C1-equivalent molecular weight of 
oxygenated species i.
mdexh = The mass of diluted exhaust.
ndexhOHCi = The number of moles of oxygenated species i 
in total diluted exhaust flow.
ndexh = The total diluted exhaust flow.

    (b) If we require you to determine nonmethane hydrocarbon 
equivalent (NMHCE), use the following equation:

xNMHCE = xTHCE - RFCH4[THC-FID] 
[middot] xCH4

Eq. 1065.665-4

Where:

xNMHCE = 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.
xCH4 = 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 (CH2O) as C1-equivalent molar 
concentrations:

xTHC[THC-FID]cor = 145.6 [micro]mol/mol
xCH4 = 18.9 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H5OH = 100.8 [micro]mol/mol
xCH3OH = 1.1 [micro]mol/mol
xC2H4O = 19.1 [micro]mol/mol
xCH2O = 1.3 [micro]mol/mol
RFCH4[THC-FID] = 1.07
RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] = 0.76
RFCH3OH[THC-FID] = 0.74
RFH2H4O[THC-FID] = 0.50
RFCH2O[THC-FID] = 0.0

xNMHCE = xTHC[THC-FID]cor - 
(xC2H5OH [middot] RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] + 
xCH3OH [middot] RFCH3OH[THC-FID] + 
xC2H4O [middot] RFC2H4O[THC-FID] + 
xCH2O [middot] RFCH2O[THC-FID]) + 
xC2H5OH + xCH3OH + xC2H4O + 
xCH2O - (RFCH4[THC-FID] [middot] 
xCH4)

xNMHCE = 145.6 - (100.8 [middot] 0.76 + 1.1 [middot] 0.74 
+ 19.1 [middot] 0.50 + 1.3 [middot] 0) + 100.8 + 1.1 + 19.1 + 1.3 - 
(1.07 [middot] 18.9)

xNMHCE = 160.71 [micro]mol/mol

0
311. Section 1065.690 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.690  Buoyancy correction for PM sample media.

* * * * *
    (e) Correction calculation. Correct the PM sample media for 
buoyancy using the following equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.055

Where:

mcor = PM mass corrected for buoyancy.
muncor = PM mass uncorrected for buoyancy.
[rho]air = density of air in balance environment.
[rho]weight = density of calibration weight used to span 
balance.
[rho]media = density of PM sample media, such as a 
filter.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.056

Where:

pabs = absolute pressure in balance environment.
Mmix = molar mass of air in balance environment.
R = molar gas constant.
Tamb = absolute ambient temperature of balance 
environment.

[[Page 23807]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.058

0
312. Section 1065.695 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(i) and 
adding paragraph (c)(6)(x) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.695  Data requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Linearity verification.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (x) Number and type of preconditioning cycles.
* * * * *

Subpart H--[Amended]

0
313. Section 1065.701 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d), and 
(f) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.701  General requirements for test fuels.

    (a) General. For all emission measurements, use test fuels that 
meet the specifications in this subpart, unless the standard-setting 
part directs otherwise. Section 1065.10(c)(1) does not apply with 
respect to test fuels. Note that the standard-setting parts generally 
require that you design your emission controls to function properly 
when using commercially available fuels, even if they differ from the 
test fuel. Where we specify multiple grades of a certain fuel type 
(such as diesel fuel with different sulfur concentrations), see the 
standard-setting part to determine which grade to use.
* * * * *
    (d) Fuel specifications. Specifications in this section apply as 
follows:
    (1) Measure and calculate values as described in the appropriate 
reference procedure. Record and report final values expressed to at 
least the same number of decimal places as the applicable limit value. 
The right-most digit for each limit value is significant unless 
specified otherwise. For example, for a specified distillation 
temperature of 60 [deg]C, determine the test fuel's value to at least 
the nearest whole number.
    (2) The fuel parameters specified in this subpart depend on 
measurement procedures that are incorporated by reference. For any of 
these procedures, you may instead rely upon the procedures identified 
in 40 CFR part 80 for measuring the same parameter. For example, we may 
identify different reference procedures for measuring gasoline 
parameters in 40 CFR 80.46.
* * * * *
    (f) Service accumulation and field testing fuels. If we do not 
specify a service-accumulation or field-testing fuel in the standard-
setting part, use an appropriate commercially available fuel such as 
those meeting minimum specifications from the following table:

              Table 1 of Sec.   1065.701--Examples of Service-Accumulation and Field-Testing Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Fuel category                          Subcategory                    Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel...............................  Light distillate and light blends   ASTM D975
                                        with residual.
                                       Middle distillate.................  ASTM D6985
                                       Biodiesel (B100)..................  ASTM D6751
Intermediate and residual fuel.......  All...............................  See Sec.   1065.705
Gasoline.............................  Automotive gasoline...............  ASTM D4814
                                       Automotive gasoline with ethanol    ASTM D4814
                                        concentration up to 10 volume %..
Alcohol..............................  Ethanol (E51-83)..................  ASTM D5798
                                       Methanol (M70-M85)................  ASTM D5797
Aviation fuel........................  Aviation gasoline.................  ASTM D910
                                       Gas turbine.......................  ASTM D1655
                                       Jet B wide cut....................  ASTM D6615
Gas turbine fuel.....................  General...........................  ASTM D2880
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM specifications are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010.

0
314. Section 1065.703 is amended by revising paragraph (b), 
transferring Table 1 from paragraph (c) to paragraph (b), and revising 
Table 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.703  Distillate diesel fuel.

* * * * *

[[Page 23808]]

    (b) There are three grades of 2 diesel fuel specified for 
use as a test fuel. See the standard-setting part to determine which 
grade to use. If the standard-setting part does not specify which grade 
to use, use good engineering judgment to select the grade that 
represents the fuel on which the engines will operate in use. The three 
grades are specified in the following table:

                                     Table 1 of Sec.   1065.703--Test Fuel Specifications for Distillate Diesel Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Ultra low
                  Property                               Unit                 sulfur     Low sulfur  High sulfur          Reference procedure \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetane Number..............................  --..........................        40-50        40-50        40-50  ASTM D613.
Distillation range:
    Initial boiling point..................  [deg]C......................      171-204      171-204      171-204  ASTM D86.
    10 pct. point..........................  ............................      204-238      204-238      204-238  ASTM D86.
    50 pct. point..........................  ............................      243-282      243-282      243-282  ASTM D86.
    90 pct. point..........................  ............................      293-332      293-332      293-332  ASTM D86.
    Endpoint...............................  ............................      321-366      321-366      321-366  ASTM D86.
Gravity....................................  [deg]API....................        32-37        32-37        32-37  ASTM D4052.
Total sulfur, ultra low sulfur.............  mg/kg.......................         7-15  ...........  ...........  See 40 CFR 80.580.
Total sulfur, low and high sulfur..........  mg/kg.......................  ...........      300-500     800-2500  ASTM D2622 or alternates as allowed
                                                                                                                   under 40 CFR 80.580.
Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall be          g/kg........................          100          100          100  ASTM D5186.
 paraffins, naphthenes, and olefins).
Flashpoint, min............................  [deg]C......................           54           54           54  ASTM D93.
Kinematic Viscosity........................  cSt.........................      2.0-3.2      2.0-3.2      2.0-3.2  ASTM D445.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

* * * * *

0
315. Section 1065.705 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.705  Residual and intermediate residual fuel.

    This section describes the specifications for fuels meeting the 
definition of residual fuel in 40 CFR 80.2, including fuels marketed as 
intermediate fuel. Residual fuels for service accumulation and any 
testing must meet the following specifications:
    (a) The fuel must be a commercially available fuel that is 
representative of the fuel that will be used by the engine in actual 
use.
    (b) The fuel must be free of used lubricating oil. Demonstrate this 
by showing that the fuel meets at least one of the following 
specifications.
    (1) Zinc is at or below 15 mg per kg of fuel based on the 
procedures specified in IP470, IP501, or ISO 8217 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1065.1010).
    (2) Phosphorus is at or below 15 mg per kg of fuel based on the 
procedures specified in IP500, IP501, or ISO 8217 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1065.1010).
    (3) Calcium is at or below 30 mg per kg of fuel based on the 
procedures specified in IP470, IP501, or ISO 8217 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1065.1010).
    (c) The fuel must meet the specifications for one of the categories 
in the following table:

                             Table 1 of Sec.   1065.705--Service Accumulation and Test Fuel Specifications for Residual Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Category ISO-F-
          Property                  Unit      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    Reference
                                                RMA 30   RMB 30   RMD 80  RME 180  RMF 180  RMG 380  RMH 380  RMK 380  RMH 700  RMK 700    Procedure\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Density at 15 [deg]C, max...  kg/m\3\........    960.0    975.0    980.0        991.0
                                        991.0            1010.0    991.0   1010.0      ISO
                                                                                   3675 or
                                                                                       ISO
                                                                                     12185
                                                                                      (see
                                                                                      also
                                                                                       ISO
                                                                                    8217).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kinematic viscosity at 50     cSt............        30.0           80.0        180.0
 [deg]C, max.
                                        380.0
                                            700.0                    ISO
                                                                   3104.
Flash point, min............  [deg]C.........         60              60         60
                                         60
                                              60                     ISO
                                                                    2719
                                                                    (see
                                                                    also
                                                                     ISO
                                                                  8217).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pour point (upper):
    Winter quality, max.....  [deg]C.........        0       24       30         30
                                         30
                                              30                     ISO
                                                                   3016.
    Summer quality, max.....  ...............        6       24       30         30
                                         30
                                              30
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23809]]

 
Carbon residue, max.........  (kg/kg) %......         10              14       15       20       18       22              22             ISO 10370.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ash, max....................  (kg/kg) %......        0.10           0.10     0.10     0.15        0.15
                                             0.15                    ISO
                                                                   6245.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water, max..................  (m\3\/m\3\) %..         0.5            0.5         0.5
                                         0.5
                                             0.5                     ISO
                                                                   3733.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur, max.................  (kg/kg) %......        3.50           4.00        4.50
                                        4.50
                                             4.50                    ISO
                                                                 8754 or
                                                                     ISO
                                                                   14596
                                                                    (see
                                                                    also
                                                                     ISO
                                                                  8217).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanadium, max...............  mg/kg..........         150            350      200      500      300      600             600             ISO 14597 or IP
                                                                                                                                          501 or IP 470
                                                                                                                                          (see also ISO
                                                                                                                                          8217).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total sediment potential,     (kg/kg) %......        0.10           0.10        0.10
 max.
                                        0.10
                                             0.10                    ISO
                                                                 10307-2
                                                                    (see
                                                                    also
                                                                     ISO
                                                                  8217).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum plus silicon, max..  mg/kg..........         80              80         80
                                         80
                                              80                     ISO
                                                                   10478
                                                                   or IP
                                                                  501 or
                                                                  IP 470
                                                                    (see
                                                                    also
                                                                     ISO
                                                                 8217:20
                                                                    12).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ISO procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

0
316. Section 1065.710 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.710  Gasoline.

    (a) This section specifies test fuel properties for gasoline with 
ethanol (low-level blend only) and for gasoline without ethanol. Note 
that the ``fuel type'' for the fuels specified in paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section is considered to be gasoline. In contrast, fuels 
with higher ethanol concentrations, such as fuel containing 82 percent 
ethanol, are considered to be ethanol fuels rather than gasoline. We 
specify some test fuel parameters that apply uniquely for low-
temperature testing and for testing at altitudes above 1,219 m. For all 
other testing, use the test fuel parameters specified for general 
testing. Unless the standard-setting part specifies otherwise, use the 
fuel specified in paragraph (c) of this section for general testing.
    (b) The following specifications apply for a blended gasoline test 
fuel that has nominally 10% ethanol (commonly called E10 test fuel):
    (1) Prepare the blended test fuel from typical refinery gasoline 
blending components. You may not use pure compounds, except as follows:
    (i) You may use neat ethanol as a blendstock.
    (ii) You may adjust the test fuel's vapor pressure by adding 
butane.
    (iii) You may adjust the test fuel's benzene content by adding 
benzene.
    (iv) You may adjust the test fuel's sulfur content by adding sulfur 
compounds that are representative of those found with in-use fuels.
    (2) Table 1 of this section identifies limit values consistent with 
the units in the reference procedure for each fuel property. These 
values are generally specified in international units. Values presented 
in parentheses are for information only. Table 1 follows:

                               Table 1 of Sec.   1065.710--Test Fuel Specifications for a Low-Level Ethanol-Gasoline Blend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Specification
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
             Property                       Unit                                  Low-temperature       High altitude         Reference procedure \1\
                                                             General testing          testing              testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiknock Index (R+M)/2..........  .....................                87.0--88.4 \2\               87.0 Minimum.......  ASTM D2699 and D2700.
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
Sensitivity (R-M)................  .....................                            7.5 Minimum                           ASTM D2699 and D2700.
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent      kPa (psi)............  60.0-63.4...........  77.2-81.4..........  52.4-55.2..........  ASTM D5191.
 (DVPE) \3,4\.                                            (8.7-9.2)...........  (11.2-11.8)........  (7.6-8.0)..........
Distillation \4\.................  [deg]C ([deg]F)......  49-60...............  43-54..............  49-60..............  ASTM D86.
10% evaporated...................                         (120-140)...........  (110-130)..........  (120-140)..........
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23810]]

 
50% evaporated...................  [deg]C ([deg]F)......                         88-99 (190-210).
90% evaporated...................  [deg]C ([deg]F)......                        157-168 (315-335).
Evaporated final boiling point...  [deg]C ([deg]F)......                        193-216 (380-420).
Residue..........................  milliliter...........                           2.0 Maximum.
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons......  volume %.............                             21.0-25.0                            ASTM D5769.
C6 Aromatics (benzene)...........  volume %.............                             0.5-0.7.
C7 Aromatics (toluene)...........  volume %.............                             5.2-6.4.
C8 Aromatics.....................  volume %.............                             5.2-6.4.
C9 Aromatics.....................  volume %.............                             5.2-6.4.
C10+ Aromatics...................  volume %.............                             4.4-5.6.
Olefins \5\......................  mass %...............                             4.0-10.0                             ASTM D6550.
Ethanol blended..................  volume %.............                             9.6-10.0                             See paragraph (b)(3) of this
                                                                                                                           section.
Ethanol confirmatory \6\.........  volume %.............                             9.4-10.2                             ASTM D4815 or D5599.
Total Content of Oxygenates Other  volume %.............                            0.1 Maximum                           ASTM D4815 or D5599.
 than Ethanol \6\.
Sulfur...........................  mg/kg................                             8.0-11.0                             ASTM D2622, D5453 or D7039.
Lead.............................  g/liter..............                          0.0026 Maximum                          ASTM D3237.
Phosphorus.......................  g/liter..............                          0.0013 Maximum                          ASTM D3231.
Copper Corrosion.................  .....................                           No. 1 Maximum                          ASTM D130.
Solvent-Washed Gum Content.......  mg/100 milliliter....                            3.0 Maximum                           ASTM D381.
Oxidation Stability..............  minute...............                           1000 Minimum                           ASTM D525.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.
\2\ Octane specifications apply only for testing related to exhaust emissions. For engines or vehicles that require the use of premium fuel, as
  described in paragraph (d) of this section, the adjusted specification for antiknock index is a minimum value of 91.0; no maximum value applies. All
  other specifications apply for this high-octane fuel.
\3\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, using the following equation: DVPE (kPa) =
  0.956[middot]pT--2.39 or DVPE (psi) = 0.956[middot]pT--0.347. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method.
\4\ Parenthetical values are shown for informational purposes only.
\5\ The reference procedure prescribes measurement of olefin concentration in mass %. Multiply this result by 0.857 and round to the first decimal place
  to determine the olefin concentration in volume %.
\6\ ASTM D5599 prescribes concentration measurements for ethanol and other oxygenates in mass %. Convert results to volume % as specified in Section
  14.3 of ASTM D4815.

    (3) The ethanol-blended specification in Table 1 of this section 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. 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:

                   Table 2 of Sec.   1065.710--Test Fuel Specifications for Neat (E0) Gasoline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Specification
                                                ------------------------------------
           Property                  Unit                           Low-temperature    Reference procedure \1\
                                                  General testing       testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Range:
    Evaporated initial         [deg]C..........  24-35 \2\.......  24-36...........  ASTM D86.
     boiling point.
        10% evaporated.......  ................  49-57...........  37-48...........
        50% evaporated.......  ................  93-110..........  82-101..........
        90% evaporated.......  ................  149-163.........  158-174.........
    Evaporated final boiling   ................  Maximum, 213....  Maximum, 212....
     point.
Hydrocarbon composition:
    Olefins..................  volume %........  Maximum, 0.10...  Maximum, 0.175..  ASTM D1319.
    Aromatics................  ................  Maximum, 0.35...  Maximum, 0.304..
    Saturates................  ................  Remainder.......  Remainder.......
Lead.........................  g/liter.........  Maximum, 0.013..  Maximum, 0.013..  ASTM D3237.
Phosphorous..................  g/liter.........  Maximum, 0.0013.  Maximum, 0.005..  ASTM D3231.
Total sulfur.................  mg/kg...........  Maximum, 80.....  Maximum, 80.....  ASTM D2622.
Dry vapor pressure equivalent  kPa.............  60.0-63.4 \2,4\.  77.2-81.4.......  ASTM D5191.
 \3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed
  procedures.

[[Page 23811]]

 
\2\ For testing at altitudes above 1219 m, the specified initial boiling point range is (23.9 to 40.6) [deg]C
  and the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa.
\3\ Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE, based on the measured total vapor pressure, pT, in kPa using
  the following equation: DVPE (kPa) = 0.956[middot]pT-2.39 or DVPE (psi) = 0.956[middot]pT-0.347. DVPE is
  intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method.
\4\ For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specified range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa.

    (d) Use the high-octane gasoline specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section only for engines or vehicles for which the manufacturer 
conditions the warranty on the use of premium gasoline.

0
317. Section 1065.715 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.715  Natural gas.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, natural 
gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following table:

  Table 1 of Sec.   1065.715--Test Fuel Specifications for Natural Gas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Property                             Value \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane, CH4....................  Minimum, 0.87 mol/mol.
Ethane, C2H6....................  Maximum, 0.055 mol/mol.
Propane, C3H8...................  Maximum, 0.012 mol/mol.
Butane, C4H10...................  Maximum, 0.0035 mol/mol.
Pentane, C5H12..................  Maximum, 0.0013 mol/mol.
C6 and higher...................  Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol.
Oxygen..........................  Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol.
Inert gases (sum of CO2 and N2).  Maximum, 0.051 mol/mol.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demonstrate compliance with fuel specifications based on the
  reference procedures in ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
   1065.1010), or on other measurement procedures using good engineering
  judgment. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures.

* * * * *

0
318. Section 1065.720 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.720  Liquefied petroleum gas.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, liquefied 
petroleum gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following 
table:

                Table 1 of Sec.   1065.720--Test Fuel Specifications for Liquefied Petroleum Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Property                              Value                     Reference procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propane, C3H8............................  Minimum, 0.85 m\3\/m\3\.....  ASTM D2163.
Vapor pressure at 38 [deg]C..............  Maximum, 1400 kPa...........  ASTM D1267or D2598.\2\
Volatility residue (evaporated             Maximum, -38 [deg]C.........  ASTM D1837.
 temperature, 35 [deg]C).
Butanes..................................  Maximum, 0.05 m\3\/m\3\.....  ASTM D2163.
Butenes..................................  Maximum, 0.02 m\3\/m\3\.....  ASTM D2163.
Pentenes and heavier.....................  Maximum, 0.005 m\3\/m\3\....  ASTM D2163.
Propene..................................  Maximum, 0.1 m\3\/m\3\......  ASTM D2163.
Residual matter (residue on evaporation    Maximum, 0.05 ml pass\3\....  ASTM D2158.
 of 100 ml oil stain observation).
Corrosion, copper strip..................  Maximum, No. 1..............  ASTM D1838.
Sulfur...................................  Maximum, 80 mg/kg...........  ASTM D2784.
Moisture content.........................  pass........................  ASTM D2713.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in Sec.   1065.1010. See Sec.   1065.701(d) for other allowed
  procedures.
\2\ If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D1267.
\3\ The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a
  filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes.

* * * * *

0
319. A new Sec.  1065.725 is added to subpart H to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.725  High-level ethanol-gasoline blends.

    For testing vehicles capable of operating on a high-level ethanol-
gasoline blend, create a test fuel as follows:
    (a) Add ethanol to an E10 fuel meeting the specifications described 
in Sec.  1065.710 until the ethanol content of the blended fuel is 
between 80 and 83 volume %.
    (b) You may alternatively add ethanol to a gasoline base fuel with 
no ethanol if you can demonstrate that such a base fuel blended with 
the proper amount of ethanol would meet all the specifications for E10 
test fuel described in Sec.  1065.710, other than the ethanol content.
    (c) The ethanol used for blending must be either denatured ethanol 
meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 80.1610, or fuel-grade ethanol 
with no denaturant. Account for the volume of any denaturant when 
calculating volumetric percentages.
    (d) The blended test fuel must have a dry vapor pressure equivalent 
between 41.5 and 45.1 kPa (6.0 and 6.5 psi) when measured using the 
procedure specified in Sec.  1065.710. You may add commercial grade 
butane as needed to meet this specification.

0
320. Section 1065.750 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.750  Analytical gases.

    Analytical gases must meet the accuracy and purity specifications 
of this section, unless you can show that other specifications would 
not affect your ability to show that you comply with all applicable 
emission standards.
    (a) Subparts C, D, F, and J of this part refer to the following gas 
specifications:
    (1) Use purified gases to zero measurement instruments and to blend

[[Page 23812]]

with calibration gases. Use gases with contamination no higher than the 
highest of the following values in the gas cylinder or at the outlet of 
a zero-gas generator:
    (i) 2% contamination, measured relative to the flow-weighted mean 
concentration expected at the standard. For example, if you would 
expect a flow-weighted CO concentration of 100.0 [mu]mol/mol, then you 
would be allowed to use a zero gas with CO contamination less than or 
equal to 2.000 [mu]mol/mol.
    (ii) Contamination as specified in the following table:

                    Table 1 of Sec.   1065.750--General Specifications for Purified Gases \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Constituent                           Purified air                        Purified N2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THC (C1-equivalent)......................  mol.............  mol.
CO.......................................  mol................  mol.
CO2......................................  mol...............  mol.
O2.......................................  0.205 to 0.215 mol/mol..........  mol.
NOX......................................  mol.............  mol.
N2O\2\...................................  mol.............  mol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We do not require these levels of purity to be NIST-traceable.
\2\ The N2O limit applies only if the standard-setting part requires you to report N2O or certify to an N2O
  standard.

    (2) Use the following gases with a FID analyzer:
    (i) FID fuel. Use FID fuel with a stated H2 
concentration of (0.39 to 0.41) mol/mol, balance He or N2, 
and a stated total hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 [mu]mol/mol or 
less. For GC-FIDs that measure methane (CH4) using a FID 
fuel that is balance N2, perform the CH4 
measurement as described in SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1065.1010).
    (ii) FID burner air. Use FID burner air that meets the 
specifications of purified air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For 
field testing, you may use ambient air.
    (iii) FID zero gas. Zero flame-ionization detectors with purified 
gas that meets the specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, 
except that the purified gas O2 concentration may be any 
value. Note that FID zero balance gases may be any combination of 
purified air and purified nitrogen. We recommend FID analyzer zero 
gases that contain approximately the expected flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O2 in the exhaust sample during testing.
    (iv) FID propane span gas. Span and calibrate THC FID with span 
concentrations of propane, C3H8. Calibrate on a 
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a 
C3H8 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, 
span a FID to respond with a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol. Note that FID 
span balance gases may be any combination of purified air and purified 
nitrogen. We recommend FID analyzer span gases that contain 
approximately the flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 
expected during testing. If the expected O2 concentration in 
the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of 
purified nitrogen.
    (v) FID CH4 span gas. If you always span and calibrate a 
CH4 FID with a nonmethane cutter, then span and calibrate 
the FID with span concentrations of CH4. Calibrate on a 
carbon number basis of one (C1). For example, if you use a 
CH4 span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span a FID to 
respond with a value of 200 [mu]mol/mol. Note that FID span balance 
gases may be any combination of purified air and purified nitrogen. We 
recommend FID analyzer span gases that contain approximately the 
expected flow-weighted mean concentration of O2 in the 
exhaust sample during testing. If the expected O2 
concentration in the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a 
balance gas of purified nitrogen.
    (3) Use the following gas mixtures, with gases traceable within 
1% of the NIST-accepted value or other gas standards we 
approve:
    (i) CH4, balance purified air and/or N2 (as 
applicable).
    (ii) C2H6, balance purified air and/or 
N2 (as applicable).
    (iii) C3H8, balance purified air and/or 
N2 (as applicable).
    (iv) CO, balance purified N2.
    (v) CO2, balance purified N2.
    (vi) NO, balance purified N2.
    (vii) NO2, balance purified air.
    (viii) O2, balance purified N2.
    (ix) C3H8, CO, CO2, NO, balance 
purified N2.
    (x) C3H8, CH4, CO, CO2, 
NO, balance purified N2.
    (xi) N2O, balance purified air and/or N2 (as 
applicable).
    (4) You may use gases for species other than those listed in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section (such as methanol in air, which you 
may use to determine response factors), as long as they are traceable 
to within 3% of the NIST-accepted value or other similar 
standards we approve, and meet the stability requirements of paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (5) You may generate your own calibration gases using a precision 
blending device, such as a gas divider, to dilute gases with purified 
N2 or purified air. If your gas divider meets the 
specifications in Sec.  1065.248, and the gases being blended meet the 
requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) of this section, the 
resulting blends are considered to meet the requirements of this 
paragraph (a).
* * * * *

Subpart I--[Amended]

0
321. Section 1065.805 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  1065.805  Sampling system.

* * * * *
    (d) You may bubble a sample of the exhaust through water to collect 
alcohols for later analysis. You may also use a photoacoustic analyzer 
to quantify ethanol and methanol in an exhaust sample as described in 
Sec.  1065.269.
* * * * *
    (f) You may sample alcohols or carbonyls using ``California Non-
Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures'' (incorporated by reference in 
Sec.  1065.1010). If you use this method, follow its calculations to 
determine the mass of the alcohol/carbonyl in the exhaust sample, but 
follow subpart G of this part for all other calculations (40 CFR part 
1066, subpart G, for vehicle testing).
* * * * *

0
322. Section 1065.845 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.845  Response factor determination.

    Since FID analyzers generally have an incomplete response to 
alcohols and carbonyls, determine each FID analyzer's alcohol/carbonyl 
response factor (RFOHCi[THC-FID]) after FID optimization to 
subtract those responses from the FID reading. Use the most

[[Page 23813]]

recently determined alcohol/carbonyl response factors to compensate for 
alcohol/carbonyl response. You are not required to determine the 
response factor for a compound unless you will subtract its response to 
compensate for a response.
    (a) You may generate response factors as described in paragraph (b) 
of this section, or you may use the following default response factors, 
consistent with good engineering judgment:

 Table 1 of Sec.   1065.845--Default Values for THC FID Response Factor
              Relative to Propane on a C+1-Equivalent Basis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Response factor
                        Compound                               (RF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetaldehyde...........................................             0.50
ethanol................................................             0.75
formaldehyde...........................................             0.00
methanol...............................................             0.63
propanol...............................................             0.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Determine the alcohol/carbonyl response factors as follows:
    (1) Select a C3H8 span gas that meets the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.750. Note that FID zero and span balance 
gases may be any combination of purified air or purified nitrogen that 
meets the specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer 
zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O2 expected during testing. Record the 
C3H8 concentration of the gas.
    (2) Select or prepare an alcohol/carbonyl calibration gas that 
meets the specifications of Sec.  1065.750 and has a concentration 
typical of the peak concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard. 
Record the calibration concentration of the gas.
    (3) Start and operate the FID analyzer according to the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Confirm that the FID analyzer has been calibrated using 
C3H8. Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one 
(C1). For example, if you use a C3H8 
span gas of concentration 200 [mu]mol/mol, span the FID to respond with 
a value of 600 [mu]mol/mol.
    (5) Zero the FID. Note that FID zero and span balance gases may be 
any combination of purified air or purified nitrogen that meets the 
specifications of Sec.  1065.750. We recommend FID analyzer zero and 
span gases that contain approximately the flow-weighted mean 
concentration of O2 expected during testing.
    (6) Span the FID with the C3H8 span gas that 
you selected under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (7) Introduce at the inlet of the FID analyzer the alcohol/carbonyl 
calibration gas that you selected under paragraph (a)(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 alcohol/carbonyl concentration, 
record 30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of 
these values.
    (10) Divide the mean measured concentration by the recorded span 
concentration of the alcohol/carbonyl calibration gas on a 
C1-equivalent basis. The result is the FID analyzer's 
response factor for alcohol/carbonyl, RFOHCi[THC-FID] on a 
C1-equivalent basis.
    (c) Alcohol/carbonyl calibration gases must remain within 2% of the labeled concentration. You must demonstrate the 
stability based on a quarterly measurement procedure with a precision 
of 2% percent or another method that we approve. Your 
measurement procedure may incorporate multiple measurements. If the 
true concentration of the gas changes deviates by more than 2%, but less than 10%, the gas may be relabeled with 
the new concentration.

0
323. Section 1065.850 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.850  Calculations.

    Use the calculations specified in Sec.  1065.665 to determine THCE 
or NMHCE and the calculations specified in 40 CFR 1066.635 to determine 
NMOG.

Subpart J--[Amended]

0
324. Section 1065.905 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(d)(2)(i)(A) to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.905  General provisions.

    (a) General. Unless the standard-setting part specifies deviations 
from the provisions of this subpart, field testing and laboratory 
testing with PEMS must conform to the provisions of this subpart. Use 
good engineering judgment when testing with PEMS to ensure proper 
function of the instruments under test conditions. For example, this 
may require additional maintenance or calibration for field testing or 
may require verification after moving the PEMS unit.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Use good engineering judgment to control dilution air 
temperature. If you choose to directly and actively control dilution 
air temperature, set the temperature to 25 [deg]C.
* * * * *

0
325. Section 1065.915 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  1065.915  PEMS instruments.

    (a) Instrument specifications. We recommend that you use PEMS that 
meet the specifications of subpart C of this part. For unrestricted use 
of PEMS in a laboratory or similar environment, use a PEMS that meets 
the same specifications as each lab instrument it replaces. For field 
testing or for testing with PEMS in a laboratory or similar 
environment, under the provisions of Sec.  1065.905(b), the 
specifications in the following table apply instead of the 
specifications in Table 1 of Sec.  1065.205.

                                 Table 1 of Sec.   1065.915--Recommended Minimum PEMS Measurement Instrument Performance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Rise time,
                                    Measured quantity    t10	90, and    Recording update
           Measurement                   symbol          fall time,         frequency         Accuracy \1\      Repeatability \1\        Noise \1\
                                                           t90	10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine speed transducer..........  fn................             1 s  1 Hz means........  5% of pt. or 1% of  2% of pt. or 1% of  0.5% of max.
                                                                                            max.                max.
Engine torque estimator, BSFC      T or BSFC.........             1 s  1 Hz means........  8% of pt. or 5% of  2% of pt. or 1% of  1% of max.
 (This is a signal from an                                                                  max.                max.
 engine's ECM).
General pressure transducer (not   p.................             5 s  1 Hz..............  5% of pt. or 5% of  2% of pt. or 0.5%   1% of max.
 a part of another instrument).                                                             max.                of max.
Atmospheric pressure meter.......  patmos............            50 s  0.1 Hz............  250 Pa............  200 Pa............  100 Pa.
General temperature sensor (not a  T.................             5 s  1 Hz..............  1% of pt. K or 5 K  0.5% of pt. K or 2  0.5% of max 0.5 K.
 part of another instrument).                                                                                   K.

[[Page 23814]]

 
General dewpoint sensor..........  Tdew..............            50 s  0.1 Hz............  3 K...............  1 K...............  1 K.
Exhaust flow meter...............  nb................             1 s  1 Hz means........  5% of pt. or 3% of  2% of pt..........  2% of max.
                                                                                            max.
Dilution air, inlet air, exhaust,  nb................             1 s  1 Hz means........  2.5% of pt. or      1.25% of pt. or     1% of max.
 and sample flow meters.                                                                    1.5% of max.        0.75% of max.
Continuous gas analyzer..........  x.................             5 s  1 Hz..............  4% of pt. or 4% of  2% of pt. or 2% of  1% of max.
                                                                                            meas.               meas.
Gravimetric PM balance...........  mPM...............  ..............  ..................  See Sec.            0.5 [mu]g.........
                                                                                            1065.790.
Inertial PM balance..............  mPM...............  ..............  ..................  4% of pt. or 4% of  2% of pt. or 2% of  1% of max.
                                                                                            meas.               meas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accuracy, repeatability, and noise are all determined with the same collected data, as described in Sec.   1065.305, and based on absolute values.
  ``pt.'' refers to the overall flow-weighted mean value expected at the standard; ``max.'' refers to the peak value expected at the standard over any
  test interval, not the maximum of the instrument's range; ``meas'' refers to the actual flow-weighted mean measured over any test interval.

* * * * *

0
326. Section 1065.920 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) 
introductory text, and (b)(7) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.920  PEMS calibrations and verifications.

    (a) Subsystem calibrations and verifications. Use all the 
applicable calibrations and verifications in subpart D of this part, 
including the linearity verifications in Sec.  1065.307, to calibrate 
and verify PEMS. Note that a PEMS does not have to meet the system-
response and updating-recording verifications of Sec.  1065.308 and 
Sec.  1065.309 if it meets the overall verification described in 
paragraph (b) of this section or if it measures PM using any method 
other than that described in Sec.  1065.170(c)(1). This section does 
not apply to ECM signals. Note that because the regulations of this 
part require you to use good engineering judgment, it may be necessary 
to perform additional verifications and analysis. It may also be 
necessary to limit the range of conditions under which the PEMS can be 
used or to include specific additional maintenance to ensure that it 
functions properly under the test conditions. As provided in 40 CFR 
1068.5, we will deem your system to not meet the requirements of this 
section if we determine that you did not use good engineering judgment 
to verify the measurement equipment. We may also deem your system to 
meet these requirements only under certain test conditions. If we ask 
for it, you must send us a summary of your verifications. We may also 
ask you to provide additional information or analysis to support your 
conclusions.
    (b) Overall verification. This paragraph (b) specifies methods and 
criteria for verifying the overall performance of systems not fully 
compliant with requirements that apply for laboratory testing. Maintain 
records to show that the particular make, model, and configuration of 
your PEMS meets this verification. You may rely on data and other 
information from the PEMS manufacturer. However, we recommend that you 
generate your own records to show that your specific PEMS meets this 
verification. If you upgrade or change the configuration of your PEMS, 
your record must show that your new configuration meets this 
verification. The verification required by this section consists of 
operating an engine over a duty cycle in the laboratory and 
statistically comparing data generated and recorded by the PEMS with 
data simultaneously generated and recorded by laboratory equipment as 
follows:
* * * * *
    (7) The PEMS passes the verification of this paragraph (b) if any 
one of the following are true for each constituent:
* * * * *

Subpart K--[Amended]

0
327. Section 1065.1001 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the definition for ``C1 equivalent (or 
basis)''.
0
b. By adding a definition for ``C1-equivalent (or basis)'' 
in alphabetical order.
0
c. By removing the definition for ``Engine''.
0
d. By revising the definitions for ``HEPA filter'', ``Hydrocarbon 
(HC)'', ``Oxygenated fuels'', and ``Precision''.
0
e. By adding a definition for ``Purified air'' in alphabetical order.

Sec.  1065.1001  Definitions.

* * * * *
    C1-equivalent (or basis) means a convention of expressing HC 
concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such 
that the C1 equivalent of a molar HC concentration equals 
the molar concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms 
in each HC molecule. For example, the C1 equivalent of 10 
[mu]mol/mol of propane (C3H8) is 30 [mu]mol/mol. 
C1 equivalent molar values may be denoted as ``ppmC'' in the 
standard-setting part. Molar mass may also be expressed on a 
C1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from molar 
concentrations and molar masses is only valid where they are each 
expressed on the same carbon basis.
* * * * *
    HEPA filter means high-efficiency particulate air filters that are 
rated to achieve a minimum initial particle-removal efficiency of 
99.97% using ASTM F1471 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1065.1010).
* * * * *
    Hydrocarbon (HC) means THC, THCE, NMHC, NMOG, or NMHCE, as 
applicable. Hydrocarbon generally means the hydrocarbon group on which 
the emission standards are based for each type of fuel and engine.
* * * * *
    Oxygenated fuels means fuels composed of at least 25% oxygen-
containing compounds, such as ethanol or methanol. Testing engines that 
use oxygenated fuels generally requires the use of the sampling methods 
in subpart I of this part. However, you should read the standard-
setting part and subpart I

[[Page 23815]]

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.
* * * * *
    Purified air means air meeting the specifications for purified air 
in Sec.  1065.750. Purified air may be produced by purifying ambient 
air. The purification may occur at the test site or at another location 
(such as at a gas supplier's facility). Alternatively, purified air may 
be synthetically generated, using good engineering judgment, from 
purified oxygen and nitrogen. The addition of other elements normally 
present in purified ambient air (such as Ar) is not required.
* * * * *

0
328. Section 1065.1005 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.1005  Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of 
measure.

    The procedures in this part generally follow the International 
System of Units (SI), as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811, 
which we incorporate by reference in Sec.  1065.1010. See Sec.  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            Units in terms of SI base units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[alpha]............  atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio.....  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
A..................  area................................  square meter..............  m\2\....................  m\2\
a0.................  intercept of least squares
                      regression.
a1.................  slope of least squares regression...
ag.................  acceleration of Earth's gravity.....  meter per square second...  m/s\2\..................  m/s\2\
[beta].............  ratio of diameters..................  meter per meter...........  m/m.....................  1
[beta].............  atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio.......  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
C#.................  number of carbon atoms in a molecule
Cd.................  discharge coefficient...............
Cf.................  flow coefficient....................
[delta]............  atomic nitrogen-to-carbon ratio.....  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
d..................  Diameter............................  meter.....................  m.......................  m
DR.................  dilution ratio......................  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
[epsi].............  error between a quantity and its
                      reference.
e..................  brake-specific emission or fuel       gram per kilowatt hour....  g/(kW[middot]hr)........  g[middot]3.6-1[middot]10\6\[middot]m-
                      consumption.                                                                                2[middot]kg[middot]s\2\
F..................  F-test statistic....................
f..................  frequency...........................  hertz.....................  Hz......................  s-1
fn.................  angular speed (shaft)...............  revolutions per minute....  r/min...................  2[middot][pi][middot]60-
                                                                                                                  1[middot]m[middot]m-1[middot]s-1
[gamma]............  ratio of specific heats.............  (joule per kilogram         (J/(kg[middot]K))/(J/     1
                                                            kelvin) per (joule per      (kg[middot]K)).
                                                            kilogram kelvin).
[gamma]............  atomic sulfur-to-carbon ratio.......  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
K..................  correction factor...................  ..........................  ........................  1
Kv.................  calibration coefficient.............  ..........................  m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0  m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0.5\[middot]kg-1
                                                                                        .5\/kg.
l..................  length..............................  meter.....................  m.......................  m
[mu]...............  viscosity, dynamic..................  pascal second.............  Pa[middot]s.............  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-1
M..................  molar mass\1\.......................  gram per mole.............  g/mol...................  10-3[middot]kg[middot]mol-1
m..................  mass................................  kilogram..................  kg......................  kg
m..................  mass rate...........................  kilogram per second.......  kg/s....................  kg[middot]s-1
[nu]...............  viscosity, kinematic................  meter squared per second..  m\2\/s..................  m\2\[middot]s-1
N..................  total number in series..............
n..................  amount of substance.................  mole......................  mol.....................  mol
n..................  amount of substance rate............  mole per second...........  mol/s...................  mol[middot]s-1
P..................  power...............................  kilowatt..................  kW......................  10\3\[middot]m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-3
PF.................  penetration fraction................
p..................  pressure............................  pascal....................  Pa......................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2
[rho]..............  mass density........................  kilogram per cubic meter..  kg/m\3\.................  kg[middot]m-3
[Delta]p...........  differential static pressure........  pascal....................  Pa......................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2
r..................  ratio of pressures..................  pascal per pascal.........  Pa/Pa...................  1
r\2\...............  coefficient of determination........
Ra.................  average surface roughness...........  micrometer................  [mu]m...................  10-6 m
Re#................  Reynolds number.....................
RF.................  response factor.....................
RH.................  relative humidity...................
[sigma]............  non-biased standard deviation.......
S..................  Sutherland constant.................  kelvin....................  K.......................  K
SEE................  standard estimate of error..........
T..................  absolute temperature................  kelvin....................  K.......................  K
T..................  Celsius temperature.................  degree Celsius............  [deg]C..................  K - 273.15
T..................  torque (moment of force)............  newton meter..............  N[middot]m..............  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
[thgr].............  plane angle.........................  degrees...................  [deg]...................  rad
t..................  time................................  second....................  s.......................  s
[Delta]t...........  time interval, period, 1/frequency..  second....................  s.......................  s
V..................  volume..............................  cubic meter...............  m\3\....................  m\3\
V..................  volume rate.........................  cubic meter per second....  m\3\/s..................  m\3\[middot]s-1

[[Page 23816]]

 
W..................  work................................  kilowatt hour.............  kW[middot]hr............  3.6[middot]10-
                                                                                                                  6[middot]m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
wc.................  carbon mass fraction................  gram per gram.............  g/g.....................  1
x..................  amount of substance mole fraction     mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
                      \2\.
x..................  flow-weighted mean concentration....  mole per mole.............  mol/mol.................  1
y..................  generic variable....................
Z..................  compressibility factor..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NOX and HC, the regulations specify effective
  molar masses based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation.
\2\ Note that mole fractions for THC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C1 equivalent basis.

    (b) Symbols for chemical species. This part uses the following 
symbols for chemical species and exhaust constituents:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Symbol                               Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ar................................  argon.
C.................................  carbon.
CH2O..............................  formaldehyde.
CH3OH.............................  methanol.
CH4...............................  methane.
C2H4O.............................  acetaldehyde.
C2H5OH............................  ethanol.
C2H6..............................  ethane.
C3H7OH............................  propanol.
C3H8..............................  propane.
C4H10.............................  butane.
C5H12.............................  pentane.
CO................................  carbon monoxide.
CO2...............................  carbon dioxide.
H.................................  atomic hydrogen.
H2................................  molecular hydrogen.
H2O...............................  water.
H2SO4.............................  sulfuric acid.
HC................................  hydrocarbon.
He................................  helium.
\85\Kr............................  krypton 85.
N2................................  molecular nitrogen.
NH3...............................  ammonia.
NMHC..............................  nonmethane hydrocarbon.
NMHCE.............................  nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent.
NO................................  nitric oxide.
NO2...............................  nitrogen dioxide.
NOX...............................  oxides of nitrogen.
N2O...............................  nitrous oxide.
NMOG..............................  nonmethane organic gases.
NONMHC............................  non-oxygenated nonmethane
                                     hydrocarbon.
NOTHC.............................  non-oxygenated total hydrocarbon.
O2................................  molecular oxygen.
OHC...............................  oxygenated hydrocarbon.
\210\Po...........................  polonium 210.
PM................................  particulate matter.
S.................................  sulfur.
SVOC..............................  semi-volatile organic compound.
THC...............................  total hydrocarbon.
THCE..............................  total hydrocarbon equivalent.
ZrO2..............................  zirconium dioxide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Prefixes. This part uses the following prefixes to define a 
quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Symbol                         Quantity           Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mu].................................  micro...................     10-6
m....................................  milli...................     10-3
c....................................  centi...................     10-2
k....................................  kilo....................      103
M....................................  mega....................      106
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Superscripts. This part uses the following superscripts to 
define a quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Superscript                           Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
overbar (such as y)...............  arithmetic mean.
overdot (such as y)...............  quantity per unit time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Subscripts. This part uses the following subscripts to define a 
quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subscript                            Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
abs...............................  absolute quantity.
act...............................  actual condition.
air...............................  air, dry.
amb...............................  ambient.
atmos.............................  atmospheric.
bkgnd.............................  background.
cal...............................  calibration quantity.
CFV...............................  critical flow venturi.
comb..............................  combined.
composite.........................  composite value.
cor...............................  corrected quantity.
dil...............................  dilution air.
dew...............................  dewpoint.
dexh..............................  diluted exhaust.
dry...............................  dry condition.
dutycycle.........................  duty cycle.
exh...............................  raw exhaust.
exp...............................  expected quantity.
fn................................  feedback speed.
frict.............................  friction.
fuel..............................  fuel consumption.
hi, idle..........................  condition at high-idle.
i.................................  an individual of a series.
idle..............................  condition at idle.
in................................  quantity in.
init..............................  initial quantity, typically before
                                     an emission test.
int...............................  intake air.
j.................................  an individual of a series.
mapped............................  conditions over which an engine can
                                     operate.
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.
media.............................  PM sample media.
mix...............................  mixture of diluted exhaust and air.
norm..............................  normalized.
out...............................  quantity out.
P.................................  power.
part..............................  partial quantity.
PDP...............................  positive-displacement pump.
post..............................  after the test interval.
pre...............................  before the test interval.
prod..............................  stoichiometric product.
record............................  record rate.
ref...............................  reference quantity.
rev...............................  revolution.
sat...............................  saturated condition.
s.................................  slip.
span..............................  span quantity.
SSV...............................  subsonic venturi.
std...............................  standard condition.
stroke............................  engine strokes per power stroke.
T.................................  torque.
test..............................  test quantity.
test, alt.........................  alternate test quantity.
uncor.............................  uncorrected quantity.
vac...............................  vacuum side of the sampling system.
weight............................  calibration weight.
zero..............................  zero quantity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Constants. (1) This part uses the following constants for the 
composition of dry air:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Symbol                    Quantity               mol/mol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[chi]Arair..................  amount of argon in dry             0.00934
                               air.
[chi]CO2air.................  amount of carbon                  0.000375
                               dioxide in dry air.
[chi]N2air..................  amount of nitrogen in              0.78084
                               dry air.
[chi]O2air..................  amount of oxygen in               0.209445
                               dry air.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23817]]

    (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar 
masses of chemical species:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       g/mol  (10-
          Symbol                 Quantity        3[middot]kg[middot]mol-
                                                            1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mair.....................  molar mass of dry                  28.96559
                            air \1\.
MAr......................  molar mass of argon.                 39.948
MC.......................  molar mass of carbon                12.0107
MCH3OH...................  molar mass of                      32.04186
                            methanol.
MC2H5OH..................  molar mass of                      46.06844
                            ethanol.
MC2H4O...................  molar mass of                      44.05256
                            acetaldehyde.
MC3H8....................  molar mass of                      44.09562
                            propane.
MC3H7OH..................  molar mass of                      60.09502
                            propanol.
MCO......................  molar mass of carbon                28.0101
                            monoxide.
MCH4.....................  molar mass of                       16.0425
                            methane.
MCO2.....................  molar mass of carbon                44.0095
                            dioxide.
MH.......................  molar mass of atomic                1.00794
                            hydrogen.
MH2......................  molar mass of                       2.01588
                            molecular hydrogen.
MH2O.....................  molar mass of water.               18.01528
MCH2O....................  molar mass of                      30.02598
                            formaldehyde.
MHe......................  molar mass of helium               4.002602
MN.......................  molar mass of atomic                14.0067
                            nitrogen.
MN2......................  molar mass of                       28.0134
                            molecular nitrogen.
MNH3.....................  molar mass of                      17.03052
                            ammonia.
MNMHC....................  effective C1 molar                13.875389
                            mass of nonmethane
                            hydrocarbon \2\.
MNMHCE...................  effective C1 molar                13.875389
                            mass of nonmethane
                            hydrocarbon
                            equivalent \2\.
MNOX.....................  effective molar mass                46.0055
                            of oxides of
                            nitrogen \3\.
MN2O.....................  molar mass of                       44.0128
                            nitrous oxide.
MO.......................  molar mass of atomic                15.9994
                            oxygen.
MO2......................  molar mass of                       31.9988
                            molecular oxygen.
MS.......................  molar mass of sulfur                 32.065
MTHC.....................  effective C1 molar                13.875389
                            mass of total
                            hydrocarbon \2\.
MTHCE....................  effective C1 molar                13.875389
                            mass of total
                            hydrocarbon
                            equivalent \2\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.
\2\ The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined
  on a C1 basis and are based on an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio,
  [alpha], of 1.85 (with [beta], [gamma], and [delta] equal to zero).
\3\ The effective molar mass of NOX is defined by the molar mass of
  nitrogen dioxide, NO2.

    (3) This part uses the following molar gas constant for ideal 
gases:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    J/(mol[middot]K)
                                               (m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-
         Symbol                 Quantity        2[middot]mol-1[middot]K-
                                                           1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R.......................  molar gas constant.                8.314472
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) This part uses the following ratios of specific heats for 
dilution air and diluted exhaust:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      [J/(kg[middot]K)]/
           Symbol                    Quantity          [J/(kg[middot]K)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[gamma]air..................  ratio of specific                    1.399
                               heats for intake air
                               or dilution air.
[gamma]dil..................  ratio of specific                    1.399
                               heats for diluted
                               exhaust.
[gamma]exh..................  ratio of specific                    1.385
                               heats for raw exhaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Other acronyms and abbreviations. This part uses the following 
additional abbreviations and acronyms:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABS...............................  acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene.
ASTM..............................  American Society for Testing and
                                     Materials.
BMD...............................  bag mini-diluter.
BSFC..............................  brake-specific fuel consumption.
CARB..............................  California Air Resources Board.
CFR...............................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CFV...............................  critical-flow venturi.
CI................................  compression-ignition.
CITT..............................  Curb Idle Transmission Torque.
CLD...............................  chemiluminescent detector.
CVS...............................  constant-volume sampler.
DF................................  deterioration factor.
ECM...............................  electronic control module.
EFC...............................  electronic flow control.
e.g...............................  for example.
EGR...............................  exhaust gas recirculation.
EPA...............................  Environmental Protection Agency.
FEL...............................  Family Emission Limit.
FID...............................  flame-ionization detector.
FTIR..............................  Fourier transform infrared.
GC................................  gas chromatograph.
GC-ECD............................  gas chromatograph with an electron-
                                     capture detector.
GC-FID............................  gas chromatograph with a flame
                                     ionization detector.
HEPA..............................  high-efficiency particulate air.
IBP...............................  initial boiling point.
IBR...............................  incorporated by reference.
i.e...............................  in other words.
ISO...............................  International Organization for
                                     Standardization.

[[Page 23818]]

 
LPG...............................  liquefied petroleum gas.
MPD...............................  magnetopneumatic detection.
NDIR..............................  nondispersive infrared.
NDUV..............................  nondispersive ultraviolet.
NIST..............................  National Institute for Standards and
                                     Technology.
NMC...............................  nonmethane cutter.
PDP...............................  positive-displacement pump.
PEMS..............................  portable emission measurement
                                     system.
PFD...............................  partial-flow dilution.
PLOT..............................  porous layer open tubular.
PMD...............................  paramagnetic detection.
PMP...............................  Polymethylpentene.
pt................................  a single point at the mean value
                                     expected at the standard.
psi...............................  pounds per square inch.
PTFE..............................  polytetrafluoroethylene (commonly
                                     known as TeflonTM).
RE................................  rounding error.
RESS..............................  rechargeable energy storage system.
RFPF..............................  response factor penetration
                                     fraction.
RMC...............................  ramped-modal cycle.
rms...............................  root-mean square.
RTD...............................  resistive temperature detector.
SAW...............................  surface acoustic wave.
SEE...............................  standard estimate of error.
SSV...............................  subsonic venturi.
SI................................  spark-ignition.
THC-FID...........................  total hydrocarbon flame ionization
                                     detector.
TINV..............................  inverse student t-test function in
                                     Microsoft Excel.
UCL...............................  upper confidence limit.
UFM...............................  ultrasonic flow meter.
U.S.C.............................  United States Code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
329. Section 1065.1010 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1065.1010  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, a document must be published in the Federal 
Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved 
materials are available for inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) 
at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. These 
approved materials are 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. In addition, these materials are 
available from the sources listed below.
    (b) ASTM material. The following standards are available from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-ASTM, or http://www.astm.org:
    (1) ASTM D86-12, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum 
Products at Atmospheric Pressure, approved December 1, 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  1065.703(b) and 1065.710(b) and (c).
    (2) ASTM D93-13, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky- 
Martens Closed Cup Tester, approved July 15, 2013, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1065.703(b).
    (3) ASTM D130-12, Standard Test Method for Corrosiveness to Copper 
from Petroleum Products by Copper Strip Test, approved November 1, 
2012, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (4) ASTM D381-12, Standard Test Method for Gum Content in Fuels by 
Jet Evaporation, approved April 15, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.710(b).
    (5) ASTM D445-12, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of 
Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity), 
approved April 15, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.703(b).
    (6) ASTM D525-12a, Standard Test Method for Oxidation Stability of 
Gasoline (Induction Period Method), approved September 1, 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (7) ASTM D613-13, Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel 
Fuel Oil, approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.703(b).
    (8) ASTM D910-13a, Standard Specification for Aviation Gasolines, 
approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (9) ASTM D975-13a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, 
approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (10) ASTM D1267-12, Standard Test Method for Gage Vapor Pressure of 
Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases (LP-Gas Method), approved November 1, 
2012, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720(a).
    (11) ASTM D1319-13, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in 
Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, approved 
May 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710(c).
    (12) ASTM D1655-13a, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine 
Fuels, approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (13) ASTM D1837-11, Standard Test Method for Volatility of 
Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved October 1, 2011, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.720(a).
    (14) ASTM D1838-12a, Standard Test Method for Copper Strip 
Corrosion by Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved December 1, 2012, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720(a).
    (15) ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, approved January 1, 
2010, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.715(a).
    (16) ASTM D2158-11, Standard Test Method for Residues in Liquefied 
Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved January 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.720(a).
    (17) ASTM D2163-07, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Hydrocarbons in Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propane/Propene 
Mixtures by Gas Chromatography, approved December 1, 2007, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.720(a).
    (18) ASTM D2598-12, Standard Practice for Calculation of Certain 
Physical Properties of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases from 
Compositional Analysis, approved November 1, 2012, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1065.720(a).
    (19) ASTM D2622-10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum 
Products by Wavelength Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry, 
approved February 15, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1065.703(b) and 
1065.710(b) and (c).
    (20) ASTM D2699-13b, Standard Test Method for Research Octane 
Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (21) ASTM D2700-13b, Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number 
of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel, approved October 1, 2013, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (22) ASTM D2713-13, Standard Test Method for Dryness of Propane 
(Valve Freeze Method), approved October 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.720(a).
    (23) ASTM D2784-11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Liquefied 
Petroleum Gases (Oxy-Hydrogen Burner or Lamp), approved January 1, 
2011, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.720(a).
    (24) ASTM D2880-13b, Standard Specification for Gas Turbine Fuel 
Oils, approved November 15, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (25) ASTM D2986-95a, Standard Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay 
Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test, approved 
September 10, 1995, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.170(c). (Note: This 
standard was withdrawn by ASTM.)

[[Page 23819]]

    (26) ASTM D3231-13, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in 
Gasoline, approved June 15, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710(b) 
and (c).
    (27) ASTM D3237-12, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline By 
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy, approved June 1, 2012, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1065.710(b) and (c).
    (28) ASTM D4052-11, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative 
Density, and API Gravity of Liquids by Digital Density Meter, approved 
October 15, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.703(b).
    (29) ASTM D4629-12, Standard Test Method for Trace Nitrogen in 
Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Syringe/Inlet Oxidative Combustion and 
Chemiluminescence Detection, approved April 15, 2012, IBR approved for 
Sec.  1065.655(d).
    (30) ASTM D4814-13b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark-
Ignition Engine Fuel, approved December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.701(f).
    (31) ASTM D4815-13, 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, 2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (32) 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, approved April 15, 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.703(b).
    (33) ASTM D5191-13, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of 
Petroleum Products (Mini Method), approved December 1, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.710(b) and (c).
    (34) ASTM D5291-10, Standard Test Methods for Instrumental 
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products 
and Lubricants, approved May 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.655(d).
    (35) ASTM D5453-12, 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 November 1, 
2012, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (36) ASTM D5599-00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and 
Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection, approved October 1, 2010, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1065.655(d) and 1065.710(b).
    (37) ASTM D5762-12 Standard Test Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum 
and Petroleum Products by Boat-Inlet Chemiluminescence, approved April 
15, 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.655(d).
    (38) ASTM D5769-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, approved May 1, 2010, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (39) ASTM D5797-13, Standard Specification for Fuel Methanol (M70- 
M85) for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, approved June 15, 2013, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (40) ASTM D5798-13a, Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends 
for Flexible Fuel Automotive Spark-Ignition Engines, approved June 15, 
2013, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (41) ASTM D6550-10, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical-Fluid Chromatography, 
approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (42) ASTM D6615-11a, Standard Specification for Jet B Wide-Cut 
Aviation Turbine Fuel, approved October 1, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.701(f).
    (43) ASTM D6751-12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend 
Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, approved August 1, 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.701(f).
    (44) ASTM D6985-04a, Standard Specification for Middle Distillate 
Fuel Oil--Military Marine Applications, approved November 1, 2004, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.701(f). (Note: This standard was withdrawn by 
ASTM.)
    (45) ASTM D7039-13, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline, 
Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel, Kerosine, Biodiesel, Biodiesel Blends, and 
Gasoline-Ethanol Blends by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-ray 
Fluorescence Spectrometry, approved September 15, 2013, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.710(b).
    (46) ASTM F1471-09, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 
Performance of a High- Efficiency Particulate Air Filter System, 
approved March 1, 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.1001.
    (c) California Air Resources Board material. The following 
documents are available from the California Air Resources Board, 
Haagen-Smit Laboratory, 9528 Telstar Ave., El Monte, CA 91731-2908, 
(800) 242-4450, or http://www.arb.ca.gov:
    (1) California Non-Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures, Amended 
July 30, 2002, Mobile Source Division, California Air Resources Board, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.805(f).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (d) Institute of Petroleum material. The following documents are 
available from the Energy Institute, 61 New Cavendish St., London, W1G 
7AR, UK, or by calling +44-(0)20-7467-7100, or at http://www.energyinst.org:
    (1) IP-470, 2005, Determination of aluminum, silicon, vanadium, 
nickel, iron, calcium, zinc, and sodium in residual fuels by atomic 
absorption spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(b).
    (2) IP-500, 2003, Determination of the phosphorus content of 
residual fuels by ultra-violet spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.705(b).
    (3) IP-501, 2005, Determination of aluminum, silicon, vanadium, 
nickel, iron, sodium, calcium, zinc and phosphorus in residual fuel oil 
by ashing, fusion and inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(b).
    (e) ISO material. The following standards are available from the 
International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, 41-22-749-01-11, or 
http://www.iso.org:
    (1) ISO 2719:2002, Determination of flash point--Pensky-Martens 
closed cup method, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (2) ISO 3016:1994, Petroleum products--Determination of pour point, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (3) ISO 3104:1994/Cor 1:1997, Petroleum products--Transparent and 
opaque liquids--Determination of kinematic viscosity and calculation of 
dynamic viscosity, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (4) ISO 3675:1998, Crude petroleum and liquid petroleum products-- 
Laboratory determination of density-- Hydrometer method, IBR approved 
for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (5) ISO 3733:1999, Petroleum products and bituminous materials-- 
Determination of water--Distillation method, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.705(c).
    (6) ISO 6245:2001, Petroleum products--Determination of ash, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (7) ISO 8217:2012(E), Petroleum products--Fuels (class F)--
Specifications of marine fuels, Fifth edition, August 15, 2012, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.705(b) and (c).
    (8) ISO 8754:2003, Petroleum products--Determination of sulfur 
content--Energy-dispersive X-ray Fluorescence spectrometry, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (9) ISO 10307-2(E):2009, Petroleum products--Total sediment in 
residual fuel oils--Part 2: Determination using standard procedures for 
ageing, Second Ed., February 1, 2009, as modified by

[[Page 23820]]

ISO 10307-2:2009/Cor.1:2010(E), Technical Corrigendum 1, published May 
15, 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (10) ISO 10370:1993/Cor 1:1996, Petroleum products--Determination 
of carbon residue--Micro method, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (11) ISO 10478:1994, Petroleum products--Determination of aluminium 
and silicon in fuel oils--Inductively coupled plasma emission and 
atomic absorption spectroscopy methods, IBR approved for Sec.  
1065.705(c).
    (12) ISO 12185:1996/Cor 1:2001, Crude petroleum and petroleum 
products--Determination of density--Oscillating U-tube method, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (13) ISO 14596:2007, Petroleum products--Determination of sulfur 
content--Wavelength-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, IBR 
approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (14) ISO 14597:1997, Petroleum products--Determination of vanadium 
and nickel content--Wavelength dispersive X-ray fluorescence 
spectrometry, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.705(c).
    (15) ISO 14644-1:1999, Cleanrooms and associated controlled 
environments, IBR approved for Sec.  1065.190(b).
    (f) NIST material. The following documents are available from 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 
1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070, (301) 975-6478, or www.nist.gov:
    (1) NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use 
of the International System of Units (SI), March 2008, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1065.20(a) and 1065.1005.
    (2) NIST Technical Note 1297, 1994 Edition, Guidelines for 
Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, 
IBR approved for Sec.  1065.1001.
    (g) SAE International material. The following standards are 
available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 
15096-0001, (724) 776-4841, or 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 Sec.  1065.360(c).
    (2) SAE J1151, Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography, 
stabilized September 2011, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1065.267(b) and 
1065.750(a).

0
330. A new subpart L consisting of Sec.  1065.1101 through Sec.  
1065.1111 is added to part 1065 to read as follows:
Subpart L--Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants
Sec.
1065.1101 Applicability.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC measurement.
1065.1105 Sampling system design.
1065.1107 Sample media and sample system preparation; sampler 
assembly.
1065.1109 Post-test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.
1065.1111 Sample analysis.

Subpart L--Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants

Sec.  1065.1101  Applicability.

    This subpart specifies procedures that may be used to measure 
emission constituents that are not measured (or not separately 
measured) by the test procedures in the other subparts of this part. 
These procedures are included to facilitate consistent measurement of 
unregulated pollutants for purposes other than compliance with emission 
standards. Unless otherwise specified in the standard-setting part, use 
of these procedures is optional and does not replace any requirements 
in the rest of this part.
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Sec.  1065.1103  General provisions for SVOC measurement.

    The provisions of Sec. Sec.  1065.1103 through 1065.1111 specify 
procedures for measuring semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC) along 
with PM. These sections specify how to collect a sample of the SVOCs 
during exhaust emission testing, 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. Follow standard analytic chemistry methods for any 
aspects of the analysis that are not specified.
    (a) Laboratory cleanliness is especially important throughout SVOC 
testing. Thoroughly clean all sampling system components and glassware 
before testing to avoid sample contamination. For the purposes of this 
subpart, the sampling system is defined as sample pathway from the 
sample probe inlet to the downstream most point where the sample is 
captured (in this case the condensate trap).
    (b) We recommend that media blanks be analyzed for each batch of 
sample media (sorbent, filters, etc.) prepared for testing. Blank 
sorbent modules (i.e., field blanks) should be stored in a sealed 
environment and should periodically accompany the test sampling system 
throughout the course of a test, including sampling system and sorbent 
module disassembly, sample packaging, and storage. Use good engineering 
judgment to determine the frequency with which you should generate 
field blanks. The field blank sample should be close to the sampler 
during testing.
    (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 nitropolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (nPAHs), 
perform these procedures in the dark or with ultraviolet filters 
installed over the lights.
    (e) 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 crosslinked polystyrene copolymer 
resin adsorbent known commercially as Amberlite[supreg] XAD[supreg]-2, 
or an equivalent adsorbent like XAD-4.
    (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 or 
they have a boiling point between (240 and 400) [deg]C. SVOCs include 
dioxin, quinone, and nitro-PAH compounds. They may be a natural 
byproduct of combustion or they may be created post-combustion. Note 
that SVOCs may be included in measured values of hydrocarbons and/or PM 
using the procedures specified in this part.
    (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 the hydrogen atoms are replaced with the atomic isotope 
hydrogen-2 (deuterium) or one of the carbon atoms at a defined

[[Page 23821]]

position in the molecule is replaced with the atomic isotope carbon-13.

Sec.  1065.1105  Sampling system design.

    (a) General. We recommend that you design your SVOC batch sampler 
to extract sample from undiluted emissions to maximize the sampled SVOC 
quantity. To the extent practical, adjust sampling times based on the 
emission rate of target analytes from the engine to obtain analyte 
concentrations above the detection limit. In some instances you may 
need to run repeat test cycles without replacing the sample media or 
disassembling 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 have inside surfaces of nickel, titanium or another 
nonreactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust gas 
temperatures. Seal all joints in the hot zone of the system with 
gaskets made of nonreactive material similar to that of the sampling 
system components. You may use teflon gaskets in the cold zone. We 
recommend locating all components as close to probes as practical to 
shorten sampling system length and minimize the surface exposed to 
engine 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 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) Use a sample probe similar to the PM sample probe specified in 
subpart B of this part.
    (2) Use a PM filter holder similar to the 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 using a 
110 mm filter for testing spark ignition engines or engines that 
utilize exhaust aftertreatment for PM removal and a 293 mm filter for 
other engines. If you are not analyzing separately for SVOCs in gas and 
particle phases, you do not have to control the temperature of the 
filter holder. 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 SVOC on the filter. In this 
method, SVOCs that pass through the filter will be collected on the 
downstream sorbent module. If you are collecting SVOCs in gas and 
particle phases, control your filter face temperature according to 
Sec.  1065.140(e)(4).
    (3) Use good engineering judgment to design a cooling coil that 
will drop the sample temperature to approximately 5 [deg]C. Note that 
downstream of the cooling coil, the sample will be a mixture of vapor 
phase hydrocarbons in CO2, air, and a primarily aqueous 
liquid phase.
    (4) 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 PUF plugs at either end of 
the module, noting that you may vary the mass of XAD used for testing 
based on the anticipated SVOC emission rate.
    (5) 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 recommend targeting an average sample flow 
rate of 70 liters per minute to maximize SVOC collection. The sampler 
must be designed to maintain proportional sampling throughout the test. 
Verify proportional sampling after an emission test as described in 
Sec.  1065.545.
    (e) Water bath. Design the sample system with a water bath in which 
the cooling coil, sorbent module, and condensate trap will be 
submerged. Use a heat exchanger or ice to maintain the bath temperature 
at (3 to 7) [deg]C.

Sec.  1065.1107  Sample media and sample system preparation; sample 
system assembly.

    This section describes the appropriate types of sample media and 
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 
associated particle phase SVOCs, and a second to capture SVOCs that 
remain in the gas phase, as follows:
    (1) For capturing PM, we recommend using pure quartz filters with 
no binder. Select the filter diameter to minimize filter change 
intervals, accounting for the expected PM emission rate, sample flow 
rate, and number of repeat tests. 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 capturing 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 plugs/XAD-2 as needed. Store sample media 
in containers protected from light and ambient air if you do not use 
them immediately after cleaning.
    (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 with a series of Soxhlet extractions: 8 
hours with water, 22 hours with methanol, 22 hours 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 and then three times with toluene. 
Prepare pre-cleaned aluminum foil for capping the probe inlet of the 
sampler after the sampling system has been assembled.
    (c) Sorbent spiking. Use good engineering judgment to verify the 
extent to which your extraction methods recover SVOCs absorbed on the 
sample media. We recommend spiking the XAD-2 resin with a surrogate 
standard before 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, 
add the remaining 20 g of the XAD-2 resin to the module, and then 
insert a PUF plug in the top of the sorbent module.
    (4) Cover the inlet and outlet of the sorbent module with pre-
cleaned aluminum foil.
    (d) Sampling system assembly. After preparing the sample media and 
the sampler, assemble the condensate trap, cooling coil, filter holder 
with filter, sample probe, and sorbent module, then

[[Page 23822]]

lower the assembly into the reservoir. Cover the probe inlet with pre-
cleaned aluminum foil.

Sec.  1065.1109  Post-test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.

    This section describes the process for disassembling and rinsing 
the sampling system and extracting and cleaning up the sample.
    (a) Sampling system disassembly. Disassemble the sampling system in 
a clean environment as follows after the test:
    (1) Remove the PM filter, PUF plugs, and all the XAD-2 from the 
sampling system and place them into a Soxhlet extraction thimble. Store 
them at or below 37 [deg]C until analysis.
    (2) Rinse sampling system wetted surfaces upstream of the 
condensate trap with acetone followed by toluene (or a comparable 
solvent system), ensuring that all the solvent remaining in liquid 
phase is collected (note that a fraction of the acetone and toluene 
will likely be lost to evaporation during mixing). Rinse with solvent 
volumes that are sufficient to cover all the surfaces exposed to the 
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 sampling system 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 purchase pre-cleaned 
bottles).
    (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 
separatory funnel or an equivalent method. Add the toluene from this 
aqueous extraction to the toluene rinsate fraction described 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. Be careful to 
avoid loss of low molecular weight analytes when concentrating with 
rotary evaporation.
    (b) Sample extraction. Extract the SVOCs from the sorbent using 
Soxhlet extraction as described in this paragraph (b). Two 16 hour 
extractions are necessary to accommodate the Soxhlet extractions of all 
SVOCs from a single sample. This reduces the possibility of losing low 
molecular weight SVOCs and promotes water removal. We recommend 
performing the first extraction with acetone/hexane and the second 
using toluene (or an equivalent solvent system). You may alternatively 
use an equivalent method such as an automated solvent extractor.
    (1) We recommend equipping the Soxhlet extractor with a Dean-Stark 
trap to facilitate removal of residual water from the sampling system 
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) hour Soxhlet extraction with methylene chloride at a cycling 
rate of three cycles per hour. Discard the solvent used for pre-
cleaning (no analysis is necessary).
    (2) Load the extractor thimble before placing it in the extractor 
by first rolling the PM filter around the inner circumference of the 
thimble, with the sampled side facing in. Push one PUF plug down into 
the bottom of the thimble, add approximately half of the XAD-2, and 
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 delivering the extraction standard. We recommend using multiple 
isotopically labeled extraction standards that cover the range of 
target analytes. This generally 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, insert 
the remaining PUF plug, and place the thimble into the extractor. Note 
that if you are collecting and analyzing for SVOCs in gas and particle 
phases, perform separate extractions for the filter and XAD-2.
    (3) For the initial extraction, combine the concentrated acetone 
rinses (from the sampling system 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 to cycle the extraction at a rate of (3.0 0.5) 
cycles per hour. Drain the water from the Dean-Stark trap as it 
accumulates by opening the stopcock on the trap. Set aside the water 
for analysis or discard it. In most cases, any water present will be 
removed within approximately 2 hours after starting the extraction.
    (4) After completing the initial extraction, remove the solvent and 
concentrate it to (4.0 0.5) ml using a Kuderna-Danish 
concentrator that includes a condenser such as a three-ball Snyder 
column with venting dimples and a graduated collection tube. Using this 
concentrator will minimize evaporative loss of analytes with lower 
molecular weight.
    (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 apparatus.
    (iii) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 
section three times, or as necessary to remove all the residual solvent 
from the round bottom flask of the extractor, concentrating the final 
rinsate to (4 0.5) ml.
    (5) For the second extraction, combine the toluene rinses (from the 
sampling system 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 paragraph (a) of this section, you may need to 
concentrate the rinsate before adding it to the extraction apparatus if 
the rinsate solvent volume is too large. Allow the sample to reflux for 
16 hours with the rheostat adjusted to cycle the extraction at a rate 
of (3.0 0.5) cycles per hour. Check the Dean-Stark trap for 
water during the first 2 hours of the extraction (though little or no 
water should be present during this stage).
    (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 (b)(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 you need to perform. 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 from the sample extract any solids and any 
SVOCs that

[[Page 23823]]

will not be analyzed. This process, known as ``sample clean-up'', 
reduces the potential for interference or co-elution of peaks during 
analytical analysis. Before performing the sample clean-up, spike the 
extract with an alternate standard that contains a known mass of 
isotopically labeled compounds that are identical to the target 
analytes (except for the labeling). The category of the target analyte 
compounds (such as PAHs or dioxin) will determine the number of 
compounds that make up the standard. For example, PAHs require the use 
of four compounds in the alternate standard to cover the four basic 
ring structures of PAHs (2-ring, 3-ring, 4-ring, and 5-ring 
structures). These alternate standards 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 it to a volume of about 1 
ml using a Kuderna-Danish concentrator. Use good engineering judgment 
to select an appropriate column chromatographic clean-up option for 
your target analytes. Note that these clean-up techniques generally 
remove compounds based on their polarity. The following procedures are 
examples of clean-up techniques for PAHs and nPAHs.
    (1) PAH clean-up. The following method is appropriate for clean-up 
of 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 and add 
10 g 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. Verify the volume of solvent required to completely elute all 
the PAHs and adjust the weight of the silica gel accordingly to account 
for variations among batches of silica gel that may affect the elution 
volume of the various PAHs.
    (ii) Elute the column with 40 ml of hexane. The rate for all 
elutions should be about 2 ml/min. You may increase the elution rate by 
using dry air or nitrogen to maintain the headspace slightly above 
atmospheric pressure. Discard the eluate just before exposing the 
sodium sulfate layer to the air or nitrogen and transfer the 1 ml 
sample extract onto the column using two additional 2 ml rinses of 
hexane. Just before exposing the sodium sulfate layer to the air or 
nitrogen, 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 not to evaporate all the 
solvent from the extract during the concentration process. Transfer the 
eluate to a small sample vial using a hexane rinse and concentrate it 
to 100 [mu]l using a stream of nitrogen without violently disturbing 
the solvent. Store the extracts in a refrigerator at or below 4 [deg]C, 
and away from light.
    (2) nPAH clean up. The following procedure, 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. 
Transfer the extract quantitatively to the SPE cartridge with at least 
two methylene chloride rinses. 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, and then reduce 
the extract to 0.5 ml in hexane and subject it to normal-phase liquid 
chromatography using a pre-prepared 9.6 mm x 25 cm semi-preparative 
Chromegabond[supreg] amino/cyano column (5 [mu]m particle size) to 
isolate the nPAH fraction. The mobile phase is 20 volume % methylene 
chloride in hexane at a constant flow rate of 5 ml per minute. Back-
flash the column with 60 ml of methylene chloride and then condition it 
with 200 ml of 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane before each 
injection. Collect the effluent and concentrate it to about 2 ml using 
the Kuderna-Danish concentrator or a rotary evaporator. Transfer it to 
a minivial using a hexane rinse and concentrate it to 100 [mu]l using a 
gentle stream of nitrogen. Store the extracts at or below 4 [deg]C, and 
away from light.
    (ii) [Reserved]

Sec.  1065.1111  Sample analysis.

    This subpart does not specify chromatographic or analytical methods 
to analyze extracts, because the appropriateness of such methods is 
highly dependent on the nature of the target analytes. However, we 
recommend that you spike the extract with an injection standard that 
contains a known mass of an isotopically labeled compound that is 
identical to one of the target analytes (except for labeling). This 
injection standard allows you to monitor the efficiency of the 
analytical process by verifying the volume of sample injected for 
analysis.

0
331. Part 1066 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1066--VEHICLE-TESTING PROCEDURES

Subpart A--Applicability and General Provisions
Sec.
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.
1066.125 Data updating, recording, and control.
1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.
1066.135 Linearity verification.
1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration.
1066.145 Test fuel, engine fluids, 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 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 verification.
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.
1066.275 Daily dynamometer readiness verification.
1066.290 Verification of speed accuracy for the 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.

[[Page 23824]]

1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.
1066.315 Dynamometer road-load setting.
Subpart E--Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test
1066.401 Overview.
1066.405 Vehicle preparation and preconditioning.
1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure.
1066.415 Vehicle operation.
1066.420 Test preparation.
1066.425 Performing emission tests.
Subpart F--Electric Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles
1066.501 Overview.
Subpart G--Calculations
1066.601 Overview.
1066.605 Mass-based and molar-based exhaust emission calculations.
1066.610 Dilution air background correction.
1066.615 NOX intake-air humidity correction.
1066.620 Removed water correction.
1066.625 Flow meter calibration calculations.
1066.630 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.
1066.635 NMOG determination.
1066.695 Data requirements.
Subpart H--Cold Temperature Test Procedures
1066.701 Applicability and general provisions.
1066.710 Cold temperature 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.
1066.805 Road-load power, test weight, and inertia weight class 
determination.
1066.810 Vehicle preparation.
1066.815 Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP testing.
1066.816 Vehicle preconditioning for FTP testing.
1066.820 Composite calculations for FTP exhaust emissions.
1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.
1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for aggressive driving.
1066.835 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.
1066.840 Highway fuel economy test procedure.
1066.845 AC17 air conditioning efficiency test procedure.
Subpart J--Evaporative Emission Test Procedures
1066.901 Applicability and general provisions.
Test Equipment and Calculations for Evaporative and Refueling 
Emissions
1066.910 SHED enclosure specifications.
1066.915 Enclosures; auxiliary systems and equipment.
1066.920 Enclosure calibrations.
1066.925 Enclosure calculations for evaporative and refueling 
emissions.
1066.930 Equipment for point-source measurement of running losses.
Evaporative and Refueling Emission Test Procedures for Motor 
Vehicles
1066.950 Fuel temperature profile.
1066.955 Diurnal emission test.
1066.960 Running loss test.
1066.965 Hot soak test.
1066.970 Refueling test for liquid fuels.
1066.971 Vehicle and canister preconditioning for the refueling 
test.
1066.975 Refueling test for LPG.
1066.980 Fuel dispensing spitback procedure.
1066.985 Fuel storage system leak test procedure.
Subpart K--Definitions and Other Reference Material
1066.1001 Definitions.
1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure.
1066.1010 Incorporation by reference.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--Applicability and General Provisions

Sec.  1066.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part describes the emission measurement procedures that 
apply to testing we require for the following vehicles:
    (1) Model year 2014 and later heavy-duty highway vehicles we 
regulate under 40 CFR part 1037 that are not subject to chassis testing 
for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86.
    (2) Model year 2022 and later motor vehicles (light-duty and heavy-
duty) that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions under 
40 CFR part 86, other than highway motorcycles. 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 testing in this part 1066 is designed for measuring 
exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions. Procedures for measuring 
evaporative and refueling emissions for motor vehicles are in some 
cases integral with exhaust measurement procedures as described in 
Sec.  1066.801. Subpart J of this part describes provisions that are 
unique to evaporative and refueling emission measurements. Other 
subparts in this part are written with a primary focus on measurement 
of exhaust emissions.
    (d) 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.
    (e) Paragraph (a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR 
that define emission standards and other requirements for particular 
types of vehicles. In this part, we refer to each of these other parts 
generically as the ``standard-setting part.'' For example, 40 CFR part 
1037 is the standard-setting part for heavy-duty highway vehicles and 
parts 86 and 600 are the standard-setting parts for light-duty 
vehicles. For vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, treat 
subpart I and subpart J of this part as belonging to 40 CFR part 86. 
This means that references to the standard-setting part include subpart 
I and subpart J of this part.
    (f) 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.
    (g) 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.

Sec.  1066.2  Submitting information to EPA under this part.

    (a) You are responsible for statements and information in your 
applications for certification, requests for approved procedures, 
selective enforcement audits, laboratory audits, production-line test 
reports, or any other statements you make to us related to this part 
1066. If you provide statements or information to someone for 
submission to EPA, you are responsible for these statements and 
information as if you had submitted them to EPA yourself.
    (b) In the standard-setting part and in 40 CFR 1068.101, we 
describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information 
and the consequences of failing to meet this obligation. See also 18 
U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation applies whether 
you submit this information directly to EPA or through someone else.
    (c) We may void any certificates or approvals associated with a 
submission of information if we find that you intentionally submitted 
false, incomplete, or misleading information. For example, if we find 
that you intentionally submitted incomplete

[[Page 23825]]

information to mislead EPA when requesting approval to use alternate 
test procedures, we may void the certificates for all engine families 
certified based on emission data collected using the alternate 
procedures. This would also apply if you ignore data from incomplete 
tests or from repeat tests with higher emission results.
    (d) We may require an authorized representative of your company to 
approve and sign the submission, and to certify that all the 
information submitted is accurate and complete. This includes everyone 
who submits information, including manufacturers and others.
    (e) See 40 CFR 1068.10 for provisions related to confidential 
information. Note however that under 40 CFR 2.301, emission data are 
generally not eligible for confidential treatment.
    (f) Nothing in this part should be interpreted to limit our ability 
under Clean Air Act section 208 (42 U.S.C. 7542) to verify that 
vehicles conform to the regulations.

Sec.  1066.5  Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the 
standard-setting part.

    (a) This part specifies procedures that can apply generally to 
testing various categories of vehicles. See the standard-setting part 
for directions in applying specific provisions in this part for a 
particular type of vehicle. Before using this part's procedures, read 
the standard-setting part to answer at least the following questions:
    (1) What drive schedules must I use for testing?
    (2) Should I warm up the test vehicle before measuring emissions, 
or do I need to measure cold-start emissions during a warm-up segment 
of the duty cycle?
    (3) Which exhaust constituents do I need to measure? Measure all 
exhaust constituents that are subject to emission standards, any other 
exhaust 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 an 
N2O or CH4 emission standard.
    (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) What requirements apply for evaporative and refueling 
emissions?
    (9) Are there any emission standards specified at particular 
operating conditions or ambient conditions?
    (10) Do any unique requirements apply for durability testing?
    (b) The testing specifications in the standard-setting part may 
differ from the specifications in this part. In cases where it is not 
possible to comply with both the standard-setting part and this part, 
you must comply with the specifications in the standard-setting part. 
The standard-setting part may also allow you to deviate from the 
procedures of this part for other reasons.
    (c) The following table shows how this part divides testing 
specifications into subparts:

       Table 1 of Sec.   1066.5--Description of Part 1066 Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Describes these specifications or
           This subpart                          procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A........................  Applicability and general provisions.
Subpart B........................  Equipment for testing.
Subpart C........................  Dynamometer specifications.
Subpart D........................  Coastdowns for testing.
Subpart E........................  How to prepare your vehicle and run
                                    an emission test.
Subpart F........................  How to test electric vehicles and
                                    hybrid electric vehicles.
Subpart G........................  Test procedure calculations.
Subpart H........................  Cold temperature testing.
Subpart I........................  Exhaust emission test procedures for
                                    motor vehicles.
Subpart J........................  Evaporative and refueling emission
                                    test procedures.
Subpart K........................  Definitions and reference material.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1066.10  Other procedures.

    (a) Your testing. The procedures in this part apply for all testing 
you do to show compliance with emission standards, with certain 
exceptions noted in this section. In some other sections in this part, 
we allow you to use other procedures (such as less precise or less 
accurate procedures) if they do not affect your ability to show that 
your vehicles comply with the applicable emission standards. This 
generally requires emission levels to be far enough below the 
applicable emission standards so that any errors caused by greater 
imprecision or inaccuracy do not affect your ability to state 
unconditionally that the engines meet all applicable emission 
standards.
    (b) Our testing. These procedures generally apply for testing that 
we do to determine if your vehicles comply with applicable emission 
standards. We may perform other testing as allowed by the Act.
    (c) Exceptions. We may allow or require you to use procedures other 
than those specified in this part as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). 
All the test procedures noted as exceptions to the specified procedures 
are considered generically as ``other procedures.'' Note that the terms 
``special procedures'' and ``alternate procedures'' have specific 
meanings; ``special procedures'' are those allowed by 40 CFR 
1065.10(c)(2) and ``alternate procedures'' are those allowed by 40 CFR 
1065.10(c)(7). If we require you to request approval to use other 
procedures under this paragraph (c), you may not use them until we 
approve your request.

Sec.  1066.15  Overview of test procedures.

    This section outlines the procedures to test vehicles that are 
subject to emission standards.
    (a) The standard-setting part describes the emission standards that 
apply. Evaporative and refueling emissions are generally in the form of 
grams total hydrocarbon equivalent per test. We set exhaust emission 
standards in g/mile (or g/km), for the following constituents:
    (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NOX.
    (2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be expressed in the following ways:
    (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC.
    (ii) Nonmethane hydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting 
methane, CH4, from THC.
    (iii) Total hydrocarbon-equivalent, THCE, which results from 
adjusting THC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (iv) Nonmethane hydrocarbon-equivalent, NMHCE, which results from 
adjusting NMHC mathematically to be equivalent on a carbon-mass basis.
    (v) Nonmethane organic gases, NMOG, which are calculated either 
from fully or partially speciated measurement of hydrocarbons including 
oxygenates, or by adjusting measured NMHC values based on fuel 
oxygenate properties.
    (3) Particulate matter, 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 exhaust 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 exhaust emission

[[Page 23826]]

standards over test intervals and/or drive schedules, as follows:
    (1) Vehicle operation. Testing involves measuring emissions and 
miles travelled while operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer. 
Refer to the definitions of ``duty cycle'' and ``test interval'' in 
Sec.  1066.1001. Note that a single drive schedule may have multiple 
test intervals and require weighting of results from multiple test 
intervals to calculate a composite distance-based emission value to 
compare to the standard.
    (2) Constituent determination. Determine the total mass of each 
exhaust constituent over a test interval by selecting from the 
following methods:
    (i) Continuous sampling. In continuous sampling, measure the 
exhaust 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 
NOX, HC, CO, CO2, CH4, N2O, 
and CH2O 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:
    (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 subpart G of this part and the standard-setting part 
for calculations to determine g/mile emission rates.
    (e) You must use good engineering judgment for all aspects of 
testing under this part. While this part highlights several specific 
cases where good engineering judgment is especially relevant, the 
requirement to use good engineering judgment is not limited to those 
provisions where we specifically re-state this requirement.

Sec.  1066.20  Units of measure and overview of calculations.

    (a) System of units. The procedures in this part follow both 
conventional English units and the International System of Units (SI), 
as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010. Except where specified, equations work 
with either system of units. Where the equations depend on the use of 
specific units, the regulation identifies the appropriate units.
    (b) Units conversion. Use good engineering judgment to convert 
units between measurement systems as needed. For example, if you 
measure vehicle speed as kilometers per hour and we specify a precision 
requirement in terms of miles per hour, convert your measured kilometer 
per hour value to miles per hour before comparing it to our 
specification. The following conventions are used throughout this 
document and should be used to convert units as applicable:
    (1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft[middot]lbf/min = 550 ft[middot]lbf/s = 0.7457 
kW.
    (2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft[middot]lbm/s\2\ = 4.4482 N.
    (3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm.
    (4) 1 mile = 1609.344 m.
    (5) For ideal gases, 1 [mu]mol/mol = 1 ppm.
    (6) For ideal gases, 10 mmol/mol = 1%.
    (c) Temperature. We generally designate temperatures in units of 
degrees Celsius ([deg]C) unless a calculation requires an absolute 
temperature. In that case, we designate temperatures in units of Kelvin 
(K). For conversion purposes throughout this part, 0 [deg]C equals 
273.15 K. Unless specified otherwise, always use absolute temperature 
values for multiplying or dividing by temperature.
    (d) Absolute pressure. Measure absolute pressure directly or 
calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential 
pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Always use 
absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure.
    (e) Rounding. The rounding provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for 
calculations in this part. This generally specifies that you round 
final values but not intermediate values. Use good engineering judgment 
to record the appropriate number of significant digits for all 
measurements.
    (f) Interpretation of ranges. Interpret a range as a tolerance 
unless we explicitly identify it as an accuracy, repeatability, 
linearity, or noise specification. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for the 
definition of tolerance. In this part, we specify two types of ranges:
    (1) Whenever we specify a range by a single value and corresponding 
limit values above and below that value (such as X  Y), 
target the associated control point to that single value (X). Examples 
of this type of range include ``10% of maximum pressure'', 
or ``(30  10) kPa''. In these examples, you would target 
the maximum pressure or 30 kPa, respectively.
    (2) Whenever we specify a range by the interval between two values, 
you may target any associated control point to any value within that 
range. An example of this type of range is ``(40 to 50) kPa''.
    (g) Scaling of specifications with respect to an applicable 
standard. Because this part 1066 applies to a wide range of vehicles 
and emission standards, some of the specifications in this part are 
scaled with respect to a vehicle's applicable standard or weight. This 
ensures that the specification will be adequate to determine 
compliance, but not overly burdensome by requiring unnecessarily high-
precision equipment. Many of these specifications are given with 
respect to a ``flow-weighted mean'' that is expected at the standard or 
during testing. Flow-weighted mean is the mean of a quantity after it 
is weighted proportional to a corresponding flow rate. For example, if 
a gas concentration is measured continuously from the raw exhaust of an 
engine, its flow-weighted mean concentration is the sum of the products 
of each recorded concentration times its respective exhaust flow rate, 
divided by the sum of the recorded flow rates. As another example, the 
bag concentration from a CVS system is the same as the flow-weighted 
mean concentration, because the CVS system itself flow-weights the bag 
concentration.

Sec.  1066.25  Recordkeeping.

    (a) The procedures in this part include various requirements to 
record data or other information. Refer to the standard-setting part 
and Sec.  1066.695 regarding specific recordkeeping requirements.
    (b) You must promptly send us organized, written records in English 
if we ask for them. We may review them at any time.
    (c) We may waive specific reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
we

[[Page 23827]]

determine to be unnecessary for the purposes of this part and the 
standard-setting part. Note that while we will generally keep the 
records required by this part, we are not obligated to keep records we 
determine to be unnecessary for us to keep. For example, while we 
require you to keep records for invalid tests so we may verify that 
your invalidation was appropriate, it is not necessary for us to keep 
records for our own invalid tests.

Subpart B--Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical 
Gas Specifications

Sec.  1066.101  Overview.

    (a) This subpart addresses equipment related to emission testing, 
as well as test fuels and analytical gases.
    (b) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 specify engine-based 
procedures for measuring emissions. Except as specified otherwise in 
this part, the provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing 
required by this part as follows:
    (1) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, describe 
equipment specifications for exhaust dilution and sampling systems; 
these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in 
Sec.  1066.110.
    (2) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, describe 
specifications for measurement instruments; these specifications apply 
for testing under this part as described in Sec.  1066.120.
    (3) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, describe 
specifications for measurement instrument calibrations and 
verifications; these specifications apply for testing under this part 
as described in Sec.  1066.130.
    (4) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, describe 
specifications for fuels, engine fluids, and analytical gases; these 
specifications apply for testing under this part as described in Sec.  
1066.145.
    (5) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, describe 
specifications for testing with oxygenated fuels; these specifications 
apply for NMOG determination as described in Sec.  1066.635.
    (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 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 performance specifications described in this subpart.

Sec.  1066.105  Ambient controls and vehicle cooling fans.

    (a) Ambient conditions. Dynamometer testing under this part 
generally requires that you maintain the test cell within a specified 
range of ambient temperature and humidity. Use good engineering 
judgment to maintain relatively uniform temperatures throughout the 
test cell before testing. You are generally not required to maintain 
uniform temperatures throughout the test cell while the vehicle is 
running due to the heat generated by the vehicle. Measured humidity 
values must represent the conditions to which the vehicle is exposed, 
which includes 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 fan capacity or using additional fans.
    (c) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 
GVWR. Cooling fan specifications for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds 
GVWR depend on the test cycle. Paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
summarizes the cooling fan specifications for the different test 
cycles; the detailed specifications are described in paragraphs (c)(2) 
through (5) of this section. See Sec.  1066.410 for instruction 
regarding how to use the fans during testing.
    (1) Cooling fan specifications for different test cycles are 
summarized as follows:
    (i) For the FTP test cycle, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this 
section.
    (ii) For the HFET test cycle, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this 
section.
    (iii) For the US06 test cycle, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this 
section.
    (iv) For the LA-92 test cycle, the allowable cooling fan 
configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this 
section.
    (v) For SC03 and AC17 test cycles, the allowable cooling fan 
configuration is described in paragraph (c)(5) 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, and within 6.5 mph (2.9 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at 
higher vehicle speeds; however you may limit the fan's maximum linear 
speed to 70 mph. We recommend that the cooling fan have a minimum 
opening of 0.2 m\2\ and a minimum width of 0.8 m.
    (i) Verify the air flow velocity for fan speeds 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 
sections as shown in Figure 1 of this section. As illustrated by the 
``+'' in the following figure, measure flow from the center of each 
section; do not measure the flow from the center section.

[[Page 23828]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.059

    (iii) For fans with circular outlets, divide the fan outlet into 8 
equal sections as shown in Figure 2 of this section. As illustrated by 
the ``+'' in the following figure, measure flow on the radial 
centerline of each section, at a radius of two-thirds of the fan's 
total radius.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.060

    (iv) Verify that the uniformity of the fan's axial flow is constant 
across the discharge area within a tolerance of 4.0 mph of 
the vehicle's speed at fan speeds corresponding to 20 mph, and within 
8.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 40 mph. For example, 
at a vehicle speed of 20.2 mph, axial flow at all locations denoted by 
the ``+'' across the discharge nozzle must be between 16.2 and 24.2 
mph. When measuring the axial air flow velocity, use good engineering 
judgment to determine the distance from the nozzle outlet at each point 
of the fan outlet grid. Use these values to calculate a mean air flow 
velocity across the discharge area at each speed setting. The 
instrument used to verify the air velocity must have an accuracy of 
2% of the measured air flow velocity.
    (v) Use a multi-axis flow meter or another method to verify that 
the fan's air flow perpendicular to the axial air flow is less than 15% 
of the axial air flow, consistent with good engineering judgment. 
Demonstrate this by comparing the perpendicular air flow velocity to 
the mean air flow velocities determined in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section at vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph.
    (3) You may use a fixed-speed fan with a maximum capacity up to 
2.50 m\3\/s for FTP and HFET testing.
    (4) You may use a fixed-speed fan with a maximum capacity up to 
7.10 m\3\/s for US06 and LA-92 testing.
    (5) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a road-speed modulated fan with 
a minimum discharge area that is equal to or exceeds the vehicle's 
frontal inlet area. We recommend using a fan with a discharge area of 
1.7 m\2\.
    (i) Air flow volumes must be proportional to vehicle speed. Select 
a fan size that will produce a flow volume of approximately 45 m\3\/s 
at 60 mph. If this fan is also the only source of test cell air 
circulation or if fan operational mechanics make the 0 mph air flow 
requirement impractical, air flow of 2 mph or less at 0 mph vehicle 
speed is allowed.
    (ii) Verify the uniformity of the fan's axial flow as described in 
paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section, except that you must measure the 
axial air flow velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point of 
the discharge area grid.
    (iii) Use a multi-axis flow meter or another method to verify that 
the fan's air flow perpendicular to the axial air flow is less than 10% 
of the axial air flow, consistent with good engineering judgment. 
Demonstrate this by comparing the perpendicular air flow velocity to 
the mean air flow velocities determined in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this 
section at vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph.
    (iv) In addition to the road-speed modulated fan, we may approve 
the use of one or more fixed-speed fans to provide proper cooling to 
represent in-use operation, but only up to a total of 2.50 m\3\/s for 
all additional fans.
    (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, 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

[[Page 23829]]

opening of 2.75 m\2\, a minimum flow rate of 60 m\3\/s at a fan speed 
of 50 mph, and a minimum speed profile in the free stream flow, across 
the duct, that is 15% of the target flow rate.

Sec.  1066.110  Equipment specifications for emission sampling systems.

    (a) This section specifies equipment related to emission testing, 
other than measurement instruments. This equipment includes 
dynamometers (described further in subpart C of this part) and various 
emission-sampling hardware.
    (b) The following equipment specifications apply for testing under 
this part:
    (1) Connect a vehicle's exhaust system to any dilution stage as 
follows:
    (i) Minimize lengths of laboratory exhaust tubing. You may use a 
total length of laboratory exhaust tubing up to 4 m without needing to 
heat or insulate the tubing. However, you may use a total length of 
laboratory exhaust tubing up to 10 m if you insulate and/or heat the 
tubing to minimize the temperature difference between the exhaust gas 
and the whole tubing wall over the course of the emission test. The 
laboratory exhaust tubing starts at the end of the vehicle's tailpipe 
and ends at the first sample point or the first dilution point. The 
laboratory exhaust tubing may include flexible sections, but we 
recommend that you limit the amount of flexible tubing to the extent 
practicable. For multiple-tailpipe configurations where the tailpipes 
combine into a single flow path for emission sampling, the start of the 
laboratory exhaust tubing may be taken at the last joint where the 
exhaust flow first becomes a single, combined flow.
    (ii) You may insulate or heat any laboratory exhaust tubing.
    (iii) Use laboratory exhaust tubing materials that are smooth-
walled and not chemically reactive with exhaust constituents. (For 
purposes of this paragraph (b)(1), nominally smooth spiral-style and 
accordion-style flexible tubing are considered to be smooth-walled.) 
For measurements involving PM, tubing materials must also be 
electrically conductive. Stainless steel is an acceptable material for 
any testing. 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, 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. You may configure the exhaust system with 
turbulence generators, such as orifice plates or fins, to achieve good 
mixing; this may be necessary for good mixing if Re\#\ is less than 
4000. Re\\ is defined in 40 CFR 1065.640.
    (2) 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 for a single site or multiple sites 
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 
duration of the test interval 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 sampling system 
used during the emission test. For this background sampling, the 
dilution tunnel blower must be turned on, the vehicle must be 
disconnected from the laboratory exhaust tubing, and the laboratory 
exhaust tubing must be capped.
    (C) The duration of your background sample may be different than 
that of the test cycle in which you are applying the background 
correction, consistent with good engineering judgment.
    (D) Your PM background correction may not exceed 5 [mu]g or 5% of 
the net PM mass expected at the standard, whichever 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 be set to (15 to 52) 
[deg]C. Use good engineering judgment to control PM sample temperature 
as required under 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(4).
    (B) Apply the provisions of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) instead 
of 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). Add dilution air to the raw exhaust such that 
the overall dilution factor of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust, as shown 
in Eq. 1066.610-2 or 1066.610-3, 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. 1066.610-4. The maximum dilution factor 
limit of 20:1 does not apply for hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), since 
the dilution factor is infinite when the engine is off; however we 
strongly recommend that you stay under the specified maximum dilution 
factor limit when the engine is running. For partial-flow sampling 
systems, determine dilution factor using Eq. 1066.610-3. To determine 
the overall dilution factor for PM samples utilizing secondary dilution 
air, multiply the dilution factor from the CVS 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 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, as long as they 
do not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable standards:
    (A) You may use smooth-walled flexible tubing (including accordion-
style) in the dilution tunnel upstream of locations for flow 
measurement or gaseous emission measurement.
    (B) You may use smooth-walled electrically conductive flexible 
tubing in

[[Page 23830]]

the dilution tunnel upstream of the location for PM emission 
measurements.
    (C) All inside surfaces upstream of emission sampling must be made 
of 300 series stainless steel or polymer-based materials.
    (D) Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the materials you 
choose do not cause significant loss of PM from your sample.
    (vi) Paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section applies instead of 40 CFR 
1065.145(b).
    (vii) Vehicles other than HEVs that apply technology involving 
engine shutdown during idle may apply the sampling provisions of Sec.  
1066.501(c).
    (c) The following table summarizes the requirements of paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section:

 Table 1 of Sec.   1066.110--Summary of Equipment Specifications From 40
        CFR Part 1065, Subpart B, That Apply for Chassis Testing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicability for chassis testing
    40 CFR part 1065 references                under this part
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Use all except as noted:
                                       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.
40 CFR 1065.140...................
                                       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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1066.120  Measurement instruments.

    The measurement instrument requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, 
subpart C, apply with the following exceptions:
    (a) The provisions of Sec.  1066.125 apply instead of 40 CFR 
1065.202.
    (b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.210 and 1065.295 do not apply.

Sec.  1066.125  Data updating, recording, and control.

    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) Read and record values and calculate mean values relative to a 
specified frequency as follows:
    (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. You may record values at the 
same frequency, or you may record them as mean values, as long as the 
frequency of the mean values meets the minimum recording frequency. You 
must use all read values, either by recording them or using them to 
calculate mean values. For example, if your system reads and controls 
the sample flow rate at 10 Hz, you may record these values at 10 Hz, 
record them at 5 Hz by averaging pairs of consecutive points together, 
or record them at 1 Hz by averaging five consecutive points together.
    (2) For all other measured values covered by this section, you may 
record the values instantaneously or as mean values, consistent with 
good engineering judgment.
    (3) You may not use rolling averages of measured values where a 
given measured value is included in more than one recorded mean value.
    (b) Use data acquisition and control systems that can command, 
control, and record at the following minimum frequencies:

                   Table 1 of Sec.   1066.125--Data Recording and Control Minimum Frequencies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Minimum command
     Applicable section          Measured values       and control       Minimum recording frequency \b,\ \c\
                                                      frequency \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1066.310.............  Vehicle speed.......  ................  10 Hz.
Sec.   1066.315.............
Sec.   1066.425.............  Continuous            ................  1 Hz.
                               concentrations of
                               raw or dilute
                               analyzers.
Sec.   1066.425.............  Power analyzer......  ................  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.501.............
Sec.   1066.425.............  Bag concentrations    ................  1 mean value per test interval.
                               of raw or dilute
                               analyzers.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Diluted exhaust flow  ................  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.425.............   rate from a CVS
                               with a heat
                               exchanger upstream
                               of the flow
                               measurement.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Diluted exhaust flow  5 Hz............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1066.425.............   rate from a CVS
                               without a heat
                               exchanger upstream
                               of the flow
                               measurement.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Dilution air flow if  5 Hz............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1066.425.............   actively controlled
                               (for example, a
                               partial-flow PM
                               sampling system)
                               \d\.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Sample flow from a    1 Hz............  1 Hz.
Sec.   1066.425.............   CVS that has a heat
                               exchanger.
40 CFR 1065.545.............  Sample flow from a    5 Hz............  1 Hz means.
Sec.   1066.425.............   CVS that does not
                               have a heat
                               exchanger.
Sec.   1066.420.............  Ambient temperature.  ................  1 Hz.\e\
Sec.   1066.420.............  Ambient humidity....  ................  1 Hz.\e\

[[Page 23831]]

 
Sec.   1066.420.............  Heated sample system  ................  1 Hz.
                               temperatures,
                               including PM filter
                               face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CFVs that are not using active control are exempt from meeting this requirement due to their operating
  principle.
\b\ 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of 1 s mean
  values at a rate of 1 Hz.
\c\ For CFVs in a CVS, the minimum recording frequency is 1 Hz. For CFVs used to control sampling from a CFV
  CVS, the minimum recording frequency is not applicable.
\d\ This is not applicable to CVS dilution air.
\e\ Unless specified elsewhere in this part or the standard-setting part. Note that this provision does not
  apply to soak periods where recording frequencies are not specified. For these instances, we recommend a
  recording frequency of >= 0.016 Hz.

Sec.  1066.130  Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.

    The measurement instrument calibration and verification 
requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, apply with the following 
exceptions:
    (a) The calibration and verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.303 
do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow.
    (b) The linearity verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.307 do not 
apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section 
1066.135 specifies additional linearity verification provisions that 
apply specifically for chassis testing.
    (c) The provisions of Sec.  1066.220 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.310.
    (d) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.320, 1065.325, and 1065.395 do 
not apply.
    (e) If you are measuring flow volumetrically (rather than measuring 
based on molar values), the provisions of Sec.  1066.140 apply instead 
of 40 CFR 1065.340.
    (f) The provisions of Sec.  1066.150 apply instead 40 CFR 
1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c).
    (g) Table 1 of this section summarizes the required and recommended 
calibrations and verifications that are unique to testing under this 
part and indicates when these must be performed. Perform other required 
or recommended calibrations and verifications as described in 40 CFR 
1065.303, with the exceptions noted in this section. Table 1 follows:

    Table 1 of Sec.   1066.130--Summary of Required Calibrations and
                              Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type of calibration or
           verification                     Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.307: Linearity          The linearity verifications from 40
 verification.                       CFR part 1065 do not apply under
                                     this part for engine speed, torque,
                                     fuel rate, or intake air flow; the
                                     linearity verification described in
                                     Sec.   1066.135 applies for the
                                     following measurements:
                                    Dynamometer speed: See Sec.
                                     1066.220.
                                    Dynamometer torque: See Sec.
                                     1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.310: Torque...........  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part; see Sec.
                                     1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.320: Fuel flow........  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.325: Intake flow......  This calibration does not apply for
                                     testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.340: CVS calibration..  This calibration does not apply for
                                     CVS flow meters calibrated
                                     volumetrically as described in Sec.
                                       1066.140.
40 CFR 1065.345: Vacuum leak......  Required upon initial installation
                                     of the sampling system; recommended
                                     within 35 days before the start of
                                     an emissions test and after
                                     maintenance such as pre-filter
                                     changes.
40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c),    These provisions do not apply for
 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c).       testing under this part; see Sec.
                                     1066.150.
40 CFR 1065.395: Inertial PM        These verifications do not apply for
 balance and weighing.               testing under this part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently if needed to
  conform to the measurement system manufacturer's instructions and good
  engineering judgment.

Sec.  1066.135  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 calibrations and verifications as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.307, with the exceptions noted in this 
section.
    (a) For gas analyzer linearity, use one of the following options:
    (1) Use instrument manufacturer recommendations and good 
engineering judgment to select at least ten reference values, 
yrefi, that cover the range of values that you expect during 
testing (to prevent extrapolation beyond the verified range during 
emission testing). We recommend selecting zero as one of your reference 
values. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from a least-
squares best-fit straight line is 2% or less of the value at each data 
point, concentration values may be calculated by use of a straight-line 
curve fit 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

[[Page 23832]]

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. If you choose this linearity 
option, you must use the provisions of 40 CFR 1065.672 to check for 
drift and make appropriate drift corrections.
    (b) For dilution air, diluted exhaust, and raw exhaust sample flow, 
use a reference flow meter with a blower or pump to simulate flow 
rates. Use a restrictor, diverter valve, variable-speed blower, or 
variable-speed pump to control the range of flow rates. Use the 
reference meter's response for the reference values.
    (1) Reference flow meters. Because of the large range in flow 
requirements, 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 dilution air, diluted exhaust for 
partial-flow dilution, and raw exhaust, 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 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.
    (2) Reference flow values. Because the reference flow is not 
absolutely constant, sample and record values of Qrefi for 
30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, Qref, 
as the reference value. Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an example of 
calculating an arithmetic mean.
    (3) Linearity criteria. The values measured during linearity 
verification for flow meters must meet the following criteria: [verbar] 
xmin(a1-1)+a0 [verbar] max; a1 = 0.98-1.02; SEE = max; and r\2\ >= 0.990.
    (c) Perform linearity verifications for the following temperature 
measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(7):
    (1) Test cell ambient air.
    (2) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double-dilution, 
and partial-flow systems.
    (3) PM sample.
    (4) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling systems that use thermal 
chillers to dry samples, and that use chiller temperature to calculate 
dewpoint at the chiller outlet. For testing, if you choose to use the 
high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as a 
constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the 
emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of the high alarm 
temperature setpoint using good engineering judgment without following 
the linearity verification for chiller temperature. We recommend that 
you input a simulated reference temperature signal below the alarm 
setpoint, increase this signal until the high alarm trips, and verify 
that the alarm setpoint value is no less than 2 [deg]C below the 
reference value at the trip point.
    (5) CVS flow meter 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 at the tailpipe exit.
    (2) Barometric pressure.
    (3) CVS flow meter inlet pressure.
    (4) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling systems that use either 
osmotic-membrane dryers or thermal chillers to dry samples. For your 
testing, if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the 
sample dryer pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of 
water removed from the emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of 
the low alarm pressure setpoint using good engineering judgment without 
following the linearity verification for sample dryer pressure. We 
recommend that you input a reference pressure signal above the alarm 
setpoint, decrease this signal until the low alarm trips, and verify 
that the alarm setpoint value is no more than 4 kPa above the reference 
value at the trip point.
    (e) When following procedures or practices that we incorporate by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010, you must meet the linearity requirements 
given by the procedure or practice for any analytical instruments not 
covered under 40 CFR 1065.307, such as GC-FID or HPLC.

Sec.  1066.140  Diluted exhaust flow calibration.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to calibrate flow meters 
for diluted exhaust constant-volume sampling (CVS) systems. We 
recommend that you also use this section to calibrate flow meters that 
use a subsonic venturi or ultrasonic flow to measure raw exhaust flow. 
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 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, or an ultrasonic flow meter. Use a reference flow meter that 
reports quantities that are NIST-traceable 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 PDP-speed 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, 
Qref. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities, such as reference meter

[[Page 23833]]

pressures and temperatures, for calculating Qref.
    (ii) The mean temperature at the PDP inlet, Tin.
    (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet, 
Pin.
    (iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet, 
Pout.
    (v) The mean PDP speed, fnPDP.
    (7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve to decrease the 
absolute pressure at the inlet to the PDP, Pin.
    (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of this section 
to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from 
the wide-open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at 
the PDP inlet.
    (9) Calibrate the PDP by using the collected data and the equations 
in Sec.  1066.625(a).
    (10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) through (9) of this 
section for each speed at which you operate the PDP.
    (11) Use the equations in Sec.  1066.630(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. Calibrate an SSV 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 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, 
Qref. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities for calculating Qref, such as reference meter 
pressures and temperatures.
    (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, Tin.
    (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, 
pin.
    (iv) Mean static differential pressure between the static pressure 
at the venturi inlet and the static pressure at the venturi throat, 
[Delta]pssv.
    (7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the blower 
speed to decrease the flow rate.
    (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (g)(6) and (7) of this section 
to record data at a minimum of ten flow rates.
    (9) Determine an equation to quantify Cd as a function 
of Re by using the collected data and the equations 
in Sec.  1066.625(b). Section 1066.625 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 new 
Cd versus Re equation.
    (11) Use the SSV only between the minimum and maximum calibrated 
flow rates. If you want to use the SSV at a higher or lower flow rate, 
you must recalibrate the SSV.
    (12) Use the equations in Sec.  1066.630(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, 
Kv, at measured values of pressure, temperature and air 
flow. Calibrate the CFV at the lowest expected static differential 
pressure between the CFV inlet and outlet. Calibrate the CFV 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 variable restrictor, you may alternately vary the pressure 
downstream of the CFV by varying blower speed or by introducing a 
controlled leak. Note that some blowers have limitations on nonloaded 
conditions.
    (6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min to stabilize the system. 
Continue operating the CFV and record the mean values of at least 30 
seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities:
    (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, 
Qref. This may include several measurements of different 
quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for 
calculating Qref.
    (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, Tin.
    (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, 
pin.
    (iv) The mean static differential pressure between the CFV inlet 
and the CFV outlet, [Delta]pCFV.
    (7) Incrementally close the restrictor valve or decrease the 
downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the 
CFV, [Delta]pCFV.
    (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (h)(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 [Delta]pCFV 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 Sec.  1066.625.
    (10) Use Kv to determine CFV flow during an emission 
test. Do not use the CFV below the lowest allowed r, as determined in 
Sec.  1066.625.
    (11) Verify the calibration by performing a CVS verification (i.e., 
propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341.
    (12) If your CVS is configured to operate multiple CFVs in 
parallel, calibrate your CVS using one of the following methods:
    (i) Calibrate every combination of CFVs according to this section 
and Sec.  1066.625(c). Refer to Sec.  1066.630(c) for instructions on 
calculating flow rates for this option.
    (ii) Calibrate each CFV according to this section and Sec.  
1066.625. Refer to Sec.  1066.630 for instructions on calculating flow 
rates for this option.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration. [Reserved]

[[Page 23834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.061

Sec.  1066.145  Test fuel, engine fluids, analytical gases, and other 
calibration standards.

    (a) Test fuel. Use test fuel as specified in the standard-setting 
part, or as specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, if it is not 
specified in the standard-setting part.
    (b) Lubricating oil. Use lubricating oil as specified in 40 CFR 
1065.740. For two-stroke engines that involve a specified mixture of 
fuel and lubricating oil, mix the lubricating oil with the fuel 
according to the manufacturer's specifications.
    (c) Coolant. For liquid-cooled engines, use coolant as specified in 
40 CFR 1065.745.
    (d) Analytical gases. Use analytical gases that meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 1065.750.
    (e) Mass standards. Use mass standards that meet the requirements 
of 40 CFR 1065.790.

[[Page 23835]]

Sec.  1066.150  Analyzer interference and quench verification limit.

    Analyzers must meet the interference and quench verification limits 
in the following table on the lowest, or most representative, 
instrument range that will be used during emission testing, instead of 
those specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D:

      Table 1 of Sec.   1066.150--Analyzer Interference and Quench
                           Verification Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Verification                            Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 1065.350........................  2% of full scale.
40 CFR 1065.355........................  2% of full scale.
40 CFR 1065.370........................  2% of full scale.
40 CFR 1065.375........................  2% of the flow-
                                          weighted mean concentration of
                                          N2O expected at the standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart C--Dynamometer Specifications

Sec.  1066.201  Dynamometer overview.

    This subpart addresses chassis dynamometers and related equipment.

Sec.  1066.210  Dynamometers.

    (a) General requirements. A chassis dynamometer typically uses 
electrically generated load forces combined with its rotational inertia 
to recreate the mechanical inertia and frictional forces that a vehicle 
exerts on road surfaces (known as ``road load''). Load forces are 
calculated using vehicle-specific coefficients and response 
characteristics. The load forces are applied to the vehicle tires by 
rolls connected to motor/absorbers. The dynamometer uses a load cell to 
measure the forces the dynamometer rolls apply to the vehicle's tires.
    (b) Accuracy and precision. The dynamometer's output values for 
road load must be NIST-traceable. We may determine traceability to a 
specific national or international standards organization to be 
sufficient to demonstrate NIST-traceability. The force-measurement 
system must be capable of indicating force readings as follows:
    (1) For dynamometer testing of vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds 
GVWR, the dynamometer force-measurement system must be capable of 
indicating force readings during a test to a resolution of 0.05% of the maximum load-cell force simulated by the dynamometer 
or 9.8 N (2.2 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (2) For dynamometer testing of vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, 
the force-measurement system must be capable of indicating force 
readings during a test to a resolution of 0.05% of the 
maximum load-cell force simulated by the dynamometer or 39.2 N (8.8 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (c) Test cycles. The dynamometer must be capable of fully 
simulating vehicle performance over applicable test cycles for the 
vehicles being tested as referenced in the corresponding standard-
setting part, including operation at the combination of inertial and 
road-load forces corresponding to maximum road-load conditions and 
maximum simulated inertia at the highest acceleration rate experienced 
during testing.
    (d) Component requirements. The following specifications apply:
    (1) The nominal roll diameter must be 120 cm or greater. The 
dynamometer must have an independent drive roll for each drive axle as 
tested under Sec.  1066.410(g), except that two drive axles may share a 
single drive roll. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the 
dynamometer roll diameter is large enough to provide sufficient tire-
roll contact area to avoid tire overheating and power losses from tire-
roll slippage.
    (2) Measure and record force and speed at 10 Hz or faster. You may 
convert measured values to 1-Hz, 2-Hz, or 5-Hz values before your 
calculations, using good engineering judgment.
    (3) The load applied by the dynamometer simulates forces acting on 
the vehicle during normal driving according to the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.062

Where:

FR = total road-load force to be applied at the surface of the roll. 
The total force is the sum of the individual tractive forces applied 
at each roll surface.
i = a counter to indicate a point in time over the driving schedule. 
For a dynamometer operating at 10-Hz intervals over a 600-second 
driving schedule, the maximum value of i should be 6,000.
A = a vehicle-specific constant value representing the vehicle's 
frictional load in lbf or newtons. See subpart D of this part.
B = a vehicle-specific coefficient representing load from drag and 
rolling resistance, which are a function of vehicle speed, in lbf/
mph or N[middot]s/m. See subpart D of this part.
v = linear speed at the roll surfaces as measured by the 
dynamometer, in mph or m/s. Let vi-1 = 0 for i = 0.
C = a vehicle-specific coefficient representing aerodynamic effects, 
which are a function of vehicle speed squared, in lbf/mph\2\ or 
N[middot]s\2\/m\2\. See subpart D of this part.
M = mass of the vehicle in lbm or kg based on its test weight, 
including the effect of rotating axles as specified in Sec.  
1066.310(b)(7), divided by the acceleration due to gravity as 
specified in 40 CFR 1065.630.
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. Note that slightly higher 
errors may be expected 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 with good 
engineering judgment, including any quantified error estimates.

Sec.  1066.215  Summary of verification procedures for chassis 
dynamometers.

    (a) Overview. This section describes the overall process for 
verifying and calibrating the performance of chassis dynamometers.

[[Page 23836]]

    (b) Scope and frequency. The following table summarizes the 
required and recommended calibrations and verifications described in 
this subpart and indicates when they must occur:

       Table 1 of Sec.   1066.215--Summary of Required Dynamometer
                              Verifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Type of verification                Minimum frequency \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1066.220: Linearity     Speed: Upon initial installation, within
 verification.                  370 days before testing, and after major
                                maintenance. Torque (load): Upon initial
                                installation and after major
                                maintenance.
Sec.   1066.225: Roll runout   Upon initial installation and after major
 and diameter verification.     maintenance.
Sec.   1066.230: Time          Upon initial installation and after major
 verification.                  maintenance.
Sec.   1066.235: Speed         Upon initial installation, within 370
 measurement verification.      days before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
Sec.   1066.240: Torque        Upon initial installation, within 7 days
 (load) transducer              of testing, and after major maintenance.
 verification.
Sec.   1066.245: Response      Upon initial installation, within 370
 time verification.             days before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
Sec.   1066.250: Base inertia  Upon initial installation and after major
 verification.                  maintenance.
Sec.   1066.255: Parasitic     Upon initial installation, after major
 loss verification.             maintenance, and upon failure of a
                                verification in Sec.   1066.270 or Sec.
                                 1066.275.
Sec.   1066.260: Parasitic     Upon initial installation, after major
 friction compensation          maintenance, and upon failure of a
 verification.                  verification in Sec.   1066.270 or Sec.
                                 1066.275.
Sec.   1066.265: Acceleration  Upon initial installation and after major
 and deceleration               maintenance.
 verification.
Sec.   1066.270: Unloaded      Upon initial installation, within 7 days
 coastdown verification.        of testing, and after major maintenance.
Sec.   1066.275 Dynamometer    Upon initial installation, within 1 day
 readiness verification.        before testing, and after major
                                maintenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to
  measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering
  judgment.

    (c) Automated dynamometer verifications and calibrations. In some 
cases, dynamometers are designed with internal diagnostic and control 
features to accomplish the verifications and calibrations specified in 
this subpart. You may use these automated functions instead of 
following the procedures we specify in this subpart to demonstrate 
compliance with applicable requirements, consistent with good 
engineering judgment.
    (d) Sequence of verifications and calibrations. Upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance, perform the verifications and 
calibrations in the same sequence as noted in Table 1 of this section, 
except that you may perform speed linearity verification after the 
verifications in Sec. Sec.  1066.225 and 1066.230. At other times, you 
may need to perform specific verifications or calibrations in a certain 
sequence, as noted in this subpart. If you perform major maintenance on 
a specific component, you are required to perform verifications and 
calibrations only on components or parameters that are affected by the 
maintenance.
    (e) Corrections. Unless the regulation directs otherwise, if the 
dynamometer fails to meet any specified calibration or verification, 
make any necessary adjustments or repairs such that the dynamometer 
meets the specification before running a test. Repairs required to meet 
specifications are generally considered major maintenance under this 
part.

Sec.  1066.220  Linearity verification for chassis dynamometer systems.

    (a) Scope and frequency. Perform linearity verification for 
dynamometer speed and torque at least as frequently as indicated in 
Table 1 of Sec.  1066.215. The intent of linearity verification is to 
determine that the system responds accurately and proportionally over 
the measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generally 
consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a 
measurement system. The measurement system quantifies each reference 
value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the 
reference values by using a least-squares linear regression and the 
linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section.
    (b) Performance requirements. If a measurement system does not meet 
the applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of this section, correct 
the deficiency by re-calibrating, servicing, or replacing components as 
needed. Repeat the linearity verification after correcting the 
deficiency to ensure that the measurement system meets the linearity 
criteria. Before you may use a measurement system that does not meet 
linearity criteria, you must demonstrate to us that the deficiency does 
not adversely affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable standards.
    (c) Procedure. Use the following linearity verification protocol, 
or use good engineering judgment to develop a different protocol that 
satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of 
this section:
    (1) In this paragraph (c), the letter ``y'' denotes a generic 
measured quantity, the superscript over-bar denotes an arithmetic mean 
(such as y), and the subscript ``ref'' denotes the known or 
reference quantity being measured.
    (2) Operate the dynamometer system at the specified operating 
conditions. This may include any specified adjustment or periodic 
calibration of the dynamometer system.
    (3) Set dynamometer speed and torque to zero.
    (4) Verify the dynamometer speed or torque signal based on the 
dynamometer manufacturer's recommendations.
    (5) After verification, check for zero speed and torque. Use good 
engineering judgment to determine whether or not to rezero or re-verify 
speed and torque before continuing.
    (6) For both speed and torque, use the dynamometer manufacturer's 
recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference 
values, yrefi, that cover a range of values that you expect 
would prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission 
testing. We recommend selecting zero 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

[[Page 23837]]

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,. Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an example of 
calculating an arithmetic mean.
    (11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(8) though (10) of this 
section until you measure speeds and torques at each of the reference 
settings.
    (12) Use the arithmetic means, yi, and reference values, 
yrefi, to calculate least-squares linear regression 
parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance 
criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations 
described in 40 CFR 1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may 
weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e., 
(yrefi,yi)), in the linear regression 
calculations. Table 1 follows:

                            Table 1 of Sec.   1066.220--Dynamometer Measurement Systems that Require Linearity Verifications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Linearity criteria
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Measurement system                  Quantity           [bond]ymin[middot](a1-1)+a0
                                                                            [bond]                    a1                   SEE                 r \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed................................  [nu]                    =0.990
Torque (load)........................  T                       =0.990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Reference signals. Generate reference values for the linearity-
verification protocol in paragraph (c) of this section as described for 
speed and torque in 40 CFR 1065.307(d).

Sec.  1066.225  Roll runout and diameter verification procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes the verification procedure for 
roll runout and roll diameter. Roll runout is a measure of the 
variation in roll radius around the circumference of the roll.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform these verifications upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance that could affect roll surface 
finish or dimensions (such as resurfacing or polishing).
    (c) Roll runout procedure. Verify roll runout based on the 
following procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good 
engineering judgment:
    (1) Perform this verification with laboratory and dynamometer 
temperatures stable and at equilibrium. Release the roll brake and shut 
off power to the dynamometer. Remove any dirt, rubber, rust, and debris 
from the roll surface. Mark measurement locations on the roll surface 
using a marker. Mark the roll at a minimum of four equally spaced 
locations across the roll width; we recommend taking measurements every 
150 mm across the roll. Secure the marker to the deck plate adjacent to 
the roll surface and slowly rotate the roll to mark a clear line around 
the roll circumference. Repeat this process for all measurement 
locations.
    (2) Measure roll runout using an indicator with a probe that allows 
for measuring the position of the roll surface relative to the roll 
centerline as it turns through a complete revolution. The indicator 
must have some means of being securely mounted adjacent to the roll. 
The indicator must have sufficient range to measure roll runout at all 
points, with a minimum accuracy of 0.025 mm. Calibrate the 
indicator according to the instrument manufacturer's instructions.
    (3) Position the indicator adjacent to the roll surface at the 
desired measurement location. Position the shaft of the indicator 
perpendicular to the roll such that the point of the indicator is 
slightly touching the surface of the roll and can move freely through a 
full rotation of the roll. Zero the indicator according to the 
instrument manufacturer's instructions. Avoid distortion of the runout 
measurement from the weight of a person standing on or near the mounted 
dial indicator.
    (4) Slowly turn the roll through a complete rotation and record the 
maximum and minimum values from the indicator. Calculate runout as the 
difference between these maximum and minimum values.
    (5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section 
for all measurement locations.
    (6) The roll runout must be less than 0.254 mm (0.0100 inches) at 
all measurement locations.
    (d) Diameter procedure. Verify roll diameter based on the following 
procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good engineering 
judgment:
    (1) Prepare the laboratory and the dynamometer as specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (2) Measure roll diameter using a Pi Tape[supreg]. Orient the Pi 
Tape[supreg] to the marker line at the desired measurement location 
with the Pi Tape[supreg] hook pointed outward. Temporarily secure the 
Pi Tape[supreg] to the roll near the hook end with adhesive tape. 
Slowly turn the roll, wrapping the Pi Tape[supreg] around the roll 
surface. Ensure that the Pi Tape[supreg] is flat and adjacent to the 
marker line around the full circumference of the roll. Attach a 2.26-kg 
weight to the hook of the Pi Tape[supreg] and position the roll so that 
the weight dangles freely. Remove the adhesive tape without disturbing 
the orientation or alignment of the Pi Tape[supreg].
    (3) Overlap the gage member and the vernier scale ends of the Pi 
Tape[supreg] to read the diameter measurement to the nearest 0.01 mm. 
Follow the manufacturer's recommendation to correct the measurement to 
20 [deg]C, if applicable.
    (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section 
for all measurement locations.
    (5) The measured roll diameter must be within 0.254 mm 
of the specified nominal value at all measurement locations. You may 
revise the nominal value to meet this specification, as long as you use 
the corrected nominal value for all calculations in this subpart.

Sec.  1066.230  Time verification procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy of 
the dynamometer's timing device.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance.
    (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:

[[Page 23838]]

    (i) Contact station WWV by telephone by dialing (303) 499-7111 and 
listen for the time announcement. Verify that the trigger started the 
dynamometer timer. Use good engineering judgment to minimize error in 
receiving the time and frequency signal.
    (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, re-dial station WWV and listen 
for the time announcement. Verify that the trigger stopped the 
dynamometer timer.
    (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time, yact, to the 
corresponding time standard, yref, to determine the time 
error, yerror, using the following equation: 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.063

    (2) Ramping method. You may use an operator-defined ramp function 
to serve as the time standard as follows:
    (i) Set up a signal generator to output a marker voltage at the 
peak of each ramp to trigger the dynamometer timing circuit. Output the 
designated marker voltage to start the verification period.
    (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, output the designated marker 
voltage to end the verification period.
    (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between marker signals, 
yact, to the corresponding time standard, yref, 
to determine the time error, yerror, using Eq. 1066.230-1.
    (3) Dynamometer coastdown method. You may use a signal generator to 
output a known speed ramp signal to the dynamometer controller to serve 
as the time standard as follows:
    (i) Generate upper and lower speed values to trigger the start and 
stop functions of the coastdown timer circuit. Use the signal generator 
to start the verification period.
    (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, use the signal generator to end 
the verification period.
    (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between trigger signals, 
yact, to the corresponding time standard, yref, 
to determine the time error, yerror, using Eq. 1066.230-1.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The time error determined in paragraph 
(c) of this section may not exceed 0.001%.

Sec.  1066.235  Speed verification procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy of 
the dynamometer speed determination. When performing this verification, 
you must also ensure the dynamometer speed at any devices used to 
display or record vehicle speed (such as a driver's aid) is 
representative of the speed input from the dynamometer speed 
determination.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major 
maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. Use one of the following procedures to verify the 
accuracy and resolution of the dynamometer speed simulation:
    (1) Pulse method. Connect a universal frequency counter to the 
output of the dynamometer's speed-sensing device in parallel with the 
signal to the dynamometer controller. The universal frequency counter 
must be calibrated according to the counter manufacturer's instructions 
and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the 
procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(1). Make sure the 
instrumentation does not affect the signal to the dynamometer control 
circuits. Determine the speed error as follows:
    (i) Set the dynamometer to speed-control mode. Set the dynamometer 
speed to a value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mph); record the output 
of the frequency counter after 10 seconds. Determine the roll speed, 
vact, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.054

Where:

f = frequency of the dynamometer speed sensing device, accurate to 
at least four significant figures.
droll = nominal roll diameter, accurate to the nearest 
1.0 mm, consistent with Sec.  1066.225(d).
n = the number of pulses per revolution from the dynamometer roll 
speed sensor.

Example:

f = 2.9231 Hz = 2.9231 s-\1\
droll = 904.40 mm = 0.90440 m
n = 1 pulse/rev

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.065

[[Page 23839]]

    (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section for 
the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two additional 
evenly spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum 
speed point.
    (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, vact, to each 
corresponding speed set point, vref, to determine values for 
speed error at each set point, verror, using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.147

Example:
vact = 8.3053 m/s
vref = 8.3000 m/s
verror = 8.3053 - 8.3000 = 0.0053 m/s

    (2) Frequency method. Install a piece of tape in the shape of an 
arrowhead on the surface of the dynamometer roll near the outer edge. 
Put a reference mark on the deck plate in line with the tape. Install a 
stroboscope or photo tachometer on the deck plate and direct the flash 
toward the tape on the roll. The stroboscope or photo tachometer must 
be calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer's instructions 
and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the 
procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(2). Determine the speed 
error as follows:
    (i) Set the dynamometer to speed-control mode. Set the dynamometer 
speed to a speed value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mph). Tune the 
stroboscope or photo tachometer until the signal matches the 
dynamometer roll speed. Record the frequency. Determine the roll speed, 
yact, using Eq. 1066.235-1, using the stroboscope or photo 
tachometer's frequency for f.
    (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for 
the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two additional 
evenly spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum 
speed point.
    (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, vact, to each 
corresponding speed set point, vref, to determine values for 
speed error at each set point, yerror, using Eq. 1066.235-2.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The speed error determined in paragraph 
(c) of this section may not exceed 0.02 m/s at any speed 
set point.

Sec.  1066.240  Torque transducer verification.

    Verify torque-measurement systems by performing the verifications 
described in Sec. Sec.  1066.270 and 1066.275.

Sec.  1066.245  Response time verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the 
dynamometer's response time to a step change in tractive force.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, 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 (such as 0.5 and 8 mph/s). Use good 
engineering judgment to select road-load coefficients representing 
vehicles of the appropriate weight. Determine the dynamometer's 
settling response time, ts, based on the point at which 
there are no measured results more than 10% above or below the final 
equilibrium value, as illustrated in Figure 1 of this section. The 
observed settling response time must be less than 100 milliseconds for 
each inertia setting.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.066

[[Page 23840]]

Sec.  1066.250  Base inertia verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the 
dynamometer's base inertia.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation and after major maintenance, such as maintenance that 
could affect roll 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. 
Motor the rolls to 5 mph. Apply a constant force to accelerate the roll 
at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to accelerate 
from 10 to 40 mph, noting the corresponding speed and time points to 
the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also determine average force over the 
measurement interval.
    (2) Starting from a steady roll speed of 45 mph, apply a constant 
force to the roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. 
Measure the elapsed time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mph, noting the 
corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. 
Also determine average force over the measurement interval.
    (3) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section 
for a total of five sets of results at the nominal acceleration rate 
and the nominal deceleration rate.
    (4) Use good engineering judgment to select two additional 
acceleration and deceleration rate pairs that cover the middle and 
upper rates expected during testing. Repeat the steps in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section at each of these additional 
acceleration and deceleration rates.
    (5) Determine the base inertia, Ib, for each measurement 
interval using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.067

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.
vinit = roll surface speed at the start of the 
measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 mph.
[Delta]t= elapsed time during the measurement interval to the 
nearest 0.01 s.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.068

    (6) Calculate the base inertia error, Iberror, for each 
of the thirty measured base inertia values, Ib, by comparing 
it to the manufacturer's stated base inertia, Ibref, using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.069

Example:
Ibref = 32.96 lbm
Ibact = 32.90 lbm (from paragraph (c)(5) of this section)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.070

    (7) Determine the base inertia mean value Ib, from the 
ten acceleration and deceleration interval base inertia values for each 
of the three acceleration/deceleration rates. Then determine the base 
inertia mean value, Ib, from the base inertia values 
corresponding to acceleration/deceleration rates. Calculate base 
inertia mean values as described in 40 CFR 1065.602(b)
    (8) Calculate the inertia error for the final base inertia mean 
value from paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Use Eq. 1066.250-2, 
substituting the final base inertia mean 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 inertia error for the final base inertia mean value 
determined under paragraph (c)(8) of this section may not exceed 0.20%.

Sec.  1066.255  Parasitic loss verification.

    (a) Overview. Verify the dynamometer's parasitic loss as described 
in this section, and correct as necessary. This procedure determines 
the dynamometer's internal losses that it must overcome to simulate 
road load. Characterize these losses in a parasitic loss curve that the 
dynamometer uses to apply compensating forces to maintain the desired 
road-load force at the roll surface.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a 
verification in either Sec.  1066.270 or Sec.  1066.275.
    (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 update 
the parasitic loss curve for further testing. If this is not the case, 
compare the new parasitic loss curve to the original parasitic loss 
curve from the dynamometer manufacturer or the most recent parasitic 
loss curve you programmed into the dynamometer. You may reprogram the 
dynamometer to accept the new curve in all cases, and you must 
reprogram the dynamometer if any point on the new curve departs from 
the earlier curve by more than 9.0 N for dynamometers 
capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, or 36.0 N (8.0 lbf) for dynamometers not capable of 
testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR.

Sec.  1066.260  Parasitic friction compensation evaluation.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy of 
the dynamometer's friction compensation.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation,

[[Page 23841]]

after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in either 
Sec.  1066.270 or Sec.  1066.275. Note that this procedure relies on 
proper verification of speed and torque, as described in Sec. Sec.  
1066.235 and 1066.240. You must also first verify the dynamometer's 
parasitic loss curve as specified in Sec.  1066.255.
    (c) Procedure. Use the following procedure to verify the accuracy 
of the dynamometer's friction compensation:
    (1) Warm up the dynamometer as specified by the dynamometer 
manufacturer.
    (2) Perform a torque verification as specified by the dynamometer 
manufacturer. For torque verifications relying on shunt procedures, if 
the results do not conform to specifications, recalibrate the 
dynamometer using NIST-traceable standards as appropriate until the 
dynamometer passes the torque verification. Do not change the 
dynamometer's base inertia to pass the torque verification.
    (3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the base inertia with the road-
load coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the dynamometer to speed-
control mode with a target speed of 50 mph or a higher speed 
recommended by the dynamometer manufacturer. Once the speed stabilizes 
at the target speed, switch the dynamometer from speed-control to 
torque-control and allow the roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the 
initial and final speeds and the corresponding start and stop times. If 
friction compensation is executed perfectly, there will be no change in 
speed during the measurement interval.
    (4) Calculate the power equivalent of friction compensation error, 
FCerror, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.071

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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.072

    (5) The friction compensation error may not exceed 0.15 
hp for dynamometers capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 
pounds GVWR, or 0.6 hp for dynamometers not capable of 
testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR.

Sec.  1066.265  Acceleration and deceleration verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the 
dynamometer's ability to achieve targeted acceleration and deceleration 
rates. Paragraph (c) of this section describes how this verification 
applies when the dynamometer is programmed directly for a specific 
acceleration or deceleration rate. Paragraph (d) of this section 
describes how this verification applies when the dynamometer is 
programmed with a calculated force to achieve a targeted acceleration 
or deceleration rate.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification or an equivalent 
procedure upon initial installation and after major maintenance that 
could affect acceleration and deceleration accuracy. Note that this 
procedure relies on proper verification of speed as described in Sec.  
1066.235.
    (c) Verification of acceleration and deceleration rates. Activate 
the dynamometer's function generator for measuring roll revolution 
frequency. If the dynamometer has no such function generator, set up a 
properly calibrated external function generator consistent with the 
verification described in this paragraph (c). Use the function 
generator to determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as 
the dynamometer traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various 
nominal acceleration and deceleration rates. Verify the dynamometer's 
acceleration and deceleration rates as follows:
    (1) Set up start and stop frequencies specific to your dynamometer 
by identifying the roll-revolution frequency, f, in revolutions per 
second (or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40 mph vehicle speeds, 
accurate to at least four significant figures, using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.073

Where:

v = the target roll speed, in inches per second (corresponding to 
drive speeds of 10 mph or 40 mph).
n = the number of pulses from the dynamometer's roll-speed sensor 
per roll revolution.
droll = roll diameter, in inches.

    (2) Program the dynamometer to accelerate the roll at a nominal 
rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to 
reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement 
for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate for 
each run, aact, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.074

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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.075

    (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.

[[Page 23842]]

    (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section 
for additional acceleration and deceleration rates in 1 mph/s 
increments up to and including one increment above the maximum 
acceleration rate expected during testing. Average the five repeat runs 
to calculate a mean acceleration rate, aact, at each 
setting.
    (5) Compare each mean acceleration rate, aact, to the 
corresponding nominal acceleration rate, aref, to determine 
values for acceleration error, aerror, using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.076

Example:
aact = 0.999 mph/s
aref = 1 mph/s
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.077

    (d) Verification of forces for controlling acceleration and 
deceleration. Program the dynamometer with a calculated force value and 
determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as the dynamometer 
traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various nominal acceleration 
and deceleration rates. Verify the dynamometer's ability to achieve 
certain acceleration and deceleration rates with a given force as 
follows:
    (1) Calculate the force setting, F, using the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.146
    
Where:

Ib = the dynamometer manufacturer's stated base inertia, 
in lbf[middot]s\2\/ft.
a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s\2\.

Example:
Ib = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf[middot]s\2\/ft
a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s\2\
F = 92.217[middot][bond]1.4667[bond]
F = 135.25 lbf

    (2) Set the dynamometer to road-load mode and program it with a 
calculated force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s 
from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target 
speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of 
five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, aact, for 
each run using Eq. 1066.265-2. Repeat this step to determine measured 
``negative acceleration'' rates using a calculated force to decelerate 
the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Average 
the five repeat runs to calculate a mean acceleration rate, 
aact, at each setting.
    (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(2) of this section for 
additional acceleration and deceleration rates as specified in 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
    (4) Compare each mean acceleration rate, aact, to the 
corresponding nominal acceleration rate, aref, to determine 
values for acceleration error, aerror, using Eq. 1066.265-3.
    (e) Performance evaluation. The acceleration error from paragraphs 
(c)(5) and (d)(4) of this section may not exceed 1.0%.

Sec.  1066.270  Unloaded coastdown verification.

    (a) Overview. Use force measurements to verify the dynamometer's 
settings based on coastdown procedures.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. This procedure verifies the dynamometer's settings 
derived from coastdown testing. For dynamometers that have an automated 
process for this procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the 
initial speed, final speed, inertial coefficients, and road-load 
coefficients as required for each test, using good engineering judgment 
to ensure that these values properly represent in-use operation. Use 
the following procedure if your dynamometer does not perform this 
verification with an automated process:
    (1) Warm up the dynamometer as specified by the dynamometer 
manufacturer.
    (2) With the dynamometer in coastdown mode, set the dynamometer 
inertia for the smallest vehicle weight that you expect to test and set 
A, B, and C road-load coefficients to values typical of those used 
during testing. Program the dynamometer to coast down over the 
dynamometer operational speed range (typically from a speed of 80 mph 
through a minimum speed at or below 10 mph). Perform at least one 
coastdown over this speed range, collecting data over each 10 mph 
interval.
    (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2) of this section with the 
dynamometer inertia and road-load coefficients set for the largest 
vehicle weight that you expect to test.
    (4) Determine the average coastdown force, F, for each speed and 
inertia setting for each of the coastdowns performed using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.078

Where:

F = the average force measured during the coastdown for each speed 
interval and inertia setting, expressed in lbf[middot]s\2\/ft and 
rounded to four significant figures.
I = the dynamometer's inertia setting, in lbf[middot] s\2\/ft.
vinit = the speed at the start of the coastdown interval, 
expressed in ft/s to at least four significant figures.
vfinal = the speed at the end of the coastdown interval, 
expressed in ft/s to at least four significant figures.
t = coastdown time for each speed interval and inertia setting, 
accurate to at least 0.01 s.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.079

    (5) Calculate the target value of coastdown force, Fref, 
based on the applicable dynamometer parameters for each speed interval 
and inertia setting.
    (6) Compare the mean value of the coastdown force measured for each 
speed interval and inertia setting, Fact, to the 
corresponding Fref to determine values for coastdown force 
error, Ferror, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.080

[[Page 23843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.081

    (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 for all speed and inertia settings from the 
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.148

Example:
Fref = 192 lbf
Ferrormax (%) = (2.2/192)[middot]100 = 1.14%

    (2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, the maximum allowable 
error, Ferrormax, for all speed intervals and inertia 
settings is 1.0% or 39.2 N, whichever is 
greater.
    (e) Remedy for nonconforming dynamometers. If the dynamometer is 
not able to meet this requirement, diagnose and repair the dynamometer 
before continuing with emission testing. Diagnosis should include 
performing the verifications in Sec.  1066.255 and Sec.  1066.260.

Sec.  1066.275  Daily dynamometer readiness verification.

    (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify that the 
dynamometer is ready for emission testing.
    (b) Scope and frequency. Perform this verification upon initial 
installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance.
    (c) Procedure. For dynamometers that have an automated process for 
this verification procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the 
initial speed and final speed and the inertial and road-load 
coefficients as required for the test, using good engineering judgment 
to ensure that these values properly represent in-use operation. Use 
the following procedure if your dynamometer does not perform this 
verification with an automated process:
    (1) With the dynamometer in coastdown mode, set the dynamometer 
inertia to the base inertia with the road-load coefficient A set to 20 
lbf (or a force that results in a coastdown time of less than 10 
minutes) and coefficients B and C set to 0. Program the dynamometer to 
coast down for one 10 mph interval from 55 mph down to 45 mph. If your 
dynamometer is not capable of performing one discrete coastdown, then 
coast down with preset 10 mph intervals that include a 55 mph to 45 mph 
interval.
    (2) Perform the coastdown.
    (3) Determine the coastdown force and coastdown force error using 
Eqs. 1066.270-1 and 1066.270-2.
    (d) Performance evaluation. The coastdown force error determined in 
paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed the following:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, 1.0% 
or 9.8 N (2.2 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, 1.0% or 
39.2 N (8.8 lbf), whichever is greater.
    (e) Remedy for nonconforming dynamometers. If the verification 
results fail to meet the performance criteria in paragraph (d) of this 
section, perform the procedure up to two additional times. If the 
dynamometer is consistently unable to meet the performance criteria, 
diagnose and repair the dynamometer before continuing with emission 
testing. Diagnosis should include performing the verifications in Sec.  
1066.255 and Sec.  1066.260.

Sec.  1066.290  Verification of speed accuracy for the driver's aid.

    Use good engineering judgment to provide a driver's aid that 
facilitates compliance with the requirements of Sec.  1066.425. Verify 
the speed accuracy of the driver's aid as described in Sec.  1066.235.

Subpart D--Coastdown

Sec.  1066.301  Overview of coastdown procedures.

    (a) The coastdown procedures described in this subpart are used to 
determine the load coefficients (A, B, and C) for the simulated road-
load equation in Sec.  1066.210(d)(3).
    (b) The general procedure for performing coastdown tests and 
calculating load coefficients is described in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010). This subpart specifies 
certain deviations from those procedures for certain applications.
    (c) Use good engineering judgment for all aspects of coastdown 
testing. For example, minimize the effects of grade by performing 
coastdown testing on reasonably level surfaces and determining 
coefficients based on average values from vehicle operation in opposite 
directions over the course.

Sec.  1066.305  Coastdown procedures for motor vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR.

    For motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, develop 
representative road-load coefficients to characterize each test 
vehicle. Calculate road-load coefficients by performing coastdowns 
using the provisions of SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010). Perform coastdowns at a starting speed 
as specified in SAE J2263, or at the highest speed from the range of 
applicable duty cycles. Use the same road-load coefficients for all 
duty cycles. However, if your test conditions are substantially 
different from the conditions represented by your road-load 
coefficients, such as cold temperature testing, you may use good 
engineering judgment to develop separate road-load coefficients.

Sec.  1066.310  Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds 
GVWR.

    This section describes coastdown procedures that are unique to 
vehicles 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 road-load coefficients by performing a minimum of 16 
valid coastdown runs (8 in each direction).
    (b) Follow the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of SAE J1263 and 
SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010), except as 
described in this paragraph (b). The terms and variables identified in 
this paragraph (b) have the meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263 unless 
specified otherwise.
    (1) The test condition specifications of SAE J1263 apply except as 
follows for wind and road conditions:
    (i) We recommend that you do not perform coastdown testing on days 
for which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 mph.
    (ii) The grade of the test track or road must not be excessive 
(considering factors such as road safety standards and effects on the 
coastdown results). Road conditions should follow Section 7.4 of SAE 
J1263, except that road grade may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is greater 
than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, you must incorporate 
into the analysis road grade as a function of distance along the length 
of the test surface. Use Section 11.5 of SAE J2263 to calculate the 
force due to grade.

[[Page 23844]]

    (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 the 
range of vehicle speeds specified in this paragraph (b)(2).
    (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 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 the specified maximum speed down to 15 mph) in that direction. 
Eliminate runs outside this range. After eliminating these runs you 
must have at least eight valid runs in each direction. You may use 
coastdown run times that do not meet these standard deviation 
requirements if we approve it in advance. In your request, describe why 
the vehicle is not able to meet the specified standard deviation 
requirements and propose an alternative set of requirements.
    (7) Analyze data for chassis and post-transmission powerpack 
testing or for use in the GEM simulation tool as follows:
    (i) Follow the procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or 
Section 11 of SAE J2263 to calculate coefficients for chassis and post-
transmission powerpack testing.
    (ii) Determine drag area, CDA, as follows instead of 
using the procedure specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263:
    (A) Measure vehicle speed at fixed intervals over the coastdown run 
(generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at or above 15 mph and at or 
below the specified maximum speed. Establish the elevation 
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, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.082

Where:

i = an interval counter, starting with i=1 for the first interval. 
The designation (i-1) corresponds to the end of the previous 
interval or, for the first interval, to the start of the test run.
Me = the vehicle's effective mass, expressed to at least 
the nearest 0.1 kg.
v = vehicle speed at the beginning and end of the measurement 
interval.
[Delta]t = elapsed time over the measurement interval, in seconds.

    (D) Plot the data from all the coastdown runs on a single plot of 
Fi vs. vi\2\ to determine the slope correlation, 
D, based on the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.083

Where:

g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s\2\.
[Delta]h = change in elevation over the measurement interval, in m. 
Assume [Delta]h = 0 if you are not correcting for grade.
[Delta]s = distance the vehicle travels down the road during the 
measurement interval, in m.
Am = the calculated value of the y-intercept based on the 
curve-fit.

    (E) Calculate drag area, CDA, in m\2\ using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.084

Where:

    [rho] = air density at reference conditions = 1.17 kg/m\3\.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.085
    

T = mean ambient absolute temperature during testing, in K.
    pact = average ambient pressuring during the test, in 
kPa.

    (8) Determine the A, B, and C coefficients identified in Sec.  
1066.210 as follows:
    (i) For chassis and post-transmission powerpack testing, follow the 
procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 12 of SAE 
J2263.
    (ii) For the GEM simulation tool, use the following values:

A = Am
B = 0
C = Dadj

Sec.  1066.315  Dynamometer road-load setting.

    Determine dynamometer road-load settings for chassis testing by 
following SAE J2264 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010).

Subpart E--Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test

Sec.  1066.401  Overview.

    (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle 
emissions

[[Page 23845]]

over a specified drive schedule. Different procedures may apply for 
criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions as described in the 
standard-setting part. This subpart describes how to--
    (1) Determine road-load power, test weight, and inertia class.
    (2) Prepare the vehicle, equipment, and measurement instruments for 
an emission test.
    (3) Perform pre-test procedures to verify proper operation of 
certain equipment and analyzers and to prepare them for testing.
    (4) Record pre-test data.
    (5) Sample emissions.
    (6) Record post-test data.
    (7) Perform post-test procedures to verify proper operation of 
certain equipment and analyzers.
    (8) Weigh PM samples.
    (b) The overall test generally consists of prescribed sequences of 
fueling, parking, and driving at specified test conditions. An exhaust 
emission test generally consists of measuring emissions and other 
parameters while a vehicle follows the drive schedules specified in the 
standard-setting part. There are two general types of test cycles:
    (1) Transient cycles. Transient test cycles are typically specified 
in the standard-setting part as a second-by-second sequence of vehicle 
speed commands. Operate a vehicle over a transient cycle such that the 
speed follows the target values. Proportionally sample emissions and 
other parameters and calculate emission rates as specified in subpart G 
of this part to calculate emissions. The standard-setting part may 
specify three types of transient testing based on the approach to 
starting the measurement, as follows:
    (i) A cold-start transient cycle where you start to measure 
emissions just before starting an engine that has not been warmed up.
    (ii) A hot-start transient cycle where you start to measure 
emissions just before starting a warmed-up engine.
    (iii) A hot-running transient cycle where you start to measure 
emissions after an engine is started, warmed up, and running.
    (2) Cruise cycles. Cruise test cycles are typically specified in 
the standard-setting part as a discrete operating point that has a 
single speed command.
    (i) Start a cruise cycle as a hot-running test, where you start to 
measure emissions after the engine is started and warmed up and the 
vehicle is running at the target test speed.
    (ii) Sample emissions and other parameters for the cruise cycle in 
the same manner as a transient cycle, with the exception that the 
reference speed value is constant. Record instantaneous and mean speed 
values over the cycle.

Sec.  1066.405  Vehicle preparation and preconditioning.

    Prepare the vehicle for testing (including measurement of 
evaporative and refueling emissions if appropriate), as described in 
the standard-setting part.

Sec.  1066.410  Dynamometer test procedure.

    (a) Dynamometer testing may consist of multiple drive cycles with 
both cold-start and hot-start portions, including prescribed soak times 
before each test interval. The standard-setting part identifies the 
driving schedules and the associated sample intervals, soak periods, 
engine startup and shutdown procedures, and operation of accessories, 
as applicable. Not every test interval includes all these elements.
    (b) Place the vehicle onto the dynamometer without starting the 
engine (for cold-start test cycles) or drive the vehicle onto the 
dynamometer (for hot-start and hot-running cycles only) and position a 
fan that directs cooling air to the vehicle during dynamometer 
operation as described in this paragraph (b). This generally requires 
squarely positioning the fan in front of the vehicle and directing the 
airflow to the vehicle's radiator. Use good engineering judgment to 
design and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way that 
properly simulates in-use operation, consistent with the specifications 
of Sec.  1066.105. Except for the following special cases, use a road-
speed modulated fan meeting the requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(2) 
that is placed within 90 cm of the front of the vehicle and ensure that 
the engine compartment cover (i.e., hood) is closed:
    (1) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, use a fan meeting the 
requirements of Sec.  1066.105(d) that is placed within 90 cm of the 
front of the vehicle and ensure that the engine compartment cover is 
closed.
    (2) For FTP, LA-92, US06, or HFET testing of vehicles at or below 
14,000 pounds GVWR, you may use a fixed-speed fan as specified in the 
following table, with the engine compartment cover open:

    Table 1 of Sec.   1066.410--Fixed-Speed Fan Capacity and Position
       Specifications for Vehicles at or Below 14,000 pounds GVWR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Approximate distance from
    Test cycle         Maximum fan capacity     the front of the vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTP...............  Up to 2.50 m\3\/s........  0 to 30 cm.
US06..............  Up to 7.10 m\3\/s........  0 to 60 cm.
LA-92.............  Up to 7.10 m\3\/s........  0 to 60 cm.
HFET..............  Up to 2.50 m\3\/s........  0 to 30 cm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For SC03 and AC17 testing, use a road-speed modulated fan 
meeting the requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(5) that is placed within 
60 to 90 cm of the front of the vehicle and ensure that the engine 
compartment cover is closed. Position the discharge nozzle such that 
its lowest point is not more than 16 cm above the floor of the test 
cell.
    (c) Record the vehicle's speed trace based on the time and speed 
data from the dynamometer at the recording frequencies given in Table 1 
of Sec.  1066.125. Record speed to at least the nearest 0.01 mph and 
time to at least the nearest 0.1 s.
    (d) You may perform practice runs for operating the vehicle and the 
dynamometer controls to meet the driving tolerances specified in Sec.  
1066.425 or adjust the emission sampling equipment. Verify that the 
accelerator pedal allows for enough control to closely follow the 
prescribed driving schedule. We recommend that you verify your ability 
to meet the minimum dilution factor requirements of Sec.  
1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B) during these practice runs.
    (e) Inflate tires on drive wheels according to the vehicle 
manufacturer's specifications. The tire pressure for drive wheels must 
be the same for dynamometer operation and for dynamometer coastdown 
procedures used for determining road-load coefficients. Report these 
measured 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 measured force with 
the test results.
    (g) Use good engineering judgment when testing vehicles in four-
wheel drive or all-wheel drive mode. (For purposes of this paragraph 
(g), the term four-wheel drive includes other multiple drive-axle 
configurations.) This may involve testing on a dynamometer with a 
separate dynamometer roll for each drive axle; or two drive axles may 
use a single roll, as described in

[[Page 23846]]

Sec.  1066.210(d)(1); or you may deactivate the second set of drive 
wheels and operate the vehicle on a single roll. For all vehicles at or 
below 14,000 GVWR, we will test your vehicle using the same dynamometer 
roll arrangement that you used. We may also test your vehicle using 
another dynamometer roll arrangement for information-gathering 
purposes. If we choose to perform additional testing that requires 
vehicle modifications, we will ask you to configure the vehicle 
appropriately.
    (h) Determine test weight as follows:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine ETW as 
described in Sec.  1066.805. Set dynamometer vehicle inertia, I, based 
on dynamometer type, as follows:
    (i) For two-wheel drive dynamometers, set I = ETW.
    (ii) For four-wheel drive dynamometers, set I = 0.985[middot]ETW.
    (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine the vehicle's 
effective mass as described in Sec.  1066.310 and use this as the test 
weight.
    (i) Warm up the dynamometer as recommended by the dynamometer 
manufacturer.
    (j) Following the test, determine the actual driving distance by 
counting the number of dynamometer roll or shaft revolutions, or by 
integrating speed over the course of testing from a high-resolution 
encoder system.

Sec.  1066.415  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 HEVs, 
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 HEVs, 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 laboratory 
exhaust tubing 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 demonstrate that your vehicles comply with the applicable 
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 
shutdown during idle.
    (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 shutdown during idle.
    (4) Operate the vehicle with the appropriate accelerator pedal 
movement necessary to follow the scheduled speeds in the driving 
schedule. Avoid smoothing speed variations and unnecessary movement of 
the accelerator pedal.
    (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 without delay. If the vehicle cannot accelerate at the specified 
rate, operate it at maximum available power until the vehicle speed 
reaches the value prescribed 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 used during testing, as long as both shift schedules are 
described in the application for certification; in this case, we may 
shift during testing as described in the owners manual.

[[Page 23847]]

Sec.  1066.420  Test preparation.

    (a) Follow the procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare 
weighing as described in 40 CFR 1065.590 if you need to measure PM 
emissions.
    (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR with compression-ignition 
engines, verify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.520(g).
    (c) Unless the standard-setting part specifies different 
tolerances, verify at some point before the test that ambient 
conditions are within the tolerances specified in this paragraph (c). 
For purposes of this paragraph (c), ``before the test'' means any time 
from a point just prior to engine starting (excluding engine restarts) 
to the point at which emission sampling begins.
    (1) Ambient temperature must be (20 to 30) [deg]C. See Sec.  
1066.425(h) for circumstances under which ambient temperatures must 
remain within this range during the test.
    (2) Dilution air conditions must meet the specifications in Sec.  
1066.110(b)(2). We recommend verifying dilution air conditions just 
before starting each test interval.
    (d) Control test cell ambient air humidity as follows:
    (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow the 
humidity requirements in Table 1 of this section, unless the standard-
setting part specifies otherwise. When complying with humidity 
requirements in the table, where no tolerance is specified, use good 
engineering judgment to maintain the humidity level near the specified 
value within the limitations of your test facility.
    (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, you may test vehicles at 
any humidity.

                           Table 1 of Sec.   1066.420--Test Cell Humidity Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Humidity
                                             requirement
               Test cycle                  (grains H2O per        Tolerance  (grains H2O per pound dry air)
                                           pound dry air)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC17....................................                69   5 average,  10
                                                             instantaneous.
FTP \1\ and LA-92.......................                50
HFET....................................                50
SC03....................................               100   5.
US06....................................                50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTP humidity requirement does not apply for cold (-7[deg]C), intermediate (10 [deg]C), and hot (35 [deg]C)
  temperature testing.

    (e) You may perform a final calibration of proportional-flow 
control systems, which may include performing practice runs.
    (f) You may perform the following procedure to precondition 
sampling systems:
    (1) Operate the vehicle over the test cycle.
    (2) Operate any dilution systems at their expected flow rates. 
Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution systems as described in 40 
CFR 1065.140(c)(6), taking into account allowances given in Sec.  
1066.110(b)(2)(iv).
    (3) Operate any PM sampling systems at their expected flow rates.
    (4) Sample PM using any sample media. You may change sample media 
during preconditioning. You must discard preconditioning samples 
without weighing them.
    (5) You may purge any gaseous sampling systems during 
preconditioning.
    (6) You may conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle 
equipment or analyzers during preconditioning.
    (g) Take the following steps before emission sampling begins:
    (1) For batch sampling, connect clean storage media, such as 
evacuated bags or tare-weighed filters.
    (2) Start all measurement instruments according to the instrument 
manufacturer's instructions and using good engineering judgment.
    (3) Start dilution systems, sample pumps, and the data-collection 
system.
    (4) Pre-heat or pre-cool heat exchangers in the sampling system to 
within their operating temperature tolerances for a test.
    (5) Allow heated or cooled components such as sample lines, 
filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize at their operating 
temperatures.
    (6) Adjust the sample flow rates to desired levels using bypass 
flow, if desired.
    (7) Zero or re-zero any electronic integrating devices before the 
start of any test interval.
    (8) Select gas analyzer ranges. You may not switch the gain of an 
analyzer's analog operational amplifier(s) during a test. However, you 
may switch (automatically or manually) gas analyzer ranges during a 
test if such switching changes only the range over which the digital 
resolution of the instrument is applied. For batch analyzers, select 
ranges before final bag analysis.
    (9) Zero and span all continuous gas analyzers using gases that 
meet the specifications of 40 CFR 1065.750. For FID analyzers, you may 
account for the carbon number of your span gas either during the 
calibration process or when calculating your final emission value. For 
example, if you use a C3H8 span gas of 
concentration 200 ppm ([mu]mol/mol), you may span the FID to respond 
with a value of 600 ppm ([mu]mol/mol) of carbon or 200 ppm of propane. 
However, if your FID response is equivalent to propane, include a 
factor of three to make the final calculated hydrocarbon mass 
consistent with a molar mass of 13.875389. When utilizing an NMC-FID, 
span the FID analyzer consistent with the determination of their 
respective response factors, RF, and penetration fractions, PF, 
according to 40 CFR 1065.365.
    (10) We recommend that you verify gas analyzer responses after 
zeroing and spanning by sampling a calibration gas that has a 
concentration near one-half of the span gas concentration. Based on the 
results, use good engineering judgment to decide whether or not to re-
zero, re-span, or re-calibrate a gas analyzer before starting a test.
    (11) If you correct for dilution air background concentrations of 
associated engine exhaust constituents, start sampling and recording 
background concentrations at the same time you start sampling exhaust 
gases.
    (12) Turn on cooling fans immediately before starting the test.
    (h) Proceed with the test sequence described in Sec.  1066.425.

Sec.  1066.425  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

[[Page 23848]]

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 in which no exhaust 
emission standards apply, 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, as long as such variations are clearly 
documented, including the time and speed values and the reason for the 
deviation:
    (i) Speed variations greater than the specified limits are 
acceptable for up to 2.0 seconds on any occasion.
    (ii) For vehicles that are not able to maintain acceleration as 
specified in Sec.  1066.415(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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.086

[[Page 23849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.087

    (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, turn on any electronic integrating devices, and start 
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 standard-setting 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 engine compartment cover (if 
applicable), and turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from 
the vehicle's tailpipe(s) unless otherwise instructed in the standard-
setting part. If testing is complete, disconnect the laboratory exhaust 
tubing from the vehicle's tailpipe(s) and drive the vehicle from the 
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)(5) of this section and zero and span all batch gas 
analyzers as soon as practical before any batch sample analysis. You 
may perform this batch analyzer zero and span before the end of the 
test interval.
    (ii) Analyze any conventional gaseous batch samples (HC, 
CH4, CO, NOX, and CO2) no later than 
30 minutes after a test interval is complete, or during the soak period 
if practical. Analyze background samples no later than 60 minutes after 
the test interval 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) 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 determine that the test vehicle 
exceeded an emission standard, 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.

[[Page 23850]]

    (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 verify that analyzer drift does not exceed 
2.0% of the analyzer full scale.
    (h) Measure and record ambient pressure. Measure and record ambient 
temperature continuously to verify that it remains within the 
temperature range specified in Sec.  1066.420(c)(1) throughout the 
test. Also measure humidity if required, such as for correcting 
NOX emissions, or meeting the requirements of Sec.  
1066.420(d).
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine overall 
driver accuracy as follows:
    (1) Compare the following drive-cycle metrics, based on measured 
vehicle speeds, to a reference value based on the target cycle that 
would have been generated by driving exactly to the target trace as 
described in SAE J2951 (incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010):
    (i) Determine the Energy Economy Rating as described in Section 5.4 
of SAE J2951.
    (ii) Determine the Absolute Speed Change Rating as described in 
Section 5.5 of SAE J2951.
    (iii) Determine the Inertia Work Rating as described in Section 5.6 
of SAE J2951.
    (iv) Determine the phase-weighted composite Energy Based Drive 
Metrics for the criteria specified in this paragraph (j)(1) as 
described in Section 5.7 of SAE J2951.
    (2) The standard-setting part may require you to give 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.

Subpart F--Electric Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Sec.  1066.501  Overview.

    Use the following procedures to test EVs and HEVs (including 
PHEVs):
    (a) Correct the results for Net Energy Change of the RESS as 
follows:
    (1) For all sizes of EVs, follow SAE J1634 (incorporated by 
reference in Sec.  1066.1010).
    (2) For HEVs at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J1711 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010) except as described in 
this paragraph (a). Disregard provisions of SAE J1711 that differ from 
this part or the standard-setting part if they are not specific to 
HEVs. Apply the following adjustments and clarifications to SAE J1711:
    (i) If the procedure calls for charge-sustaining operation, start 
the drive with a State of Charge that is appropriate to ensure charge-
sustaining operation for the duration of the drive. Take steps other 
than emission measurements to confirm that vehicles are in charge-
sustaining mode for the duration of the drive.
    (ii) We may approve the use of the alternate End-of-Test criterion 
in Section 3.9.1 of SAE J1711 and the Net Energy Change correction in 
Appendix C of SAE J1711 if the specified criterion and correction are 
insufficient or inappropriate for establishing the transition between 
charge-depleting and charge-sustaining operation.
    (iii) Appendix C of SAE J1711 may be used to correct final fuel 
economy values, CO2 emissions, and carbon-related exhaust 
emissions, but may not be used to correct measured values for criteria 
pollutant emissions.
    (iv) You may test subject to a measurement accuracy of 0.3% of full scale in place of the measurement accuracy specified 
in Section 4.2a of SAE J1711.
    (3) For HEVs above 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J2711 
(incorporated by reference in Sec.  1066.1010) for requirements related 
to charge-sustaining operation.
    (4) Use an integration frequency of 1 to 20 Hz for power analyzers 
to verify compliance with current and voltage specifications.
    (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.
    (c) You may stop emission sampling anytime the engine is turned 
off, consistent with good engineering judgment. This is intended to 
allow for higher concentrations of dilute exhaust gases and more 
accurate measurements. Take steps to account for exhaust transport 
delay in the sampling system, and be sure to integrate over the actual 
sampling duration when determining Vmix.

Subpart G--Calculations

Sec.  1066.601  Overview.

    (a) This subpart describes calculations used to determine emission 
rates. See the standard-setting part and the other provisions of this 
part to determine which equations apply for your testing. This subpart 
describes how to--
    (1) Use the signals recorded before, during, and after an emission 
test to calculate distance-specific emissions of each regulated 
pollutant.
    (2) Perform calculations for calibrations and performance checks.
    (3) Determine statistical values.
    (b) You may use data from multiple systems to calculate test 
results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering 
judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch 
sample, such as multiple weighing of a PM filter or multiple readings 
from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple 
measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from 
multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means 
where appropriate, such as for sampling onto a PM filter over the FTP. 
You may discard statistical outliers, but you must report all results.

Sec.  1066.605  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) See the standard-setting part for composite emission 
calculations over multiple test intervals and the corresponding 
weighting factors.
    (c) Perform the following sequence of preliminary calculations to 
correct recorded concentration measurements before calculating mass 
emissions in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section:
    (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

[[Page 23851]]

background concentrations, as described in this section, and as 
described in Sec.  1066.635 for NMOG. For emission testing of vehicles 
above 14,000 pounds GVWR, with fuels that contain 25% or more 
oxygenated compounds by volume, calculate THCE and NMHC concentrations, 
including dilution air background concentrations, as described in 40 
CFR part 1065, subpart I.
    (5) Correct NOX emission values for intake-air humidity 
as described in Sec.  1066.615.
    (6) Correct all gaseous concentrations for dilution air background 
as described in Sec.  1066.610.
    (7) Correct all PM filter masses for sample media buoyancy as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.690.
    (d) Calculate the emission mass of each gaseous pollutant using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.088

Where:
m[emission] = emission mass over the test interval.
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test 
interval, corrected to standard reference conditions, and corrected 
for any volume removed for emission sampling and for any volume 
change from adding secondary dilution air.
[rho][emission] = density of the appropriate chemical 
species as given in Sec.  1066.1005(f).
x[emission] = measured emission concentration in the 
sample, after dry-to-wet and background corrections.
c = 10-2 for emission concentrations in %, and 
10-6 for emission concentrations in ppm.

Example:

Vmix = 170.878 m\3\ (from paragraph (f) of this section)
[rho] NOX = 1913 g/m\3\
x NOX = 0.9721 ppm
c = 10-6
m NOX = 170.878 [middot] 1913 [middot] 0.9721 [middot] 
10-6 = 0.3177 g

(e) Calculation of the emission mass of PM, mPM, is 
dependent on how many PM filters you use, as follows:
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, 
calculate mPM using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.089

Where:
mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the test 
interval, as described in Sec.  1066.815(b)(1), (2), and (3).
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test 
interval, corrected to standard reference conditions, and corrected 
for any volume removed for emission sampling and for any volume 
change from adding secondary dilution air.
Vsdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air sampled 
through the filter over the test interval, corrected to 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:

[[Page 23852]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.090

Where:
mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the 
entire FTP as sampled according to Sec.  1066.815(b)(4).
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test 
interval, corrected to standard reference conditions, and corrected 
for any volume removed for emission sampling and for any volume 
change from adding secondary dilution air.
V[interval]-PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust 
sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold 
transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient), corrected to 
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), corrected to 
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 over the test interval.

[[Page 23853]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.091

    (3) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in Sec.  
1066.815(b)(5), calculate mPM using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.092

Where:

mPM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the 
entire FTP as sampled according to Sec.  1066.815(b)(5).
Vmix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test 
interval, corrected to standard reference conditions, and corrected 
for any volume removed for emission sampling and for any volume 
change from secondary dilution air.
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), corrected to 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), corrected to 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 over the test interval.

[[Page 23854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.093

    (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. You may use predetermined 
nominal values for removed sample volumes, except for flows used for 
batch sampling.
    (1) Correct flow and flow rates to standard reference conditions as 
needed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.094

Where:

V[flow]std = total flow volume at the flow meter, 
corrected to standard reference conditions.
V[flow]act = total flow volume 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 = temperature of the dilute exhaust sample at the 
flow meter inlet.

[[Page 23855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.095

    (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. 1066.605-6 based on the number of flows 
that are removed from your dilute exhaust gas and whether your PM 
sampling system is using secondary dilution. For this example, 
Vmix is governed by the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.096

Where:

VCVSstd = total dilute exhaust volume over the test 
interval at the flow meter, corrected to standard reference 
conditions.
Vgasstd = total volume of sample flow through the gaseous 
emission bench over the test interval, corrected to standard 
reference conditions.
VPMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through 
the filter over the test interval, corrected to standard reference 
conditions.
Vsdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air flow 
sampled through the filter over the test interval, corrected to 
standard reference conditions.

Example:
Using Eq. 1066.605-5
VCVSstd = 170.451 m\3\, where VCVSact = 
170.721 m\3\, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 294.7 
K
Using Eq. 1066.605-5
Vgasstd = 0.028 m\3\, where Vgasact = 0.033 
m\3\, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 340.5 K
Using Eq. 1066.605-5
VPMstd = 0.925 m\3\, where VPMact = 1.071 
m\3\, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 340.5 K
Using Eq. 1066.605-5
Vsdastd = 0.527 m\3\, where Vsdaact = 0.531 
m\3\, pin = 101.7 kPa, and Tin = 296.3 K
Vmix = 170.451 + 0.028 + 0.925 - 0.527 = 170.878 m\3\

    (g) Calculate total flow volume over a test interval, 
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 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.097

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.151

[[Page 23856]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.098

    (ii) Constant flow rate. If you continuously sample from a constant 
exhaust flow rate, use the same calculation described in paragraph 
(g)(2)(i) of this section or calculate the mean flow recorded over the 
test interval and treat the mean as a batch sample, as described in 
paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (3) Batch sampling. For batch sampling, calculate total flow by 
integrating a varying flow rate or by determining the mean of a 
constant flow rate, as follows:
    (i) Varying flow rate. If you proportionally collect a batch sample 
from a varying exhaust flow rate, integrate the flow rate over the test 
interval to determine the total flow from which you extracted the 
proportional sample, as described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this 
section.
    (ii) Constant flow rate. If you batch sample from a constant 
exhaust flow rate, extract a sample at a proportional or constant flow 
rate and calculate V[flow] from the flow from which you 
extract the sample by multiplying the mean flow rate by the time of the 
test interval using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.145

[[Page 23857]]

Sec.  1066.610  Dilution air background correction.

    (a) Correct the emissions in a gaseous sample for background using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.099

Where:

x[emission]dexh = measured emission concentration in 
dilute exhaust (after dry-to-wet correction, if applicable).
x[emission]bkgnd = measured emission concentration in the 
dilution air (after dry-to-wet correction, if applicable).
DF = dilution factor, as determined in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.100

Where:

xCO2 = amount of CO2 measured in the sample 
over the test interval.
xNMHC = amount of C1-equivalent NMHC measured 
in the sample over the test interval.
xCH4 = amount of CH4 measured in the sample 
over the test interval.
xCO = amount of CO measured in the sample over the test 
interval.
[alpha] = atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the test fuel. You may 
measure [alpha] or use default values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 
1065.655.
[beta] = atomic oxygen-to-carbon ratio of the test fuel. You may 
measure [beta] or use default values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 
1065.655.

[[Page 23858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.101

    (c) Determine the dilution factor, DF, over the test interval for 
partial-flow dilution sample systems using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.152

Where:
    Vdexhstd = total dilute exhaust volume sampled over 
the test interval, corrected to standard reference conditions.
    Vexhstd = total exhaust volume sampled from the 
vehicle, corrected to standard reference conditions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.102

    (d) Determine the time-weighted dilution factor, DFw, 
over the duty cycle using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.103

Where:
N = number of test intervals.
i = test interval number
t = duration of the test interval.
DF = dilution factor over the test interval.

Example:

[[Page 23859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.104

Sec.  1066.615  NOX intake-air humidity correction.

    You may correct NOX emissions for intake-air humidity as 
described in this section if the standard-setting part allows it. See 
Sec.  1066.605(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 vehicles with reciprocating engines operating over specific test 
cycles as follows:
    (1) Calculate a humidity correction using a time-weighted mean 
value for ambient humidity over the test interval. Calculate absolute 
ambient humidity, H, using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.105

Where:

MH2O = molar mass of H2O.
pd = saturated vapor pressure at the ambient dry bulb 
temperature.
RH = relative humidity of ambient air
Mair = molar mass of air.
patmos = atmospheric pressure.

[[Page 23860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.106

Where:

x NOXdexh = measured dilute NOX emissions.
Hs = humidity scale. Set = 1 for FTP, US06, LA-92, and 
HFET test cycles. Set = 0.8825 for the SC03 test cycle.
H = ambient humidity, as determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.107

[[Page 23861]]

Sec.  1066.620  Removed water correction.

    Correct for removed water if water removal occurs upstream of a 
concentration measurement and downstream of a flow meter used to 
determine mass emissions over a test interval. Perform this correction 
based on the amount of water at the concentration measurement and on 
the amount of water at the flow meter.

Sec.  1066.625  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. Perform the following steps to calibrate a PDP 
flow meter:
    (1) Calculate PDP volume pumped per revolution, Vrev, 
for each restrictor position from the mean values determined in Sec.  
1066.140:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.108

Where:

Qref = mean flow rate of the reference flow meter.
Tin = mean temperature at the PDP inlet.
pstd = standard pressure = 101.325 kPa.
fnPDP = mean PDP speed.
pin = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet.
Tstd = standard temperature = 293.15 K.

Example:

Qref = 0.1651 m\3\/s
Tin = 299.5 K
pstd = 101.325 kPa
fnPDP = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
pin = 98.290 kPa
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.109

    (2) Calculate a PDP slip correction factor, Ks for each 
restrictor position from the mean values determined in Sec.  1066.140:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.110

Where:

fmPDP = mean PDP speed.
Pout = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet.
Pin = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.111

    (3) Perform a least-squares regression of Vrev, versus 
Ks, by calculating slope, a1, and intercept, 
a0, as described in 40 CFR 1065.602.
    (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section for every speed that you run your PDP.
    (5) The following example illustrates a range of typical values for 
different PDP speeds:

                           Table 1 of Sec.   1066.625--Example of PDP Calibration Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   a0  (m\3\/
                           fnPDP  (revolution/s)                               a1  (m\3\/s)       revolution)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.6......................................................................              0.841              0.056
16.5......................................................................              0.831             -0.013
20.9......................................................................              0.809              0.028
23.4......................................................................              0.788             -0.061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the 
appropriate regression equation from this paragraph (a) to calculate 
flow rate during emission testing as described in Sec.  1066.630.
    (b) SSV calibration. The equations governing SSV flow assume one-
dimensional isentropic inviscid flow of an ideal gas, except that the 
equations can account for compressible flow. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of 
this section describes other assumptions that may apply. If good 
engineering judgment dictates that you account for gas compressibility, 
you may either use an appropriate equation of state to determine values 
of Z as a function of measured pressure and temperature, or you may 
develop your own calibration equations based on good engineering 
judgment. Note that the equation for the flow coefficient, 
Cf, is based on the ideal gas assumption that the isentropic 
exponent, [gamma], is equal to the ratio of specific heats, 
Cp/Cv. If good engineering judgment dictates 
using a real gas isentropic exponent, you may either use an appropriate 
equation of state to determine values of [gamma] as a function of 
measured pressure and temperature, or you may develop your own 
calibration equations based on good engineering judgment.
    (1) Calculate volume flow rate, Q, as follows

[[Page 23862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.112

Where:
Qref = measured volume flow rate from the reference flow 
meter.

(ii) Use the following equation to calculate Cf for each 
flow rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.113

Where:
[gamma] = isentropic exponent. For an ideal gas, this is the ratio 
of specific heats of the gas mixture, Cp/Cv.
r = pressure ratio, as determined in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this 
section.
[beta] = ratio of venturi throat diameter to inlet diameter.

    (iii) Calculate r using the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.114
    
Where:

[Delta]p = differential static pressure, calculated as venturi inlet 
pressure minus venturi throat pressure.

    (iv) You may apply any of the following simplifying assumptions or 
develop other values as appropriate for

[[Page 23863]]

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 [gamma] =1.385.
    (C) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume [gamma] 
=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, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.149

Where:

Mair = 28.96559 g/mol
xH2O = amount of H2O in the dilution air or 
calibration air, determined as described in 40 CFR 1065.645.
MH2O = 18.01528 g/mol

Example:

xH2O = 0.0169 mol/mol
Mmix = 28.96559 [middot] (1 - 0.0169) + 18.01528 [middot] 
0.0169
Mmix = 28.7805 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 dilution air and in 
calibration air, as illustrated in the following table:

  Table 2 of Sec.   1066.625--Examples of Dilution Air and Calibration Air Dewpoints at Which You May Assume a
                                                  Constant Mmix
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     for the following ranges of
        If calibration Tdew ([deg]C) is . . .             assume the following          Tdew ([deg]C) during
                                                       constant Mmix (g/mol) . . .       emission tests \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d of an SSV flow meter at one 
reference flow meter value:

Example:

Qref = 2.395 m\3\/s
Z = 1
Mmix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol
R = 8.314472 J/(mol[middot]K) = 8.314472 (m\2\[middot]kg)/
(s\2\[middot]mol[middot]K)
Tin = 298.15 K
At = 0.01824 m\2\
pin = 99.132 kPa = 99132 Pa = 99132 kg/(m[middot]s\2\)
[gamma] = 1.399
[beta] = 0.8
[Delta]p = 7.653 kPa

[[Page 23864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.115

Where:
[mu]0 = Sutherland reference viscosity.
T0 = Sutherland reference temperature.
S = Sutherland constant.

[[Page 23865]]

               Table 3 of Sec.   1066.625--Sutherland Three-Coefficient Viscosity Model Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   [mu]0          T0             S       Temperature range  within    Pressure
                              ------------------------------------------  2% error \b\    limit \b\
           Gas \a\                  kg/                                 ----------------------------------------
                               (m[middot]s)        K             K                   K                   kPa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air..........................  1.716[middot           273           111  170 to 1900..............       d as a function of 
Re, using paired values of the two quantities. The 
equation may involve any mathematical expression, including a 
polynomial or a power series. The following equation is an example of a 
commonly used mathematical expression for relating Cd and 
Re:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.118

    (ix) Perform a least-squares regression analysis to determine the 
best-fit coefficients for the equation and calculate SEE as described 
in 40 CFR 1065.602.
    (x) If the equation meets the criterion of SEE dmax, you may use the equation for the corresponding range 
of Re, as described in Sec.  1066.630(b).
    (xi) 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 criterion. For example, this 
may involve narrowing the range of flow rates for a better curve fit.
    (xii) Take corrective action if the equation does not meet the 
specified statistical criterion 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.
    (xiii) Once you have an equation that meets the specified 
statistical criterion, you may use the equation only for the 
corresponding range of flow rates.
    (c) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single 
venturi and some consist of multiple venturis where different 
combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. For 
CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate 
each venturi independently to determine a separate calibration 
coefficient, Kv, for each venturi, or calibrate each 
combination of venturis as one venturi by determining Kv for 
the system.
    (1) To determine Kv for a single venturi or a 
combination of venturis, perform the following steps:
    (i) Calculate an individual Kv for each calibration set 
point for each restrictor position using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.119

Where:

Qrefstd = mean flow rate from the reference flow meter, 
corrected to standard reference conditions.
    Tin = mean temperature at the venturi inlet.
    Pin = mean static absolute pressure at the venturi 
inlet.

    (ii) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the 
Kv values (see 40 CFR 1065.602). Verify choked flow by 
plotting Kv as a function of Pin. Kv 
will have a relatively constant value for choked flow; as vacuum 
pressure increases, the venturi will become unchoked and Kv 
will decrease. Paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) through (viii) of this section 
describe how to verify your range of choked flow.
    (iii) If the standard deviation of all the Kv values is 
less than or equal to 0.3% of the mean Kv, use the mean 
Kv in Eq. 1066.630-7, and use the CFV only up to the highest 
venturi pressure ratio, r, measured during calibration using the 
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.120

Where:
[Delta]pCFV = differential static pressure; venturi inlet 
minus venturi outlet.

    (iv) If the standard deviation of all the Kv values 
exceeds 0.3% of the mean Kv, omit the Kv value 
corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured 
during calibration.
    (v) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take 
corrective action by checking your calibration data or repeating the 
calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we 
recommend checking for leaks, applying tighter tolerances to 
measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize.
    (vi) If the number of remaining Kv values is seven or 
greater, recalculate

[[Page 23867]]

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 1066.630-7, 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 r. Based on the calibration data selected to meet the 
standard deviation criterion in 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. 1066.625-8 to demonstrate that the value of r 
during all emission tests is less than or equal to the r limit derived 
from the CFV calibration data.

Sec.  1066.630  PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.

    This section describes the equations for calculating flow rates 
from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter according to 
Sec.  1066.625, 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. (1) Based on the speed at which you operate the PDP for a 
test interval, select the corresponding slope, a1, and 
intercept, a0, as determined in Sec.  1066.625(a), to 
calculate PDP flow rate, Q, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.121

Where:
fnPDP = pump speed.
Vrev = PDP volume pumped per revolution, as determined in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
Tstd = standard temperature = 293.15 K.
pin = static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet.
Tin = absolute temperature at the PDP inlet.
pstd = standard pressure= 101.325 kPa.

    (2) Calculate Vrev using the following equation:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.122
    

Where:
Cd = discharge coefficient, as determined based on the 
Cd versus Re equation in Sec.  
1066.625(b)(2)(viii).
Cf = flow coefficient, as determined in Sec.  
1066.625(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.

[[Page 23868]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.124

    (c) CFV. If you use multiple venturis and you calibrated each 
venturi independently to determine a separate calibration coefficient, 
Kv, for each venturi, calculate the individual volume flow 
rates through each venturi and sum all their flow rates to determine 
CFV flow rate, Q. If you use multiple venturis and you calibrated 
venturis in combination, calculate Q using the Kv that was 
determined for that combination of venturis.
    (1) To calculate Q through one venturi or a combination of 
venturis, use the mean Kv you determined in Sec.  
1066.625(c) and calculate the appropriate quantity for Q as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.125

Where:
Kv = flow meter calibration coefficient.
Tin = temperature at the venturi inlet.
pin = absolute static pressure at the venturi inlet.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.126

    (2) [Reserved]

Sec.  1066.635  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. 
Calculate the mass of NMOG in the exhaust, mNMOG, with the 
following equation, using density values specified in Sec.  
1066.1005(f):

[[Page 23869]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.127

Where:
mNMHC = the mass of NMHC and all oxygenated hydrocarbons 
(OHCs) in the exhaust, as determined using Eq. 1066.605-1. Calculate 
NMHC mass based on [rho]NMHC.
[rho]NMHC = the effective C1-equivalent 
density of NMHC as specified in Sec.  1066.1005(f).
mOHCi = the mass of oxygenated species i in the exhaust 
calculated using Eq. 1066.605-1.
[rho]OCHi = the C1-equivalent density of 
oxygenated species i.
RFOHCi[THC-FID] = the response factor of a THC-FID to 
oxygenated species i relative to propane on a C1-
equivalent basis as determined in 40 CFR 1065.845.

    (b) The following example shows how to determine NMOG as described 
in paragraph (a) of this section for (OHC) compounds including ethanol 
(C2H5OH), methanol (CH3OH), 
acetaldehyde (C2H4O), and formaldehyde 
(CH2O) as C1-equivalent concentrations:
mNMHC = 0.0125 g
mCH3OH = 0.0002 g
mC2H5OH = 0.0009 g
mCH2O = 0.0001 g
mC2H4O = 0.00005 g
RFCH3OH[THC-FID] = 0.63
RFC2H5OH[THC-FID] = 0.75
RFCH2O[THC-FID] = 0.00
RFC2H4O[THC-FID] = 0.50
[rho]NMHC-liq = 576.816 g/m\3\
[rho]CH3OH = 1332.02 g/m\3\
[rho]C2H5OH = 957.559 g/m\3\
[rho]CH2O = 1248.21 g/m\3\
[rho]C2H4O = 915.658 g/m\3\
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.128

    (c) For ethanol-gasoline blends with less than 25% ethanol by 
volume, you may calculate NMOG 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 NMHC emission rate 
using the following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.129

Where:
eNMOGh = mass emission rate of NMOG from the hot-running 
test cycle.
eNMHCh = mass emission rate of NMHC from the hot-running 
test cycle, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.

Example:
eNMHCh = 0.025 g/mi
eNMOGh = 0.025[middot]1.03 = 0.026 g/mi

    (2) You may determine weighted composite NMOG for FTP testing based 
on the weighted composite NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of 
ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.130

Where:
eNMOGcomp = weighted FTP composite mass emission rate of 
NMOG.
eNMHCcomp = weighted FTP composite mass emission rate of 
NMHC, calculated using [rho]NMHC-liq.
VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. 
Use good engineering judgment to determine this value either as 
specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 or based on blending volumes, taking 
into account any denaturant.
Example:

eNMHCcomp = 0.025 g/mi
VPEtOH = 10.1%
eNMOGcomp = 0.025 [middot] (1.0302 + 0.0071 [middot] 
10.1) = 0.0275 g/mi

    (3) You may determine NMOG for the transient portion of the FTP 
cold-start test for use in fuel economy and CREE calculations based on 
the NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of 
ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.131

[[Page 23870]]

Where:

eNMOG-FTPct = mass emission rate of NMOG from the 
transient portion of the FTP cold-start test (generally known as bag 
1).
    eNMHC-FTPct = mass emission rate of NMHC from the 
transient portion of the FTP cold-start test (bag 1), calculated 
using [rho]NMHC-liq.

Example:

eNMHC-FTPct = 0.052 g/mi
VPEtOH = 10.1%
eNMOG-FTPct = 0.052 [middot] (1.0246 + 0.0079 [middot] 
10.1) = 0.0574 g/mi

    (4) You may determine NMOG for the stabilized portion of the FTP 
test for either the cold-start test or the hot-start test (bag 2 or bag 
4) for use in fuel economy and CREE calculations based on the 
corresponding NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of ethanol in 
the fuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.132

Where:
eNMOG-FTPcs-hs = mass emission rate of NMOG from the 
stabilized portion of the FTP test (bag 2 or bag 4).
eNMHC-FTPcs-hs = mass emission rate of NMHC from the 
stabilized portion of the FTP test (bag 2 or bag 4), calculated 
using [rho]NMHC-liq.

    (5) You may determine NMOG for the transient portion of the FTP 
hot-start test for use in fuel economy and CREE calculations based on 
the NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of 
ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.133

Where:
eNMOG-FTPht = mass emission rate of NMOG from the 
transient portion of the FTP hot-start test (bag 3).
eNMHC-FTPht = mass emission rate of NMHC from the 
transient portion of the FTP hot-start test (bag 3), calculated 
using [rho]NMHC-liq.

    (d) You may take the following alternative steps when determining 
fuel economy and CREE under 40 CFR Part 600 for testing with ethanol-
gasoline blends that have up to 25% ethanol by volume:
    (1) Calculate NMOG by test interval using Eq. 1066.635-3 for 
individual bag measurements from the FTP.
    (2) For HEVs, calculate NMOG for two-bag FTPs using Eq. 1066.635-3 
as described in 40 CFR 600.114.
    (e) We consider NMOG values for diesel-fueled vehicles, CNG-fueled 
vehicles, LNG-fueled vehicles, and LPG-fueled vehicles to be equivalent 
to NMHC emission values for all test cycles.
    (f) For all fuels not covered by paragraphs (c) and (e) of this 
section, manufacturers may propose a methodology to calculate NMOG 
results from measured NMHC emissions. We will approve adjustments based 
on comparative testing that demonstrates how to properly represent NMOG 
based on measured NMHC emissions.

Sec.  1066.695  Data requirements.

    Record information for each test as follows:
    (a) Test number.
    (b) A brief description of the test vehicle (or other system/device 
tested).
    (c) Date and time of day for each part of the test sequence.
    (d) Test results. Also include a validation of driver accuracy as 
described in Sec.  1066.425(j).
    (e) Driver and equipment operators.
    (f) Vehicle information as applicable, including identification 
number, model year, applicable emission standards (including bin 
standards or family emission limits, as applicable), vehicle model, 
vehicle class, 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, GVWR, applicable 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 measured 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 test interval 
and the following additional information:
    (1) For CFV and SSV testing, Vmix for each interval of 
the exhaust test.
    (2) For PDP testing, test measurements required to calculate 
Vmix for each test interval.
    (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 PM sampling. 
Determine minimum values, maximum values, mean values, and percent of 
time outside of the tolerance over each test interval.
    (p) The maximum exhaust gas temperature over the course of the test

[[Page 23871]]

interval within 20 cm upstream or downstream of PM sample media.
    (q) If applicable, the temperatures of the heated FID, the gas in 
the heated sample line, and the heated filter. Determine minimum 
values, maximum values, average values, and percent of time outside of 
the tolerance over each test interval.
    (r) Gas meter or flow measurement instrumentation readings used for 
batch sampling over each test interval. Determine minimum, maximum, and 
average values over 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 PM sample media are stabilized. Determine minimum values, maximum 
values, average values, and percent of time outside of the tolerance 
over each test interval.
    (u) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, the test fuel composition, 
including all carbon-containing compounds (including CO2, 
but excluding CO). 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) For vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, the test fuel 
composition, including all carbon-containing compounds (including 
CO2, but excluding CO). Record C1 through 
C4 compounds individually. You may record C5 and 
heavier hydrocarbons together.
    (w) For the AC17 test in Sec.  1066.845, interior volume, climate 
control system type and characteristics, refrigerant used, compressor 
type, and evaporator/condenser characteristics.
    (x) Additional information related to evaporative emissions. 
[Reserved]
    (y) Additional information related to refueling emissions. 
[Reserved]

Subpart H--Cold Temperature Test Procedures

Sec.  1066.701  Applicability and general provisions.

    (a) The procedures of this part 1066 may be used for testing at any 
ambient temperature. Section 1066.710 describes the provisions that 
apply for testing vehicles at a nominal temperature of 20 [deg]C 
(68[emsp14][deg]F); these procedures apply for motor vehicles as 
described in 40 CFR Part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR Part 600. For other 
vehicles, see the standard-setting part to determine if your vehicle is 
required to meet emission standards outside the normal (20 to 30) 
[deg]C ((68 to 86) [deg]F) temperature range.
    (b) Do not apply the humidity correction factor in Sec.  
1066.615(a) for cold temperature testing.

Sec.  1066.710  Cold temperature 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 test cycle (see Sec.  1066.801). 
The following figure illustrates the test procedure:

[[Page 23872]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.134

[[Page 23873]]

    (a) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in 
Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.425 and Sec.  1066.815(d), subject to 
the following exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Measure and control ambient conditions as specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Use the vehicle's heater and defroster as specified in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Precondition and stabilize the vehicle as specified in 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. Ensure that there is no 
precipitation or dew on the vehicle before the emission test.
    (4) For dynamometers that have independently heated bearings, start 
the emission test within 20 minutes after warming up the dynamometer; 
for other types of dynamometers, start the emission test within 10 
minutes after warming up the dynamometer.
    (5) Adjust the dynamometer to simulate vehicle operation on the 
road at -7 [deg]C. Base this adjustment on the road-load force profile 
at -7 [deg]C, or on a 10 percent decrease in the target coastdown time 
used for FTP testing.
    (6) 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 temperature must be (-7.0 1.7) [deg]C at the start of the test and average temperature must 
be (-7.0 2.8) [deg]C during the test. Instantaneous 
temperature values may be above -4.0 [deg]C or below -9.0 [deg]C, but 
not for more than 3 minutes at a time during the test.
    (2) Ambient temperature for preconditioning. Instantaneous ambient 
temperature values may be above -4.0 [deg]C or below -9.0 [deg]C but 
not for more than 3 minutes at a time during the preconditioning 
period. At no time may the ambient temperatures be below -12.0 [deg]C 
or above -1.0 [deg]C. The average ambient temperature during 
preconditioning must be (-7.0 2.8) [deg]C. You may 
precondition vehicles at temperatures above -7.0 [deg]C or with a 
temperature tolerance greater than that described in this section (or 
both) if you determine that this will not cause NMHC, CO, or 
CO2 emissions to decrease; if you modify the temperature 
specifications for vehicle preconditioning, adjust the procedures 
described in this section appropriately for your testing.
    (3) Ambient humidity. Maintain humidity low enough to prevent 
condensation on the dynamometer rolls during testing.
    (c) Heater and defroster. During the test, operate the vehicle's 
interior climate control system with the heat on and set to primarily 
defrost the front window. Turn air conditioning off. You may not use 
any supplemental auxiliary heat during this testing. You may set the 
heater to any temperature and fan setting during vehicle 
preconditioning.
    (1) Manually controlled systems. (i) Prior to the first 
acceleration, 20 seconds after the start of the UDDS, set the climate 
control as follows (these settings may be initiated prior to starting 
the vehicle if allowed by the vehicle's climate control system):
    (A) Temperature. Set controls to maximum heat.
    (B) Fan speed. Set the fan speed to full off or the lowest 
available speed if a full off position is not available.
    (C) Airflow direction. Direct airflow to the front window (window 
defrost mode).
    (D) Air source. If independently controllable, set the system to 
draw in outside air.
    (ii) At the second idle of the test cycle, which occurs 125 seconds 
after the start of the test, set the fan speed to maximum. Complete by 
130 seconds after the start of the test. Leave temperature and air 
source settings unchanged.
    (iii) At the sixth idle of the test interval, which occurs at the 
deceleration to zero miles per hour 505 seconds after the start of the 
test, set the fan speed to the lowest setting that maintains air flow. 
Complete these changes by 510 seconds after the start of the test. You 
may use different vent and fan speed settings for the remainder of the 
test. Leave the temperature and air source settings unchanged.
    (2) Automatic control systems. For vehicles with automatic control 
systems, you may follow the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section or you may set the temperature to 72[emsp14][deg]F and the air 
flow control to the front window defrost mode for the whole test.
    (3) Multiple-zone systems. For vehicles that have separate driver 
and passenger controls or separate front and rear controls, you must 
set all temperature and fan controls as described in paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section, except that rear controls need not be set to 
defrost the front window.
    (4) Alternative test procedures. We may approve the use of other 
settings under 40 CFR 86.1840 if a vehicle's climate control system is 
not compatible with the provisions of this section.
    (d) Take the following steps to prepare and precondition vehicles 
for testing under this section:
    (1) Prepare the vehicle as described in Sec.  1066.810(a).
    (2) Fill the fuel tank to approximately 40% of the manufacturer's 
nominal fuel tank capacity with the appropriate test fuel for cold 
temperature testing as specified 40 CFR Part 1065, subpart H. The 
temperature of the dispensed test fuel must be at or below 15.5 [deg]C. 
If the leftover fuel in the fuel tank before the refueling event does 
not meet these specifications, drain the fuel tank before refueling. 
You may operate the vehicle prior to the preconditioning drive to 
eliminate fuel effects on adaptive memory systems.
    (3) You may start the preconditioning drive once the fuel in the 
fuel tank reaches (12.6 to -1.4) [deg]C. Precondition the vehicle as 
follows:
    (i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the dynamometer.
    (ii) Operate the vehicle over one UDDS. You may perform additional 
vehicle preconditioning with repeated driving over the UDDS, subject to 
our advance approval.
    (iii) Turn off the test vehicle and any cooling fans within 5 
minutes after completing the preconditioning drive. Ambient temperature 
must be between (-12.0 and -1.0) [deg]C in the 5 minutes following the 
preconditioning drive.
    (iv) Do not manually purge or load the evaporative canister.
    (e) Soak the vehicle for (12 to 36) hours to stabilize it at test 
temperatures before starting the emission test as described in this 
paragraph (e). 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 ambient cold soak 
period. These ambient temperatures may be above -4.0 [deg]C or below -
9.0 [deg]C, but not for more than 3 minutes at a time. Use measured 
values to calculate an hourly average temperature. Each hourly average 
temperature must be (-7.0 [deg]C 2.8) [deg]C.
    (2) Forced-cooling or warming. Position fans to blow temperature-
controlled air onto the vehicle to stabilize the vehicle at the 
specified

[[Page 23874]]

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 (-8.7 to -5.3) [deg]C; measure oil temperature at 
one or more points away from the side or bottom surfaces of the oil 
pan. Each oil temperature measurement must be within the specified 
range before stabilization is complete. Once the vehicle reaches this 
stabilized condition, cold soak the vehicle within the stabilized 
temperature range for at least one hour before starting the emission 
test. During this time, keep the ambient temperature within the range 
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

Subpart I--Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles

Sec.  1066.801  Applicability and general provisions.

    This subpart I specifies how to apply the test procedures of this 
part for 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 under 40 CFR Part 86, subpart S. For 
these vehicles, references in this part 1066 to the standard-setting 
part include this subpart I.
    (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle 
emissions over a specified drive schedule in conjunction with subpart E 
of this part. Where the procedures of subpart E of this part differ 
from this subpart I, the provisions in this subpart I take precedence.
    (b) Collect samples of every pollutant for which an emission 
standard applies, unless specified otherwise.
    (c) This subpart covers the following test procedures:
    (1) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), which includes the general 
driving cycle. This procedure is also used for measuring evaporative 
emissions. This may be called the conventional test since it was 
adopted with the earliest emission standards.
    (i) The FTP consists of one Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule 
(UDDS) as specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 86, 
followed by a 10-minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving 
through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. Note that the UDDS 
represents about 7.5 miles of driving in an urban area. Engine startup 
(with all accessories turned off), operation over the initial UDDS, and 
engine shutdown make a complete cold-start test. The hot-start test 
consists of the first 505 seconds of the UDDS following the 10-minute 
soak and a hot-running portion of the UDDS after the first 505 seconds. 
The first 505 seconds of the UDDS is considered the transient portion; 
the remainder of the UDDS is considered the stabilized (or hot-
stabilized) portion. The hot-stabilized portion for the hot-start test 
is generally measured during the cold-start test; however, in certain 
cases, the hot-start test may involve a second full UDDS following the 
10-minute soak, rather than repeating only the first 505 seconds. See 
Sec. Sec.  1066.815 and 1066.820.
    (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 (e) of Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 86, followed by another 
UDDS; see 40 CFR 86.134. Note that the New York City Cycle represents 
about 1.18 miles of driving in a city center. The running loss test is 
followed by a high-temperature hot soak test as described in 40 CFR 
86.138 and a three-day diurnal emission test as described in 40 CFR 
86.133. 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 to purge the 
evaporative canister. The refueling emission test procedures are 
described in 40 CFR 86.150 through 86.157.
    (2) The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) measures the 
emission effects from aggressive driving and operation with the 
vehicle's air conditioner. The SFTP is based on a composite of three 
different test elements. In addition to the FTP, vehicles generally 
operate over the US06 and SC03 driving schedules as specified in 
paragraphs (g) and (h) of Appendix I of 40 CFR Part 86, respectively. 
In the case of heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or 
below 14,000 pounds GVWR, SFTP testing involves additional driving over 
the LA-92 driving schedule specified in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR Part 
86, Appendix I, instead of the US06 driving schedule. Note that the 
US06 driving schedule represents about 8.0 miles of relatively 
aggressive driving; the SC03 driving schedule represents about 3.6 
miles of urban driving with the air conditioner operating; and the LA-
92 driving schedule represents about 9.8 miles of relatively aggressive 
driving for commercial trucks. See Sec. Sec.  1066.815 and 1066.820.
    (3) The Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) is specified in Appendix I 
of 40 CFR Part 600. Note that the HFET represents about 10.2 miles of 
rural and freeway driving with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a 
maximum speed of 60.0 mph. See Sec.  1066.840.
    (4) Cold temperature standards apply for CO and NMHC emissions when 
vehicles operate over the FTP at a nominal temperature of -7 [deg]C. 
See 40 CFR Part 86, subpart C, and subpart H of this part.
    (5) Emission measurement to determine air conditioning credits for 
greenhouse gas standards. In this optional procedure, manufacturers 
operate vehicles over repeat runs of the AC17 test sequence to allow 
for calculating credits as part of demonstrating compliance with 
CO2 emission standards. The AC17 test sequence consists of a 
UDDS preconditioning drive, followed by emission measurements over the 
SC03 and HFET driving schedules. See Sec.  1066.845.
    (d) The following provisions apply for all testing:
    (1) Ambient temperatures encountered by the test vehicle must be 
(20 to 30) [deg]C, unless otherwise specified. Where ambient 
temperature specifications apply before or between test measurements, 
the vehicle may be exposed to temperatures outside of the specified 
range for up to 10 minutes to account for vehicle transport or other 
actions to prepare for testing. The temperatures monitored during 
testing must be representative of those experienced by the test 
vehicle. For example, do not measure ambient temperatures near a heat 
source.
    (2) Do not operate or store the vehicle at an incline if good 
engineering judgment indicates that it would affect emissions.
    (3) If a test is void after collecting emission data from previous 
test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those data 
points needed to complete emission measurements. You may combine 
emission measurements

[[Page 23875]]

from different test runs to demonstrate compliance with emission 
standards.
    (4) Prepare vehicles for testing as described in Sec.  1066.810.
    (e) The following figure illustrates the FTP test sequence for 
measuring exhaust and evaporative emissions:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.135

Sec.  1066.805  Road-load power, test weight, and inertia weight class 
determination.

    (a) Simulate a vehicle's test weight on the dynamometer using the 
appropriate equivalent test weight shown in Table 1 of this section. 
Equivalent test weights are established according to each vehicle's 
test weight basis, as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Table 
1 also specifies the inertia weight class corresponding to each 
equivalent test weight; the inertia weight class allows for grouping 
vehicles with a range of equivalent test weights. Table 1 follows:

      Table 1 of Sec.   1066.805--Equivalent Test Weights (pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Equivalent    Inertia
                  Test weight                       test        weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 1062....................................         1000         1000
1063 to 1187..................................         1125         1000
1188 to 1312..................................         1250         1250
1313 to 1437..................................         1375         1250
1438 to 1562..................................         1500         1500
1563 to 1687..................................         1625         1500
1688 to 1812..................................         1750         1750
1813 to 1937..................................         1875         1750
1938 to 2062..................................         2000         2000
2063 to 2187..................................         2125         2000
2188 to 2312..................................         2250         2250
2313 to 2437..................................         2375         2250
2438 to 2562..................................         2500         2500
2563 to 2687..................................         2625         2500
2688 to 2812..................................         2750         2750
2813 to 2937..................................         2875         2750
2938 to 3062..................................         3000         3000
3063 to 3187..................................         3125         3000
3188 to 3312..................................         3250         3000
3313 to 3437..................................         3375         3500
3438 to 3562..................................         3500         3500
3563 to 3687..................................         3625         3500
3688 to 3812..................................         3750         3500
3813 to 3937..................................         3875         4000
3938 to 4125..................................         4000         4000
4126 to 4375..................................         4250         4000
4376 to 4625..................................         4500         4500
4626 to 4875..................................         4750         4500
4876 to 5125..................................         5000         5000
5126 to 5375..................................         5250         5000
5376 to 5750..................................         5500         5500
5751 to 6250..................................         6000         6000
6251 to 6750..................................         6500         6500
6751 to 7250..................................         7000         7000

[[Page 23876]]

 
7251 to 7750..................................         7500         7500
7751 to 8250..................................         8000         8000
8251 to 8750..................................         8500         8500
8751 to 9250..................................         9000         9000
9251 to 9750..................................         9500         9500
9751 to 10250.................................        10000        10000
10251 to 10750................................        10500        10500
10751 to 11250................................        11000        11000
11251 to 11750................................        11500        11500
11751 to 12250................................        12000        12000
12251 to 12750................................        12500        12500
12751 to 13250................................        13000        13000
13251 to 13750................................        13500        13500
13751 to 14000................................        14000        14000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The test weight basis for non-MDPV heavy-duty vehicles is 
``adjusted loaded vehicle weight''. For all other vehicles, the test 
weight basis for establishing equivalent test weight is ``loaded 
vehicle weight''. These load terms are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803.
    (c) For FTP, SFTP, New York City Cycle, HFET, and LA-92 testing, 
determine road-load forces for each test vehicle at speeds between 9.3 
and 71.5 miles per hour. The road-load force must represent vehicle 
operation on a smooth, level road with no wind or calm winds, no 
precipitation, an ambient temperature of approximately 20 [deg]C, and 
atmospheric pressure of 98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road-load force 
for speeds below 9.3 mph.

Sec.  1066.810  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 to allow 
for purging and loading 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 ask us to approve further 
preconditioning steps for any testing to address identifiable sources 
of nonfuel emissions beyond what would generally occur with an 
appropriately aged in-use vehicle. For example, you may clean up fluid 
leaks and you may perform further off-vehicle preconditioning for tires 
or other replacement parts that are less than 12 months old. You may 
also replace the spare tire with an aged spare tire, and you may 
replace the windshield washer fluid with water.

Sec.  1066.815  Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP testing.

    (a) General. The FTP exhaust emission test sequence consists of a 
cold-start test and a hot-start test as described in Sec.  1066.801.
    (b) PM sampling options. Collect PM using any of the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section and use the 
corresponding equation in Sec.  1066.820 to calculate FTP composite 
emissions. Testing must meet the requirements related to filter face 
velocity as described in 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi), except as specified 
in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. For procedures involving 
flow weighting, set the filter face velocity to a weighting target of 
1.0 to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi). Allow filter 
face velocity to decrease as a percentage of the weighting factor if 
the weighting factor is less than 1.0. Use the appropriate equations in 
Sec.  1066.610 to show that you meet the dilution factor requirements 
of Sec.  1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B).
    (1) You may collect a separate PM sample for transient and 
stabilized portions of the cold-start UDDS and the hot-start UDDS. This 
may either be done by sampling with three bags or four bags. You may 
omit the stabilized portion of the hot-start test (bag 4) and use the 
stabilized portion of the cold-start test (bag 2) in its place.
    (2) You may collect PM on one filter over the cold-start UDDS and 
on a separate filter over the hot-start UDDS.
    (3) You may collect PM on one filter over the cold-start UDDS (bag 
1 and bag 2) and on a separate filter over the 867 seconds of the 
stabilized portion of the cold-start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of 
the hot-start UDDS (bag 2 and bag 3). Note that this option involves 
duplicate measurements during the stabilized portion of the cold-start 
UDDS.
    (4) You may collect PM on a single filter over the cold-start UDDS 
and the first 505 seconds of the hot-start UDDS. If you use this 
method, adjust your sampling system flow rate to weight the filter face 
velocity over the three intervals of the FTP based on weighting targets 
of 0.43 for bag 1, 1.0 for bag 2, and 0.57 for bag 3.
    (5) You may collect PM on a single filter over the cold-start UDDS 
and the full hot-start UDDS. If you use this method, adjust your 
sampling system flow rate to weight the filter face velocity based on 
weighting targets of 0.75 for the cold-start UDDS and 1.0 for the hot-
start UDDS.
    (c) Gaseous sampling options. Collect gaseous samples using any of 
the following procedures:
    (1) You may collect a single sample for a full UDDS (cold-start or 
hot-start).
    (2) You may sample emissions separately for transient and 
stabilized portions of any UDDS.
    (3) You may omit the stabilized portion of the hot-start test (bag 
4) and use the stabilized portion of the cold-start test (bag 2) in its 
place.
    (d) Test sequence. Follow the exhaust emission measurement 
procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.425, 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 Sec.  1066.816. 
Initiate the cold-start test following the 12 to 36 hour soak period.
    (ii) Start sampling and recording simultaneously with starting the 
vehicle. Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine starting, 
which is 5 seconds before the first acceleration.
    (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.

[[Page 23877]]

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 Sec.  1066.801 and subpart J of this part for continuing 
the test sequence to measure evaporative or refueling emissions.

Sec.  1066.816  Vehicle preconditioning for FTP testing.

    Precondition the test vehicle before the FTP exhaust measurement as 
described in 40 CFR 86.132.

Sec.  1066.820  Composite calculations for FTP exhaust emissions.

    (a) Determine the mass of exhaust emissions of each pollutant for 
each FTP test interval as described in Sec.  1066.605.
    (b) Calculate the final composite gaseous test results as a mass-
weighted value, e[emission]-FTPcomp, in grams per mile using 
the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.136

Where:
mc = the combined mass emissions determined from the 
cold-start UDDS test interval (generally known as bag 1 and bag 2), 
in grams.
Dct = the measured driving distance from the transient 
portion of the cold-start test (bag 1), in miles.
Dcs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized 
portion of the cold-start test (bag 2), in miles.
mh = the combined mass emissions determined from the hot-
start UDDS test interval in grams. This is the hot-stabilized 
portion from either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, unless you 
measure bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3).
Dht = the measured driving distance from the transient 
portion of the hot-start test (bag 3), in miles.
Dhs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized 
portion of the hot-start test (bag 4), in miles. Set Dhs 
= Dcs for testing where the hot-stabilized portion of the 
UDDS is not run.

    (c) Calculate the final composite PM test results as a mass-
weighted value, ePM-FTPcomp, in grams per mile as follows:
    (1) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in 
Sec.  1066.815(b)(1), (2), or (3):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.137

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. 1066.605-2.
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. 1066.605-2. This is the hot-stabilized 
portion from either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, unless you 
measure bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3).

    (2) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in 
Sec.  1066.815(b)(4):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.138

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

[[Page 23878]]

3), in grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.605-3.
    (3) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in 
Sec.  1066.815(b)(5):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.139

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. 1066.605-4.

Sec.  1066.830  Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.

    Sections 1066.831 and 1066.835 describe the detailed procedures for 
the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). This testing applies 
for all vehicles subject to the SFTP standards in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart S. The SFTP test procedure consists of FTP testing and two 
additional test elements--a sequence of vehicle operation with more 
aggressive driving and a sequence of vehicle operation that accounts 
for the impact of the vehicle's air conditioner.
    (a) The SFTP standard applies as a composite representing the three 
test elements. The emission results from the aggressive driving test 
element (Sec.  1066.831), the air conditioning test element (Sec.  
1066.835), and the FTP test element (Sec.  1066.820) are analyzed 
according to the calculation methodology and compared to the applicable 
SFTP emission standards as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S.
    (b) The test elements of the SFTP may be run in any sequence that 
includes the specified preconditioning steps.

Sec.  1066.831  Exhaust emission test procedures for aggressive 
driving.

    (a) This section describes how to test using the US06 or LA-92 
driving schedule. The US06 driving schedule can be divided into two 
test intervals--the US06 City cycle comprises the combined portions of 
the cycle from 1 to 130 seconds and from 495 to 596 seconds, and the 
US06 Highway cycle comprises the portion of the cycle between 130 and 
495 seconds. See Sec.  1066.801 for further information on the driving 
schedules.
    (b) Take the following steps to precondition vehicles for testing 
under this section:
    (1) Drain and refill the vehicle's fuel tank(s) in any of the 
following cases:
    (i) For aggressive-driving tests that do not follow FTP or HFET 
testing.
    (ii) For a test element that starts more than 72 hours after the 
most recent FTP or HFET measurement (with or without evaporative 
emission measurements).
    (iii) For testing in which the test vehicle has not remained in an 
area where ambient temperatures were within the range specified for 
testing since the previous FTP or HFET.
    (2) Keep ambient temperatures within the ranges specified for test 
measurements throughout the preconditioning sequence.
    (3) Warm up the vehicle to a stabilized condition as follows:
    (i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the dynamometer.
    (ii) Operate the vehicle one time over one of the driving schedules 
specified in this paragraph (b)(3)(ii). You may ask us to use a 
particular preconditioning driving schedule if that is related to fuel 
effects on adaptive memory systems. For our testing, we will generally 
operate the vehicle over the same preconditioning cycle that will be 
used for testing in this section. You may exercise your sampling 
equipment, but you may not determine emissions results during 
preconditioning. Choose from the following driving schedules:
    (A) The first 505 seconds of the UDDS (bag 1).
    (B) The last 867 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 with a power-to-weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/lbm, 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 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. 
1066.610-4 to show that you meet the dilution factor requirements of 
Sec.  1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B).
    (d) For diesel-fueled vehicles, measure THC emissions on a 
continuous basis as described in 40 CFR part 1065. For separate 
measurement of the city and highway test intervals as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section, perform separate calculations for each 
portion of the test cycle.
    (e) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in 
Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.425, subject to the following 
exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Following the preconditioning specified in paragraph (b) of 
this section, 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 with a 
power-to-

[[Page 23879]]

weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/lbm may be certified using only the 
highway portion of the US06 driving schedule as described in 40 CFR 
86.1816.
    (iii) All heavy-duty vehicles shall be tested at their adjusted 
loaded vehicle weight as described in 40 CFR 86.1816.
    (3) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last 
deceleration. 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. Note that the 5 second delay is intended to account for 
sampling system transport.
    (4) Correct calculated NOX emissions as described in 
Sec.  1066.615(a)(1).

Sec.  1066.835  Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.

    This section describes how to test using the SC03 driving schedule 
(see Sec.  1066.801). This procedure is designed to determine gaseous 
exhaust emissions while simulating an urban trip on a hot summer day. 
The provisions of 40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR part 600 waive SC03 testing 
for some vehicles; in those cases, calculate SFTP composite emissions 
by adjusting the weighting calculation as specified in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart S.
    (a) Drain and refill the vehicle's fuel tank(s) if testing starts 
more than 72 hours after the last drain and fill operation.
    (b) Keep the vehicle in an environment meeting the conditions 
described in paragraph (f) of this section throughout the 
preconditioning sequence.
    (c) Warm up the vehicle to a stabilized condition as follows:
    (1) Push or drive the test vehicle onto the dynamometer.
    (2) Close the vehicle's windows before testing.
    (3) The test cell and equipment must meet the specifications in 
paragraph (e) of this section. Measure and control ambient conditions 
as specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
    (4) 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 cold (or 72[emsp14][deg]F for automatic systems). 
Turn the control to the ``on'' position before testing so the air 
conditioning system is active whenever the engine is running.
    (5) Perform a preconditioning drive by operating 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.
    (6) 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.
    (d) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in 
Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.425, subject to the following 
exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine starting, 
which is 3 seconds before the first acceleration. Follow the SC03 
driving schedule.
    (2) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last 
deceleration. 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.
    (3) Correct calculated NOX emissions as described in 
Sec.  1066.615(a)(2).
    (e) The following requirements apply for the test cell and cooling 
fan configuration:
    (1) Minimum test cell size. The test cell must be at least 20 feet 
wide, 40 feet long, and 10 feet high, unless we approve the use of a 
smaller test cell. We will approve this only if you demonstrate that 
the smaller test cell is capable of meeting all the requirements of 
this section.
    (2) Vehicle frontal air flow. Verify that the fan configuration 
meets the requirements of Sec.  1066.105(c)(3).
    (f) Maintain ambient conditions as follows:
    (1) Ambient temperature and humidity. Measure and record ambient 
temperature and humidity in the test cell at least once every 30 
seconds during the sampling period. Alternatively, if you collect data 
of at least once every 12 seconds, you may use a moving average of up 
to 30 second intervals to measure and record ambient temperature and 
humidity. Control ambient temperature throughout the test sequence to 
35.0  3.0 [deg]C. Control ambient temperature during 
emission sampling to (33.6 to 36.4) [deg]C on average. Control ambient 
humidity during emission sampling as described in Sec.  1066.420(d).
    (2) Conditions before and after testing. Use good engineering 
judgment to demonstrate that you meet the specified instantaneous 
temperature and humidity tolerances in paragraphs (f)(1) of this 
section at all times before and between emission measurements.
    (3) Solar heat load. Simulate solar heating as follows:
    (i) You may use a metal halide lamp, a sodium lamp, or a quartz 
halogen lamp with dichroic mirrors as a radiant energy emitter. We may 
also approve the use of a different type of radiant energy emitter if 
you demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section.
    (ii) We recommend achieving radiant heating with spectral 
distribution characteristics as described in the following table:

      Table 1 of Sec.   1066.835--Recommended Spectral Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Percent of total
                                                        spectrum
                Band width (nm)                -------------------------
                                                Lower limit  Upper limit
                                                    (%)          (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
780..........................................           35           53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Note that you may need to filter the UV region between 280 and 320
  nm.

    (iii) Determine radiant energy intensity experienced by the vehicle 
as the average value between two measurements along the vehicle's 
centerline, one at the base of the windshield and the other at the 
bottom of the rear window (or equivalent location for vehicles without 
a rear window). This value must be 850  45 W/m\2\. 
Instruments for measuring radiant energy intensity must meet the 
following minimum specifications:
    (A) Sensitivity of 9 microvolts per W/m\2\.
    (B) Response time of 5 seconds. For purposes of this requirement, 
``response time'' means the time for the instrument to reach 95 percent 
of its equilibrium response after a step change in radiant intensity.
    (C) 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 a 
reference value, where the reference value is the intensity predicted 
from the zero-degree intensity and the cosine of the incident angle.
    (D) When comparing measured values for radiant energy to reference 
values, each measured value over the full range of measurement may not 
deviate from the corresponding reference value by more than 0.5% of the analyzer range's maximum value.
    (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

[[Page 23880]]

simulation. Determine uniformity by measuring radiant energy intensity 
as described in paragraph (f)(4)(iii) of this section at each point of 
a 0.5 m grid over the vehicle's full footprint, including the edges of 
the footprint, at an elevation 1 m above the floor. Measured values of 
radiant energy intensity must be between (722 and 978) W/m\2\ at all 
points.

Sec.  1066.840  Highway fuel economy test procedure.

    This section describes the procedure for the highway fuel economy 
test (HFET). This test involves emission sampling and fuel economy 
measurement for certain vehicles as described in 40 CFR part 86, 
subpart S, and in 40 CFR part 600. See Sec.  1066.801 for further 
information on the driving schedules. Follow the exhaust emission 
measurement procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 
1066.425, subject to the following exceptions and additional 
provisions:
    (a) Perform the HFET immediately following the FTP when this is 
practical. If the HFET procedure starts more than 3 hours after an FTP 
(including evaporative emission measurements, if applicable), operate 
it over one UDDS to precondition the vehicle. We may approve additional 
preconditioning in unusual circumstances.
    (b) Operate the vehicle over the HFET driving schedule for 
preconditioning. Allow the vehicle to idle for 15 seconds (with the 
vehicle in gear), then start a repeat run of the HFET driving schedule 
and simultaneously start sampling and recording.
    (c) Turn the engine off at the end of the HFET driving schedule and 
stop all sampling and recording, including background. Stop any 
integrating devices and indicate the end of the test cycle in the 
recorded data.

Sec.  1066.845  AC17 air conditioning efficiency test procedure.

    (a) Overview. This section describes a voluntary procedure for 
measuring the net impact of air conditioner operation on CO2 
emissions. See 40 CFR 86.1868 for provisions describing how to use 
these procedures to calculate credits and otherwise comply with 
emission standards.
    (b) Test cell. Operate the vehicle in a test cell meeting the 
specifications described in Sec.  1066.835(e). You may add airflow up 
to at a maximum of 4 miles per hour during engine idling and when the 
engine is off if that is needed to meet ambient temperature or humidity 
requirements.
    (c) Ambient conditions. Measure and control ambient conditions as 
specified in Sec.  1066.835(f), except that you must control ambient 
temperature during emission sampling to (22.0 to 28.0) [deg]C 
throughout the test and (23.5 to 26.5) [deg]C on average. These 
tolerances apply to the combined SC03 and HFET drive cycles during 
emission sampling. Note that you must set the same ambient temperature 
target for both the air conditioning on and off portions of emission 
sampling. Control ambient temperature during the preconditioning cycle 
and 30 minute soak to 25.0  5.0 [deg]C. For these same 
modes with no emission sampling, target the specified ambient humidity 
levels, but you do not need to meet the humidity tolerances. 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's 
headrest and passenger's headrest.
    (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 [deg]F 
(22 [deg]C).
    (2) For manual systems, select A/C mode, set the temperature to 
full cold 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 setting 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 [deg]F (13 [deg]C) at the 
dashboard air outlet. Maintain these settings for the remainder of the 
test. You may rely on prior temperature measurements to determine the 
temperature setting; however, if the system is unable to meet the 55 
[deg]F (13 [deg]C) target, you may instead set airflow to ``fresh air'' 
and temperature to full cold. If the vehicle is equipped with 
technology that defaults to recirculated air at ambient temperatures 
above 75 [deg]F (22 [deg]C), that technology should remain enabled 
throughout the test; this may mean not setting the airflow to 
``recirculate'' at the start and not setting the airflow to ``fresh 
air'' during the first idle period of the SCO3 driving schedule.
    (f) Test procedure. Follow the exhaust emission measurement 
procedures specified in Sec. Sec.  1066.410 through 1066.425, subject 
to the following exceptions and additional provisions:
    (1) Prepare each test vehicle for a series of tests according to 40 
CFR 86.132-00(a) through (g). If the vehicle has been tested within the 
last 36 hours concluding with a 12 to 36 hour soak, continue to 
paragraph (f)(2) of this section; otherwise perform an additional UDDS 
preconditioning cycle that concludes with a 12 to 36 hour soak. You may 
use a forced cooldown system to bring critical vehicle temperatures to 
within soak temperature limits. Critical temperatures include 
transmission oil, engine oil, engine coolant, and cabin air 
temperatures.
    (2) Open the vehicle's windows and operate the vehicle over a 
preconditioning UDDS with no solar heating and with the air 
conditioning off. At the end of the preconditioning drive, turn off the 
test vehicle and all cooling fans.
    (3) Turn on solar heating within one minute after turning off the 
engine. Once the solar energy intensity reaches 805 W/m\2\, let the 
vehicle soak for 30  1 minutes. You may alternatively rely 
on prior measurements to start the soak period after a defined period 
of warming up to the specified solar heat load. Close the vehicle's 
windows at the start of the soak period; ensure that the windows are 
adequately closed where instrumentation and wiring pass through to the 
interior.
    (4) Turn the air conditioning control to the ``on'' position before 
testing so the air conditioning system is active whenever the engine is 
running. Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine starting, 
which is 3 seconds before the first acceleration. 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.

[[Page 23881]]

    (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 and turn off 
the vehicle's air conditioner and the solar heating throughout the test 
run. The windows may be open or closed.
    (g) Calculations. (1) Determine the mass of CO2 
emissions for each of the two test intervals as described in Sec.  
1066.605.
    (2) Calculate the composite mass-weighted emissions of 
CO2, eCO2-AC17comp, representing the average of 
the SC03 and HFET emissions, in grams per mile using the following 
equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.077

Where:

    mSC03 = mass emissions from the SC03 test interval, 
in grams.
    DSC03 = measured driving distance during the SC03 
test interval, in miles.
    mHFET = mass emissions from the HFET test interval, 
in grams.
    DHFET = measured driving distance during the HFET 
test interval, in miles.

Subpart J--Evaporative Emission Test Procedures

Sec.  1066.901  Applicability and general provisions.

    This subpart describes how to measure evaporative and refueling 
emissions from test vehicles. The provisions of Sec. Sec.  1066.910 
through 1066.930 include general provisions for equipment and 
calculations related to evaporative and refueling emissions. The 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  1066.950 through 1066.985 describe provisions 
that apply specifically to motor vehicles subject to standards under 40 
CFR part 86, subpart S, or 40 CFR part 1037.
Test Equipment and Calculations for Evaporative and Refueling Emissions

Sec.  1066.910  SHED enclosure specifications.

    Enclosures for evaporative and refueling emissions must meet the 
specifications described in 40 CFR 86.106-96, 86.107-96(a), and 86.107-
98(a).

Sec.  1066.915  Enclosures; auxiliary systems and equipment.

    Enclosures for evaporative and refueling emissions must be equipped 
with fans, blowers, and measurement and data recording equipment as 
described in 40 CFR 86.107-98(b) through (h) and (j).

Sec.  1066.920  Enclosure calibrations.

    Enclosures for evaporative and refueling emissions must meet the 
calibration specifications described in 40 CFR 86.116-94 and 86.117-96.

Sec.  1066.925  Enclosure calculations for evaporative and refueling 
emissions.

    Calculate emissions for evaporative emissions as described in 40 
CFR 86.143-96. Calculate emissions for refueling emissions as described 
in 40 CFR 86.143-96 and 86.156-98.

Sec.  1066.930  Equipment for point-source measurement of running 
losses.

    For point-source measurement of running loss emissions, use 
equipment meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 86.107-96(i)
Evaporative and Refueling Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles

Sec.  1066.950  Fuel temperature profile.

    Develop fuel temperature profiles for running loss testing as 
described in 40 CFR 86.129-94(d).

Sec.  1066.955  Diurnal emission test.

    Test vehicles for diurnal emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.133-
96.

Sec.  1066.960  Running loss test.

    Test vehicles for running loss emissions as described in 40 CFR 
86.134-96.

Sec.  1066.965  Hot soak test.

    Test vehicles for hot soak emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.138-
96.

Sec.  1066.970  Refueling test for liquid fuels.

    Except as described in Sec.  1066.975, test vehicles for refueling 
emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.150-98, 86.151-98, 86.152-98, and 
86.154-98. Keep records as described in 40 CFR 86.155-98.

Sec.  1066.971  Vehicle and canister preconditioning for the refueling 
test.

    Precondition vehicles for the refueling emission test as described 
in 40 CFR 86.153-98.

Sec.  1066.975  Refueling test for LPG.

    For vehicles designed to operate on liquefied petroleum gas, 
measure refueling emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.157-98.

Sec.  1066.980  Fuel dispensing spitback procedure.

    Test vehicles for spitback emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.146-
96.

Sec.  1066.985  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. You may not tighten fittings or 
connections in the vehicle's fuel system to prepare the vehicle for 
testing.
    (c) Measurement equipment. Your leak test equipment must meet the 
following requirements:
    (1) Pressure, temperature, and flow sensors must be calibrated with 
NIST-traceable standards.
    (2) Correct flow measurements to standard reference conditions.
    (3) Leak test equipment must have the ability to pressurize fuel 
storage systems to at least 4.1 kPa and have an internal leak rate of 
less than 0.20 standard liters per minute.
    (4) You must be able to attach the test equipment to the vehicle 
without permanent alteration of the fuel storage or evaporative 
emission control systems. For any testing that involves pressurizing 
the fuel system and detecting leaks at access points away from the fuel 
fill pipe, the gas cap must be installed in the production 
configuration. For the test point at or near the fuel fill pipe, 
attaching the test equipment may involve adding an extension to the 
fuel fill pipe that incorporates the access point to the fuel system. 
If the extension apparatus has a fixed cap, the vehicle's gas cap must 
be tested separately as described in paragraph (d)(9) of this section. 
This separate testing is not required if the extension apparatus 
incorporates the vehicle's gas cap.
    (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.
    (d) Leak test procedure. Test a vehicle's fuel storage system for 
leaks as follows:
    (1) Refuel vehicle to 40% of its nominal fuel tank capacity.
    (2) Soak the vehicle for 6 to 24 hours at a temperature between (20 
and 30) [deg]C; record this setpoint temperature and maintain 
temperatures throughout the

[[Page 23882]]

leak test at this setpoint temperature within a tolerance 2 
[deg]C.
    (3) Before performing the test, purge the fuel storage system of 
any residual pressure, bringing the system into equilibrium with 
ambient pressure.
    (4) Seal the evaporative canister's vent to atmosphere and ensure 
that the vehicle's purge valve is closed.
    (5) Attach the leak test equipment to the vehicle.
    (6) Pressurize the fuel storage system with N2 or 
another inert gas to at least 2.4 kPa. Use good engineering judgment to 
avoid overpressurizing the system.
    (7) Maintain gas flow through the system for at least 180 seconds, 
ensuring that the flow reading is stable for an effective leak diameter 
of 0.002 inches.
    (8) Use the following equation, or a different equation you develop 
based on good engineering judgment, to calculate the effective leak 
diameter, deff:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP14.140

Where:

deff = effective leak diameter, in inches, expressed to 
at least two decimal places.
Vgas = volumetric flow of gas, in m\3\/s.
pin = inlet pressure to orifice, in kPa.
patmos = atmospheric pressure, in kPa.
SGN2 = specific gravity of N2 relative to air 
at 101.325 kPa and 15.5 [deg]C = 0.967.
T = temperature of flowing medium, in K.

    (9) Repeat the test described in this paragraph (c) for each access 
point described in the application for certification. Use each test 
result (without averaging) to determine whether the vehicle passes the 
leak standard.
    (10) Gas caps may need to be tested separately for leaks as 
described in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. Test the gas caps using 
commercially available flow equipment such as that used for inspection-
and-maintenance programs for motor vehicles to determine a leak rate in 
cubic centimeters per minute resulting from a sustained tank pressure 
of 7.5 kPa. Correct the leak rate to standard reference conditions, 
based on the measured leak rate corresponding to atmospheric pressure. 
The corrected leak value may not exceed 60 cubic centimeters per 
minute.
    (11) You may use special or alternative test procedures as 
described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c).
    (e) Equipment calibration. Use good engineering judgment to 
calibrate the leak check device.

 Subpart K--Definitions and Other Reference Material

Sec.  1066.1001  Definitions.

    The definitions in this section apply to this part. The definitions 
apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. Other terms have the 
meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065. The definitions follow:
    Average means the arithmetic mean of a sample.
    Bag 1 means relating to the first 505 seconds 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 seconds of the FTP cold-start 
test interval.
    Bag 3 means relating to the first 505 seconds of the FTP hot-start 
test interval.
    Bag 4 means relating to the last 867 seconds of the FTP hot-start 
test interval, if run. Note that bag 2 is generally used in place of 
bag 4.
    Base inertia means a value expressed in mass units to represent the 
rotational inertia of the rotating dynamometer components between the 
vehicle driving tires and the dynamometer torque-measuring device, as 
specified in Sec.  1066.250.
    C1-equivalent means a convention of expressing HC 
concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such 
that the C1-equivalent of an HC concentration equals the 
concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms in each HC 
molecule. For example, the C1-equivalent of 10 ppm of 
propane (C3H8) is 30 ppm. 
C1-equivalent concentration values may be denoted as 
``ppmC'' in the standard-setting part. Densities may also be expressed 
on a C1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from 
concentrations and densities is only valid where they are each 
expressed on the same carbon basis.
    Driving schedule means a series of vehicle speeds that a vehicle 
must follow during a test. Driving schedules are specified in the 
standard-setting part. A driving schedule may consist of multiple test 
intervals.
    Duty cycle means a set of weighting factors and the corresponding 
test cycles, where the weighting factors are used to combine the 
results of multiple test intervals into a composite result.
    FTP means one of the following:
    (1) The test cycle consisting of one UDDS as specified in paragraph 
(a) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, followed by a 10-minute soak with 
the engine off and repeat driving through the first 505 seconds of the 
UDDS. See Sec.  1066.801(c)(1).
    (2) The entire test procedure for measuring exhaust and/or 
evaporative emissions as described in Sec.  1066.801(c).
    Footprint has the meaning given in the standard-setting part.
    HFET means the test cycle specified in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 
600.
    LA-92 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (c), 
of 40 CFR part 86.
    Nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) means the combination of organic 
gases other than methane as calculated in Sec.  1066.635. Note that for 
this part, the organic gases are summed on a mass basis without any 
adjustment for photochemical reactivity.
    Parts-per-million (ppm) means ppm on a molar basis. For hydrocarbon 
concentrations including HC, THC, NMHC, and NMOG, ppm means ppm on a 
C1-equivalent molar basis.
    Road-load coefficients means sets of A, B, and C road-load force 
coefficients that are used in the dynamometer road-load simulation, 
where road-load force at speed v equals A + B [middot] v + C [middot] 
v\2\.
    SC03 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (h), 
of 40 CFR part 86.
    SFTP means the collection of test cycles as given in 
1066.801(c)(2).
    Standard reference conditions means the following:

[[Page 23883]]

    (1) Standard pressure is 101.325 kPa.
    (2) Standard temperature is 293.15 K.
    Test interval means a period over which a vehicle's emission rates 
are determined separately. For many standards, compliance with the 
standard is based on a weighted average of the mass emissions from 
multiple test intervals. For example, the standard-setting part may 
specify a complete duty cycle as a cold-start test interval and a hot-
start test interval. In cases where multiple test intervals occur over 
a duty cycle, the standard-setting part may specify additional 
calculations that weight and combine results to arrive at composite 
values for comparison against the applicable standards.
    Test weight has the meaning given in Sec. Sec.  1066.410(b) or 
1066.805.
    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 
vehicle wheels removed from the roll surface.
    We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and any authorized representatives.

Sec.  1066.1005  Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of 
measure.

    The procedures in this part generally follow either the 
International System of Units (SI) or the United States customary 
units, as detailed in NIST Special Publication 811, which we 
incorporate by reference in Sec.  1066.1010. See 40 CFR 1065.20 for 
specific provisions related to these conventions. This section 
summarizes the way we use symbols, units of measure, and other 
abbreviations.
    (a) Symbols for quantities. This part uses the following symbols 
and units of measure for various quantities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Unit in terms of SI base
      Symbol            Quantity            Unit                Unit symbol                     units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[alpha]...........  atomic hydrogen   mole per mole...  mol/mol....................  1
                     to carbon ratio.
A.................  area............  square meter....  m\2\.......................  m\2\
A.................  vehicle           pound force or    lbf or N...................  kg[middot]s-2
                     frictional load.  newton.
Am................  calculated        pound force or    lbf or N...................  kg[middot]s-2
                     vehicle           newton.
                     frictional load.
a0................  intercept of
                     least squares
                     regression.
a1................  slope of least
                     squares
                     regression.
a.................  acceleration....  feet per second   ft/s\2\ or m/s\2\..........  m[middot]s-2
                                       squared or
                                       meters per
                                       second squared.
B.................  vehicle load      pound force per   lbf/mph or N[middot]s/m....  kg[middot]s-1[middot]m-1
                     from drag and     mile per hour
                     rolling           or newton
                     resistance.       second per
                                       meter.
[beta]............  ratio of          meter per meter.  m/m........................  1
                     diameters.
[beta]............  atomic oxygen to  mole per mole...  mol/mol....................  1
                     carbon ratio.
c.................  conversion
                     factor.
C.................  vehicle-specific  pound force per   lbf/mph\2\ or N[middot]s\2\/ kg[middot]m-2
                     aerodynamic       mile per hour     m\2\.
                     effects.          squared or
                                       newton second
                                       squared per
                                       meter squared.
C#................  number of carbon  C#..............  number of carbon atoms in a  C#
                     atoms in a                          molecule.
                     molecule.
Cd................  discharge
                     coefficient.
CDA...............  drag area.......  meter squared...  m\2\.......................  m\2\
Cf................  flow coefficient
Cp................  heat capacity at  joule per kelvin  J/K........................  J[middot]K-1
                     constant
                     pressure.
Cv................  heat capacity at  joule per kelvin  J/K........................  J[middot]K-1
                     constant volume.
d.................  diameter........  meters..........  m..........................  m
D.................  distance........  miles or meters.  mi or m....................  m
D.................  slope             pound force per   lbf/mph\2\ or N[middot]s\2\/ kg[middot]m-2
                     correlation.      mile per hour     m\2\.
                                       squared or
                                       newton second
                                       squared per
                                       meter squared.
DF................  dilution factor.  ................  ...........................  1
e.................  mass weighted     grams/mile......  g/mi.......................
                     emission result.
F.................  force...........  pound force or    lbf or N...................  kg[middot]s-2
                                       newton.
f.................  frequency.......  hertz...........  Hz.........................  s-1
fn................  angular speed     revolutions per   r/min......................  2[middot][pi][middot]60-
                     (shaft).          minute.                                        1[middot]m[middot]m-
                                                                                      1[middot]s-1
FC................  friction          horsepower or     W..........................  kg[middot]m\2\[middot]s-3
                     compensation      watt.
                     error.
FR................  Road-load force.  pound force or    lbf or N...................  kg[middot]s-2
                                       newton.
g.................  gravitational     meters per        m/s\2\.....................  m[middot]s-2
                     acceleration.     second squared.
[gamma]...........  ratio of          (joule per        (J/(kg[middot]K))/(J/        1
                     specific heats.   kilogram          (kg[middot]K)).
                                       kelvin) per
                                       (joule per
                                       kilogram
                                       kelvin).
H.................  ambient humidity  grams water       g H2O vapor/kg dry air.....  g H2O vapor/kg dry air
                                       vapor per
                                       kilogram dry
                                       air.
[Delta]h..........  change in height  meters..........  m..........................  m
I.................  inertia.........  pound mass or     lbm or kg..................  kg
                                       kilogram.
I.................  current.........  ampere..........  A..........................  A
i.................  indexing
                     variable.
IR................  inertia work
                     rating.
K.................  correction        ................  ...........................  1
                     factor.
Kv................  calibration       ................  m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0.5\/ m\4\[middot]s[middot]K\0.5\
                     coefficient.                        kg.                          [middot]kg-1
[mu]..............  viscosity,        pascal second...  Pa[middot]s................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-1
                     dynamic.
M.................  molar mass......  gram per mole...  g/mol......................  10-3[middot]kg[middot]mol-1
Me................  effective mass..  kilogram........  kg.........................  kg
m.................  mass............  pound mass or     lbm or kg..................  kg
                                       kilogram.
N.................  total number in
                     series.
n.................  total number of
                     pulses in a
                     series.
p.................  pressure........  pascal..........  Pa.........................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2

[[Page 23884]]

 
[Delta]p..........  differential      pascal..........  Pa.........................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2
                     static pressure.
pd................  saturated vapor   kilopascal......  kPa........................  m-1[middot]kg[middot]s-2
                     pressure at
                     ambient dry
                     bulb
                     temperature.
PF................  penetration
                     fraction.
Q.................  flow............  cubic feet or     ft\3\ or m\3\..............  m\3\
                                       cubic meter.
Qb................  flow rate.......  cubic feet per    ft\3\/min or m\3\/s........  m\3\/s
                                       minute or cubic
                                       meter per
                                       second.
[rho].............  mass density....  kilogram per      kg/m\3\....................  kg[middot]m-3
                                       cubic meter.
R.................  dynamometer roll  revolutions per   rpm........................  2[middot][pi][middot]60-
                     revolutions.      minute.                                        1[middot]m[middot]m-
                                                                                      1[middot]s-1
r.................  ratio of          pascal per        Pa/Pa......................  1
                     pressures.        pascal.
r \2\.............  coefficient of
                     determination.
Re#...............  Reynolds number.
RF................  response factor.
RH................  relative
                     humidity.
S.................  Sutherland        kelvin..........  K..........................  K
                     constant.
SEE...............  standard
                     estimate of
                     error.
SG................  specific gravity
[Delta]s..........  distance          meters..........  m..........................  m
                     traveled during
                     measurement
                     interval.
T.................  absolute          kelvin..........  K..........................  K
                     temperature.
T.................  Celsius           degree Celsius..  [deg]C.....................  K - 273.15
                     temperature.
T.................  torque (moment    newton meter....  N[middot]m.................  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-2
                     of force).
t.................  time............  second..........  s..........................  s
[Delta]t..........  time interval,    second..........  s..........................  s
                     period, 1/
                     frequency.
U.................  voltage.........  volt............  V..........................  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-
                                                                                      3[middot]A-1
v.................  speed...........  miles per hour    mph or m/s.................  m[middot]s-1
                                       or meters per
                                       second.
V.................  volume..........  cubic meter.....  m\3\.......................  m\3\
VP................  volume percent..
x.................  concentration of  part per million  ppm........................
                     emission over a
                     test interval.
y.................  generic variable
Z.................  compressibility   Z...............  compressibility factor.....  Z
                     factor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Symbols for chemical species. This part uses the following 
symbols for chemical species and exhaust constituents:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Symbol                               Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH4...............................  methane.
CH3OH.............................  methanol.
CH2O..............................  formaldehyde.
C2H4O.............................  acetaldehyde.
C2H5OH............................  ethanol.
C2H6..............................  ethane.
C3H7OH............................  propanol.
C3H8..............................  propane.
C4H10.............................  butane.
C5H12.............................  pentane.
CO................................  carbon monoxide.
CO2...............................  carbon dioxide.
H2O...............................  water.
HC................................  hydrocarbon.
N2................................  molecular nitrogen.
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.
overdot (such as y )......................  quantity per unit time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Subscripts. This part uses the following subscripts to define a 
quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subscript                            Quantity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................................  reference.
abs...............................  absolute quantity.
AC17..............................  air conditioning 2017 test interval.
act...............................  actual or measured condition.
actint............................  actual or measured condition over
                                     the speed interval.
adj...............................  adjusted.
air...............................  air, dry.
atmos.............................  atmospheric.
b.................................  base.
bkgnd.............................  background.
c.................................  cold.
comp..............................  composite.
cor...............................  corrected.
cs................................  cold stabilized.
ct................................  cold transient.
cUDDS.............................  cold-start UDDS.
D.................................  driven.
dew...............................  dewpoint.
dexh..............................  dilute exhaust quantity.
dil...............................  dilute.
e.................................  effective.
emission..........................  emission specie.
error.............................  error.
EtOH..............................  ethanol.
exh...............................  raw exhaust quantity.
exp...............................  expected quantity.
fil...............................  filter.
final.............................  final.
flow..............................  flow measurement device type.
gas...............................  gaseous.
h.................................  hot.
HFET..............................  highway fuel economy test.
hs................................  hot stabilized.
ht................................  hot transient.
hUDDS.............................  hot-start UDDS.
i.................................  an individual of a series.
ID................................  driven inertia.
in................................  inlet.
int...............................  intake.
init..............................  initial quantity, typically before
                                     an emission test.
IT................................  target inertia.
liq...............................  liquid.
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.
mix...............................  dilute exhaust gas mixture.
out...............................  outlet.
PM................................  particulate matter.
record............................  record.
ref...............................  reference quantity.
rev...............................  revolution.
roll..............................  dynamometer roll.
s.................................  settling.
s.................................  slip.

[[Page 23885]]

 
s.................................  stabilized.
sat...............................  saturated condition.
SC03..............................  air conditioning driving schedule.
span..............................  span quantity.
sda...............................  secondary dilution air.
std...............................  standard conditions.
T.................................  target.
t.................................  throat.
test..............................  test quantity.
uncor.............................  uncorrected quantity.
w.................................  weighted.
zero..............................  zero quantity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Other acronyms and abbreviations. This part uses the following 
additional abbreviations and acronyms:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/C...............................  air conditioning.
AC17..............................  air conditioning 2017 test interval.
ALVW..............................  adjusted loaded vehicle weight.
ASME..............................  American Society of Mechanical
                                     Engineers.
CFR...............................  Code of Federal Regulations.
CFV...............................  critical-flow venturi.
CNG...............................  compressed natural gas.
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.
GEM...............................  greenhouse gas emissions model.
GHG...............................  greenhouse gas (including CO2, N2O,
                                     and CH4).
GPS...............................  global positioning system.
GVWR..............................  gross vehicle weight rating.
HEV...............................  hybrid electric vehicle, including
                                     plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
HFET..............................  highway fuel economy test.
HLDT..............................  heavy light-duty truck.
HPLC..............................  high pressure liquid chromatography.
IBR...............................  incorporated by reference.
LA-92.............................  Los Angeles 1992 driving schedule.
MDPV..............................  medium-duty passenger vehicle.
NIST..............................  National Institute for Standards and
                                     Technology.
NMC...............................  nonmethane cutter.
PDP...............................  positive-displacement pump.
PHEV..............................  plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
PM................................  particulate matter.
RESS..............................  rechargeable energy storage system.
ppm...............................  parts per million.
SAE...............................  Society of Automotive Engineers.
SC03..............................  air conditioning driving schedule.
SEA...............................  selective enforcement audit.
SFTP..............................  supplemental federal test procedure.
SI................................  International System of Units.
SSV...............................  subsonic venturi.
UDDS..............................  urban dynamometer driving schedule.
US06..............................  aggressive driving schedule.
U.S.C.............................  United States Code.
WWV...............................  NIST radio station call sign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) This part uses the following densities of chemical species:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Symbol                              Quantity 1 2                    g/m\3\            g/ft\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[rho]CH4............................  density of methane....................           666.905           18.8847
[rho]CH3OH..........................  density of methanol...................           1332.02           37.7185
[rho]C2H5OH.........................  C1-equivalent density of ethanol......           957.559           27.1151
[rho]C2H4O..........................  C1-equivalent density of acetaldehyde.           915.658           25.9285
[rho]C3H8...........................  density of propane....................           611.035           17.3026
[rho]C3H7OH.........................  C1-equivalent density of propanol.....            832.74           23.5806
[rho]CO.............................  density of carbon monoxide............           1164.41           32.9725
[rho]CO2............................  density of carbon dioxide.............           1829.53           51.8064
[rho]HC-gas.........................  effective density of hydrocarbon--               (see 3)           (see 3)
                                       gaseous fuel \3\.
[rho]CH2O...........................  density of formaldehyde...............           1248.21           35.3455
[rho]HC-liq.........................  effective density of hydrocarbon--               576.816           16.3336
                                       liquid fuel \4\.
[rho]NMHC-gas.......................  effective density of nonmethane                  (see 3)           (see 3)
                                       hydrocarbon--gaseous fuel \3\.
[rho]NMHC-liq.......................  effective density of nonmethane                  576.816           16.3336
                                       hydrocarbon--liquid fuel \4\.
[rho]NMHCE-gas......................  effective density of nonmethane                  (see 3)           (see 3)
                                       equivalent hydrocarbon--gaseous fuel
                                       \3\.
[rho]NMHCE-liq......................  effective density of nonmethane                  576.816           16.3336
                                       equivalent hydrocarbon--liquid fuel
                                       \4\.
[rho] NOX...........................  effective density of oxides of                    1912.5            54.156
                                       nitrogen \5\.
[rho]N2O............................  density of nitrous oxide..............           1829.66           51.8103
[rho]THC-liq........................  effective density of total                       576.816           16.3336
                                       hydrocarbon--liquid fuel \4\.
[rho]THCE-liq.......................  effective density of total equivalent            576.816           16.3336
                                       hydrocarbon--liquid fuel \4\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Densities are given at 20 [deg]C and 101.325 kPa.
\2\ Densities for all hydrocarbon containing quantities are given in g/m\3\-carbon atom and g/ft\3\-carbon atom.
\3\ The effective density for natural gas fuel and liquefied petroleum gas fuel are defined by an atomic
  hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, [alpha], of the hydrocarbon components of the test fuel. [rho]HCgas =
  41.57[middot](12.011 + ([alpha][middot]1.008)).
\4\ The effective density for gasoline and diesel fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio,
  [alpha], of 1.85.
\5\ The effective density of NOX is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO2.

    (g) Constants. (1) This part uses the following constants for the 
composition of dry air:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Symbol                    Quantity                 mol/mol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[chi]Arair..............  amount of argon in dry air             0.00934
[chi]CO2air.............  amount of carbon dioxide              0.000375
                           in dry air.
[chi]N2air..............  amount of nitrogen in dry              0.78084
                           air.
[chi]O2air..............  amount of oxygen in dry               0.209445
                           air.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar 
masses of chemical species:

[[Page 23886]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       g/mol  (10-
        Symbol                  Quantity         3[middot]kg[middot]mol-
                                                            1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mair..................  molar mass of dry air                 28.96559
                         \1\.
MH2O..................  molar mass of water....               18.01528
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See paragraph (g)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.

    (3) This part uses the following molar gas constant for ideal 
gases:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    J/(mol[middot]K)
                                               (m\2\[middot]kg[middot]s-
        Symbol                Quantity          2[middot]mol-1[middot]K-
                                                           1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R....................  molar gas constant....                8.314472
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Prefixes. This part uses the following prefixes to define a 
quantity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Symbol                         Quantity           Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mu].................................  micro...................     10-6
m....................................  milli...................     10-3
c....................................  centi...................     10-2
k....................................  kilo....................    10\3\
M....................................  mega....................    10\6\
n....................................  nano....................     10-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1066.1010  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, a document must be published 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.
    To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, a 
document must be published in the Federal Register and the material 
must be available to the public.
    (b) SAE International material. The following standards are 
available from SAE International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 
15096-0001, (877) 606-7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776-4970 (outside 
the U.S. and Canada), or http://www.sae.org:
    (1) SAE J1263, Road Load Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation 
Using Coastdown Techniques, revised March 2010, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1066.301(b), 1066.305, and 1066.310(b).
    (2) SAE J1634, Battery Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and 
Range Test Procedure, revised October 2012, IBR approved for Sec.  
1066.501(a).
    (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust 
Emissions and Fuel Economy of Hybrid-Electric Vehicles, Including Plug-
In Hybrid Vehicles, revised June 2010, IBR approved for Sec.  
1066.501(a).
    (4) SAE J2263, Road Load Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and 
Coastdown Techniques, revised December 2008, IBR approved for 
Sec. Sec.  1066.301(b), 1066.305, and 1066.310(b).
    (5) SAE J2264, Chassis Dynamometer Simulation of Road Load Using 
Coastdown Techniques, revised January 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  
1066.315.
    (6) SAE J2711, Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Economy and 
Emissions of Hybrid-Electric and Conventional Heavy-Duty Vehicles, 
issued September 2002, IBR approved for Sec.  1066.501(a).
    (7) SAE J2951, Drive Quality Evaluation for Chassis Dynamometer 
Testing, revised January 2014, IBR approved for Sec.  1066.425(j).
    (c) National Institute of Standards and Technology material. The 
following documents are available from National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-
1070, (301) 975-6478, or www.nist.gov:
    (1) NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use 
of the International System of Units (SI), Physics Laboratory, March 
2008, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1066.20(a) and 1066.1005.
    (2) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2014-06954 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```