54694 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 86

[AMS–FRL–5908–8]

RIN 2060–AF76

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution

From Highway Heavy-Duty Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The new standards and

related provisions contained in this

final rule will result in significant

progress throughout the country in

protecting public health and the

environment. In this action, EPA is

adopting a new emission standard and

related provisions for diesel heavy-duty

engines (HDEs) intended for highway

operation, beginning with the 2004

model year. The new standard

represents a large reduction

(approximately 50 percent) in emission

of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), as well as

reductions in hydrocarbons (HC) from

diesel trucks and buses. The reduction

in NOx will also result in significant

reductions in secondary nitrate

particulate matter (PM) in areas where

levels of nitrate PM are high. For diesel

HDEs, EPA is also finalizing changes to

the existing averaging, banking, and

trading program that provide additional

flexibility for manufacturers in

complying with the stringent new

standards. EPA is also adopting several

provisions to increase the durability of

emission controls, help ensure proper

levels of maintenance, and prevent

tampering, including during engine

rebuilding. The resulting emission

reductions will translate into

significant, long-term improvements in

air quality in many areas of the U.S.

This will provide much-needed

assistance to states and regions facing

ozone and particulate air quality

problems that are causing a range of

adverse health effects for their citizens,

especially in terms of respiratory

impairment and related illnesses.

Although EPA proposed new

standards and related averaging,

banking, and trading provisions for ottocycle HDEs (e.g., gasoline-fueled

engines), EPA is not taking final action

for that category of engines at this time.

EPA received several comments urging

the Agency to adopt more stringent

control measures for these engines than

those proposed in the NPRM (June 27,

1996). EPA continues to evaluate the

comments received regarding otto-cycle

engines and plans to issue a

Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to address otto-cycle

engines specifically.

DATES: This regulation is effective

December 22, 1997. The incorporation

by reference of a certain publication

listed in the regulations is approved by

the Director of the Federal Register as of

December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

final rule have been placed in Public

Docket No. A–95–26. The docket is

located at the Air Docket Section, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460

(Telephone 202–260–7548; Fax 202–

260–4400) in Room M–1500, Waterside

Mall, and may be inspected weekdays

between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. A

reasonable fee may be charged by EPA

for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Lieske, U.S. EPA, Engine

Programs and Compliance Division,

2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48105. Telephone: (313) 668–

4584. Fax: (313) 741–7816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those that sell new motor

vehicles heavy-duty engines in the

United States and entities who rebuild/

remanufacture such engines. Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of

regulated entities

Industry ............. New motor vehicle heavyduty engine manufacturers.

Industry ............. Heavy-duty engine rebuilders/remanufacturers.

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 86.094–

1 and, for engine rebuilders/

remanufacturers, § 86.004–40 of the

rule. If you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Obtaining Electronic Copies of the

Regulatory Documents

The preamble, Summary and Analysis

of Comments, regulatory language and

Regulatory Impact Analysis are also

available electronically from the EPA

Internet Web site. This service is free of

charge, except for any cost you already

incur for internet connectivity. The

electronic Federal Register version is

made available on the day of

publication on the primary Web site

listed below. The EPA Office of Mobile

Sources also publishes these notices on

the secondary Web site listed below.

Internet (Web)

http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA–

AIR/

(either select desired date or use Search

feature)

http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/

(look in What’s New or under the

specific rulemaking topic)

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which the document may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc. may occur.

Outline and List of Acronyms

The Supplementary Information

section of this final rule is organized as

follows:

I. Introduction/Summary of Proposal

II. Need for Control and Air Quality Benefits

of This Rule

A. Ozone

B. Particulate Matter

III. Content of the Final Rule

A. Emission Standards

1. Standard Levels

2. 1999 Review

3. NMHC Measurement

4. Non-Conformance Penalties

B. In-Use Emissions Control Elements

1. Useful life

2. Emissions Related Maintenance

3. Emissions Defect and Performance

Warranties

4. Additional Manufacturer Requirements

5. Engine Rebuilding Provisions

C. Revised Averaging, Banking, and

Trading Provisions

D. Display of OMB Control Numbers

IV. Public Participation

A. EPA’s Air Quality Justification for the

Proposed Program

1. Modeling

2. Possible Ozone Increases from NOX

Reduction

3. Trends in Ozone Levels

B. Level of Standards

1. Diesel Engines—NOX Plus NMHC

2. Highway Diesel Engine—PM

3. Otto-Cycle Engines

C. In-Use Emissions Control and

Compliance

1. In-Use Emissions Control Regulatory

Elements
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54695

1See 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2 VOCs consist mostly of hydrocarbons (HC).

3The CAA limits the role states may play in

regulating emissions from new motor vehicles.

California is permitted to establish emission control

standards for new motor vehicles, and other states

may adopt California’s programs (Sections 209 and

177 of the Act).

4Highway heavy-duty engines, sometimes

referred to as highway HDEs, are used in heavyduty vehicles, which EPA defines as highway

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over

8,500 pounds.

2. State Inspection and Maintenance

Programs

3. In-Use Compliance Issues

D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

1. Applicability

2. The Modified ABT Program (1998–2003)

3. The Modified ABT Program 2004 and

Later

4. Other Changes for the Modified ABT

Program

V. Economic Impact and Cost-Effectiveness

A. Engine Costs

B. Aggregate Costs to Society

C. Cost-Effectiveness

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

B. Compliance With Regulatory Flexibility

Act

C. Compliance With Paperwork Reduction

Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

VII. Statutory Authority

VIII. Judicial Review

IX. Copies of Rulemaking Documents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABT Averaging, banking, and trading

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

ARB Air Resources Board

ATA American Trucking Association

CAA or Act Clean Air Act as amended in

1990

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DDC Detroit Diesel Corporation

EGR Exhaust gas recirculation

EPA United States Environmental

Protection Agency

FRM Final Rulemaking

GVWR Gross vehicle weight rating

HC Hydrocarbons

HDDEs Heavy-duty diesel engines

HDEs Heavy-duty engines

HDVs Heavy-duty vehicles

HHDDEs Heavy heavy-duty diesel engines

HHDVs Heavy heavy-duty vehicles

ICR Information Collection Request

I/M Inspection and Maintenance

LEV Low emissions vehicle

LHDDEs Light heavy-duty diesel engines

LHDVs Light heavy-duty vehicles

MHDDEs Medium heavy-duty diesel

engines

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

Standard

NESCAUM Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management

NLEV National Low Emissions Vehicle

NMHC Nonmethane hydrocarbons

NOX Oxides of nitrogen

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council

OBD On-bourd diagnotics

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OTAG Ozone Transport Assessment Group

PM Particulate matter

R&D Research and development

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

ROM Regional Oxidant Model

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SEA Selective Enforcement Audit

SOP Statement of Principles

UAM Urban Airshed Model

VOC Volatile organic compounds

I. Introduction/Summary of Proposal

Air pollution continues to represent a

serious threat to the health and wellbeing of millions of Americans and a

large burden to the U.S. economy. This

threat exists despite the fact that, over

the past two decades, great progress has

been made at the local, state and

national levels in controlling emissions

from many sources of air pollution. As

a result of this progress, many

individual emission sources, both

stationary and mobile, pollute at only a

fraction of their pre-control rates.

However, continued industrial growth

and expansion of motor vehicle usage

threaten to reverse these past

achievements. Today, many states are

finding it difficult to meet the current

ozone and PM National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQSs) by the

deadlines established in the Act.1

Furthermore, other states which are

approaching or have reached attainment

of the current ozone and PM NAAQSs

will likely see those gains lost if current

trends persist.

In recent years, significant efforts

have been made on both a national and

state level to reduce air quality

problems associated with ground-level

ozone, with a focus on its main

precursors, oxides of nitrogen (NOX)

and volatile organic compounds

(VOCs).2 In addition, airborne

particulate matter (PM) has been a major

air quality concern in many regions. As

discussed below, ozone and PM have

been linked to a range of serious

respiratory health problems and a

variety of adverse environmental effects.

The states have jurisdiction to

implement a variety of stationary source

emission controls. In most regions of the

country, states are implementing

significant stationary source NOX

controls (as well as stationary source

VOC controls) for controlling acid rain,

ozone, or both. In many areas, however,

these controls will not be sufficient to

reach and maintain the current ozone

standard without significant additional

NOX reductions from mobile sources.

Generally, the Clean Air Act specifies

that standards for controlling NOX, HC,

and PM emissions from new motor

vehicles must be established at the

federal level.3 Thus, the states look to

the national mobile source emission

control program as a complement to

their efforts to meet air quality goals.

The concept of common emission

standards for mobile sources across the

nation is strongly supported by

manufacturers, which often face serious

production inefficiencies when different

requirements apply to engines or

vehicles sold in different states or areas.

Motor vehicle emission control

programs have a history of technological

success that, in the past, has largely

offset the pressure from constantly

growing numbers of vehicles and miles

traveled in the U.S. The per-vehicle rate

of emissions from new passenger cars

and light trucks has been reduced to

very low levels. As a result, increasing

attention is now focused on heavy-duty

trucks (ranging from large pickups to

tractor-trailers), buses, and nonroad

equipment.

Since the 1970s, manufacturers of

heavy-duty engines for highway use

have developed new technological

approaches in response to periodic

increases in the stringency of emission

standards.4 However, the technological

characteristics of heavy-duty engines,

particularly diesel engines, have thus far

prevented achievement of emission

levels comparable to today’s light-duty

gasoline vehicles. While diesel engines

provide advantages in terms of fuel

efficiency, reliability, and durability,

controlling NOX emissions is a greater

challenge for diesel engines than for

gasoline engines. Similarly, control of

PM emissions, which are very low for

gasoline engines, represents a

substantial challenge for diesel engines.

Part of this challenge is that most

traditional NOX control approaches tend

to increase PM, and vice versa.

Despite these technological

challenges, there is substantial evidence

of the ability for heavy-duty highway

engines to achieve significant additional

emission reductions. In their successful

efforts to reach lower NOX and PM

levels over the past 20 years, heavy-duty

highway diesel engine manufacturers

have identified new technologies and

approaches that offer promise for

significant new reductions. The

emerging technological potential for

much cleaner diesel heavy-duty engines

is discussed elsewhere in this preamble

and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis

(RIA) associated with this final rule.

Recognizing the need for additional

NOX and PM control measures to

address air quality concerns in several
54696 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

5U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for Ozone, Assessment of

Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff

Paper, EPA–452/R–96–007.

6U.S.EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for Ozone

and Related Photochemical Oxidants, EPA/600/P–

93/004aF.

7U.S. EPA, 1995, Review of National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, Assessment

of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS

Staff Paper, EPA–452/R–95–005.

8U.S.EPA, 1993, Air Quality Criteria for Oxides

of Nitrogen, EPA/600/8–91/049aF.

9See 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

10 VOCs consist mostly of hydrocarbons (HC).

parts of the country and the growing

contribution of the heavy-duty engine

sector to ozone and PM problems, EPA,

the California Air Resources Board, and

engine manufacturers representing over

90 percent of annual nationwide engine

sales signed a Statement of Principles

(SOP) in July of 1995. The SOP

established a framework for a proposed

rulemaking, setting out goals and

conditions supported by the signatories.

EPA sought early comment on the

general regulatory framework laid out in

the SOP in an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on

August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45580) and

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33421).

The centerpiece of EPA’s proposal

was a new NOX plus nonmethane

hydrocarbon standard (NMHC) of 2.4 g/

bhp-hr (or 2.5 g with a 0.5 g NMHC cap)

for 2004 and later model years, which

represents over a 50 percent reduction

from the 1998 NOX and HC standard of

4.0 g/bhp-hr and 1.3 g/bhp-hr,

respectively. EPA proposed the standard

for both diesel and otto-cycle (primarily

gasoline-fueled) engines. EPA requested

comment on options for more stringent

control of emissions from otto-cycle

engine in response to comments

received by the Agency on the ANPRM.

Because the standards would require the

use of technologies not yet fully

developed and proven, EPA also

proposed to reopen the rulemaking in

1999 and review the appropriateness of

the standards.

In addition, EPA proposed several

other provisions. To provide critical

flexibility to the manufacturers and help

ease their transition to the new

standards, EPA proposed a modified

averaging, banking, and trading (ABT)

program. The proposed program was

viewed to be tied directly to the

stringency of the standard. In the

NPRM, the Agency stressed that the

program changes would allow

manufacturers to reasonably achieve a

more stringent standard earlier than

without the changes. EPA proposed a

modified program for model years 1998

through 2006, with the current ABT

program resuming in 2007. Under the

proposed modified program, engine

manufacturers could earn undiscounted,

unlimited life NOX and PM credits for

use in meeting the 2004 standards. The

current program requires a one-time 20

percent discount on any credits traded

or banked for future use and limits

credit life to 3 years. For the modified

program, EPA also proposed that

manufacturers maintain at least a 5

percent compliance margin, unless they

had data to support the use of a smaller

margin.

EPA also proposed several provisions

to help ensure adequate durability of

emissions controls and proper

maintenance and repair of emissions

controls during the life of the engine,

including during engine rebuilding.

EPA viewed the proposals as necessary

because the proposed standards would

likely prompt manufacturers to add

emissions control technologies, such as

exhaust gas recirculation and exhaust

aftertreatment. The failure of such

systems would not necessarily cause

decreased engine performance. Thus,

EPA could not be certain that failure of

emissions control systems would

prompt the owner to perform repairs.

Additionally, the proposed changes

were intended to update existing

requirements to consider recent

increases in engine life.

The primary proposals for updating

existing regulations included a

proposed increase in the useful life

mileage interval for heavy heavy-duty

engines from 290,000 miles to 435,000

miles, an increase in the minimum

allowable maintenance intervals for

several emissions related components,

and changes in the emissions defect and

performance warranties. EPA also

proposed provisions to help ensure that

emission controls are properly

addressed during the process of engine

rebuilding and not removed or

otherwise dismantled.

This preamble is organized as follows:

Section II. describes the need for control

and air quality benefits associated with

the final rule, Section III. describes in

detail the standards and all other

provisions being finalized; Section IV.

describes each of the proposals, key

comments received by EPA, and any

changes to the proposals as a result of

those comments; Section V. reviews the

results of EPA’s economic analyses; The

remaining preamble sections pertain to

administrative requirements, statutory

authority, judicial review, and more

information on how to obtain copies of

rulemaking documents. The actual

regulatory language follows the

preamble.

II. Need for Control and Air Quality

Benefits of This Rule

The new emission standards for

highway HDEs that EPA is issuing today

represent a major step in reducing the

human health and environmental

impacts of ground-level ozone and a

significant contribution to reducing

secondary nitrate particulate matter

(PM). This section summarizes the air

quality rationale for these new

standards and their anticipated impact

on heavy-duty vehicle emissions.

A. Ozone

There is a large body of evidence

showing that ozone (which is caused by

the photochemical reaction of NOX and

VOCs) causes harmful respiratory effects

including chest pain, coughing, and

shortness of breath, affecting people

with compromised respiratory systems

and children most severely. In addition,

NOX itself can directly harm human

health. Beyond their human health

effects, other negative environmental

effects are also associated with ozone

and NOX. Ozone has been shown to

injure plants and materials; NOX

contributes to the secondary formation

of PM (nitrates), acid deposition, and

the overgrowth of algae in coastal

estuaries. These environmental effects,

as well as the health effects noted above,

are described in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis. (Additional information may

be found in EPA’s ‘‘staff papers’’ and

‘‘air quality criteria’’ documents for

ozone and nitrogen oxides 5 6 7 8).

Today, many states are finding it

difficult to show how they can meet or

maintain compliance with the current

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone by the deadlines

established in the Act. 9 There are 66

areas currently designated

‘‘nonattainment’’ for ozone.

Local, state and federal organizations

charged with delivering cleaner air have

mounted significant efforts in recent

years to reduce air quality problems

associated with ground-level ozone, and

there are signs of partial success. The

main precursors of ozone, oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) 10 appear to have

been reduced, and average levels of

ozone seem to have begun gradually

decreasing. However, this progress is in

jeopardy. EPA projects that reductions

in ozone precursors that will result from

the full implementation of current

emission control programs will fall far

short of what would be needed to offset

the normal emission increases that

accompany economic expansion. By the

middle of the next decade, the Agency

expects that the downward trends will

have reversed, primarily due to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54697

11See Chapter 2 of the Regulatory Impact

Analysis associated with this rule.

increasing numbers of emission sources.

By around 2020, EPA expects that NOX

levels will have returned to current

levels in the absence of significant new

reductions.11 To the extent that some

areas are seeing a gradual decrease in

ozone levels in recent years, EPA

believes that the expected increase in

NOX will likely result in an increase in

ozone problems in the future.

NOX controls are an effective strategy

for reducing ozone where its levels are

relatively high over a large region (as in

the Northeast and much of the Midwest,

Southeast, and California). EPA and

states see control of NOX emissions as

a key to improving regional-scale air

quality in many parts of the country, in

addition to local-scale VOC and NOX

controls. Specifically, EPA believes that

regional-scale reductions in NOX

emissions will be necessary for many

areas to attain and maintain compliance

with the current ozone NAAQS. For the

regions listed above, the NOX reductions

needed are very large (greater than 50

percent from base 1990 emissions in

many cases). New programs to control

emissions from both stationary and

mobile sources will be necessary in

most of these areas, since it is unlikely

that cost effective controls of this

magnitude can be achieved with either

source category alone. Although in some

locations and circumstances moderate

reductions in local NOX emissions may

be associated with localized increases in

ozone, the Agency is convinced that the

ultimate attainment goal of all

nonattainment areas necessitates

continued reduction of regional-scale

NOX emissions.

The new emission standards for

highway HDEs issued in today’s rule are

intended to address the effects of ozone

(and also PM, as discussed below)

through substantial regional-scale

reductions in NOX throughout the

country. EPA projects that the

nationwide NOX reduction by 2020 will

be approximately 1.1 million tons per

year, or about 9.5 percent of projected

2020 mobile source NOX emissions and

4.5 percent of all 2020 NOX emissions.

This is shown in Figure 1 and is

discussed in detail in the RIA for this

rule. The Agency also expects that small

NMHC reductions will also result from

this program. EPA has designed this

program to play a significant role in

reducing ozone levels in many areas of

the country in concert with other mobile

source and stationary source ozone

reduction programs at the federal, state,

and local levels.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
54698 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54699

12U.S. EPA, 1996, Review of National Ambient

Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA–452/R–96–

013.

13U.S.EPA, 1996, Air Quality Criteria for

Particulate Matter, EPA/600/P–95/001aF.

14Summary of Local-Scale Source

Characterization Studies, EPA–230–S–95–002, July,

1994.

15 Memorandum to the docket from Carol

Bohnenkamp, EPA Region 9, regarding regional

nature of secondary nitrate PM in California, July

30, 1997. Docket A–95–27.

16Benefits of Mobile Source NOX Related

Particulate Matter Reductions, October 1996, EPA

Contract No. 68–C5–0010.

17Based on the following calculation: The

difference between the 1998 and 2004 HDE NOX

standards is nominally 2.0 g/bhp-hr (4.0 vs. 2.0

g/bhp-hr). Using the above estimated average factor

of 4% of NOX being converted to secondary PM, an

equivalent reduction in secondary PM of 0.08

g/bhp-hr can be estimated. This reduction in

secondary PM compares to the roughly 0.05 g/bhphr that potentially would result from a reduction in

the HDE PM standard from 0.1 to 0.05 g/bhp-hr.

B. Particulate Matter

Particulate matter, like ozone, has

been linked to a range of serious

respiratory health problems. Particles

are deposited deep in the lungs and

result in effects including premature

death, increased hospital admissions

and emergency room visits, increased

respiratory symptoms and disease,

decreased lung function (particularly in

children and individuals with asthma),

and alterations in lung tissue and

structure and in respiratory tract

defense mechanisms. These effects are

discussed further in the RIA for this

rule. (Additional information may be

found in EPA’s ‘‘staff paper’’ and ‘‘air

quality criteria document’’ for

particulate matter.12 13)

Currently, there are 80 PM–10

nonattainment areas across the U.S.

(PM–10 refers to particles smaller than

10 microns in diameter). As is the case

with NOX, levels of PM caused by

mobile sources are also expected to rise

in the future. EPA believes that this

projected increase will occur both

because of the expected increase in

numbers of PM sources, including

diesel engines, and because NOX from

heavy-duty diesels and other sources is

transformed in the atmosphere into fine

secondary nitrate particles.

Secondary nitrate PM accounts for a

substantial fraction of the airborne

particulate in some areas of the country,

especially in the West. Measurements of

ambient PM in some western U.S. urban

areas that are having difficulty meeting

the current NAAQS for PM–10 have

indicated that secondary PM is a very

important component of the problem.

Secondary nitrate PM (consisting mostly

ammonium nitrate) is the major

constituent of this secondary PM. For

example, in Denver, on days when PM

levels are high, about 25 percent of the

measured PM–2.5 is ammonium nitrate.

In the Provo/Salt Lake City area,

secondary PM comprises about 40

percent of the measured PM–10.

Similarly, in the Los Angeles Basin,

secondary nitrate PM levels represent

about 25 percent of measured PM–10.14

Nitrate PM constitutes a smaller, but

often important, fraction of PM in other

areas of the country.

Because the atmospheric chemistry of

secondary PM formation has common

attributes to that of ozone, secondary

PM also tends to be a regional, rather

than a strictly local phenomenon. For

this reason, EPA believes that regionalscale NOX controls, including control of

mobile NOX sources, are very effective

in reducing secondary PM over a

significant area. For example,

California’s PM SIPs for serious areas

conclude that secondary formation of

nitrate particulate due to regional-scale

NOX emissions contributes to the

particulate problem in the South Coast

Air Basin, Coachella Area, and the San

Joaquin Valley.15 EPA and the State of

California believe that reduction of this

fraction of the total PM will require

additional regional-scale reductions in

NOX emissions.

The primary effect of the standards

promulgated in this Notice on ambient

PM levels will occur as a result of the

large anticipated reductions in NOX.

EPA expects that the resulting

reductions in secondary PM will be

significant, especially in areas of the

West where nitrate PM is a major

contributor to overall PM levels. In the

proposal, EPA estimated on the basis of

existing information that 100 tons of

NOX will on average result in the

formation of about 4 tons of nitrate PM.

EPA recently evaluated this effect in

more detail.16 The report’s conclusions

confirmed EPA’s earlier estimate, also

concluding that 100 tons of NOX

reduction will on average result in about

4 tons of secondary PM reduction. (The

conversion rate varies from region to

region, and is greatest in the West.).

Based on the average conversion rate,

EPA estimates that the approximately

1.1 million tons per year of NOX

reduction from today’s rule by 2020 will

result in a national average reduction in

secondary PM of about 44,000 tons per

year. This estimated average nitrate PM

reduction is similar in magnitude to that

which would result from reducing the

diesel PM emission standard by half.17

III. Content of the Final Rule

The following is a concise description

of the regulations being adopted in this

final rule, with any changes from the

proposal also noted. A summary of the

proposal is contained in preamble

Section I., above. A full description of

the proposals, supporting rationale for

these actions, and response to

comments are contained in the

Summary and Analysis of Comments for

the rule. Preamble section IV., Public

Participation, also provides additional

information.

A. Emission Standards

1. Standard Levels

EPA is adopting the proposed

NMHC+NOX emission standards for onhighway heavy-duty diesel-cycle

engines fueled by diesel, methanol, and

gaseous fuels and their blends. These

standards apply to model year 2004 and

later. Engine manufacturers will have

the choice of certifying heavy-duty

diesel engines to either of two optional

sets of standards:

2.4 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOx, or

2.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOX with a limit of

0.5 g/bhp-hr on NMHC.

All emissions standards other than

NMHC and NOX applying to 1998 and

later model year heavy-duty engines

continue at their 1998 levels. No new

standards are being finalized for onhighway heavy-duty otto-cycle engines.

2. 1999 Review

EPA is also finalizing today a

regulatory provision providing for 1999

review of the standard levels finalized

in this rule. As proposed, this review

will reassess the appropriateness of the

standards under the Clean Air Act

including the need for and technical

and economical feasibility of the

standards based on information

available in 1999. If during the review

EPA concludes that a revision is

appropriate, a rulemaking will be

conducted to determine the appropriate

level for the model year 2004 and later

standards. The standards finalized today

will stay in effect unless revised by this

subsequent rulemaking procedure. In

addition, EPA, together with the oil and

engine industries, is engaged in

assessing the potential impact of fuel

changes on emissions from 2004 and

later model year diesel engine

technology.

The 1999 review process has the

potential of either tightening or relaxing

the standards finalized today. If due to

new information in 1999 EPA finds the

standards to not be technologically

feasible for model year 2004 or

otherwise not in accordance with the

Act, then EPA expects to propose

adjusted standards which do not exceed

the following:
54700 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

18Note that for an individual engine, if the useful

life hours interval is reached before the engine

reaches 10 year or 100,000 miles, the useful life

shall become 10 years/100,000 miles, whichever

occurs first, as required under Clean Air Act section

202(d). EPA believes that this provision will be

used only very rarely, if ever, given the usage

patterns of affected vehicles.

2.9 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOx or

3.0 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOx with a limit of

0.6 g/bhp-hr NMHC

EPA believes that the 2004 model year

standards being finalized today are

technologically feasible without any

changes to diesel fuel. As part of the

1999 review, EPA will evaluate in light

of any new information whether diesel

fuel improvements are needed for the

standards to be appropriate for 2004. If

EPA finds that diesel fuel changes are

needed to meet the standards finalized

here and if EPA believes such changes

would be a cost-effective method for

reducing emissions and appropriate

under section 211 of the Clean Air Act,

then EPA will address the potential for

fuel improvements through a separate

rulemaking which will include a

separate cost-effectiveness analysis and

opportunity for public comment.

However, if EPA were to determine in

the 1999 review that the feasibility of

the standards requires diesel fuel

changes and EPA does not engage in a

rulemaking to require such changes,

EPA expects to propose adjusted

standards which do not exceed the

following:

3.4 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOx or

3.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOx with a limit of

0.7 g/bhp-hr on NMHC

Based on the technical analysis in the

RIA, the levels described above

represent upper limits for any potential

revisions. Because EPA does not at this

point predict further breakthroughs in

innovative emission reduction

technology for mass production in the

2004 time frame which would allow for

a standard lower than that being

finalized, a lower limit is not predicted

at this time. However, if EPA

determines that lower standards are

technologically feasible and appropriate

under the Clean Air Act, EPA expects to

propose those lower standards.

3. NMHC Measurement

For heavy-duty diesel engines, EPA is

allowing three options to the

measurement procedures currently in

place for alternative fueled engines.

They are as follows: (1) Use a THC

measurement in place of an NMHC

measurement; (2) use a measurement

procedure specified by the manufacturer

with prior approval of the

Administrator; or (3) subtract two

percent from the measured THC value to

obtain an NMHC value. The

methodology must be specified at time

of certification and will remain the same

for the engine family throughout the

engines’ useful life.

For natural gas vehicles, EPA is

allowing the option of measuring NMHC

through direct quantification of

individual species by gas

chromatography.

4. Non-Conformance Penalties

Section 206(g) of the Clean Air Act

requires EPA to allow a HDE

manufacturer to receive a certificate of

compliance for an engine family which

exceeds the applicable standard (but

does not exceed an upper limit) if the

manufacturer pays a non-conformance

penalty established by EPA through

rulemaking. The NCP program

established through rulemaking is

codified in Subpart L of 40 CFR Part 86.

EPA plans to address provisions related

to NCPs for the 2004 model year

standards in conjunction with the 1999

review discussed above.

B. In-Use Emissions Control Elements

EPA is finalizing provisions to

enhance the control of emissions from

in-use vehicles subject to the new model

year 2004 standards. Where noted, some

of the provisions below also apply to

2004 and later model year otto-cycle

engines. The in-use provisions include

both: (1) Revisions of existing

regulations, including useful life,

emissions-related maintenance, and

emissions defect and performance

warranties, and (2) new provisions

regarding maintenance and repair of

emissions controls after the end of the

useful life, including manufacturer

requirements and engine rebuild

provisions. All of the following changes

to the regulations are effective beginning

with the 2004 model year.

1. Useful Life

EPA is finalizing a revised useful life

for the heavy heavy-duty diesel engine

service class of 435,000 miles, 22,000

hours, or 10 years, whichever occurs

first, for all pollutants beginning in

model year 2004.18 In response to

comments, EPA has modified the useful

life for heavy heavy-duty engines from

the proposal by increasing the hours

interval and removing a minimum

mileage interval. EPA proposed a useful

life of 435,000 miles, 13,000 hours, or

ten years whichever occurred first, but

in no case less than 290,000 miles. As

proposed, EPA is also establishing a

useful life years interval of 10 years for

all heavy-duty engine service classes,

otto-cycle and diesel-cycle, and all

pollutants.

2. Emissions Related Maintenance

EPA is finalizing the changes to

emission related maintenance intervals

shown in Table 1, with compliance

beginning in 2004. The intervals are in

miles or hours, whichever occurs first.

The term ‘‘Add-on emissions-related

component’’ is being defined as a

component whose sole or primary

purpose is to reduce emissions or whose

failure will significantly degrade

emissions control and whose function is

not integral to the design and

performance of the engine. EPA is not

changing the interval for EGR filters and

coolers from its current interval of

50,000 miles (1,500 hours). The

maintenance interval changes are being

finalized as proposed.

TABLE 1—CHANGES TO MINIMUM EMISSION-RELATED MAINTENANCE INTERVALS

Intended service class Component or system Change to minimum maintenance interval

Otto-cycle engines ......................... EGR system (except filters and

coolers).

Increase from 50,000 miles (1,500 hours) to 100,000 miles (3,000

hours).

Light HDDEs .................................. EGR system (except filters and

coolers).

Increase from 50,000 miles (1,500 hours) to 100,000 miles (3,000

hours).

—Add-on emission-related components.

—Catalytic converter

Establish 100,000 mile (3,000 hour) interval.

Medium and heavy HDDEs ........... EGR system (except filters and

coolers).

Increase from 50,000 miles (1,500 hours) to 150,000 miles (4,500

hours).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54701

19 40 CFR 86.094–2(f).

20 40 CFR 86.094–25(b)(6)(ii)(C).

21 40 CFR 86.094–25(b)(6)(iii).

22Engine Switching Fact Sheet, April 2, 1991.

Docket A–95–27, II–B–6.

23 ‘‘Interim Tampering Enforcement Policy’’,

Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A.,

June 25, 1974. Docket A–95–27, II–B–5.

TABLE 1—CHANGES TO MINIMUM EMISSION-RELATED MAINTENANCE INTERVALS—Continued

Intended service class Component or system Change to minimum maintenance interval

—Add-on emission-related components.

—Catalytic converter

Establish 150,000 mile (4,500 hour) interval.

3. Emissions Defect and Performance

Warranties

Currently, the emissions defect and

emissions performance warranty

periods are specified in hours and miles

intervals. The regulations also provide

that the warranty periods for highway

HDEs may in no case be less than the

manufacturer’s basic mechanical

warranty period for the engine family.19

However, manufacturers often provide

extended warranties for individual

engines. EPA proposed that the

warranty period be at least as long as the

basic mechanical warranty of the

engine, whether it be the published

warranty for the engine family or a

longer warranty provided to the engine

purchaser. In response to comments,

EPA is revising the regulations

regarding the warranty period as

follows. The warranty period shall not

be less than the basic mechanical

warranty of the particular engine as

provided to the purchaser. Thus, the

warranty shall be longer than that

published for the engine family in cases

where a manufacturer provides to the

customer a longer basic mechanical

warranty for a particular engine.

Extended warranties on select parts do

not extend the emissions warranty

requirements for the entire engine but

only for those parts. Also, in cases

where responsibility for an extended

mechanical warranty is shared between

the owner and the manufacturer, the

manufacturer is responsible only for

their share of the emissions warranty

per the warranty agreement. These

changes to the warranty provisions

apply to both diesel and otto-cycle

engines.

4. Additional Manufacturer

Requirements

EPA proposed modest new

manufacturer requirements which may

increase the likelihood of emissions

related maintenance being performed

when needed after the end of the

engine’s useful life by providing

information to the vehicle owner. EPA

received only supportive comments on

these proposals. Therefore, all of the

following manufacturer requirements

are being finalized as proposed for both

diesel and otto-cycle engines.

Engine manufacturers provide owners

with manuals specifying maintenance

needed to ensure proper engine

operation. Starting in 2004, EPA is

requiring that manufacturers include in

the engine service manual, maintenance

which may be needed for emissions

related components after the end of the

engine’s regulatory useful life, including

mileage/hours intervals and procedures

for determining whether or not

maintenance or repair is needed. The

recommended practices must also

include instructions for accessing and

responding to any emissions-related

diagnostic codes that may be stored in

on-board monitoring systems. The

recommended maintenance practices

may be based on engineering analysis or

other sound technical rationale. In the

event that an emission-related

component is designed not to need

maintenance during the full life of the

vehicle, the manual would need to

contain, at a minimum, a description of

the component, noting its purpose, and

a statement that the component is

expected to last the life of the vehicle

without maintenance or repair. In

addition, manufacturers are required to

include in the manual the rebuild

provisions being adopted by the

Agency, as described below, to ensure

that owners and rebuilders are aware of

the requirements.

Under existing regulations,

manufacturers must ensure that critical

emissions-related scheduled

maintenance has a reasonable likelihood

of being performed in-use.

Manufacturers may elect to provide

such assurance by using some form of

on-board driver notification when

maintenance is needed on a critical

emission related component.20 The

signal may be triggered either based on

mileage intervals or component failure.

It is currently considered a violation of

the Clean Air Act’s prohibition on

tampering (Section 203(a)(3)) to disable

or reset the signal without also

performing the indicated maintenance

procedure.21

EPA is finalizing a requirement that

manufacturers of 2004 and later model

year engines electing to use such signal

systems to ensure that critical

emissions-related maintenance has a

reasonable likelihood of being

performed must design the systems so

that they do not cease to function at or

beyond the end of the regulatory useful

life. For example, if the signal is

designed to be actuated based on

mileage intervals, it must be designed to

continue to signal the driver at the same

intervals after the end of the useful life.

EPA will not, however, hold the

manufacturer responsible or liable for

recall due to signal failure in instances

where the signal fails to function as

designed beyond the end of the useful

life. Manufacturer recall liability is

limited to failures during the regulatory

useful life under section 207 of the

Clean Air Act. (The manufacturer is also

not responsible for repairs when the

signal does function after the end of the

useful life unless such repairs are

covered by the emission warranty.)

5. Engine Rebuilding Provisions

Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) states

that it is prohibited for ‘‘any person to

remove or render inoperative any device

or element of design installed on or in

a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

engine’’ in compliance with regulations,

either before or after its sale and

delivery to the ultimate purchaser. 42

U.S.C. 7522 (a)(3)(A). EPA commonly

refers to violations of this provision of

the Clean Air Act as tampering. Engine

rebuilding practices are currently

addressed in general terms under EPA

policies established under Clean Air Act

section 203(a)(3) regarding tampering.

The Agency has established a policy

that when switching heavy-duty engines

the new engine must be ‘‘identical to a

certified configuration of a heavy-duty

engine of the same or newer model

year’’.22 EPA has also established

policies regarding the use of aftermarket

parts during rebuild.23 EPA is codifying

these policies as they apply to engine

rebuilding, and also finalizing new

measures, as follows, for both diesel and

otto-cycle engines.
54702 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Under the regulatory provisions

finalized today, parties involved in the

process of rebuilding or

remanufacturing model year 2004 and

later engines (which may include the

removal of the engine, rebuilding,

assembly, reinstallation and other acts

associated with engine rebuilding) must

follow the provisions described below

to avoid the actions being characterized

as tampering with the engine and its

emissions controls:

(1) During engine rebuilding, parties

involved must have a reasonable

technical basis for knowing that the

rebuilt engine is equivalent, from an

emissions standpoint, to a certified

configuration (i.e., tolerances,

calibrations, specifications) and the

model year(s) of the engine

configuration must be identified. A

reasonable basis would exist if:

(a) Parts used when rebuilding an

engine, whether the part is new, used,

or rebuilt, is such that a person familiar

with the design and function of motor

vehicle engines would reasonably

believe that the part performs the same

function with respect to emissions

control as the original part, and

(b) Any parameter adjustment or

design element change is made only (i)

in accordance with the original engine

manufacturer’s instructions or (ii) where

data or other reasonable technical basis

exists that such parameter adjustment or

design element change, when performed

on the engine or similar engines, is not

expected to adversely affect in-use

emissions.

(2) When an engine is being rebuilt

and remains installed or is reinstalled in

the same vehicle, it must be rebuilt to

a configuration of the same or later

model year as the original engine. When

an engine is being replaced, the

replacement engine must be an engine

of (or rebuilt to) a configuration of the

same or later model year as the original

engine.

(3) At the time of rebuild, emissionsrelated codes or signals from on-board

monitoring systems may not be erased

or reset without diagnosing and

responding appropriately to the

diagnostic codes, regardless of whether

the systems are installed to satisfy EPA

requirements under 40 CFR 86.094–25

or for other reasons and regardless of

form or interface. Diagnostic systems

must be free of all such codes when the

rebuilt engines are returned to service.

Further, such signals may not be

rendered inoperative during the

rebuilding process.

(4) When conducting an in-frame

rebuild or the installation of a rebuilt

engine, all emissions-related

components not otherwise addressed by

the above provisions must be checked

and cleaned, repaired, or replaced

where necessary, following

manufacturer recommended practices.

Any person or entity engaged in the

process, in whole or in part, of

rebuilding engines who fails to comply

with the above provisions shall be liable

for tampering in violation of CAA

section 203(a)(3). Parties are responsible

for the activities over which they have

control and as such there may be more

than one responsible party for a single

engine in cases where different parties

perform different tasks during the

engine rebuilding process (e.g., engine

rebuild, full engine assembly,

installation). EPA is not finalizing any

certification or in-use emissions

requirements for the rebuilder or engine

owner.

In response to comments, EPA has

removed proposed provisions requiring

that the rebuilder or remanufacturer

rebuild engines to the same or newer

model year configuration when the

engine is not going to be placed back

into the original vehicle. EPA has also

modified rebuild provision (2) which, in

the proposal, read ‘‘A replacement

engine must be of (or rebuilt to) a

configuration of the same or later model

year engine. Thus, in addition, under

the proposed regulations a party

supplying a rebuilt engine would be

prohibited from supplying a

replacement engine that is not rebuilt to

a configuration of the same or later

model year as the trade-in engine.’’

Provision (2) was modified because the

language regarding ‘‘a party supplying a

rebuilt engine’’ could be construed to

mean an engine remanufacturer or other

party not working directly with the

vehicle. EPA believes that parties not

working directly with the vehicle

should not have an obligation to ensure

that the correct engine is placed in the

vehicle.

EPA is adopting minor recordkeeping

requirements which EPA believes are

in-line with customary business

practices and which will assist EPA in

assessing compliance with the new

rebuild provisions. The records shall be

kept by persons involved in the process

of heavy-duty engine rebuilding or

remanufacturing and shall include the

mileage and/or hours at time of rebuild

and a list of the work performed on the

engine and related emission control

systems including a list of replacement

parts used, engine parameter

adjustments, design element changes,

emissions related codes and signals that

are responded to and reset and the

response to the signals and codes, and

work performed as described in item (4)

of the rebuild provisions above. EPA is

requiring such records to be kept for two

years after the engine is rebuilt.

Parties may keep the information in

whatever format or system they choose,

provided that the information can be

understood by an EPA enforcement

officer. Parties are not required to keep

information that they do not have access

to as part of normal business practices.

If it is customary practice to keep

records for engine families rather than

specific engines, where the engines

within that family are being rebuilt or

remanufactured to an identical

configuration, such recordkeeping

practices would satisfy these

requirements. Rebuilders can use

records such as build lists, parts lists,

and engineering parameters that they

keep for the engine families being

rebuilt rather than on individual

engines, provided each engine is rebuilt

in the same way to those specifications.

In addition, rebuilders are not required

to keep information on each individual

emissions related diagnostic code that

might be reset if the codes are always

addressed through a set of uniform

procedures that are followed during the

rebuilding process. For example, if an

engine is equipped with a sensor that

monitors the EGR flow rate, the

rebuilder may keep on record the

specifications and procedures used to

rebuild the EGR system in all instances.

EPA expects that engine

remanufacturers currently keep these

types of records in order to control the

quality of their products.

In the NPRM, EPA explained that it

was considering adopting minor

recordkeeping requirements in the final

rule. In response to comments, EPA has

modified the contemplated

recordkeeping requirements to: (1)

Further clarify that records may be kept

on an engine family basis, (2) allow

parties to keep information in whatever

format or system they choose, provided

that the information can be understood

by an EPA enforcement officer, and (3)

not require parties to keep information

that they do not have access to as part

of normal business practices.

C. Revised Averaging, Banking, and

Trading Provisions

EPA is finalizing with revisions

various modifications to the ABT

program. EPA believes this program is

an important element in making the

stringent emissions standards adopted

today appropriate with regard to

technological feasibility, lead time, and

cost. The ABT program provides

important flexibility to manufacturers,

helping them to transition their entire

product lines to the new standards. The

ABT program also encourages the early
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54703

introduction of cleaner engines, thus

securing earlier emissions benefits. The

modified ABT program being

implemented by EPA for 1998 and later

model year engines applies only to

diesel cycle engines. EPA proposed but

is not finalizing the modified ABT

program for otto-cycle engines. (The

ABT program implemented in 1990

remains in effect for otto-cycle engines).

The provisions being finalized for the

modified ABT program are described

below. As proposed, the modified

program and current program are

separate and engines cannot participate

in both programs. Credits generated

under the modified program may be

used only in 2004 and later model years.

As was proposed, credits generated

between 1998 and 2003 are based on

NOX only, not NMHC+NOX, and are

calculated against the 4.0 g/BHP-hr NOX

emission standard. Diesel PM credits are

based on reductions beyond the 0.10 g/

BHP-hr emission standard for truck

engines and the 0.05 g/BHP-hr emission

standard for urban buses. Credits earned

under the modified program may be

transferred to the current program but

would then be subject to the current

program’s credit life limit of three years

from model year of generation and a

one-time 20 percent discount.

For the modified program between

1998 and 2003, for engine families

certified at NOX levels ≤3.5 g/BHP-hr,

no discount will be applied to any NOX

or PM credits generated for banking or

trading. For engine families certified at

NOX levels above 3.5 g/BHP-hr, a onetime 10 percent discount will be applied

to all credits generated for banking and

trading against the model year 2004

standards, both NOX and PM. For

example, if an engine family is certified

to a NOX level of 3.7 in the modified

program, the manufacturer will earn

only 0.27 g/bhp-hr (0.3x.9) credit for use

in meeting the 2004 standard. The credit

life for credits under the modified

program is unlimited.

Beginning in 2004, the form of the

standard changes from separate HC and

NOX standards to a combined

NMHC+NOX standard. Therefore,

starting in 2004, credits will be based on

combined NMHC+NOX values.

NMHC+NOX credits will be generated

against the 2.4 g/BHP-hr standard.

Diesel PM credits will continue to be

generated against the 0.10 g/BHP-hr

emission standard for truck engines and

the 0.05 g/BHP-hr emission standard for

urban buses. For engine families

certified with NMHC+NOX levels at or

below 1.9 g/BHP-hr, credits will not be

discounted. Credits for banking and

trading will be discounted by 10 percent

for engines with certification levels

above 1.9 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOX with

the following exception: carry-over

engine families certified prior to 2004

with NOX+NMHC certification levels

below the 2004 standards may earn

undiscounted credits through model

year 2006. For model year 2007 and

thereafter, the 10 percent discount

applies. As with credits generated in the

modified program prior to 2004, there

will be no limit on credit life for credits

generated after 2004 under the modified

program. As proposed, the upper limits

for NMHC+NOX and PM certification

will be 4.5 g/BHP-hr and 0.25 g/BHP-hr,

respectively. That is, no engine family

may use credits to establish FELs above

either of these levels.

For reasons discussed later in this

document, as well as in the Summary

and Analysis of Comments, the

provisions regarding credit life and

discounting differ somewhat from those

proposed. EPA proposed no discounting

or credit life limits for the modified

program. EPA also proposed that the

modified program end in 2007 and that

all credits thereafter would be generated

under the current program which

includes a one-time discount of 20

percent and a three year credit life limit.

Under the final rule, the modified

program does not end in 2007, but

continues indefinitely. In addition, as

noted above, credits for engine families

certified above the appropriate trigger

level will have a 10 percent discount.

There are several other provisions

which apply to the modified program

beginning in model year 1998. First, as

proposed, EPA is eliminating the ‘‘buy

high-sell low’’ conversion factor

provision of 86.094–(c)(2) and replacing

it with the production-weighted average

value. Under the current buy high-sell

low provision, families generating

credits use the lowest horsepower

configuration factor and those using

credits use the highest horsepower

configuration factor in the formula to

establish the number of credits

generated or used. In the modified

program, the production-weighted

average value will be used in both cases.

Second, because the 2004 standards

apply in all fifty states, beginning in

2004, the California and federal

programs will harmonize and ABT will

be applicable to all federal

certifications. Third, EPA is finalizing

provisions to allow manufacturers the

option to make the NOX and PM credits

generated by their engines available to

other persons for use outside the ABT

program instead of limiting credits to

only manufacturers.

Based on comments received EPA is

not finalizing two provisions which had

been proposed. First, EPA is not

finalizing its proposal for pre-2004

model years to allow NOX credits to be

generated based on a useful life of

435,000 miles while retaining the actual

useful life for the engine family at

290,000 mile interval for all other

program purposes. EPA proposed to

allow manufacturers to establish an FEL

based on simple extrapolation of the

deterioration factor for NOX from

290,000 miles to 435,000 miles and earn

credits up to 435,000 miles without

incurring any additional in-use liability

for the mileage between 290,000 mile

and 435,000 miles. Because EPA is not

finalizing the proposed change, all

credits must be based on the useful life

of the engine family, which is the

current Agency requirement.

Manufacturers wanting to generate

credits up to 435,000 miles will be

required to establish the 435,000 mile

interval as the official useful life for the

engine family. Second, EPA is not

finalizing its proposal to require a

compliance margin (i.e., the difference

between the engine certification level

and the FEL) of at least 5 percent under

the modified ABT program. All of the

above changes to the modified ABT

program are being made for the reasons

explained in the Summary and Analysis

of Comment document for this rule.

D. Display of OMB Control Numbers

EPA is also amending the table of

currently approved information

collection request (ICR) control numbers

issued by OMB for various regulations.

This amendment updates the table to

accurately display those information

requirements contained in this final

rule. This display of the OMB control

numbers and their subsequent

codification in the Code of Federal

Regulations satisfies the requirements of

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and OMB’s implementing

regulations at 5 CFR 1320.

The ICR was previously subject to

public notice and comment prior to

OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds

that there is ‘‘good cause’’ under section

553(b)(B) of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to

amend this table without prior notice

and comment. Due to the technical

nature of the table, further notice and

comment would be unnecessary.

IV. Public Participation

Following the NPRM, EPA held a

public hearing on August 12, 1996, and

accepted written comments on the

proposals. This preamble section

provides an overview of certain key

issues raised in the NPRM, a summary

of comments on these issues, and EPA’s

response to the comments, including
54704 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

24 ‘‘EPA Staff Observations from Recent Air

Quality Modeling,’’ Memorandum from Norm

Possiel to Tad Wysor, August, 1997.

25Also see EPA’s notice of denial of API petition

for reconsideration of the Phase II reformulated

gasoline NOX standard. (62 FR 11346 (March 12

1997)).

any significant changes to the

rulemaking as a result of the comments.

For EPA’s detailed analysis of the

comments received on the NPRM, the

reader is directed to the Summary and

Analysis of Comments document for the

rulemaking. For information on how to

obtain copies of the public hearing

transcript, written comments, and the

Summary and Analysis of Comments

document, please see the ADDRESSES

section above.

A. EPA’s Air Quality Justification for the

Proposed Program

In the NPRM, EPA expressed its belief

that improvements in air quality in

many parts of the country will continue

to be necessary in the future.

Specifically, the Agency presented the

results of analyses indicating that the

emissions of key pollutants can be

expected to increase without further

controls and that air quality (in the case

of both ozone and particulate matter) is

likely to worsen as a result. In proposing

new standards for highway HDEs, the

Agency relied on these projections in

concluding that it should proceed with

regulatory action as soon as possible.

Some commenters questioned this

conclusion, disputing whether the

available information in fact justifies

establishing new standards for highway

HDEs. Others argued the opposite—that

immediate action is indeed justified.

Those questioning EPA’s analysis raised

several issues. First, some commenters

argued that currently available

computer modeling is not of sufficient

quality to draw conclusions about the

future need for NOX control. Second,

several commenters had differing

opinions about how much EPA national

ozone reduction policy should be

affected by the fact that NOX reductions

can cause increases in ozone under

localized conditions. EPA stated its

belief in the proposal that the large

expected benefits of NOX control over

broad areas within and surrounding

nonattainment areas should be pursued

even if these NOX reductions have a

neutral or negative effect in localized

portions of some nonattainment areas.

Third, one commenter presented an

analysis of ozone monitors concluding

that the number of national ozone

exceedances has been steadily

decreasing over time (when adjusted for

ambient temperatures). These issues are

discussed below.

1. Modeling

The emissions and air quality

modeling to which the commenters refer

falls into two related categories that are

generally performed sequentially. The

first major step is to develop emission

inventories simulating the atmospheric

loading of ozone precursors in future

years. These inventories are useful for

projecting trends in emissions over time

and for understanding the relative

importance of various emission sources.

The second major step is to input

specially prepared inventories into a

complex grid-based air quality model

which simulates the photochemistry of

ozone formation over a geographic area

for the same future years. Modelers have

been able to gradually improve the

quality of both of these types of

modeling over many years, and

improvements continue.

As discussed more fully in the

Summary and Analysis of Comments

document, EPA believes that the

available computer modeling of

emissions and air quality, while of

necessity complex and continually

undergoing improvement, clearly

provides a legitimate basis for today’s

rule. The Agency believes that its

modeling projects with reasonable

accuracy that, absent new control

programs, NOX emissions would

increase in the future and that the

expected result would be increased

ozone problems for many areas.

2. Possible Ozone Increases From NOX

Reduction

In the ANPRM and NPRM, EPA

discussed the well known phenomenon

that reducing NOX emissions in a local

area may in certain circumstances result

in an increase in ozone in limited parts

of the area. Some commenters suggested

that, as a result of this phenomenon, any

proposed action to reduce NOX

emission would be unwise or

premature. After consideration of all

comments received on this subject, EPA

believes that nothing in the comments

warrants a different course of action

than that proposed by the Agency. In

fact, air quality modeling work done

since the analysis presented in the

NPRM shows that the Agency’s

justification for pursuing the proposed

program is appropriate.

The OTAG addressed the complex

issue of regional impacts due to

transport of NOX and VOC emissions.

The OTAG modeling results indicate

that urban NOX reductions produce

widespread decreases in ozone

concentrations on high ozone days. In

addition, urban NOX reductions also

produce limited increases in ozone

concentrations locally, but the

magnitude, time, and location of these

increases generally do not cause or

contribute to high ozone concentrations.

Most urban ozone increases modeled in

OTAG occur in areas already below the

ozone standard and, thus, in most cases,

urban ozone increases resulting from

NOX reductions do not cause

exceedance of the ozone standard. There

are a few days in a few urban areas

where NOX reductions are predicted to

produce ozone increases in portions of

an urban area with high ozone

concentrations. In these circumstances,

additional VOC control measures may

be needed to offset associated ozone

increases due to NOX emissions

decreases in local areas.

Nonetheless, modeling analyses

conducted as part of the OTAG process

indicated that, in general, NOX

reduction disbenefits are inversely

related to ozone concentration. On the

low ozone days leading up to an ozone

episode (and sometimes the last day or

so) the increases are greatest, and on the

high ozone days, the increases are least

(or nonexistent); the ozone increases

occur on days when ozone is low and

the ozone decreases occur on days when

ozone is high. This indicates that, in

most cases, urban ozone increases may

not produce detrimental effects. Overall,

OTAG modeling thus demonstrates that

the ozone reduction benefits of NOX

control outweigh the disbenefits of

urban ozone increases in both

magnitude of ozone reduction and

geographic scope.

The Agency has concluded that the

overall benefit of large regional

reductions in NOX, like those that

would occur with the HDE standards

finalized today, warrant such controls

even where localized ozone increases

may occur.24 25

3. Trends in Ozone Levels

EPA is aware of data indicating

gradual improvements in ozone levels

over the past several years. The Agency

attributes this apparent trend to the

success of past NOX and VOC control

programs. Since the Agency has

concluded that NOX levels will continue

downward for several years but then

level off and begin to rise, the welcome

downward trend in ozone cannot,

unfortunately, be expected to continue

without new emission reductions. EPA

does not agree with the commenter that

the current trends indicate that new

NOX control programs are not necessary.

Rather, these data help show that NOX

control can be very effective in reducing

ozone. Moreover, the data reinforce

EPA’s belief (as discussed in Section II.

above) that there will likely be an
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54705

26Benefits of Mobile Source NOX Related

Particulate Matter Reductions, October 1996, EPA

Contract No. 68–C5–0010.

upward trend in NOX emissions and

ozone in the future if further NOX

controls are not implemented. The

Agency believes, therefore, that further

NOX controls, including the HDE

standards issued today, must be

vigorously pursued.

B. Level of Standards

1. Diesel Engines—NOX Plus NMHC

EPA proposed a combined

NMHC+NOX standard of 2.4 g/bhp-hr

with an option to manufacturers of 2.5

g/bhp-hr with a NMHC cap of 0.5 g/bhphr. The emission standards proposed in

the NPRM for diesel-cycle engines were

based on what EPA considered to be the

greatest achievable reductions from

technology expected to be available in

2004, giving appropriate consideration

to cost, energy, and safety. Commenters

showed general support for the

alternative NMHC+NOX standards

proposed by EPA. The manufacturers

commented that the proposed

NMHC+NOX standards will be feasible

for most highway heavy-duty diesel

engines in 2004, provided that PM

standards do not change. Manufacturers

expressed specific support for the

standards as they were proposed,

including the optional 2.5 g/bhp-hr

standard with 0.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC cap.

EPA did not receive comment

recommending another level for the

standard for diesel engines.

Based on current information, EPA

has determined that the proposed

revision of NOX and NMHC standards is

appropriate for 2004. The assessment of

feasibility in the NPRM remains

unchanged. An overview of the engine

changes manufacturers are expected to

make to meet the standards can be

found in the Economic Impact

discussion later in the preamble and in

the Regulatory Impact Analysis.

2. Highway Diesel Engine—PM

In the NPRM, EPA proposed to leave

the diesel engine PM standards at their

current levels: 0.10 g/bhp-hr for truck

engines and 0.05 g/bhp-hr (0.07 in-use)

for urban buses. State, health, and

environmental groups were unanimous

in their comments exhorting EPA to

move forward with additional control of

diesel PM from on-highway heavy-duty

diesel engines. These commenters

focused on the need for control of diesel

PM in the context of health effects from

PM exposure and EPA’s recent proposal

to revise the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard for PM. The groups

also noted that the urban bus standard

for PM was 0.05 g/bhp-hr and argued

that all diesel HDEs could meet that

level. In contrast, the manufacturers

commented that even meeting the

current diesel PM standards while

reducing NOX emissions by 50 percent

presents a significant technical

challenge. The manufacturers

commented that further reduction in the

PM standard would threaten the overall

feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the

2004 NMHC plus NOX standards. In the

case of urban buses, manufacturers

asked for a relaxation in the level of the

PM standard to be able to meet the new

levels for NMHC+NOX emissions.

EPA understands the concerns that

have been raised by the state,

environmental, and health commenters

and has an interest in pursuing further

control of PM emissions if appropriate.

As discussed in more detail above and

in the Regulatory Impact Analysis, PM

emissions can cause risks to public

health and welfare, including a range of

respiratory illnesses and aggravation of

cardiovascular disease. EPA is

reviewing and will continue to review

many strategies for reducing harmful

emissions of PM, including reduction of

emissions from internal combustion

engines. In fact, the reductions in NOX

emissions resulting from this rule will

significantly lower secondary formation

of nitrate PM. 26

However, based on the information

available today and the statutory factors

set forth in section 202(a)(3)(A) of the

Clean Air Act, EPA has determined that

the current diesel PM standards are the

lowest appropriate levels in 2004 in the

context of an approximate 50 percent

reduction in NOX. Because of the tradeoff between NOX and PM emissions,

manufacturers will have to undertake

considerable effort to keep PM

emissions below the current standard

while essentially halving NOX

emissions. EPA cannot be certain at this

time that any further reductions in PM

emissions can be realized in manner

that is durable, reliable for the majority

of the fleet, and cost-effective. As

discussed below and in the Summary

and Analysis of Comments, the ability

of urban buses to meet a more stringent

standard for PM does not necessarily

mean that such a standard is feasible

and appropriate for all heavy duty

diesel engines.

Open issues regarding control

technology and strategy have

contributed to EPA’s decision not to

lower PM standards at this time. To

date, most medium heavy-duty and all

heavy heavy-duty diesel engine families

have been successful in meeting the

0.10 g/bhp-hr diesel PM standard using

in-cylinder or engine-based control

strategies. However, most of the light

heavy-duty diesel engines have

employed the use of aftertreatment

devices such as oxidation catalysts to

reach this level. All urban bus engines

have used aftertreatment to achieve the

applicable 0.05 g/bhp-hr diesel PM

standard, albeit at somewhat higher cost

and cost effectiveness values than for

truck engines. While there are clearly

different emission control strategy

philosophies among the manufacturers

and differences among engines

technologies that lead to these

variations in technological approach,

further work is needed to identify and

evaluate what set of control strategies

have the greatest potential to achieve

full life emission control at diesel PM

levels less than 0.10 g/bhp-hr while also

reducing NOX to approximately 2 g/bhphr. This ultimate set of strategies may

involve aftertreatment techniques

similar to those currently used on light

heavy-duty diesel engines and urban

buses or could be a technology still in

research and development. However, at

this time, it is uncertain whether

potential methods for reduction of PM

and NOX from heavy-duty engines are

capable of reducing emission levels for

the great majority of the heavy-duty

engine fleet below the standards

promulgated today in a manner that is

reliable for the full useful life of the

engines. Further discussion regarding

technological feasibility can be found in

the Summary and Analysis of

Comments and the Regulatory Impact

Analysis.

Closely related are the issues of cost

and cost effectiveness. The purchase

and operating cost implications of any

additional control technology must be

considered as part of further evaluation,

as should the cost-effectiveness of

further reductions in new engine

emission standards. This is best

evaluated in the context of the possible

control technologies as discussed above.

There are other open scientific and

technical issues that EPA plans to

consider prior to the 1999 review. One

issue is related to the form of the diesel

particulate standard. Current EPA diesel

particulate standards are based on mass

per unit work (g/BHP-hr), and EPA

continues to believe that this is the

appropriate form for setting standards.

Recently, an issue of a potential impact

of technology on particle size

distribution has arisen. Virtually all

diesel particulate matter has a diameter

less than 1.0 micron and is thus fully

respirable by humans. A recent study

sponsored by the Health Effects Institute

on two similar and recent engine

models (one of a later technology)
54706 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

27 K.J. Baumgard, J.H. Johnson, ‘‘The Effect of

Fuel and Engine Design on Diesel Exhaust Particle

Size Distributions,’’ Society of Automotive

Engineers, 960131, 1996.

indicated that while the total mass of

PM emissions was lower in the newer

technology engine, the remaining

particles from the new engine were

smaller in diameter and more

numerous. 27 The implications of this

information are not clear either with

regard to technology or health effects.

While EPA continues to believe that

mass-based emission standards for PM

are the most appropriate form, more

information on the impact of any

advanced engine and emission control

technology on diesel PM size, particle

count, and chemical constituents as

well as the health effects of any changes

in these particle characteristics would

be helpful.

Another issue is related to the

magnitude of the directly-emitted diesel

PM inventory and its relative air quality

impact. Unlike nonroad diesel engines

PM emissions, highway diesel engine

PM emissions have been controlled

since 1988, and current standards

require an 80 to 90 percent reduction

over uncontrolled levels. Nonetheless, it

is clear that control of diesel PM

emissions is important, and more data

on the percentage of highway engine

diesel PM in the various urban areas

and nonattainment area inventories and

the in-use performance of controlled

highway diesels would be helpful in

guiding the Agency’s future initiatives

with regard to potential highway diesel

engine PM control strategies. In any

case, tightening NOx standards alone

results in lower levels of ambient PM

due to the accompanying reduction in

secondary formation of nitrate PM, as

discussed elsewhere in this preamble.

EPA considers further control of

highway diesel engine PM emissions to

be an important air quality goal and

plans to further study these issues and

others over the next two years, and to

reassess the diesel PM standard in the

1999 review. In that context, EPA

encourages continued research and

development on PM control technology

and seeks input in all of the areas

described above.

Urban bus engines are and will

continue to be a special case because

they have unique operating

characteristics, are used in only a

limited range of vehicle applications,

and are treated differently than other

heavy duty engines under the Clean Air

Act. Urban buses experience a typical

duty cycle for which engines can

relatively easily be designed; other

heavy duty engines, in contrast, can be

applied to several different types of

truck applications and can experience a

much wider range of duty cycles. The

duty cycle that engines will see is

important because manufacturers must

design engines to meet the standards

over their full useful lives. Moreover,

the particular emphasis on PM

reductions in section 219 of the Act

indicates that Congress was especially

interested in such reductions from

urban bus engines and considered more

stringent standards appropriate for such

engines, even if costs are higher relative

to other HDEs. For these reasons, EPA

believes that the new NMHC+NOx

standard along with the more stringent

urban bus PM standard will be feasible

and appropriate for urban buses. As part

of the 1999 review, EPA will reevaluate

the appropriateness of the urban bus

standards.

3. Otto-Cycle Engines

In response to the ANPRM,

environmental groups provided

comments highlighting manufacturers’

certification data for the 1996 model

year, which included some engine

families with emission levels

considerably below the standards

proposed for the 2004 model year.

While EPA proposed to adopt more

stringent emission standards applicable

to both diesel and otto-cycle (which are

primarily gasoline-fueled) heavy-duty

engines, EPA also requested comment

on the possibility of adopting more

stringent emission standards for heavyduty gasoline engines. Certification data

for 1997 showed a larger number of

engine families emitting at or below the

2004 levels, with some engines certified

at emission levels only ten to twenty

percent of the 2004 emission standards.

At this point, EPA is not yet ready to

take final action on the issues associated

with otto-cycle HDEs and is not

finalizing any revised standards for

heavy-duty otto-cycle engines. EPA

intends to issue a Supplemental Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking to address

these engines specifically. A variety of

options are under consideration for

inclusion in the supplemental proposal.

First, as described in the initial

proposal, EPA may pursue a more

stringent numerical standard using the

existing test on an engine dynamometer.

Second, EPA will evaluate the

appropriateness of adopting emission

standards for some otto-cycle heavyduty vehicles based on testing with a

chassis dynamometer. Chassis testing,

and associated standards, could be

patterned after the program adopted by

the California Air Resources Board for

medium-duty vehicles. Alternatively,

EPA could develop a test and standard

using the chassis test cycle specified in

40 CFR Part 86, subpart M for heavyduty gasoline vehicles.

C. In-Use Emissions Control and

Compliance

1. In-Use Emissions Control Regulatory

Elements

The NPRM contained several

proposals which involved modifications

to existing regulations, including

regulations for the useful life of the

engine, emissions performance and

defect warranties, and maintenance

requirements. These proposals would

update the existing requirements, which

were established several years ago, to

better align them with current industry

experience of longer lasting engines.

EPA also proposed some elementary

provisions regarding engine rebuilding

to help ensure that rebuilding does not

result in the removal of emissions

control equipment or the reconfiguring

of the engine in a way that would result

in a significant increase in emissions.

EPA’s final actions on these items are

described in section III.B. of this

preamble. The reader is directed to the

Summary and Analysis of Comments for

a full discussion of comments received

by EPA on its in-use emissions related

proposals and EPA analysis and

response to those comments.

2. State Inspection and Maintenance

Programs

EPA noted in the preamble to the

NPRM its intention to develop a

guidance document for states to follow

in designing inspection and

maintenance programs for heavy-duty

trucks and buses. Several commenters

urged EPA to issue guidance to states

quickly regarding how to conduct in-use

inspection and maintenance programs.

Commenters noted that several states

and regions are working on in-use

emissions programs and EPA guidance

is critical to help ensure consistent

programs from state-to-state.

Commenters requested that EPA

evaluate the Society of Automotive

Engineers (SAE) test procedure J–1667

and move rapidly to endorse its use in

road-side smoke inspection programs.

State organizations recommended,

further, that EPA move to adopt the J–

1667 procedure or other short test

procedures as certification short test

procedures and develop correlations

between the short tests and the full

certification tests. This would allow

states and EPA to determine vehicle

compliance in the field. NESCAUM

noted that research is needed on the

relationship between smoke opacity and

particulate emissions. NRDC
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54707

28 ‘‘Guidance to States on In-use Smoke Test

Procedure For Highway Heavy-duty Diesel

Vehicles’’, United States Environmental Protection

Agency, April 3, 1997. Docket A–95–27.

29 ‘‘Developing an Understanding of In-use

Emissions from Heavy-duty Diesel Engines’’,

Memorandum of Understanding, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast States

for Coordinated Air Use Management, California

Air Resources Board, March 1997, Docket A–95–27.

commented that the smoke test will be

inadequate for verifying compliance

with the standard proposed in the rule.

EPA recognizes the importance of

providing guidance to states in these

matters. EPA has been working

informally with stakeholders including

representatives from States, the trucking

industry, engine manufacturers, and

EPA Regions, among others, in its

development of such guidance. As a

result of this effort, EPA has recently

issued guidance to states recommending

the SAE J–1667 test procedure for their

I/M programs.28 EPA plans to continue

working with stakeholders to address

other concerns related to the smoke test

procedure such as the establishment of

appropriate cut-points. The correlation

of test cycles, establishment of

certification short tests, and short tests

for emissions other than smoke

emissions, are complex in nature and

must be studied further. For these

reasons and also because I/M was not a

subject of any proposals in the NPRM,

the Agency is not adopting such

programs or requirements in this rule.

3. In-use Compliance Issues

EPA received comments in several

areas related to in-use emissions

control, but not related to any specific

proposals contained in the NPRM.

Several commenters expressed

substantial concern over what they

believe to be EPA’s lack of a practical

in-use compliance program for heavyduty engines. They contend that EPA

relies entirely on self certification and

selective enforcement audits for heavyduty compliance due to the

impracticality and high cost of in-use

engine testing. Commenters expressed

concern that a number of HDEs have

failed the SEA testing in recent years.

The commenters urged EPA to develop

an effective in-use compliance testing

program including a viable recall

program to ensure that engines comply

with applicable standards over their

useful lives. One commenter noted that

the threat of in-use deterioration will

increase as the standards are lowered.

Commenters recommended that the

Agency develop a supplemental

certification test, such as a loaded

chassis test, which could be used for inuse compliance and one commenter

urged the Agency commit to a schedule

for development and implementation.

EPA received comments urging the

Agency to adopt requirements for

manufacturers to install on-board

diagnostics (OBD) systems in heavyduty vehicles. Commenters believe that

OBD could be a valuable tool in

improving maintenance practices and

assessing the in-use performance of

heavy-duty engines. State organizations

who commented are interested in

having OBD systems available as a tool

for inspection and maintenance

programs.

EPA also received comment that a

more representative test cycle is a key

to controlling excess emissions

associated with high speeds and loads

typical of real world conditions not

currently represented in the federal test

procedure (i.e., off cycle emissions). The

commenter also believes that the

increasing use of onboard computers to

control the operation of engines further

exacerbates the need for different and

more variable test cycles. The

commenter notes that onboard

computers can be used to change the

engine operating conditions to optimize

fuel economy at the expense of

emissions in modes of operation that are

not well represented in the EPA test

procedure. The commenter urged EPA

to evaluate its current heavy-duty

engine test procedure and consider such

options as a random test cycle to

minimize the impact of off-cycle

emissions.

While EPA believes that the new

standards will achieve the emissions

reductions estimated in section II of this

preamble, EPA also recognizes that

improvements in the understanding of

in-use emissions and the need to

establish a viable in-use compliance

presence are essential. To address these

concerns EPA has recently engaged in a

number of activities to address in-use

emissions. EPA has signed a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with the California Air Resources Board

(ARB) and the Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management

(NESCAUM) to develop a better

understanding of in-use emissions from

heavy-duty vehicles.29

Under the context of this MOU, EPA

has recently implemented a small-scale

chassis-based screening program for inuse HDV’s that will establish a viable inuse compliance presence. The screening

program seeks to identify high emitting

engines or technologies, and the causes

of high emissions. The screening

program is initially focused on light

heavy-duty gasoline engines, although

EPA plans to work with ARB and

NESCAUM to expand the program to all

sectors of the on-highway heavy-duty

industry in the next several months and

include on-road emissions

measurements. Such a screening

program will allow EPA to identify

high-emitting engine families,

potentially signaling the need for recall

action under section 207 of the Clean

Air Act. In addition, the in-use

screening program will allow EPA to

enforce certain provisions of section 203

of the Act, including the prohibition

against manufacturer-designed strategies

or devices that defeat the operation of

the emissions control system, and the

prohibition against tampering with the

emissions control system. Lastly, the

screening program will allow EPA to

assess in-use deterioration of HDE’s by

testing trucks at various mileages.

Although the screening program will

also provide important information

regarding off-cycle emissions, EPA

understands that further work in this

area may be necessary to fully address

the off-cycle concern.

In addition to the screening program

and engine testing conducted under the

MOU, EPA will continue to work with

state groups and others to develop tools

for states to reduce in-use HDV

emissions. Many states are

implementing, or are considering

implementing, inspection and

maintenance (I/M) programs for HDV’s.

As noted above, EPA has recently issued

guidance regarding an in-use I/M smoke

test procedure, and plans to follow-up

that guidance with recommended pass/

fail cut-points. In addition, the EPA

plans to study the benefits and

feasibility of on-board diagnostics (OBD)

and other concepts that may prove to be

useful I/M tools.

EPA is also committed to working

with states and industry to implement a

voluntary retrofit program aimed at

reducing emissions from older in-use

vehicles that would be modeled after

EPA’s Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild

Program. Such a program could lead to

emission reductions from the in-use

fleet beyond those required by the

applicable standards through the retrofit

of advanced emission control

technologies.

In response to EPA and commenter

concerns about the growing number of

engines which fail SEA testing, EPA

believes that a viable long-term in-use

recall presence will provide the

necessary assurances that new

production engines will comply with

applicable standards. In the near-term,

EPA plans to engage the industry in

constructive dialogue aimed at better

understanding production processes

and variability, manufacturer-based
54708 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

production line testing programs, and

methodologies used determine

deterioration factors. Through these

discussions, EPA believes that

incremental improvements in SEA

performance can be achieved. EPA is

committed to further review of its

compliance programs, and revisions to

its regulatory programs if needed.

EPA believes that these near-term

actions will begin to address many of

the concerns raised by commenters with

respect to in-use emissions, and that

changes in the HDV compliance

program could result from these nearterm actions. In addition, continued

long-term study of in-use HDV

emissions will further enhance our

understanding and will provide a basis

for future programmatic, regulatory, or

other changes to ensure the emissions

reductions from more stringent

standards are reflected in the in-use

emissions from HDV’s.

D. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

As discussed above, EPA proposed a

modified ABT program as part of the

transition to more stringent emissions

standards for NOx and NMHC in 2004.

Many comments were received on the

ABT provisions of the NPRM. As

discussed in the Summary and Analysis

of Comments supporting this final rule,

EPA has considered the comments

received on the proposal and revised the

provisions as appropriate. The ABT

program EPA is implementing is

consistent with the goals of the ABT

concept as discussed in the NPRM. The

modified ABT program being

implemented in this rule provides the

manufacturers the incentive to achieve

improvements on current technology

and pull ahead 2004-era technology to

generate early emission reductions.

These early reductions provide a nearterm benefit to the environment and the

emission credits generated provide the

manufacturers significant compliance

flexibility. As stated by the

manufacturers, this compliance

flexibility is a significant factor in the

manufacturers’ ability to certify a full

line of engines in 2004 and helps to

allow implementation of the new more

stringent standard as soon as

permissible under the Clean Air Act.

1. Applicability

The NPRM proposed a modified ABT

program for both diesel and otto-cycle

engines. However, as noted above, EPA

received comment regarding whether

EPA’s proposed otto-cycle standards

and ABT provisions were appropriate.

As a result of EPA’s evaluation of these

comments, EPA is not promulgating

final standards for otto-cycle HDEs in

this rule. EPA is also not finalizing a

modified ABT program for otto-cycle

HDEs. EPA will address such standards

and ABT provisions in a Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

future. The modified ABT program

being implemented by EPA for 1998

through 2003 and the modified program

finalized for 2004 and later apply only

to diesel-cycle engines.

2. The Modified ABT Program DieselCycle Engines (1998–2003)

As will be discussed further below,

the current ABT program will be

retained for credit generation and use by

production otto-cycle engines and credit

use by diesel-cycle engines during the

1998–2003 model years. Effective for the

1998 model year, EPA is implementing

a modified certification ABT program

designed to help ensure compliance

with the NMHC+NOX and PM standards

beginning in 2004. The provisions of

this program are described below.

Credits generated under the modified

program may be used only in 2004 and

later model years. Manufacturers may

not use credits generated in the current

program on engines generating credits

under the modified program. However,

credits generated under the modified

program may be used before 2004,

subject to the regulatory provisions of

the current ABT program. As was

proposed, credits generated between

1998 and 2003 under this modified

program are based on NOX only and are

calculated against the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOX

emission standard. The NMHC levels of

most heavy-duty engines are well below

the present standard and would result

in windfall credits if the credit

calculation included NMHC. Diesel PM

credits are based on reductions beyond

the model year 0.10 g/bhp-hr emission

standard for truck engines and the 0.05

g/bhp-hr emission standard for urban

buses.

In the NPRM, EPA proposed that

there be no discounts for credits banked

under the modified program. However,

in response to comments and further

consideration by EPA on the best way

to align this program with the general

goals of the ABT program and other EPA

market incentive programs, EPA is

finalizing somewhat different

provisions. To better align the ABT

program with the goal of pull-ahead

technology, EPA has decided to

implement a trigger concept as a

mechanism to distinguish engine

families eligible for no discount. For

engine families certified at NOX levels

less than 3.5 g/bhp-hr NOX, no discount

will be applied to any NOX or PM

credits generated for banking. The 3.5 g/

bhp-hr cut-point was suggested by

commenters and EPA judges this level

to be a reasonable discriminator for

pull-ahead technology. It is similar in

stringency to the California LEV

standard for these engines and only

three federal 1997 heavy-duty diesel

families are certified below this level.

For engine families certified at NOX

levels above 3.5 g/bhp-hr, a 10 percent

discount will be applied to all credits

generated, both NOX and PM. EPA has

decided to retain a discount for this

portion of the program because smaller

incremental reductions such as this are

less likely to represent the pull-ahead

technology which ABT is designed to

encourage. These smaller credits

nonetheless represent early reductions

and are appropriate given the stringency

of the model year 2004 standard,

consistent with the ABT concept.

As was mentioned above, the

modified program includes a 10 percent

discount for engines certified above the

trigger. This level of discount was

selected based on a combination of

factors. Several commenters stated that

a discount should be retained, some

suggesting 10 percent, some implying

the current 20 percent level. Other

commenters supported the Agency’s

proposal to eliminate all credit

discounts. In attempting to design a

program which meets all of the goals of

ABT, the Agency selected 10 percent.

The manufacturers comments indicated

that a 20 percent discount was far too

large and created a significant

disincentive for the introduction of new

or improved technology. Conversely,

EPA believes that eliminating the

discount for all credits as was proposed

would have reduced the incentive to

develop and implement significantly

cleaner technology. A 10 percent

discount for credits generated at FELs

above 3.5 g/bhp-hr, strikes a balance

between these views, and aligns the

discount in the heavy-duty engine ABT

program with others in the mobile

source program such as the National

Low Emission Vehicle program.

Some commenters opposed allowing

PM credits to be generated and used in

the modified program because the PM

standard is not changing. In response,

EPA believes that it is appropriate to

include PM in the modified ABT

program. For most in-cylinder control

technologies, there is a strong inverse

relationship between NOX and PM

which makes it difficult to control both

pollutants at the same time. The control

technologies expected to be used to

reduce NOX to model year 2004 levels

are likely to increase PM. Therefore,

EPA believes that applying the ABT

modifications to PM as well as NOX

allows the manufacturer more flexibility
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54709

in addressing the technology issues

involved with reducing NOX emissions

to the NOX plus NMHC standard being

finalized in this rule, while maintaining

PM emissions at 0.10 g/bhp-hr. The

Agency has decided to apply the NOX

trigger to PM emissions because engines

generating PM credits at NOX levels

below the trigger in this time frame are

likely to employ new, or at least

significantly improved, PM control

technology, because of the natural tradeoff between NOX and PM emissions.

EPA proposed that the 3 year credit

life restriction in the current ABT

program not apply in the modified

program. After considering comments,

EPA is finalizing this provision as

proposed. Even though several

commenters believed that the credit life

limit should be retained, EPA believes

that an unlimited credit life is

consistent with the emission reduction

goal of ABT, not only because of the

increased manufacturer flexibility in

meeting the new standards but also

because it eliminates the ‘‘use or lose’’

aspect of the current program’s limit on

credit life, which creates the perverse

incentive for manufacturers to use

credits as quickly as possible. Unused

credits are extra emission reductions

beyond what the EPA regulations

require. The only concern with

unlimited credit life is that a

manufacturer could stockpile a large

number of credits and delay the

effectiveness of a new standard in the

future. This certainly would be a

concern in a situation where standards

are less stringent and not technologyforcing. However, 2.4 g/bhp-hr

NMHC+NOX and 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM

(0.05 g/bhp-hr for buses) are quite

challenging for diesel engines; EPA

expects most pre-2004 credits will be

needed in the first few years of the new

standard.

3. The Modified ABT Program 2004 and

Later

EPA proposed that the current

program be reinstated for 2007 and later

models years, including the 20 percent

discount and 3 year credit life. Some

commenters who opposed the modified

program urged the Agency to reinstate

the current program beginning in 2004.

Manufacturers argued that the current

program should not be reinstated

because the current program would

remove much of the incentive to pullahead technology in the post 2004 timeframe.

EPA considered the comments

carefully and decided to implement,

beginning in 2004, a modified program

which will fully and permanently

replace the current ABT program for

diesel-cycle engines, though with

significant changes from the proposal.

Many of the same concepts that appear

in the 1998–2003 ABT program will be

employed beginning in 2004, but

modifications have been made as

appropriate. Beginning in 2004, the

form of the standard changes from

separate HC and NOX standards to a

combined NMHC+NOX standard.

Therefore in 2004, credits will be based

on combined NMHC+NOX values. For

diesel engines, NMHC+NOX credits will

be generated against the 2.4 g/bhp-hr

standard. Diesel PM credits will

continue to be generated against the

0.10 g/bhp-hr emission standard for

truck engines and the 0.05 g/bhp-hr

emission standard for urban buses. For

the same basic reasons as laid out above,

the trigger concept will continue to be

applied to the discount for NMHC+NOX

and PM credits. This trigger will be set

at 1.9 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOX. There are

currently no diesel-fueled engines

certified even close to this level.

As above, there will be no limit on

credit life. Removing discounts and

credit life limits for the cleaner engines

will provide maximum incentive for the

development and introduction of

petroleum- and alternative-fueled

diesel-cycle engines with emission

levels approaching the 1.0 g/bhp-hr

NOX and 0.05 g/bhp-hr PM research

objectives of the 1995 SOP.

Credit use in 2004 and later years will

follow the same pattern as under the

current program. As proposed, the

upper limits for NMHC+NOX and PM

certification will be 4.5 g/bhp-hr and

0.25 g/bhp-hr, respectively. That is, no

engine family may be certified above

either of these levels using credits.

These limits provide the manufacturers

adequate compliance flexibility while

protecting against the introduction of

unnecessarily high emitting engines.

4. Other Changes for the Modified ABT

Program

Five other provisions were proposed

or were discussed with requests for

comment which impact the modified

ABT program. EPA is implementing

three of these and not finalizing two of

the proposed modifications.

Of the three being finalized, first, EPA

proposed to eliminate the ‘‘buy high—

sell low’’ provision of § 86.094–15(c)(2)

and to replace it with the productionweighted average value. Under this

existing provision, families generating

credits use the lowest horsepower

configuration factor and those needing

credits use the highest horsepower

configuration factor. In the modified

program the production-weighted

average value will be used in both cases,

as proposed. There was no adverse

comment on this change. The second

area relates to geographical

applicability. The 2004 standards apply

in all fifty states. California is not

included in the current ABT program

because they have a separate control

program. Beginning in 2004 the

California and federal programs will

harmonize and ABT will be applicable

for all federally certified HDEs without

restrictions based on geographical

limitations on the certificate. Prior to

2004, the current ABT program remains

limited to HDEs certified for sale

outside California. There was no

adverse comment on this issue.

The third change EPA is finalizing is

related to the ownership of credits. EPA

requested comment on the concept that

manufacturers be given the option to

make the NOX and PM credits generated

by their engines available parties other

than the manufacturers for use in other

programs. This provision was supported

by those who commented, so the

regulatory language accompanying the

rule includes provisions to permit

credits to be excluded from the ABT

program by the manufacturer in order to

be used by engine purchasers or other

parties, while preventing double

counting. The ability to transfer credits

out of this program does not of course

imply that these credits can be used

without restriction in other programs.

Credits purchased for use in other

programs must meet the use

requirements of the emission programs

for which they are purchased. For

example, local emission programs will

likely have limits on their geographic

scope which may limit the use of

emission credits that are used to trade

out of local emission requirements.

One provision not being finalized is

related to the impact of the change in

useful life for heavy heavy-duty diesel

engines in 2004 on credit generation

and use. The useful life value is a factor

in determining the amount of credits

earned or used by an engine family.

Beginning in 2004 for these engines, the

minimum useful life increases 50

percent from 290,000 miles to 435,000

miles. If a manufacturer uses the

minimum useful life value of 290,000

miles to calculate credits generated

prior to 2004, 50 percent more credits

will be needed in 2004 to cover an

engine certified with a useful life of

435,000 miles. EPA sought comments

on two options to address this issue for

NOX and PM. These included for NOX

allowing manufacturers to base their

FEL on an emission level determined

from a simple extrapolation of the

deterioration factor for NOX from

290,000 miles to 435,000 miles and to
54710 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

earn credits up to 435,000 miles. Under

such an approach, engine families

would continue to have a useful life of

290,000 miles and manufacturers would

be liable for emissions only up to the

end of the useful life. EPA also sought

comment on requiring manufacturers to

apply for a longer useful life under the

provisions of § 86.094–21(f) if they

wanted to earn NOX credits based on a

useful life of more than 290,000 miles.

This second option is allowed under the

current regulations. For PM, EPA did

not propose the use of the former

approach proposed for NOX credits,

only the latter approach, due to

concerns about the potential for

deterioration of PM emissions.

EPA received comments from

manufacturers supporting the simple

extrapolation of the NOX deterioration

factor for calculating credits and

comments arguing that PM deterioration

in in-use vehicles was negligible and

predictable and that the extrapolation

proposed for NOX should be extended to

PM. EPA also received comments that

the Agency should not allow credits to

be generated over a period where the

manufacturer is not liable for emissions

control.

As discussed in the Summary and

Analysis of Comments, EPA has decided

not to finalize the simple deterioration

factor extrapolation method for either

NOX or PM. In general, it would be

inconsistent with current EPA credit

program policy to allow credits without

accompanying liability, even if the

program is transitional. Furthermore, for

both NOX and PM there is some concern

that deterioration after the useful life

may not be linear, especially for engines

using EGR or aftertreatment. Therefore,

manufacturers desiring credits for the

longer useful life will have to certify to

the longer life for those pollutants as

allowed under § 86.094–21(f) of the

current regulations.

Finally, EPA is not finalizing the

mandatory compliance margin

provisions proposed in the NPRM. EPA

had proposed these provisions as a

means to address concerns that

compliance margins (the difference

between the family emission limit and

the certification level) had been

shrinking over time, and that the

modified ABT program could provide

an incentive to shave margins

inappropriately to gather additional

credits. One commenter provided

examples where margins were reduced

by manufacturers in order to earn

additional credits. Commenters

recommended margins of 10–15 percent

due to concerns over margin shaving.

Other commenters believed that the best

way to ensure that manufacturers set

appropriate margins would be through

the use of EPA’s audit and compliance

programs to target suspect engine

families. Manufacturers noted that they

can improve their manufacturing

processes to allow for small margins

while still complying with the FEL and

should not be penalized with a

mandatory compliance margin.

Valid comments were presented on

both sides of this issue, but the Agency

has concluded that the issue of the size

of the compliance margin is not solely

an ABT issue. Indeed, compliance

margins are important in non-ABT

families as well. Thus, the Agency has

concluded that any actions to address

this issue are better implemented as part

of improvements in the overall

compliance program, discussed above,

rather than as a regulatory fix in the

context of a modified ABT program.

Moreover, EPA’s final regulations,

which implement a discount on credits

earned by engine families that are less

than 0.5 g/bhp-hr below the applicable

NOX or NMHC+NOX standard should

reduce the concern evidenced in the

comments regarding the possibility that

the modified program will further erode

compliance margins.

V. Economic Impact and Costeffectiveness

The engine manufacturers, by signing

the Statement of Principles, have

committed themselves to challenging,

long-term design targets. This provides

manufacturers fully eight years to

allocate resources and conduct planning

for a very thorough long-term R&D

program. Manufacturers have expressed

a confidence that several years of

research will provide them opportunity

to develop a complying engine that they

can market with full confidence. EPA’s

analysis of the costs of complying with

the new standards anticipates a

significant degree of technological

development during this period.

The technologies described in the RIA

together show a good deal of promise for

controlling emissions, but also make

clear that much effort remains to

optimize for maximum emission-control

effectiveness with minimum negative

impacts on engine performance,

durability, and fuel consumption. On

the other hand, it has become clear that

manufacturers have a great potential to

advance beyond the current state of

understanding by identifying aspects of

the key technologies that contribute

most to hardware or operational costs or

other drawbacks and pursuing

improvements, simplifications, or

alternatives to limit those burdens. To

reflect this improvement and long-term

cost saving potential, the cost analysis

includes an estimated $270 million (net

present value in 1995) in R&D outlays

for heavy-duty engine emission control

over several years. The cost analysis

accordingly presumes extensive

improvements on the current state of

technology from these future

developments. The 1999 program

review provides an opportunity to

reassess EPA’s projected costs in light of

new information. EPA will revisit the

analysis of the full life-cycle costs as

part of the 1999 review. EPA and

manufacturers will then confirm

whether or not technology development

is progressing as needed to meet the

2004 model year emission standards.

In assessing the economic impact of

changing the emission standards, EPA

has used a current best judgement of the

combination of technologies that an

engine manufacturer might use to meet

the new standards at an acceptable cost.

Full details of EPA’s cost and costeffectiveness analyses, including

information not presented here, can be

found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis

in the public docket. EPA received a

variety of comments on the cost

analysis, either stating generally that the

estimated costs were too low or

recommending changes to specific

details of the analysis. EPA made

several minor changes to the analysis in

response to comments received on the

proposal. The most significant change

was to include a broader use of EGR

cooling. Further investigation of the

EGR and EGR cooling led to revised cost

estimates for those technologies. All the

comments related to the cost projections

and the associated changes are

described in the Summary and Analysis

of Comments.

Estimated cost increases are broken

into purchase price and total life-cycle

operating costs. The incremental

purchase price for new engines is

comprised of variable costs (for

hardware and assembly time) and fixed

costs (for R&D, retooling, and

certification). Total operating costs

include any expected increases in

maintenance or fuel consumption. Cost

estimates based on these projected

technology packages represent an

expected incremental cost of engines in

the 2004 model year. Costs in

subsequent years would be reduced by

several factors, as described below.

Separate projected costs were derived

for engines used in three service classes

of heavy-duty diesel engines. All costs

are presented in 1995 dollars. Life-cycle

costs have been discounted to the year

of sale.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54711

A. Engine Costs

It is difficult to make a distinction

between technologies that are needed to

reduce NOX emissions for compliance

with 2004 model year standards and

those technologies that offer other

benefits for improved fuel economy and

engine performance or for better control

of particulate emissions. This is because

several NOX control methods such as

the use of EGR can have negative

impacts on these items for which the

manufacturer must then compensate.

EPA believes that manufacturers, in the

absence of 2004 model year standards,

would continue research on and

eventually deploy numerous

technological upgrades to improve

engine performance or more costeffectively control emissions. EPA

therefore believes that a small set of

technologies represent the primary

changes manufacturers must make to

meet the 2004 model year standards.

Other technologies applied to heavyduty engines, before or after

implementation of new emission

standards, will make relatively minor

positive contributions to controlling

NOX emissions and are therefore

considered secondary improvements for

this analysis. In this category are design

changes such as improved oil control,

variable-geometry turbochargers,

optimized catalyst designs, and

variable-valve timing. Lean NOX

catalysts are also considered here to be

secondary technologies, not because

NOX control is an incidental benefit, but

rather because it is not clear at this time

that they will be part of 2004 model year

technology packages. Modifications to

fuel injection systems will also continue

independently of new standards, though

some further development with a focus

on reducing NOX emissions would be

evaluated.

Several technological improvements

are projected for complying with the

2004 model year emission standards.

The fact that manufacturers have several

years before implementation of the new

standards virtually ensures that the

technologies used to comply with the

standards will develop significantly

before reaching production. This

ongoing development will lead to

reduced costs in three ways. First,

research will lead to enhanced

effectiveness for individual

technologies, allowing manufacturers to

use simpler packages of emission

control technologies than we would

predict given the current state of

development. Similarly, the continuing

effort to improve the emission control

technologies will include innovations

that allow lower-cost production.

Finally, manufacturers will focus

research efforts on any drawbacks, such

as increased fuel consumption or

maintenance costs, in an effort to

minimize or overcome any potential

negative effects.

A combination of primary technology

upgrades are anticipated for the 2004

model year. Achieving very low NOX

emissions will require basic research on

reducing in-cylinder NOX and HC while

at least holding PM levels below 0.10

g/bhp-hr. Modifications to basic engine

design features can be used to improve

intake air characteristics and

distribution during combustion.

Manufacturers are also expected to

utilize upgraded electronics and

advanced fuel-injection techniques and

hardware to modify various fuel

injection parameters, including

injection pressure, further rate shaping

and some split injection. EPA also

expects that many engines will

incorporate cool EGR that is carefully

tailored to an engine’s different

operating modes.

If not developed and implemented

properly, EGR has the potential to

increase operating costs, either by

increasing fuel consumption or

requiring additional maintenance to

avoid accelerated engine or component

wear. While it is possible to develop

scenarios and estimate the impact on

operating costs of current diesel EGR

concepts, this is of minimal value due

to the expected continuing development

of these technologies. Nevertheless, EPA

has assessed the potential for increased

operating costs for EGR-related

maintenance and for fuel economy. EPA

understands that manufacturers will

make a great effort to minimize any

potential new maintenance burden for

the end user, investing in research to

design an engine acceptable to users.

The cost to address the durability

concern is therefore included both as a

maintenance item and as a fixed cost.

An additional maintenance cost is

anticipated for EGR systems—EPA

expects engine rebuilding will include

preventive maintenance to clean or

replace EGR components.

With respect to fuel economy, several

of the secondary technologies described

below may lead to cost savings, while

EGR has the potential to incur a fuel

economy penalty. As with potential new

maintenance cost burdens, EPA believes

manufacturers will focus their research

efforts on overcoming any negative

impact on fuel economy caused by EGR.

An EGR cooler, which EPA expects to

be commonly used, would alone

mitigate much of the potential increase

in fuel consumption caused by

recirculating exhaust gases. In light of

the potential fuel economy

improvements from some technologies

and the anticipated use of cooled EGR

systems, it would not be appropriate to

include a penalty for increased fuel

consumption as part of the cost analysis

at this time. EPA will reexamine this

issue as part of the 1999 review

analysis.

Meeting the new NOX+NMHC

standard will somewhat increase the

challenge to control particulate

emissions from diesel engines.

Manufacturers might use a variety of

technologies to maintain control of

particulate emissions; however, EPA

believes that the fuel system

improvements described above will be

sufficient to prevent any potential

particulate-emission increase while

meeting the target levels for NOX and

NMHC. In fact, manufacturers are

attempting to lessen the cost of meeting

current particulate emission standards

over the next several years by

decreasing their reliance on catalysts.

This underscores EPA’s belief that 2004

model year engines will be able to

control particulate emissions without

major technological innovation.

The costs of these new technologies

for meeting the 2004 model year

standards are itemized in the Regulatory

Impact Analysis and summarized in

Table 2. For light heavy-duty vehicles,

the cost of a new 2004 model year

engine is estimated to increase by $258;

operating costs over a full life-cycle

increase by about $7. For medium heavy

duty vehicles the purchase price of a

new engine is estimated to increase by

$397, with life-cycle operating costs

increasing $62. Similarly, for heavy

heavy-duty engines, the initial purchase

price is expected to increase by $467,

while estimated additional life-cycle

operating costs are $131.

For the long term, EPA has identified

various factors that would cause cost

impacts to decrease over time. First, the

analysis incorporates the expectation

that manufacturers will apply ongoing

research to making emission controls

more effective and less costly over time.

This expectation is similar to

manufacturers’ stated goal of decreasing

their reliance on catalysts to meet

emission standards in the future.

Research in the costs of manufacturing

has consistently shown that as

manufacturers gain experience in

production, they are able to apply

innovations to simplify machining and

assembly operations, use lower cost

materials, and reduce the number or
54712 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

30 ‘‘Learning Curves in Manufacturing,’’ Linda

Argote and Dennis Epple, Science, February 23,

1990, Vol. 247, pp. 920–924.

31The RIA contains a detailed description of areas

included in the regional control strategy.

32For further discussion of these benefits, the

reader is directed to Chapter 2 of the RIA.

33 ‘‘Benefits of Reducing Mobile Source NOX

Emissions,’’ prepared by ICF Incorporated for Office

of Mobile Sources, U.S. EPA, Draft Final, September

30, 1996.

complexity of component parts.30 The

analysis incorporates the effects of this

learning curve by projecting that the

variable costs of producing the lowemitting engines decreases by 20

percent starting with the third year of

production (2006 model year) and by

reducing variable costs again by 20

percent starting with the sixth year of

production. Finally, since fixed costs

are assumed to be recovered over a fiveyear period, these costs are not included

in the analysis after the first five model

years. Table 2 lists the projected

schedule of costs for each category of

vehicle over time.

TABLE 2—PROJECTED DIESEL ENGINE COST AND PRICE INCREASES

[1995 dollars discounted to year of sale]

Vehicle class Model year Purchase

price

Life-cycle operating cost

Light heavy-duty ................................................................................................................... 2004 .......................... 258 7

2009 and later ........... 109 7

Medium heavy-duty .............................................................................................................. 2004 .......................... 397 62

2009 and later ........... 136 62

Heavy heavy-duty ................................................................................................................. 2004 .......................... 467 131

2009 and later ........... 180 131

B. Aggregate Costs to Society

The above analysis develops pervehicle cost estimates for each vehicle

class. Using current data for the size and

characteristics of the heavy-duty vehicle

fleet and making projections for the

future, these costs can be used to

estimate the total cost to the nation for

the new emission standards in any year.

The result of this analysis is a projected

total cost starting at $270 million in

2004. Per-vehicle costs savings over

time reduce projected costs to a

minimum value of $140 million in 2009,

after which the growth in truck

population leads to an increase in costs

to $205 million in 2020. Total costs for

these years are presented by vehicle

class in Table 3. The calculated total

costs represent a combined estimate of

fixed costs as they are allocated over

fleet sales, variable costs assessed at the

point of sale, and operating costs as they

are incurred in each calendar year.

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS FOR IMPROVED HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES

[Millions of dollars]

Category 2004 2009 2020

Light heavy-duty ....................................................................................................................................... 71 41 49

Medium heavy-duty .................................................................................................................................. 64 26 38

Heavy heavy-duty ..................................................................................................................................... 107 56 93

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 242 123 180

C. Cost-effectiveness

EPA has estimated the per-vehicle

cost-effectiveness (i.e., the cost per ton

of emission reduction) of the NOX plus

NMHC standard over the typical

lifetime of heavy-duty diesel vehicles

covered by today’s rule. The RIA

contains a more detailed discussion of

the cost-effectiveness analyses. No

significant comments were received on

the cost-effectiveness analysis presented

in the proposal and the methodology for

estimating the cost-effectiveness

remains the same as used in the

proposal.

EPA has examined the costeffectiveness by two different

methodologies. The first methodology

yields a nationwide cost-effectiveness in

which the total cost of compliance is

divided by the nationwide emission

benefits. The second methodology

yields a regional ozone strategy costeffectiveness in which the total cost of

compliance is divided by the emission

benefits attributable to the regions that

impact ozone levels in ozone

nonattainment areas.31

In addition to the benefits of reducing

ozone within and transported into urban

ozone nonattainment areas, the NOX

reductions from the new engine

standards are expected to have

beneficial impacts with respect to crop

damage, secondary particulate, acid

deposition, eutrophication, visibility,

and forests.32 Due to the difficulty in

accurately quantifying the monetary

value of these societal benefits, the costeffectiveness values presented do not

assign any numerical value to these

additional benefits. However, based on

an analysis of existing studies that have

estimated the value of such benefits in

the past, the Agency believes that the

actual monetary value of the multiple

environmental and public health

benefits produced by the large NOX

reductions under this action will likely

be greater than the estimated

compliance costs.33

As described above in the cost

section, the cost of complying with the

standards will vary by model year.

Therefore, the cost-effectiveness will

also vary from model year to model

year. For comparison purposes, the

discounted costs, emission reductions

and cost-effectiveness of the standards

are shown in Table 4 for the same model

years discussed above in the cost

section. The cost-effectiveness results

contained in Table 4 present the range

in cost-effectiveness resulting from the

two cost-effectiveness scenarios

described above.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54713

34EPA Docket A–95–27, II-D–41.

35 ‘‘Industry Characterization: On-road Heavyduty Diesel Engine Rebuilders’’, ICF Incorporated,

Contract number 68–C5–0010, Work assignment

102, January 3, 1997, Docket A–95–27.

TABLE 4—DISCOUNTED PER-VEHICLE COSTS, EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NOX PLUS

NMHC STANDARD

Vehicle class Model year

Discounted

lifecycle

costs

Discounted lifetime

reductions (tons) Discounted costeffectiveness

($/ton) NOX NMHC

Light—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles .............................................. 2004 ...................... $265 0.242 0.003 $1,100–$1,200

2009 and later ...... 117 500

Medium—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles ......................................... 2004 ...................... 459 1.002 0.014 500

2009 and later ...... 198 200

Heavy—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles ............................................ 2004 ...................... 598 3.059 0.043 200

2009 and later ...... 311 100

All—Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles .................................................. 2004 ...................... 422 1.377 0.019 300

2009 and later ...... 202 100–200

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), the Agency must

determine whether this regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as any regulatory

action that is likely to result in a rule

that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, EPA has determined that

this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ because the standards and other

regulatory provisions have an annual

effect on the economy in excess of $100

million. A Regulatory Impact Analysis

has been prepared and is available in

the docket associated with this

rulemaking. This action was submitted

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review as required by

Executive Order 12866. Any written

comments from OMB and any EPA

response to OMB comments are in the

public docket for this rule.

B. Compliance With Regulatory

Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires federal agencies to identify

potentially adverse impacts of federal

regulations upon small entities. In

instances where significant impacts are

possible on a substantial number of

these entities, agencies are required to

perform a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis.

The Agency has determined that it is

not necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. The Agency has also

determined that the new emission

standards and related provisions will

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

since none of the engine manufacturers

affected by these regulations is a small

business entity (see Chapter 3 of the

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for the

rule).

This action also contains provisions

clarifying what would and would not be

considered a prohibited act (tampering)

under CAA Section 203 during the

heavy-duty engine rebuilding processes.

Also, the rule contains basic

recordkeeping requirements for

rebuilders which are consistent with

current customary rebuilding practices.

Small businesses are integral to the

heavy-duty engine rebuilding industry

as noted in comments provided by the

Automotive Engine Rebuilders

Association.34 However, EPA does not

believe that the requirements related to

engine rebuilding will have a significant

impact on a substantial number of these

small entities for the following reasons.

EPA is defining how a broad existing

requirement (CAA Section 203) applies

specifically to the process of rebuilding/

remanufacturing engines, but EPA is not

creating a new program. These

requirements are consistent with current

customary practices in this industry.

During the development of the proposal,

EPA consulted with the Engine

Manufacturers Association, the

Automotive Engine Rebuilders

Association, and the Production Engine

Rebuilders Association, associations

which together represent a substantial

portion of the engine rebuilding and

related businesses. These organizations

did not raise concerns that the proposal

may have a significant impact on small

businesses. Furthermore, organizations

representing small rebuilders submitted

only supportive comments during the

public comment period for the

rulemaking. Finally, an EPA contractor

conducted an industry characterization

which further supports that engine

rebuilding practices are consistent with

the requirements and would not be

changed as a result of the

requirements 35.

C. Compliance With Paperwork

Reduction Act

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this rule under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

control number 2060–0104.

EPA is finalizing requirements to

collect certification results, durability,

maintenance, and averaging, banking

and trading information, and is

formalizing recordkeeping procedures

for engine rebuilding companies which

are consistent with current industry

practices. This information will be used

to ensure compliance with and enforce

the provisions in this rule. Section 208

(a) of the CAA requires that

manufacturers provide information the

Administrator may reasonably require to

determine compliance with the

regulations, therefore submission of the
54714 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

information is mandatory. The

confidentiality of any information

submitted to EPA will be protected to

the full extent provided in 40 CFR Part

2.

EPA estimates the average first year

hours burden per response to be 4,670,

the frequency of response to be annual,

and the estimated number of likely

respondents to be twenty. EPA estimates

the aggregate first year hours burden to

be 93,410. EPA estimates the annual

first year cost to be $5,603,280,

including the annualized capital and

start-up costs. Subsequent year burdens

are estimated to be one-tenth of the first

year estimates due to the practice of

engine family carry-over from model

year-to-model year. Burden means the

total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide

information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review

instructions; develop, acquire, install,

and utilize technology and systems for

the purposes of collecting, validating,

and verifying information, processing

and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with

any previously applicable instructions

and requirements; train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter

15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR

Part 9 of currently approved ICR control

numbers issued by OMB for various

regulations to list the information

requirements contained in this final

rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104–

4, establishes requirements for Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

regulatory actions on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to state, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more for any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most cost

effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, or tribal governments. The

rule imposes no enforceable duties on

any of these governmental entities.

Nothing in the program would

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. EPA has determined that

this rule contains federal mandates that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more in any one year for the

private sector. EPA believes that the

program represents the least costly,

most cost-effective approach to

achieving the air quality goals of the

rule. EPA has performed the required

analyses. The reader is directed to the

Regulatory Impact Analysis for further

information regarding these analyses.

E. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Reform Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. OMB has

designated this a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Statutory Authority

Section 202(a)(3) authorizes EPA to

establish emissions standards for new

heavy-duty motor vehicle engines. See

42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(3). These standards

are to reflect the greatest reduction

achievable through the application of

technology which the Administrator

determines will be available, giving

appropriate consideration to cost,

energy, and safety factors associated

with the application of such technology.

This provision also establishes the lead

time and stability requirements for these

standards. Pursuant to Sections

202(a)(1) and 202(d), these emissions

standards apply for the useful life

period established by the Agency. See

42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(1), 7521(d). Other

provisions of Title II of the Act, along

with Section 301, are additional

authority for the measures finalized in

this action.

VIII. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

EPA hereby finds that these regulations

are of national applicability.

Accordingly, judicial review of this

action is available only by filing of a

petition for review in the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit within 60 days of

publication in the Federal Register.

Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the

requirements which are the subject of

today’s Notice may not be challenged

later in judicial proceedings brought by

EPA to enforce these requirements. This

rulemaking and any petitions for review

are subject to the provisions of section

307(d) of the Clean Air Act.

IX. Copies of Rulemaking Documents

Copies of documents related to this

rulemaking are available in the public

docket for the rule and over the internet

as described in the ADDRESSES section

above.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 86

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Incorporation by reference,

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: October 6, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54715

APPENDIX TO THE PREAMBLE—TABLE OF CHANGES MADE TO PART 9 AND SUBPARTS A AND N OF PART 86

Section Change Reason

1. § 9.1 .................. Revised to add OMB approval

numbers.

New OMB approval numbers.

1. Authority ............ None.

2. § 86.1 ................ Revised to add document reference.Updated ASTM methodology for significant digits.

3. § 86.098–3 ........ Revised to include new abbreviations.Add abbreviations for terms averaging, banking and trading and heavy-duty engines.

4. § 86.098–10 ...... Revision of references ............ Revise references to averaging, banking, and trading programs.

5. § 86.098–11 ...... Revision of references ............ Revise references to averaging, banking, and trading programs.

6. § 86.098–15 ...... Add § 86.098–15 ..................... Incorporation of revisions to NOX and particulate averaging, banking and trading programs.

7. § 86.098–23 ...... Revise § 86.098–23 ................ Incorporate changes due to new standards and ABT programs.

8. § 86.098–30 ...... Revise § 86.098–30 ................ Incorporate changes due to new ABT programs.

9. § 86.099–11 ...... Revise § 86.099–11 ................ Revise references to averaging, banking, and trading programs.

10. § 86.001–23 .... Revise § 86.001–23 ................ Incorporate references to § 98.098–23.

11. § 86.001–30 .... Revise § 86.001–30 ................ Incorporate references to § 98.098–30.

12. § 86.004–2 ...... Add § 86.004–2 ....................... Incorporation of new useful life for heavy heavy-duty diesel engines.

13. § 86.004–11 .... Add § 86.004–11 ..................... Incorporation of new NOX plus NMHC standards for diesel heavy-duty engines.

14. § 86.004–15 .... Add § 86.004–15 ..................... Incorporation of revisions to NOX and particulate averaging, banking and trading program.

15. § 86.004–21 .... Add § 86.004–21 ..................... Incorporate changes due to new standards and ABT programs.

16. § 86.004–25 .... Add § 86.004–25 ..................... Incorporation of revisions to maintenance requirements.

17. § 86.004–28 .... Revise § 86.004–28 ................ Incorporate changes in deterioration factors due to new standards and allow options to

NMHC measurement for diesel engines.

18. § 86.004–30 .... Revise § 86.004–30 ................ Incorporate changes due to new standards and ABT programs.

19. § 86.004–38 .... Add § 86.004–38 ..................... Incorporation of maintenance instruction requirements.

20. § 86.004–40 .... Add § 86.004–40 ..................... Incorporation of engine rebuild practices provisions.

21. § 86.1311–94 .. Revise Section 86.004–40(3) Incorporate allowance for direct NMHC measurement using a GC for NGVs.

22. § 86.1344–94 .. Revise Section 86.1344–

94(e)(22).

Incorporation of NMHC test data requirement.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, chapter I, title 40 is amended

as follows:

Part 9 [Amended]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. Section 9.1 is amended by adding

the new entries in numerical order

under the indicated heading to the table

to read as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

* * * * * * *

Control of Air Pollution From New and

In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and InUse Motor Vehicle Engines:

Certification and Test Procedures

86.004.38 .........................................2060–0104

86.004.40 .........................................2060–0104

* * * * *

PART 86—CONTROL OF AIR

POLLUTION FROM NEW AND IN-USE

MOTOR VEHICLES AND NEW AND INUSE MOTOR VEHICLE ENGINES:

CERTIFICATION AND TEST

PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 86.1 the table in paragraph

(b)(1) is amended by adding a new entry

to the end of the table to read as follows:

§ 86.1 Reference materials.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

Document No. and name 40 CFR part 86 reference

* * * * * * *

ASTM E29–93a, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications ........................................................................................................................................................................ 86.098–15, 86.004–15
54716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

3. Section 86.098–3 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 86.098–3 Abbreviations.

(a) The abbreviations in § 86.096–3

continue to apply. The abbreviations in

this section apply beginning with the

1998 model year.

(b) The abbreviations of this section

apply to this subpart, and also to

subparts B, E, F, G, K, M, N, and P of

this part, and have the following

meanings:

TD—Dispensed fuel temperature

ABT—Averaging, banking, and trading

HDE—Heavy-duty engine

4. Section 86.098–10 is amended by

revising the first sentence in paragraphs

(a)(1)(i)(C)(2), (a)(1)(i)(C)(3),

(a)(1)(ii)(C)(2), (a)(1)(ii)(C)(3),

(a)(1)(iii)(C)(2), (a)(1)(iv)(C)(2),

(a)(1)(v)(C)(2), (a)(1)(vi)(C)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 86.098–10 Emission standards for 1998

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty

engines and vehicles.

* * * * *

(a)(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its gasoline-fueled

Otto-cycle HDE families in any or all of

the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

(3) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its liquified

petroleum gas-fueled Otto-cycle HDE

families in any or all of the NOX or NOX

plus NMHC ABT programs for HDEs,

within the restrictions described in

§ 86.098–15 as applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(ii) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its gasoline-fueled

Otto-cycle HDE families in any or all of

the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

(3) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its liquified

petroleum gas-fueled Otto-cycle HDE

families in any or all of the NOX or NOX

plus NMHC ABT programs for HDEs,

within the restrictions described in

§ 86.098–15 as applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its methanol-fueled

Otto-cycle HDE families in any or all of

the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its methanol-fueled

Otto-cycle HDE families in any or all of

the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(v) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its natural gasfueled Otto-cycle HDE families in any or

all of the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(vi) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its natural gasfueled Otto-cycle HDE families in any or

all of the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 86.098–11 is amended by

revising the first sentence in paragraphs

(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4)(iii) introductory text

to read as follows:

§ 86.098–11 Emission standards for 1998

and later model year diesel heavy-duty

engines and vehicles.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the NOX or NOX

plus NMHC ABT programs for HDEs,

within the restrictions described in

§ 86.098–15 as applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(iii) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the particulate

ABT programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

* * * * *

6. A new § 86.098–15 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.098–15 NOX and particulate

averaging, trading, and banking for heavyduty engines.

Section 86.098–15 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–15. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.094–15 is identical and applicable

to § 86.098–15, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–15.’’

(a) through (b) [Reserved] For

guidance see § 86.094–15.

(c)(1) For each participating engine

family, NOX and particulate emission

credits (positive or negative) are to be

calculated according to one of the

following equations and rounded, in

accordance with ASTM E29–93a, to the

nearest one-tenth of a Megagram (MG).

Consistent units are to be used

throughout the equation.

(i) For determining credit need for all

engine families and credit availability

for engine families generating credits for

averaging programs only:

Emission credits = (Std¥FEL) × (CF) ×

(UL) × (Production) × (10¥6)

(ii) For determining credit availability

for engine families generating credits for

trading or banking programs:

Emission credits = (Std¥FEL) × (CF) ×

(UL) × (Production) × (10¥6) ×

(Discount)

(iii) For purposes of the equations in

paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this

section:

Std = the current and applicable heavy-duty

engine NOX or particulate emission

standard in grams per brake horsepower

hour or grams per Megajoule.

FEL = the NOX or particulate family emission

limit for the engine family in grams per

brake horsepower hour or grams per

Megajoule.

CF = a transient cycle conversion factor in

BHP-hr/mi or MJ/mi, as given in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

UL = the useful life, or alternative life as

described in paragraph (f) of § 86.094–21,

for the given engine family in miles.

Production = the number of engines

produced for U.S. sales within the given

engine family during the model year.

Quarterly production projections are

used for initial certification. Actual

production is used for end-of-year

compliance determination.

Discount = a one-time discount applied to all

credits to be banked or traded within the

model year generated. The discount

applied here is 0.8. Banked credits

traded in a subsequent model year will

not be subject to an additional discount.

Banked credits used in a subsequent

model year’s averaging program will not

have the discount restored.

(2)(i) The transient cycle conversion

factor is the total (integrated) cycle

brake horsepower-hour or Megajoules,

divided by the equivalent mileage of the

applicable transient cycle. For Ottocycle heavy-duty engines, the

equivalent mileage is 6.3 miles. For
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54717

diesel heavy-duty engines, the

equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles.

(ii) When more than one configuration

is chosen by EPA to be tested in the

certification of an engine family (as

described in § 86.085–24), the

conversion factor used is to be based

upon a production weighted average

value of the configurations in an engine

family to calculate the conversion

factor.

(d) through (i) [Reserved] For

guidance see § 86.094–15.

(j) Optional program for early

banking. Provisions set forth in

paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section

apply except as specifically stated

otherwise in paragraph (j) of this

section.

(1) To be eligible for the optional

program described in paragraph (j) of

this section, the following must apply:

(i) Credits are generated from diesel

cycle heavy-duty engines.

(ii) During certification, the

manufacturer shall declare its intent to

include specific engine families in the

program described in this paragraph (j).

Separate declarations are required for

each program and no engine families

may be included in both programs in

the same model year.

(2) Credit generation and use. (i)

Credits shall only be generated by 1998

and later model year engine families.

(ii) Credits may only be used for 2004

and later model year heavy-duty diesel

engines. When used with 2004 and later

model year engines, NOX credits may be

used to meet the NOX plus NMHC

standard, except as otherwise provided

in § 86.004–11(a)(1)(i)(D).

(iii) If a manufacturer chooses to use

credits generated under paragraph (j) of

this section prior to model year 2004,

the averaging, trading, and banking of

such credits shall be governed by the

program provided in paragraphs (a)

through (i) of this section and shall be

subject to all discounting, credit life

limits and all other provisions

contained therein. In the case where the

manufacturer can demonstrate that the

credits were discounted under the

program provided in paragraph (j) of

this section, that discount may be

accounted for in the calculation of

credits described in paragraph (c) of this

section.

(3) Program flexibilities. (i) NOX and

PM credits that are banked until model

year 2004 under this paragraph (j) may

be used in 2004 or any model year

thereafter without being forfeited due to

credit age. This supersedes the

requirement in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this

section.

(ii) There are no regional category

restraints for averaging, trading, and

banking of credits generated under the

program described in paragraph (j) of

this section. This supersedes the

regional category provisions described

in the opening text of paragraphs (d)

and (e) of this section.

(iii) Credit discounting. (A) For NOX

and PM credits generated under this

paragraph (j) from engine families with

NOX certification levels greater than 3.5

grams per brake horsepower-hour for

oxides of nitrogen, a Discount value of

0.9 shall be used in place of 0.8 in the

credit availability equation in paragraph

(c)(1) of this section.

(B) For NOX and PM credits generated

under this paragraph (j) from engine

families with NOx certification levels

less than or equal to 3.5 grams per brake

horsepower-hour for oxides of nitrogen,

a Discount value of 1.0 shall be used in

place of 0.8 in the credit availability

equation in paragraph (c)(1) of this

section.

(iv) Credit apportionment. At the

manufacturers option, credits generated

under the provisions described in this

section may be sold to or otherwise

provided to another party for use in

programs other than the averaging,

trading and banking program described

in this section.

(A) The manufacturer shall preidentify two emission levels per engine

family for the purposes of credit

apportionment. One emission level shall

be the FEL and the other shall be the

level of the standard that the engine

family is required to certify to under

§ 86.098–11. For each engine family, the

manufacturer may report engine sales in

two categories, ‘‘ABT-only credits’’ and

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’.

(1) For engine sales reported as ‘‘ABTonly credits’’, the credits generated must

be used solely in the ABT program

described in this section.

(2) The engine manufacturer may

declare a portion of engine sales

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’ and

this portion of the credits generated

between the standard and the FEL,

based on the calculation in paragraph

(c)(1) of this section, would belong to

another party. For ABT, the

manufacturer may not generate any

credits for the engine sales reported as

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’.

Engines reported as ‘‘nonmanufacturerowned credits’’ shall comply with the

FEL and the requirements of the ABT

program in all other respects.

(B) Only manufacturer-owned credits

reported as ‘‘ABT-only credits’’ shall be

used in the averaging, trading, and

banking provisions described in this

section.

(C) Credits shall not be doublecounted. Credits used in the ABT

program may not be provided to an

engine purchaser for use in another

program.

(D) Manufacturers shall determine

and state the number of engines sold as

‘‘ABT-only credits’’ and

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’ in

the end-of-model year reports required

under § 86.098–23.

7. Section 86.098–23 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(3),

(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (c) through (e)(2), (f)

through (l), the first sentence of (m)(1),

paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and (m)(2)(iv) to

read as follows:

§ 86.098–23 Required data.

* * * * *

(a) The manufacturer shall perform

the tests required by the applicable test

procedures and submit to the

Administrator the information described

in paragraphs (b) through (m) of this

section, provided, however, that if

requested by the manufacturer, the

Administrator may waive any

requirement of this section for testing of

a vehicle (or engine) for which emission

data are available or will be made

available under the provisions of

§ 86.091–29.

(b) Durability data. (1)(i) The

manufacturer shall submit exhaust

emission durability data on such lightduty vehicles tested in accordance with

applicable test procedures and in such

numbers as specified, which will show

the performance of the systems installed

on or incorporated in the vehicle for

extended mileage, as well as a record of

all pertinent maintenance performed on

the test vehicles.

(ii) The manufacturer shall submit

exhaust emission deterioration factors

for light-duty trucks and HDEs and all

test data that are derived from the

testing described under § 86.094–

21(b)(5)(i)(A), as well as a record of all

pertinent maintenance. Such testing

shall be designed and conducted in

accordance with good engineering

practice to assure that the engines

covered by a certificate issued under

§ 86.098–30 will meet each emission

standard (or family emission limit, as

appropriate) in § 86.094–9, § 86.098–10,

§ 86.098–11 or superseding emissions

standards sections as appropriate, in

actual use for the useful life applicable

to that standard.

* * * * *

(3) For heavy-duty vehicles equipped

with gasoline-fueled or methanol-fueled

engines, the manufacturer shall submit

evaporative emission deterioration

factors for each evaporative emission

family-evaporative emission control

system combination identified in

accordance with § 86.094–21(b)(4)(ii).
54718 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Furthermore, a statement that the test

procedure(s) used to derive the

deterioration factors includes, but need

not be limited to, a consideration of the

ambient effects of ozone and

temperature fluctuations, and the

service accumulation effects of

vibration, time, and vapor saturation

and purge cycling. The deterioration

factor test procedure shall be designed

and conducted in accordance with good

engineering practice to assure that the

vehicles covered by a certificate issued

under § 86.098–30 will meet the

evaporative emission standards in

§§ 86.096–10 and 86.098–11 or

superseding emissions standards

sections as applicable in actual use for

the useful life of the engine.

Furthermore, a statement that a

description of the test procedure, as

well as all data, analyses, and

evaluations, is available to the

Administrator upon request.

(4)(i) For heavy-duty vehicles with a

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of up to

26,000 lbs and equipped with gasolinefueled or methanol-fueled engines, the

manufacturer shall submit a written

statement to the Administrator

certifying that the manufacturer’s

vehicles meet the standards of § 86.098–

10 or § 86.098–11 or superseding

emissions standards sections as

applicable as determined by the

provisions of § 86.098–28. Furthermore,

the manufacturer shall submit a written

statement to the Administrator that all

data, analyses, test procedures,

evaluations, and other documents, on

which the requested statement is based,

are available to the Administrator upon

request.

(ii) For heavy-duty vehicles with a

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of greater

than 26,000 lbs and equipped with

gasoline-fueled or methanol-fueled

engines, the manufacturer shall submit

a written statement to the Administrator

certifying that the manufacturer’s

evaporative emission control systems

are designed, using good engineering

practice, to meet the standards of

§ 86.096–10 or § 86.098–11 or

superseding emissions standards

sections as applicable as determined by

the provisions of § 86.098–28.

Furthermore, the manufacturer shall

submit a written statement to the

Administrator that all data, analyses,

test procedures, evaluations, and other

documents, on which the requested

statement is based, are available to the

Administrator upon request.

* * * * *

(c)(1) [Reserved] For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.

(c)(2) Certification engines. (i) The

manufacturer shall submit emission

data on such engines tested in

accordance with applicable emission

test procedures of this subpart and in

such numbers as specified. These data

shall include zero-hour data, if

generated, and emission data generated

for certification as required under

§ 86.098–26(c)(4). These data shall also

include, where there is a combined

standard (e.g., NMHC + NOx), emissions

data for the individual pollutants as

well as for the pollutants when

combined. In lieu of providing emission

data on idle CO emissions or particulate

emissions from methanol-fueled dieselcycle certification engines, or on CO

emissions from petroleum-fueled or

methanol-fueled diesel certification

engines the Administrator may, on

request of the manufacturer, allow the

manufacturer to demonstrate (on the

basis of previous emission tests,

development tests, or other information)

that the engine will conform with the

applicable emission standards of

§ 86.094–11 or superseding emissions

standards sections as applicable. In lieu

of providing emission data on smoke

emissions from methanol-fueled or

petroleum-fueled diesel certification

engines, the Administrator may, on the

request of the manufacturer, allow the

manufacturer to demonstrate (on the

basis of previous emission tests,

development tests, or other information)

that the engine will conform with the

applicable emissions standards of

§ 86.098–11 or superseding emissions

standards sections as applicable, except

for engines with a particulate matter

certification level exceeding 0.25 grams

per brake horsepower-hour. In lieu of

providing emissions data on smoke

emissions from petroleum-fueled or

methanol-fueled diesel engines when

conducting Selective Enforcement Audit

testing under 40 CFR part 86, subpart K,

the Administrator may, on separate

request of the manufacturer, allow the

manufacturer to demonstrate (on the

basis of previous emission tests,

development tests, or other information)

that the engine will conform with the

applicable smoke emissions standards

of § 86.098–11 or superseding emissions

standards sections as applicable, except

for engines with a particulate matter

certification level exceeding 0.25 grams

per brake horsepower-hour.

(ii) For heavy-duty diesel engines, a

manufacturer may submit hot-start data

only, in accordance with subpart N of

this part, when making application for

certification. However, for confirmatory,

Selective Enforcement Audit, and recall

testing by the Agency, both the coldstart and hot-start test data, as specified

in subpart N of this part, will be

included in the official results.

(d) The manufacturer shall submit a

statement that the vehicles (or engines)

for which certification is requested

conform to the requirements in

§ 86.090–5(b), and that the descriptions

of tests performed to ascertain

compliance with the general standards

in § 86.090–5(b), and that the data

derived from such tests, are available to

the Administrator upon request.

(e)(1) The manufacturer shall submit

a statement that the test vehicles (or test

engines) for which data are submitted to

demonstrate compliance with the

applicable standards (or family emission

limits, as appropriate) of this subpart are

in all material respects as described in

the manufacturer’s application for

certification, that they have been tested

in accordance with the applicable test

procedures utilizing the fuels and

equipment described in the application

for certification, and that on the basis of

such tests the vehicles (or engines)

conform to the requirements of this part.

If such statements cannot be made with

respect to any vehicle (or engine) tested,

the vehicle (or engine) shall be

identified, and all pertinent data

relating thereto shall be supplied to the

Administrator. If, on the basis of the

data supplied and any additional data as

required by the Administrator, the

Administrator determines that the test

vehicles (or test engine) were not as

described in the application for

certification or were not tested in

accordance with the applicable test

procedures utilizing the fuels and

equipment as described in the

application for certification, the

Administrator may make the

determination that the vehicle (or

engine) does not meet the applicable

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate). The provisions of

§ 86.098–30(b) shall then be followed.

(2) For evaporative and refueling

emission durability, or light-duty truck

or HDE exhaust emission durability, the

manufacturer shall submit a statement

of compliance with paragraph

(b)(1)(ii),(b)(2), (b)(3) or (b)(4) of this

section, as applicable.

* * * * *

(f) through (g) [Reserved] For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

(h) Additionally, manufacturers

participating in any of the emissions

ABT programs under § 86.098–15 or

superseding ABT sections for HDEs

shall submit for each participating

family the items listed in paragraphs (h)

(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) Application for certification. (i)

The application for certification will
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54719

include a statement that the engines for

which certification is requested will not,

to the best of the manufacturer’s belief,

when included in any of the ABT

programs, cause the applicable

emissions standard(s) to be exceeded.

(ii) The application for certification

will also include identification of the

section of this subpart under which the

family is participating in ABT (i.e.,

§ 86.098–15 or superseding ABT

sections), the type (NOX, NOX+NMHC,

or particulate) and the projected number

of credits generated/needed for this

family, the applicable averaging set, the

projected U.S. (49-state or 50 state, as

applicable) production volumes, by

quarter, NCPs in use on a similar family

and the values required to calculate

credits as given in the applicable ABT

section. Manufacturers shall also submit

how and where credit surpluses are to

be dispersed and how and through what

means credit deficits are to be met, as

explained in the applicable ABT

section. The application must project

that each engine family will be in

compliance with the applicable

emission standards based on the engine

mass emissions and credits from

averaging, trading and banking.

(2) [Reserved]

(3) End-of-year report. The

manufacturer shall submit end-of-year

reports for each engine family

participating in any of the ABT

programs, as described in paragraphs

(h)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section.

(i) These reports shall be submitted

within 90 days of the end of the model

year to: Director, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6405J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

(ii) These reports shall indicate the

engine family, the averaging set, the

actual U.S. (49-state or 50-state, as

applicable) production volume, the

values required to calculate credits as

given in the applicable ABT section, the

resulting type and number of credits

generated/required, and the NCPs in use

on a similar NCP family. Manufacturers

shall also submit how and where credit

surpluses were dispersed (or are to be

banked) and how and through what

means credit deficits were met. Copies

of contracts related to credit trading

must also be included or supplied by

the broker if applicable. The report shall

also include a calculation of credit

balances to show that net mass

emissions balances are within those

allowed by the emission standards

(equal to or greater than a zero credit

balance). Any credit discount factor

described in the applicable ABT section

must be included as required.

(iii) The production counts for end-ofyear reports shall be based on the

location of the first point of retail sale

(e.g., customer, dealer, secondary

manufacturer) by the manufacturer.

(iv) Errors discovered by EPA or the

manufacturer in the end-of-year report,

including changes in the production

counts, may be corrected up to 180 days

subsequent to submission of the end-ofyear report. Errors discovered by EPA

after 180 days shall be corrected if

credits are reduced. Errors in the

manufacturer’s favor will not be

corrected if discovered after the 180 day

correction period allowed.

(i) Failure by a manufacturer

participating in the ABT programs to

submit any quarterly or end-of-year

report (as applicable) in the specified

time for all vehicles and engines that are

part of an averaging set is a violation of

section 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1)) for each such

vehicle and engine.

(j) Failure by a manufacturer

generating credits for deposit only in the

HDE banking programs to submit their

end-of-year reports in the applicable

specified time period (i.e., 90 days after

the end of the model year) shall result

in the credits not being available for use

until such reports are received and

reviewed by EPA. Use of projected

credits pending EPA review will not be

permitted in these circumstances.

(k) Engine families certified using

NCPs are not required to meet the

requirements outlined in paragraphs (f)

through (j) of this section.

(l) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.

(m) * * *

(1) In the application for certification

the projected sales volume of

evaporative families certifying to the

respective evaporative test procedure

and accompanying standards as set forth

or otherwise referenced in §§ 86.090–8,

86.090–9, 86.091–10 and 86.094–11 or

as set forth or otherwise referenced in

§§ 86.096–8, 86.096–9, 86.096–10 and

86.098–11 or as set forth or otherwise

referenced in superseding emissions

standards sections. * * *

(2) * * *

(i) These end-of-year reports shall be

submitted within 90 days of the end of

the model year to: For heavy-duty

engines—Director, Engine Programs and

Compliance Divisions (6403J), For

vehicles—Director, Vehicle Compliance

and Programs Division (6405J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

* * * * *

(iv) Failure by a manufacturer to

submit the end-of-year report within the

specified time may result in

certificate(s) for the evaporative

family(ies) being voided ab initio plus

any applicable civil penalties for failure

to submit the required information to

the Agency.

* * * * *

8. Section 86.098–30 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through

(a)(12) to read as follows:

§ 86.098–30 Certification.

* * * * *

(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(9) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–30.

(a)(10)(i) For diesel-cycle light-duty

vehicle and diesel-cycle light-duty truck

families which are included in a

particulate averaging program, the

manufacturer’s production-weighted

average of the particulate emission

limits of all engine families in a

participating class or classes shall not

exceed the applicable diesel-cycle

particulate standard, or the composite

particulate standard defined in

§ 86.090–2 as appropriate, at the end of

the model year, as determined in

accordance with this part. The

certificate shall be void ab initio for

those vehicles causing the productionweighted FEL to exceed the particulate

standard.

(ii) For all heavy-duty diesel-cycle

engines which are included in the

particulate ABT programs under

§§ 86.094–15, 86.098–15, or superseding

ABT sections, the provisions of

paragraphs (a)(10)(ii) (A) through (C) of

this section apply.

(A) All certificates issued are

conditional upon the manufacturer

complying with all applicable ABT

provisions and the ABT related

provisions of other applicable sections,

both during and after the model year

production.

(B) Failure to comply with all

applicable ABT provisions will be

considered to be a failure to satisfy the

conditions upon which the certificate

was issued, and the certificate may be

deemed void ab initio.

(C) The manufacturer shall bear the

burden of establishing to the satisfaction

of the Administrator that the conditions

upon which the certificate was issued

were satisfied or excused.

(11)(i) For light-duty truck families

which are included in a NOX averaging

program, the manufacturer’s

production-weighted average of the NOX

emission limits of all such engine

families shall not exceed the applicable

NOX emission standard, or the

composite NOX emission standard

defined in § 86.088–2, as appropriate, at

the end of the model year, as

determined in accordance with this
54720 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

part. The certificate shall be void ab

initio for those vehicles causing the

production-weighted FEL to exceed the

NOX standard.

(ii) For all HDEs which are included

in the NOX or NOX plus NMHC ABT

programs under § 86.098–15 or

superseding ABT sections, the

provisions of paragraphs (a)(11)(ii) (A)

through (C) of this section apply.

(A) All certificates issued are

conditional upon the manufacturer

complying with all applicable ABT

provisions and the ABT related

provisions of other applicable sections,

both during and after the model year

production.

(B) Failure to comply with all

applicable ABT provisions will be

considered to be a failure to satisfy the

conditions upon which the certificate

was issued, and the certificate may be

deemed void ab initio.

(C) The manufacturer shall bear the

burden of establishing to the satisfaction

of the Administrator that the conditions

upon which the certificate was issued

were satisfied or excused.

(a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–30.

* * * * *

9. Section 86.099–11 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraphs

(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4)(iii) introductory text

to read as follows:

§ 86.099–11 Emission standards for 1999

and later model year diesel heavy-duty

engines and vehicles.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the NOX or NOX

plus NMHC ABT programs for HDEs,

within the restrictions described in

§ 86.098–15 as applicable. * * *

* * * * *

(4)* * *

(iii) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the particulate

ABT programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.098–15 as

applicable. * * *

* * * * *

10. Section 86.001–23 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) through (b)(1),

(b)(3), (b)(4), (c), (d), (e)(1), (e)(2), and (f)

through (m) to read as follows:

§ 86.001–23 Required data.

* * * * *

(a) through (b)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.

* * * * *

(b)(3) and (b)(4) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(c)(1) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.

(c)(2) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(e)(2) For evaporative and refueling

emissions durability, or light-duty truck

or HDE exhaust emissions durability, a

statement of compliance with paragraph

(b)(2) of this section or § 86.098–23

(b)(1)(ii), (b)(3), or (b)(4) as applicable.

* * * * *

(f) and (g) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.095–23.

(h) through (m) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.

11. Section 86.001–30 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A) through

(a)(12) to read as follows:

§ 86.001–30 Certification.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(4) * * *

(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(9) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–30.

(a)(10) and (a)(11) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–30.

(a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–30.

* * * * *

12. A new § 86.004–2 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–2 Definitions.

The definitions of § 86.001–2

continue to apply to 2001 and later

model year vehicles. The definitions

listed in this section apply beginning

with the 2004 model year.

Useful life means:

(1) For light-duty vehicles, and for

light light-duty trucks not subject to the

Tier 0 standards of § 86.094–9(a),

intermediate useful life and/or full

useful life. Intermediate useful life is a

period of use of 5 years or 50,000 miles,

whichever occurs first. Full useful life is

a period of use of 10 years or 100,000

miles, whichever occurs first, except as

otherwise noted in § 86.094–9. The

useful life of evaporative and/or

refueling emission control systems on

the portion of these vehicles subject to

the evaporative emission test

requirements of § 86.130–96, and/or the

refueling emission test requirements of

§ 86.151–98, is defined as a period of

use of 10 years or 100,000 miles,

whichever occurs first.

(2) For light light-duty trucks subject

to the Tier 0 standards of § 86.094–9(a),

and for heavy light-duty truck engine

families, intermediate and/or full useful

life. Intermediate useful life is a period

of use of 5 years or 50,000 miles,

whichever occurs first. Full useful life is

a period of use of 11 years or 120,000

miles, whichever occurs first. The

useful life of evaporative emission and/

or refueling control systems on the

portion of these vehicles subject to the

evaporative emission test requirements

of § 86.130–96, and/or the refueling

emission test requirements of § 86.151–

98, is also defined as a period of 11

years or 120,000 miles, whichever

occurs first.

(3) For an Otto-cycle HDE family:

(i) For hydrocarbon and carbon

monoxide standards, a period of use of

10 years or 110,000 miles, whichever

first occurs.

(ii) For the oxides of nitrogen

standard, a period of use of 10 years or

110,000 miles, whichever first occurs.

(iii) For the portion of evaporative

emission control systems subject to the

evaporative emission test requirements

of § 86.1230–96, a period of use of 10

years or 110,000 miles, whichever first

occurs.

(4) For a diesel HDE family:

(i) For light heavy-duty diesel

engines, for carbon monoxide,

particulate, and oxides of nitrogen plus

non-methane hydrocarbons emissions

standards, a period of use of 10 years or

110,000 miles, whichever first occurs.

(ii) For medium heavy-duty diesel

engines, for carbon monoxide,

particulate, and oxides of nitrogen plus

non-methane hydrocarbons emission

standards, a period of use of 10 years or

185,000 miles, whichever first occurs.

(iii) For heavy heavy-duty diesel

engines, for carbon monoxide,

particulate, and oxides of nitrogen plus

non-methane hydrocarbon emissions

standards, a period of use of 10 years or

435,000 miles, or 22,000 hours,

whichever first occurs, except as

provided in paragraphs (4)(iv) and (4)(v)

of this definition.

(iv) The useful life limit of 22,000

hours in paragraph (4)(iii) of this

definition is effective as a limit to the

useful life only when an accurate hours

meter is provided by the manufacturer

with the engine and only when such

hours meter can reasonably be expected

to operate properly over the useful life

of the engine.

(v) For an individual engine, if the

useful life hours limit of 22,000 hours

is reached before the engine reaches 10

years or 100,000 miles, the useful life

shall become 10 years or 100,000 miles,

whichever occurs first, as required

under Clean Air Act section 202(d).

(5) As an option for both light-duty

trucks under certain conditions and

HDE families, an alternative useful life

period may be assigned by the

Administrator under the provisions of

§ 86.094–21(f).

Warranty period, for purposes of HDE

emissions defect warranty and

emissions performance warranty, shall
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54721

be a period of 5 years/50,000 miles,

whichever occurs first, for Otto-cycle

HDEs and light heavy-duty diesel

engines. For all other heavy-duty diesel

engines the aforementioned period shall

be 5 years/100,000 miles, whichever

occurs first. However, in no case may

this period be less than the basic

mechanical warranty period that the

manufacturer provides (with or without

additional charge) to the purchaser of

the engine. Extended warranties on

select parts do not extend the emissions

warranty requirements for the entire

engine but only for those parts. In cases

where responsibility for an extended

warranty is shared between the owner

and the manufacturer, the emissions

warranty shall also be shared in the

same manner as specified in the

warranty agreement.

13. A new § 86.004–11 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–11 Emission standards for 2004

and later model year diesel heavy-duty

engines and vehicles.

(a)(1) Exhaust emissions from new

2004 and later model year diesel HDEs

shall not exceed the following:

(i)(A) Oxides of Nitrogen plus Nonmethane Hydrocarbons (NOX + NMHC)

for engines fueled with either petroleum

fuel, natural gas, or liquefied petroleum

gas, 2.4 grams per brake horsepowerhour (0.89 gram per megajoule), as

measured under transient operating

conditions.

(B) Oxides of Nitrogen plus Nonmethane Hydrocarbon Equivalent (NOX

+ NMHCE) for engines fueled with

methanol, 2.4 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.89 gram per

megajoule), as measured under transient

operating conditions.

(C) Optional Standard. Manufacturers

may elect to certify to an Oxides of

Nitrogen plus Non-methane

Hydrocarbons (or equivalent for

methanol-fueled engines) standard of

2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour

(0.93 gram per megajoule), as measured

under transient operating conditions,

provided that Non-methane

Hydrocarbons (or equivalent for

methanol-fueled engines) do not exceed

0.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour

(0.19 gram per megajoule) NMHC (or

NMHCE for methanol-fueled engines),

as measured under transient operating

conditions.

(D) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the emissions

ABT programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.004–15 or

superseding applicable sections. If the

manufacturer elects to include engine

families in any of these programs, the

NOX plus NMHC (or NOX plus NMHCE

for methanol-fueled engines) FELs may

not exceed 4.5 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (1.7 grams per

megajoule). This ceiling value applies

whether credits for the family are

derived from averaging, banking, or

trading programs. Additionally, families

certified to the optional standard

contained in paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) of

this section shall not exceed 0.50 grams

per brake horsepower-hour (0.19 gram

per megajoule) NMHC (or NMHCE for

methanol-fueled engines) through the

use of credits.

(E) No later than December 31, 1999,

the Administrator shall review the

emissions standards set forth in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section and

determine whether these standards

continue to be appropriate under the

Act.

(ii) Carbon monoxide. (A) 15.5 grams

per brake horsepower-hour (5.77 grams

per megajoule), as measured under

transient operating conditions.

(B) 0.50 percent of exhaust gas flow at

curb idle (methanol-, natural gas-, and

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled diesel

HDEs only).

(iii) Particulate. (A) For diesel engines

to be used in urban buses, 0.05 gram per

brake horsepower-hour (0.019 gram per

megajoule) for certification testing and

selective enforcement audit testing, and

0.07 gram per brake horsepower-hour

(0.026 gram per megajoule) for in-use

testing, as measured under transient

operating conditions.

(B) For all other diesel engines, 0.10

gram per brake horsepower-hour (0.037

gram per megajoule), as measured under

transient operating conditions.

(C) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the particulate

ABT programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.004–15 or

superseding applicable sections. If the

manufacturer elects to include engine

families in any of these programs, the

particulate FEL may not exceed 0.25

gram per brake horsepower-hour (0.093

gram per megajoule).

(2) The standards set forth in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section refer to

the exhaust emitted over the operating

schedule set forth in paragraph (f)(2) of

appendix I to this part, and measured

and calculated in accordance with the

procedures set forth in subpart N or P

of this part, except as noted in § 86.098–

23(c)(2) or superceding sections.

(b)(1) The opacity of smoke emission

from new 2004 and later model year

diesel HDEs shall not exceed:

(i) 20 percent during the engine

acceleration mode.

(ii) 15 percent during the engine

lugging mode.

(iii) 50 percent during the peaks in

either mode.

(2) The standards set forth in

paragraph (b)(1) of this section refer to

exhaust smoke emissions generated

under the conditions set forth in subpart

I of this part and measured and

calculated in accordance with those

procedures.

(3) 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.

(i) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating of up to 14,000 lbs:

(A)(1) For the full three-diurnal test

sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements: 3.0

grams per test.

(2) For the supplemental two-diurnal

test sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements: 3.5

grams per test.

(B) Running loss test: 0.05 grams per

mile.

(C) Fuel dispensing spitback test: 1.0

gram per test.

(ii) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating of greater than 14,000 lbs:

(A)(1) For the full three-diurnal test

sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements: 4.0

grams per test.

(2) For the supplemental two-diurnal

test sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements: 4.5

grams per test.

(B) Running loss test: 0.05 grams per

mile.

(iii)(A) For vehicles with a Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating of up to 26,000

lbs, the standards set forth in paragraph

(b)(3) of this section refer to a composite

sample of evaporative emissions

collected under the conditions and

measured in accordance with the

procedures set forth in subpart M of this

part. 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.

(B) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating of greater than 26,000

lbs., the standards set forth in paragraph
54722 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(b)(3)(ii) of this section refer to the

manufacturer’s engineering design

evaluation using good engineering

practice (a statement of which is

required in § 86.091–23(b)(4)(ii)).

(iv) All fuel vapor generated during

in-use operations shall be routed

exclusively to the evaporative control

system (e.g., either canister or engine

purge). The only exception to this

requirement shall be for emergencies.

(4) Evaporative emissions from 2004

and later model year heavy-duty

vehicles equipped with natural gasfueled or liquefied petroleum gas-fueled

HDEs shall not exceed the following

standards. The standards apply equally

to certification and in-use vehicles.

(i) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating of up to 14,000 pounds

for the full three-diurnal test sequence

described in § 86.1230–96, diurnal plus

hot soak measurements: 3.0 grams per

test.

(ii) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating of greater than 14,000

pounds for the full three-diurnal test

sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements: 4.0

grams per test.

(iii)(A) For vehicles with a Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating of up to 26,000

pounds, the standards set forth in

paragraph (b)(4) of this section refer to

a composite sample of evaporative

emissions collected under the

conditions set forth in subpart M of this

part and measured in accordance with

those procedures.

(B) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating greater than 26,000

pounds, the standards set forth in

paragraphs (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4)(ii) of this

section refer to the manufacturer’s

engineering design evaluation using

good engineering practice (a statement

of which is required in § 86.091–

23(b)(4)(ii)).

(c) No crankcase emissions shall be

discharged into the ambient atmosphere

from any new 2004 or later model year

methanol-, natural gas-, or liquefied

petroleum gas-fueled diesel, or any

naturally-aspirated diesel HDE. For

petroleum-fueled engines only, this

provision does not apply to engines

using turbochargers, pumps, blowers, or

superchargers for air induction.

(d) Every manufacturer of new motor

vehicle engines subject to the standards

prescribed in this section shall, prior to

taking any of the actions specified in

section 203(a)(1) of the Act, test or cause

to be tested motor vehicle engines in

accordance with applicable procedures

in subpart I or N of this part to ascertain

that such test engines meet the

requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c),

and (d) of this section.

14. A new § 86.004–15 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–15 NOX and particulate

averaging, trading, and banking for heavyduty engines.

(a)(1) Heavy-duty engines eligible for

NOX, NOX plus NMHC, and particulate

averaging, trading and banking

programs are described in the applicable

emission standards sections in this

subpart. All heavy-duty engine families

which include any engines labeled for

use in clean-fuel vehicles as specified in

40 CFR part 88 are not eligible for these

programs. Participation in these

programs is voluntary.

(2)(i) Engine families with FELs

exceeding the applicable standard shall

obtain emission credits in a mass

amount sufficient to address the

shortfall. Credits may be obtained from

averaging, trading, or banking, within

the averaging set restrictions described

in this section.

(ii) Engine families with FELs below

the applicable standard will have

emission credits available to average,

trade, bank or a combination thereof.

Credits may not be used for averaging or

trading to offset emissions that exceed

an FEL. Credits may not be used to

remedy an in-use nonconformity

determined by a Selective Enforcement

Audit or by recall testing. However,

credits may be used to allow subsequent

production of engines for the family in

question if the manufacturer elects to

recertify to a higher FEL.

(iii) Credits scheduled to expire in the

earliest model year shall be used, prior

to using other available credits, to offset

emissions of engine families with FELs

exceeding the applicable standard.

(b) Participation in the NOX, NOX

plus NMHC, and/or particulate

averaging, trading, and banking

programs shall be done as follows.

(1) During certification, the

manufacturer shall:

(i) Declare its intent to include

specific engine families in the

averaging, trading and/or banking

programs. Separate declarations are

required for each program and for each

pollutant (i.e., NOX, NOX plus NMHC,

and particulate).

(ii) Declare an FEL for each engine

family participating in one or more of

these three programs.

(A) The FEL must be to the same level

of significant digits as the emission

standard (one-tenth of a gram per brake

horsepower-hour for NOX, NOX plus

NMHC, emissions and one-hundredth of

a gram per brake horsepower-hour for

particulate emissions).

(B) In no case may the FEL exceed the

upper limit prescribed in the section

concerning the applicable heavy-duty

engine NOX, NOX plus NMHC, and

particulate emission standards.

(iii) Calculate the projected emission

credits (positive or negative) based on

quarterly production projections for

each participating family and for each

pollutant, using the applicable equation

in paragraph (c) of this section and the

applicable factors for the specific engine

family.

(iv)(A) Determine and state the source

of the needed credits according to

quarterly projected production for

engine families requiring credits for

certification.

(B) State where the quarterly

projected credits will be applied for

engine families generating credits.

(C) Credits may be obtained from or

applied to only engine families within

the same averaging set as described in

paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.

Credits available for averaging, trading,

or banking as defined in § 86.090–2,

may be applied exclusively to a given

engine family, or reserved as defined in

§ 86.091–2.

(2) Based on this information each

manufacturer’s certification application

must demonstrate:

(i) That at the end of model year

production, each engine family has a net

emissions credit balance of zero or more

using the methodology in paragraph (c)

of this section with any credits obtained

from averaging, trading or banking.

(ii) The source of the credits to be

used to comply with the emission

standard if the FEL exceeds the

standard, or where credits will be

applied if the FEL is less than the

emission standard. In cases where

credits are being obtained, each engine

family involved must state specifically

the source (manufacturer/engine family)

of the credits being used. In cases where

credits are being generated/supplied,

each engine family involved must state

specifically the designated use

(manufacturer/engine family or

reserved) of the credits involved. All

such reports shall include all credits

involved in averaging, trading or

banking.

(3) During the model year

manufacturers must:

(i) Monitor projected versus actual

production to be certain that

compliance with the emission standards

is achieved at the end of the model year.

(ii) Provide the end-of-model year

reports required under § 86.001–23.

(iii) For manufacturers participating

in emission credit trading, maintain the

quarterly records required under

§ 86.091–7(c)(8).

(4) Projected credits based on

information supplied in the certification
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54723

application may be used to obtain a

certificate of conformity. However, any

such credits may be revoked based on

review of end-of-model year reports,

follow-up audits, and any other

compliance measures deemed

appropriate by the Administrator.

(5) Compliance under averaging,

banking, and trading will be determined

at the end of the model year. Engine

families without an adequate amount of

NOX, NOX plus NMHC, and/or

particulate emission credits will violate

the conditions of the certificate of

conformity. The certificates of

conformity may be voided ab initio for

engine families exceeding the emission

standard.

(6) If EPA or the manufacturer

determines that a reporting error

occurred on an end-of-year report

previously submitted to EPA under this

section, the manufacturer’s credits and

credit calculations will be recalculated.

Erroneous positive credits will be void.

Erroneous negative balances may be

adjusted by EPA for retroactive use.

(i) If EPA review of a manufacturer’s

end-of-year report indicates a credit

shortfall, the manufacturer will be

permitted to purchase the necessary

credits to bring the credit balance for

that engine family to zero, using the

discount specified in paragraph (c)(1) of

this section on the ratio of credits

purchased for every credit needed to

bring the balance to zero. If sufficient

credits are not available to bring the

credit balance for the family in question

to zero, EPA may void the certificate for

that engine family ab initio.

(ii) If within 180 days of receipt of the

manufacturer’s end-of-year report, EPA

review determines a reporting error in

the manufacturer’s favor (i.e., resulting

in a positive credit balance) or if the

manufacturer discovers such an error

within 180 days of EPA receipt of the

end-of-year report, the credits will be

restored for use by the manufacturer.

(c)(1) For each participating engine

family, NOX, NOX plus NMHC, and

particulate emission credits (positive or

negative) are to be calculated according

to one of the following equations and

rounded, in accordance with ASTM

E29–93a, to the nearest one-tenth of a

Megagram (Mg). Consistent units are to

be used throughout the equation.

(i) For determining credit need for all

engine families and credit availability

for engine families generating credits for

averaging programs only:

Emission credits = (Std ¥ FEL) × (CF)

× (UL) × (Production) × (10¥6)

(ii) For determining credit availability

for engine families generating credits for

trading or banking programs:

Emission credits = (Std ¥ FEL) × (CF)

× (UL) × (Production) × (10¥6) ×

(Discount)

(iii) For purposes of the equations in

paragraphs (c)(1) (i) and (ii) of this

section:

Std = the current and applicable heavyduty engine NOX, NOX plus NMHC,

or particulate emission standard in

grams per brake horsepower hour or

grams per Megajoule.

FEL = the NOX, NOX plus NMHC, or

particulate family emission limit for

the engine family in grams per

brake horsepower hour or grams per

Megajoule.

CF = a transient cycle conversion factor

in BHP-hr/mi or MJ/mi, as given in

paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

UL = the useful life described in

§ 86.004–2, or alternative life as

described in paragraph (f) of

§ 86.004–21, for the given engine

family in miles.

Production = the number of engines

produced for U.S. sales within the

given engine family during the

model year. Quarterly production

projections are used for initial

certification. Actual production is

used for end-of-year compliance

determination.

Discount = a one-time discount applied

to all credits to be banked or traded

within the model year generated.

Except as otherwise allowed in

paragraph (k) of this section, the

discount applied here is 0.9 for

diesel-cycle engines. The discount

applied here is 0.8 for all Otto-cycle

engines. Banked credits traded in a

subsequent model year will not be

subject to an additional discount.

Banked credits used in a

subsequent model year’s averaging

program will not have the discount

restored.

(2)(i) The transient cycle conversion

factor is the total (integrated) cycle

brake horsepower-hour or Megajoules,

divided by the equivalent mileage of the

applicable transient cycle. For Ottocycle heavy-duty engines, the

equivalent mileage is 6.3 miles. For

diesel heavy-duty engines, the

equivalent mileage is 6.5 miles.

(ii) When more than one configuration

is chosen by EPA to be tested in the

certification of an engine family (as

described in § 86.085–24), the

conversion factor used is to be based

upon a production weighted average

value of the configurations in an engine

family to calculate the conversion

factor.

(d) Averaging sets for NOX and for

NOX plus NMHC emission credits. The

averaging and trading of NOX emission

credits for Otto-cycle engines and NOX

plus NMHC emission credits for dieselcycle engines will only be allowed

between heavy-duty engine families in

the same averaging set. The averaging

sets for the averaging and trading of

NOX and NOX plus NMHC emission

credits for heavy-duty engines are

defined as follows:

(1) For NOX credits from Otto-cycle

heavy-duty engines:

(i) Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines

constitute an averaging set. Averaging

and trading among all Otto-cycle heavyduty engine families is allowed. There

are no subclass restrictions.

(ii) Gasoline-fueled heavy-duty

vehicles certified under the provisions

of § 86.085–1(b) may not average or

trade with gasoline-fueled heavy-duty

Otto-cycle engines, but may average or

trade credits with light-duty trucks.

(iii) The averaging and trading of NOX

emission credits will only be allowed

between heavy-duty engine families in

the same regional category. Otto-cycle

engines produced for sale in California

constitute a separate regional category

than engines produced for sale in the

other 49 states. Banking and trading are

not applicable to engines sold in

California.

(2) For NOX plus NMHC credits from

diesel-cycle heavy-duty engines:

(i) Each of the three primary intended

service classes for heavy-duty diesel

engines, as defined in § 86.004–2,

constitute an averaging set. Averaging

and trading among all diesel-cycle

engine families within the same primary

service class is allowed.

(ii) Urban buses are treated as

members of the primary intended

service class where they otherwise

would fall.

(e) Averaging sets for particulate

emission credits. The averaging and

trading of particulate emission credits

will only be allowed between diesel

cycle heavy-duty engine families in the

same averaging set. The averaging sets

for the averaging and trading of

particulate emission credits for diesel

cycle heavy-duty engines are defined as

follows:

(1) Engines intended for use in urban

buses constitute a separate averaging set

from all other heavy-duty engines.

Averaging and trading between diesel

cycle bus engine families is allowed.

(2) For heavy-duty engines, exclusive

of urban bus engines, each of the three

primary intended service classes for

heavy-duty diesel cycle engines, as

defined in § 86.004–2, constitute an

averaging set. Averaging and trading

between diesel-cycle engine families

within the same primary service class is

allowed.
54724 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Otto cycle engines may not

participate in particulate averaging,

trading, or banking.

(f) Banking of NOX, NOX plus NMHC,

and particulate emission credits. (1)

Credit deposits. (i) NOX, NOX plus

NMHC, and particulate emission credits

may be banked from engine families

produced in any model year.

(ii) Manufacturers may bank credits

only after the end of the model year and

after actual credits have been reported

to EPA in the end-of-year report. During

the model year and before submittal of

the end-of-year report, credits originally

designated in the certification process

for banking will be considered reserved

and may be redesignated for trading or

averaging.

(2) Credit withdrawals. (i) After being

generated, banked NOX credits shall be

available for use within three model

years following the model year in which

they were generated. NOX credits from

Otto-cycle HDE families not used within

the period specified above shall be

forfeited. NOX plus NMHC and

particulate credits from diesel-cycle

HDE families do not expire.

(ii) Manufacturers withdrawing

banked NOX, NOX plus NMHC, and/or

particulate credits shall indicate so

during certification and in their credit

reports, as described in § 86.091–23.

(3) Use of banked emission credits.

The use of banked credits shall be

within the averaging set and other

restrictions described in paragraphs (d)

and (e) of this section, and only for the

following purposes:

(i) Banked credits may be used in

averaging, or in trading, or in any

combination thereof, during the

certification period. Credits declared for

banking from the previous model year

but not reported to EPA may also be

used. However, if EPA finds that the

reported credits can not be proven, they

will be revoked and unavailable for use.

(ii) Banked credits may not be used

for NOX, NOX plus NMHC, or

particulate averaging and trading to

offset emissions that exceed an FEL.

Banked credits may not be used to

remedy an in-use nonconformity

determined by a Selective Enforcement

Audit or by recall testing. However,

banked credits may be used for

subsequent production of the engine

family if the manufacturer elects to

recertify to a higher FEL.

(iii) Banked NOX credits from 2003

and prior may be used in place of NOX

plus NMHC credits after 2003 provided

that they are used in the correct

averaging set and the NOX credits have

not expired.

(g)(1) For the purposes of paragraph

(g) of this section, the following

paragraphs assume NOX, NOX plus

NMHC, and particulate nonconformance

penalties (NCPs) will be available for

the 2004 and later model year HDEs.

(2) Engine families using NOX, NOX

plus NMHC, and/or particulate NCPs

but not involved in averaging:

(i) May not generate NOX, NOX plus

NMHC, or particulate credits for

banking and trading.

(ii) May not use NOX, NOX plus

NMHC, or particulate credits from

banking and trading.

(3) If a manufacturer has any engine

family to which application of NCPs

and banking and trading credits is

desired, that family must be separated

into two distinct families. One family,

whose FEL equals the standard, must

use NCPs only while the other, whose

FEL does not equal the standard, must

use credits only.

(4) If a manufacturer has any engine

family in a given averaging set which is

using NOX, NOX plus NMHC, and/or

particulate NCPs, none of that

manufacturer’s engine families in that

averaging set may generate credits for

banking and trading.

(h) In the event of a negative credit

balance in a trading situation, both the

buyer and the seller would be liable.

(i) Certification fuel used for credit

generation must be of a type that is both

available in use and expected to be used

by the engine purchaser. Therefore,

upon request by the Administrator, the

engine manufacturer must provide

information acceptable to the

Administrator that the designated fuel is

readily available commercially and

would be used in customer service.

(j) Credit apportionment. At the

manufacturers option, credits generated

from diesel-cycle heavy-duty engines

under the provisions described in this

section may be sold to or otherwise

provided to the another party for use in

programs other than the averaging,

trading and banking program described

in this section.

(1) The manufacturer shall preidentify two emission levels per engine

family for the purposes of credit

apportionment. One emission level shall

be the FEL and the other shall be the

level of the standard that the engine

family is required to certify to under

§ 86.004–11. For each engine family, the

manufacturer may report engine sales in

two categories, ‘‘ABT-only credits’’ and

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’.

(i) For engine sales reported as ‘‘ABTonly credits’’, the credits generated must

be used solely in the ABT program

described in this section.

(ii) The engine manufacturer may

declare a portion of engine sales

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’ and

this portion of the credits generated

between the standard and the FEL,

based on the calculation in (c)(1) of this

section, would belong to the engine

purchaser. For ABT, the manufacturer

may not generate any credits for the

engine sales reported as

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’.

Engines reported as ‘‘nonmanufacturerowned credits’’ shall comply with the

FEL and the requirements of the ABT

program in all other respects.

(2) Only manufacturer-owned credits

reported as ‘‘ABT-only credits’’ shall be

used in the averaging, trading, and

banking provisions described in this

section.

(3) Credits shall not be doublecounted. Credits used in the ABT

program may not be provided to an

engine purchaser for use in another

program.

(4) Manufacturers shall determine and

state the number of engines sold as

‘‘ABT-only credits’’ and

‘‘nonmanufacturer-owned credits’’ in

the end-of-model year reports required

under § 86.001–23.

(k) Additional Flexibility. If a dieselcycle engine family meets the

conditions of either paragraph (k)(1) or

(2) of this section, a Discount of 1.0 may

be used in the trading and banking

calculation, for both NOX plus NMHC

and for particulate, described in

paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(1) The engine family certifies with a

certification level of 1.9 g/bhp-hr NOX

plus NMHC or lower for all diesel-cycle

engine families.

(2) All of the following must apply to

the engine family:

(i) Diesel-cycle engines only;

(ii) 2004, 2005, and 2006 model years

only;

(iii) Must be an engine family using

carry-over certification data from prior

to model year 2004 where the NOX plus

the HC certification level prior to model

year 2004 is below the NOX plus NMHC

or NOX plus NMHCE standard set forth

in § 86.004–11. Under this option, the

NOX credits generated from this engine

family prior to model year 2004 may be

used as NOX plus NMHC credits.

15. A new § 86.004–21 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–21 Application for certification.

Section 86.004–21 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–21 or § 86.096–21. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–21 or § 86.096–21

is identical and applicable to § 86.004–

21, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–21.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.096–21.’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54725

(a) through (b)(3) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(4)(i) For light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks, a description of the

test procedures to be used to establish

the evaporative emission and/or

refueling emission deterioration factors,

as appropriate, required to be

determined and supplied in § 86.001–

23(b)(2).

(b)(4)(ii) through (b)(5)(iv) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(5)(v) For light-duty vehicles and

applicable light-duty trucks with nonintegrated refueling emission control

systems, the number of continuous

UDDS cycles, determined from the fuel

economy on the UDDS applicable to the

test vehicle of that evaporative/

refueling emission family-emission

control system combination, required to

use a volume of fuel equal to 85% of

fuel tank volume.

(6) Participation in averaging

programs—(i) Particulate averaging. (A)

If the manufacturer elects to participate

in the particulate averaging program for

diesel light-duty vehicles and/or diesel

light-duty trucks or the particulate

averaging program for heavy-duty diesel

engines, the application must list the

family particulate emission limit and

the projected U.S. production volume of

the family for the model year.

(B) The manufacturer shall choose the

level of the family particulate emission

limits, accurate to hundredth of a gram

per mile or hundredth of a gram per

brake horsepowerhour for HDEs.

(C) The manufacturer may at any time

during production elect to change the

level of any family particulate emission

limit(s) by submitting the new limit(s) to

the Administrator and by demonstrating

compliance with the limit(s) as

described in §§ 86.090–2 and 86.094–

28(b)(5)(i).

(ii) NOX and NOX plus NMHC

averaging. (A) If the manufacturer elects

to participate in the NOX averaging

program for light-duty trucks or ottocycle HDEs or the NOX plus NMHC

averaging program for diesel-cycle

HDEs, the application must list the

family emission limit and the projected

U.S. production volume of the family

for the model year.

(B) The manufacturer shall choose the

level of the family emission limits,

accurate to one-tenth of a gram per mile

or to one-tenth of a gram per brake

horsepower-hour for HDEs.

(C) The manufacturer may at any time

during production elect to change the

level of any family emission limit(s) by

submitting the new limits to the

Administrator and by demonstrating

compliance with the limit(s) as

described in §§ 86.088–2 and 86.094–

28(b)(5)(ii).

(b)(7) and (b)(8) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(b)(9) For each light-duty vehicle,

light-duty truck, evaporative/refueling

emission family or heavy-duty vehicle

evaporative emission family, a

description of any unique procedures

required to perform evaporative and/or

refueling emission tests, as applicable,

(including canister working capacity,

canister bed volume, and fuel

temperature profile for the running loss

test) for all vehicles in that evaporative

and/or evaporative/refueling emission

family, and a description of the method

used to develop those unique

procedures.

(10) For each light-duty vehicle or

applicable light-duty truck evaporative/

refueling emission family, or each

heavy-duty vehicle evaporative

emission family:

(i) Canister working capacity,

according to the procedures specified in

§ 86.132–96(h)(1)(iv);

(ii) Canister bed volume; and

(iii) Fuel temperature profile for the

running loss test, according to the

procedures specified in § 86.129–94(d).

(c) through (j) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–21.

(k) and (l) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.096–21.

16. A new § 86.004–25 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–25 Maintenance.

Section 86.004–25 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–25 or § 86.098–25. Where a

paragraph in § 86.094–25 or § 86.098–25

is identical and applicable to § 86.004–

25, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–25.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–25.’’.

(a)(1) Applicability. This section

applies to light-duty vehicles, light-duty

trucks, and HDEs.

(2) Maintenance performed on

vehicles, engines, subsystems, or

components used to determine exhaust,

evaporative or refueling emission

deterioration factors, as appropriate, is

classified as either emission-related or

non-emission-related and each of these

can be classified as either scheduled or

unscheduled. Further, some emissionrelated maintenance is also classified as

critical emission-related maintenance.

(b) Introductory text through (b)(3)(ii)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

25.

(b)(3)(iii) For otto-cycle heavy-duty

engines, the adjustment, cleaning,

repair, or replacement of the items listed

in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) (A) through (E)

of this section shall occur at 50,000

miles (or 1,500 hours) of use and at

50,000-mile (or 1,500-hour) intervals

thereafter.

(A) Positive crankcase ventilation

valve.

(B) Emission-related hoses and tubes.

(C) Ignition wires.

(D) Idle mixture.

(E) Exhaust gas recirculation system

related filters and coolers.

(iv) For otto-cycle light-duty vehicles,

light-duty trucks and otto-cycle heavyduty engines, the adjustment, cleaning,

repair, or replacement of the oxygen

sensor shall occur at 80,000 miles (or

2,400 hours) of use and at 80,000-mile

(or 2,400-hour) intervals thereafter.

(v) For otto-cycle heavy-duty engines,

the adjustment, cleaning, repair, or

replacement of the items listed in

paragraphs (b)(3)(v) (A) through (H) of

this section shall occur at 100,000 miles

(or 3,000 hours) of use and at 100,000-

mile (or 3,000-hour) intervals thereafter.

(A) Catalytic converter.

(B) Air injection system components.

(C) Fuel injectors.

(D) Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors (except oxygen

sensor) and actuators.

(E) Evaporative emission canister.

(F) Turbochargers.

(G) Carburetors.

(H) Exhaust gas recirculation system

(including all related control valves and

tubing) except as otherwise provided in

paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(E) of this section.

(b)(3)(vi)(A) through (b)(3)(vi)(D)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

25.

(b)(3)(vi)(E) through (b)(3)(vi)(J)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.098–

25.

(4) For diesel-cycle light-duty

vehicles, light-duty trucks, and HDEs,

emission-related maintenance in

addition to or at shorter intervals than

that listed in paragraphs (b)(4) (i)

through (iv) of this section will not be

accepted as technologically necessary,

except as provided in paragraph (b)(7) of

this section.

(i) For diesel-cycle heavy-duty

engines, the adjustment, cleaning,

repair, or replacement of the items listed

in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) (A) through (C) of

this section shall occur at 50,000 miles

(or 1,500 hours) of use and at 50,000-

mile (or 1,500-hour) intervals thereafter.

(A) Exhaust gas recirculation system

related filters and coolers.

(B) Positive crankcase ventilation

valve.

(C) Fuel injector tips (cleaning only).

(ii) For diesel-cycle light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks, the

adjustment, cleaning, repair, or
54726 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

replacement of the positive crankcase

ventilation valve shall occur at 50,000

miles of use and at 50,000-mile intervals

thereafter.

(iii) The adjustment, cleaning, repair,

or replacement of items listed in

paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) (A) through (G) of

this section shall occur at 100,000 miles

(or 3,000 hours) of use and at 100,000-

mile (or 3,000-hour) intervals thereafter

for light heavy-duty diesel engines, or,

at 150,000 miles (or 4,500 hours)

intervals thereafter for medium and

heavy heavy-duty diesel engines.

(A) Fuel injectors.

(B) Turbocharger.

(C) Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors and actuators.

(D) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer

system (including related components).

(E) Exhaust gas recirculation system

(including all related control valves and

tubing) except as otherwise provided in

paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) of this section.

(F) Catalytic converter.

(G) Any other add-on emissionsrelated component (i.e., a component

whose sole or primary purpose is to

reduce emissions or whose failure will

significantly degrade emissions control

and whose function is not integral to the

design and performance of the engine.)

(iv) For disel-cycle light-duty vehicles

and light-duty trucks, the adjustment,

cleaning, repair, or replacement shall

occur at 100,000 miles of use and at

100,000-mile intervals thereafter of the

items listed in paragraphs (b)(4)(iv) (A)

through (G) of this section.

(A) Fuel injectors.

(B) Turbocharger.

(C) Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors and actuators.

(D) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer

system (including related components).

(E) Exhaust gas recirculation system

including all related filters and control

valves.

(F) Catalytic converter.

(G) Superchargers.

(5) [Reserved]

(6)(i) The components listed in

paragraphs (b)(6)(i) (A) through (H) of

this section are currently defined as

critical emission-related components.

(A) Catalytic converter.

(B) Air injection system components.

(C) Electronic engine control unit and

its associated sensors (including oxygen

sensor if installed) and actuators.

(D) Exhaust gas recirculation system

(including all related filters, coolers,

control valves, and tubing).

(E) Positive crankcase ventilation

valve.

(F) Evaporative and refueling

emission control system components

(excluding canister air filter).

(G) Particulate trap or trap-oxidizer

system.

(H) Any other add-on emissionsrelated component (i.e., a component

whose sole or primary purpose is to

reduce emissions or whose failure will

significantly degrade emissions control

and whose function is not integral to the

design and performance of the engine.)

(ii) All critical emission-related

scheduled maintenance must have a

reasonable likelihood of being

performed in-use. The manufacturer

shall be required to show the reasonable

likelihood of such maintenance being

performed in-use, and such showing

shall be made prior to the performance

of the maintenance on the durability

data vehicle. Critical emission-related

scheduled maintenance items which

satisfy one of the conditions defined in

paragraphs (b)(6)(ii) (A) through (F) of

this section will be accepted as having

a reasonable likelihood of the

maintenance item being performed inuse.

(A) Data are presented which

establish for the Administrator a

connection between emissions and

vehicle performance such that as

emissions increase due to lack of

maintenance, vehicle performance will

simultaneously deteriorate to a point

unacceptable for typical driving.

(B) Survey data are submitted which

adequately demonstrate to the

Administrator that, at an 80 percent

confidence level, 80 percent of such

engines already have this critical

maintenance item performed in-use at

the recommended interval(s).

(C) A clearly displayed visible signal

system approved by the Administrator

is installed to alert the vehicle driver

that maintenance is due. A signal

bearing the message ‘‘maintenance

needed’’ or ‘‘check engine’’, or a similar

message approved by the Administrator,

shall be actuated at the appropriate

mileage point or by component failure.

This signal must be continuous while

the engine is in operation and not be

easily eliminated without performance

of the required maintenance. Resetting

the signal shall be a required step in the

maintenance operation. The method for

resetting the signal system shall be

approved by the Administrator. For

HDEs, the system must not be designed

to deactivate upon the end of the useful

life of the engine or thereafter.

(D) A manufacturer may desire to

demonstrate through a survey that a

critical maintenance item is likely to be

performed without a visible signal on a

maintenance item for which there is no

prior in-use experience without the

signal. To that end, the manufacturer

may in a given model year market up to

200 randomly selected vehicles per

critical emission-related maintenance

item without such visible signals, and

monitor the performance of the critical

maintenance item by the owners to

show compliance with paragraph

(b)(6)(ii)(B) of this section. This option

is restricted to two consecutive model

years and may not be repeated until any

previous survey has been completed. If

the critical maintenance involves more

than one engine family, the sample will

be sales weighted to ensure that it is

representative of all the families in

question.

(E) The manufacturer provides the

maintenance free of charge, and clearly

informs the customer that the

maintenance is free in the instructions

provided under § 86.087–38.

(F) Any other method which the

Administrator approves as establishing

a reasonable likelihood that the critical

maintenance will be performed in-use.

(iii) Visible signal systems used under

paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(C) of this section are

considered an element of design of the

emission control system. Therefore,

disabling, resetting, or otherwise

rendering such signals inoperative

without also performing the indicated

maintenance procedure is a prohibited

act under section 203(a)(3) of the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)).

(b)(7) through (h) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–25.

17. Section 86.004–28 of Subpart A is

amended by revising paragraphs (c) and

(d) to read as follows:

§ 86.004–28 Compliance with emission

standards.

* * * * *

(c)(1) Paragraph (c) of this section

applies to heavy-duty engines.

(2) The applicable exhaust emission

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate) for Otto-cycle engines and

for diesel-cycle engines apply to the

emissions of engines for their useful life.

(3) Since emission control efficiency

generally decreases with the

accumulation of service on the engine,

deterioration factors will be used in

combination with emission data engine

test results as the basis for determining

compliance with the standards.

(4)(i) Paragraph (c)(4) of this section

describes the procedure for determining

compliance of an engine with emission

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate), based on deterioration

factors supplied by the manufacturer.

Deterioration factors shall be established

using applicable emissions test

procedures. NOX plus NMHC

deterioration factors shall be established

based on the sum of the pollutants.

When establishing deterioration factors

for NOX plus NMHC, a negative

deterioration (emissions decrease from
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54727

the official exhaust emissions test

result) for one pollutant may not offset

deterioration of the other pollutant.

Where negative deterioration occurs for

NOX and/or NMHC, the official exhaust

emission test result shall be used for

purposes of determining the NOX plus

NMHC deterioration factor.

(ii) Separate exhaust emission

deterioration factors, determined from

tests of engines, subsystems, or

components conducted by the

manufacturer, shall be supplied for each

engine-system combination. For Ottocycle engines, separate factors shall be

established for transient NMHC

(NMHCE), CO, NOX, NOX plus NMHC,

and idle CO, for those engines utilizing

aftertreatment technology (e.g., catalytic

converters). For diesel-cycle engines,

separate factors shall be established for

transient NMHC (NMHCE), CO, NOX,

NOX plus NMHC and exhaust

particulate. For diesel-cycle smoke

testing, separate factors shall also be

established for the acceleration mode

(designated as ‘‘A’’), the lugging mode

(designated as ‘‘B’’), and peak opacity

(designated as ‘‘C’’).

(iii)(A) Paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) (1)

and (2) of this section apply to Ottocycle HDEs.

(1) Otto-cycle HDEs not utilizing

aftertreatment technology (e.g., catalytic

converters). For transient NMHC

(NMHCE), CO, NOX, the official exhaust

emission results for each emission data

engine at the selected test point shall be

adjusted by the addition of the

appropriate deterioration factor.

However, if the deterioration factor

supplied by the manufacturer is less

than zero, it shall be zero for the

purposes of this paragraph.

(2) Otto-cycle HDEs utilizing

aftertreatment technology (e.g., catalytic

converters). For transient NMHC

(NMHCE), CO, NOX, and for idle CO,

the official exhaust emission results for

each emission data engine at the

selected test point shall be adjusted by

multiplication by the appropriate

deterioration factor. However, if the

deterioration factor supplied by the

manufacturer is less than one, it shall be

one for the purposes of this paragraph.

(B) Paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(B) of this

section applies to diesel-cycle HDEs.

(1) Diesel-cycle HDEs not utilizing

aftertreatment technology (e.g.,

particulate traps). For transient NMHC

(NMHCE), CO, NOX, NOX plus NMHC,

and exhaust particulate, the official

exhaust emission results for each

emission data engine at the selected test

point shall be adjusted by the addition

of the appropriate deterioration factor.

However, if the deterioration factor

supplied by the manufacturer is less

than zero, it shall be zero for the

purposes of this paragraph.

(2) Diesel-cycle HDEs utilizing

aftertreatment technology (e.g.,

particulate traps). For transient NMHC

(NMHCE), CO, NOX, NOX plus NMHC,

and exhaust particulate, the official

exhaust emission results for each

emission data engine at the selected test

point shall be adjusted by

multiplication by the appropriate

deterioration factor. However, if the

deterioration factor supplied by the

manufacturer is less than one, it shall be

one for the purposes of this paragraph.

(3) Diesel-cycle HDEs only. For

acceleration smoke (‘‘A’’), lugging

smoke (‘‘B’’), and peak smoke (‘‘C’’), the

official exhaust emission results for

each emission data engine at the

selected test point shall be adjusted by

the addition of the appropriate

deterioration factor. However, if the

deterioration factor supplied by the

manufacturer is less than zero, it shall

be zero for the purposes of this

paragraph.

(iv) The emission values to compare

with the standards (or family emission

limits, as appropriate) shall be the

adjusted emission values of paragraph

(c)(4)(iii) of this section, rounded to the

same number of significant figures as

contained in the applicable standard in

accordance with ASTM E 29–93a (as

referenced in § 86.094–28

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii)), for each emission data

engine.

(5) and (6) [Reserved].

(7) Every test engine of an engine

family must comply with all applicable

standards (or family emission limits, as

appropriate), as determined in

paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of this section,

before any engine in that family will be

certified.

(8) For the purposes of setting an

NMHC plus NOx certification level or

FEL for a diesel-fueled engine family,

the manufacturer may use one of the

following options for the determination

of NMHC for an engine family. The

manufacturer must declare which

option is used in its application for

certification of that engine family.

(i) THC may be used in lieu of NMHC

for the standards set forth in § 86.004–

11.

(ii) The manufacturer may choose its

own method to analyze methane with

prior approval of the Administrator.

(iii) The manufacturer may assume

that two percent of the measured THC

is methane (NMHC =0.98 × THC).

(d)(1) Paragraph (d) of this section

applies to heavy-duty vehicles equipped

with gasoline-fueled or methanol-fueled

engines.

(2) The applicable evaporative

emission standards in this subpart apply

to the emissions of vehicles for their

useful life.

(3)(i) For vehicles with a GVWR of up

to 26,000 pounds, because it is expected

that emission control efficiency will

change during the useful life of the

vehicle, an evaporative emission

deterioration factor shall be determined

from the testing described in § 86.098–

23(b)(3) for each evaporative emission

family-evaporative emission control

system combination to indicate the

evaporative emission control system

deterioration during the useful life of

the vehicle (minimum 50,000 miles).

The factor shall be established to a

minimum of two places to the right of

the decimal.

(ii) For vehicles with a GVWR of

greater than 26,000 pounds, because it

is expected that emission control

efficiency will change during the useful

life of the vehicle, each manufacturer’s

statement as required in § 86.098–

23(b)(4)(ii) shall include, in accordance

with good engineering practice,

consideration of control system

deterioration.

(4) The evaporative emission test

results, if any, shall be adjusted by the

addition of the appropriate deterioration

factor, provided that if the deterioration

factor as computed in paragraph (d)(3)

of this section is less than zero, that

deterioration factor shall be zero for the

purposes of this paragraph.

(5) The emission level to compare

with the standard shall be the adjusted

emission level of paragraph (d)(4) of this

section. Before any emission value is

compared with the standard, it shall be

rounded, in accordance with ASTM E

29–93a (as referenced in § 86.094–28

(a)(4)(i)(B)(2)(ii)), to two significant

figures. The rounded emission values

may not exceed the standard.

(6) Every test vehicle of an

evaporative emission family must

comply with the evaporative emission

standard, as determined in paragraph

(d)(5) of this section, before any vehicle

in that family may be certified.

* * * * *

18. Section 86.004–30 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4)(i),

(a)(4)(ii), and (a)(4)(iv)(A) through

(a)(12) to read as follows:

§ 86.004–30 Certification.

* * * * *

(a)(3)(i) One such certificate will be

issued for each engine family. For

gasoline-fueled and methanol-fueled

light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks, and petroleum-fueled diesel

cycle light-duty vehicles and light-duty

trucks not certified under § 86.098–
54728 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

28(g), one such certificate will be issued

for each engine family-evaporative/

refueling emission family combination.

Each certificate will certify compliance

with no more than one set of in-use and

certification standards (or family

emission limits, as appropriate).

(ii) For gasoline-fueled and methanol

fueled heavy-duty vehicles, one such

certificate will be issued for each

manufacturer and will certify

compliance for those vehicles

previously identified in that

manufacturer’s statement(s) of

compliance as required in § 86.098–

23(b)(4) (i) and (ii).

(iii) For diesel light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks, or diesel HDEs,

included in the applicable particulate

averaging program, the manufacturer

may at any time during production elect

to change the level of any family

particulate emission limit by

demonstrating compliance with the new

limit as described in § 86.094–28(a)(6),

§ 86.094–28(b)(5)(i), or § 86.004–

28(c)(5)(i). New certificates issued under

this paragraph will be applicable only

for vehicles (or engines) produced

subsequent to the date of issuance.

(iv) For light-duty trucks or HDEs

included in the applicable NOX

averaging program, the manufacturer

may at any time during production elect

to change the level of any family NOX

emission limit by demonstrating

compliance with the new limit as

described in § 86.094–28(b)(5)(ii) or

§ 86.004–28(c)(5)(ii). New certificates

issued under this paragraph will be

applicable only for vehicles (or engines)

produced subsequent to the day of

issue.

(4)(i) For exempt light-duty vehicles

and light-duty trucks under the

provisions of § 86.094–8(j) or § 86.094–

9(j), an adjustment or modification

performed in accordance with

instructions provided by the

manufacturer for the altitude where the

vehicle is principally used will not be

considered a violation of section

203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

7522(a)(3)).

(ii) A violation of section 203(a)(1) of

the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1))

occurs when a manufacturer sells or

delivers to an ultimate purchaser any

light-duty vehicle or light-duty truck,

subject to the regulations under the Act,

under any of the conditions specified in

paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section.

(A) When a light-duty vehicle or lightduty truck is exempted from meeting

high-altitude requirements as provided

in § 86.090–8(h) or § 86.094–9(h):

(1) At a designated high-altitude

location, unless such manufacturer has

reason to believe that such vehicle will

not be sold to an ultimate purchaser for

principal use at a designated highaltitude location; or

(2) At a location other than a

designated high-altitude location, when

such manufacturer has reason to believe

that such motor vehicle will be sold to

an ultimate purchaser for principal use

at a designated high-altitude location.

(B) When a light-duty vehicle or lightduty truck is exempted from meeting

low-altitude requirements as provided

in § 86.094–8(i) or § 86.094–9(i):

(1) At a designated low-altitude

location, unless such manufacturer has

reason to believe that such vehicle will

not be sold to an ultimate purchaser for

principal use at a designated lowaltitude location; or

(2) At a location other than a

designated low-altitude location, when

such manufacturer has reason to believe

that such motor vehicle will be sold to

an ultimate purchaser for principal use

at a designated low-altitude location.

(a)(4)(iv)(A) through (a)(9) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.094–30.

(10)(i) For diesel-cycle light-duty

vehicle and diesel-cycle light-duty truck

families which are included in a

particulate averaging program, the

manufacturer’s production-weighted

average of the particulate emission

limits of all engine families in a

participating class or classes shall not

exceed the applicable diesel-cycle

particulate standard, or the composite

particulate standard defined in

§ 86.090–2 as appropriate, at the end of

the model year, as determined in

accordance with this part. The

certificate shall be void ab initio for

those vehicles causing the productionweighted FEL to exceed the particulate

standard.

(ii) For all heavy-duty diesel-cycle

engines which are included in the

particulate ABT programs under

§ 86.098–15 or superseding ABT

sections as applicable, the provisions of

paragraphs (a)(10)(ii) (A) through (C) of

this section apply.

(A) All certificates issued are

conditional upon the manufacturer

complying with the provisions of

§ 86.098–15 or superseding ABT

sections as applicable and the ABT

related provisions of other applicable

sections, both during and after the

model year production.

(B) Failure to comply with all

provisions of § 86.098–15 or

superseding ABT sections as applicable

will be considered to be a failure to

satisfy the conditions upon which the

certificate was issued, and the certificate

may be deemed void ab initio.

(C) The manufacturer shall bear the

burden of establishing to the satisfaction

of the Administrator that the conditions

upon which the certificate was issued

were satisfied or excused.

(11)(i) For light-duty truck families

which are included in a NOX averaging

program, the manufacturer’s

production-weighted average of the NOX

emission limits of all such engine

families shall not exceed the applicable

NOX emission standard, or the

composite NOX emission standard

defined in § 86.088–2, as appropriate, at

the end of the model year, as

determined in accordance with this

part. The certificate shall be void ab

initio for those vehicles causing the

production-weighted FEL to exceed the

NOX standard.

(ii) For all HDEs which are included

in the NOX plus NMHC ABT programs

contained in § 86.098–15, or

superseding ABT sections as applicable,

the provisions of paragraphs (a)(11)(ii)

(A) through (C) of this section apply.

(A) All certificates issued are

conditional upon the manufacturer

complying with the provisions of

§ 86.098–15 or superseding ABT

sections as applicable and the ABT

related provisions of other applicable

sections, both during and after the

model year production.

(B) Failure to comply with all

provisions of § 86.098–15 or

superseding ABT sections as applicable

will be considered to be a failure to

satisfy the conditions upon which the

certificate was issued, and the certificate

may be deemed void ab initio.

(C) The manufacturer shall bear the

burden of establishing to the satisfaction

of the Administrator that the conditions

upon which the certificate was issued

were satisfied or excused.

(a)(12) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–30.

* * * * *

19. A new § 86.004–38 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–38 Maintenance instructions.

Section 86.004–38 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–38. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.094–38 is identical and applicable

to § 86.004–38 this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.094–38.’’.

(a) The manufacturer shall furnish or

cause to be furnished to the purchaser

of each new motor vehicle (or motor

vehicle engine) subject to the standards

prescribed in § 86.099–8, § 86.004–9,

§ 86.004–10, or § 86.004–11, as

applicable, written instructions for the

proper maintenance and use of the

vehicle (or engine), by the purchaser

consistent with the provisions of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 54729

§ 86.004–25, which establishes what

scheduled maintenance the

Administrator approves as being

reasonable and necessary.

(1) The maintenance instructions

required by this section shall be in clear,

and to the extent practicable,

nontechnical language.

(2) The maintenance instructions

required by this section shall contain a

general description of the

documentation which the manufacturer

will require from the ultimate purchaser

or any subsequent purchaser as

evidence of compliance with the

instructions.

(b) Instructions provided to

purchasers under paragraph (a) of this

section shall specify the performance of

all scheduled maintenance performed

by the manufacturer on certification

durability vehicles and, in cases where

the manufacturer performs less

maintenance on certification durability

vehicles than the allowed limit, may

specify the performance of any

scheduled maintenance allowed under

§ 86.004–25.

(c) Scheduled emission-related

maintenance in addition to that

performed under § 86.004–25(b) may

only be recommended to offset the

effects of abnormal in-use operating

conditions, except as provided in

paragraph (d) of this section. The

manufacturer shall be required to

demonstrate, subject to the approval of

the Administrator, that such

maintenance is reasonable and

technologically necessary to assure the

proper functioning of the emission

control system. Such additional

recommended maintenance shall be

clearly differentiated, in a form

approved by the Administrator, from

that approved under § 86.004–25(b).

(d) Inspections of emission-related

parts or systems with instructions to

replace, repair, clean, or adjust the parts

or systems if necessary, are not

considered to be items of scheduled

maintenance which insure the proper

functioning of the emission control

system. Such inspections, and any

recommended maintenance beyond that

approved by the Administrator as

reasonable and necessary under

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this

section, may be included in the written

instructions furnished to vehicle owners

under paragraph (a) of this section:

Provided, That such instructions clearly

state, in a form approved by the

Administrator, that the owner need not

perform such inspections or

recommended maintenance in order to

maintain the emissions defect and

emissions performance warranty or

manufacturer recall liability.

(e) The manufacturer may choose to

include in such instructions an

explanation of any distinction between

the useful life specified on the label,

and the emissions defect and emissions

performance warranty period. The

explanation must clearly state that the

useful life period specified on the label

represents the average period of use up

to retirement or rebuild for the engine

family represented by the engine used

in the vehicle. An explanation of how

the actual useful lives of engines used

in various applications are expected to

differ from the average useful life may

be included. The explanation(s) shall be

in clear, non-technical language that is

understandable to the ultimate

purchaser.

(f) If approved by the Administrator,

the instructions provided to purchasers

under paragraph (a) of this section shall

indicate what adjustments or

modifications, if any, are necessary to

allow the vehicle to meet applicable

emission standards at elevations above

4,000 feet, or at elevations of 4,000 feet

or less.

(g) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–38.

(h) The manufacturer shall furnish or

cause to be furnished to the purchaser

of each new motor engine subject to the

standards prescribed in § 86.004–10 or

§ 86.004–11, as applicable, the

following:

(1) Instructions for all maintenance

needed after the end of the useful life of

the engine for critical emissions-related

components as provided in § 86.004–

25(b), including recommended practices

for diagnosis, cleaning, adjustment,

repair, and replacement of the

component (or a statement that such

component is maintenance free for the

life of the engine) and instructions for

accessing and responding to any

emissions-related diagnostic codes that

may be stored in on-board monitoring

systems;

(2) A copy of the engine rebuild

provisions contained in § 86.004–40.

20. A new § 86.004–40 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.004–40 Heavy-duty engine rebuilding

practices.

The provisions of this section are

applicable to engines subject to the

standards prescribed in § 86.004–10 or

§ 86.004–11 and are applicable to the

process of engine rebuilding (or

rebuilding a portion of an engine or

engine system). The process of engine

rebuilding generally includes

disassembly, replacement of multiple

parts due to wear, and reassembly, and

also may include the removal of the

engine from the vehicle and other acts

associated with rebuilding an engine.

Any deviation from the provisions

contained in this section is a prohibited

act under section 203(a)(3) of the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)).

(a) When rebuilding an engine,

portions of an engine, or an engine

system, there must be a reasonable

technical basis for knowing that the

resultant engine is equivalent, from an

emissions standpoint, to a certified

configuration (i.e., tolerances,

calibrations, specifications) and the

model year(s) of the resulting engine

configuration must be identified. A

reasonable basis would exist if:

(1) Parts installed, whether the parts

are new, used, or rebuilt, are such that

a person familiar with the design and

function of motor vehicle engines would

reasonably believe that the parts

perform the same function with respect

to emissions control as the original

parts; and

(2) Any parameter adjustment or

design element change is made only:

(i) In accordance with the original

engine manufacturer’s instructions; or

(ii) Where data or other reasonable

technical basis exists that such

parameter adjustment or design element

change, when performed on the engine

or similar engines, is not expected to

adversely affect in-use emissions.

(b) When an engine is being rebuilt

and remains installed or is reinstalled in

the same vehicle, it must be rebuilt to

a configuration of the same or later

model year as the original engine. When

an engine is being replaced, the

replacement engine must be an engine

of (or rebuilt to) a configuration of the

same or later model year as the original

engine.

(c) At time of rebuild, emissionsrelated codes or signals from on-board

monitoring systems may not be erased

or reset without diagnosing and

responding appropriately to the

diagnostic codes, regardless of whether

the systems are installed to satisfy

requirements in § 86.004–25 or for other

reasons and regardless of form or

interface. Diagnostic systems must be

free of all such codes when the rebuilt

engine is returned to service. Such

signals may not be rendered inoperative

during the rebuilding process.

(d) When conducting a rebuild

without removing the engine from the

vehicle, or during the installation of a

rebuilt engine, all critical emissionsrelated components listed in § 86.004–

25(b) not otherwise addressed by

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section

must be checked and cleaned, adjusted,

repaired, or replaced as necessary,

following manufacturer recommended

practices.
54730 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(e) Records shall be kept by parties

conducting activities included in

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this

section. The records shall include at

minimum the mileage and/or hours at

time of rebuild, a listing of work

performed on the engine and emissionsrelated control components including a

listing of parts and components used,

engine parameter adjustments,

emissions-related codes or signals

responded to and reset, and work

performed under paragraph (d) of this

section.

(1) Parties may keep records in

whatever format or system they choose

as long as the records are

understandable to an EPA enforcement

officer or can be otherwise provided to

an EPA enforcement officer in an

understandable format when requested.

(2) Parties are not required to keep

records of information that is not

reasonably available through normal

business practices including

information on activities not conducted

by themselves or information that they

cannot reasonably access.

(3) Parties may keep records of their

rebuilding practices for an engine family

rather than on each individual engine

rebuilt in cases where those rebuild

practices are followed routinely.

(4) Records must be kept for a

minimum of two years after the engine

is rebuilt.

21. Section 86.1311–94 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as

follows:

§ 86.1311–94 Exhaust gas analytical

system; CVS bag sample.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3)(i) Using a methane analyzer

consisting of a gas chromatograph

combined with a FID, the measurement

of methane shall be done in accordance

with SAE Recommended Practice J1151,

‘‘Methane Measurement Using Gas

Chromatography.’’ (Incorporated by

reference pursuant to § 86.1(b)(2).)

(ii) For natural gas vehicles, the

manufacturer has the option of using gas

chromatography to measure NMHC

through direct quantitation of

individual hydrocarbon species. The

manufacturer shall conform to standard

industry practices and use good

engineering judgement.

* * * * *

22. Section 86.1344–94 is amended by

revising paragraph (e)(22) to read as

follows:

§ 86.1344–94 Required information.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(22) Brake specific emissions (g/BHP–

hr) for HC, CO, NOX, and, if applicable

NMHC, NMHCE, THCE, CH3OH, and

HCHO for each test phase (cold and

hot).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–27494 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P