Thursday,

January 18, 2001

Part V

Environmental

Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor

Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle

Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur

Control Requirements; Final Rule

5002 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 69, 80, and 86

[AMS–FRL–6923–7]

RIN 2060–AI69

Control of Air Pollution from New

Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine

and Vehicle Standards and Highway

Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The pollution emitted by

diesel engines contributes greatly to our

nation’s continuing air quality

problems. Even with more stringent

heavy-duty highway engine standards

set to take effect in 2004, these engines

will continue to emit large amounts of

nitrogen oxides and particulate matter,

both of which contribute to serious

public health problems in the United

States. These problems include

premature mortality, aggravation of

respiratory and cardiovascular disease,

aggravation of existing asthma, acute

respiratory symptoms, chronic

bronchitis, and decreased lung function.

Numerous studies also link diesel

exhaust to increased incidence of lung

cancer. We believe that diesel exhaust is

likely to be carcinogenic to humans by

inhalation and that this cancer hazard

exists for occupational and

environmental levels of exposure.

We are establishing a comprehensive

national control program that will

regulate the heavy-duty vehicle and its

fuel as a single system. As part of this

program, new emission standards will

begin to take effect in model year 2007,

and will apply to heavy-duty highway

engines and vehicles. These standards

are based on the use of high-efficiency

catalytic exhaust emission control

devices or comparably effective

advanced technologies. Because these

devices are damaged by sulfur, we are

also reducing the level of sulfur in

highway diesel fuel significantly by

mid-2006. The program provides

substantial flexibility for refiners,

especially small refiners, and for

manufacturers of engines and vehicles.

These options will ensure that there is

widespread availability and supply of

the low sulfur diesel fuel from the very

beginning of the program, and will

provide engine manufacturers with the

lead time needed to efficiently phase-in

the exhaust emission control technology

that will be used to achieve the

emissions benefits of the new standards.

We estimate that heavy-duty trucks

and buses today account for about onethird of nitrogen oxides emissions and

one-quarter of particulate matter

emissions from mobile sources. In some

urban areas, the contribution is even

greater. This program will reduce

particulate matter and oxides of

nitrogen emissions from heavy duty

engines by 90 percent and 95 percent

below current standard levels,

respectively. In order to meet these

more stringent standards for diesel

engines, the program calls for a 97

percent reduction in the sulfur content

of diesel fuel. As a result, diesel

vehicles will achieve gasoline-like

exhaust emission levels. We are also

finalizing more stringent standards for

heavy-duty gasoline vehicles, based in

part on the use of the low sulfur

gasoline that will be available when the

standards go into effect.

The clean air impact of this program

will be dramatic when fully

implemented. By 2030, this program

will reduce annual emissions of

nitrogen oxides, nonmethane

hydrocarbons, and particulate matter by

a projected 2.6 million, 115,000 and

109,000 tons, respectively. We project

that these reductions and the resulting

significant environmental benefits of

this program will come at an average

cost increase of about $2,000 to $3,200

per new vehicle in the near term and

about $1,200 to $1,900 per new vehicle

in the long term, depending on the

vehicle size. In comparison, new vehicle

prices today can range well over

$100,000 for larger heavy-duty vehicles.

We estimate that when fully

implemented the sulfur reduction

requirement will increase the cost of

producing and distributing diesel fuel

by about five cents per gallon.

DATES: This rule will become effective

March 19, 2001. The incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed

in this rule is approved by the Director

of the Office of Federal Register as of

March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments: All comments

and materials relevant to today’s action

have been placed in Public Docket No.

A–99–06 at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M–

1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20460 (on the ground floor in

Waterside Mall) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, except on

government holidays. You can reach the

Air Docket by telephone at (202) 260–

7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260–

4400. We may charge a reasonable fee

for copying docket materials, as

provided in 40 CFR part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Margaret Borushko, U.S. EPA, National

Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory,

2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI 48105;

Telephone (734) 214–4334, FAX (734)

214–4816, E-mail

borushko.margaret@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

This action will affect you if you

produce or import new heavy-duty

engines which are intended for use in

highway vehicles such as trucks and

buses, or produce or import such

highway vehicles, or convert heavy-duty

vehicles or heavy-duty engines used in

highway vehicles to use alternative

fuels, or produce or import light-duty

highway diesel vehicles. It will also

affect you if you produce, import,

distribute, or sell highway diesel fuel, or

sell nonroad diesel fuel.

The following table gives some

examples of entities that may have to

follow the regulations. But because

these are only examples, you should

carefully examine the regulations in 40

CFR parts 69, 80, and 86. If you have

questions, call the person listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble:

Category NAICS

Codes a

SIC

Codes b

Examples of potentially regulated entities

Industry ....................................................................................................... 336112 3711 Engine and Truck Manufacturers

336120

Industry ....................................................................................................... 811112 7533 Commercial Importers of Vehicles and

811198 7549 Vehicle Components

Industry ....................................................................................................... 324110 2911 Petroleum Refiners

Industry ....................................................................................................... 422710 5171 Diesel Fuel Marketers and Distributors

422720 5172

industry ........................................................................................................ 484220 4212 Diesel Fuel Carriers

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5003

Category NAICS

Codes a

SIC

Codes b

Examples of potentially regulated entities

484230 4213

a North American Industry Classifications System (NAICS).

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

Access to Rulemaking Documents

Through the Internet

Today’s final rule is available

electronically on the day of publication

from the Environmental Protection

Agency Internet Web site listed below.

Electronic copies of the preamble,

regulatory language, Regulatory Impact

Analysis, and other documents

associated with today’s final rule are

available from the EPA Office of

Transportation and Air Quality

(formerly the Office of Mobile Sources)

Web site listed below shortly after the

rule is signed by the Administrator. This

service is free of charge, except any cost

that you incur for connecting to the

Internet.

Environmental Protection Agency

Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/

(Either select a desired date or use the

Search feature.)

Office of Transportation and Air

Quality (OTAQ) Web Site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/ (Look in ‘‘What’s

New’’ or under the ‘‘Heavy Trucks/

Busses’’ topic.)

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the document and the software into

which document may be downloaded,

changes in format, page length, etc. may

occur.

Table of Contents

I. Overview

A. What Requirements Are Being Set?

1. Heavy-Duty Emission Standards

2. Fuel Quality Standards

B. Why is EPA Taking This Action?

1. Heavy-Duty Vehicles Contribute to

Serious Air Pollution Problems

2. Technology-Based Solutions

3. Basis for Action Under the Clean Air Act

C. Putting This Rule in Perspective

1. Diesel Popularity

2. Past Progress and New Developments

3. Tier 2 Emissions Standards

4. Mobile Source Air Toxics Rulemaking

5. Nonroad Engine Standards and Fuel

6. State Initiatives

7. Retrofit Programs

8. Actions in Other Countries

II. The Air Quality Need and Projected

Benefits

A. Overview

B. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

1. Health and Welfare Concerns Raised

During Public Hearings

2. Ozone and its Precursors

a. Health and Welfare Effects From ShortTerm Exposures to Ozone

b. Current and Future Nonattainment

Status With the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

c. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

from Prolonged and Repeated Exposures

to Ozone

3. Particulate Matter

a. Health and Welfare Effects

b. Attainment and Maintenance of the

PM10 NAAQS

c. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

from Exposure to Fine PM

d. Other Welfare Effects Associated with

PM

e. Conclusions Regarding PM

4. Diesel Exhaust

a. Potential Cancer Effects of Diesel

Exhaust

b. Noncancer Effects of Diesel Exhaust

5. Other Criteria Pollutants

6. Other Air Toxics

a. Benzene

b. 1,3-Butadiene

c. Formaldehyde

d. Acetaldehyde

e. Acrolein

f. Dioxins

7. Other Welfare and Environmental Effects

a. Acid Deposition

b. Eutrophication and Nitrification

c. Polycyclic Organic Matter Deposition

d. Visibility and Regional Haze

C. Contribution From Heavy-Duty Vehicles

1. NOX Emissions

2. PM Emissions

3. Environmental Justice

D. Anticipated Emissions Benefits

1. NOX Reductions

2. PM Reductions

3. NMHC Reductions

4. Additional Emissions Benefits

a. CO Reductions

b. SOX Reductions

c. Air Toxics Reductions

E. Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles and LowSulfur Diesel Fuel are Critically

Important for Improving Human Health

and Welfare

III. Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle

Standards

A. Why Are We Setting New Heavy-Duty

Standards?

B. Emission Control Technologies for

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Engines

C. What Engine and Vehicle Standards are

We Finalizing?

1. Heavy-Duty Engine Exhaust Emissions

Standards

a. FTP Standards

b. Supplemental Provisions for HD Diesel

Engines (SET & NTE)

c. Crankcase Emissions Control

d. On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)

2. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emissions

Standards

a. FTP Standards

b. Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

c. On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)

3. Heavy-Duty Evaporative Emission

Standards

D. Incentives for Early Introduction of

Clean Engines and Vehicles

E. Feasibility of the New Engine and

Vehicle Standards

1. Feasibility of Stringent Standards for

Heavy-Duty Diesel

a. Meeting the PM Standard

b. Meeting the NOX Standard

c. Meeting the NMHC Standard

d. Meeting the Crankcase Emissions

Requirements

e. The Complete System

2. Feasibility of Stringent Standards for

Heavy-Duty Gasoline

3. Feasibility of the New Evaporative

Emission Standards

F. Need for Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel

1. Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filters and

the Need for Low Sulfur Fuel

a. Inhibition of Trap Regeneration Due to

Sulfur

b. Loss of PM Control Effectiveness

c. Increased Maintenance Cost for Diesel

Particulate Filters Due to Sulfur

2. Diesel NOX Catalysts and the Need for

Low Sulfur Fuel

a. Sulfur Poisoning (Sulfate Storage) on

NOX Adsorbers

b. Sulfate Particulate Production and

Sulfur Impacts on Effectiveness of NOX

Control Technologies

3. What About Sulfur in Engine

Lubricating Oils?

G. Fuel Economy Impact of High Efficiency

Control Technologies

1. Diesel Particulate Filters and Fuel

Economy

2. NOX Control Technologies and Fuel

Economy

3. Emission Control Systems for 2007 and

Net Fuel Economy Impacts

H. Review of the Status of Heavy-Duty

Diesel NOX Emission Control

Technology

IV. Our Program for Controlling Highway

Diesel Sulfur

A. Highway Diesel Sulfur Standards for

Refiners and Importers

1. Standards and Deadlines that Refiners

and Importers Must Meet

2. Temporary Compliance Option for

Refiners and Importers

a. Generating Credits

b. Using Credits

c. How Long Will Credits Last?

d. Additional Limitations on Credit

Trading for Some States

3. What Information Must Refiners/

Importers Submit to Us?

4. Impacts of the Highway Diesel Fuel

Program

a. Ensures Adequate Supplies of Highway

Diesel Fuel

b. Ensures Widespread Availability of Low

Sulfur Diesel Fuel

c. Provides Lower Costs to Refineries

d. Misfueling Concerns Should Be

Minimized

5004 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

e. Summary

B. What Provisions Apply in the

Geographic Phase-in Area?

1. What Is the Geographic Phase-in Area

and How Was it Established?

2. Highway Diesel Provisions for GPA

Refiners

3. How Do Refiners Apply for an Extension

of the GPA Gasoline Program?

4. Required Reporting for GPA Refiners

C. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying

Refiners

1. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying

Small Refiners

a. Qualifying Small Refiners

b. How Do We Define Small Refiners?

c. What Options Are Available for Small

Refiners?

d. How Do Small Refiners Apply for Small

Refiner Status?

2. Farmer Cooperative Refiners Will

Benefit From the Flexible Provisions

Available to Other Refiners

3. General Hardship Provisions

a. Temporary Waivers from Low Sulfur

Diesel Requirements in Extreme

Unforseen Circumstances

b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme

Hardship Circumstances

D. Technological Feasibility of the Low

Sulfur Diesel Fuel Program

1. What Technology Will Refiners Use?

2. Have These Technologies Been

Commercially Demonstrated?

3. Feasibility of Distributing Low Sulfur

Highway Diesel Fuel

E. What Are the Potential Impacts of the

Low Sulfur Diesel Program on Lubricity

and Other Fuel Properties?

1. What Is Lubricity and Why Might It Be

a Concern?

2. Today’s Action on Lubricity: a Voluntary

Approach

3. What Are Today’s Actions on Fuel

Properties Other than Sulfur?

F. How Are State Programs Affected by the

Low Sulfur Diesel Program?

1. State Preemption

2. What Provisions Apply in Alaska?

a. Today’s Action Regarding the 500 ppm

Standard in Alaska

b. Why Are We Treating Alaska Uniquely?

3. What Provisions Apply in American

Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth

of Northern Mariana Islands?

a. Today’s Action Regarding the Highway

Diesel Fuel Standard in the Territories

b. Why Are We Treating These Territories

Uniquely?

G. Refinery Air Permitting

V. Economic Impact

A. Cost for Diesel Vehicles to Meet

Emissions Standards

1. Summary of New System and Operating

Costs

2. New System Costs for NOX and PM

Emission Control

3. Operating Costs Associated With NOX

and PM Control

B. Cost for Gasoline Vehicles to Meet the

New Emissions Standards

1. Summary of New System Costs

2. Operating Costs Associated With

Meeting the Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Standard

C. Cost of Fuel Change

1. Refinery Costs

2. Highway Diesel Fuel Supply

3. Cost of Lubricity Additives

4. Distribution Costs

a. Distribution Costs Under the Fully

Implemented Program

b. Distribution Costs During the Initial

Years

5. Benefits of Low-sulfur Diesel Fuel for

the Existing Diesel Fleet

D. Aggregate Costs

E. Cost Effectiveness

1. What Is the Cost Effectiveness of This

Program?

2. Comparison With Other Means of

Reducing Emissions

F. Does the Value of the Benefits Outweigh

the Cost of the Standards?

1. What Was Our Overall Approach to the

Benefit-Cost Analysis?

2. What Are the Significant Limitations of

the Benefit-Cost Analysis?

3. How Has the Benefit-Cost Analysis

Changed from Proposal?

4. What Are the Benefits in the Years

Leading up to 2030?

5. What Were the Results of the BenefitCost Analysis?

VI. Requirements for Engine and Vehicle

Manufacturers

A. Compliance with Standards and

Enforcement

1. Allowable Maintenance

2. Emission Data Waivers

3. Crankcase Emissions

4. Non-Conformance Penalties

5. Idle CO Standards

B. Compliance With Phase-in Schedules

C. Averaging, Banking, and Trading

D. FTP Changes to Accommodate

Regeneration of Exhaust Emission

Controls

E. Improvements to the Test Procedures

F. Certification Fuel

G. Misfueling Concerns for Light-and

Heavy-duty Diesel Vehicles

H. In-Use Compliance Levels During the

Transition Years to New Technologies

VII. Highway Diesel Fuel Program:

Compliance, Enforcement and

Downstream Provisions

A. General Provisions

1. Definition of Diesel Fuel Covered by

This Program

2. Relationship to Highway Diesel

Standards

B. What Are the Requirements for Refiners

and Importers?

1. General Requirements

2. Refiner and Importer Temporary

Compliance Option Provisions and the

Credit Trading Program

a. Early Credits Program

b. Credit Use in a Credit Deficit Situation

c. Resolving Issues of Invalid Credits

d. Compliance Provisions

e. Additional Provisions for Importers of

Diesel Fuel and for Foreign Refiners

Subject to the Temporary Compliance

Option and Hardship Provisions

3. Refiner Hardship Provisions

a. General Refiner Hardship Provisions

b. Small Refiner Hardship Provisions

c. Relief for Refiners Supplying Gasoline to

the Tier 2 Geographic Phase-In Area

(GPA)

C. What Requirements Apply Downstream

of the Refinery or Import Facility?

1. Downstream Enforcement of the

Standards

2. Other Provisions

a. Implementation Dates

b. Product Segregation and Contamination

c. Diesel Fuel Pump Labeling

3. Use of Used Motor Oil in New Diesel

Vehicles

4. Use of Kerosene in Diesel Fuel

5. Use of Diesel Fuel Additives

D. What Are the Testing and Sampling

Methods and Requirements?

1. Diesel Fuel Testing Requirements and

Test Methods

2. Diesel Fuel Sampling Methods

E. What Are the Recordkeeping, Reporting

and Product Transfer Document

Requirements?

1. Registration of Refiners and Importers

a. All Refiners and Importers

b. Prospective Small Refiners

c. Refiners Seeking an Extension of the

GPA Gasoline Sulfur Standards

2. Pre-Compliance Reports

a. All Refiners

b. Small Refiners

c. GPA Refiners

3. Annual Compliance Reports

a. All Refiners

b. Small Refiners

4. Initial Confirmation of 15 ppm Fuel

Production

5. Product Transfer Documents (PTDs)

a. Diesel Fuel

b. Additives

6. Recordkeeping Requirements

7. Record Retention

F. Are There Any Exemptions From the

Highway Diesel Fuel Requirements?

1. Research and Development

2. Racing Vehicles

3. Military Fuel

G. Liability and Penalty Provisions for

Noncompliance

1. General

2. What Is the Liability That Additive

Manufacturers and Distributors, and

Parties That Blend Additives into Diesel

Fuel, Are Subject To?

a. General

b. Liability When the Additive Is

Designated as Complying with the 15

ppm Sulfur Standard

c. Liability When the Additive Is

Designated as Having a Possible Sulfur

Content Greater than 15 ppm

H. How Will Compliance With the Sulfur

Standards Be Determined?

VIII.Standards and Fuel for Nonroad Diesel

Engines

IX. Public Participation

X. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation and

Regulatory Analysis

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule

2. Summary of Significant Public

Comments on the IRFA

3. Types and Number of Small Entities

4. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

5. Regulatory Alternatives To Minimize

Impact on Small Entities

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5005

1Note that throughout this preamble we refer to

diesel and gasoline vehicles and engines. We tend

to use those terms given the preponderance of

vehicles using diesel fuel or gasoline fuel in the

U.S. heavy-duty highway market. However, when

we refer to a diesel engine, we generally mean any

engine using the diesel cycle. When we refer to a

gasoline engine or vehicle, we generally mean any

Otto-cycle vehicle or engine. Therefore, the

emission standards discussed throughout this

preamble apply equally to engines and vehicles

fueled by alternative fuels, unless otherwise

specified in the regulatory text accompanying

today’s rule.

2 Vehicle weight ratings in this rule refer to

GVWR (the curb weight of the vehicle plus its

maximum recommended load of passengers and

cargo) unless noted otherwise.

D. Intergovernmental Relations

1. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

2. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments

E. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

F. Executive Order 13045: Children’s

Health Protection

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

H. Congressional Review Act

XI. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

I. Overview

This rule covers the second of two

phases in a comprehensive nationwide

program for controlling emissions from

heavy-duty engines (HDEs) and

vehicles. It builds upon the phase 1

program we recently finalized (65 FR

59896, October 6, 2000). That action

affirmed the 50 percent reduction in

emissions of oxides of nitrogen ( NOX)

from 2004 model year highway diesel

engines, set in 1997 (62 FR 54693,

October 21, 1997), and set new emission

standards for heavy-duty gasolinefueled engines and vehicles for 2005.

This second phase of the program

looks beyond 2004, based on the use of

high-efficiency exhaust emission control

devices and the consideration of the

vehicle and its fuel as a single system.

In developing this rule, we took into

consideration comments received in

response to the advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (64 FR 26142, May

13, 1999) and the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) (65 FR 35430, June

2, 2000), including comments provided

at five public hearings last June.

This program will result in particulate

matter (PM) and NOX emission levels

that are 90 percent and 95 percent

below the standard levels in effect

today, respectively. In order to meet

these more stringent standards for diesel

engines, the rule mandates a 97 percent

reduction in the sulfur content of diesel

fuel. The heavy-duty engine standards

will be effective starting in the 2007

model year and the low sulfur diesel

fuel needed to facilitate the standards

will be widely available in September

2006. As a result, diesel vehicles will

achieve gasoline-like exhaust emission

levels, in addition to their inherent

advantages over gasoline vehicles with

respect to fuel economy, lower

greenhouse gas emissions, and lower

evaporative hydrocarbon emissions. The

rule also includes more stringent

standards for heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles. In addition to its impact on

heavy-duty vehicle emissions, this rule

will make clean diesel fuel available in

time for implementation of the lightduty Tier 2 standards.

The standards will result in

substantial benefits to public health and

welfare and the environment through

significant reductions in emissions of

NOX, PM, nonmethane hydrocarbons

(NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur

oxides (SOX), and air toxics. We project

that by 2030, this phase 2 program will

reduce annual emissions of NOX,

NMHC, and PM by 2.6 million, 115,000

and 109,000 tons, respectively. These

emission reductions will prevent 8,300

premature deaths, over 9,500

hospitalizations, and 1.5 million work

days lost. All told the benefits of this

rule equal $70.3 billion. A sizeable part

of the benefits in the early years of this

program come from large reductions in

the amount of direct and secondary PM

caused by the existing fleet of heavyduty vehicles. These reductions are due

to the use of the higher quality diesel

fuel in these vehicles.

A. What Requirements Are Being Set?

There are two basic parts to this

program: (1) New exhaust emission

standards for heavy-duty highway

engines and vehicles, and (2) new

quality standards for highway diesel

fuel. The systems approach of

combining the engine and fuel

standards into a single program is

critical to the success of our overall

efforts to reduce emissions, because the

emission standards will not be feasible

without the fuel change. The feasibility

of the emission standards is based on

the use of high-efficiency exhaust

emission control devices that would be

damaged by sulfur in the fuel. This rule,

by providing extremely low sulfur

diesel fuel, will also enable cleaner

diesel passenger vehicles and light-duty

trucks. This is because the same pool of

highway diesel fuel also services these

light-duty diesel vehicles, and these

vehicles can employ technologies

similar to the high-efficiency heavyduty exhaust emission control

technologies that will be enabled by the

fuel change. We believe these

technologies are needed for diesel

vehicles to comply with our Tier 2

emissions standards for light-duty

highway vehicles (65 FR 6698, February

10, 2000).

We believe that this systems approach

is a comprehensive way to enable

effective new technologies for clean

diesel, affecting all sizes of highway

diesel engines, and may translate to

future reductions from diesel engines

used in nonroad applications too. The

fuel change, in addition to enabling new

technologies, will also produce

emissions and maintenance benefits in

the existing fleet of highway diesel

vehicles. These benefits will include

reduced sulfate PM and sulfur oxides

emissions, reduced engine wear and less

frequent oil changes, and longer-lasting

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

components on engines equipped with

EGR. Heavy-duty gasoline vehicles will

also be expected to have much lower

emissions due to the transfer of recent

technology developments for light-duty

applications, and the recent action taken

to reduce sulfur in gasoline as part of

the Tier 2 rule.

The basic elements of the rule are

outlined below. Detailed provisions and

justifications for our rule are discussed

in subsequent sections.

1. Heavy-Duty Emission Standards

We are finalizing a PM emissions

standard for new heavy-duty engines of

0.01 grams per brake-horsepower-hour

(g/bhp-hr), to take full effect for diesels

in the 2007 model year.1 We are also

finalizing standards for NOX and NMHC

of 0.20 g/bhp-hr and 0.14 g/bhp-hr,

respectively. These NOX and NMHC

standards will be phased in together

between 2007 and 2010, for diesel

engines. The phase-in will be on a

percent-of-sales basis: 50 percent from

2007 to 2009 and 100 percent in 2010.

This phase-in schedule differs

somewhat from the proposed schedule

for reasons explained in Section III.

Gasoline engines will be subject to these

standards based on a phase-in requiring

50 percent compliance in the 2008

model year and 100 percent compliance

in the 2009 model year. This phase-in

schedule also differs from that proposed

for reasons explained in Section III. In

addition, we are finalizing our proposal

to include turbocharged diesels in the

existing crankcase emissions

prohibition, effective in 2007.

Standards for complete HDVs will be

implemented on the same schedule as

for gasoline engine standards. For

certification of complete vehicles

between 8500 and 10,000 pounds gross

vehicle weight rating (GVWR), the

standards are 0.2 grams per mile (g/mi)

for NOX, 0.02 g/mi for PM, 0.195 g/mi

for NMHC, and 0.032 g/mi for

formaldehyde.2 For vehicles between

5006 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

10,000 and 14,000 pounds, the

standards are 0.4 g/mi for NOX, 0.02 g/

mi for PM, 0.230 g/mi for NMHC, and

0.040 g/mi for formaldehyde. These

standards levels are roughly comparable

to the engine-based standards in these

size ranges. Note that these standards

will not apply to vehicles above 8500

pounds that we classify as medium-duty

passenger vehicles as part of our Tier 2

program.

Finally, we are adopting new

evaporative emissions standards for

heavy-duty engines and vehicles,

effective on the same schedule as the

gasoline engine and vehicle exhaust

emission standards. The new standards

for 8500 to 14,000 pound vehicles are

1.4 and 1.75 grams per test for the 3-day

diurnal and supplemental 2-day diurnal

tests, respectively. Standards levels of

1.9 and 2.3 grams per test will apply for

vehicles over 14,000 pounds. These

standards represent more than a 50

percent reduction in the numerical

standards as they exist today.

The program includes flexibility

provisions to facilitate the transition to

the new standards and to encourage the

early introduction of clean technologies,

and adjustments to various testing and

compliance requirements to address

differences between the new

technologies and existing engine-based

technologies. These provisions are

described in Sections III and VI.

2. Fuel Quality Standards

This rule specifies that, beginning

June 1, 2006, refiners must begin

producing highway diesel fuel that

meets a maximum sulfur standard of 15

parts per million (ppm). All 2007 and

later model year diesel-fueled vehicles

must be refueled with this new low

sulfur diesel fuel. This sulfur standard

is based on our assessment of the impact

of sulfur on advanced exhaust emission

control technologies, and a

corresponding assessment of the

feasibility of low sulfur fuel production

and distribution.

Today’s program includes a

combination of flexibilities available to

refiners to ensure a smooth transition to

low sulfur highway diesel fuel. First,

refiners can take advantage of a

temporary compliance option, including

an averaging, banking and trading

component, beginning in June 2006 and

lasting through 2009, with credit given

for early compliance before June 2006.

Under this temporary compliance

option, up to 20 percent of highway

diesel fuel may continue to be produced

at the existing 500 ppm sulfur

maximum standard. Highway diesel fuel

marketed as complying with the 500

ppm sulfur standard must be segregated

from 15 ppm fuel in the distribution

system, and may only be used in pre2007 model year heavy-duty vehicles.

Second, we are providing additional

hardship provisions for small refiners to

minimize their economic burden in

complying with the 15 ppm sulfur

standard. Third, we are providing

additional flexibility to refiners subject

to the Geographic Phase-in Area (GPA)

provisions of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur

program, which will allow them the

option of staggering their gasoline and

diesel investments. Finally, we are

adopting a general hardship provision

for which any refiner may apply on a

case-by-case basis under certain

conditions. These hardship provisions,

coupled with the temporary compliance

option, will provide a ‘‘safety valve’’

allowing up to 25 percent of highway

diesel fuel produced to remain at 500

ppm for these transitional years to

minimize any potential for highway

diesel fuel supply problems.

In addition, today’s program includes

unique provisions for implementing the

low sulfur diesel fuel program in the

State of Alaska, given that it is exempt

from the current 500 ppm standard.

Certain U.S. territories are excluded

from both the new engine standards and

highway diesel fuel standards.

The compliance provisions for

ensuring diesel fuel quality are

essentially consistent with those that

have been in effect since 1993 under the

existing 500 ppm sulfur standard (55 FR

34120, August 21, 1990). Additional

compliance provisions have been

established primarily during the

transition years of the program to verify

refiners’ compliance with the temporary

compliance option to ensure the two

grades of highway diesel fuel remain

segregated, and to discourage misfueling

of model year 2007 and later diesel

vehicles.

B. Why is EPA Taking This Action?

1. Heavy-Duty Vehicles Contribute to

Serious Air Pollution Problems

As discussed in detail in Section II,

emissions from heavy-duty vehicles

contribute greatly to a number of serious

air pollution problems, and would have

continued to do so into the future absent

further controls to reduce these

emissions. First, heavy-duty vehicles

contribute to the health and welfare

effects of ozone, PM, NOX, SOX, and

volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

including toxic compounds such as

formaldehyde. These adverse effects

include premature mortality,

aggravation of respiratory and

cardiovascular disease (as indicated by

increased hospital admissions and

emergency room visits, school absences,

work loss days, and restricted activity

days), changes in lung function and

increased respiratory symptoms,

changes to lung tissues and structures,

altered respiratory defense mechanisms,

chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung

function. Ozone also causes crop and

forestry losses, and PM causes damage

to materials and soiling of commonly

used building materials and culturally

important items such as statues and

works of art. Second, NOX, SOX and PM

contribute to substantial visibility

impairment in many parts of the U.S.

Third, NOX emissions from heavy-duty

trucks contribute to the acidification,

nitrification and eutrophication of water

bodies. Fourth, the Agency has

concluded, and the Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee has approved in

public session, that diesel exhaust is

likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

Millions of Americans live in areas

with unhealthful air quality that

currently endangers public health and

welfare. Without emission reductions

from the standards for heavy-duty

vehicles, there is a significant risk that

an appreciable number of 45 areas with

128 million people across the country

will violate the 1-hour ozone national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)

during the period when these standards

will take effect. Furthermore, our

analysis shows that PM10 concentrations

in 10 areas with a population of 28

million people face a significant risk of

exceeding the PM10 NAAQS without

significant additional controls between

2007 and 2030. Under the mandates and

authorities in the Clean Air Act,

Federal, state, and local governments

are working to bring ozone and

particulate levels into compliance with

the 1-hour ozone and PM10 NAAQS

through State Implementation Plan (SIP)

attainment and maintenance plans, and

to ensure that future air quality reaches

and continues to achieve these healthbased standards. The reductions in this

rulemaking will play a critical part in

these important efforts to attain and

maintain the NAAQS. In addition,

reductions from this action will also

reduce public health and welfare effects

associated with ozone and fine PM at

concentrations that do not constitute a

violation of the 1-hour ozone and PM10

NAAQS.

Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles

account for substantial portions of the

country’s ambient PM and NOX levels.

( NOX is a key precursor to ozone

formation). By 2007, we estimate that

heavy-duty vehicles will account for 28

percent of mobile source NOX emissions

and 20 percent of mobile source PM

emissions. These proportions are even

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5007

3EPA (2000) Review of EPA’s Health Assessment

Document for Diesel Exhaust (EPA 600/8–90/057E).

Review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee (CASAC) December 2000. EPA–SAB–

CASAC–01–003.

4For example, see letter dated July 13, 1999 from

John Elston and Richard Baldwin on behalf of the

State and Territorial Air Pollution Program

Administrators and the Association of Local Air

Pollution Control Officials (docket A–99–06, item

II–D–78).

higher in some urban areas, such as in

Sacramento, Atlanta, and Washington,

DC, where HDVs contribute over 34

percent of the mobile source NOX

emissions, and in Santa Fe, Los Angeles,

and Hartford, where heavy-duty vehicle

PM emissions account for 38, 25 and 30

percent of the mobile source PM

emissions inventory, respectively. Over

time, the relative contribution of diesel

engines to air quality problems will go

even higher if diesel-equipped lightduty vehicles become more popular, as

is expected by some automobile

manufacturers. The PM and NOX

standards for heavy-duty vehicles in

this rule will have a substantial impact

on emissions. By 2030, NOX emissions

from heavy-duty vehicles under today’s

standards will be reduced by 2.6 million

tons, and PM emissions will decline by

about 109,000 tons, dramatically

reducing this source of NOX and PM

emissions. Urban areas, which include

many poorer neighborhoods, can be

disproportionately impacted by HDV

emissions, and these neighborhoods

will thus receive a relatively larger

portion of the benefits expected from

new HDV emissions controls.

In addition to its contribution to PM

inventories, diesel exhaust PM is of

special concern because it has been

implicated in an increased risk of lung

cancer and respiratory disease. The EPA

draft Health Assessment Document for

Diesel Exhaust (Draft Assessment) was

reviewed in public session by the Clean

Air Scientific Advisory Committee

(CASAC) on October 12–13, 2000.3 The

Agency has concluded, and the CASAC

approved at this session, that diesel

exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to

humans. State and local governments, in

their efforts to protect the health of their

citizens and comply with requirements

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’),

have recognized the need to achieve

major reductions in diesel PM

emissions, and have been seeking

Agency action in setting stringent new

standards to bring this about.4

2. Technology-Based Solutions

Although the air quality problems

caused by diesel exhaust are

challenging, we believe they can be

resolved through the application of

high-efficiency emissions control

technologies. As discussed in detail in

Section III, the development of diesel

emissions control technology has

advanced in recent years so that very

large emission reductions (in excess of

90 percent) are possible, especially

through the use of catalytic emission

control devices installed in the vehicle’s

exhaust system and integrated with the

engine controls. These devices are often

referred to as ‘‘exhaust emission

control’’ or ‘‘aftertreatment’’ devices.

Exhaust emission control devices, in the

form of the well-known catalytic

converter, have been used in gasolinefueled automobiles for 25 years, but

have had only limited application in

diesel vehicles.

Based on the Clean Air Act

requirements discussed in Section I.B.3,

we are setting stringent new emission

standards that will result in the use of

these diesel exhaust emission control

devices (see Section III). We are also

finalizing changes to diesel fuel quality

standards in order to enable these highefficiency technologies (Section IV).

Heavy-duty gasoline engines will also

be able to reach the significantly lower

emission levels envisioned in this rule

by relying on the transfer of recent

technology developments for light-duty

applications, given the recent action

taken to reduce sulfur in gasoline (65 FR

6698, February 10, 2000).

To meet the new standards,

application of high-efficiency exhaust

emission controls for both PM and NOX

will be needed. High-efficiency PM

exhaust emission control technology has

been available for several years,

although engine manufacturers have

generally not needed this technology in

order to meet our PM emission

standards. This technology has

continued to improve over the years,

especially with respect to durability and

robust operation in use. It has also

proven extremely effective in reducing

exhaust hydrocarbon emissions.

Thousands of such systems are now in

use in fleet programs, especially in

Europe. However, as discussed in detail

in Section III, these systems are very

sensitive to sulfur in the fuel. For the

technology to be viable and capable of

meeting the standards, we believe that

it will require diesel fuel with sulfur

content capped at the 15 ppm level.

Similarly, high-efficiency NOX

exhaust emission control technology

will be needed if heavy-duty vehicles

are to attain the new standards. We

believe this technology, like the PM

technology, is dependent on the 15 ppm

maximum diesel fuel sulfur levels being

adopted in this rule to be feasible and

capable of achieving the standards.

Similar high-efficiency NOX exhaust

emission control technology has been

quite successful in gasoline direct

injection engines that operate with an

exhaust composition fairly similar to

diesel exhaust. However, as discussed

in Section III, application of this

technology to diesels has some

additional engineering challenges. In

that section we discuss the current

status of this technology. We also

discuss the major development issues

still to be addressed and the

development steps that can be taken to

address these issues. With the lead time

available and the certainty of low-sulfur

diesel fuel established by today’s action,

the evidence leaves us confident that

the application of this technology to

diesels will proceed at a reasonable rate

of progress and will result in systems

capable of achieving the standards.

The need to reduce the sulfur in

diesel fuel is driven by the requirements

of the exhaust emission control

technology that we project will be

needed to meet the standards. The

challenge in accomplishing the sulfur

reduction is driven by the feasibility of

needed refinery modifications, and by

the costs of making the modifications

and running the equipment. Today, a

number of refiners are acting to provide

low sulfur diesel to some markets. In

consideration of the impacts that sulfur

has on the efficiency, reliability, and

fuel economy impact of diesel engine

exhaust emission control devices, we

believe that controlling the sulfur

content of highway diesel fuel to the 15

ppm level is necessary and feasible,

and, in the context of this rule’s overall

program, cost effective.

3. Basis For Action Under the Clean Air

Act

Section 202(a)(1) of the Act directs us

to establish standards regulating the

emission of any air pollutant from any

class or classes of new motor vehicles or

engines that, in the Administrator’s

judgment, cause or contribute to air

pollution which may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health or

welfare. Section 202(a)(3) requires that

EPA set standards for heavy-duty trucks

that reflect the greatest degree of

emission reduction achievable through

the application of technology which we

determine will be available for the

model year to which the standards

apply. We are to give appropriate

consideration to cost, energy, and safety

factors associated with the application

of such technology. We may revise such

technology-based standards, taking costs

into account, on the basis of information

concerning the effects of air pollution

from heavy-duty vehicles or engines and

other sources of mobile source related

5008 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

pollutants on the public health and

welfare. Section 202(a)(3)(C) requires

that promulgated standards apply for no

less than three years and go into effect

no less than 4 years after promulgation.

This rule conforms with these statutory

requirements.

We believe the evidence provided in

Section III and the Regulatory Impact

Analysis (RIA) indicates that the

stringent emission standards finalized

today are feasible and reflect the greatest

degree of emission reduction achievable

in the model years to which they apply.

We have given appropriate

consideration to costs in choosing these

standards. Our review of the costs and

cost-effectiveness of these standards

indicate that they will be reasonable and

comparable to the cost-effectiveness of

other emission reduction strategies that

have been required or could be required

in the future. We have also reviewed

and given appropriate consideration to

the energy factors of this rule in terms

of fuel efficiency and effects on diesel

fuel supply, production, and

distribution, as discussed below, as well

as any safety factors associated with

these standards.

The information regarding air quality

and the contribution of heavy-duty

engines to air pollution in Section II and

the RIA provides strong evidence that

emissions from such engines

significantly and adversely impact

public health or welfare. First, there is

a significant risk that several areas will

fail to attain or maintain compliance

with the NAAQS for 1-hour ozone

concentrations or PM10 concentrations

during the period that these new vehicle

and engine standards will be phased

into the vehicle population, and that

heavy-duty engines contribute to such

concentrations, as well as to

concentrations of other NAAQS-related

pollutants. This risk will be

significantly reduced by the standards

adopted today; however, the evidence

indicates that some risk remains even

after the reductions achieved by these

new controls on heavy-duty vehicles

and diesel fuel. Second, EPA believes

that diesel exhaust is likely to be

carcinogenic to humans. The risk

associated with exposure to diesel

exhaust includes the particulate and

gaseous components. Some of the toxic

air pollutants associated with emissions

from heavy-duty vehicles and engines

include benzene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, dioxin, acrolein, and 1,3-

butadiene. Third, emissions from heavyduty engines contribute to regional haze

and impaired visibility across the

nation, as well as acid deposition, POM

deposition, eutrophication and

nitrification, all of which are serious

environmental welfare problems.

Based on this evidence, EPA believes

that, for purposes of section 202(a)(1),

emissions of NOX, VOCs, SOx and PM

from heavy-duty trucks can reasonably

be anticipated to endanger the public

health or welfare. In addition, this

evidence indicates that it will not be

appropriate to modify the technologybased standards pursuant to section

202(a)(3)(B). EPA believes that it is

required under section 202(a)(3)(A) to

set technology-based standards that

meet the criteria of that provision, and

is not required to make an affirmative

determination under section 202(a)(1).

Instead EPA is authorized to take air

quality into consideration under section

202(a)(3)(B) in deciding whether to

modify or not set standard under section

202(a)(3)(A). In this case, however, EPA

believes the evidence fully supports a

determination under section 202(a)(1) to

set standards, and a determination not

to modify such standards under section

202(a)(3)(B).

In addition, there is significant

evidence that emissions from heavyduty trucks contribute to levels of ozone

such that large segments of the national

population are expected to experience

prolonged exposure over several hours

at levels that present serious concern for

the public health and welfare. The same

is true for exposure to fine PM. These

public health and welfare problems are

expected to occur in many parts of the

country, including areas that are in

compliance with the 1-hour ozone and

PM10 NAAQS (PM10 is particulate

matter that is 10 microns or smaller).

This evidence is an additional reason

why the controls finalized today are

justified and appropriate under the Act.

While EPA sees this as additional

support for this action, EPA also

believes that the evidence of air

pollution problems summarized above

and described in greater detail

elsewhere is an adequate justification

for this rule independent of concern

over prolonged exposure to ozone and

fine PM levels.

Section 211(c) of the CAA allows us

to regulate fuels where emission

products of the fuel either: (1) Cause or

contribute to air pollution that

reasonably may be anticipated to

endanger public health or welfare, or (2)

will impair to a significant degree the

performance of any emission control

device or system which is in general

use, or which the Administrator finds

has been developed to a point where in

a reasonable time it will be in general

use were such a regulation to be

promulgated. This rule meets each of

these criteria. The discussion of the first

test is substantially the same as the

above discussion for the heavy-duty

engine standards, because SOx and

sulfate PM emissions from heavy-duty

diesel vehicles are due to sulfur in

diesel fuel. The substantial adverse

effect of high diesel sulfur levels on

diesel control devices or systems

expected to be used to meet the heavyduty standards is discussed in depth in

Section III.F and in the RIA. In addition,

our authority under section 211(c) is

discussed in more detail in Appendix A

to the RIA.

C. Putting This Rule In Perspective

There are several helpful perspectives

to establish in understanding the

context for this rule: the growing

popularity of diesel engines, past

progress and new developments in

diesel emissions control, Tier 2 lightduty emission standards and other

related EPA initiatives (besides the

above-discussed rulemaking for

highway heavy-duty engine emission

standards in 2004), and recent actions

and plans to control diesel emissions by

the States and in other countries.

1. Diesel Popularity

The diesel engine is increasingly

becoming a vital workhorse in the

United States, moving much of the

nation’s freight, and carrying out much

of its farm, construction, and other

labor. Diesel engine sales have grown

significantly over the last decade, so

that now about a million new diesel

engines are put to work in the U.S.

every year. Unfortunately, these diesel

engines emit large quantities of harmful

pollutants annually.

Furthermore, although diesel

emissions in this country come mostly

from heavy-duty trucks and nonroad

equipment, an additional source may

grow out of auto manufacturers’ plans to

greatly increase the sales of dieselpowered light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and

especially of light-duty trucks (LDTs), a

category that includes the fast-selling

sport-utility vehicles, minivans, and

pickup trucks. These plans reflect the

continuation of an ongoing dieselization

trend, a trend recently most evident in

the growing popularity of dieselpowered light heavy-duty trucks (8500

to 19,500 pounds). Diesel market

penetration is working its way from

larger to smaller highway applications

and to a broader array of nonroad

equipment applications. Finally,

especially in Europe where diesels have

already gained a broad consumer

acceptance, the diesel engine is

increasingly viewed as an attractive

technology option for reducing

emissions of gases that contribute to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5009

global warming, because it has greater

operating efficiency than a gasoline

engine.

2. Past Progress and New Developments

Since the 1970’s, highway diesel

engine designers have employed

numerous strategies to meet our

emissions standards, beginning with

smoke controls, and focusing in the

1990’s on increasingly stringent NOX,

hydrocarbon, and PM standards. These

strategies have generally focused on

reducing engine-out emissions and not

on exhaust emission controls, although

relatively low-efficiency oxidation

catalysts have been applied in some

designs to reduce PM, with the

recognition that their effectiveness is

limited by sulfur in the fuel. On the fuel

side, we set quality standards that

provided emissions benefits by limiting

the amount of sulfur and aromatics in

highway diesel fuel beginning in 1993

(55 FR 34120, August 21, 1990). Our

most recent round of standard setting

for heavy-duty highway diesels

occurred in 1997 (62 FR 54693, October

21, 1997), effective with the 2004 model

year. These standards were recently

reviewed in a final rulemaking (65 FR

59896, October 6, 2000). These actions

will result in engines that emit only a

fraction of the NOX, hydrocarbons, and

PM produced by engines manufactured

just a decade ago. We consider this an

important first phase of our current

initiative to reconcile the diesel engine

with the environment.

Nevertheless, certain characteristics

inherent in the way diesel fuel

combustion occurs have prevented

achievement of emission levels

comparable to those of today’s gasolinefueled vehicles. Although diesel engines

provide advantages in terms of fuel

economy, durability, and evaporative

emissions, and have inherently low

exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and

carbon monoxide, controlling NOX

emissions is a greater challenge for

diesel engines than for gasoline engines,

primarily because of the ineffectiveness

of three-way catalysis in the oxygen-rich

and relatively cool diesel exhaust

environment. Similarly, PM emissions,

which are inherently low for properly

operating gasoline engines, are more

difficult to control in diesel engines,

because the diesel combustion process

tends to form soot particles. The

challenge is somewhat complicated by

the fact that historical diesel NOX

control approaches tend to increase PM,

and vice versa, but both are harmful

pollutants that need to be controlled.

Considering the air quality impacts of

diesel engines and the potential for

growth of diesels in the lighter-duty

portion of the market, it is imperative

that progress in diesel emissions control

continue. Significant progress has

already been made in the design of

exhaust emission control devices for

diesel applications, driven in part by the

challenge presented by the stringent

Tier 2 standards for light-duty vehicles.

As discussed in detail in Section III,

new exhaust emission control

technologies for NOX, PM, and

hydrocarbon reduction will allow a

major advancement in diesel emissions

control of a magnitude comparable to

that ushered in by the automotive

catalytic converter in the 1970’s.

However, changes in diesel fuel quality

will be needed to enable these highefficiency exhaust emission control

devices.

3. Tier 2 Emissions Standards

Auto manufacturers’ design plans for

new light-duty diesel vehicle models

will be greatly affected by our recent

adoption of stringent new emission

standards for light-duty highway

vehicles (referred to as ‘‘Tier 2’’

standards) that will phase in between

2004 and 2009. These Tier 2 standards

will require significant improvements in

electronic engine controls and catalysts

on gasoline vehicles. We anticipate that

these advances will be transferred over

to heavy-duty gasoline vehicles in

meeting the standards finalized in this

rule. The Tier 2 NOX and PM standards,

that apply equally to gasoline and diesel

vehicles, will also require the use of

high-efficiency emission control

technologies on light-duty diesel

vehicles. The low sulfur highway diesel

fuel brought about by this rule will

make it possible for designers to employ

these high-efficiency exhaust emission

control technologies in these light-duty

applications. The timing of the fuel

change provides for the use of these

devices in time to satisfy Tier 2 phasein requirements.

The Tier 2 program phases in interim

and final standards over a number of

years, providing manufacturers the

option of delaying some of their

production of final Tier 2 designs until

later in the phase-in. For vehicles up to

6000 lbs GVWR (LDVs) and light lightduty trucks (LLDTs)), the interim

standards begin in 2004 and phase out

by 2007, as they are replaced by the

final Tier 2 standards. For vehicles

between 6000 and 8500 lbs ( heavy

light-duty trucks (HLDTs)), the interim

standards begin in 2004 and phase out

by 2009 as they are replaced by the final

Tier 2 standards. A new category of

vehicles between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs,

medium-duty passenger vehicles

(MDPVs), will follow the same phase-in

schedule as HLDTs.

Our assessment in the Tier 2 final rule

is that the interim standards are feasible

for diesel vehicles without a need for

fuel quality changes. Manufacturers can

take advantage of the flexibilities

provided in the Tier 2 program to delay

the need for light-duty diesels to meet

the final Tier 2 levels until late in the

phase-in period (as late as 2007 for

LDVs and LLDTs, and 2009 for HLDTs

and MDPVs). However, low sulfur fuel

is expected to be needed for diesel

vehicles designed to meet the final NOX

and PM standards, because these

vehicles are likely to employ light-duty

versions of the sulfur-sensitive exhaust

emission control technologies discussed

in Section III. The gasoline quality

changes and light-duty gasoline engine

developments that will result from the

Tier 2 rule will also help make it

feasible for heavy-duty gasoline engines

to meet the standards in this rule.

4. Mobile Source Air Toxics Rulemaking

Passenger cars, on-highway trucks,

and nonroad equipment emit hundreds

of different compounds and elements.

Several of these are considered to be

known, likely, or possible human

carcinogens. These include diesel

exhaust, plus several VOCs such as

acetaldehyde, benzene, 1,3-butadiene,

formaldehyde, and acrolein. Trace

metals may also be present in heavyduty diesel engine emissions, resulting

from metals in fuels and lubricating oil,

and from engine wear. Several of these

metals have carcinogenic and mutagenic

effects.

Important reductions in these and

other mobile source air toxics have

occurred under existing programs

established under Clean Air Act

Sections 202(a) (on-highway engine

requirements), 211 (the fuel

requirements), and 213 (nonroad engine

requirements). Although these programs

are primarily designed for control of

criteria pollutants, especially ozone and

PM10, they also achieve important

reductions in diesel PM and gaseous air

toxics through VOC and hydrocarbon

controls.

In addition to these programs, Section

202(l)(2) of the Act directs us to

consider additional controls to reduce

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

from motor vehicles, their fuels, or both.

Those standards are to reflect the

greatest degree of emission reduction

achievable through the application of

technology which will be available,

taking into account existing standards,

costs, noise, energy, and safety factors.

We published a proposed rule on

mobile source air toxics on August 4,

5010 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

5 65 FR 48058, August 4, 2000.

6State of California Air Resources Board

Resolution 00–30, September 28, 2000.

7 ‘‘Notice of Public Hearing To Consider the

Adoption of a Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule and

Emission Standards For New Urban Buses’’,

California ARB, November 30, 1999, and ARB

Resolution 00–2, dated February 24, 2000.

8Title 30, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter

114, Subchapter H, Division 2. Also see Texas

Natural Resource Conservation Commission website

www.tnrcc.state.tx.us.

2000 (65 FR 48058). This MSAT final

rule was signed on December 20, 2000.

Interested parties should refer to the

final rule if interested in the ultimate

form of the regulation.

The mobile source air toxics (MSATs)

rule consists of four parts. First, we

identify a list of 21 MSATs that are

known to be emitted from motor

vehicles or their fuels and are

considered by the Agency to pose

potential adverse human health risks.

Diesel exhaust is included on this

MSAT list because, as discussed in

Section II, human epidemiological

studies have suggested that diesel

exhaust is associated with increased risk

of adverse respiratory effects and lung

cancer. Second, the MSAT rule

considers the contribution of mobile

sources to the nation’s air toxics

inventory and evaluates the toxics

benefits of existing mobile source

emission control programs. The benefits

of the program as proposed are included

in this analysis. Third, the MSAT final

rule considers whether additional

controls are appropriate at this time,

given technological feasibility, cost, and

the other criteria specified in the Act.

The final rule includes a toxics

performance standard applicable to

reformulated gasoline and anti-dumping

standards that apply to conventional

gasoline. With regard to additional

vehicle-based controls, we proposed

that it is not appropriate at this time to

set more stringent standards than the

technology forcing standards found in

this rule and our recently adopted Tier

2 rulemaking. Finally, because of our

concern about the potential future

health impacts of exposure to the public

of air toxics from the remaining

emissions from mobile sources in the

future, we continue our toxics-related

research activities and to conduct a

future rulemaking to evaluate whether,

based on the additional data, additional

mobile source air toxics controls should

be adopted. This rulemaking would be

completed no later than 2004.

EPA also intends to rely on today’s

rule to satisfy in part its obligations

under section 202(l) of the Clean Air

Act. In the mobile source air toxics

NPRM, the Agency proposed a list of

mobile source air toxics, including

diesel exhaust, as well as a number of

specific constituents of heavy-duty

vehicle exhaust (gasoline and diesel).5

The emissions standards established in

today’s action result in the greatest

achievable reductions of diesel PM and

heavy-duty vehicle NMHC. The Agency

is scheduled to finalize the mobile

source air toxics rulemaking on or

before December 20, 2000.

5. Nonroad Engine Standards and Fuel

Although this rule covers only

highway diesel engines and fuel, it is

clear that potential requirements for

nonroad diesel engines and fuel are

related. It is expected that nonroad

diesel fuel quality, currently

unregulated, may need to be controlled

in the future in order to reduce the large

contribution of nonroad engines to NOX

and PM inventories. Refiners, fuel

distributors, states, environmental

organizations, and others have asked

that we provide as much information as

possible about the future specifications

for both types of fuel as early as

possible.

We do plan to give further

consideration to additional control of

nonroad engine emissions. As discussed

below in Section VIII, an effective

control program for these engines

requires the resolution of several major

issues relating to engine emission

control technologies and how they are

affected by fuel sulfur content. The

many issues connected with any

rulemaking for nonroad engines and

fuel warrant serious attention, and we

believe it is premature for us to take any

action on this initiative in this rule. We

plan to initiate action in the future to

formulate proposals that would address

both nonroad diesel fuel and engines.

6. State Initiatives

The California Air Resources Board

(ARB) and local air quality management

districts within California are also

pursuing measures to better control

diesel emissions. Key among these

efforts is work resulting from the

Board’s designation of particulate

emissions from diesel-fueled engines as

a toxic air contaminant (TAC) on August

27, 1998. TACs are air pollutants that

may cause or contribute to an increase

in death or serious illness or may pose

a present or future hazard to human

health. The TAC designation was based

on research studies showing that

emissions from diesel-fueled engines

may cause cancer in animals and

humans, and that workers exposed to

higher levels of emissions from dieselfueled engines are more likely to

develop lung cancer.

In September 2000 the ARB approved

a Diesel Risk Reduction Plan developed

by its staff following an extensive public

process.6 This plan includes several

California measures related to highway

diesel vehicles, including the major

elements of the program we are

establishing on a nationwide basis in

this final rule. Because truck travel from

other states has a large effect on

California’s air quality, the plan and the

Board’s resolution further encourages

the EPA adopt this nationwide program,

as well as other diesel-related emissions

reduction programs.

The ARB has also adopted stringent

new emission requirements for urban

transit buses and is considering similar

requirements for school buses.7 This

program is aimed at encouraging the use

of clean alternative fuels and highefficiency diesel emission control

technologies. Their program includes

requirements for zero-emissions buses,

fleet average NOX levels, and retrofits

for PM control, as well as model year

2007 NOX and PM standards levels of

0.2 and 0.01 g/bhp-hr, respectively

(equal to the levels finalized in this

rule). It also requires that all diesel fuel

used by transit agencies after July 1,

2002 must meet a cap of 15 ppm sulfur.

This is a much earlier schedule than

that finalized in this rule, to support the

ARB’s proposed transit bus fleet

program.

Other states, most notably Texas, have

taken steps toward adopting programs

for cleaner diesel fuel and cleaner diesel

engines. On December 6, 2000, the

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission adopted a program that,

among other things, would require the

capping of diesel fuel sulfur levels in

many counties to 15 ppm by June 2006.8

This proposal exemplifies the

importance that states with air quality

problems have attached to clean diesel

fuel, and specifically to the 15 ppm

maximum sulfur requirement in 2006

being set in this rule

7. Retrofit Programs

Many States facing air quality

improvement challenges have expressed

strong interest in programs that will

reduce emissions from existing highway

and nonroad diesel engines through the

retrofitting of these engines with

improved emission control devices. The

urban transit bus program adopted by

the California ARB includes such a

retrofit requirement as one of its major

components (see Section I.C.6). In

March 2000 we announced our own

Diesel Retrofit Initiative to support and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5011

9Memo from Thomas M. Baines to Docket A–99–

06, October 29, 1999, Docket #A–99–06, Item II–G–

12.

10 ‘‘Process Begins to Develop Long term Agenda

to Reduce Air Pollution from Vehicles and Fuels’’,

Environment Canada press release, May 26, 2000.

encourage fleet operators, air quality

planners, and retrofit manufacturers in

creating effective retrofit programs.

These programs are appealing because

the slow turnover of the diesel fleet to

the new low-emitting engines makes it

difficult to achieve near-term air quality

goals through new engine programs

alone. Some of the exhaust emission

control technologies discussed in this

rule are especially appealing for use in

retrofits because they can be fitted to an

existing vehicle as add-on devices

without major engine modifications,

although some of the more sophisticated

systems that require careful control of

engine parameters may be more

challenging.

Because of the uncertainty at this time

in how and when such programs may be

implemented, our analysis for today’s

rule does not calculate any benefits from

them. Nevertheless, we believe that this

program can enable the viability of these

retrofit technologies. We expect that

large emission benefits from the existing

fleet could be realized as a result of the

fuel changes we are finalizing here,

combined with retrofit versions of the

technologies that will be developed in

response to the finalized engine

standards. These benefits will be

especially important in the early years

of the program when new vehicles

standards are just beginning to have an

impact, and when States and local areas

need to gain large reductions to attain

air quality goals.

8. Actions In Other Countries

There is substantial activity taking

place in many countries related to the

regulation of diesel fuel and engines.

The large light-duty vehicle market

share enjoyed by diesels in many

European countries has helped to stir

innovation in dealing with diesel

emissions problems. Advanced

emissions control technologies are being

evaluated there in the in-use fleet and

experience gained from these trials is

helping to inform the diesel emissions

control discussion in the U.S. In

addition, several European countries

have low sulfur diesel fuel, with

maximum sulfur levels varying from 10

to 50 ppm, and so experience gained

from the use of these fuels, though not

completely transferable to the U.S.

situation, also provides valuable

experience. European Union countries

will limit sulfur in diesel fuel to 50 ppm

by 2005, and even more aggressive plans

are being discussed or implemented.

The United Kingdom made a rapid

conversion to 50 ppm maximum sulfur

diesel fuel in 1999 by offering tax

incentives. This change occurred with

much smaller refinery investments than

had been predicted, and some refinery

production there is actually at levels

well below the 50 ppm cap. Germany is

moving forward with plans to introduce

a 10 ppm sulfur cap for diesel fuel by

2003, also via tax incentives, and is

attempting to get the 50 ppm

specification that was adopted by the

European Commission revised

downward to the 10 ppm cap level. The

Commission is reviewing the

implications of moving to this level.

One European country has had

extensive experience with the transition

to low sulfur diesel fuel. In the early

1990’s, Sweden decided to take

advantage of the environmental benefits

of 10 ppm sulfur/low aromatics fuel by

introducing it with a reduction in the

diesel fuel tax. The program has been

quite successful, and in excess of 90

percent of the highway diesel fuel used

there is of this 10 ppm maximum sulfur

class.9

The government of Canada has

expressed its intent to harmonize its

fuel regulations with the U.S. fuels

standards being adopted today.10 This

would simplify the operation of newtechnology vehicles that cross the U.SCanada border. However, the success of

the U.S. program does not depend on

harmonized diesel fuel standards, and

Section VI.H discusses how differences

between the future fuel specifications in

the U.S. and those in Canada and

Mexico may be accommodated.

II. The Air Quality Need and Projected

Benefits

A. Overview

Heavy-duty vehicle emissions

contribute to air pollution with a wide

range of adverse health and welfare

impacts. Emissions of VOC, CO, NOX,

SOx, and PM from HD vehicles

contribute a substantial percentage of

the precursors or direct components of

ambient concentrations of ozone, PM,

sulfur and nitrogen compounds,

aldehydes, and substances known or

considered likely to be carcinogens.

Emissions of VOCs include some

specific substances known or suspected

to cause cancer. Of particular concern is

human epidemiological evidence

linking diesel exhaust to an increased

risk of lung cancer, and the Agency is

also concerned about the noncancer

health effects of diesel exhaust We have

finalized on December 20, 2000 a rule

which lists diesel particulate matter and

diesel exhaust organic gases as a mobile

source air toxic under section 202(l) of

the Clean Air Act, and the particulate

matter standard finalized today reflects

the greatest degree of emissions

reductions achievable under section

202(l) for on-highway heavy-duty

vehicle PM emissions. Heavy-duty

vehicle emissions also cause adverse

environmental effects including

visibility reductions, acid rain,

nitrification and eutrophication of water

bodies.

Emissions from heavy-duty vehicles,

which are predominantly dieselpowered, account for substantial

portions of the country’s ambient PM

and ground-level ozone levels. By 2007,

we estimate that heavy-duty vehicles

will account for 28 percent of mobile

source NOX emissions (including

highway and non-road), and 20 percent

of mobile source PM emissions. These

proportions are even higher in some

urban areas, such as Atlanta and Los

Angeles. Urban areas, which include

many poorer neighborhoods, can be

disproportionately impacted by HDV

emissions because of heavy traffic in

and out of densely populated urban

areas.

The Agency developed new emissions

inventories and conducted new air

quality modeling for this rule to

determine the risk of exposure to

unhealthy ambient concentrations of

ozone and particulate matter in 2007,

2020 and 2030. This analysis,

supplemented with local air quality

modeling and other information on

emissions and air quality trends,

indicates that an appreciable number of

the 45 areas with a total population of

128 million people face a significant

risk of violating the 1-hour ozone

standard between 2007 and 2030. Ten

PM10 nonattainment areas with 28

million people face a significant risk of

experiencing particulate matter levels

that violate the PM10 standard during

the same period.

Under the mandates and authorities

in the Clean Air Act, federal, state, and

local governments are working to bring

ozone and particulate levels into

compliance with the 1-hour ozone and

PM10 NAAQS through SIP attainment

plans. Areas that reach attainment

without reductions from this rule are

likely to need additional reductions to

ensure that future air quality continues

to achieve ozone and PM standards, and

areas that seek redesignation to

attainment may use the reductions from

this rule in future maintenance plans.

The heavy-duty vehicle and engine

emission standards, along with the

diesel fuel sulfur standard finalized

today, will have a dramatic impact in

5012 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

11Asthma and the Environment: A Strategy to

Protect Children, President’s Task Force on

reducing the large contribution of HDVs

to air pollution. These standards will

result in substantial benefits to public

health and welfare through significant

annual reductions in emissions of NOX,

PM, NMHC, carbon monoxide, sulfur

dioxide, and air toxics. For example, we

project a 1.8 million ton reduction in

NOX emissions from HD vehicles in

2020, which will increase to 2.6 million

tons in 2030 when the current HD

vehicle fleet is completely replaced with

newer HD vehicles that comply with

these emission standards. When

coupled with the emission reductions

projected to result from the Phase 1

(model year 2004) HDV standards, the

emission reductions from heavy-duty

vehicles are projected to be as large as

the substantial reductions the Agency

expects from light-duty vehicles as a

result of its recently promulgated Tier 2

rulemaking.

In sum, the Agency’s air quality

modeling and other evidence

demonstrates that ambient

concentrations of ozone, particulate

matter, sulfur and nitrogen compounds,

VOCs, air toxics, CO and diesel exhaust

are anticipated to endanger public

health, welfare and the environment in

the time period between 2007 and 2030.

Emission reductions expected from

today’s action are predicted to lessen

future ambient concentrations of ozone

and particulate matter and associated

adverse public health and welfare

effects.

B. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

1. Health and Welfare Concerns Raised

During Public Hearings

The Agency received a significant

number of comments on this section

during the public hearings and in

written comments from interested

parties. Comments are addressed in this

section as well as in the Response to

Comment document that accompanies

this action.

Throughout the five public hearings

held around the country on the

proposed heavy-duty engine and diesel

fuel rule, the Agency received strong

public support at each venue for

increasing the stringency of heavy-duty

truck and bus emission standards, and

for further controls on sulfur in diesel

fuel, in order to enable the necessary

exhaust emission control. In addition to

the 55,000 comments received from

citizens in support of the Agency

proposal to clean diesel fuel by mid2006 and reduce emissions from diesel

engines in 2007, we received 8,500

comments from citizens urging the

Agency to act prior to 2007.

Public officials and representatives of

environmental, public health, or

community-based organizations testified

regularly about the link between public

health ailments, such as asthma and

lung cancer, and air pollution caused by

diesel exhaust and particulate matter. In

different ways, many noted that the

impact of diesel soot is compounded by

the fact that it is discharged at street

level where people live and breathe. A

regular complaint was the close

proximity of bus depots, transfer

terminals, and heavily-trafficked

roadways to homes and apartment

buildings, and in particular, to

hospitals, playgrounds and schools. A

common theme revolved around the

notion that since asthma is an incurable

disease, it was of utmost importance to

help reduce the severity and frequency

of attacks by reducing environmental

triggers such as ozone, particulate

matter and diesel exhaust.

Major industries represented during

these public hearings were the heavyduty vehicle engine manufacturers, the

oil industry, and the commercial

truckers. While each had a different

perspective, most supported the

underlying intent of the proposal to

improve public health and welfare, and

some also supported the specific

requirements as proposed. For those

who objected to the proposal, the main

thrust of their concerns related to the

stringency and public health necessity

of the new standards and the diesel fuel

sulfur requirement. Largely in their

written comments, these industries

raised questions about the need for

additional reductions in order to meet

existing ozone and PM national ambient

air quality standards and took exception

with the Agency’s characterization of

diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen at

environmental levels of exposure. Some

industry commenters also challenged

the Agency’s reliance on public welfare

and environmental effects such as

visibility impairment and

eutrophication of water bodies because

the Agency had insufficiently quantified

the benefits that would result from new

standards on heavy-duty vehicles and

diesel fuel.

The following subsections present the

available information on the air

pollution situation that is likely to exist

without this rule for each ambient

pollutant. We also present information

on the improvement that is expected to

result from this rule.

2. Ozone and Its Precursors

a. Health and Welfare Effects From

Short-Term Exposures to Ozone

NOX and VOC are precursors in the

photochemical reaction which forms

tropospheric ozone. A large body of

evidence shows that ozone can cause

harmful respiratory effects including

chest pain, coughing, and shortness of

breath, which affect people with

compromised respiratory systems most

severely. When inhaled, ozone can

cause acute respiratory problems;

aggravate asthma; cause significant

temporary decreases in lung function of

15 to over 20 percent in some healthy

adults; cause inflammation of lung

tissue; produce changes in lung tissue

and structure; may increase hospital

admissions and emergency room visits;

and impair the body’s immune system

defenses, making people more

susceptible to respiratory illnesses.

Children and outdoor workers are likely

to be exposed to elevated ambient levels

of ozone during exercise and, therefore,

are at greater risk of experiencing

adverse health effects. Beyond its

human health effects, ozone has been

shown to injure plants, which has the

effect of reducing crop yields and

reducing productivity in forest

ecosystems.

There is strong and convincing

evidence that exposure to ozone is

associated with exacerbation of asthmarelated symptoms. Increases in ozone

concentrations in the air have been

associated with increases in

hospitalization for respiratory causes for

individuals with asthma, worsening of

symptoms, decrements in lung function

and increased medication use. Studies

have also indicated that exposure to

particulate matter can be associated

with altered lung function and

increased respiratory symptoms, and

asthmatic children are considered to be

particularly sensitive to these effects. In

addition, exposures to particulate matter

or ozone have been shown to have a

priming effect for responsiveness to

allergens, with the pollutant exposure

leading to heightened responses to

allergens among allergic asthmatics. It is

not believed, based on the current

evidence, that exposure to outdoor

pollutants such as ozone or particulate

matter is a cause of asthma.

Asthma is one of the most common

and costly diseases in the United States.

According to the President’s Task Force

on Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks to Children, America is in

the midst of an asthma epidemic.11

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5013

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to

Children, January 28, 1999, Revised May, 2000.

12Asthma Prevention Program of the National

Center for Environmental Health, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, ‘‘At-A-Glance,

1999; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

CDC, Surveillance for Asthma—United States,

1960–1995,’’ MMWR 47 (No. SS-1) (April 1998).

13Asthma Statistics, National Institutes of Health,

National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, January,

1999.

14Attack Asthma: Why America Needs A Public

Health Defense System to Battle Environmental

Threats, Pew Environmental Health Commissions at

the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, June,

2000.

15Memorandum to Air Docket, September 18,

2000. Information on ozone nonattainment areas

and populations as of July 31, 2000 from US EPA

website www.epa.gov/airs/nonattn.html, USA Air

Quality Nonattainment Areas, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards.

16National Emissions Trends database.

17National Air Quality and Emissions Trends

Report, 1998, March, 2000, at 28.

18EPA also performed ozone air quality modeling

for the western United States but, as described

further in the air quality technical support

document, model predictions were well below

corresponding ambient concentrations. Because of

poor model performance for this region of the

country, the results of western ozone modeling

were not relied on for this rule.

19Consistent with a commitment expressed in the

proposal, the Agency released the emissions

inventory inputs for, and a description of, ozone

modeling into the public record (docket number A–

99–06), and also onto a website developed

expressly for this purpose, on a continuous basis as

they were developed. Further discussion of this

modeling, including evaluations of model

performance relative to predicted future air quality,

is provided in the air quality modeling Technical

Support Document (TSD).

Since 1980, the number of asthma

sufferers in the United States has more

than doubled from 6.7 million to 17.3

million in 1998.12 Today, more than 5

percent of the US population has

asthma. On average, 15 people died

every day from asthma in 1995, and the

death rate has nearly tripled since 1975.

In 1998, the cost of asthma to the U.S.

economy was estimated to be $11.3

billion, with hospitalizations accounting

for the single largest portion of the

cost.13 A recent report by the Pew

Environmental Health Commission at

Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

estimates that by 2010, 22 million

Americans will suffer from asthma, or

one in 14 Americans and one in every

five families.14 At present, asthma

cannot be cured, only controlled.

To address this growing public health

problem, the President’s Task Force on

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks to Children ranked asthma as its

highest priority. The President’s Task

Force created and charged the Asthma

Priority Area Workgroup, co-chaired by

EPA and the Department of Health and

Human Services, with reviewing current

Federal efforts to address the issue, and

to make recommendations. In May,

2000, the Task Force issued a strategy

that focused on developing a greater

understanding of the role environmental

factors associated with the onset of

asthma; and triggers of asthma. The

report found that ‘‘children with asthma

have long been recognized as

particularly sensitive to outdoor air

pollution,’’ The report noted that ‘‘25

percent of children in America live in

areas that regularly exceed EPA limits

for ozone.’’ The first guiding principle

was to focus efforts to ‘‘eliminate the

disproportionate impact of asthma in

minority populations and those living in

poverty.’’ Testimony received during

the Agency’s five public hearings on

this rule contained numerous references

and detailed personal accounts as to the

severe and sometimes fatal impact of

asthma on the lives of American

citizens.

b. Current and Future Nonattainment

Status With the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

Today, ground level ozone remains a

pervasive pollution problem in the

United States. As of July, 2000, 102

million people (1999 census) lived in 31

metropolitan areas designated

nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS.15 This is a sharp decline from

the 101 nonattainment areas originally

identified under the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, but elevated

ozone concentrations remain a serious

public health concern throughout the

nation.

Over the last decade, declines in

ozone levels were found mostly in

urban areas, where emissions are

heavily influenced by controls on

mobile sources and their fuels.16

Twenty-three metropolitan areas have

realized a decline in ozone levels since

1989, but at the same time, ozone levels

in 11 metropolitan areas with 7 million

people have increased.17 Regionally,

California and the Northeast have

recorded significant reductions in peak

ozone levels, while four other regions

(the Mid-Atlantic, the Southeast, the

Central and Pacific Northwest) have

seen ozone levels increase.

The highest ambient concentrations

are currently found in suburban areas,

consistent with downwind transport of

emissions from urban centers.

Concentrations in rural areas have risen

to the levels previously found only in

cities. Over the last decade, ozone levels

at 17 of our National Parks have

increased, and in 1998, ozone levels in

two parks were 30 to 40 percent higher

than the ozone NAAQS.

i. Results of Photochemical Ozone

Modeling and Analysis of Emissions

Inventories

In conjunction with this rulemaking,

the Agency performed ozone air quality

modeling for nearly the entire Eastern

U.S covering metropolitan areas from

Texas to the Northeast.18 This ozone air

quality modeling was based upon the

same modeling system as was used in

the Tier 2 air quality analysis, with the

addition of updated inventory estimates

for 2007 and 2030.19 This modeling

supports the conclusion that there is a

broad set of areas with predicted ozone

concentrations in 2007 and 2030 at or

above 0.125 ppm, in the baseline

scenarios without additional emission

reductions. EPA established the 1-hour

standard at 0.12 parts per million (ppm)

daily maximum 1-hour average

concentration not to be exceeded more

than once per year on average.

Compliance with the 1-hour standard is

judged on the basis of the most recent

three years of ambient air quality

monitoring data.

We have compared and supplemented

our own ozone modeling with other

modeling studies, submitted to us as

state implementation plan (SIP)

revisions, or brought to our attention

through our consultations with states on

SIP revisions that are in development.

The ozone modeling in the SIP revisions

has the advantage of using emission

inventories that are more specific to the

area being modeled, and of using

meteorological conditions selected

specifically for each area. Also, the SIP

revisions included other evidence and

analysis, such as analysis of air quality

and emissions trends, observation-based

models that make use of data on

concentrations of ozone precursors,

alternative rollback analyses, and

information on the responsiveness of

the air quality model. For some areas,

we decided that the predictions of 1-

hour ozone exceedances from our

modeling were less reliable than

conclusions that could be drawn from

this additional evidence and analysis.

For example, in some areas our episodes

did not capture the meteorological

conditions that have caused high ozone,

while local modeling did so. Thus, these

local analyses are considered to be more

extensive than our own modeling for

estimating whether there would be

NAAQS nonattainment without further

emission reductions, when interpreted

by a weight of evidence method which

meets our guidance for such modeling.

Photochemical ozone modeling

conducted for this rulemaking was

based in part on updated national

emissions inventories for all sources.

National emission trends for NOX

5014 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

20The air quality modeling was performed for the

Eastern region of the United States, but EPA also

expects the rule to benefit nonattainment areas

throughout the entire nation, including California.

21 In the proposal, we relied on photochemical

ozone modeling performed for recently

promulgated standards on light duty vehicles, or

Tier 2. The results presented in this final

rulemaking for heavy-duty vehicles and diesel fuel

are largely consistent with the findings presented in

the proposal, with small differences due to updated

emissions inventories. As stated in the proposal, the

ozone modeling methodologies used in the proposal

and presented here in the final rule are identical.

predict a significant decline from 1996

to 2007, a leveling off of the downward

trend between 2007 to 2020, and an

increase in NOX inventories from 2020

to 2030. By 2030, national NOX levels

are estimated to reach levels that are

within ten percent of 2007 levels.

Predictions of national VOC emissions

indicate a reduction from 1996 to 2007,

followed by an increase between 2007

and 2030 resulting in 2030 levels that

are estimated to be 10 percent greater

than VOC emissions levels in 2007. In

metropolitan ozone nonattainment

areas, such as Charleston, Chicago and

Houston, NOX or VOC emissions in

2030 are predicted to reach or exceed

2007 levels. These estimated national

and metropolitan area emissions

inventories of ozone precursors are

consistent with the conclusions reached

by analysis of ozone modeling

conducted for this rule that additional

reductions are needed in order to enable

areas to reach and maintain attainment

of the ozone standard between 2007 and

2030.

The Agency conducted ozone

modeling based on inventories

developed with and without reductions

from this rulemaking for three future

years: 2007, 2020 and 2030. The year

2007 was chosen because it is also the

first year of implementation for the new

standards adopted in today’s action. It is

also the year that nine major urban areas

with a history of persistent and elevated

ozone concentrations must demonstrate

attainment, and is also relevant to the

South Coast Air Basin of California

(South Coast) with an attainment date of

2010. In addition, modeling was

performed for 2030 when the full

benefits of the rule are expected to be

realized and for 2020 which represents

an intermediate year between the start

of the program and full turnover of the

affected vehicle fleet. The year 2020 is

also representative of the period when

areas that have come into attainment

may need additional reductions in order

to maintain the standard.

Today’s rule will provide a

substantial reduction in emissions of

ozone precursors, particularly NOX.

These emissions reductions will greatly

lower ozone concentrations which will

help federal and State efforts to bring

about attainment of the current 1-hour

ozone standard. As described in the Air

Quality Modeling Technical Support

Document for this rule, EPA performed

regional scale ozone modeling for the

Eastern U.S. to assess the impacts of the

controls in this rule on predicted 1-hour

ozone exceedances. The results of this

modeling were examined for those 37

areas in the East for which EPA’s

modeling predicted exceedances in

2007, 2020 and/or 2030 and current 1-

hour design values are above the

standard or within 10 percent of the

standard. The results for these areas

combined indicate that there will be

substantial reductions in the number of

exceedances and the magnitude of high

ozone concentrations in both 2020 and

2030 due to this rule. The modeling also

indicates that without the rule,

exceedances would otherwise increase

by 37 percent between 2020 and 2030 as

growth in emissions offsets the

reductions from Tier 2 and other current

control programs.

For all areas combined, the rule is

forecast to provide a 33 percent

reduction in exceedances in 2020 and a

38 percent reduction in 2030. The total

amount of ozone above the standard is

expected to decline by nearly 37 percent

in 2020 and 44 percent in 2030. Also,

daily maximum ozone exceedances are

lowered by 5 ppb on average in 2020

and nearly 7 ppb in 2030. The modeling

forecasts an overall net reduction of 39

percent in exceedances from 2007,

which is close to the start of this

program, to 2030 when controls will be

fully in place. In addition, the results for

each individual area indicates that all

areas are expected to have fewer

exceedances in 2030 with the HDV

controls than without this rule.

During the public comment period on

the proposed rule, EPA received several

comments that expressed concern about

potential increases in ozone that might

result from this rule. As indicated

above, the air quality modeling results

indicate an overall reduction in ozone

levels in 2007 and 2030 during the

various episodes modeled. Examining

individual areas, nearly the entire

country is projected to benefit

substantially from the reductions in this

rule.20 There is a metropolitan area that

EPA modeled as having exceedances

with the one-hour ozone standard under

baseline conditions in 2007 through

2030, which the Agency’s modeling for

the HDV rule estimated could have less

than a 3 percent increase in its peak

ozone levels in 2020 and 2030 and small

net increase (i.e., less than 1 ppb) in

levels above the 1-hour standard in

2030. However, EPA’s air quality

modeling did not predict an increase in

the number of exceedances in this

CMSA/MSA in 2020 and a decrease in

exceedances occurred in 2030. In

another CMSA/MSA in another State, in

2030 there was less than a one percent

increase in the summer peak level. Yet,

this area had fewer exceedances and

lower ozone above the 1-hour standard

in both 2020 and 2030 under the rule.

EPA expects that the States will have

State Implementation Plans that will

consider federal controls and

complement them with State actions to

provide attainment and will work with

the States to ensure this occurs.

Considering all of EPA’s air quality

modeling results, it is clear that the

significant ozone reductions from this

rule outweigh the limited ozone

increases that may occur in the future

assuming no additional reductions from

federal or local controls. Additional

details on this are provided in the

Response to Comments document and

in EPA’s Heavy Duty Rule Air Quality

Modeling Technical Support Document.

Furthermore, EPA’s Regulatory Impact

Analysis for this rule shows significant

health and welfare benefits occurring

from the ozone reductions that the rule

provides (see details on the benefits in

Section V.F.5 of the preamble and

Chapter VII of the RIA).

ii. Areas At Risk of Exceeding the 1-

Hour Ozone Standard in the Future

This section presents the Agency’s

conclusions about the risk of future

nonattainment for 45 areas listed in

Table II.B–1 based on photochemical

ozone modeling conducted for this rule

and other evidence such as local air

quality modeling.21 The areas listed in

Table II.B–1 are separated into two

broad groups: (1) Those areas with

attainment dates in 2007 or 2010 that

will benefit from reductions from this

rule to attain and maintain the standard;

and (2) those areas with attainment

dates prior to 2007 that will benefit from

reductions from this rule to maintain

the standard after their attainment dates.

Because ozone concentrations causing

violations of the 1-hour ozone standard

are well established to endanger public

health and welfare, this indicates that it

is appropriate for the Agency to set new

standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The

following discussion follows these

groupings from top to bottom. A more

detailed discussion is found in the

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).

Ten metropolitan areas contained

within designated ozone nonattainment

areas have statutorily-defined

attainment dates of 2007 or 2010, or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5015

22The South Coast’s ‘‘additional measures’’

which rely on new technologies, are located in its

1994 SIP.

23Technical Support Document, Midwest

Subregional Modeling: 1-Hour Attainment

Demonstration for Lake Michigan Area and

Emissions Inventory, Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, Indiana Department of

Environmental Management, Michigan Department

of Environmental Quality, Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, September 27, 2000, at 14 and

at 8.

24We have recently proposed favorable action, in

some cases with a condition that more emission

reductions be obtained, on attainment

demonstrations in these areas with attainment dates

prior to 2007: Philadelphia, Washington-Baltimore,

Atlanta, and St. Louis.

have requested attainment date

extensions to 2007. These 10 areas are

listed at the top of Table II.B–1, and are

New York City, Houston, Hartford, New

London, Chicago, Milwaukee, Dallas,

Beaumont-Port Arthur, Los Angeles, and

Southeast Desert.

Each of these areas needs additional

emission reductions in order to reach

attainment by 2007, and to maintain the

standards in the future. Some of these

areas have emission reduction shortfalls

that are identified in their attainment

demonstrations (i.e., South Coast Air

Basin, New York and Houston), and

reductions from this rule will assist

State efforts to reach attainment.22 Three

other areas—Southeast Desert, Hartford,

New London—are subject to ozone

transport from upwind areas with

identified shortfalls (South Coast and

New York), and depend upon

attainment from these upwind areas to

reach attainment themselves. We have

received attainment plans for two areas

in Texas (Dallas and Beaumont-Port

Arthur), and the Agency is likely to

consider the reductions from this rule in

its proposed approval of these

attainment plans in Federal Register

notices. Finally, there are two areas in

the Midwest—Chicago and

Milwaukee—that have incorporated

reductions from this rule into their

regional ozone modeling, and plan to

rely on reductions from this rule to

support their 2007 attainment

demonstration.23

For all ten areas, even if all shortfalls

were filled by the States, there is some

risk that at least some of the areas will

not attain the standards by their

attainment dates of 2007, or 2010 for

Los Angeles. In that event, the

reductions associated with this program,

which increase substantially after 2007,

will help assure that any residual

failures to attain are remedied. Finally,

there is also some risk that the areas will

be unable to maintain attainment after

2007. Considered collectively, there is a

significant risk that some areas will not

be in attainment throughout the period

when the new standards will reduce

heavy-duty vehicle emissions.

The rest of the areas have required

attainment dates prior to 2007, or have

no attainment date but are subject to a

general obligation to have a SIP that

provides for attainment and

maintenance. These 34 areas, according

to our modeling, are at risk of exceeding

the ozone NAAQS between 2007 and

2030. These areas will be able to rely on

reductions from this rule to continue to

maintain the standard after attainment

is reached, and will be able to take

credit for this program in their

maintenance plans when they seek

redesignation to attainment of the ozone

standard. If any of these areas reach

attainment, and then fall back into

nonattainment, or fail to reach

attainment by 2007, reductions from

this rule will assist these areas in

achieving the ozone standard. If an area

does not choose to seek redesignation,

the continuing reductions from this

rulemaking will help ensure

maintenance (i.e., prevent future

exceedances) with the 1-hour standard

after initial attainment is reached.

Areas with attainment dates prior to

2007 are presented in two groupings in

the table at the end of this section: a

group of 20 areas in the middle of Table

II.B–1, and a group of 15 areas at the

bottom of Table II.B–1. For the middle

group of 20 areas, EPA and the States

are pursuing the established statutory

processes for attaining and maintaining

the ozone standard, or have already

redesignated these areas to attainment

with a maintenance plan (e.g.,

Cincinnati). EPA has re-instated the 1-

hour ozone standard to some of these

areas, restoring the applicability of these

processes to them. The Agency believes

that there is a significant risk that future

air quality in a number of these areas

will exceed the ozone standard at some

time in the 2007 and later period. This

belief is based on three factors: (1)

Recent exceedances in 1997–1999, (2)

predicted exceedances in 2007, 2020 or

2030 after accounting for existing

mobile source requirements and other

local or regional controls currently in

place or required, and (3) our

assessment of the magnitude of recent

violations, the year-to-year variability of

meteorological conditions conducive to

ozone formation, transport from areas

with later attainment dates, and other

variables inherent in predicting future

attainment such as the potential for

some areas to experience unexpectedly

high economic growth rates, growth in

vehicle miles traveled, varying

population growth from area to area,

and differences in vehicle choice.

Only a subset of these 20 areas have

yet adopted specific control measures

that have allowed the Agency to fully

approve an attainment plan. For some of

these areas, we have proposed a finding,

based on all the available evidence, that

the area will attain by its applicable

attainment date. We have approved a

10-year maintenance plan for

Cincinnati, OH from 1999 to 2009.

However, in many cases, these

proposals depend on the State adopting

additional emission reduction measures.

The RIA provides more information on

our recent proposals on attainment

demonstrations and maintenance

plans.24 Until the SIPs for these areas

are actually submitted, reviewed and

approved by EPA, there is some risk that

these areas will not adopt fully

approvable SIPs.

Finally, there are 15 additional

metropolitan areas for which the

available ozone modeling and other

evidence is less clear regarding the need

for additional reductions (see Table

II.B–1). Our ozone modeling predicted

these areas to need further reductions to

avoid exceedances in 2007, 2020 or

2030. The recent air quality monitoring

data for these areas shows ozone levels

with less than a 10 percent margin

below the NAAQS. We believe there is

a risk that future ozone levels will be

above the NAAQS because of the yearto-year variability of meteorological

conditions conducive to ozone

formation, or because local emissions

inventories may increase faster than

national inventories.

iii. Conclusion

In sum, without these reductions,

there is a significant risk that an

appreciable number of the 45 areas,

with a population of 128 million people

in 1999, will violate the 1-hour ozone

standard during the time period when

these standards will apply to heavyduty vehicles. The evidence

summarized in this section, and

presented in more detail in the air

quality modeling TSD and the RIA,

supports the Agency’s belief that

emissions of NOX and VOC from heavyduty vehicles in 2007 and later will

contribute to a national ozone air

pollution problem that warrants

regulatory action under section 202(a)(3)

of the Act.

5016 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE II.B–1 a

[Areas and 1999 Populations at Risk of Exceeding the Ozone Standard between 2007 and 2030]

MSA/CMSA/State

1999

Population

(in millions)

Areas with 2007/2010 Attainment Dates (Established or Requested)

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.4

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL–IN–WI .......................................................................................................................................................... 8.9

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4.9

Hartford, CT ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.1

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX ............................................................................................................................................................. 4.5

Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA ............................................................................................................................................ 16.0

Milwaukee-Racine, WI ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.6

New London-Norwich, CT–RI .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.3

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT–PA ............................................................................................................... 20.2

Southeast Desert, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.5

10 areas ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58.4

Areas with Pre-2007 Attainment Dates or No Specific Attainment Date, with a Recent History of Nonattainment.

Atlanta, GA .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3.9

Baton Rouge, LA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.6

Birmingham, AL ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9

Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA–HN–ME–CT ...................................................................................................................................... 5.7

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC–SC ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.4

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI MSA .............................................................................................................................................................. 5.5

Huntington-Ashland, WV–KY–OH ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.3

Louisville, KY–IN ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.0

Macon, GA MSA ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.3

Memphis, TN–AR–MS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.1

Nashville, TN ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.2

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA–NJ–DE–MD .......................................................................................................................... 6

Richmond-Petersburg, VA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Sacramento-Yolo, CA .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.7

San Diego, CA ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.8

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA .................................................................................................................................................... 6.9

San Joaquin Valley, CA ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3.2

St. Louis, MO–IL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.6

Ventura County, CA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.7

Washington, DC—Baltimore, DC, MD, VA MSA ..................................................................................................................................... 7.4

20 Areas .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54.2

Areas with Pre-2007 Attainment Dates and Recent Concentrations within 10 percent of an Exceedance.

Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.2

Benton Harbor, MI ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.2

Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.4

Charleston, WV MSA ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.3

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH–KY–IN .............................................................................................................................................................. 2.0

Cleveland-Akron, OH CMSA ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.9

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA ............................................................................................................................................ 1.1

Houma, LA ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.2

Lake Charles, LA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.2

New Orleans, LA MSA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1.3

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA–NC MSA ............................................................................................................................. 1.6

Orlando, FL MSA ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.5

Pensacola, FL MSA ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.4

Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI–MA .................................................................................................................................................. 1.1

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL MSA ........................................................................................................................................... 2.3

15 areas ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15.7

Total Areas: 45 ................................................................................................................................................................................. Population:

128

a In order to determine the reliability of model predictions the Agency ran the ozone model for current ozone concentrations and compared

those predictions with actual ozone levels recorded by ozone monitors. The results of the model’s performance are presented in the RIA for this

rule.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5017

25Fine particulate matter includes particles with

a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers. Ultrafine

particulate matter include particles with a diameter

less than 100 nanometers.

c. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

from Prolonged and Repeated Exposures

to Ozone

A large body of scientific literature

regarding health and welfare effects of

ozone has associated health effects with

certain patterns of ozone exposures that

do not necessarily include any hourly

ozone concentration above the 0.12

parts per million (ppm) level of the 1-

hour NAAQS. The science indicates that

there are health effects attributable to

prolonged and repeated exposures to

lower ozone concentrations. Studies of

6 to 8 hour exposures showed health

effects from prolonged and repeated

exposures at moderate levels of exertion

to ozone concentrations as low as 0.08

ppm. Prolonged and repeated ozone

concentrations at these levels are

common in areas throughout the

country, and are found in areas that are

exceeding, and areas that are not

exceeding, the 1-hour ozone standard.

For example, 153 million people, or 87

percent of the total population in

counties evaluated (176 million), lived

in areas with 2 or more days with

concentrations of 0.09 ppm or higher in

1998, including areas currently violating

the 1-hour NAAQS. In the 2007, before

the application of emission reductions

resulting from this rule, we estimated

that 116 million, or 93 percent of the

total population considered in the

analysis, are predicted to live in areas

with at least 2 days with model-adjusted

8-hour average concentrations of 0.08

ppm or higher. By 2030, the number of

people (139 million) and the relative

percentage (91 percent) of the total

population considered in the analysis is

projected to grow significantly without

reductions from this rule. Since

prolonged exposures at moderate levels

of ozone are more widespread than

exceedances of the 1-hour ozone

standard, and given the continuing

nature of the 1-hour ozone problem

described above, adverse health effects

from this type of ozone exposure can

reasonably be anticipated to occur in the

future in the absence of this rule.

Adverse welfare effects can also be

anticipated, primarily from damage to

vegetation. See the RIA for further

details.

Studies of acute health effects have

shown transient pulmonary function

responses, transient respiratory

symptoms, effects on exercise

performance, increased airway

responsiveness, increased susceptibility

to respiratory infection, increased

hospital and emergency room visits, and

transient pulmonary respiratory

inflammation. Such acute health effects

have been observed following prolonged

exposures at moderate levels of exertion

at concentrations of ozone well below

the current standard of 0.12 ppm. The

effects are more pronounced at

concentrations above 0.09 ppm,

affecting more subjects or having a

greater effect on a given subject in terms

of functional changes or symptoms. A

more detailed discussion may be found

in the RIA.

With regard to chronic health effects,

the collective data have many

ambiguities, but provide suggestive

evidence of chronic effects in humans.

There is a biologically plausible basis

for considering the possibility that

repeated inflammation associated with

exposure to ozone over a lifetime, as can

occur with prolonged exposure to

moderate ozone levels below peak

levels, may result in sufficient damage

to respiratory tissue that individuals

later in life may experience a reduced

quality of life, although such

relationships remain highly uncertain.

Ozone has many welfare effects, with

damage to plants being of most concern.

Plant damage affects crop yields,

forestry production, and ornamentals.

The adverse effect of ozone on forests

and other natural vegetation can in turn

cause damage to associated ecosystems,

with additional resulting economic

losses, as well as aesthetic impacts

which may not be fully quantifiable in

economic terms. Ozone concentrations

of 0.10 ppm can be phytotoxic to a large

number of plant species, and can

produce acute injury and reduced crop

yield and biomass production. Ozone

concentrations at or below 0.10 ppm

have the potential over a longer

duration of creating chronic stress on

vegetation that can result in reduced

plant growth and yield, shifts in

competitive advantages in mixed

populations, decreased vigor, and injury

from other environmental stresses.

Section 202(a) provides EPA with

authority to promulgate standards

applicable to motor vehicle emissions

that ‘‘in the Administrator’s judgment,

cause or contribute to air pollution

reasonably anticipated to endanger

public health and welfare.’’ The

evidence in the RIA regarding the

occurrence of adverse health effects due

to prolonged and repeated exposure to

ozone concentrations in the range

discussed above, and regarding the

populations that are expected to receive

exposures at these levels, along with the

welfare effects described above,

supports a conclusion that emissions of

NOX and VOC from heavy-duty vehicles

in 2007 and later will be contributing to

a national air pollution problem that

warrants regulatory action under section

202(a) of the Act.

3. Particulate Matter

a. Health and Welfare Effects

Particulate matter (PM) represents a

broad class of chemically and physically

diverse substances. It can be principally

characterized as discrete particles that

exist in the condensed (liquid or solid)

phase spanning several orders of

magnitude in size. All particles equal to

and less than 10 microns are called

PM10. Fine particles can be generally

defined as those particles with an

aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or

less (also known as PM2.5), and coarse

fraction particles are those particles

with an aerodynamic diameter greater

than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less

than a nominal 10 microns. The health

and environmental effects of PM are

strongly related to the size of the

particles.

The emission sources, formation

processes, chemical composition,

atmospheric residence times, transport

distances and other parameters of fine

and coarse particles are distinct. Fine

particles are directly emitted from

combustion sources and are formed

secondarily from gaseous precursors

such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,

or organic compounds. Fine particles

are generally composed of sulfate,

nitrate, chloride and ammonium

compounds; organic and elemental

carbon; and metals. Combustion of coal,

oil, diesel, gasoline, and wood, as well

as high temperature process sources

such as smelters and steel mills,

produce emissions that contribute to

fine particle formation. In contrast,

coarse particles are typically

mechanically generated by crushing or

grinding and are often dominated by

resuspended dusts and crustal material

from paved or unpaved roads or from

construction, farming, and mining

activities. Fine particles can remain in

the atmosphere for days to weeks and

travel through the atmosphere hundreds

to thousands of kilometers, while coarse

particles deposit to the earth within

minutes to hours and within tens of

kilometers from the emission source.

Diesel particles are a component of

both coarse and fine PM, but fall mostly

in the fine and ultrafine size range.25

Diesel PM contains small quantities of

numerous mutagenic and carcinogenic

compounds. While representing a very

small portion (less than one percent) of

the national emissions of metals, and a

small portion of diesel particulate

matter (one to five percent), we note that

several toxic trace metals of potential

5018 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

26Ambient concentrations of PM10 and PM10

emissions have declined over the last ten years by

25 percent and 19 percent, respectively. National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1998, US

EPA, March, 2000.

toxicological significance are also

emitted by diesel engines including

chromium, manganese, mercury and

nickel. In addition, small amounts of

dioxins have been measured in diesel

exhaust, some of which may partition

into the particle phase, though the

impact of these emissions on human

health is not clear.

Particulate matter, like ozone, has

been linked to a range of serious

respiratory health problems. Scientific

studies suggest a likely causal role of

ambient particulate matter (which is

attributable to a number of sources

including diesel) in contributing to a

series of health effects. The key health

effects categories associated with

ambient particulate matter include

premature mortality, aggravation of

respiratory and cardiovascular disease

(as indicated by increased hospital

admissions and emergency room visits,

school absences, work loss days, and

restricted activity days), aggravated

asthma, acute respiratory symptoms,

including aggravated coughing and

difficult or painful breathing, chronic

bronchitis, and decreased lung function

that can be experienced as shortness of

breath. Observable human noncancer

health effects associated with exposure

to diesel PM include some of the same

health effects reported for ambient PM

such as respiratory symptoms (cough,

labored breathing, chest tightness,

wheezing), and chronic respiratory

disease (cough, phlegm, chronic

bronchitis and suggestive evidence for

decreases in pulmonary function).

Symptoms of immunological effects

such as wheezing and increased

allergenicity are also seen. Studies in

rodents, especially rats, show the

potential for human inflammatory

effects in the lung and consequential

lung tissue damage from chronic diesel

exhaust inhalation exposure. Both fine

and coarse particles can accumulate in

the respiratory system. Exposure to fine

particles is most closely associated with

such health effects as premature

mortality or hospital admissions for

cardiopulmonary disease. For additional

information on health effects, see the

RIA. PM also causes damage to

materials and soiling of commonly used

building materials and culturally

important items such as statutes and

works of art. It is a major cause of

substantial visibility impairment in

many parts of the U.S.

Heavy-duty vehicles contribute to

particle formation through a number of

pollutants. The contribution to PM fine

varies by region of the country. Sulfate

plays a major role in the composition of

fine particulate across the country, but

typically makes up over half the fine

particles found in the Eastern United

States. Organic carbon accounts for a

large portion of fine particle mass, with

a slightly higher fraction in the west.

Diesel engines are the principal source

of elemental carbon, which makes up

about 5–6 percent of particle mass.

Nationally, nitrate plays a relatively

small role in the make up of fine

particles, but ammonium nitrate plays a

far larger role in southern California.

Ammonium nitrate–formed secondarily

from NOX and ammonia emissions—is

one of the most significant components

of particulate matter pollution in

California. During some of the worst

episodes of elevated particle levels in

the South Coast, ammonium nitrate can

account for about 65–75 percent of the

PM2.5 mass. Reducing ammonium

nitrate through controls on NOX sources

is a critical part of California’s

particulate matter strategy. Nationally,

the standards finalized in this rule will

significantly reduce HDV emissions of

SOX, NOX, VOCs and elemental carbon,

and thus contribute to reductions in

ambient concentrations of PM10 and

PM2.5.

b. Attainment and Maintenance of the

PM10 NAAQS

Under the CAA, we are to regulate

HDV emissions if they contribute to air

pollution that can reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health

and welfare. We have already addressed

the question of what concentration

patterns of PM endanger public health,

in setting the NAAQS for PM10 in 1987.

The PM NAAQS were revised in 1997,

largely by adding new standards for fine

particles (PM2.5) and modifying the form

of the daily PM10 standard. On judicial

review, the revised standards were

remanded for further proceedings, and

the revised PM10 standards were

vacated. The Supreme Court is currently

reviewing that decision. Oral arguments

were held on November 7, 2000 and a

decision by the Court is expected in

2001. Pending final resolution of the

litigation, the 1987 PM10 standard is the

applicable NAAQS for PM10.

Commenters questioned the need for

additional PM10 reductions in order to

achieve attainment with the PM10

NAAQS, and questioned the Agency’s

statement that, unlike ozone, PM10

emissions are projected to increase in

the future. Commenters are correct that

significant progress has occurred over

the last decade,26 but the Agency’s

statement was based on projected PM10

inventory increases in the future

between 1996 and 2030. During this

period, inventory trends for current

PM10 nonattainment areas, or those with

concentrations within 10 percent of the

standard, are predicted to increase

significantly. For example, from 1996 to

2030, increases are predicted in Clark

County (Las Vegas) of 41 percent, Harris

County (Houston) of 37 percent, and

Phoenix of 24 percent. A more detailed

discussion is provided in the RIA.

i. Current PM10 Nonattainment

The most recent PM10 monitoring data

indicates that 14 designated PM10

nonattainment areas with a projected

population of 23 million violated the

PM10 NAAQS in the period 1997–1999.

Table II.B–3 lists the 14 areas, and also

indicates the PM10 nonattainment

classification and 1999 projected

population for each PM10 nonattainment

area. The projected population in 1999

was based on 1990 population figures

which were then increased by the

amount of population growth in the

relevant county from 1990 to 1999.

TABLE II.B–3.—PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS VIOLATING THE PM10 NAAQS IN 1997–99

Area Classification

1999 Population (projected, in millions)

Hayden/Miami, AZ ........................................................................................................ Moderate ................................................... 0.004

Phoenix, AZ .................................................................................................................. Serious ...................................................... 2.977

Nogales, AZ .................................................................................................................. Moderate ................................................... 0.025

San Joaquin Valley, CA ............................................................................................... Serious ...................................................... 3.214

Imperial Valley, CA ....................................................................................................... Moderate ................................................... 0.122

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5019

27EPA has evaluated projected emissions for this

analysis rather than future air quality because

REMSAD, the model EPA has used for analyses

related to this rule, was designed principally to

estimate long-term average concentrations of fine

particulate matter and its ability to predict shortterm PM10 concentrations has not been satisfactorily

demonstrated. In contrast with ozone, which is the

product of complex photochemical reactions and

therefore difficult to directly relate to precursor

emissions, ambient PM10 concentrations are more

heavily influenced by direct emissions of

particulate matter and can therefore be correlated

more meaningfully with emissions inventories.

TABLE II.B–3.—PM10 NONATTAINMENT AREAS VIOLATING THE PM10 NAAQS IN 1997–99—Continued

Area Classification

1999 Population (projected, in millions)

Owens Valley, CA ........................................................................................................ Serious ...................................................... 0.018

Searles Valley, CA ....................................................................................................... Moderate ................................................... 0.029

Coachella Valley, CA ................................................................................................... Serious ...................................................... 0.239

South Coast Air Basin .................................................................................................. Serious ...................................................... 14.352

Las Vegas, NV ............................................................................................................. Serious ...................................................... 1.200

Reno, NV ...................................................................................................................... Moderate ................................................... 0.320

Anthony, NM b ............................................................................................................... Moderate ................................................... 0.003

El Paso, TXa ................................................................................................................ Moderate ................................................... 0.611

Wallula, WAb ................................................................................................................ Moderate ................................................... 0.052

Total Areas: 14 .................................................................................................. ................................................................... 23.167

aEPA has determined that continuing PM10 nonattainment in El Paso, TX is attributable to international transport under section 179(B). bThe violation in this area has been determined to be attributable to natural events under section 188(f) of the Act.

In addition to the 14 PM10

nonattainment areas that are currently

violating the PM10 NAAQS, there are 25

unclassifiable areas that have recently

recorded ambient concentrations of

PM10 above the PM10 NAAQS. EPA

adopted a policy in 1996 that allows

areas with PM10 exceedances that are

attributable to natural events to retain

their designation as unclassifiable if the

State is taking all reasonable measures

to safeguard public health regardless of

the sources of PM10 emissions. Areas

that remain unclassifiable areas are not

required under the Clean Air Act to

submit attainment plans, but we work

with each of these areas to understand

the nature of the PM10 problem and to

determine what best can be done to

reduce it. With respect to the monitored

violations reported in 1997–99 in the 25

areas designated as unclassifiable, we

have not yet excluded the possibility

that factors such as a one-time

monitoring upset or natural events,

which ordinarily would not result in an

area being designated as nonattainment

for PM10, may be responsible for the

problem. Emission reductions from

today’s action will assist these currently

unclassifiable areas to achieve ambient

PM10 concentrations below the current

PM10 NAAQS.

ii. Risk of Future Exceedances of the

PM10 Standard

The new standards for heavy-duty

vehicles will benefit public health and

welfare through reductions in direct

diesel particles and NOX, VOCs, and

SOX which contribute to secondary

formation of particulate matter. Because

ambient particle concentrations causing

violations of the PM10 standard are well

established to endanger public health

and welfare, this information supports

the new standards for heavy-duty

vehicles. The reductions from today’s

rule will assist States as they work with

the Agency through implementation of

local controls including development

and adoption of additional controls as

needed to move their areas into

attainment by the applicable deadline,

and maintain the standards thereafter.

The Agency’s PM inventory analysis

performed for this rulemaking predicts

that without additional reductions 10

areas face a significant risk of failing to

meet or to maintain the PM10 NAAQS

even with federal, State and local

controls currently in place.27 Table II.B–

4 presents information about these 10

areas and subdivides them into two

groups. The first group of 6 areas are

designated PM10 nonattainment areas

which had recent monitored violations

of the PM10 NAAQS in 1997–1999 and

increasing inventories of PM10 from

2007 to 2030 (see Table II.B–3 for

predicted increases in emissions). These

areas have a population of 19 million.

Included in the group are the

nonattainment areas that are part of the

Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas

(Clark County) metropolitan areas,

where traffic from heavy-duty vehicles

is substantial. These six areas will

benefit from the reductions in emissions

that will occur from the new standards

for heavy-duty vehicles, as will other

areas impacted by heavy-duty vehicle

emissions.

The second group of four counties

listed in Table II.B–4 with a total of nine

million people in 1999 also had

predicted exceedances of the PM10

standard. While these four areas

registered, in either 1997 or 1998,

single-year annual average monitored

PM10 levels of at least 90 percent of the

PM10 NAAQS, these areas did not

exceed the formal definition of the PM10

NAAQS over the three-year period

ending in 1999. For each of these four

areas (i.e., Cuyahoga, Harris, New York,

and San Diego), inventories of total

PM10 are predicted to increase between

1996, when these areas recorded values

within 10 percent of the PM10 standard,

and 2030 when this rule will take full

effect. Additionally, EPA is in the

process of taking final action on a

request by the State of Ohio to

redesignate Cuyahoga County as

attainment. This action is based on

locally developed information and is

consistent with the requirements of the

CAA which include, among other

requirements a 10-year plan for

maintenance of the PM10 standard.

For some of these areas, total PM10

inventories are predicted to decline or

stay relatively constant from 1996 to

2007, and then increase after 2007.

Based on inventory projections, the

small margin of attainment which the

four areas currently enjoy will likely

erode between 1996 and 2030, and for

some areas before 2007, if additional

actions to reduce the growth of future

emissions are not taken. We therefore

consider these four areas to each

individually have a significant risk of

exceeding the PM10 standard between

2007 and 2030 without further emission

reductions. The emission reductions

from the new standards for heavy-duty

vehicles will help these areas attain and

maintain the PM10 NAAQS in

conjunction with other processes that

5020 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

28EPA (1996) Review of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy

Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information

OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA–452/R–96–013.

are currently moving these areas

towards attainment.

TABLE II.B–4—AREAS WITH SIGNIFICANT RISK OF EXCEEDING THE PM10 NAAQS WITHOUT FURTHER EMISSION

REDUCTIONS BETWEEN 2007 AND 2030

Area

Percent increases in

PM10 emissions

(1996–2030)

1999 Population

(projected)

(millions)

Areas currently exceeding the PM10 standard:

Clark Co., NV (Las Vegas) ............................................................................................................................. 41 1.217

El Paso, TXa ................................................................................................................................................... 14 0.611

Hayden/Miami, AZ .......................................................................................................................................... 4 0.004

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA ........................................................................................................ 14 14.352

Nogales, AZ .................................................................................................................................................... 3 0.025

Phoenix, AZ .................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.012

Subtotal for 6 Areas ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 19.22

Areas within 10% of exceeding the PM10 standard:

Cuyahoga Co., OH (Cleveland) ..................................................................................................................... 28 1.37

Harris, Co., TX (Houston) ............................................................................................................................... 37 3.26

New York Co., NY .......................................................................................................................................... 14 1.55

San Diego Co., CA ......................................................................................................................................... 13 2.83

Subtotal for 4 Areas ................................................................................................................................ ........................ 9.01

10 Areas .................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 28.23

aEPA has determined that PM10 nonattainment in this area is attributable to international transport. While reductions in heavy-duty vehicle

emissions cannot be expected to result in attainment, they will help reduce the degree of PM10 nonattainment.

EPA recognizes that the SIP process is

ongoing and that nonattainment areas

are in the process of implementing, or

will be adopting and implementing,

additional control measures to achieve

the PM10 NAAQS in accordance with

their attainment dates under the Clean

Air Act. EPA believes, however, that as

in the case of ozone, there are

uncertainties inherent in any

demonstration of attainment that is

premised on forecasts of emission levels

in future years. Even if these areas adopt

and submit SIPs that EPA is able to

approve as demonstrating attainment of

the PM10 standard, and attain the

standard by the appropriate attainment

dates, the inventory analysis conducted

for this rule and the history of PM10

levels in these areas indicates that there

is still a significant risk that these areas

will need the reductions from the

heavy-duty vehicle standards adopted

today to maintain the PM10 standards in

the long term (ie, between 2007 and

2030). In addition, this list does not

fully consider the possibility that there

are other areas which are now meeting

the PM10 NAAQS that have at least a

significant probability of requiring

further reductions to continue to

maintain it.

c. Public Health and Welfare Concerns

From Exposure to Fine PM

Many epidemiologic studies have

shown statistically significant

associations of ambient PM levels with

a variety of human health endpoints in

sensitive populations, including

mortality, hospital admissions and

emergency room visits, respiratory

illness and symptoms measured in

community surveys, and physiologic

changes in mechanical pulmonary

function. These effects have been

observed in many areas with ambient

PM levels at or below the current PM10

NAAQS. The epidemiologic science

points to fine PM as being more strongly

associated with some health effects,

such as premature mortality, than coarse

PM.

Associations of both short-term and

long-term PM exposure with most of the

above health endpoints have been

consistently observed. The general

internal consistency of the

epidemiologic data base and available

findings have led to increasing public

health concern, due to the severity of

several studied endpoints and the

frequent demonstration of associations

of health and physiologic effects with

ambient PM levels at or below the

current PM10 NAAQS. The weight of

epidemiologic evidence suggests that

ambient PM exposure has affected the

public health of U.S. populations.

Specifically, increased mortality

associated with fine PM was observed in

cities with longer-term average fine PM

concentrations in the range of 16 to 21

μg/m 3.

Current 1999 PM2.5 monitored values,

which cover about a third of the nation’s

counties, indicate that at least 40

million people live in areas where long

term ambient fine particulate matter

levels are at or above 16 μg/m 3 (37

percent of the population in the areas

with monitors), which is the low end of

the range of long term average PM2.5

concentrations in cities where

statistically significant associations

were found with serious health effects,

including premature mortality (EPA,

1996).28

The Agency used the Regulatory

Model System for Aerosols and

Desposition (REMSAD) to model

baseline and post-control ambient PM

concentrations. For a description of the

REMSAD model, the reader is referred

to Chapter VII of the RIA.

Our REMSAD modeled predictions

allow us to also estimate the affected

population for the counties which do

not currently have PM2.5 monitors.

According to our national modeled

predictions, there were a total of 76

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5021

29REMSAD modeling for PM2.5 annual average

concentrations. Total 1996 population in all

REMSAD grid cells is 263 million.

30Samet JM, Zeger SL, Dominici F, Curriero F,

Coursac I, Dockery DW, Schwartz J, Zanobetti A.

2000. The National Morbidity, Mortality and Air

Pollution Study: Part II: Morbidity, Mortality and

Air Pollution in the United States. Research Report

No. 94, Part II. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge

MA, June 2000.

31 Dockery, D.W., Pope, C.A., III, Xu, X., Spengler,

J.D., Ware, J.H., Fay, M.E., Ferris, B.G., Speizer, F.E.

(1993) An association between air pollution and

mortality in six U.S. cities. N. Engl. J. Med.

329:1753–1759.

32Pope, C. A., III, Thun, M. J., Namboodiri, M. M.,

Dockery, D. W., Evans, J. S., Speizer, F. E., Heath,

C. W., Jr. (1995) Particulate air pollution as a

predictor of mortality in a prospective study of U.S.

adults. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 151: 669–674.

33 Krewski D, Burnett RT, Goldbert MS, Hoover K,

Siemiatycki J, Jarrett M, Abrahamowicz M, White

WH. (2000) Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities

Study and the American Cancer Society Study of

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. Special

Report to the Health Effects Institute, Cambridge

MA, July 2000.

million people (1996 populations) living

in areas with modeled annual average

PM2.5 concentrations at or above 16 μg/

m 3 (29 percent of the population).29

The REMSAD model also allows us to

estimate future PM2.5 levels. However,

the most appropriate method of making

these projections relies on the model to

predict changes between current and

future states. Thus, we have estimated

future conditions only for the areas with

current PM2.5 monitored data (which, as

just noted, covers about a third of the

nation’s counties). For these counties,

REMSAD predicts the current level of

37 percent of the population living in

areas where fine PM levels are at or

above 16 μg/m 3 to increase to 59

percent in 2030.

It is reasonable to anticipate that

sensitive populations exposed to similar

or higher levels, now and in the 2007

and later time frame, will also be at

increased risk relative to the general

population of premature mortality

associated with exposures to fine PM. In

addition, statistically significant

relationships have also been observed in

U.S. cities between PM levels and

increased respiratory symptoms and

decreased lung functions in children.

Since EPA’s examination in the mid1990s of the epidemiological and

toxicological evidence of the health

effects of PM, many new studies have

been published that reevaluate or

extend the initial research. The Agency

is currently reviewing these new studies

to stay abreast of the literature and

adjust as necessary its assessment of

PM’s health effects. It is worth noting

that within this new body of scientific

literature, there are two new studies

funded by the Health Effects Institute, a

EPA-industry jointly funded group, that

have generally confirmed the mid-1990s

findings of the Agency about the

association of fine particles and

premature mortality and various other

respiratory and cardiovascular effects.

HEI’s National Morbidity, Mortality and

Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS),

evaluated associations between air

pollutants and mortality in 90 U.S.

cities, and also evaluated associations

between air pollutants and hospital

admissions among the elderly in 14 U.S.

cities.30 In HEI’s Reanalysis of the

Harvard Six Cities Study and the

American Cancer Society Study of

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality,

data were obtained from the original

investigators for two previous

studies.31 32, The extensive analyses

included replication and validation of

the previous findings, as well as

sensitivity analyses using alternative

analytic techniques, including different

methods of covariate adjustment,

exposure characterization, and

exposure-response modeling.33

Section 202(a) provides EPA with

independent authority to promulgate

standards applicable to motor vehicle

emissions that ‘‘in the Administrator’s

judgment, cause or contribute to air

pollution reasonably anticipated to

endanger public health and welfare.’’

The body of health evidence is

supportive of our view that PM

exposures are a serious public health

concern. This concern exists for current

exposures as well as exposures that can

reasonably be anticipated to occur in the

future. The risk is significant from an

overall public health perspective

because of the large number of

individuals in sensitive populations that

we expect to be exposed to ambient fine

PM in the 2007 and later time frame, as

well as the importance of the negative

health effects. This information

warrants a requirement to reduce

emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, to

address elevated levels of fine PM. This

evidence supports EPA’s conclusion

that emissions from heavy-duty vehicles

that lead to the formation of fine PM in

2007 and later will be contributing to a

national air pollution problem that

warrants action under section 202(a)(3).

d. Other Welfare Effects Associated with

PM

The deposition of airborne particles

reduces the aesthetic appeal of

buildings, and promotes and accelerates

the corrosion of metals, degrades paints,

and deteriorates building materials such

as concrete and limestone. This

materials damage and soiling are related

to the ambient levels of airborne

particulates, which are emitted by

heavy-duty vehicles. Although there

was insufficient data to relate materials

damage and soiling to specific

concentrations, and thereby to allow the

Agency to establish a secondary PM

standard for these impacts, we believe

that the welfare effects are real and that

heavy-duty vehicle PM, NOX, SOX, and

VOC contribute to materials damage and

soiling.

e. Conclusions Regarding PM

There is a significant risk that, despite

statutory requirements and EPA and

State efforts towards attainment and

maintenance, some areas of the U.S. will

violate the PM10 NAAQS in 2007 and

thereafter. Heavy-duty vehicles

contribute substantially to PM10 levels,

as shown in Section II.C below.

It is also reasonable to anticipate that

concentrations of fine PM, as

represented for example by PM2.5

concentrations, will also endanger

public health and welfare even if all

areas attain and maintain the PM10

NAAQS. Heavy-duty vehicles contribute

to this air pollution problem.

There are also important

environmental impacts of PM10, such as

regional haze which impairs visibility.

Furthermore, while the evidence on

soiling and materials damage is limited

and the magnitude of the impact of

heavy-duty vehicles on these welfare

effects is difficult to quantify, these

welfare effects support our belief that

this action is necessary and appropriate.

Finally, in addition to its contribution

to PM inventories, diesel exhaust PM is

of special concern because it has been

implicated in an increased risk of lung

cancer and respiratory disease in human

studies, and an increased risk of

noncancer health effects as well. The

information provided in this section

shows that there will be air pollution

that warrants regulatory action under

section 202(a)(3) of the Act.

4. Diesel Exhaust

Diesel emissions are of concern to the

agency beyond their contribution to

ambient PM. As discussed in detail in

the draft RIA, there have been health

studies specific to diesel exhaust

emissions which indicate potential

hazards to human health that appear to

be specific to this emissions source. For

chronic exposure, these hazards

included respiratory system toxicity and

carcinogenicity. Acute exposure also

causes transient effects (a wide range of

physiological symptoms stemming from

irritation and inflammation mostly in

the respiratory system) in humans

though they are highly variable

depending on individual human

susceptibility. The chemical

5022 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

34U.S. EPA (2000) Health Assessment Document

for Diesel Exhaust: SAB Review Draft. EPA/600/8–

90/057E Office of Research and Development,

Washington, D.C. The document is available

electronically at www.epa.gov/ncea/dieslexh.htm.

35EPA (2000) Review of EPA’s Health Assessment

Document for Diesel Exhaust (EPA 600/8–90/057E).

Review by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee (CASAC) December 2000. EPA–SAB–

CASAC–01–003.

36California Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Health Hazard Assessment (CAL–EPA,

OEHHA) (1998) Proposed Identification of Diesel

Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Appendix III

Part B Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust.

April 22, 1998.

37Harris, J.E. (1983) Diesel emissions and Lung

Cancer. Risk Anal. 3:83–100.

38Stayner, L.S., Dankovic, D., Smith, R.,

Steenland, K. (1998) Predicted Lung Cancer Risk

Among Miners Exposed to Diesel Exhaust Particles.

Am. J. of Indus. Medicine 34:207–219.

39See Chapter 8.4 and 9.5.2 of the U.S. EPA

(2000) Health Assessment Document for Diesel

Emissions: SAB Review Draft. EPA/600/8–90/057E

Office of Research and Development, Washington,

D.C. The document is available electronically at

www.epa.gov/ncea/dieselexh.htm.

40As used in this rule, environmental risk is

defined as the risk (i.e. a mathematical probability)

that lung cancer would be observed in the

population after a lifetime exposure to diesel

exhaust. Exposure levels may be occupational

lifetime or environmental lifetime exposures. An

environmental risk in the magnitude of 10-5

translates as the probability of lung cancer being

evidenced in one person in a population of one

hundred thousand having a lifetime exposure.

41EPA’s scientific judgment (which CASAC has

supported) is that diesel exhaust is likely to be

carcinogenic to humans. Notably, similar scientific

judgements about the carcinogenicity of diesel

exhaust have been recently made by the National

Toxicology Program of the Department of Health

and Human Services, NIOSH, WHO, and OEHA of

the State of California. In the risk perspective

discussed above, EPA recognizes the possibility that

the lower end of the environmental risk range

includes zero. The risks could be zero because (1)

some individuals within the population may have

a high tolerance level to exposure from diesel

exhaust and therefore are not susceptible to the

cancer risks from environmental exposure and (2)

although EPA has not seen evidence of this, there

could be a threshold of exposure below which there

is no cancer risk.

composition of diesel exhaust includes

several hazardous air pollutants, or air

toxics. In our Mobile Source Air Toxic

Rulemaking under section 202(l) of the

Act discussed above, EPA determined

that diesel particulate matter and diesel

exhaust organic gases be identified as a

Mobile Source Air Toxic (MSAT). The

purpose of the MSAT list is to provide

a screening tool that identifies

compounds emitted from motor vehicles

or their fuels for which further

evaluation of emissions controls is

appropriate. As discussed in chapter 3

on engine technology, the particulate

matter standard finalized today reflects

the greatest degree of emissions

reductions achievable under section

202(l) for on-highway heavy-duty

vehicle PM emissions.

a. Potential Cancer Effects of Diesel

Exhaust

The EPA has concluded that diesel

exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to

humans by inhalation at occupational

and environmental levels of exposure.34

The draft Health Assessment Document

for Diesel Exhaust (draft Assessment),

was reviewed in public session by the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee (CASAC) on October 12–13,

2000.35 The CASAC found that the

Agency’s conclusion that diesel exhaust

is likely to be carcinogenic to humans

is scientifically sound. CASAC

concurred with the draft Assessment’s

findings with the proviso that EPA

provide modifications and clarifications

on certain topics. The Agency expects to

produce the finalized Assessment in

early 2001. Information presented here

is consistent with that to be provided in

the final Assessment.

In its review of the published

literature, EPA found that about 30

individual epidemiologic studies show

increased lung cancer risk associated

with diesel emissions. In the draft

Assessment EPA evaluated 22 studies

that were most relevant for risk

assessment, 16 of which reported

significant increased lung cancer risks,

ranging from 20 to 167 percent,

associated with diesel exhaust exposure.

Published analytical results of pooling

many of the 30 studies showed that on

average, the risks were increased by 33

to 47 percent. Questions remain about

the influence of other factors (e.g., effect

of smoking, other particulate sources),

the quality of the individual

epidemiologic studies, exposure levels,

and consequently the precise magnitude

of the increased risk of lung cancer.

From a weight of evidence perspective,

EPA concludes that the epidemiologic

evidence, as well as supporting data

from certain animal and mode of action

studies, support the Agency’s

conclusion that exposure to diesel

exhaust is likely to pose a human lung

cancer hazard to occupationally

exposed individuals as well as to the

general public exposed to typically

lower environmental levels of diesel

exhaust.

Risk assessments in the peer-reviewed

literature have attempted to assess the

lifetime risk of lung cancer in workers

occupationally exposed to diesel

exhaust. These estimates suggest that

lung cancer risk may range from 10¥4 to

10¥2. 36 37 38 The Agency recognizes the

significant uncertainties in these

studies, and has not used these

estimates to assess the possible cancer

unit risk associated with ambient

exposure to diesel exhaust.

While available evidence supports

EPA’s conclusion that diesel exhaust is

likely to be a human lung carcinogen,

and thus is likely to pose a cancer

hazard to humans, EPA has concluded

that the available data are not sufficient

to develop a confident estimate of

cancer unit risk. The absence of a cancer

unit risk for diesel exhaust limits our

ability to quantify, with confidence, the

potential impact of the hazard

(magnitude of risk) on exposed

populations. In the draft Assessment,

EPA acknowledged this limitation and

provided a discussion of the possible

environmental cancer risk consistent

with the majority of the occupational

epidemiological findings of increased

lung cancer risk and the exposure

differences between the occupational

and environmental settings.39 The

Agency concluded in developing its

perspective on risk that there is a

reasonable potential that environmental

lifetime cancer risks (‘‘environmental

risk range’’) from diesel exhaust may

exceed 10-5 and could be as high as

10-3.40

The environmental risk estimates

included in the Agency’s risk

perspective are meant only to gauge the

possible magnitude of risk to provide a

means to understand the potential

significance of the lung cancer hazard.

The estimates are not to be construed as

cancer unit risk estimates and are not

suitable for use in analyses which

would estimate possible lung cancer

cases in exposed populations.

EPA recognizes that, as in all such

risk assessments, there are uncertainties

in this assessment of the environmental

risk range including limitations in

exposure data, uncertainty with respect

to the most accurate characterization of

the risk increases observed in the

epidemiological studies, chemical

changes in diesel exhaust over time, and

extrapolation of the risk from

occupational to ambient environmental

exposures. As with any such risk

assessment for a carcinogen, despite

EPA’s thorough examination of the

available epidemiologic evidence and

exposure information, at this time EPA

can not rule out the possibility that the

lower end of the risk range includes

zero.41 However, it is the Agency’s best

scientific judgement that the

assumptions and other elements of this

analysis are reasonable and appropriate

for identifying the risk potential based

on the scientific information currently

available.

The Agency believes that the risk

estimation techniques that were used in

the draft Assessment to gauge the

potential for and possible magnitude of

risk are reasonable and the CASAC

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5023

42National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health (NIOSH) (1988) Carcinogenic effects of

exposure to diesel exhaust. NIOSH Current

Intelligence Bulletin 50. DHHS, Publication No. 88–

116. Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA.

43 International Agency for Research on Cancer

(1989) Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and

some nitroarenes, Vol. 46. Monographs on the

evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. World

Heath Organization, International Agency for

Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

44World Health Organization (1996) Diesel fuel

and exhaust emissions: International program on

chemical safety. World Health Organization,

Geneva, Switzerland.

45Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment (1998) Health risk assessment for diesel

exhaust, April 1998. California Environmental

Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.

46U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

(2000) Ninth report on carcinogens. National

Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC.

ehis.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc9.html.

47U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, June 2000.

panel has concurred with the

Assessment’s discussion of the possible

environmental risk range with an

understanding that some clarifications

and caveats would be added to the final

version of the Assessment. Details of the

technical approach used in estimating

the possible range of environmental

risks and uncertainties are provided in

the RIA.

In the draft Assessment, the Agency

also provided a discussion of the

potential overlap and/or relatively small

difference between some occupational

settings where increased lung cancer

risk is reported and ambient

environmental exposures. The potential

for small exposure differences

underscores the concern that some

degree of occupational risk may also be

present in the environmental setting and

that extrapolation of occupational risk

to ambient environmental exposure

levels should be more confidently

judged to be appropriate. The relevant

exposure information is presented in the

RIA.

In the absence of having a unit cancer

risk to assess environmental risk, EPA

has considered the relevant

epidemiological studies and principles

for their assessment, the relative risk

from occupational exposure as assessed

by others, and relative exposure

differences between occupational and

ambient environmental levels of diesel

exhaust exposure.

While uncertainty exists in estimating

the possible magnitude of the

environmental risk range, the likely

hazard to humans together with the

potential for significant environmental

risks leads the Agency to believe that

diesel exhaust emissions should be

reduced in order to protect the public’s

health. We believe that this is a prudent

measure in light of:

• The designation that diesel exhaust

is likely to be carcinogenic to humans,

• The exposure of the entire

population to various levels of diesel

exhaust,

• The consistent observation of

significantly increased lung cancer risk

in workers exposed to diesel exhaust,

and

• The potential overlap and/or

relatively small difference between

some occupational settings where

increased lung cancer risk is reported

and ambient exposures.

In the late 1980s, the International

Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

determined that diesel exhaust is

‘‘probably carcinogenic to humans’’ and

the National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health classified diesel

exhaust a ‘‘potential occupational

carcinogen.’’42 43 Based on IARC

findings, the State of California

identified diesel exhaust in 1990 as a

chemical known to the State to cause

cancer. In 1996, the International

Programme on Chemical Safety of the

World Health Organization listed diesel

exhaust as a ‘‘probable’’ human

carcinogen.44 In 1998, the California

Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment (OEHHA, California EPA)

identified diesel PM as a toxic air

contaminant due to the noncancer and

cancer hazard and because of the

potential magnitude of the cancer risk.45

Most recently, the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services National

Toxicology Program designated diesel

exhaust particles as ‘‘reasonably

anticipated to be a human carcinogen’’

in its Ninth Report on Carcinogens.46

The concern for a carcinogenicity

hazard resulting from diesel exhaust

exposures is longstanding and

widespread.

b. Noncancer Effects of Diesel Exhaust

The acute and chronic exposurerelated noncancer effects of diesel

exhaust emissions are also of concern to

the Agency. Acute exposure to diesel

exhaust can result in physiologic

symptoms consistent with irritation and

inflammation, and evidence of

immunological effects including

increased reaction to allergens and some

symptoms associated with asthma. The

acute effects data, however, lack

sufficient detail to permit the

calculation of protective levels for

human exposure.

For chronic diesel exhaust exposure,

EPA is completing the development of

an inhalation reference concentration

(RfC). The RfC is an estimate of the

continuous human inhalation exposure

(including sensitive subgroups) that is

likely to be without an appreciable risk

of deleterious noncancer effects during

a lifetime. While the limited amount of

human data are suggestive of respiratory

distress, animal test data are quite

definitive in providing a basis to

anticipate a hazard to the human lung

based on the irritant and inflammatory

reactions in test animals. Thus, EPA

believes that chronic diesel exhaust

exposure, at sufficient exposure levels,

increases the hazard and risk of an

adverse health effect. Based on CASAC

advice regarding the use of the animal

data to derive the RfC, the Agency will

provide in the final Assessment in 2001

an RfC based on diesel exhaust effects

in test animals of approximately 5 μg/

m 3.

In addition, it is also instructive to

recognize that diesel exhaust particulate

matter is part of ambient fine PM. A

qualitative comparison of adverse

effects of exposure to ambient fine PM

and diesel exhaust particulate matter

shows that the respiratory system is

adversely affected in both cases, though

a wider spectrum of adverse effects has

been identified for ambient fine PM.

Relative to the diesel PM database, there

is a wealth of human data for fine PM

noncancer effects. Since diesel exhaust

PM is a component of ambient fine PM,

the fine PM health effects data base can

be informative. The final Assessment

will discuss the fine PM health effects

data and its relation to evaluating health

effects associated with diesel exhaust.

5. Other Criteria Pollutants

The standards being finalized today

will help reduce levels of three other

pollutants for which NAAQS have been

established: carbon monoxide (CO),

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur

dioxide (SO2). As of July, 2000, every

area in the United States has been

designated to be in attainment with the

NO2 NAAQS. There were 28 areas

designated as nonattainment with the

SO2 standard, and 17 areas designated

CO nonattainment areas.

A health threat of carbon monoxide at

outdoor levels occurs for those who

suffer from cardiovascular disease, such

as angina petoris, where it can

exacerbate the effects. Studies also show

that outdoor levels can lower peak

performance from individuals that are

exercising and lower exercise tolerance

of sensitive individuals. EPA believes

that epidemiological evidence suggests

that there is a risk of premature

mortality and lowered birth weight from

CO exposure.47 The Carbon Monoxide

Criteria Document was finalized in

5024 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

48U.S. EPA (2000) 1996 National Toxics

Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/nata.

Inventory values for 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, and acrolein discussed below also

come from this source.

49 International Agency for Research on Cancer,

IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic

risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some

industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International

Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health

Organization, Lyon, France, p. 345–389, 1982.

50 Irons, R.D., W.S. Stillman, D.B. Colagiovanni,

and V.A. Henry, Synergistic action of the benzene

metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic

stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage

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

Sci. 89:3691–3695, 1992.

51Environmental Protection Agency,

Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene: An Update,

National Center for Environmental Assessment,

Washington, DC. 1998.

52Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Health

Risk Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene, National Center

for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research

and Development, U.S. EPA, EPA/600/P–98/001A,

February 1998.

53An SAB Report: Review of the Health Risk

Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene. EPA-SAB-EHC–98,

August, 1998.

54Scientific Advisory Board. 1998. An SAB

Report: Review of the Health Risk Assessment of

1,3-Butadiene. EPA-SAB-EHC–98, August, 1998.

55 [55]: EPA 1996. Proposed guidelines for

carcinogen risk assessment. Federal Register

61(79):17960–18011.

56Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment

of Health Risks to Garment Workers and Certain

Home Residents from Exposure to Formaldehyde,

Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, April

1987.

August 2000 and made available to the

public at that time.

6. Other Air Toxics

In addition to NOX and particulates,

heavy-duty vehicle emissions contain

several other substances that are known

or suspected human or animal

carcinogens, or have serious noncancer

health effects. These include

benzene,1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, acrolein, and dioxin. For

some of these pollutants, heavy-duty

engine emissions are believed to

account for a significant proportion of

total nation-wide emissions. Although

these emissions will decrease in the

short term, they are expected to increase

between 2010 and 2020 without the

emission limits, as the number of miles

traveled by heavy-duty trucks increases.

In the RIA, we present current and

projected exposures to benzene, 1,3-

butadiene, formaldehyde, and

acetaldehyde from all on-highway motor

vehicles.

By reducing hydrocarbon and other

organic emissions, both in gas phase

and bound to particles, the emission

control program in today’s action will

also reduce the direct emissions of air

toxics from HDVs. Today’s action will

reduce exposure to hydrocarbon and

other organic emissions and therefore

help reduce the impact of HDV

emissions on cancer and noncancer

health effects.

a. Benzene

Highway mobile sources account for

42 percent of nationwide emissions of

benzene and HDVs account for 7

percent of all highway vehicle benzene

emissions.48 The EPA has recently

reconfirmed that benzene is a known

human carcinogen by all routes of

exposure (including leukemia at high,

prolonged air exposures), and is

associated with additional health effects

including genetic changes in humans

and animals and increased proliferation

of bone marrow cells in mice.49 50 51 EPA

believes that the data indicate a causal

relationship between benzene exposure

and acute lymphocytic leukemia and

suggest a relationship between benzene

exposure and chronic non-lymphocytic

leukemia and chronic lymphocytic

leukemia. Respiration is the major

source of human exposure and at least

half of this exposure is attributable to

gasoline vapors and automotive

emissions. A number of adverse

noncancer health effects including

blood, disorders, such as preleukemia

and aplastic anemia, have also been

associated with low-dose, long-term

exposure to benzene.

b. 1,3-Butadiene

Highway mobile sources account for

42 percent of the annual emissions of

1,3-butadiene and HDVs account for 15

percent of the highway vehicle portion.

Today’s program will play an important

role in reducing in the mobile

contribution of 1,3-butadiene.

Reproductive and/or developmental

effects have been observed in mice and

rats following inhalation exposure to

1,3-butadiene.52 No information is

available on developmental/

reproductive effects in humans

following exposure to 1,3-butadiene. In

the EPA1998 draft Health Risk

Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene, that was

reviewed by the SAB, EPA proposed

that 1,3-butadiene is a known human

carcinogen based on human

epidemiologic, laboratory animal data,

and supporting data such as the

genotoxicity of 1,3-butadiene

metabolites.53 The Environmental

Health Committee of EPA’s Scientific

Advisory Board (SAB), reviewed the

draft document in August 1998 and

recommended that 1,3-butadiene be

classified as a probable human

carcinogen, stating that designation of

1,3-butadiene as a known human

carcinogen should be based on

observational studies in humans,

without regard to mechanistic or other

information.54 In applying the 1996

proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen

Risk Assessment, the Agency relies on

both observational studies in humans as

well as experimental evidence

demonstrating causality and therefore

the designation of 1,3-butadiene as a

known human carcinogen remains

applicable.55 The Agency has revised

the draft Health Risk Assessment of 1,3-

Butadiene based on the SAB and public

comments. The draft Health Risk

Assessment of 1,3-Butadiene will

undergo the Agency consensus review,

during which time additional changes

may be made prior to its public release

and placement on the Integrated Risk

Information System (IRIS).

c. Formaldehyde

Highway mobile sources contribute 24

percent of the national emissions of

formaldehyde, and HDVs account for 36

percent of the highway portion. EPA has

classified formaldehyde as a probable

human carcinogen based on evidence in

humans and in rats, mice, hamsters, and

monkeys.56 Epidemiological studies in

occupationally exposed workers suggest

that long-term inhalation of

formaldehyde may be associated with

tumors of the nasopharyngeal cavity

(generally the area at the back of the

mouth near the nose), nasal cavity, and

sinus. Formaldehyde exposure also

causes a range of noncancer health

effects, including irritation of the eyes

(tearing of the eyes and increased

blinking) and mucous membranes.

Sensitive individuals may experience

these adverse effects at lower

concentrations than the general

population and in persons with

bronchial asthma, the upper respiratory

irritation caused by formaldehyde can

precipitate an acute asthmatic attack.

The agency is currently conducting a

reassessment of risk from inhalation

exposure to formaldehyde.

d. Acetaldehyde

Highway mobile sources contribute 29

percent of the national acetaldehyde

emissions and HDVs are responsible for

approximately 33 percent of these

highway mobile source emissions.

Acetaldehyde is classified as a probable

human carcinogen and is considered

moderately toxic by the inhalation, oral,

and intravenous routes. The primary

acute effect of exposure to acetaldehyde

vapors is irritation of the eyes, skin, and

respiratory tract. At high concentrations,

irritation and pulmonary effects can

occur, which could facilitate the uptake

of other contaminants. The agency is

currently conducting a reassessment of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5025

57U.S. EPA (1993) Environmental Protection

Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS),

National Center for Environmental Assessment,

Cincinnati, OH.

58U.S. EPA (2000) Exposure and Human Health

Reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-pDioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. Part III:

Integrated Summary and Risk Characterization for

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and

Related Compounds. External Review Draft. EPA/

600/P–00/001Ag.

59Much of the information in this subsection was

excerpted from the EPA document, Human Health

Benefits from Sulfate Reduction, written under Title

IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, U.S.

EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Acid Rain

Division, Washington, DC 20460, November 1995.

60Acid Rain: Emissions Trends and Effects in the

Eastern United States, US General Accounting

Office, March, 2000 (GOA/RCED–00–47).

61Acid Deposition Standard Feasibility Study:

Report to Congress, EPA 430R–95–001a, October,

1995.

risk from inhalation exposure to

acetaldehyde.

e. Acrolein

Highway mobile sources contribute 16

percent of the national acrolein

emissions and HDVs are responsible for

approximately 39 percent of these

highway mobile source emissions.

Acrolein is extremely toxic to humans

when inhaled, with acute exposure

resulting in upper respiratory tract

irritation and congestion. The Agency

has developed a reference concentration

for inhalation (RfC) of acrolein of 0.02

micrograms/m3.57 Although no

information is available on its

carcinogenic effects in humans, based

on laboratory animal data, EPA

considers acrolein a possible human

carcinogen.

f. Dioxins

Recent studies have confirmed that

dioxins are formed by and emitted from

heavy-duty diesel trucks and are

estimated to account for 1.2 percent of

total dioxin emissions in 1995. In the

environment, the pathway of immediate

concern is the food pathway (e.g.,

human ingestion of certain foods, e.g.

meat and dairy products contaminated

by dioxin) which may be affected by

deposition of dioxin from the

atmosphere. EPA classified dioxins as

probable human carcinogens in 1985.

Recently EPA has proposed, and the

Scientific Advisory Board has

concurred, to classify one dioxin

compound, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin as a human carcinogen and the

complex mixtures of dioxin-like

compounds as likely to be carcinogenic

to humans using the draft 1996

carcinogen risk assessment guidelines.58

Using the 1986 cancer risk assessment

guidelines, the hazard characterization

for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

is ‘‘known’’ human carcinogen and the

hazard characterization for complex

mixtures of dioxin-like compounds is

‘‘probable’’ human carcinogens. Acute

and chronic noncancer effects have also

been reported for dioxin.

7. Other Welfare and Environmental

Effects

Some commenters challenged the

Agency’s use of adverse welfare and

environmental effects associated with

emissions from heavy-duty vehicles as a

partial basis for this rulemaking. Other

commenters went to great lengths to

support the Agency’s inclusion of these

welfare and environmental effects.

Additional information has been added

since the proposal in order to update

and clarify the available information on

welfare and environmental impacts of

heavy-duty vehicle emissions. The

following section presents information

on four categories of public welfare and

environmental impacts related to heavyduty vehicle emissions: acid deposition,

eutrophication of water bodies, POM

deposition, and impairment of visibility.

a. Acid Deposition

Acid deposition, or acid rain as it is

commonly known, occurs when SO2

and NOX react in the atmosphere with

water, oxygen, and oxidants to form

various acidic compounds that later fall

to earth in the form of precipitation or

dry deposition of acidic particles.59 It

contributes to damage of trees at high

elevations and in extreme cases may

cause lakes and streams to become so

acidic that they cannot support aquatic

life. In addition, acid deposition

accelerates the decay of building

materials and paints, including

irreplaceable buildings, statues, and

sculptures that are part of our nation’s

cultural heritage. To reduce damage to

automotive paint caused by acid rain

and acidic dry deposition, some

manufacturers use acid-resistant paints,

at an average cost of $5 per vehicle—a

total of $61 million per year if applied

to all new cars and trucks sold in the

U.S.

Acid deposition primarily affects

bodies of water that rest atop soil with

a limited ability to neutralize acidic

compounds. The National Surface Water

Survey (NSWS) investigated the effects

of acidic deposition in over 1,000 lakes

larger than 10 acres and in thousands of

miles of streams. It found that acid

deposition was the primary cause of

acidity in 75 percent of the acidic lakes

and about 50 percent of the acidic

streams, and that the areas most

sensitive to acid rain were the

Adirondacks, the mid-Appalachian

highlands, the upper Midwest and the

high elevation West. The NSWS found

that approximately 580 streams in the

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain are acidic

primarily due to acidic deposition.

Hundreds of the lakes in the

Adirondacks surveyed in the NSWS

have acidity levels incompatible with

the survival of sensitive fish species.

Many of the over 1,350 acidic streams

in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (midAppalachia) region have already

experienced trout losses due to

increased stream acidity. Emissions

from U.S. sources contribute to acidic

deposition in eastern Canada, where the

Canadian government has estimated that

14,000 lakes are acidic. Acid deposition

also has been implicated in contributing

to degradation of high-elevation spruce

forests that populate the ridges of the

Appalachian Mountains from Maine to

Georgia. This area includes national

parks such as the Shenandoah and Great

Smoky Mountain National Parks.

A recent study of emissions trends

and acidity of waterbodies in the

Eastern United States by the General

Accounting Office (GAO) found that

sulfates declined in 92 percent of a

representative sample of lakes from

1992 to 1999, and nitrate levels

increased in 48 percent of the lakes

sampled.60 The decrease in sulfates is

consistent with emissions trends, but

the increase in nitrates is inconsistent

with the stable levels of nitrogen

emissions and deposition. The study

suggests that the vegetation and land

surrounding these lakes have lost some

of their previous capacity to use

nitrogen, thus allowing more of the

nitrogen to flow into the lakes and

increase their acidity. Recovery of

acidified lakes is expected to take a

number of years, even where soil and

vegetation have not been ‘‘nitrogen

saturated,’’ as EPA called the

phenomenon in a 1995 study.61 This

situation places a premium on

reductions of SOX and especially NOX

from all sources, including HDVs, in

order to reduce the extent and severity

of nitrogen saturation and acidification

of lakes in the Adirondacks and

throughout the United States.

The SOX and NOX reductions from

today’s action will help reduce acid rain

and acid deposition, thereby helping to

reduce acidity levels in lakes and

streams throughout the country and

help accelerate the recovery of acidified

lakes and streams and the revival of

ecosystems adversely affected by acid

deposition. Reduced acid deposition

levels will also help reduce stress on

forests, thereby accelerating

reforestation efforts and improving

timber production. Deterioration of our

5026 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

62 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

Waters, Third Report to Congress, June, 2000.

63 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

Waters, Third Report to Congress, June, 2000. Great

Waters are defined as the Great Lakes, the

Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, and coastal

waters. The first report to Congress was delivered

in May, 1994; the second report to Congress in June,

1997.

64Bricker, Suzanne B., et al., National Estuarine

Eutrophication Assessment, Effects of Nutrient

Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries, National

Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, September, 1999.

65 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

Waters, Third Report to Congress, June, 2000.

66 Valigura, Richard, et al., Airsheds and

Watersheds II: A Shared Resources Workshop, Air

Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program,

March, 1997.

67The Impact of Atmospheric Nitrogen

Deposition on Long Island Sound, The Long Island

Sound Study, September, 1997.

68 Dennis, Robin L., Using the Regional Acid

Deposition Model to Determine the Nitrogen

Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed, SETAC Technical Publications Series,

1997.

69 Dennis, Robin L., Using the Regional Acid

Deposition Model to Determine the Nitrogen

Deposition Airshed of the Chesapeake Bay

Watershed, SETAC Technical Publications Series,

1997.

70 Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great

Waters—Third Report to Congress, June, 2000,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters—

Second Report to Congress, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, June 1997, EPA–453/R–

97–011.

71The 1996 National Toxics Inventory, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, October 1999.

historic buildings and monuments, and

of buildings, vehicles, and other

structures exposed to acid rain and dry

acid deposition also will be reduced,

and the costs borne to prevent acidrelated damage may also decline. While

the reduction in sulfur and nitrogen

acid deposition will be roughly

proportional to the reduction in SOX

and NOX emissions, respectively, the

precise impact of today’s action will

differ across different areas.

b. Eutrophication and Nitrification

Eutrophication is the accelerated

production of organic matter,

particularly algae, in a water body. This

increased growth can cause numerous

adverse ecological effects and economic

impacts, including nuisance algal

blooms, dieback of underwater plants

due to reduced light penetration, and

toxic plankton blooms. Algal and

plankton blooms can also reduce the

level of dissolved oxygen, which can

also adversely affect fish and shellfish

populations.

In 1999, NOAA published the results

of a five year national assessment of the

severity and extent of estuarine

eutrophication. An estuary is defined as

the inland arm of the sea that meets the

mouth of a river. The 138 estuaries

characterized in the study represent

more than 90 percent of total estuarine

water surface area and the total number

of US estuaries. The study found that

estuaries with moderate to high

eutrophication conditions represented

65 percent of the estuarine surface area.

Eutrophication is of particular concern

in coastal areas with poor or stratified

circulation patterns, such as the

Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, or

the Gulf of Mexico. In such areas, the

‘‘overproduced’’ algae tends to sink to

the bottom and decay, using all or most

of the available oxygen and thereby

reducing or eliminating populations of

bottom-feeder fish and shellfish,

distorting the normal population

balance between different aquatic

organisms, and in extreme cases causing

dramatic fish kills.

Severe and persistent eutrophication

often directly impacts human activities.

For example, losses in the nation’s

fishery resources may be directly caused

by fish kills associated with low

dissolved oxygen and toxic blooms.

Declines in tourism occur when low

dissolved oxygen causes noxious smalls

and floating mats of algal blooms create

unfavorable aesthetic conditions. Risks

to human health increase when the

toxins from algal blooms accumulate in

edible fish and shellfish, and when

toxins become airborne, causing

respiratory problems due to inhalation.

According to the NOAA report, more

than half of the nation’s estuaries have

moderate to high expressions of at least

one of these symptoms—an indication

that eutrophication is well developed in

more than half of U.S. estuaries.

In recent decades, human activities

have greatly accelerated nutrient inputs,

such as nitrogen and phosphorous,

causing excessive growth of algae and

leading to degraded water quality and

associated impairments of freshwater

and estuarine resources for human

uses.62 Since 1970, eutrophic conditions

worsened in 48 estuaries and improved

in 14. In 26 systems, there was no trend

in overall eutrophication conditions

since 1970.63 On the New England coast,

for example, the number of red and

brown tides and shellfish problems from

nuisance and toxic plankton blooms

have increased over the past two

decades, a development thought to be

linked to increased nitrogen loadings in

coastal waters. Long-term monitoring in

the United States, Europe, and other

developed regions of the world shows a

substantial rise of nitrogen levels in

surface waters, which are highly

correlated with human-generated inputs

of nitrogen to their watersheds.

On a national basis, the most

frequently recommended control

strategies by experts surveyed by

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) between 1992–

1997 were agriculture, wastewater

treatment, urban runoff, and

atmospheric deposition.64 In its Third

Report to Congress on the Great Waters,

EPA reported that atmospheric

deposition contributes from 2 to 38

percent of the nitrogen load to certain

coastal waters.65 A review of peer

reviewed literature in 1995 on the

subject of air deposition suggests a

typical contribution of 20 percent or

higher.66 Human-caused nitrogen

loading to the Long Island Sound from

the atmosphere was estimated at 14

percent by a collaboration of federal and

state air and water agencies in 1997.67

The National Exposure Research

Laboratory, US EPA, estimated based on

prior studies that 20 to 35 percent of the

nitrogen loading to the Chesapeake Bay

is attributable to atmospheric

deposition.68 The mobile source portion

of atmospheric NOX contribution to the

Chesapeake Bay was modeled at about

30 percent of total air deposition.69

Deposition of nitrogen from heavyduty vehicles contributes to elevated

nitrogen levels in waterbodies. In the

Chesapeake Bay region, modeling shows

that mobile source deposition occurs in

relatively close proximity to highways,

such as the 1–95 corridor which covers

part of the Bay surface. The new

standards for heavy-duty vehicles will

reduce total NOX emissions by 2.6

million tons in 2030. The NOX

reductions will reduce the airborne

nitrogen deposition that contributes to

eutrophication of watersheds,

particularly in aquatic systems where

atmospheric deposition of nitrogen

represents a significant portion of total

nitrogen loadings.

c. Polycyclic Organic Matter Deposition

EPA’s Great Waters Program has

identified 15 pollutants whose

deposition to water bodies has

contributed to the overall contamination

loadings to the these Great Waters.70

One of these 15 pollutants, a group

known as polycyclic organic matter

(POM), are compounds that are mainly

adhered to the particles emitted by

mobile sources and later fall to earth in

the form of precipitation or dry

deposition of particles. The mobile

source contribution of the 7 most toxic

POM is at least 62 tons/year and

represents only those POM that adhere

to mobile source particulate

emissions.71 The majority of these

emissions are produced by diesel

engines.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5027

POM is generally defined as a large

class of chemicals consisting of organic

compounds having multiple benzene

rings and a boiling point greater than

100 degrees C. Polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons are a chemical class that

is a subset of POM. POM are naturally

occurring substances that are

byproducts of the incomplete

combustion of fossil fuels and plant and

animal biomass (e.g., forest fires). Also,

they occur as byproducts from steel and

coke productions and waste

incineration. Evidence for potential

human health effects associated with

POM comes from studies in animals

(fish, amphibians, rats) and in human

cells culture assays. Reproductive,

developmental, immunological, and

endocrine (hormone) effects have been

documented in these systems. Many of

the compounds included in the class of

compounds known as POM are

classified by EPA as probable human

carcinogens based on animal data.

Evidence for potential human health

effects associated with POM comes from

studies in animals (fish, amphibians,

rats) and in human cells culture assays.

Reproductive, developmental,

immunological, and endocrine

(hormone) effects have been

documented in these systems. Many of

the compounds included in the class of

compounds known as POM are

classified by EPA as probable human

carcinogens based on animal data.

The particulate reductions from

today’s action will help reduce not only

the particulate emissions from highway

diesel engines but also the deposition of

the POM adhering to the particles,

thereby helping to reduce health effects

of POM in lakes and streams, accelerate

the recovery of affected lakes and

streams, and revive the ecosystems

adversely affected.

d. Visibility and Regional Haze

Visibility impairment, also called

regional haze, is a complex problem

caused by a variety of sources, both

natural and anthropogenic (e.g., motor

vehicles). Regional haze masks objects

on the horizon and reduces the contrast

of nearby objects. The formation, extent,

and intensity of regional haze are

functions of meteorological and

chemical processes, which sometimes

cause fine particle loadings to remain

suspended in the atmosphere for several

days and to be transported hundreds of

kilometers from their sources (NRC,

1993).

Visibility has been defined as the

degree to which the atmosphere is

transparent to visible light (NRC, 1993).

Visibility impairment is caused by the

scattering and absorption of light by

particles and gases in the atmosphere.

Fine particles (0.1 to 2.5 microns in

diameter) are more effective per unit

mass concentration at impairing

visibility than either larger or smaller

particles (NAPAP, 1991). Most of the

diesel particle mass emitted by diesel

engines falls within this fine particle

size range. Light absorption is often

caused by elemental carbon, a product

of incomplete combustion from

activities such as burning diesel fuel or

wood. These particles cause light to be

scattered or absorbed, thereby reducing

visibility.

Heavy-duty vehicles contribute a

significant portion of the emissions of

direct PM, NOX, and SOX that result in

ambient PM that contributes to regional

haze and impaired visibility. The Grand

Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission’s report found that heavyduty diesel vehicles contribute 41

percent of fine elemental carbon or soot,

20 percent of NOX, 7 percent of fine

organic carbon, and 6 percent of SOX.

The report also found that reducing total

mobile source emissions is an essential

part of any program to protect visibility

in the Western U.S. The Commission

identified mobile source pollutants of

concern as VOC, NOX, and elemental

and organic carbon. The Western

Governors Association, in later

commenting on the Regional Haze Rule

and on protecting the 16 Class I areas on

the Colorado Plateau, stated that the

federal government, and particularly

EPA, must do its part in regulating

emissions from mobile sources that

contribute to regional haze in these

areas. As described more fully later in

this section, today’s action will result in

large reductions in these pollutants.

These reductions are expected to

provide an important step towards

improving visibility across the nation.

Emissions reductions being achieved to

attain the 1-hour ozone and PM10

NAAQS will assist in visibility

improvements. Moreover, the timing of

the reductions from the standards fits

very well with the goals of the regional

haze program. We will work with the

regional planning bodies to make sure

they have the information to take

account of the reductions from this final

rule in their planning efforts.

The Clean Air Act contains provisions

designed to protect national parks and

wilderness areas from visibility

impairment. In 1999, EPA promulgated

a rule that will require States to develop

plans to dramatically improve visibility

in national parks. Although it is difficult

to determine natural visibility levels, we

believe that average visual range in

many Class I areas in the United States

is significantly less (about 50–66

percent of natural visual range in the

West, about 20 percent of natural visual

range in the East) than the visual range

that will exist without anthropogenic air

pollution. The final Regional Haze Rule

establishes a 60-year time period for

planning purposes, with several near

term regulatory requirements, and is

applicable to all 50 states. One of the

obligations is for States to representative

conduct visibility monitoring in

mandatory Class I Federal areas and

determine baseline conditions using

data for year 2000 to 2004. Reductions

of particles, NOX, sulfur, and VOCs from

this rulemaking will have a significant

impact on moving all states towards

achieving long-term visibility goals, as

outlined in the 1999 Regional Haze

Rule.

C. Contribution from Heavy-Duty

Vehicles

Nationwide, heavy-duty vehicles are

projected to contribute about 15 percent

of the total NOX inventory, and 28

percent of the mobile source inventory

in 2007. Heavy-duty NOX emissions also

contribute to fine particulate

concentrations in ambient air due to the

transformation in the atmosphere to

nitrates. The NOX reductions resulting

from today’s standards will therefore

have a considerable impact on the

national NOX inventory. All highway

vehicles account for 34 percent and

heavy-duty highway vehicles account

for 20 percent of the mobile source

portion of national PM10 emissions in

2007. The heavy-duty portion of the

inventory is often greater in the cities,

and the reductions in this rulemaking

will have a relatively greater benefit in

those areas.

1. NOX Emissions

Heavy-duty vehicles are important

contributors to the national inventories

of NOX emissions. Without NOX

reductions from this rule, HDVs are

expected to contribute approximately 18

percent of annual NOX emissions in

1996. The HDV contribution is

predicted to fall to 15 percent in 2007

and 14 percent in 2020 due to

reductions from the 2004 heavy-duty

rulemaking, and then rise again to 16

percent of total NOX inventory by 2030

(Table II.C–1). Annual NOX reductions

from this rule are expected to total 2.6

million tons in 2030.

5028 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE II.C–1—NOX EMISSIONS FROM HDVS WITH AND WITHOUT REDUCTIONS FROM THIS RULE

Without this rule (base case) With this rule

(control case)

Year HDV annual NOX

tons

HDV annual NOX

tons as a percent

of total NOX

Reductions in

annual HDV NOX

tons

1996 ................................................................................................................................. 4,810,000 18 n/a

2007 ................................................................................................................................. 3,040,000 15 58,000

2020 ................................................................................................................................. 2,560,000 14 1,820,000

2030 ................................................................................................................................. 2,960,000 16 2,570,000

The contribution of heavy-duty

vehicles to NOX inventories in many

MSAs is significantly greater than that

reflected in the national average. For

example, HDV contributions to total

annual NOX is greater than the national

average in the eight metropolitan

statistical areas listed in Table II.C–2.

Examples of major cities with a history

of persistent ozone violations that are

heavily impacted by NOX emissions

from HDVs include: Los Angeles,

Washington, DC, San Diego, Hartford,

Atlanta, Sacramento. As presented in

the table below, HDV’s contribute from

22 percent to 33 percent of the total

NOX inventories in these selected cities.

NOX emissions also contribute to the

formation of fine particulate matter,

especially in the West. In all areas, NOX

also contributes to environmental and

welfare effects such as regional haze,

and eutrophication and nitrification of

water bodies.

TABLE II.C–2—HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE

PERCENT CONTRIBUTION TO NOX

INVENTORIES IN SELECTED URBAN

AREAS IN 2007

MSA, CMSA /

State

HDV NOX

as portion of

total NOX

(%)

HDV NOX

as portion of

mobile

source NOX

(%)

National ............. 15 28

Sacramento, CA 33 37

Hartford, CT ...... 28 38

San Diego, CA .. 25 28

San Francisco,

CA ................. 24 29

Atlanta, GA ....... 22 34

Los Angeles ...... 22 26

Dallas ................ 22 28

Washington-Baltimore, MSA .. 22 36

2. PM Emissions

Nationally, we estimate that primary

emissions of PM10 to be about 33

million tons/year in 2007. Fugitive dust,

other miscellaneous sources and crustal

material (wind erosion) constitute

approximately 90 percent of the 2007

PM10 inventory. However, there is

evidence from ambient studies that

emissions of these materials may be

overestimated and/or that once emitted

they have less of an influence on

monitored PM concentration than this

inventory share would suggest. Mobile

sources account for 22 percent of the

PM10 inventory (excluding the

contribution of miscellaneous and

natural sources) and highway heavyduty engines, the subject of today’s

action, account for 20 percent of the

mobile source portion of national PM10

emissions in 2007.

The contribution of heavy-duty

vehicle emissions to total PM emissions

in some metropolitan areas is

substantially higher than the national

average. This is not surprising, given the

high density of these engines operating

in these areas. For example, in Los

Angeles, Atlanta, Hartford, San Diego,

Santa Fe, Cincinnati, and Detroit, the

estimated 2007 highway heavy-duty

vehicle contribution to mobile source

PM10 ranges from 25 to 38 percent,

while the national percent contribution

to mobile sources for 2007 is projected

to be about 20 percent. As illustrated in

Table II.C–3, heavy-duty vehicles

operated in El Paso, Indianapolis, San

Francisco, and Minneapolis also

account for a higher portion of the

mobile source PM inventory than the

national average. These data are based

on updated inventories developed for

this rulemaking. Importantly, these

estimates do not include the

contribution from secondary PM, which

is an important component of diesel

PM.

TABLE II.C–3—2007 HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE CONTRIBUTION TO URBAN MOBILE SOURCE PM INVENTORIES

MSA, State

HDV PM

Contribution

to mobile

source

PMGa

National (48 State) ................... 20

Atlanta, GA MSA ...................... 25

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH–KY–IN

CMSA .................................... 26

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI

CMSA .................................... 25

El Paso, TX MSA ..................... 23

Hartford, CT MSA ..................... 30

Indianapolis, IN MSA ................ 23

Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange

County, CA CMSA ................ 25

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN–WI

MSA ...................................... 23

San Diego, CA MSA ................. 27

San Francisco-Oakland-San

Jose, CA CMSA .................... 24

Santa Fe, NM MSA .................. 38

a Direct exhaust emissions only; excludes

secondary PM.

The city-specific emission inventory

analysis and investigations of ambient

PM2.5 summarized in the RIA indicate

that the contribution of diesel engines to

PM inventories in several urban areas

around the U.S. is much higher than

indicated by the national PM emission

inventories only. One possible

explanation for this is the concentrated

use of diesel engines in certain local or

regional areas which is not well

represented by the national, yearly

average presented in national PM

emission inventories. Another reason

may be underestimation of the in-use

diesel PM emission rates. Our current

modeling incorporates deterioration

only as would be experienced in

properly maintained, untampered

vehicles. We are currently in the process

of reassessing the rate of in-use

deterioration of diesel engines and

vehicles which could significantly

increase the contribution of HDVs to

diesel PM.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5029

72Exhausted by Diesel: How America’s

Dependence on Diesel Engines Threatens Our

Health, Natural Resources Defense Council,

Coalition for Clean Air, May 1998.

73Asthma and the Environment: A Strategy to

Protect Children, President’s Task Force on

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to

Children, January 28, 1999, Revised May, 2000.

74Asthma Statistics, National Institutes of Health,

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, January,

1999.

75Asthma and the Environment: A Strategy to

Protect Children, President’s Task Force on

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to

Children, January 28, 1999, Revised May, 2000. The

Task Force was formed in conjunction with

Executive Order 13045 (April 21, 1997), is cochaired by Department of Health and Human

Services and EPA, and is charged with

recommending strategies for protecting children’s

environmental health and safety. In April, 1998, the

Task Force identified childhood asthma as one of

its top four priorities for immediate attention.

76 Id.

77Testimony by Peggy Shepard, Executive

Director, West Harlem Environmental Action, June

19th, 2000.

78The baseline used for this calculation is the

2004 HDV standards (64 FR 58472). These

reductions are in addition to the NOX emissions

reductions projected to result from the 2004 HDV

standards.

79We include in the NOX projections excess

emissions, developed by the EPA’s Office of

Enforcement and Compliance, that were emitted by

many model year 1998–98 diesel engines. This is

described in more detail in Chapter 2 of the RIA.

3. Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is a priority for

EPA. The Federal government stated its

concern, in part, over this issue through

issuing Executive Order 12898, Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations (February 11,

1994). This Order requires that federal

agencies make achieving environmental

justice part of their mission. Similarly,

the EPA created an Office of

Environmental Justice (originally the

Office of Environmental Equity) in 1992,

commissioned a task force to address

environmental justice issues, oversees a

Federal Advisory Committee addressing

environmental justice issues (the

National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council), and has developed

an implementation strategy as required

under Executive Order 12898.

Application of environmental justice

principles as outlined in the Executive

Order advances the fair treatment of

people of all races, income, and culture

with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws, regulations, and

policies. Fair treatment implies that no

person or group of people should

shoulder a disproportionate share of any

negative environmental impacts

resulting from the execution of this

country’s domestic and foreign policy

programs.

For the last several years,

environmental organizations and

community-based citizens groups have

been working together to phase out

diesel buses in urban areas. For

example, the Natural Resources Defense

Council initiated a ‘‘Dump Dirty Diesel’’

campaign in the 1990s to press for the

phase out of diesel buses in New York

City. Other environmental organizations

operating in major cities such as Boston,

Newark, and Los Angeles have joined

this campaign. The Coalition for Clean

Air worked with NRDC and other

experts to perform exposure monitoring

in communities located near

distribution centers where diesel truck

traffic is heavy. These two organizations

concluded that facilities with heavy

truck traffic are exposing local

communities to diesel exhaust

concentrations far above the average

levels in outdoor air. The report states:

‘‘These affected communities, and the

workers at these distribution facilities

with heavy diesel truck traffic, are

bearing a disproportionate burden of the

health risks.’’ 72 Other diesel ‘‘hot spots’’

identified by the groups are bus

terminals, truck and bus maintenance

facilities, retail distribution centers, and

busy streets and highways.

While there is currently a limited

understanding of the relationship of

environmental exposures to the onset of

asthma, the environmental triggers of

asthma attacks for children with asthma

have become increasingly well

characterized.73 Asthma’s burden falls

hardest on the poor, inner city residents,

and children. Among children up to 4

years of age, asthma prevalence

increased 160 percent since 1980.74

African-American children have an

annual rate of hospitalization three

times that for white children, and are

four times as likely to seek care at an

emergency room.75 In 1995, the death

rate from asthma in African-American

children, 11.5 per million, was over four

times the rate in white American

children, 2.6 per million.76

Local community groups and private

citizens testified at public hearings held

for this rule that the residents of their

communities suffer greatly, and

disproportionally, from air pollution in

general, and emissions from heavy-duty

vehicles in particular. For example, a

testifier in New York pointed out that

‘‘since Northern Manhattan and the

South Bronx experience asthma

mortality and morbidity rates at three to

five times greater than the citywide

average, New York City’s problem is

Northern Manhattan’s crisis.’’ 77

The new standards established in this

rulemaking are expected to improve air

quality across the country and will

provide increased protection to the

public against a wide range of health

effects, including chronic bronchitis,

respiratory illnesses, and aggravation of

asthma symptoms. These air quality and

public health benefits could be expected

to mitigate some of the environmental

justice concerns related to heavy-duty

vehicles since the rule will provide

relatively larger benefits to heavily

impacted urban areas.

D. Anticipated Emissions Benefits

This subsection presents the emission

benefits we anticipate from heavy-duty

vehicles as a result of our new NOX, PM,

and NMHC emission standards for

heavy-duty engines. The graphs and

tables that follow illustrate the Agency’s

projection of future emissions from

heavy-duty vehicles for each pollutant.

The baseline case represents future

emissions from heavy-duty vehicles at

present standards (including the

MY2004 standards). The controlled case

quantifies the future emissions of heavyduty vehicles once the new standards in

this FRM are implemented.

We use the same baseline inventory as

is used in the county-by-county, hourby-hour air quality analyses associated

with this rule. However, we made a

slight modification to the controlled

inventory to incorporate the changes

between the proposed and final

standards. Because the detailed air

quality analyses took several months to

perform, we had to use the proposed

standards for the air quality analysis.

Since beginning this analysis, we

updated the control case emission

inventories to reflect the final phase-in

of the NOX standard, slight changes to

the timing of the HDGV standards, a

temporary compliance option for

introducing the low sulfur fuel

requirements, and various hardship

provisions for refiners in our emission

inventory projections. The emission

inventory calculations are presented in

detail in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis.

1. NOX Reductions

The Agency expects substantial NOX

reductions on both a percentage and a

tonnage basis from the new standards.

The RIA provides additional projections

between 2007 and 2030. As stated

previously, HDVs contribute about 15

percent to the national NOX inventory

for all sources in 2007. Figure II.D–1

shows our national projections of total

NOX emissions with and without the

engine controls finalized today. Table

II.D–1 presents the total reductions.78

This includes both exhaust and

crankcase emissions.79 The standards

5030 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

should result in close to a 90 percent

reduction in NOX from new engines.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5031

80Sulfate forms a significant portion of total fine

particulate matter in the Northeast Chemical

speciation data in the Northeast collected in 1995

shows that the sulfate fraction of fine particulate

matter ranges from 20 and 27 percent of the total

fine particle mass. Determination of Fine Particle

and Concentrations and Chemical Composition in

the Northeastern United States. 1995. NESCAUM,

prepared by Cass, et al., September 1999.

TABLE II.D–1.—ESTIMATED

REDUCTIONS IN NOX

Calendar year

NOX reduction [thousand short

tons]

2007 .......................................... 58

2010 .......................................... 419

2015 .......................................... 1,260

2020 .......................................... 1,820

2030 .......................................... 2,570

2. PM Reductions

As stated previously, HDVs will

contribute about 20 percent to the 2007

national PM10 inventory for mobile

sources. The majority of the projected

PM reductions are directly a result of

the exhaust PM standard. However, a

modest amount of PM reductions will

come from reducing sulfur in the fuel.

For the existing fleet of heavy-duty

vehicles, a small fraction of the sulfur in

diesel fuel is emitted directly into the

atmosphere as direct sulfate, and a

portion of the remaining fuel sulfur is

transformed in the atmosphere into

sulfate particles, referred to as indirect

sulfate. Reducing sulfur in the fuel

decreases the amount of direct sulfate

PM emitted from heavy-duty diesel

engines and the amount of heavy-duty

diesel engine SOx emissions that are

transformed into indirect sulfate PM in

the atmosphere.80 For engines meeting

the new standards, we consider low

sulfur fuel to be necessary to enable the

PM control technology. In other words,

we do not claim an additional benefit

beyond the new exhaust standard for

reductions in direct sulfate PM for new

engines. However, once the low sulfur

fuel requirements go into effect, many

pre-2007 model year engines would also

be using low sulfur fuel. Because these

pre-2007 model year engines are

certified with higher sulfur fuel, they

will achieve reductions in PM beyond

their certification levels.

Figure II.D–2 shows our national

projections of total HDV PM (TPM)

emissions with and without the new

engine controls. This figure includes

brake and tire wear, crankcase

emissions and the direct sulfate PM

(DSPM) benefits due to the use of low

sulfur fuel by the existing fleet. These

direct sulfate PM benefits from the

existing fleet are also graphed

separately. The new standards will

result in about a 90 percent reduction in

exhaust PM from new heavy-duty diesel

engines. The low sulfur fuel should

result in more than a 95 percent

reduction in direct sulfate PM from pre2007 heavy-duty diesel engines. Due to

complexities of the conversion and

removal processes of sulfur dioxide, we

do not attempt to quantify the indirect

sulfate reductions that would be derived

from this rulemaking in the inventory

analysis. Nevertheless, we recognize

that these indirect sulfate PM reductions

contribute significant additional

benefits to public health and welfare,

and we include this effect in our more

detailed air quality analysis.

5032 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE II.D–2.—ESTIMATED

REDUCTIONS IN PM

Calendar year

PM reduction [thousand short

tons]

2007 .......................................... 11

2010 .......................................... 36

2015 .......................................... 61

2020 .......................................... 82

2030 .......................................... 109

3. NMHC Reductions

The standards described in Section III

are designed to be feasible for both

gasoline and diesel heavy-duty vehicles.

Although the standards give

manufacturers the same phase-in for

NMHC as for NOX, we model the NMHC

reductions for diesel vehicles to be fully

in place in 2007 due to the application

of particulate control technology. We

believe the use of aftertreatment for PM

control will cause the NMHC levels to

be below the standards as soon as the

PM standard goes into effect in 2007.

HDVs account for about 3 percent of

national VOC and 8 percent from mobile

sources in 2007. Figure II.D–3 shows

our national projections of total NMHC

emissions with and without the new

engine controls. This includes both

exhaust emissions and evaporative

emissions. Table II.D–3 presents the

projected reductions of NMHC due to

the new standards.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5033

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

5034 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

81National Air Quality and Emissions Trends

Report, 1997, (EPA 1998), p. 74.

82California Environmental Protection Agency

(1998) Report to the Air Resources Board on the

Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic

Air Contaminant. Appendix III, Part A: Exposure

Assessment. April 1998.

TABLE II.D–3.—ESTIMATED

REDUCTIONS IN NMHC

Calendar year

NMHC reduction

[thousand

short tons]

2007 .......................................... 2

2010 .......................................... 21

2015 .......................................... 54

2020 .......................................... 83

2030 .......................................... 115

4. Additional Emissions Benefits

This subsection looks at tons/year

emission inventories of CO, SOX, and

air toxics from HDEs. Although we are

not including stringent standards for

these pollutants in this action, we

believe the standards will result in

reductions in CO, SOX, and air toxics.

Here, we present our anticipated

benefits.

a. CO Reductions

In 2007, HDVs are projected to

contribute to approximately 5 percent of

national CO and 9 percent of CO from

mobile sources. Although it does not

include new CO emission standards,

today’s action would nevertheless be

expected to result in a considerable

reduction in CO emissions from heavyduty vehicles. CO emissions from

heavy-duty diesel vehicles, although

already very low, would likely be

reduced by an additional 90 percent due

to the operation of emissions control

systems that will be necessary to

achieve today’s new standards for

hydrocarbons and particulate matter.

CO emissions from heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles would also likely decline as the

NMHC emissions are decreased. Table

II.D–4 presents the projected reductions

in CO emissions from HDVs.

TABLE II.D–4.—ESTIMATED

REDUCTIONS IN CO

Calendar year

CO reduction [thousand short

tons]

2007 .......................................... 56

2010 .......................................... 317

2015 .......................................... 691

2020 .......................................... 982

2030 .......................................... 1,290

b. SOX Reductions

HDVs are projected to emit

approximately 0.5 percent of national

SOX and 8 percent of mobile source SOX

in 2007. We are requiring significant

reductions in diesel fuel sulfur to enable

certain emission control devices to

function properly. We expect SOX

emissions to decline as a direct benefit

of low sulfur diesel fuel. The majority

of these benefits will be from heavyduty highway diesel vehicles; however,

some benefits will also come from

highway fuel burned in other

applications such as light-duty diesel

vehicles and nonroad engines. As

discussed in greater detail in the section

on PM reductions, the amount of sulfate

particles (direct and indirect) formed as

a result of diesel exhaust emissions will

decline for all HD diesel engines

operated on low sulfur diesel fuel,

including the current on-highway HD

diesel fleet, and those non-road HD

diesel engines that may operate on low

sulfur diesel fuel in the future. Table

II.D–5 presents our estimates of SOX

reductions resulting from the low sulfur

fuel.

TABLE II.D–5.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN SOX DUE TO LOW SULFUR

FUEL

Calendar year

SOX reduction [thousand short

tons]

2007 .......................................... 79

2010 .......................................... 107

2015 .......................................... 117

2020 .......................................... 126

2030 .......................................... 142

c. Air Toxics Reductions

This FRM establishes new nonmethane hydrocarbon standards for all

heavy-duty vehicles and a formaldehyde

standard for complete heavy-duty

vehicles. Hydrocarbons are a broad class

of chemical compounds containing

carbon and hydrogen. Many forms of

hydrocarbons, such as formaldehyde,

are directly hazardous and contribute to

what are collectively called ‘‘air toxics.’’

Air toxics are pollutants known to cause

or suspected of causing cancer or other

serious human health effects or

ecosystem damage. The Agency has

identified at least 20 compounds

emitted from on-road gasoline vehicles

that have toxicological potential, 19 of

which are emitted by diesel vehicles, as

well as an additional 20 compounds

which have been listed as toxic air

contaminants by California ARB.81 82

This action also will reduce emissions

of diesel exhaust and diesel particulate

matter (see Section II.B for a discussion

of health effects).

Our assessment of heavy-duty vehicle

(gasoline and diesel) air toxics focuses

on the following compounds with

cancer potency estimates that have

significant emissions from heavy-duty

vehicles: benzene, formaldehyde,

acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene. These

compounds are an important, but

limited, subset of the total number of air

toxics that exist in exhaust and

evaporative emissions from heavy-duty

vehicles. The reductions in air toxics

quantified in this section represent only

a fraction of the total number and

amount of air toxics reductions

expected from the new hydrocarbon

standards.

For this analysis, we estimate that air

toxic emissions are a constant fraction

of hydrocarbon exhaust emissions from

future engines. Because air toxics are a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5035

subset of hydrocarbons, and new

emission controls are not expected to

preferentially control one type of air

toxic over another, the selected air

toxics chosen for this analysis are

expected to decline by the same

percentage amount as hydrocarbon

exhaust emissions. We have not

performed a separate analysis for the

new formaldehyde standard since

compliance with the hydrocarbon

standard should result in compliance

with the formaldehyde standard for all

petroleum-fueled engines. The RIA

provides more detail on this analysis.

Table II.D–6 shows the estimated air

toxics reductions associated with the

reductions in hydrocarbons.

TABLE II.D–6.—ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS IN AIR TOXICS (SHORT TONS)

Calendar year Benzene Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde 1,3-Butadiene

2007 ................................................................................................................. 24 181 67 14

2010 ................................................................................................................. 356 1,670 608 135

2015 ................................................................................................................. 965 4,720 1,720 384

2020 ................................................................................................................. 1,340 7,080 2,600 567

2030 ................................................................................................................. 1,960 10,200 3,730 823

E. Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles and LowSulfur Diesel Fuel are Critically

Important for Improving Human Health

and Welfare

Despite continuing progress in

reducing emissions from heavy-duty

engines, emissions from these engines

continue to be a concern for human

health and welfare. Ozone continues to

be a significant public health problem,

and affects not only people with

impaired respiratory systems, such as

asthmatics, but healthy children and

adults as well. Ozone also causes

damage to plants and has an adverse

impact on agricultural yields.

Particulate matter, like ozone, has been

linked to a range of serious respiratory

health problems, including premature

mortality, aggravation of respiratory and

cardiovascular disease, aggravated

asthma, acute respiratory symptoms,

and chronic bronchitis. Importantly,

EPA has concluded that diesel exhaust

is likely to be carcinogenic to humans

by inhalation at occupational and

environmental levels of exposure.

Today’s action will reduce NOX, VOC,

CO, PM, and SOX emissions from these

heavy-duty vehicles substantially. These

reductions will help reduce ozone levels

nationwide and reduce the frequency

and magnitude of predicted

exceedances of the ozone standard.

These reductions will also help reduce

PM levels, both by reducing direct PM

emissions and by reducing emissions

that give rise to secondary PM. The NOX

and SOX reductions will help reduce

acidification problems, and the NOX

reductions will help reduce

eutrophication problems. The PM and

NOX standard enacted today will help

improve visibility. All of these

reductions are expected to have a

beneficial impact on human health and

welfare by reducing exposure to ozone,

PM, diesel exhaust and other air toxics

and thus reducing the cancer and

noncancer effects associated with

exposure to these substances.

III. Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle

Standards

In this section, we describe the

vehicle and engine standards we are

finalizing today to respond to the

serious air quality needs discussed in

Section II. Specifically, we discuss:

• The CAA and why we are finalizing

new heavy-duty standards.

• The technology opportunity for

heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

• Our new HDV and HDE standards,

and our phase-in of those standards.

• Why we believe the stringent

standards being finalized today are

feasible in conjunction with the low

sulfur gasoline required under the

recent Tier 2 rule and the low sulfur

diesel fuel being finalized today.

• The effects of diesel fuel sulfur on

the ability to meet the new standards,

and what happens if high sulfur diesel

fuel is used.

• Plans for future review of the status

of heavy-duty diesel NOX emission

control technology.

A. Why Are We Setting New Heavy-Duty

Standards?

We are finalizing new heavy-duty

vehicle and engine standards and

related provisions under section

202(a)(3) of the CAA, which authorizes

EPA to establish emission standards for

new heavy-duty motor vehicles. (See 42

U.S.C. 7521(a)(3).) Section 202(a)(3)(A)

requires that such standards ‘‘reflect the

greatest degree of emission reduction

achievable through the application of

technology which the Administrator

determines will be available for the

model year to which such standards

apply, giving appropriate consideration

to cost, energy, and safety factors

associated with the application of such

technology.’’ Section 202(a)(3)(B) allows

EPA to take into account air quality

information in revising such standards.

Because heavy-duty engines contribute

greatly to a number of serious air

pollution problems, especially the

health and welfare effects of ozone, PM,

and air toxics, and because millions of

Americans live in areas that exceed the

national air quality standards for ozone

or PM, we believe the air quality need

for tighter heavy-duty standards is well

founded. This, and our belief that a

significant degree of emission reduction

from heavy-duty vehicles and engines is

achievable, giving appropriate

consideration to cost, energy, and safety

factors, through the application of new

diesel emission control technology,

further refinement of well established

gasoline emission controls, and

reductions of diesel fuel sulfur levels,

leads us to believe that new emission

standards are warranted.

B. Emission Control Technologies for

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Engines

For the past 30 or more years,

emission control development for

gasoline vehicles and engines has

concentrated most aggressively on

exhaust emission control devices. These

devices currently provide as much as or

more than 95 percent of the emission

control on a gasoline vehicle. In

contrast, the emission control

development work for diesels has

concentrated on improvements to the

engine itself to limit the emissions

leaving the combustion chamber.

However, during the past 15 years,

more development effort has been put

into diesel exhaust emission control

devices, particularly in the area of PM

control. Those developments, and

recent developments in diesel NOX

control devices, make the widespread

commercial use of diesel exhaust

emission controls feasible. Through use

of these devices, we believe emissions

control similar to that attained by

gasoline applications will be possible

with diesel applications. However,

without low sulfur diesel fuel, these

technologies cannot be implemented on

heavy-duty diesel applications. Low

sulfur diesel fuel will at the same time

5036 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

83See Chapter IV.A of the final Tier 2 Regulatory

Impact Analysis, contained in Air Docket A–97–10,

and McDonald, Joseph, and Jones, Lee,

‘‘Demonstration of Tier 2 Emission Levels for Heavy

Light-Duty Trucks,’’ SAE 2001–01–1957.

84The Phase 1 heavy-duty rule recently

promulgated by EPA specified two supplemental

sets of standards for heavy-duty diesel engines. (See

65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000.) Manufacturers of

heavy-duty diesel engines must meet these

supplemental standards, the Supplemental

Emission Test (SET, formerly referred to as the

Supplemental Steady-State (SSS) test) and the Notto-Exceed (NTE) standards, beginning in model year

2007, in addition to meeting the preexisting

standards, which must be met using the preexisting

federal test procedure (FTP). For the purposes of

this preamble, we refer to the standards met using

the preexisting FTP as the FTP standards, though

the SET and NTE test procedures have now been

added to the regulations establishing the various

federal test procedures for heavy-duty diesel

engines.

also allow these technologies to be

implemented on light-duty diesel

applications.

As discussed at length in the

preamble to our proposal, several

exhaust emission control devices have

been or are being developed to control

harmful diesel exhaust pollutants. Of

these, we believe that the catalyzed

diesel particulate trap and the NOX

adsorber are the most likely candidates

to be used to meet the very low diesel

exhaust emission standards adopted

today on the variety of applications in

the heavy-duty diesel market. While

other technologies exist that have the

potential to provide significant emission

reductions, such as selective catalytic

reduction systems for NOX control, and

development of these technologies is

being pursued to varying degrees, we

believe that the catalyzed diesel

particulate trap and the NOX adsorber

will be the only likely broadly

applicable technology choice by the

makers of engines and vehicles for the

national fleet in this timeframe.

However, as discussed in detail in the

Final RIA, we strongly believe that none

of these technologies can be brought to

market on diesel engines and vehicles

unless the kind of low sulfur diesel fuel

adopted in this rule is available.

As for gasoline engines and vehicles,

improvement continues to be made to

gasoline emissions control technology.

This includes improvement to catalyst

designs in the form of improved

washcoats and improved precious metal

dispersion. Much effort has also been

put into improved cold start strategies

that allow for more rapid catalyst lightoff. This can be done by retarding the

spark timing to increase the temperature

of the exhaust gases, and by using airgap manifolds, exhaust pipes, and

catalytic converter shells to decrease

heat loss from the system.

These improvements to gasoline

emission controls will be made in

response to the California LEV–II

standards and the federal Tier 2

standards.83 These improvements

should transfer well to the heavy-duty

gasoline segment of the fleet. With such

migration of light-duty technology to

heavy-duty vehicles and engines, we

believe that considerable improvements

to heavy-duty gasoline emissions can be

realized, thus allowing vehicles to meet

the much more stringent standards

adopted today.

The following discussion provides

more detail on the technologies we

believe are most capable of meeting very

stringent heavy-duty emission

standards. The goal of this discussion is

to describe the emission reduction

capability of these emission control

technologies and their critical need for

diesel fuel sulfur levels as low as those

being finalized today. But first, we

present the details of the new emission

standards being finalized today.

C. What Engine and Vehicle Standards

Are We Finalizing?

1. Heavy-Duty Engine Exhaust

Emissions Standards

a. FTP Standards 84

The emission standards finalized

today for heavy-duty engines are

summarized in Table III.C–1. For

reasons explained below, the phase-in

schedule for these standards differs

from the proposed schedule. We are also

finalizing an incentive provision to

encourage the early introduction of

engines meeting these new standards.

This incentive provision is explained in

section III.D. In addition, we have

altered our Averaging, Banking, and

Trading (ABT) provisions from what

was proposed. The final ABT provisions

are discussed in detail in section VI.

TABLE III.C–1.—FULL USEFUL LIFE HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE EXHAUST EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND PHASE-INS FOR

INCOMPLETE VEHICLES

Standard

(g/bhp-hr)

Phase-In by Model Year a

2007 2008 2009 2010

Diesel ............................................................................... NOX 0.20 50% 50% 50% 100%

NMHC 0.14 50% 50% 50% 100%

PM 0.01 100% 100% 100% 100%

Gasoline ........................................................................... NOX 0.20 0% 50% 100% 100%

NMHC 0.14 0% 50% 100% 100%

PM 0.01 0% 50% 100% 100%

aPercentages represent percent of sales.

With respect to PM, this new standard

represents a 90 percent reduction for

most heavy-duty diesel engines from the

current PM standard. The current PM

standard for most heavy-duty engines,

0.10 g/bhp-hr, was implemented in the

1994 model year; the PM standard for

urban buses implemented in that same

year was 0.05 g/bhp-hr; these standards

are not changing when other standards

change in the 2004 model year

timeframe. The new PM standard of

0.01 g/bhp-hr being finalized today is

projected to require the addition of

highly efficient PM traps to diesel

engines, including those diesel engines

used in urban buses; it is not expected

to require the addition of any new

hardware for gasoline engines.

With respect to NMHC and NOX,

these new standards represent

significant reductions from the 2004

diesel engine standard which is either

2.4 g/bhp-hr NOX+NMHC, or 2.5 g/bhphr NOX+NMHC with a cap on NMHC of

0.5 g/bhp-hr. We generally expect that

2004 diesel engines will meet those

standards with emission levels around

2.2 g/bhp-hr NOX and 0.2 g/bhp-hr

NMHC. Like the PM standard, the new

NOX standard is projected to require the

addition of a highly efficient NOX

emission control system to diesel

engines which, with help from the PM

trap, will need to be optimized to

control NMHC emissions. For gasoline

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5037

85EPA need not determine, at this time, whether

the 25/50/75/100 percent phase-in schedule

violates section 202(a)(3)(c), as the 50/50/50/100

percent phase-in schedule clearly does not and is

available to all manufacturers.

engines, the 2005 model year standard

recently finalized in the Phase 1 heavyduty rule is 1.0 g/bhp-hr NOX+NMHC.

(See 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000.)

There is a direct trade off between NOX

and NMHC emissions with a gasoline

engine, but we would generally expect

NOX levels over 0.5 g/bhp-hr and

NMHC levels below that. Regardless of

the NOX and NMHC split, today’s

standards represent significant

reductions for 2008 and later engines

that will require substantial

improvement in the effectiveness of

heavy-duty gasoline emission control

technology.

We proposed a new formaldehyde

standard of 0.016 g/bhp-hr for both

heavy-duty diesel and gasoline engines.

However, we have decided not to

finalize those standards. We proposed

the formaldehyde (HCHO) standard

because it is a hazardous air pollutant

that is emitted by heavy-duty engines

and other mobile sources. In the

proposal, we stated our belief that

formaldehyde emissions from gasoline

and diesel engines are and will remain

inherently low, but having the standard

would ensure that excess emissions

would not occur. Several commenters

took issue with our proposed standard

claiming that the benefits were

nonexistent, that we should address

toxic emissions in our toxics

rulemaking, and that we had shown

neither its technological feasibility nor

its measurability. After further

consideration we do believe that the

proposed formaldehyde standard is not

necessary because the NMHC standard

we are promulgating today will almost

certainly result in formaldehyde

emissions well below our proposed

formaldehyde standard. As a result,

other comments on this issue such as

those concerning technological

feasibility and measurability are no

longer relevant to this rule. We will

continue to evaluate this issue to ensure

that formaldehyde emissions do not

become a problem in the future and may

take action to consider standards if

warranted.

We believe a phase-in of the diesel

NOX standard is appropriate. With a

phase-in, manufacturers are able to

introduce the new technology on a

portion of their engines, thereby gaining

valuable experience with the technology

prior to implementing it on their entire

fleet. Also, we are requiring that the

NOX, and NMHC standards be phasedin together for diesel engines. That is,

engines will be expected to meet both of

these new standards, not just one or the

other. We are requiring this because the

standard finalized in the Phase 1 heavyduty rule is a combined NMHC+NOX

standard. With separate NOX and

NMHC phase-ins, say 50/50/50/100 for

NOX and 100 percent in 2007 for

NMHC, the 2.5 gram engines being

phased-out would have a 2.5 gram

NOX+NMHC standard and a new 0.14

gram NMHC standard with which to

comply. While this could be done, we

believe that it introduces unnecessary

compliance complexity to the program.

In our NPRM, we requested comment

on a range of possible phase-in

schedules for NOX including anything

from our primary proposal of 25/50/75/

100 percent phase-in to a possible

requirement for 100 percent compliance

in the 2007 model year. We have

determined that a 50/50/50/100 percent

phase-in schedule is the most

appropriate schedule for several

reasons.

Some commenters argued that we

should require 100 percent compliance

in the 2007 model year because of the

0.20 gram standard was both

technologically feasible and critical

given the nation’s air quality needs.

Other commenters were concerned that

100 percent compliance to the 0.20 gram

NOX standard in the first year of the

program was ill advised as it would

provide little opportunity for industry to

‘‘field test’’ new NOX control

technologies. These commenters also

expressed concern over workload

burdens on industry members needing

to redesign all of their new engines and

vehicles in one year. Some commenters

were concerned that a 25/50/75/100

percent phase-in schedule would

introduce competitiveness issues

whereby those vehicles equipped with

new NOX control technology may be

less attractive to some buyers than

vehicles without the technology, making

them difficult for manufacturers to sell.

We set standards and implementation

schedules based on many factors

including technological feasibility, cost,

energy, and safety. Considering these

factors, we believe that industry should

be provided the flexibility of having a

phase-in of the new NOX standard. As

discussed in section III.E below, we

believe the 0.20 gram NOX standard is

feasible in the 2007 time frame.

However, we believe a phase-in is

appropriate for a couple of reasons.

First, the phase-in will provide industry

with the flexibility to roll out the NOX

control technology on only a portion of

their fleet. This will allow them to focus

their resources on that half of their fleet

being brought into compliance in 2007.

This ability to focus their efforts will

increase both the efficiency and the

effectiveness of those efforts. Second, a

phase-in allows industry the ability to

introduce the new technology on those

engines it believes are best suited for a

successful implementation which, in

turn, provides a valuable opportunity to

refine that technology on only a portion

of their product line prior to the next

push toward full implementation.

Another concern with respect to our

proposed phase-in schedule was raised

by several commenters and pertains to

its interaction with the final

implementation schedule for the new

supplemental requirements (the

Supplemental Emission Test, SET, and

the Not-to-Exceed, NTE). These

requirements, finalized in the Phase 1

heavy-duty final rule, will be

implemented in the 2007 model year on

all heavy-duty diesel engines. (See 65

FR 59896, October 6, 2000.) Under a 25/

50/75/100 percent phase-in schedule of

new diesel engine emission

requirements, 25 percent of engines in

the 2007 model year would meet 0.20

and 0.01 g/bhp-hr NOX and PM, while

75 percent would meet 2.5 and 0.01 g/

bhp-hr NOX and PM. Further, all of

those engines would be required,

beginning in the 2007 model year, to

meet the supplemental requirements

based on the FTP emission standards to

which they were certified. A 25/50/75/

100 percent phase-in schedule would

change the supplemental requirements

for those 25 percent of engines in the

2008 model year that would have to

change to meet the new 50 percent

compliance requirement. This change

would be required even though the

supplemental requirements on those 25

percent of engines were first

implemented only one model year

earlier, in model year 2007. Commenters

have questioned whether this is

consistent with section 202(a)(3)(c) of

the Clean Air Act, which requires that

standards for heavy-duty vehicles and

engines apply for no less than three

model years without revision. Under

this argument, the supplemental

requirements implemented in the 2007

model year must be allowed three

model years of stability, meaning that

no changes can be required to those

standards until the 2010 model year.

The final phase-in schedule, 50/50/

50/100 percent, addresses any concerns

about violating the stability requirement

of the Act and addresses the technology

and lead time benefits of a phase-in as

discussed above.85 While this phase-in

does not provide certain commenters

with their goal of 100 percent

implementation of very low NOX

engines in 2007, we believe it is

5038 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

86 In the Phase 1 rulemaking, the Supplemental

Emission Test was referred to as the supplemental

steady state test. As discussed in the Phase 1 rule,

the supplemental steady state test is based on and

is consistent with the European Commissions

‘‘EURO III ESC’’ test. (See 65 FR 59915.) In this final

rule we have renamed the supplemental steady

state test the Supplemental Emission Test (SET).

appropriate for the technology, cost, and

other reasons described above. This 50/

50/50/100 percent phase-in schedule

does provide a more rapid

implementation of low NOX engines

and, more importantly, provides more

air quality benefits in 2007 than would

our proposed phase-in schedule. We are

also finalizing provisions that would

encourage manufacturers to introduce

clean technology, both diesel and

gasoline, earlier than required in return

for greater flexibility during the later

years of our phase-in. These optional

early incentive provisions are analogous

to those included in our light-duty Tier

2 rule and are discussed in more detail

in section III.D. We have also revised

our Averaging, Banking, and Trading

program to increase flexibility as

discussed further in section VI.

For gasoline engines, we proposed

100 percent compliance in the 2007

model year. However, since the

proposal was published, we have set

new standards for heavy-duty gasoline

engines that take effect in the 2005

model year. Therefore, the three year

stability requirement of the CAA

requires that today’s new standards not

apply until the 2008 model year at the

earliest. Further, while we had not

proposed a phase-in for gasoline

standards, based on comments received

we believe that a phase-in should be

provided. The phase-in will allow

manufacturers to implement improved

gasoline control technologies on their

heavy-duty gasoline engines in the same

timeframe as they implement those

technologies on their Tier 2 mediumduty passenger vehicles (MDPV). This

consistency with Tier 2 is discussed in

more detail below in section III.C.2 on

vehicle standards. Note that the gasoline

engine phase-in schedule is the same as

but separate from the gasoline vehicle

phase-in schedule discussed below. As

we have done for diesel engines, we

have also revised our Averaging,

Banking, and Trading program for

gasoline engines to increase flexibility

as discussed further in section VI.

For a discussion of why we believe

these standards are technologically

feasible in the time frame required, refer

to section III.E below and for a more

detailed discussion refer to the RIA

contained in the docket. The averaging,

banking, and trading (ABT) provisions

associated with today’s standards are

discussed in Section VI of this

preamble. The reader should refer to

that section for more details.

b. Supplemental Provisions for HD

Diesel Engines (SET & NTE)

In addition to the new FTP standards

for HD diesel engines contained in

today’s final action, we are also

finalizing the supplemental emission

standards we proposed to apply to the

new HDDEs, with a number of changes

as discussed in this section. The

supplemental provisions will help

ensure that HD diesel engines achieve

the expected in-use emission reductions

over a wide range of vehicle operation

and a wide range of ambient conditions,

not only the test cycle and conditions

represented by the traditional FTP. The

Agency has historically relied upon the

FTP and the prohibition of defeat

devices to ensure that HDDE emission

control technologies which operate

during the laboratory test cycle continue

to operate in-use. The supplemental

provisions are a valuable addition to the

FTP and the defeat device prohibition to

ensure effective in-use emission control.

The supplemental provisions for HD

diesel engines consist of two principal

requirements, the supplemental

emission test and associated standards

(SET),86 and the not-to-exceed test and

associated standards (NTE). The

supplemental emission standards

finalized today for heavy-duty diesel

engines are summarized in Table III.C–

2.

TABLE III.C–2.—FULL USEFUL LIFE

HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL ENGINE SUPPLEMENTAL EXHAUST EMISSIONS

STANDARDS

Supplemental test Requirements for

NOX, NMHC, PM

Supplemental emission test.1.0 × FTP standard

(or FEL).

Not-to-exceed test ..... 1.5 × FTP standard

(or FEL).

The SET and NTE test procedures

were recently adopted for 2007 onhighway HD diesel engines. (See 65 FR

59896, October 6, 2000.) In the recent

HD Phase 1 rulemaking which

promulgated the SET and NTE, the

supplemental provisions were finalized

in the context of the emission control

technology expected to be used to meet

the 2004 FTP standards, i.e., injection

timing strategies and cooled EGR. In this

final action, we are finalizing a number

of changes to the supplemental

provisions to address specific technical

issues raised by commenters and which

result from the expected application of

high efficiency exhaust emission control

devices on HD diesel engines and

vehicles to meet today’s new standards.

These changes are minor in nature and

will not impact the emission reductions

we expect from the Phase 2 standards.

These changes are discussed in the

following sections. Additional

discussion regarding the supplemental

provisions for HDDEs is contained in

the RIA and the Response to Comments

(RTC) for this final rule, as well as in

Section III.E of this preamble

(‘‘Feasibility of the New Engine and

Vehicle Standards’’).

i. Supplemental Emission Test

We are finalizing supplemental

emission test provisions for HD diesel

engines and vehicles certified to the

new FTP standards contained in this

final rule. The SET emission standard is

equal to 1.0 times the FTP standard or

FEL for HD diesel engines. Emission

results from this test must meet the

numerical standards for the FTP. The

SET requirements are phased-in

beginning with the 2007 model year,

consistent with the phase-in of the new

FTP standards. The supplemental

emission test duty cycle consists of 13

modes of speed and torque, primarily

covering the typical highway cruise

operating range of heavy-duty diesel

engines. The emission results from each

of the modes are weighted by defined

factors in the regulations, and the final

weighted emission value for each

pollutant must meet the SET standard.

In addition, several of the 13 individual

modes are in the NTE control zone, and

must meet the applicable NTE

requirements. The SET test is a

laboratory test performed using an

engine dynamometer under the same

conditions which apply to the FTP, as

specified in the regulations. (See 40 CFR

86.1360.)

The regulations for the SET in model

year 2007 as they apply to the 2004 FTP

emission standards contain additional

steady-state test point emission limits.

The Phase 1 supplemental requirements

define a ‘‘Maximum Allowable

Emission Limit’’ (MAEL) which the

engines must comply with. The Phase 1

regulations allowed EPA to randomly

select up to three steady-state test points

prior to certification which the

manufacturer would test to show

compliance with the MAEL. These test

points are referred to as ‘‘mystery

points’’. In this final rule we have

eliminated the MAEL for engines

certified to the Phase 2 standards. The

MAEL assures that an engine is

calibrated to maintain emission control

similar to the SET test under steady

state conditions across the engine map,

not just at the pre-defined 13 test points

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5039

87Torque is a measure of rotational force. The

torque curve for an engine is determined by an

engine ‘‘mapping’’ procedure specified in the Code

of Federal Regulations. The intent of the mapping

procedure is to determine the maximum available

torque at all engine speeds. The torque curve is

merely a graphical representation of the maximum

torque across all engine speeds.

which comprise the SET test. For Phase

1 engines the MAEL was necessary to

ensure this potential for gaming did not

occur because the difference between

the FTP standard and the NTE standard

could be large, for example, 0.625 g/

bhp-hr for NMHC + NOX. However, for

Phase 2 engines the NTE requirements

are a mere 0.10 g/bhp-hr NOX greater

than the FTP standard. Considering this

small increment, we have eliminated

the MAEL for Phase 2 engines because

it is redundant with the NTE. For the

same reasons, we have eliminated the

certification ‘‘mystery points’’ for

engines complying with today’s diesel

engine standards.

ii. Not-to-Exceed

We are also finalizing revisions to the

not-to-exceed emission standards for HD

diesel engines certified to the Phase 2

FTP standards contained in this final

rule. These NTE procedures apply

under engine operating conditions

within the range specified in the NTE

test procedure that could reasonably be

expected to be seen in normal vehicle

operation and use. (See 40 CFR

86.1370.) The NTE procedure defines

limited and specific engine operating

regions (i.e., speed and torque

conditions) and ambient operating

conditions (i.e., altitude, temperature,

and humidity conditions) which are

subject to the NTE emission standards.

Emission results from this test

procedure must be less than or equal to

1.5 times the FTP standards (or FEL) for

NOX, NMHC, and PM. The new NTE

requirements are phased-in starting with

the 2007 model year, consistent with the

new FTP standards.

The Not-To-Exceed (NTE) provisions

were recently finalized for HDDEs

certified to the 2004 FTP emission

standards with implementation

beginning in model year 2007. (See 65

FR 59896, October 6, 2000.) The NTE

approach establishes an area (the ‘‘NTE

control area’’) under the torque curve of

an engine where emissions must not

exceed a specified value for any of the

regulated pollutants.87 The NTE

requirements would apply under engine

operating conditions that could

reasonably be expected to be seen in

normal vehicle operation and use which

occur during the conditions specified in

the NTE test procedure. (See 40 CFR

86.1370.) This test procedure covers a

specific range of engine operation and

ambient operating conditions (i.e.,

temperature, altitude, and humidity).

The NTE control area, emissions

standards, ambient conditions and test

procedures for HDDEs are described in

the regulations.

The NTE multiplier promulgated in

the previous final rulemaking for HD

diesel engines certified to the 2004 FTP

standards is 1.25 × FTP standard (e.g.,

1.25 × 2.5g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOX and

1.25 × 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM). We believe the

NTE cap finalized today (1.5 × the Phase

2 FTP standards or FEL) allows

sufficient headroom above the FTP

standard to accommodate the technical

challenges necessary to meet the NTE

standard which must be met over a

broader range of ambient conditions, a

shorter time period, and a wider variety

of operating conditions, than the FTP or

the SET. While the 1.5 NTE multiplier

we are finalizing is greater than what we

proposed, in absolute terms the NTE

requirement for Phase 2 engines is much

smaller than for Phase 1 engines (i.e.,

the magnitude of the cap in g/bhp-hr

emissions), and the Phase 2 NTE cap

will help ensure the emission

reductions we expect from the Phase 2

standards will occur in-use. The NTE

requirements have been modified from

what we proposed based on our

assessment of the emission performance

of the exhaust emission control devices

that will be used to meet the new FTP

standards (e.g., catalyzed particulate

traps and NOX adsorbers). Under the

program finalized today, an NTE limit of

1.5 × the NOX FEL would apply to 2007

and later model year engines certified

with FELs less than 1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX.

As discussed throughout this notice, the

stringent 2007 PM standard, 0.01 g/bhphr, can be met with the use of catalyzed

particulate traps. Because of the very

low particulate matter emissions which

will be emitted by engines meeting the

PM standard, this final rule also

establishes a minimum PM NTE

requirement for engines certified with

FELs below 0.01 g/bhp-hr at 1.5 × the

FTP standard, not the FEL. Based on our

assessment of the expected exhaust

emission control devices and their

performance, the NTE standard of 1.5 ×

FTP standard is both technologically

feasible and appropriate. A detailed

discussion of the feasibility of the NTE

requirements is contained in the RIA for

this final rule.

Today’s action allows the NTE

deficiency provisions we recently

finalized for 2007 HDDEs meeting the

2004 FTP standards to be used by

HDDEs meeting the standards contained

in today’s final rule (See 40 CFR

86.007–11(a)(4)(iv) in the regulations,

and 65 FR 59914 of the Phase 1 rule for

a detailed discussion of the NTE

deficiencies.). These deficiency

provisions are similar to the deficiency

provisions which currently apply to LD

and HD on-board diagnostic systems.

This will allow the Administrator to

accept a HDDE as compliant with the

NTE even though some specific

requirements are not fully met. This

provision will be available for

manufacturers through 2013, though it

will be more limited after 2009 as

described below. In the Phase 1 rule, the

Agency finalized deficiency provisions

which were allowed through model year

2009. In this rule, it is appropriate to

extend the availability of the NTE

deficiency provisions beyond 2009.

Given the nature of the phase-in

requirements in this rule, manufacturers

may be introducing new engine families

certified to the Phase 2 NOX and NMHC

standards as late as model year 2010,

and these families may need limited

access to a NTE deficiency for a few

years after their introduction. Therefore,

we have extended the availability of

deficiencies through model year 2013,

but with one constraint. Given the

considerable lead time available, we

have limited the number of deficiencies

to three per engine family for 2010

through 2013.

In addition, we have made a number

of changes to the NTE requirements to

address specific technical issues which

arise from the application of high

efficiency exhaust emission control

devices to HDDEs. These provisions will

only be summarized here. A detailed

discussion is contained in the RIA and

the RTC for this final rule. These

changes include: engine start-up

provisions; exhaust emission control

device warm-up provisions;

modifications of the NTE control zone;

and adjustments to the NTE minimum

emissions sample time.

Under this final rule, the NTE

requirements will not apply during

engine start-up conditions. EPA

intended to include the provision

excluding start-up provisions from the

NTE requirements under the Phase 1

rulemaking, and it was discussed in the

preamble for both the Phase 1 proposal

and final rule. However, this provision

was inadvertently left out of the

regulations. We have corrected this in

today’s rule for both Phase 1 and Phase

2 engines. In addition, with the

application of advanced exhaust

emission control devices, an exhaust

emission control device warm-up

provision is a necessary criterion for the

NTE. Specifically, until the exhaust gas

temperature on the outlet side of the

exhaust emission control device(s)

5040 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

88 During laboratory testing, the crankcase

emissions would need to be vented in a controlled

manner so that they could be routed into the

dilution tunnel to ensure their proper measurement

and inclusion in the tested emission level.

achieves 250 degrees Celsius, the engine

is not subject to the NTE. Additional

discussion of this provision is contained

in the RIA.

We have made three changes to the

NTE engine control zone. First, we have

expanded the NTE engine control zone

for engines certified to the new 0.01 g/

bhp-hr PM standard. The NTE

requirements as specified in the

regulations for engines certified to the

2004 FTP standards provide specific

‘‘PM carve-outs’’ to the NTE control

zone. These carve-outs define an area of

the engine operating regime (speed and

torque area) to which the NTE does not

apply for PM emissions. (See 65 FR

59961.) The PM only carve-outs were

specified because, under certain engine

operating regions, the NTE requirements

for PM could not be met with the

technology projected to be used to meet

the 2004 FTP standards. However, as

discussed in the RIA, the advanced PM

trap technology that will be used to

meet the PM standard contained in

today’s final rule is very efficient at

controlling PM emissions across the

entire NTE control zone. Due to the high

PM reduction capabilities of catalyzed

PM traps, there is no need for the PM

specific carve-outs. Therefore, we have

eliminated the NTE PM carve-outs for

Phase 2 engines. Second, we have added

a provision which would allow a

manufacturer to exclude defined regions

of the NTE engine control zone from

NTE compliance if the manufacturer

could demonstrate that the engine,

when installed in a specified vehicle(s),

is not capable of operating in such

regions. Finally, we have added a

provision which would allow a

manufacturer to petition the Agency to

limit testing in a defined region of the

NTE engine control zone during NTE

testing. This optional provision would

require the manufacturer to provide the

Agency with in-use operation data

which the manufacturer could use to

define a single, continuous region of the

NTE control zone. This single area of

the control zone must be specified such

that operation within the defined region

accounts for 5 percent or less of the total

in-use operation of the engine, based on

the supplied data. Further, to protect

against gaming by manufacturers, the

defined region must generally be

elliptical or rectangular in shape, and

share a boundary with the NTE control

zone. If approved by EPA, the

regulations then disallow testing with

sampling periods in which operation

within the defined region constitutes

more than 5.0 percent of the timeweighted operation within the sampling

period.

We have also changed the minimum

emissions sample time approach for

NTE testing to address technical issues

specific to the advanced exhaust

emission control devices anticipated to

be used to meet the NTE requirements.

We proposed that the minimum

emission sample time for the NTE was

30 seconds, which is what we recently

finalized for engines certified to the

Phase 1 standards. This short sample

time was sufficient to ensure that

momentary spikes in emissions (e.g.,

such as could occur in a two or three

second time frame) could not be isolated

for determining compliance with the

NTE (e.g., an NTE test must be no

shorter than a 30 second average).

However, the use of highly efficient

exhaust emission control devices

complicates the minimum sample time

requirements because of the potential

for short-duration emission increases

during regeneration events. We have

adjusted the minimum sample time

requirements to address this issue as

follows (a detailed discussion of the

need for this change is contained in the

RIA). The regulations specify that the

NTE sample time can be as short as 30

seconds provided no regeneration

events occur within the sample period.

However, if a regeneration event is

included in the sample time, the sample

time must include the period of time

from the start of one regeneration event

to the start of the next regeneration

event, for each regeneration included in

the sample. A regeneration event is

determined by the engine manufacturer.

This second provision regarding the

minimum NTE sample time also cannot

be shorter than 30 seconds. This sample

time provision applies to any HDDE

engine equipped with an exhaust

emission control device which requires

discreet regeneration events, regardless

of the nature of the regeneration (e.g.,

NOX regeneration, desulfation).

c. Crankcase Emissions Control

Crankcase emissions are the

pollutants that are emitted in the gases

that are vented from an engine’s

crankcase. These gases are also referred

to as ‘‘blowby gases’’ because they result

from engine exhaust from the

combustion chamber ‘‘blowing by’’ the

piston rings into the crankcase. These

gases are vented to prevent high

pressures from occurring in the

crankcase. Our emission standards have

historically prohibited crankcase

emissions from all highway engines

except turbocharged heavy-duty diesel

engines. The most common way to

eliminate crankcase emissions has been

to vent the blowby gases into the engine

air intake system, so that the gases can

be recombusted. We made the exception

for turbocharged heavy-duty diesel

engines in the past because of concerns

about fouling that could occur by

routing the diesel particulates

(including engine oil) into the

turbocharger and aftercooler. Our

concerns are now alleviated by newly

developed closed crankcase filtration

systems, specifically designed for

turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engines.

These new systems (discussed more

fully in Section III.E below and in

Chapter III of the Final RIA) are already

required for new on-highway diesel

engines under the EURO III emission

standards.

In today’s action, we are eliminating

the exception for turbocharged heavyduty diesel engines starting in the 2007

model year. Manufacturers will be

required to control crankcase emissions

from these engines, preferably by

routing them back to the engine intake

or to the exhaust stream upstream of the

exhaust emission control devices.

However, in response to the

manufacturers’ comments, we are

finalizing the crankcase control

requirement to allow manufacturers to

treat crankcase emissions from these

engines the same as other exhaust

emissions (i.e., we provide a

performance requirement and leave the

design to the manufacturer). Under this

allowance, manufacturers could

potentially discharge some or all of the

crankcase emissions to the atmosphere,

but only if they were able to keep the

combined total of the crankcase

emissions and the other exhaust

emissions below the applicable exhaust

emission standards. They could do this

by routing the crankcase gases into the

exhaust stream downstream of the

exhaust emission control devices, or by

continuing the current practice of

venting the gases to the engine

compartment. But, they could take

either of these approaches only if they

make sure that the combined total of the

crankcase emissions and the other

exhaust emissions are below the

applicable exhaust emission standards.

Also, the manufacturer would have to

ensure that the crankcase emissions

were readily measurable during

laboratory and in-use field testing.88

Despite this allowance made at the

request of commenters, given the low

levels of today’s final standards we

believe that manufacturers will have to

close the crankcases of all of their

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5041

89EPA does not believe there would be any legal

stability concern even if we had kept the OBD

phase-in as finalized in the Phase 1 rule. However,

EPA agrees with the commenter that the phase-in

as finalized in the Phase 1 rule would have

complicated compliance unnecessarily.

90For those manufacturers choosing compliance

Options 1 or 2 as part of the Phase 1 program, the

gasoline engine OBD phase-in will become 40/60/

80/80/100 percent beginning in model year 2004.

(See 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000.)

91This comment also pertained to gasoline

vehicle-based OBD systems. Our statements made

here pertain to those requirements as well but are

not repeated below in section III.2.c.

92As noted above, vehicle and engine standards

apply to all vehicles and engines, even if they are

alternative fueled vehicles and engines.

93Medium-duty passenger vehicles are defined as

any complete vehicle between 8,500 and 10,000

pounds GVWR designed primarily for the

transportation of persons. The definition

specifically excludes any vehicle that (1) has a

capacity of more than 12 persons total or, (2) is

designed to accommodate more than 9 persons in

seating rearward of the driver’s seat or, (3) has a

cargo box (e.g., pick-up box or bed) of six feet or

more in interior length. (See the Tier 2 final

rulemaking, 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.)

94The Tier 2 final rule did make a limited

allowance for engine certification of diesel MDPVS

through the 2007 model year. The reader should

refer to the Tier 2 final rule for details on that

allowance. (See 65 FR 6750, February 10, 2000.)

engines by either routing the crankcase

emissions into the engine intake or by

routing them into the exhaust upstream

of the exhaust emission control devices.

d. On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)

The Phase 1 heavy-duty final rule put

into place OBD requirements for heavyduty diesel and gasoline engines

weighing 14,000 pounds or less. (See 65

FR 59896, October 6, 2000.) In that rule,

the OBD thresholds for malfunction

identification are based on multiples of

the applicable FTP emission standards

to which the engine is certified. Given

the structure of the 2004 FTP emission

standards (2005 FTP emission standards

for gasoline engines), which are

combined NMHC+NOX standards, the

OBD thresholds are based on a multiple

of the combined FTP standards.

However, the structure of the 2007 FTP

standards (2008 for gasoline engines)

finalized today is not a combined

NMHC+NOX standard, but is instead a

separate NOX and a separate NMHC

standard.

Therefore, today’s final rule is

revising the existing section of the

regulations to link OBD thresholds to

whatever the appropriate standards are

whether they are the combined FTP

standards or the new separate FTP

standards finalized today. This is

consistent with the intent of our OBD

requirements since inception—that the

OBD thresholds be based on the FTP

standards to which the vehicle or engine

has been certified.

We are also revising the phase-in for

the OBD requirements finalized in the

Phase 1 rule. (See 65 FR 59896.) In that

rule, OBD systems were required to

phase-in on a schedule of 60/80/100

percent beginning in the 2005 model

year. At least one commenter claimed

that the OBD phase-in may require

multiple changes to OBD systems in

consecutive years, because OBD systems

are tied to the FTP standards to which

they are certified.89 We have decided,

for diesel engine OBD systems, to revise

the 60/80/100 percent phase-in to 50/

50/100 percent beginning in the 2005

model year. This revised phase-in not

only alleviates the commenter’s

concerns, but also makes the OBD

phase-in consistent with the

implementation of new emission

standards.

In addition, we have decided, for

gasoline engine OBD systems, to revise

the 60/80/100 percent phase-in to 60/

80/80/100 percent beginning in the 2005

model year.90 As with the new diesel

OBD phase-in, this gasoline engine OBD

phase-in alleviates the commenter’s

concerns, and it also makes the gasoline

OBD phase-in more consistent with the

implementation of new emission

standards while maximizing the

percentage of gasoline engines designed

to meet the OBD requirements.

We also received comments

suggesting that we commit to making

any necessary changes to the OBD

requirements based on the outcome of

future rulemaking efforts by the

California Air Resources Board (ARB).

While we cannot make any such

commitment, nor do we believe the

commenter truly would want us to

commit to making changes solely

because ARB made changes, we do

intend to continue our normal practice

of working closely with ARB and

harmonizing our OBD requirements

where appropriate. Of course, any

changes to our OBD requirements could

only be done via rulemaking.91

2. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Exhaust

Emissions Standards 92

a. FTP Standards

The emission standards being

finalized today for heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles are summarized in Table III.C–

3. We have already required that all

complete heavy-duty gasoline vehicles,

whether for transporting passengers or

for work, be chassis certified. (See 65 FR

59896, October 6, 2000.) Current federal

regulations do not require that complete

diesel vehicles over 8,500 pounds be

chassis certified; instead, our

regulations have traditionally required

certification of their engines. Today’s

final rule allows, as an option, chassis

certification of complete heavy-duty

diesel vehicles under 14,000 pounds.

This option is discussed in more detail

later in this section.

The Tier 2 final rule created a new

vehicle category called ‘‘medium-duty

passenger vehicles.’’ 93 These vehicles,

both gasoline and diesel, are required to

meet requirements of the Tier 2

program, which carries with it a chassis

certification requirement. As a result,

diesel medium-duty passenger vehicles

must certify using the chassis

certification test procedure.94 Today’s

heavy-duty vehicle based standards, or

chassis standards, for 2008 and later

model year heavy-duty gasoline vehicles

would apply to the remaining complete

gasoline vehicles under 14,000 pounds

and those complete diesel vehicles

under 14,000 pounds choosing the

chassis certification option; these

complete vehicles are typically used for

commercial, non-passenger

applications. The standards shown in

Table III.C–3 are, we believe,

comparable in stringency to the diesel

and gasoline engine standards shown in

Table III.C–1.

5042 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

95Engine standards, in contrast, are stated in

terms of grams per unit of work rather than grams

per mile. Therefore, engine emission standards

need not increase with weight because heavier

engines do not necessarily emit more per unit of

work produced. In contrast, heavier vehicles, due

to their greater mass, tend to emit more per mile

due to the increased load placed on the engine

which requires the engine to do more work to travel

each mile.

96See the Tier 2 Response to Comments

document contained in Air Docket A–97–10.

TABLE III.C–3.—FULL USEFUL LIFE HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSIONS STANDARDS AND PHASE-INS FOR

COMPLETE VEHICLES a

[Grams/mile]

Weight range (GVWR) Standard

(g/mi)

Phase-in by model

year b

2008 2009

8,500 to 10,000 lbs NOX 0.2

NMHC 0.195

HCHO 0.032

PM 0.02

10,001 to 14,000 lbs NOX 0.4 50% 100%

NMHC 0.230

HCHO 0.040

PM 0.02

a Does not include medium-duty passenger vehicles.

bPercentages represent percent of sales.

These NOX standards represent a 78

percent reduction and a 60 percent

reduction from the standards for 8,500–

10,000 pound and 10,000–14,000 pound

vehicles, respectively, finalized for the

2005 model year. The 2005 model year

standards are equivalent to the

California LEV–I NOX standards of 0.9

g/mi and 1.0 g/mi, respectively. The

NOX standards shown in Table III.C–3

are consistent with the CARB LEV–II

NOX standards for low emission

vehicles (LEVs) in each respective

weight range. The NOX standard is

slightly higher for the 10,000 to 14,000

pound vehicles for several reasons:

these vehicles are tested at a heavier

payload; they generally have a larger

frontal area which creates more drag on

the engine and requires it to work

harder; and their in-use duty cycle tends

to be more severe. The increased weight

results in using more fuel per mile than

vehicles tested at lighter payloads;

therefore, they tend to emit slightly

more grams of pollutant per mile than

lighter vehicles.95

The NMHC standards finalized today

represent a 30 percent reduction from

the 2005 standards for 8500–10,000 and

10,000–14,000 pound vehicles. The

2005 model year standards require such

vehicles to meet NMHC standard levels

of 0.28 g/mi and 0.33 g/mi, respectively

(equal to the California LEV–I

nonmethane organic gases (NMOG)

standard levels). These new NMHC

standards are consistent with the CARB

LEV–II NMOG standards for LEVs in

each respective weight class. The

NMHC standard for 10,000–14,000

pound vehicles is higher than for 8,500–

10,000 pound vehicles for the same

reason as stated above for the higher

NOX standard for such vehicles.

The formaldehyde (HCHO) standards

shown in Table III.C–3 are not the

standards we proposed. The standards

we are finalizing are equivalent to the

California LEV–II LEV category

standards. This approach is being taken

to maintain consistency with the

approach taken on NOX and NMHC

standards. Although we are not

finalizing formaldehyde standards for

engine certified systems, because all the

exhaust emission standards for

complete vehicles are consistent with

the CARB LEV II standards, we believe

it is appropriate to maintain the

formaldehyde standard for gasoline

vehicles. Formaldehyde is a hazardous

air pollutant that is emitted by heavyduty vehicles and other mobile sources,

and we are finalizing these

formaldehyde standards to prevent

excessive formaldehyde emissions.

These standards are especially

important for any methanol-fueled

vehicles because formaldehyde is

chemically similar to methanol and is

one of the primary byproducts of

incomplete combustion of methanol.

Formaldehyde is also emitted by

vehicles using petroleum fuels (i.e.,

gasoline or diesel fuel), but to a lesser

degree than is typically emitted by

methanol-fueled vehicles. We expect

that petroleum-fueled vehicles able to

meet the NMHC standards should

comply with the formaldehyde

standards with large compliance

margins. Based upon our analysis of the

similar Tier 2 standards for passenger

vehicles, we believe that formaldehyde

emissions from petroleum-fueled

vehicles when complying with the new

PM, NMHC and NOX standards should

be as much as 90 percent below the

standards.96 Thus, to reduce testing

costs, we are finalizing a provision that

permits manufacturers of petroleumfueled vehicles to demonstrate

compliance with the formaldehyde

standards based on engineering

analysis. This provision requires

manufacturers to make a demonstration

in their certification application that

vehicles having similar size and

emission control technology have been

shown to exhibit compliance with the

applicable formaldehyde standard for

their full useful life. This demonstration

is expected to be similar to that required

to demonstrate compliance with the

Tier 2 formaldehyde standards. The PM standard is 80 percent lower

than the CARB LEV–II LEV category PM

standard of 0.12 g/mi, which actually

applies only to diesel vehicles. Note that

the PM standard shown in Table III.C–

3 represents not only a stringent PM

level, but a new standard for federal

HDVs where none existed before. Both

the California LEV II program for heavyduty diesel vehicles and the federal Tier

2 standards for over 8,500 pound

gasoline and diesel vehicles designed

for transporting passengers contain PM

standards. The PM standard finalized

today is consistent with the light-duty

Tier 2 bins 7 and 8 level of 0.02 g/mi. The timing for our final gasoline

vehicle standards differs from what we

had proposed. Our proposal had no

phase-in, requiring 100 percent

compliance in the 2007 model year.

However, since the proposal was

published, we have set new standards

for heavy-duty gasoline complete

vehicles that take effect in the 2005

model year. Therefore, the three year

stability requirement of the CAA

requires that today’s new standards not

apply until the 2008 model year at the

earliest. Further, based on comments

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5043

97See memorandum from Todd Sherwood to Air

Docket A–99–06, dated December 6, 2000, Item

#IV–E–47.

received, we believe that a phase-in

should be provided. The phase-in will

allow manufacturers to implement

improved gasoline control technologies

on their heavy-duty gasoline vehicles in

the same timeframe as they implement

those technologies on their Tier 2

medium-duty passenger vehicles

(MDPV). The MDPVs generally use the

same engines and emission control

systems as do the heavy-duty versions

of those vehicles. MDPVs must comply

with our light-duty Tier 2 program at 50

percent beginning in the 2008 model

year and then 100 percent in the 2009

model year. As a result of this MDPV

phase-in, and the stability requirements

of the CAA, and because we believe it

provides the greatest emission control

considering costs, we are finalizing a

gasoline phase-in of 50/100 percent

beginning in the 2008 model year.

Commenters suggested a 40/80/100

percent phase-in beginning in the 2008

model year, but we believe that a 50/100

percent phase-in allows appropriate

leadtime and synergy with the MDPV

requirements of our Tier 2 program. It

is worth clarifying that this phase-in

excludes California complete heavyduty vehicles, which are already

required to be certified to the California

emission standards. It also excludes

vehicles sold in any state that has

adopted California emission standards

for complete heavy-duty vehicles. It

would be inappropriate to allow

manufacturers to ‘‘double-count’’ the

vehicles by allowing them to count

those vehicles both as part of their

compliance with this phase-in and for

compliance with California

requirements. We would handle heavyduty engines similarly if California were

to adopt different emission standards

than those being established by this

rule.

We are also finalizing provisions that

would encourage manufacturers to

introduce clean technology earlier than

required in return for greater flexibility

during the later years of our phase-in.

These optional early incentive

provisions are analogous to those

included in our light-duty Tier 2 rule

and are discussed in more detail in

section III.D.

As we have done for diesel and

gasoline engines, we have revised our

Averaging, Banking, and Trading

program for gasoline vehicles and

engines to increase flexibility as

discussed further in section VI. The

reader should refer to that section for

more details. Note that the gasoline

vehicle phase-in schedule is the same as

but separate from the gasoline engine

phase-in schedule discussed above. For

a discussion of why we believe these

standards are technologically feasible in

the time frame required, refer to section

III.E below, and for a more detailed

discussion refer to the RIA contained in

the docket.

We are also allowing complete heavyduty diesel vehicles under 14,000

pounds to certify to the heavy-duty

vehicle standards. The issue of chassis

certification of diesels was raised as part

of the Phase 1 rule. At that time,

manufacturers expressed little interest

in such a provision. Because the heavyduty diesel industry is largely not a

vertically-integrated industry, in that

one company makes the engine and

another makes the vehicle, chassis

certification is not an immediately

attractive or practical option for diesel

engine manufacturers. Nonetheless,

some manufacturers have begun to

express interest in diesel chassis

certification.97 Also, the California Air

Resources Board allows complete diesel

vehicles to chassis certify. We like the

idea of diesel chassis certification

because it allows us to more easily

evaluate such vehicles in-use. A chassis

certified diesel could be acquired easily

by EPA and tested in its vehicle

configuration without the need to

remove the engine for an engine test.

Therefore, while we fully expect that

manufacturers will continue to certify

the engines intended for complete diesel

vehicles to the engine standards, we

will allow the option to chassis certify

such vehicles. Any chassis-certified

complete diesel vehicles must meet the

applicable Phase 2 emission standards

for complete vehicles (i.e., this option is

not available to diesels certified to the

Phase 1 standards). In addition, while

complete diesel vehicles would count

against the phase-in requirements for

diesel engines, they would not be

allowed in the Averaging, Banking, and

Trading program. Therefore, a chassiscertified diesel vehicle can neither use

nor earn ABT credits, but counts as part

of the 50 percent phase-in. Further,

complete diesels choosing the chassis

certification option would be required

to comply with our federal OBD vehiclebased requirements for monitoring of

exhaust emission control devices, even

if choosing the option to demonstrate

OBD compliance using the California

OBD II requirements. Lastly, diesel

vehicles choosing this option would be

certified under subpart S which applies

to chassis certified complete vehicles,

but the evaporative emissions

provisions of that subpart would not

apply for diesel vehicles.

b. Supplemental Federal Test Procedure

We did not propose new

supplemental FTP (SFTP) standards for

heavy-duty vehicles. The SFTP

standards control off-cycle emissions in

a manner somewhat analogous to the

NTE requirements for engines. We

believe that the SFTP standards are an

important part of our light-duty program

just as we believe the NTE requirements

will be an important part of our heavyduty diesel engine program. Although

we did not propose SFTP standards for

heavy-duty vehicles, we stated an

intention to do so via a separate

rulemaking. We requested comment on

such an approach, and on appropriate

SFTP levels for heavy-duty vehicles

along with supporting data.

We received unanimous support from

industry commenters to address SFTP

standards for heavy-duty vehicles in a

separate rulemaking. In our Tier 2 final

rule, we stated that we are currently

contemplating a new SFTP rulemaking

that would consider ‘‘Tier 2’’ SFTP

standards for all Tier 2 vehicles,

including MDPVs. California is also

interested in developing more stringent

SFTP standards within the context of

their LEV II program and we are

coordinating with California on these

new SFTP standards. Given our concern

over ‘‘off cycle’’ emissions, we believe it

is appropriate that SFTP standards

apply to all chassis certified vehicles,

heavy-duty and light-duty. As part of

the SFTP rule being contemplated, we

expect to examine not only those issues

stated in the Tier 2 rule (e.g., the SFTP

test cycles and different SFTP standards

for different vehicles sizes) but also the

issue of heavy-duty SFTP standards.

c. On-Board Diagnostics (OBD)

The Phase 1 heavy-duty rule finalized

OBD requirements for heavy-duty diesel

engines, heavy-duty gasoline engines,

and heavy-duty complete vehicles

weighing 14,000 pounds or less. (See 65

FR 59896, October 6, 2000.) In that

rulemaking, the final regulatory

language stated the OBD catalyst

thresholds for complete vehicles as

multiples of a combined NMHC+NOX

emission standard. However, the

emission standards for complete

vehicles are not combined, as are the

engine standards in that final rule.

Therefore, the OBD catalyst thresholds

for complete vehicles were not stated

properly in the applicable sections of

the regulations.

Today’s final rule corrects that

regulatory error by revising the

appropriate regulatory language to link

the OBD thresholds to a separate, rather

than combined, set of FTP exhaust

5044 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

98For those manufacturers choosing compliance

Options 1 or 2 as part of the Phase 1 program, the

gasoline vehicle OBD phase-in will become 40/60/

80/80/100 percent beginning in model year 2004.

(See 65 FR 59896.)

99The test procedure changes codify a commonly

approved waiver allowing heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles to use the light-duty driving cycle for

demonstrating evaporative emission compliance.

The urban dynamometer driving schedule (UDDS)

used for heavy-duty vehicles is somewhat shorter

than that used for light-duty vehicles, both in terms

of mileage covered and minutes driven. This results

in considerably less time for canister purge under

the heavy-duty procedure than under the light-duty

procedure. We recognize this discrepancy and have

routinely provided waivers under the enhanced

evaporative program that allow the use of the lightduty procedures for heavy-duty certification testing.

This is consistent with CARB’s treatment of

equivalent vehicles.

100The federal test fuel specification for fuel

volatility, the Reid Vapor Pressure, is 8.7 to 9.2 psi.

The California test fuel specification is 6.7 to 7.0

psi.

emission standards. This is consistent

with the Phase 1 heavy-duty proposal

which correctly linked the proposed

OBD thresholds to the separate FTP

exhaust emission standards. (See 64 FR

58472, October 29, 1999.) It is also

consistent with the preamble to the

Phase 1 final rule, which stated the

catalyst monitor threshold correctly.

This change makes the OBD thresholds

for complete vehicle certifications

consistent with the structure used since

implementation of the federal OBD

requirements. (See 58 FR 9468, February

19, 1993.)

Consistent with the changes already

discussed in section III.C.1, we are also

revising the phase-in for complete

vehicle OBD requirements finalized in

the Phase 1 rule. (See 65 FR 59896.) In

that rule, OBD systems were required to

phase-in on a schedule of 60/80/100

percent beginning in the 2005 model

year. At least one commenter pointed

out that the OBD phase-in may require

multiple changes to OBD systems in

consecutive years because OBD systems

are tied to the FTP standards to which

they are certified. We have decided, for

gasoline vehicle OBD systems, to revise

the 60/80/100 percent phase-in to 60/

80/80/100 percent beginning in the 2005

model year.98 This revised OBD phasein alleviates the commenter’s concerns,

and it makes the gasoline OBD phase-in

more consistent with the

implementation of new emission

standards while maximizing the

percentage of gasoline vehicles designed

to meet the OBD requirements.

3. Heavy-Duty Evaporative Emissions

Standards

We are finalizing new evaporative

emission standards for heavy-duty

vehicles and engines. The new

standards are shown in Table III.C–4.

These standards will apply to heavyduty gasoline-fueled vehicles and

engines, and methanol-fueled heavyduty vehicles and engines. Consistent

with existing standards, the standard for

the two day diurnal plus hot soak test

sequence would not apply to liquid

petroleum gas (LPG) fueled and natural

gas fueled HDVs.

TABLE III.C–4.—NEW HEAVY-DUTY

EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS STANDARDS a

[Grams per test]

Category

3 day diurnal + hot

soak

Supplemental 2

day diurnal

+ hot soak b

8,500–14,000

lbs .................. 1.4 1.75

>14,000 lbs ....... 1.9 2.3

aTo be implemented on the same schedule

as the gasoline engine and vehicle exhaust

emission standards shown in Tables III.C–1

and III.C–3. These new standards do not

apply to medium-duty passenger vehicles, and

do not apply to diesel fueled vehicles and engines. b Does not apply to LPG or natural gas

fueled HDVs.

These new standards represent more

than a 50 percent reduction in the

numerical standards as they exist today.

The Phase 1 heavy-duty rule made no

changes to the numerical value of the

standard, but it did put into place new

evaporative emission test procedures for

heavy-duty complete gasoline

vehicles.99 (See 65 FR 59896, October 6,

2000.) For establishing evaporative

emission levels from complete heavyduty vehicles, the standards shown in

Table III.C–4 presume the test

procedures required in the Phase 1

heavy-duty rule.

The new standards for 8,500 to 14,000

pound vehicles are consistent with the

Tier 2 standards for medium-duty

passenger vehicles (MDPV). MDPVs are

of consistent size and have essentially

identical evaporative emission control

systems as the remaining work-oriented

HDVs in the 8,500 to 10,000 pound

weight range. Therefore, the evaporative

emission standards should be

equivalent. We are requiring those same

standards for the 10,000 to 14,000

pound HDVs because, historically, the

evaporative emission standards have

been consistent throughout the 8,500 to

14,000 pound weight range. We believe

that the HDVs in the 10,000 to 14,000

pound range are essentially equivalent

in evaporative emission control system

design as the lighter HDVs; therefore,

continuing this historical approach is

appropriate.

We are finalizing slightly higher

evaporative emission standards for the

over 14,000 pound HDVs because of

their slightly larger fuel tanks and for

non-fuel emissions related to larger

vehicle sizes. This is consistent with

past evaporative emission standards.

The levels chosen for the over 14,000

pound HDVs maintains the same ratio

relative to the 8,500 to 14,000 pound

HDVs as exists with current evaporative

standards. To clarify, the current

standards for the 3 day diurnal test are

3 and 4 grams/test for the 8,500 to

14,000 and the over 14,000 pound

categories, respectively. The ratio of 3:4

is maintained for the new 2008

standards, 1.4:1.9.

The new standard levels are slightly

higher than the California LEV-II

standard levels. The California standard

levels are 1.0 and 1.25 for the 3-day and

the 2-day tests, respectively. However,

federal vehicles are certified using the

higher-volatility federal test fuel.100

Arguably, the federal and California

evaporative emission standards are

equivalent in stringency despite the

difference in standard levels. We believe

that our standards are appropriate for

federal heavy-duty vehicles.

We are requiring that the new

evaporative emission standards be

implemented on the same schedule as

the gasoline engine and vehicle exhaust

standards shown in Tables III.C–1 and

III.C–3. This will allow manufacturers to

plan any needed changes to new

vehicles at the same time, although it is

not necessary that the exhaust and

evaporative standards be phased-in on

the same vehicles and engines. Also, we

are finalizing the revised durability

provisions finalized in the Tier 2

rulemaking, which require durability

demonstration using fuel containing at

least 10 percent alcohol. Alcohol can

break down the materials used in

evaporative emission control systems.

Therefore, a worst case durability

demonstration would include a worst

case alcohol level in the fuel (10

percent) because in some areas of the

country there is widespread use of

alcohol fuels.

D. Incentives for Early Introduction of

Clean Engines and Vehicles

In our proposal, we requested

comment on alternative phase-in

approaches that could provide attractive

implementation options to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5045

manufacturers without compromising

air quality. We requested comment on a

‘‘declining standard’’ approach and a

‘‘cumulative phase-in’’ approach. We

received only limited comment on those

approaches with no commenters

expressing particularly strong support

for them. We did receive numerous

comments suggesting that we provide

some form of incentive for

manufacturers to introduce clean

technology engines earlier than required

by the base program. We are finalizing

the approach discussed here as an

incentive for manufacturers to introduce

clean diesel engines earlier than the

2007 model year (or the 2008 model

year for gasoline engines and vehicles).

In our Tier 2 rule, we stated our belief

that providing inducements to

manufacturers to certify vehicles early

to very low levels is appropriate. We

believe that such inducements may help

pave the way for greater and/or more

cost effective emission reductions from

future vehicles. We believe the program

discussed here provides a strong

incentive for manufacturers to maximize

their development and introduction of

the best available vehicle and engine

emission control technology. This, in

turn, provides a stepping stone to the

broader introduction of this technology

soon thereafter. Early production of

cleaner vehicles enhances the early

benefits of our program. If a

manufacturer can be induced to certify

to the new standards by the promise of

reasonable extra credits, the benefits of

that decision to the program may last for

many years.

The incentive program finalized today

is analogous to the provisions set forth

in the final Tier 2 rule. We are finalizing

provisions that permit manufacturers to

take credit for diesel engines certified to

this rule’s final standards prior to the

2007 model year (prior to the 2008

model year for gasoline engines or

vehicles) in exchange for making fewer

diesel engines certified to these

standards in or after the 2007 model

year (2008 for gasoline engines or

vehicles). In other words, a clean engine

sold earlier than required displaces the

requirement to sell a similar engine

later. Note that the emission standards

must be met to earn the early

introduction credit. That is, emission

credits earned under averaging, banking,

and trading cannot be used to

demonstrate compliance. Therefore, the

early introduction engine credit is an

alternative to the ABT program in that

any early engines or vehicles can earn

either the engine credit or the ABT

emission credit, but not both. The

purpose of the incentive is to encourage

introduction of clean technology

engines earlier than required in

exchange for added flexibility during

the phase-in years.

Any early engine credits earned for a

diesel-fueled engine would, of course,

be predicated on the assurance by the

manufacturer that the engine would

indeed be fueled with low sulfur diesel

fuel in the marketplace. We expect this

would occur through selling such

engines into fleet applications, such as

city buses, school buses, or any such

well-managed centrally-fueled fleet. For

this reason, we believe that any engines

sold within this early incentive program

would be sold primarily in urban areas

where more centrally-fueled fleets exist.

Because of the difficulty associated with

low sulfur diesel fuel availability prior

to mid-2006, we believe it is necessary

and appropriate to provide a greater

incentive for early introduction of clean

diesel technology. Therefore, we will

count one early diesel engine as 1.5

diesel engines later. This extra early

credit for diesel engines means that

fewer clean diesel engines than

otherwise would be required may enter

the market during the years 2007 and

later. But, more importantly, it means

that emission reductions would be

realized earlier than under our base

program. We believe that providing

incentives for early emission reductions

is a worthwhile goal for this program.

Therefore, we are finalizing these

provisions for manufacturers willing to

make the early investment in cleaner

engines. For gasoline engines and

vehicles, the early engine credit will be

a one-for-one credit because the gasoline

needed by the engine or vehicle will be

readily available.

We are providing this early

introduction credit to diesel engines

that meet all of today’s final standards

(0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX, 0.14 g/bhp-hr

NMHC, and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM). We are

also providing this early introduction

credit to diesel engines that pull-ahead

compliance with only the 0.01 g/bhp-hr

PM standard. However, a PM-only early

engine can offset only PM compliant

engines during the phase-in years, not

NOX, NMHC, and PM compliant

engines.

An important aspect of the early

incentive provision is that it must be

done on an engine or vehicle count

basis. That is, a diesel engine meeting

new standards early counts as 1.5 such

diesel engines later and a gasoline

engine or vehicle early counts as one

gasoline engine or vehicle later. This

contrasts with a provision done on an

engine percentage basis which would

count one percent of diesel engines

early as 1.5 percent of diesel engines

later. Basing the incentive on an engine

count will alleviate any possible

influence of fluctuations in engine and

vehicle sales in different model years.

Another important aspect of this

program is that it is limited to engines

sold prior to the 2007 model year (2008

for gasoline). In other words, diesel

engines sold in the 2007 through 2009

model years that exceed the required 50

percent phase-in will not be considered

‘‘early’’ introduction engines and will,

therefore, receive no early introduction

credit. The same is true for gasoline

engines and vehicles sold in the 2008

model year. However, such engines and

vehicles will still be able to generate

ABT credits. Note that early gasoline

vehicles can count for later gasoline

vehicles, and early gasoline engines can

count for later gasoline engines, but

early gasoline vehicles cannot be traded

for later gasoline engines and vice versa.

Table III.D–1 shows an example for a

diesel engine manufacturer and how it

might use this incentive provision on an

assumed fleet of 100 engine sales

growing at one percent per year

beginning in the 2004 model year.

TABLE III.D–1.—EXAMPLE ENGINE INTRODUCTION UNDER OUR EARLY INCENTIVE PROGRAM

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Sales 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

Clean Engines under 0 0 0 52 52 53 106

Base program

Clean Engines under 4 4 4 46 46 47 106

Incentive Program

5046 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

101The California SULEV levels are, for 8,500 to

10,000 pound vehicles, 0.1 g/mi NOX, 0.100 g/mi

NMOG, 0.008 g/mi HCMO, and 0.06 g/mi PM; and

for 10,000 to 14,000 pound vehicles, 0.2 g/mi NOX,

0.117 g/mi NMOG, 0.010 g/mi HCHO, and 0.06 g/

mi PM. With the exception of the PM standards,

these emission levels are half or roughly half of this

rule’s final gasoline vehicle standards.

The four engines sold early in each of

model years 2004 through 2006 generate

a total credit of 18 engines (4×3×1.5=18).

This allows the manufacturer to reduce

its compliant engine count in each of

model years 2007 through 2009 by six

engines (18/3=6). This helps the

manufacturer by reducing total costs

through requiring fewer total engines at

the low-emitting, clean engine level.

But, more importantly, it introduces

clean technology engines early and, by

2010 in this example, generates from

four to six years of emission reductions

that otherwise would not have occurred.

As further incentive to introduce

clean engines and vehicles early, we are

also finalizing a provision that would

give manufacturers an early

introduction credit equal to two engines

during the phase-in years. This ‘‘Blue

Sky’’ incentive would apply for diesel

engines meeting one-half of today’s final

NOX standard while also meeting the

NMHC and PM standards. For gasoline

engines, the same early introduction

double engine credit would be available

to engines sold prior to 2008 and

meeting one-half the NOX standard

while also meeting the NMHC, PM, and

evaporative emission standards. For

gasoline vehicles, the double engine

credit would be available to those

vehicles certified early to the California

SULEV levels and today’s PM and

evaporative emission standards.101 Due

to the extremely low emission levels to

which these Blue Sky series engines and

vehicles would need to certify, we

believe that the double engine count

credit is appropriate. Table III.D–2

shows the emission levels that would be

required prior to the 2007 model year

for diesel engines and the 2008 model

year for gasoline vehicles and engines to

earn any early introduction engine

credits.

TABLE III.D–2.—EMISSION LEVELS AND CREDITS AVAILABLE FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION ENGINES

Category Must meet a Early engine

credit b

Early Diesel PM-only c ................................................................. Phase 2 PM & ............................................................................ 1.5-to-1

Phase 1 NOX + NMHC ..............................................................

Early Diesel Engine c ................................................................... All Phase 2 Standards ............................................................... 1.5-to-1

Early Gasoline Engine or Vehicle—Exhaust .............................. Phase 2 Exhaust Standards ...................................................... 1-to-1

Early Gasoline Engine or Vehicle—Evap ................................... Phase 2 Evaporative Standards ................................................ 1-to-1

Blue Sky Series Diesel c or Gasoline Engine ............................. 0.10 g/bhp-hr NOX & All other Phase 2 Standardsd ................. 2-to-1

Blue Sky Series Gasoline ........................................................... 0.02 g/mi PM & California SULEV Level Standardsd ................ 2-to-1

Vehicle

aPhase 1 refers to standards required by 65 FR 59896, October 6, 2000; Phase 2 refers to today’s final standards. b Engine count credits must be earned prior to the phase-in years of 2007 for diesel and 2008 for gasoline. cEarly diesel engines must also meet the Phase 2 crankcase emissions requirements.

dFor gasoline engines and vehicles, these must also meet the Phase 2 evaporative emission standards.

Alternative fueled vehicles and

engines can also play a significant role

in this incentive program. Any

alternative fueled diesel-cycle engine

certified to today’s final standards prior

to the 2007 model year can generate a

1.5 diesel-cycle engine count credit

during the diesel phase-in years.

Likewise, any alternative fueled Ottocycle engine certified to today’s final

standards prior to the 2008 model year

can generate one Otto-cycle engine

count credit. Many commenters

suggested that EPA should do more than

was put forward in our proposal to

encourage the introduction of

alternative fuel technologies. To the

extent that alternative fueled vehicles

and engines are cleaner than diesels and

gasolines, they may have an advantage

within today’s program. We believe that

this program and its structure provides

significant incentives for manufacturers

to introduce alternative fueled vehicles

and engines.

One final aspect of the incentive

program is its interaction with our Tier

2 program. The Tier 2 final rule allows

some MDPVs to be equipped with

engine-certified diesel engines through

the 2007 model year. Any such engines

are required to comply with the diesel

engine standards that apply during the

given model year. Given that they are

certified as heavy-duty diesel engines,

any such engines that meet today’s final

diesel standards prior to the 2007 model

year would be allowed within today’s

incentive program provided they in no

way generate any emission or engine

count credits within the Tier 2 program.

Further, any MDPVs, whether gasoline

or diesel, certified on a chassis

dynamometer and being counted in any

way as part of the Tier 2 program,

cannot be used as part of today’s

incentive program because they are not

considered heavy-duty vehicles.

E. Feasibility of the New Engine and

Vehicle Standards

For more detail on the information

and analyses supporting our assessment

of the technological feasibility of today’s

standards, please refer to the Final RIA

in the docket for this rule. The following

discussion summarizes the more

detailed discussion found in the Final

RIA and in the Summary and Analysis

of Comments document.

1. Feasibility of Stringent Standards for

Heavy-Duty Diesel

The designers and manufacturers of

diesel engines have made substantial

progress over the last 20 years reducing

NOX emissions by 60 percent and PM

emissions by almost 90 percent through

better engine design. We believe that, in

response to our Phase 1 heavy-duty rule,

industry will have implemented all

promising engine-based emission

reduction technologies in order to meet

the 2.5 g/bhp-hr NOX+NMHC standard

and the 0.1 g/bhp-hr PM standard. To

get the substantial PM and NOX

reductions from diesel engines needed

to solve the air quality problems

identified in section II, we believe a new

technology solution will be required.

That solution is the application of high

efficiency exhaust emission control

technologies (catalysts) to diesel

engines, analogous to the application of

catalyst technologies to passenger cars

in the 1970s. These high efficiency

catalyst technologies, enabled by the use

of diesel fuel with sulfur content at or

below 15 ppm, can reduce NOX and PM

emissions by more than 90 percent. This

dramatic reduction in emissions will

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5047

102For PM trap regeneration without precious

metals, exhaust metals, exhaust temperatures in

excess of 650°C must be obtained. At such high

temperatures, carbon will burn (oxidize to CO2)

provided sufficient oxygen is present. Although the

largest heavy-duty diesels may achieve exhaust

temperatures of 650°C under some operating

conditions, smaller diesel engines, particularly

light-duty and light heavy-duty diesel engines, will

rarely achieve such high temperatures. For

example, exhaust temperatures on the HDE Federal

Test Procedure cycle typically range from 100°C to

450°C. Precious metal catalyzed traps use platinum

to oxidize NO in the exhaust to No2, which is

capable of oxidizing carbon at temperatures as low

as 250°C to 300°C.

103Cooper and Thoss, Johnson Matthey, SAE

890404.

104See the RIA for more detail on the relationship

of fuel sulfur to sulfate make.

105Allansson, et al. SAE 2000–01–0480.

106Allansson, et al. SAE 2000–01–0480.

107Letter from Dr. Barry Cooper to Don Kopinski,

US EPA, Air Docket A–99–06.

enable diesel powered vehicles to reach

emission levels well below today’s

gasoline emission levels. As detailed in

the sections below, these technologies

are rapidly being developed and will be

available for application to diesel

powered vehicles by, or even before, the

2007 model year provided the low

sulfur diesel fuel required today is

widely available.

a. Meeting the PM Standard

Diesel PM consists of three primary

constituents: Unburned carbon particles

(soot), which make up the largest

portion of the total PM; the soluble

organic fraction (SOF), which consists

of unburned hydrocarbons that have

condensed into liquid droplets or have

condensed onto unburned carbon

particles; and sulfates, which result

from oxidation of fuel and oil derived

sulfur in the engine’s exhaust. Several

exhaust emission control devices have

been developed to control harmful

diesel PM constituents—the diesel

oxidation catalyst (DOC), and the many

forms of diesel particulate filters,

sometimes called PM traps. DOCs have

been shown to be durable in use, but

they effectively control only the SOF

portion of the total PM which, on a

modern diesel engine constitutes only

10 to 30 percent of the total PM.

Therefore, the DOC on its own would

only offer a modest reduction in PM

emissions, and would not be able to

meet the PM standard set here.

Diesel particulate filters were first

investigated some twenty years ago as a

means to capture solid particles in

diesel exhaust. A variety of approaches

to this technology have been developed

most of which provide excellent

mechanical filtration of the solid

particles that make up the bulk of diesel

PM (60 to 80 percent). The collected

PM, mostly carbon particles, must then

be ‘‘burned off’’ of the filter before the

filter becomes plugged. This burning off

of collected PM (oxidation of the stored

PM, releasing CO2) is referred to as

‘‘regeneration,’’ and can occur either:

• On a periodic basis by using base

metal catalysts (including fuel-borne

base metal catalysts) or an active

regeneration system such as an

electrical heater, a fuel burner, or a

microwave heater; or,

• On a continuous basis by using

precious metal catalysts.

Diesel particulate traps that regenerate

on a periodic basis (referred to here as

either uncatalyzed or base metal

catalytic PM traps) demonstrated high

PM trapping efficiencies many years

ago, but the level of the applicable PM

standard was such that it could be met

through less costly ‘‘in-cylinder’’ control

techniques. Un-catalyzed diesel

particulate filters will not be able to

meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM standard

finalized today as they are only

moderately effective at controlling the

SOF fraction of the particulate. In

addition, they require active

regeneration technology which must be

engaged frequently making the systems

expensive to operate (increasing fuel

consumption) and less reliable.

We believe the kind of PM trap that

would be able to meet the PM standard

in a reliable, durable, cost effective

manner, and the type of trap that will

prove to the be the industry’s

technology of choice, is one capable of

regenerating on an essentially

continuous basis. In addition these PM

traps will be able to achieve very low

PM emissions because:

• They are highly efficient at

controlling the solid carbon portion of

PM;

• Unlike uncatalyzed filters, they are

highly efficient at oxidizing the SOF of

diesel PM;

• They employ precious metals to

produce conditions that reduce the

temperature at which regeneration

occurs, thereby allowing for passive

regeneration under normal operating

conditions typical of a diesel engine; 102

• Because they regenerate

continuously, they have lower average

backpressure thereby reducing potential

fuel economy impacts; and,

• Because of their passive

regeneration characteristics, they need

no extra burners or heaters like what

would be required by an active

regeneration system, thereby reducing

potential failures and fuel economy

impacts.

These catalyzed PM traps are able to

provide in excess of 90 percent control

of diesel PM when operated on diesel

fuel with sulfur levels at or below 15

ppm. However, as discussed in detail in

the RIA, the catalyzed PM trap cannot

regenerate properly with current fuel

sulfur levels, as such sulfur levels

poison the catalytic function of the PM

trap inhibiting the necessary NO to NO2

reaction to the point of stopping trap

regeneration.103 Also, because SO2 is so

readily oxidized to SO3, the 0.01 g/bhphr PM standard cannot be achieved with

fuel sulfur levels above 15 ppm because

of the resultant increase in sulfate PM

emissions (‘‘sulfate make’’).104

More than one exhaust emission

control manufacturer is known to have

or be developing these precious metal

catalyzed, passively regenerating PM

traps and to have them in broad field

test programs in areas where low sulfur

diesel fuel is currently available. In field

trials since 1994, they have

demonstrated highly efficient PM

control and good durability with some

units accumulating in excess of 360,000

miles of field use.105 The experience

gained in these field tests also helps to

clarify the need for low sulfur diesel

fuel. In Sweden, where below 10 ppm

diesel fuel sulfur is readily available,

more than 3,000 catalyzed diesel

particulate filters have been introduced

into retrofit applications without a

single failure. These retrofit applications

include intercity trains, airport buses,

mail trucks, city buses and garbage

trucks.106 The field experience in areas

where sulfur is capped at 50 ppm has

been less definitive. In regions without

extended periods of cold ambient

conditions, such as the United

Kingdom, field tests on 50 ppm sulfur

cap fuel have been positive, matching

the durability at 10 ppm, but would be

unable to meet a 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM

standard due to a substantial increase in

sulfate PM. However, field tests on 50

ppm sulfur fuel in Finland where colder

winter conditions are often encountered

(similar to northern parts of the United

States) have experienced a failure rate of

10 percent, due to trap plugging. This 10

percent failure rate has been attributed

to insufficient trap regeneration due to

fuel sulfur in combination with low

ambient temperatures.107 Other possible

reasons for the high failure rate in

Finland when contrasted with the

Swedish experience appear to be

unlikely. The Finnish and Swedish

fleets were substantially similar, with

both fleets consisting of transit buses

powered by Volvo and Scania engines

in the 10 to 11 liter range. Further, the

buses were operated in city areas and

none of the vehicles were operated in

northern extremes such as north of the

5048 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

108Telephone conversation between Dr. Barry

Cooper, Johnson Matthey, and Todd Sherwood,

EPA, Air Docket A–99–06.

109The average temperatrue in Helsinki, Finland,

for the month of January is 21°F. The average

temperature in Stockholm, Sweden, for the month

of January is 26°F. The average temperature at the

University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for

the month of January is 24°F. The temperature

reported here are from www.worldclimate.com

based upon the Global Historical Climatology

Network (GHCN) produced jointly by the National

Climatic Data Center and Carbon Dioxide

Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (ORNL).

110Letter from Dr. Barry Cooper to Don Kopinski

US EPA, Air Docket A–99–06.

111 International Truck and Engine Corporation’s

comments on the proposed 2007 heavy duty vehicle

standards, Air Docket A–99–06, page 2.

112Hawker, P., et al., Effect of a Continuously

Regenerating Diesel Particulate Filter on NonRegulated Emissions and Particle Size Distribution,

SAE 980189.

113 Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control

Technologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty

Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels,

Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association,

June 1999.

114Testing for the DECSE program was conducted

on 3 ppm and 30 ppm diesel fuel. A straight-line

fit to the results between 3 ppm and 30 ppm shows

that a 15 ppm cap fuel would have emissions less

than 0.01 g/bhp-hr. Diesel Emission Control Sulfur

Effects (DECSE) Program, Phase I Interim Data

Report No. 4: Diesel Particulate Filters—Final

Report, January 2000.

115Memorandum from Charles Schenk, EPA, to

Air Docket A–99–06, ‘‘Summary of EPA PM

Efficiency Data,’’ May 8, 2000.

Arctic Circle.108 Given that the fleets in

Sweden and Finland were substantially

similar, and given that ambient

conditions in Sweden are expected to be

similar to those in Finland, we believe

that the increased failure rates noted

here are due to the higher fuel sulfur

level in a 50 ppm cap fuel versus a 10

ppm cap fuel.109 Testing on an even

higher fuel sulfur level of 200 ppm was

conducted in Denmark on a fleet of 9

vehicles. In less than six months all of

the vehicles in the Danish fleet had

failed due to trap plugging.110 We

believe that this real world testing

clearly indicates that increasing diesel

fuel sulfur levels limit trap regeneration,

leading to plugging of the PM trap even

at fuel sulfur levels as low as 50 ppm.

From these results, we can further

conclude that lighter applications (such

as large pick-up trucks and other light

heavy-duty applications), having lower

exhaust temperatures than heavier

applications, may experience similar

failure rates even in more temperate

climates and would, therefore, need

lower sulfur fuel even in the United

Kingdom. These results are understood

to be due to the effect of sulfur on the

trap’s ability to create sufficient NO2 to

carry out proper trap regeneration.

Without the NO2, the trap continues to

trap the PM at high efficiency, but it is

unable to oxidize, or regenerate, the

trapped PM. The possible result is a

plugged trap. This vulnerability of the

catalyzed diesel particulate filter due to

sulfur in the fuel and the consequences

of trap plugging are discussed fully in

section III.F and the RIA.

Several commenters raised concerns

with our use of the extensive fleet

experience in Europe, to draw

conclusions about the necessary sulfur

reductions required in order to ensure

PM trap durability. Their concerns

focused generally around the fact that

these fleets were made up of retrofit

applications, and that the nature of the

fleet operation did not represent a

controlled experiment (ideally all things

would have been equal except for the

fuel sulfur level). While we

acknowledge these limitations in the

data, we believe they still provide

reasonable evidence of the need for low

sulfur diesel fuel. The diversity of

applications, climates, fuel properties,

NOX emission levels, and sulfur levels

help to show the relative robustness of

the technology. Further, we believe the

PM trap manufacturer’s analysis of the

failure mode (i.e., that cold ambient

conditions coupled with diminished NO

to NO2 conversion due to sulfur led to

the failures that were experienced) is

the most likely explanation of the

observed phenomena. Sulfur in diesel

fuel is known to inhibit the oxidation of

NO to NO2 (as described in section III.F)

leading to reduced ability to regenerate

the PM filter, especially under low

ambient conditions. For our detailed

response to comments surrounding

catalyzed diesel particulate filter

durability refer to the RTC document.

Several progressive refineries have

begun to produce diesel fuel with sulfur

content less than 15 ppm for limited

markets in the United States. The

availability of this low sulfur diesel fuel

makes it possible to introduce diesel

particulate filters into these limited

markets today. International Truck and

Engine Corporation (‘‘International’’)

has announced its intent to

commercialize its Green Diesel Engine

TechnologyTM in 2001 coupled with less

than 15 ppm sulfur fuel to achieve our

proposed MY 2007 NMHC and PM

emissions standards six years in

advance of the requirement.

International’s ability to bring a

catalyzed diesel particulate filter

technology to commercialization in

such a short period highlights the

advanced state of this technology.111

Modern catalyzed PM traps have been

shown to be very effective at reducing

PM mass. In addition, recent data show

that they are also very effective at

reducing the overall number of emitted

particles when operated on low sulfur

fuel. Hawker, et. al., found that a

modern catalyzed PM trap reduced

particle count by over 95 percent,

including some of the smallest

measurable particles (<50 nm), at most

of the tested conditions. The lowest

observed efficiency in reducing particle

number was 86 percent. No generation

of particles by the PM trap was observed

under any tested conditions.112

Kittelson, et al., confirmed that ultrafine

particles can be reduced by a factor of

ten by oxidizing volatile organics, and

by an additional factor of ten by

reducing sulfur in the fuel. Catalyzed

PM traps efficiently oxidize nearly all of

the volatile organic PM precursors, and

elimination of as much fuel sulfur as

possible will substantially reduce the

number of ultrafine PM emitted from

diesel engines. The combination of

catalyzed PM traps with low sulfur fuel

is expected to result in very large

reductions in both PM mass and the

number of ultrafine particles.

The data currently available show that

catalyzed particulate filters can provide

significant reductions in PM. Catalyzed

particulate filters, in conjunction with

low sulfur fuel, have been shown to be

more than 90 percent efficient over the

FTP and at most SET modes.113 Testing

completed as part of the Diesel Emission

Control Sulfur Effects (DECSE) program

has demonstrated that a heavy duty

diesel engine can achieve less than 0.01

g/bhp-hr PM emissions over the

supplemental emission test when

equipped with a catalyzed diesel

particulate filter and operated on diesel

fuel with sulfur content less than 15

ppm.114 Further testing at NVFEL has

demonstrated that FTP PM emissions

can likewise be controlled below 0.01 g/

bhp-hr provided less than 15 ppm sulfur

diesel fuel is used with a catalyzed PM

trap.115 Based upon these test results,

extensive field experience throughout

the world and International Truck and

Engine Corporation’s commitment to

produce vehicles with this technology

in 2001, we conclude that the 0.01 g/

bhp-hr FTP PM standard is feasible and

that it represents the lowest emission

level possible having given

consideration to cost, energy and safety

factors.

With regard to the NTE PM

requirements, there is the potential for

sulfate production during some

operating modes covered by the NTE

which would likely exceed the FTP PM

standard. However, the NTE PM

standard is equal to 1.5 × FTP standard.

Even though the FTP standard of 0.01 g/

bhp-hr PM is very low, the small

additional head room provided by a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5049

116 Diesel Emission Control Sulfur Effects

(DECSE) Program—Phase II Interim Data Report No.

4, Diesel Particulate Filters—Final Report, January

2000, Table C1, www.ott.doe.gov/decse.

117Letter from Barry Wallerstein, Acting

Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Robert Danziger,

Goal Line Environmental Technologies, dated

December 8, 1997, www.glet.com.

118Reyes and Cutshaw, SCONOX Catalytic

Absorption System, December 8, 1998,

www.glet.com.

119 Danziger, R. et al. 21,000 Hour Performance

Report on SCONOX, 15 September 2000, Air Docket

A–99–06.

120Toyota requires that their lean burn gasoline

engines equipped with NOX adsorbers are fueled on

premium gasoline in Japan, which has an average

sulfur content of 6 ppm. (See Item IV–E–31 in Air

Docket A–99–06.)

121Revolutionary Diesel Aftertreatment System

Simultaneously Reduces Diesel Particulate Matter

and Nitrogen Oxides, Toyota Motor Corporation

press release, July 25, 2000, contained in Air Docket

A–99–06.

122Pott, E., et al., ‘‘Potential of NOX-Trap Catalyst

Application for DI–Diesel Engines,’’ Air Docket A–

99–06.

123 Diesel Vehicle Emission Control Sulfur Effects

Project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Phase 1

Overview. Pete Devlin, DOE Office of

Transportation Technologies, March 29, 2000, Air

Docket A–99–06.

124 Diesel Emission Control Sulfur Effects

(DECSE) Program Phase II Summary Report: NOX

Adsorber Catalysts, October 2000, Air Docket A–

99–06.

NTE multiplier of 1.5 will be sufficient

to enable PM trap equipped HDDEs to

meet the NTE provisions, even when

operated on 15 ppm sulfur fuel. This is

supported by data generated as part of

the DECSE test program, as well as data

generated at our own laboratory, as

discussed in greater detail in the RIA.116

As discussed in the RIA, the expanded

ambient condition requirements of the

NTE test procedure will have little effect

on the PM reduction capabilities of a

PM trap. The SET PM requirements

have also been demonstrated in our

laboratory and are supported by the

DECSE test program. A detailed

discussion is contained in the RIA.

Based on this information and

assessment, we conclude that the PM

supplemental requirements will be

feasible in the 2007 time frame.

b. Meeting the NOX Standard

NOX emissions from gasolinepowered vehicles are controlled to

extremely low levels through the use of

the three-way catalyst technology first

introduced in the 1970s. Today, an

advancement upon this well-developed

three-way catalyst technology, the NOX

adsorber, has shown that it too can

make possible extremely low NOX

emissions from lean-burn engines such

as diesel engines. The potential of the

NOX adsorber catalyst is limited only by

its need for careful integration with the

total vehicle system (as was done for

three-way catalyst equipped passenger

cars in the 1980s and 1990s) and by

poisoning of the catalyst from sulfur in

the fuel. Just as the Tier 2 rulemaking

enables advanced three-way catalyst

equipped vehicles to meet ultra low

NOX emission levels through the use of

low sulfur gasoline, today’s rulemaking

will enable NOX adsorbers through

substantial reductions in diesel fuel

sulfur levels. The NOX adsorber has

already been commercially introduced

in a number of stationary and mobile

source applications.

NOX Adsorbers in Power Generation

NOX adsorber catalysts were first

introduced in the power generation

market less than five years ago. Since

then, NOX adsorber systems in

stationary source applications have

enjoyed considerable success. In 1997,

the South Coast Air Quality

Management District of California

determined that a NOX adsorber system

provided the ‘‘Best Available Control

Technology’’ NOX limit for gas turbine

power systems.117 Average NOX control

for these power generation facilities is

in excess of 92 percent.118 A NOX

adsorber catalyst applied to a natural

gas fired powerplant has demonstrated

better than 99 percent reliability for

more than 21,000 hours of operation

while controlling NOX by more than 90

percent.119

NOX Adsorbers in Lean-Burn Gasoline

Vehicles

The NOX adsorber’s ability to control

NOX under oxygen rich (fuel lean)

operating conditions has led the

industry to begin applying NOX

adsorber technology to lean-burn

engines in mobile source applications.

NOX adsorber catalysts have been

developed and are now in production

for lean-burn gasoline vehicles in Japan,

including several vehicle models sold

by Toyota Motor Corporation.120 The

2000 model year saw the first U.S.

application of this technology with the

introduction of the Honda Insight,

certified to the California LEV–I ULEV

category standard. These lean burn

gasoline applications are of particular

interest because they are similar to

diesel vehicle applications in terms of

NOX storage under lean exhaust

conditions and the need for periodic

NOX regeneration under transient

driving conditions. The substantial

experience already gained and

continuing to be gained from NOX

adsorber use in lean-burn gasoline

vehicles provides a firm basis from

which diesel NOX adsorber

development is proceeding.

NOX Adsorbers in Light-Duty Diesel

Vehicles

This rapid development pace of the

NOX adsorber technology is not limited

to gasoline applications but includes

markets where low sulfur diesel fuel is

already available or has been mandated

to coincide with future emission

standards. In Japan, Toyota Motor

Corporation has recently announced

that it will begin introducing vehicles

using its Diesel Particulate— NOX

Reduction (DPNR) system in 2003. This

system uses a NOX adsorber catalyst

applied on the surface of a diesel

particulate filter, providing greater than

80 percent reductions in both PM and

NOX. Toyota notes however, that DPNR

requires fuel with low sulfur content in

order to maintain high efficiency for a

long duration.121 In Europe, both

Daimler Chrysler and Volkswagen,

driven by a need to meet stringent Euro

IV emission standards, have published

results showing how they would apply

the NOX adsorber technology to their

diesel-powered passenger cars.

Volkswagen reports that it has already

demonstrated NOX emissions of 0.137 g/

km (0.22 g/mi), a 71 percent reduction,

on a diesel powered Passat passenger

car equipped with a NOX adsorber

catalyst.122

US DOE Research Programs

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

has funded several test programs at

national laboratories and in partnership

with industry to investigate NOX

adsorber technology. At Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, DOE researchers

have shown that a NOX adsorber and a

laboratory regeneration system can

reduce NOX by more than 90 percent

when used on a diesel powered

Mercedes A-class passenger car.

Following 600 miles of driving with 150

ppm sulfur fuel, the system performance

degraded considerably.123 While the

system was not production ready, it

does demonstrate that very high

efficiencies are achievable with

advanced emission control systems

operating on low sulfur fuel.124 With

additional system development over the

next several years we are confident that

the remaining design challenges such as

long-term durability will be solved.

EPA NVFEL Current Technology

Evaluation Program

As part of an effort to evaluate the

rapidly developing state of this

technology, the Manufacturers of

Emission Control Association (MECA)

provided four different NOX adsorber

catalyst formulations to EPA for

5050 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

125For more information on testing conducted at

NVFEL, refer to the in-depth discussion given in the

RIA, and to the initial test report contained in Air

Docket A–99–06, Item IV–A–29.

evaluation. Testing of these catalysts at

NVFEL revealed that all four

formulations were capable of reducing

NOX emissions by more than 90 percent

over the broad range of operation in the

supplemental emission test (SET)

procedure as summarized in Figure III–

1. At operating conditions

representative of ‘‘road-load’’ operation

for a heavy duty on-highway truck, the

catalysts showed NOX reductions as

high as 99 percent resulting in NOX

emissions well below 0.1 g/bhp-hr from

an engine-out level of nearly 5 g/bhphr.125 Testing on the FTP has shown

similarly good results, with hot start

FTP NOX emissions reduced by more

than 90 percent. These results

demonstrate that significant NOX

reductions are possible over a broad

range of operating conditions with

current NOX adsorber technology, as

typified by the FTP and the SET.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5051

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

5052 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

126Letter from Steven Suttle, Corning, Inc., to

Margo Oge, EPA, dated October 23, 2000, Item IV–

G–59; letter from Martin Lassen, Johnson Matthey,

to Margo Oge, EPA, dated October 19, 2000, Item

IV–G–55; letter from John Mooney, Engelhard

Corporation, to Margo Oge, EPA, dated October 3,

2000, Item IV–G–38; MECA press release dated

October 3, 2000, Item IV–G–53; and Department of

Energy, dated September 6, 2000, Item IV–G–28; all

contained in Docket A–99–06.

127Letter from John J. Mooney, Director,

Technical Development and Business Groups,

Engelhard Corporation, to Margo Oge, Director,

OTAQ, EPA, dated October 3, 2000, Item IV–G–38,

Docket A–99–06.

This large body of evidence that NOX

adsorbers are highly effective, that they

can be applied to diesel engines (as

further described in the RIA), and that

there is a clear and strong prospect for

their further development, causes us to

conclude that NOX adsorbers will

provide at least one feasible path to the

NOX standards we have set today.

Further, we can conclude from this

development experience that the 0.20 g/

bhp-hr NOX standard represents the

lowest standard achievable by the year

2007, having given appropriate

consideration to cost, energy, and safety

as described elsewhere in sections III

and V of this document and in the RIA.

Remaining Engineering Development

The considerable success in

demonstrating NOX adsorber technology

in laboratory settings, as outlined above,

clearly shows that the technology is

currently capable of achieving the NOX

standard level. There are several

engineering challenges that will be

addressed in going from this level of

demonstration to implementation of

durable and effective emission control

systems on production vehicles. One of

these technical challenges involves

changes to the way diesel engines will

need to operate in order to take full

advantage of the NOX adsorber,

representing a shift from current day

engine operation. Working within the

engine design and operating principles

expected for 2004 model year engines,

optimization of the total system

(matching exhaust temperatures to the

operating window of NOX adsorbers and

controlling exhaust air to fuel ratios),

will be essential to getting the best

performance from the NOX adsorber. We

have estimated in the RIA that diesel

engine manufacturers collectively will

need to invest $385 million in order to

implement this change. In addition to

the generic need to optimize operation

to match the NOX adsorber performance,

industry will further need to address

NOX adsorber desulfation and its

associated issues because some sulfur

will still remain in the fuel and the

engine’s lubricating oil.

Clear engineering paths to address

these problems can be described today,

several years in advance of when they

will need to be applied. The primary

thing that must occur is to eliminate

most of the sulfur from diesel fuel. The

fuel sulfur standard set today in this

rulemaking overcomes this obstacle.

The second set of system engineering

steps needed to accomplish both NOX

regeneration and desulfation are already

being laid out in test programs

conducted by DOE in the DECSE Phase

II program and in our own test program

at the National Vehicle and Fuel

Emissions Laboratory. The DECSE Phase

II program clearly demonstrates that,

through changes in ‘‘in-cylinder’’

operation, diesel exhaust conditions can

be generated that are optimized for NOX

storage (fuel lean operation), NOX

regeneration (fuel rich operation), or

desulfation (hot, fuel rich operation).

This in-cylinder approach, discussed

more fully in the RIA, represents a

likely technical solution for light heavyduty vehicles which are expected to

already have the necessary EGR and

common rail fuel system technologies

need for this approach by the 2004

model year. Testing at NVFEL shows yet

another engineering path to optimizing

the NOX control system external to the

combustion system. This approach

segregates the exhaust into separate

streams external to the engine and

manipulates exhaust conditions by

changing exhaust mass flow (through

valves) and by adding supplemental fuel

with an electronic fuel injector. This

approach means that exhaust

temperatures and air to fuel ratios can

be controlled external to the engine

allowing great flexibility to control and

optimize NOX regeneration and sulfur

regeneration events. This approach may

prove to be a good solution for heavy

heavy-duty vehicles because of the

freedom it allows for optimization of

both the engine operation and the

aftertreatment operation with fewer

tradeoffs with regards to fuel

consumption and engine durability. A

complete description of this approach

and its merits is given in the RIA.

Each of the engineering paths

described here shows a means for

compliance with the NOX standard

given further optimization and

development and, given past

experiences with the introduction of

new technologies, other approaches are

likely to be devised as well. Given

industry’s demonstrated ability to

develop solutions to similar issues with

gasoline three-way catalysts and

gasoline-based NOX adsorber

technologies, we are confident that the

NOX emission control system can be

designed for the long life required for

heavy-duty diesel operation. We are not

alone in this evaluation of NOX adsorber

development, as evidenced by the

strong endorsement of the technology by

many in the industry.126 For example,

one letter we have received stated, ‘‘We

believe all NOX Adsorber development

issues have been identified and the

technology is proceeding according to

schedule. We have identified

development paths leading toward

production optimization and do not see

insurmountable technical barriers. We

are confident in our ability and

experience in applying the science of

surface chemistry and catalysis to

achieve our objective.’’ 127

NTE NOX Limits

The broad NOX reduction capability

of the NOX adsorbers will also enable

the NTE NOX requirements to be met.

As discussed previously, we have

established an NTE NOX standard of 1.5

× FTP standard, or 0.30 g/bhp-hr NOX,

which is 0.10 g/bhp-hr above the FTP

standard. The NMHC+NOX NTE

standard for 2004 technology HDDEs is

1.25 × 2.5 g/bhp-hr NMHC + NOX, or

3.125 g/bhp-hr, which is 0.625 g/bhp-hr

above the 2004 FTP standard. As

discussed in the RIA for this final rule,

we would expect that the majority of the

NTE standard for a 2004 technology

engine would be comprised of NOX

emissions, perhaps as much as 3.0 g/

bhp-hr (with the remainder, 0.125 g/

bhp-hr, being HC). Based on available

data, including data from our NVFEL

test facility, we believe a NOX adsorber

system will be capable of a 90 percent

or greater emission reduction across the

entire NTE control zone, for the test

conditions covered by the NTE test

procedure, by model year 2007. A 90

percent reduction from the ‘‘base’’ NOX

NTE level of 3.0 g/bhp-hr would result

in a tailpipe emission rate of 0.30 g/bhphr, which is 1.5 times the 2007 FTP

NOX standard. As discussed in the RIA,

we have demonstrated NOX reductions

on the order of 90 percent or greater

across the NTE control zone in our test

program at NVFEL. A complete

description of the NOX adsorber testing

completed at NVFEL is provided in the

final RIA and in the docket associated

with this rule. This testing was

performed at standard laboratory

conditions; however, we do not expect

the expanded ambient conditions

required for NTE compliance to have a

significant impact on the performance of

the exhaust emission control systems.

Additional discussion of this issue is

contained in the RTC and the RIA for

this rule.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5053

128API Comments on the 2007 Heavy Duty

Engine/Diesel Sulfur Proposed Rule, August 14,

2000, Air Docket A–99–06, IV–D–343.

129Testimony of Stephanie Williams—Director of

Environmental Affairs, California Trucking

Association to EPA public hearing June 27, 2000,

Air Docket A–99–06, IV–F–190.

Sulfur Trap

The preceding discussion of NOX

adsorbers assumes that SOX (SO2 and

SO3) emissions will be ‘‘trapped’’ on the

surface of the catalyst, effectively

poisoning the device and requiring a

‘‘desulfation’’ (sulfur removal event) to

recover catalyst efficiency. We believe

that, at the 15 ppm cap fuel sulfur level,

this strategy will allow effective NOX

control with moderately frequent

desulfation and with a modest fuel

consumption of one percent. We believe

this fuel consumption impact will be

more than offset by reduced reliance on

current, more fuel inefficient NOX

control strategies (see discussion in

Section III.G for estimates of overall fuel

economy impacts). In the NPRM for this

rulemaking, we sought comment on the

potential of a separate SOX trap catalyst

to control sulfur poisoning of the NOX

adsorber catalyst. As detailed further in

the final RIA and RTC documents, we

believe that even if a separate SOX trap

system were used, fuel sulfur levels

would have to be 15 ppm or lower in

order for the NOX adsorber technology

to function properly over the life of a

heavy-duty vehicle.

Urea SCR Technology

SCR Technology has been put forward

by some as another means of meeting

stringent NOX standards. For reasons

discussed below we do not believe that

it provides an adequate basis for

establishing the feasibility of today’s

emission standards. Selective Catalytic

Reduction (SCR), like the NOX adsorber

technology, was first developed for

stationary applications and is currently

being refined for the transient operation

found in mobile applications. With the

SCR system, a urea solution is injected

upstream of the catalyst which breaks

down the urea into ammonia and carbon

dioxide. The ammonia is used as a NOX

reductant across the SCR catalyst

producing N2 and water. Catalysts

containing precious metals (platinum)

can be used at the inlet and outlet of

SCR systems designed for mobile

applications to improve low

temperature NOX reduction

performance and to oxidize any

ammonia that may pass through the

SCR, respectively. SCR systems using

these oxidation catalysts and being

developed for mobile applications are

more often called ‘‘compact SCR’’

systems. Generally, reference to SCR

throughout this preamble should be

taken to mean compact SCR. The use of

these platinum catalysts enables SCR

systems to achieve NOX reductions at

lower temperatures (as required for

diesel engine applications), but

introduces sensitivity to sulfur in much

the same way as for diesel particulate

filter technologies. Sulfur in diesel fuel

inhibits low temperature performance

and results in high sulfate-make, leading

directly to higher particulate emissions.

For a further discussion of SCR system

sensitivity to sulfur in diesel fuel, and

of its need for low sulfur diesel fuel,

refer to Section III.F.

Urea SCR catalysts, like NOX

adsorbers, need low sulfur diesel fuel to

achieve high NOX conversion

efficiencies and to control sulfate PM

emissions. If low sulfur fuel is required,

SCR NOX control may be possible in

some applications by 2007. However we

believe there are significant barriers to

its general use for meeting the 2007

standards. SCR systems require vehicles

to carry a supply of urea. The

infrastructure for delivering urea at the

diesel fuel pump would need to be in

place for these devices to be feasible in

the marketplace; and before

development of the infrastructure could

begin, the industry would have to

decide upon a standardized method of

delivery for the urea supply.

In addition to this, there would need

to be adequate safeguards in place to

ensure the urea is used throughout the

life of the vehicle since, given the added

cost of urea and the fact that urea

depletion would not normally affect

driveability, there would be an

incentive not to refill the urea tank. This

could lead to considerable uncertainties

regarding the effectiveness of SCR, even

if EPA were to promulgate the

regulations that likely would be needed

to require the regular replenishment of

urea. Some commenters have suggested

that this is the key issue with regard to

urea SCR systems. One commenter

further concludes that this issue could

be addressed by designing engines with

on-board diagnostic systems utilizing a

NOX sensor that would observe a loss of

NOX control. When observed, the engine

would be designed to reduce power

gradually until a 50 percent loss of

power was realized. This power loss

would serve to encourage the user to

replenish the urea tank.128 While such

an approach may be possible, it raises

concerns for public safety as poor

engine performance could lead to

inadequate power for safe merging onto

highways and other related driving

situations. We remain hesitant to base a

national program on such technology

when important issues such as driver

training on the need to refill the urea

tank and the consequences of failure to

do so cannot be appropriately

controlled. This approach would seem

to suggest a need for EPA-mandated

spot checks of individual vehicles to

ensure compliance with the NOX

standard. How such a program would

work and the burden that it might place

on small business entities was not

addressed in the comments. In

testimony given at the public hearing

held for this rulemaking in Los Angeles,

the California Trucking Association

raised concerns about the

appropriateness of putting this

regulatory burden on truckers when a

simpler technology such as a diesel NOX

adsorber was available instead.129

Without measures similar to these, we

would expect that a substantial number

of users would not remember to fill their

urea tanks. Since failure to provide urea

for a vehicle would lead to a total loss

of NOX control for that vehicle, we

would need to model the loss of NOX

control to be expected from an SCR

based program. Such a loss in NOX

control most likely would be

appreciable and, in effect, the NOX

standard would not be met on a

fleetwide basis.

We believe that these significant

obstacles would prevent the widespread

or general availability of SCR for use as

a NOX control strategy to meet the 0.20

g/bhp-hr NOX standard. These problems

may, however, be resolved in some

niche applications; for example, certain

well-managed centrally-fueled fleets.

Because of the many obstacles to ensure

in-use NOX control with the SCR, we do

not believe that feasibility of the 0.20 g/

bhp-hr NOX standard can be based upon

SCR technology. For further discussion

of urea SCR’s need for low sulfur diesel

fuel, refer to section III.F of this

preamble.

Summary

Based on the discussion above, we

believe that NOX exhaust emission

control technology, in combination with

low sulfur diesel fuel of 15 ppm or

lower, is capable of meeting the very

stringent NOX standards finalized today.

The certainty provided by this

rulemaking that low sulfur diesel fuel

will be available in the future, and the

emission standards finalized today that

necessitate advanced NOX controls,

should lead to rapid development of

these technologies. The NOX adsorber

technology has shown remarkable

advancement in the last five years, both

in stationary source applications and

5054 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

130 ‘‘The Impact of Sulfur in Diesel Fuel on

Catalyst Emission Control Technology,’’ report by

the Manufacturers of Emission Controls

Association, March 15, 1999, pp. 9 & 11.

131 Demonstration of Advanced Emission Control

Technologies Enabling Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty

Engines to Achieve Low Emission Levels,

Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association,

June 1999.

132Letter from Marty Barris, Donaldson

Corporation, to Byron Bunker US EPA, March 2000.

Air Docket A–99–06.

lean-burn gasoline applications, and

now for heavy-duty diesel engines.

Given this rapid progress, the

availability of low sulfur diesel fuel, the

identification of engineering paths to

resolving the technological issues, and

the lead time provided by today’s

rulemaking, we believe that applying

NOX adsorbers to heavy-duty diesel

engines will provide the emission

reductions needed to comply with the

2007 HD NOX standards. This can be

done in a cost effective way, with little

or no fuel economy impact, and no

special concerns of safety.

c. Meeting the NMHC Standard

Historically control of non-methane

hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions on

diesel engines has been relatively

simple, when compared to gasoline

engines, due to the net fuel lean

(abundant oxygen) operation typical of

diesel engines. In fact, due to this

operating characteristic, diesel engine

NMHC levels have often been

significantly below the mandated levels.

The introduction of catalytic NOX

control and the subsequent need to

operate under alternately net lean and

net rich conditions is likely to make

NMHC control more difficult.

Meeting the NMHC standards under

the lean operating conditions typical of

the biggest portion of NOX adsorber

operation should not present any

special challenges to diesel

manufacturers. Since the devices

discussed above—catalyzed particulate

filters and NOX adsorbers, contain

platinum and other precious metals to

oxidize NO to NO2, they are also very

efficient oxidizers of hydrocarbons.

NMHC emission reductions of greater

than 95 percent have been shown in

these devices over the transient FTP and

SET modes.130 Given that typical

engine-out NMHC is expected to be in

the 0.20 g/bhp-hr range for engines

meeting the 2004 standards, this level of

NMHC reduction will mean that under

lean conditions emission levels will be

well below the standard.

However, the NOX regeneration

strategies for the NOX adsorber

technology may prove difficult to

control precisely, leading to a possible

increase in HC emissions under the rich

operating conditions required for NOX

regeneration. Even with precise control

of the regeneration cycle, HC slip may

prove to be a difficult problem due to

the need to regenerate the NOX adsorber

under net rich conditions (excess fuel)

rather than the stoichiometric (fuel and

air precisely balanced) operating

conditions typical of a gasoline threeway catalyst. It seems likely therefore,

that in order to meet the HC standards

we have set, an additional clean up

catalyst may be necessary. A diesel

oxidation catalyst, like those applied

historically for HC and partial PM

control, can reduce HC reductions

(including toxic HCs) by more than 80

percent.131 This amount of additional

control along with optimized NOX

regeneration strategies will ensure very

low HC emissions. With such a

downstream clean-up device to control

HC slip during the periodic NOX

regeneration event, the HC standard we

have set here can be met. For a complete

description of how the clean up catalyst

functions in conjunction with the NOX

adsorber technology, please refer to the

complete system description given

below in section III.E.1.e and to the final

RIA.

Given industry’s extensive experience

with diesel oxidation catalysts, the long

lead time provided by this rulemaking

and the availability of less than 15 ppm

sulfur diesel fuel, we conclude, having

given consideration to cost, energy

impacts and safety, that the NMHC

standard is feasible.

d. Meeting the Crankcase Emissions

Requirements

The most common way to eliminate

crankcase emissions has been to vent

the blow-by gases into the engine air

intake system, so that the gases can be

recombusted. Until today’s rulemaking,

we have required that crankcase

emissions be controlled only on

naturally aspirated diesel engines. We

have made an exception for

turbocharged heavy-duty diesel engines

because of concerns in the past about

fouling that could occur by routing the

diesel particulates (including engine oil)

into the turbocharger and aftercooler.

However, this is an environmentally

significant exception since most heavyduty diesel trucks use turbocharged

engines, and a single engine can emit

over 100 pounds of NOX, NMHC, and

PM from the crankcase over its lifetime.

Given the available means to control

crankcase emissions, we have

eliminated this exception. We anticipate

that the heavy-duty diesel engine

manufacturers will be able to control

crankcase emissions through the use of

closed crankcase filtration systems or by

routing unfiltered blow-by gases directly

into the exhaust system upstream of the

emission control equipment. However,

the provision has been written such that

if adequate control can be had without

‘‘closing’’ the crankcase then the

crankcase can remain ‘‘open.’’

Compliance would be ensured by

adding the emission from the crankcase

ventilation system to the emissions from

the engine control system downstream

of any emission control equipment.

We expect that in order to meet the

stringent tailpipe emission standards set

here, that manufacturers will have to

utilize closed crankcase approaches as

described here. Closed crankcase

filtration systems work by separating oil

and particulate matter from the blow-by

gases through single or dual stage

filtration approaches, routing the blowby gases into the engine’s intake

manifold and returning the filtered oil

to the oil sump. These systems are

required for new heavy-duty diesel

vehicles in Europe starting in 2000. Oil

separation efficiencies in excess of 90

percent have been demonstrated with

production ready prototypes of two

stage filtration systems.132 By

eliminating 90 percent of the oil that

would normally be vented to the

atmosphere, the system works to reduce

oil consumption and to eliminate

concerns over fouling of the intake

system when the gases are routed

through the turbocharger. MercedesBenz currently utilizes this type of

system on virtually all of its heavy-duty

diesel engines sold in Europe. An

alternative approach would be to route

the blow-by gases into the exhaust

system upstream of the catalyzed diesel

particulate filter which would be

expected to effectively trap and oxidize

the engine oil and diesel PM. This

approach may require the use of low

sulfur engine oil to ensure that oil

carried in the blow-by gases does not

compromise the performance of the

sulfur-sensitive emission control

equipment.

e. The Complete System

We expect that the technologies

described above would be integrated

into a complete emission control system

as described in the final RIA. The

engine-out emissions will be balanced

with the exhaust emission control

package in such a way that the result is

the most beneficial from a cost, fuel

economy and emissions standpoint. The

engine-out exhaust characteristics will

also have a role in assisting the exhaust

emission control devices used. The NOX

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5055

133Revolutionary Diesel Aftertreatment System

Simultaneously Reduces Diesel Particulate Matter

and Nitrogen Oxides, Toyota Motor Corporation

press release, July 25, 2000, Air Docket A–99–06.

134The term, ‘‘space velocity,’’ is a measure of the

volume of exhaust gas that flows through a device.

adsorber, for instance, will require

periods of oxygen-depleted exhaust flow

in order to accomplish NOX

regeneration and to allow for sulfur

control using desulfation events. This

may be most efficiently done by

reducing the air-fuel ratio that the

engine is operating under during the

regeneration to reduce the oxygen

content of the exhaust, or alternatively

by partitioning the exhaust flow such

that only a small portion of the exhaust

flow is used for NOX regeneration,

thereby reducing the amount of oxygen

needing to be depleted through fuel

addition. Further, it is envisioned that

the PM device will be integrated into

the exhaust system upstream of the NOX

reduction device. This placement would

allow the PM trap to take advantage of

the engine-out NOX as an oxidant for the

particulate, while removing the

particulate so that the NOX exhaust

emission control device will not have to

deal with large PM deposits which may

cause a deterioration in performance.

Further it allows the NOX adsorber to

make use of the upstream PM filter as

a pre-catalyst to oxidize some NO to

NO2 and to partially oxidize the

reductant (diesel fuel or exhaust

hydrocarbons) to a more desirable

reductant form such as CO before

entering the NOX adsorber. Of course,

there is also the possibility of

integrating the PM and NOX exhaust

emission control devices into a single

unit to replace a muffler and save space

(Toyota’s DNPR system being an

example of this approach).133 The final

component in any of these system

configurations is likely to be some form

of clean up catalyst which can provide

control of HC slip during NOX

regeneration as well as H2S slip during

SOx regeneration. Particulate free

exhaust may also allow for new options

in EGR system design to optimize its

efficiency.

We expect that the emission reduction

efficiency of the exhaust emission

control system will vary across the NTE

zone as a function of exhaust

temperature and space velocity.134

Consequently, to maintain the NTE

emission cap, the engine-out emissions

would have to be calibrated with

exhaust emission control system

performance characteristics in mind.

This would be accomplished by

lowering engine-out emissions where

the exhaust emission control system

was less efficient, for example by

retarding fuel injection timing or

increasing the EGR rate. Conversely,

where the exhaust emission control

system is very efficient at reducing

emissions, the engine-out emissions

could be tuned for higher emissions and

better fuel economy. These trade-offs

between engine-out emissions and

exhaust emission control system

performance characteristics are similar

to those of gasoline engines with threeway catalysts in today’s light-duty

vehicles and can be overcome through

similar system based engineering

solutions. Managing and optimizing

these trade-offs will be crucial to

effective implementation of exhaust

emission control devices on diesel

applications.

2. Feasibility of Stringent Standards for

Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Gasoline emission control technology

has evolved rapidly in recent years.

Emission standards applicable to 1990

model year vehicles required roughly 90

percent reductions in exhaust NMHC

and CO emissions and a 75 percent

reduction in NOX emissions compared

to uncontrolled emissions. Today, some

vehicles’ emissions are well below those

necessary to meet the current federal

heavy-duty gasoline standards, the 2004

heavy-duty gasoline standards, and the

California Low-Emission Vehicle

standards for medium-duty vehicles.

The continuing emissions reductions

have been brought about by ongoing

improvements in engine air-fuel

management hardware and software

plus improvements in exhaust system

and catalyst designs.

We believe that the types of changes

being seen on current vehicles have not

yet reached their technological limits

and continuing improvement will allow

them to meet today’s standards. The RIA

describes a range of specific emission

control techniques that we believe could

be used. There is no need to invent new

technologies, although there will be a

need to apply existing technology more

effectively and more broadly. The focus

of the effort will be in the application

and optimization of these existing

technologies.

In our light-duty Tier 2 rule, we have

required that gasoline sulfur levels be

reduced to a 30 ppm average, with an

80 ppm maximum. This sulfur level

reduction is the primary enabler for the

Tier 2 standards. Similarly, we believe

that the gasoline sulfur reduction, along

with refinements in existing gasoline

emission control technology, will be

sufficient to allow heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles and engines to meet the

emission standards sought by today’s

rule.

However, we recognize that the

emission standards are stringent, and

considerable effort will have to be

undertaken. For example, we expect

that every engine will have to be

recalibrated to improve upon its cold

start emission performance.

Manufacturers will have to migrate their

light-duty calibration approaches to

their heavy-duty offerings to provide

cold start performance in line with what

they will have to achieve to meet the

Tier 2 standards.

We also project that today’s new

heavy-duty gasoline standards would

require the application of advanced

engine and catalyst systems similar to

those projected for their light-duty

counterparts. Historically,

manufacturers have introduced

technology on light-duty gasoline

applications and then applied those

technologies to their heavy-duty

gasoline applications. Today’s standards

will allow manufacturers to take this

same approach. In other words, we

expect that manufacturers will meet

today’s new standards through the

application of technology developed to

meet light-duty Tier 2 standards for

2004.

Improved calibration and systems

management will be critical in

optimizing the performance of the

engine with the advanced catalyst

system. Precise air/fuel control must be

tailored for emissions performance and

must be optimized for all types of

driving. Calibration refinements may

also be needed for EGR system

optimization and to reduce cold start

emissions through methods such as

spark timing retard. We also project that

electronic control modules with

expanded capabilities will be needed on

some vehicles and engines.

We also expect increased use of other

technologies in conjunction with those

described above. We expect some

increased use of air injection to improve

upon cold start emissions. We may also

see air-gap manifolds, exhaust pipes,

and catalytic converter shells as a means

of improving upon catalyst light-off

times thereby reducing cold start

emissions. Other, non-catalyst related

improvements to gasoline emission

control technology include higher speed

computer processors which enable more

sophisticated engine control algorithms

and improved fuel injectors providing

better fuel atomization thereby

improving fuel combustion.

Catalyst system durability is, and will

always be, a serious concern.

Historically, catalysts have deteriorated

when exposed to very high

temperatures. This has long been a

concern especially for heavy-duty work

5056 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

vehicles. However, catalyst

manufacturers continue to make strides

in the area of thermal stability and we

expect that improvements in thermal

stability will continue for the next

generation of catalysts.

We believe that, by optimizing all of

these technologies, manufacturers will

be able to achieve today’s standards.

Advanced catalyst systems have already

shown potential to reduce emissions to

close to these levels. Some current

California vehicles are certified to levels

below 0.20 g/mi NOX. California tested

an advanced catalyst system on a

vehicle loaded to a test weight

comparable to a heavy-duty vehicle test

weight and achieved NOX and NMOG

levels of 0.1 g/mi and 0.16 g/mi,

respectively. The California vehicle

with the advanced catalyst had not been

optimized as a system to take full

advantage of the catalyst’s capabilities.

The compliance flexibility provisions

can also be an important tool for

manufacturers in implementing a new

standard. The program allows

manufacturers to transition to the more

stringent standards by introducing

emissions controls over a longer period

of time, as opposed to a single model

year. Manufacturers plan their product

introductions well in advance. With the

compliance flexibilities, manufacturers

can better manage their product lines so

that the new standards don’t interrupt

their product introduction plans. Also,

the program allows manufacturers to

focus on higher sales volume vehicles

first and use credits for low sales

volume vehicles.

3. Feasibility of the New Evaporative

Emission Standards

The new evaporative emission

standards appear to be feasible now.

Many designs have been certified that

already meet these standards. A review

of 1998 model year certification data

indicates that five of eight evaporative

system families in the 8,500 to 14,000

pound range comply with the new 1.4

g/test standard, while all evaporative

system families in the over 14,000

pound range comply with the new 1.9

g/test standard.

The new evaporative emission

standards should not require the

development of new materials but may,

in some cases, require new application

of existing materials. Low permeability

materials and low loss connections and

seals are already used to varying degrees

on current vehicles, but that practice

may become more widespread. Today’s

new standards would likely ensure their

consistent use and discourage

manufacturers from switching to

cheaper materials or designs to take

advantage of the large safety margins

they have had under current standards.

There are two approaches to reducing

evaporative emissions for a given fuel.

One is to minimize the potential for

permeation and leakage by reducing the

number of hoses, fittings and

connections. The second is to use less

permeable hoses and lower loss fittings

and connections. Manufacturers are

already employing both approaches.

Most manufacturers are moving to

‘‘returnless’’ fuel injection systems.

Through more precise fuel pumping and

metering, these systems eliminate the

return line in the fuel injection system.

The return line carries unneeded fuel

from the fuel injectors back to the fuel

tank. Because the fuel injectors are in

such close contact with the hot engine,

the fuel returned from the injectors to

the fuel tank has been heated. This

returned fuel is a significant source of

fuel tank heat and vapor generation. The

elimination of the return line also

reduces the total length of hose on the

vehicle though which vapors can

permeate, and it reduces the number of

fittings and connections through which

fuel can leak.

Low permeability hoses and seals,

and low loss fittings are available and

are already used on many vehicles.

Fluoropolymer materials can be added

as liners to hose and component

materials to yield large reductions in

permeability over such conventional

materials as monowall nylon. In

addition, fluoropolymer materials can

greatly reduce the adverse impact of

alcohols in gasoline on permeability of

evaporative components, hoses and

seals.

F. Need for Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel

The following discussion will build

upon the brief sulfur sensitivity points

made earlier in this section by providing

a more in-depth discussion of sulfur’s

effect on the diesel exhaust emission

control technologies. In order to

evaluate the effect of sulfur on diesel

exhaust control technologies, we used

three key factors to categorize the

impact of sulfur in fuel on emission

control function. These factors were

efficiency, reliability, and fuel economy.

Taken together these three factors lead

us to believe that diesel fuel sulfur

levels of 15 ppm will be required in

order to make feasible the heavy-duty

vehicle emission standards. Brief

summaries of these factors are provided

below. A more in-depth review is given

in the following subsections and in the

final RIA.

The efficiency of emission control

technologies to reduce harmful

pollutants is directly affected by sulfur

in diesel fuel. Initial and long term

conversion efficiencies for NOX, NMHC,

CO and diesel PM emissions are

significantly reduced by catalyst

poisoning and catalyst inhibition due to

sulfur. NOX conversion efficiencies with

the NOX adsorber technology in

particular are dramatically reduced in a

very short time due to sulfur poisoning

of the NOX storage bed. In addition,

total PM control efficiency is negatively

impacted by the formation of sulfate

PM. As explained in detail in the

following sections, all of the advanced

NOX and PM technologies described

here have the potential to make

significant amounts of sulfate PM under

operating conditions typical of heavyduty vehicles. We believe that the

formation of sulfate PM will be in

excess of the total PM standard, unless

diesel fuel sulfur levels are at or below

15 ppm. Based on the strong negative

impact of sulfur on emission control

efficiencies for all of the technologies

evaluated, we believe that 15 ppm

represents an upper threshold of

acceptable diesel fuel sulfur levels.

Reliability refers to the expectation

that emission control technologies must

continue to function as required under

all operating conditions for the life of

the vehicle. As discussed in the

following sections, sulfur in diesel fuel

can prevent proper operation of both

NOX and PM control technologies. This

can lead to permanent loss in emission

control effectiveness and even

catastrophic failure of the systems.

Sulfur in diesel fuel impacts reliability

by decreasing catalyst efficiency

(poisoning of the catalyst), increasing

diesel particulate filter loading, and

negatively impacting system

regeneration functions. Among the most

serious reliability concerns with sulfur

levels greater than 15 ppm are those

associated with failure to properly

regenerate. In the case of the NOX

adsorber, failure to regenerate will lead

to rapid loss of NOX emission control as

a result of sulfur poisoning of the NOX

adsorber bed. In the case of the diesel

particulate filter, sulfur in the fuel

reduces the reliability of the

regeneration function. If regeneration

does not occur, catastrophic failure of

the filter could occur. It is only by the

availability of low sulfur diesel fuels

that these technologies become feasible.

The analysis given in the following

section makes clear that diesel fuel

sulfur levels will need to be under 15

ppm in order to ensure robust operation

of the technologies under the variety of

operating conditions anticipated to be

experienced in the field.

Fuel economy impacts due to sulfur

in diesel fuel affect both NOX and PM

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5057

135Hawker, P. et al., Experience with a New

Particualte Trap Technology in Europe, SAE

970182.

136Hawker, P. et al, Experience with a New

Particulate Trap Technology in Europe, SAE

970182.

control technologies. The NOX adsorber

sulfur regeneration cycle (desulfation

cycle) can consume significant amounts

of fuel unless fuel sulfur levels are very

low. The larger the amount of sulfur in

diesel fuel, the greater the adverse effect

on fuel economy. As sulfur levels

increase above 15 ppm, the adverse

effect on fuel economy becomes more

significant, increasing above one

percent and doubling with each

doubling of fuel sulfur level. Likewise,

PM trap regeneration is inhibited by

sulfur in diesel fuel. This leads to

increased PM loading in the diesel

particulate filter and increased work to

pump exhaust across this restriction.

With low sulfur diesel fuel, diesel

particulate filter regeneration can be

optimized to give a lower (on average)

exhaust backpressure and thus better

fuel economy. Thus, for both NOX and

PM technologies the lower the fuel

sulfur level the lower the operating

costs of the vehicle.

1. Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filters

and the Need for Low Sulfur Fuel

Diesel particulate filters (PM traps)

function to control diesel PM through

mechanical filtration of PM from the

diesel exhaust stream and then

oxidation of the stored PM (trap

regeneration). Through oxidation in the

catalyzed diesel particulate filter the

stored carbonaceous PM is converted to

CO2 and released into the atmosphere.

Failure to oxidize the stored PM leads

to accumulation in the trap, eventually

causing the trap to become so full that

it severely restricts exhaust flow

through the device, leading to trap or

vehicle failure.

As discussed earlier in this section,

uncatalyzed diesel particulate filters

require exhaust temperatures in excess

of 650° C in order for the collected PM

to be oxidized by the oxygen available

in diesel exhaust. That temperature

threshold for oxidation of PM by

exhaust oxygen can be decreased to 450°

C through the use of base metal catalytic

technologies. For a broad range of

operating conditions typical of in use

operation, diesel exhaust is significantly

cooler than 400° C. If oxidation of the

trapped PM could be assured to occur

at exhaust temperatures lower than 300°

C, then diesel particulate filters would

be expected to be robust for most

applications and operating regimes.

Oxidation of PM (regeneration of the

trap) at such low exhaust temperatures

can occur by using oxidants which are

more readily reduced than oxygen. One

such oxidant is NO2.

NO2 can be produced in diesel

exhaust through the oxidation of the

nitrogen monoxide (NO), created in the

engine combustion process, across a

catalyst. The resulting NO2-rich exhaust

is highly oxidizing in nature and can

oxidize trapped diesel PM at

temperatures as cool as 250°C.135 Some

platinum group metals are known to be

good catalysts to promote the oxidation

of NO to NO2. Therefore in order to

ensure passive regeneration of the diesel

particulate filters, significant amounts of

platinum group metals (primarily

platinum) are being used in the washcoat formulations of advanced diesel

particulate filters. The use of platinum

to promote the oxidation of NO to NO2

introduces several system

vulnerabilities affecting both the

durability and the effectiveness of the

catalyzed diesel particulate filter when

sulfur is present in diesel exhaust. The

two primary mechanisms by which

sulfur in diesel fuel limits the

robustness and effectiveness of diesel

particulate filters are inhibition of trap

regeneration, through inhibition of the

oxidation of NO to NO2, and a dramatic

loss in total PM control effectiveness

due to the formation of sulfate PM.

Unfortunately, these two mechanisms

trade-off against one another in the

design of diesel particulate filters.

Changes to improve the reliability of

regeneration by increasing catalyst

loadings lead to increased sulfate

emissions and, thus, loss of PM control

effectiveness. Conversely, changes to

improve PM control by reducing the use

of platinum group metals and, therefore,

limiting ‘‘sulfate make’’ leads to less

reliable regeneration. We believe the

only means of achieving good PM

emission control and reliable operation

is to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel, as

shown in the following subsections.

a. Inhibition of Trap Regeneration Due

to Sulfur

The passively regenerating diesel

particulate filter technologies rely on

the generation of a very strong oxidant,

NO2, to ensure that the carbon captured

by the PM trap’s filtering media is

oxidized under the exhaust temperature

range of normal operating conditions.

This prevents plugging and failure of

the PM trap. NO2 is produced through

the oxidation of NO in the exhaust

across a platinum catalyst. This

oxidation is inhibited by sulfur

poisoning of the catalyst surface.136 This

inhibition limits the total amount of

NO2 available for oxidation of the

trapped diesel PM, thereby raising the

minimum exhaust temperature required

to ensure trap regeneration. Without

sufficient NO2, the amount of PM

trapped in the diesel particulate filter

will continue to increase and can lead

to excessive exhaust back pressure, low

engine power, and even catastrophic

failure of the diesel particulate filter

itself.

The failure mechanisms experienced

by diesel particulate filters due to low

NO2 availability vary significantly in

severity and long term consequences. In

the most fundamental sense, the failure

is defined as an inability to oxidize the

stored particulate at a rate fast enough

to prevent net particulate accumulation

over time. The excessive accumulation

of PM over time blocks the passages

through the filtering media, making it

more restrictive to exhaust flow. In

order to continue to force the exhaust

through the now more restrictive filter,

the exhaust pressure upstream of the

filter must increase. This increase in

exhaust pressure is commonly referred

to as increasing ‘‘exhaust backpressure’’

on the engine.

The increase in exhaust backpressure

represents increased work being done

by the engine to force the exhaust gas

through the increasingly restrictive

particulate filter. Unless the filter is

frequently cleansed of the trapped PM,

this increased work can lead to

reductions in engine performance and

increases in fuel consumption. This loss

in performance may be noted by the

vehicle operator in terms of poor

acceleration and generally poor

driveability of the vehicle. In some

cases, engine performance can be so

restricted that the engine stalls,

stranding the vehicle. This progressive

deterioration of engine performance as

more and more PM is accumulated in

the filter media is often referred to as

‘‘trap plugging.’’ Trap plugging also has

the potential to cause engine damage. If

the exhaust backpressure gets high

enough to open the exhaust valves

prematurely, the exhaust valves can

then strike the piston causing

catastrophic engine failure. Whether

trap plugging occurs, and the speed at

which it occurs, will be a function of

many variables in addition to the fuel

sulfur level; these variables include the

vehicle application, its duty cycle, and

ambient conditions. However, if the fuel

sulfur level is sufficiently high to

prevent trap regeneration in any real

world conditions experienced, trap

plugging can occur. This is not to imply

that any time a vehicle is refueled once

with high sulfur fuel trap plugging will

occur. Rather, it is important to know

that the use of fuel with sulfur levels

higher than 15 ppm significantly

5058 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

137Through tax incentives 50 ppm cap sulfur fuel

is widely available in the United Kingdom and 10

ppm sulfur is available in Sweden and in certain

European city centers.

138Allansson, et al. SAE 2000–01–0480

139Letter from Dr. Barry Cooper, Johnson

Matthey, to don Kopinski, US EPA, Air Docket A–

99–06.

140Telephone conversation between Dr. Barry

Cooper, Johnson Matthey, and Todd Sherwood,

EPA, Air Docket A–99–06.

141The average temperature in Helsinki, Finland,

for the month of January is 21° F. The average

temperature in Stockholm, Sweden, for the month

of Juanuary is 21° F. The average temperature at the

University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for

the month of January is 24° F. The temperatures

reported here are from www.worldclimate.com

based upon the Global Historical Climatology

Network (GHCN) produced jointly by the National

Climatic Data Center and Carbon Dioxide

Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (ORNL).

12Letter from Dr. Barry Cooper to Don Kopinski

US EPA, Air Docket A–99–06.

increases the chances of particulate

filter failure.

Catastrophic failure of the filter can

occur when excessive amounts of PM

are trapped in the filter due to a lack of

NO2 for oxidation. This failure occurs

when excessive amounts of trapped PM

begin to oxidize at high temperatures

(combustion-like temperatures of over

1000° C) leading to a ‘‘run-away’’

combustion of the PM. This can cause

temperatures in the filter media to

increase in excess of that which can be

tolerated by the particulate filter itself.

For the cordierite material commonly

used as the trapping media for diesel

particulate filters, the high thermal

stresses caused by the high temperatures

can cause the material to crack or melt.

This can allow significant amounts of

the diesel particulate to pass through

the filter without being captured during

the remainder of the vehicle’s life. That

is, the trap is destroyed and PM

emission control is lost. Further the

high temperatures generated during this

event can destroy the downstream

catalyst components, such as the NOX

adsorber, rendering them ineffective as

well.

Full field test evaluations and retrofit

applications of these catalytic trap

technologies are occurring in parts of

Europe where low sulfur diesel fuel is

already available.137 The experience

gained in these field tests helps to

clarify the need for low sulfur diesel

fuel. In Sweden and some European city

centers where below 10 ppm diesel fuel

sulfur is readily available, more than

3,000 catalyzed diesel particulate filters

have been introduced into retrofit

applications without a single failure.

Given the large number of vehicles

participating in these test programs, the

diversity of the vehicle applications

which included intercity trains, airport

buses, mail trucks, city buses and

garbage trucks, and the extended time

periods of operation (some vehicles

have been operating with traps for more

than 5 years and in excess of 300,000

miles138), there is a strong indication of

the robustness of this technology on 10

ppm low sulfur diesel fuel. The field

experience in areas where sulfur is

capped at 50 ppm has been less

definitive. In regions without extended

periods of cold ambient conditions,

such as the United Kingdom, field tests

on 50 ppm cap low sulfur fuel have also

been positive, matching the durability at

10 ppm, although sulfate PM emissions

are much higher. However, field tests on

50 ppm fuel in Finland, where colder

winter conditions are sometimes

encountered (similar to many parts of

the United States), showed a significant

number of failures (∼10 percent) due to

trap plugging. This 10 percent failure

rate has been attributed to insufficient

trap regeneration due to fuel sulfur in

combination with low ambient

temperatures.139 Other possible reasons

for the high failure rate in Finland when

contrasted with the Swedish experience

appear to be unlikely. The Finnish and

Swedish fleets were substantially

similar, with both fleets consisting of

transit buses powered by Volvo and

Scania engines in the 10 to 11 liter

range. Further, the buses were operated

in city areas and none of the vehicles

were operated in northern extremes

such as north of the Arctic Circle.140

Given that the fleets in Sweden and

Finland were substantially similar, and

given that ambient conditions in

Sweden are expected to be similar to

those in Finland, we believe that the

increased failure rates noted here are

due to the higher fuel sulfur level in a

50 ppm cap fuel versus a 10 ppm cap

fuel.141 Testing on an even higher fuel

sulfur level of 200 ppm was conducted

in Denmark on a fleet of 9 vehicles. In

less than six months all of the vehicles

in the Danish fleet had failed due to trap

plugging.142 The failure of some fraction

of the traps to regenerate when operated

on fuel with sulfur caps of 50 ppm and

200 ppm is believed to be primarily due

to inhibition of the NO to NO2

conversion as described here. Similarly

the increasing frequency of failure with

higher fuel sulfur levels is believed to be

due to the further suppression of NO2

formation when higher sulfur level

diesel fuel is used.

As shown above, sulfur in diesel fuel

inhibits NO oxidation leading to

increased exhaust backpressure,

reduced fuel economy, compromised

reliability, and potentially engine

damage. Therefore, we believe that, in

order to ensure reliable and economical

operation over a wide range of expected

operating conditions, diesel fuel sulfur

levels should be at or below 15 ppm.

With these low sulfur levels we believe,

as demonstrated by experience in

Europe, that catalyzed diesel particulate

filters will prove to be both durable and

effective at controlling diesel particulate

emissions. We did receive comments

from the refining industry suggesting

that PM filters could work on fuel sulfur

levels as high as 50 ppm. The

commenters pointed to some specific

test programs where fuel with an

approximate average sulfur level of 30

ppm was used as evidence of the

robustness of the technology on higher

sulfur fuels. While we do not deny that

it is possible to operate some vehicles in

limited applications over defined

driving cycles on fuel as high as 30

ppm, we do not believe that this limited

data should be the basis for a national

program. The reality that some vehicles

do fail on 50 ppm cap fuel, as

demonstrated by the Finish fleet results

mentioned above, shows that durability

is not assured with the use of higher

sulfur diesel fuel. We believe that the

evidence, as a whole, shows that

oxidation of NO to NO2 will be

poisoned due to these higher fuel sulfur

levels with a resulting significant

possibility of PM trap failures that is too

great a concern for us to feel confident

about a fuel sulfur level higher than 15

ppm.

b. Loss of PM Control Effectiveness

In addition to inhibiting the oxidation

of NO to NO2, the sulfur dioxide (SO2)

in the exhaust stream is itself oxidized

to sulfur trioxide (SO3) at very high

conversion efficiencies by the precious

metals in the catalyzed particulate

filters. The SO3 serves as a precursor to

the formation of hydrated sulfuric acid

(H2SO4+H2O), or sulfate PM, as the

exhaust leaves the vehicle tailpipe.

Virtually all of the SO3 is converted to

sulfate under dilute exhaust conditions

in the atmosphere as well in the

dilution tunnel used in heavy-duty

engine testing. Since virtually all sulfur

present in diesel fuel is converted to

SO2, the precursor to SO3, as part of the

combustion process, the total sulfate PM

is directly proportional to the amount of

sulfur present in diesel fuel. Therefore,

even though diesel particulate filters are

very effective at trapping the carbon and

the SOF portions of the total PM, the

overall PM reduction efficiency of

catalyzed diesel particulate filters drops

off rapidly with increasing sulfur levels

due to the formation of sulfate PM

downstream of the trap.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5059

143Note that direct emisisons are those pollutants

emitted directly from the engine or from the

tailpipe depending on the context in which the

term is used, and indirect emissions are those

pollutants formed in the atmosphere through

chemical reactions between direct emissions and

other atmospheric constituents.

SO2 oxidation is promoted across a

catalyst in a manner very similar to the

oxidation of NO, except it is converted

at higher rates, with peak conversion

rates in excess of 50 percent. The SO2

oxidation rate for a platinum based

oxidation catalyst typical of the type

which might be used in conjunction

with, or as a washcoat on, a catalyzed

diesel particulate filter can vary

significantly with exhaust temperature.

At the low temperatures typical of some

urban driving and the heavy-duty

federal test procedure (HD–FTP), the

oxidation rate is relatively low, perhaps

no higher than ten percent. However at

the higher temperatures that might be

more typical of highway driving

conditions and the Supplemental

Emission Test (also called the EURO III

or 13 mode test), the oxidation rate may

increase to 50 percent or more. These

high levels of sulfate make across the

catalyst are in contrast to the very low

SO2 oxidation rate typical of diesel

exhaust (typically less than 2 percent).

This variation in expected diesel

exhaust temperatures means that there

will be a corresponding range of sulfate

production expected across a catalyzed

diesel particulate filter.

The US Department of Energy in

cooperation with industry conducted a

study entitled DECSE to provide insight

into the relationship between advanced

emission control technologies and

diesel fuel sulfur levels. Interim report

number four of this program gives the

total particulate matter emissions from a

heavy-duty diesel engine operated with

a diesel particulate filter on several

different fuel sulfur levels. A straight

line fit through this data is presented in

Table III.F–1 below showing the

expected total direct PM emissions from

a heavy-duty diesel engine on the

supplemental emission test cycle.143

The data can be used to estimate the PM

emissions from heavy-duty diesel

engines operated on fuels with average

fuel sulfur levels in this range.

TABLE III.F–1.—ESTIMATED PM EMISSIONS FROM A HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL

ENGINE AT THE INDICATED FUEL

SULFUR LEVELS

Supplemental emission test

performance

Fuel sulfur

[ppmm] Tailpipe PM b

[g/bhp-hr]

PM increase

relative to 3 to

3 ppm sulfur

3 ................ 0.003 ........................

7 a .............. 0.006 100%

15a ............. 0.009 200%

30 .............. 0.017 470%

150 ............ 0.071 2300%

aThe PM emissions at these sulfur levels

are based on a straight-line fit to the DECSE

data; PM emissions at other sulfur levels are

actual DECSE data. (Diesel Emission Control

Sulfur Effects (DECSE) Program—Phase II Interim Data Report No. 4, Diesel Particulate Filters-Final Report, January 2000. Table C1.)

Although DECSE tested diesel particulate filters at these fuel sulfur levels, they do not

conclude that the technology is feasible at all

levels, but they do note that testing at 150

ppm is a moot point as the emission levels exceed the engine’s baseline emission level. b b Total exhaust PM (soot, SOF, sulfate).

Table III.F–1 makes it clear that there

are significant PM emission reductions

possible with the application of

catalyzed diesel particulate filters and

low sulfur diesel fuel. At the observed

sulfate PM conversion rates, the DECSE

program results show that the 0.01 g/

bhp-hr total PM standard is feasible for

diesel particulate filter equipped

engines operated on fuel with a sulfur

level at or below 15 ppm. The results

also show that diesel particulate filter

control effectiveness is rapidly degraded

at higher diesel fuel sulfur levels due to

the high sulfate PM make observed with

this technology. It is clear that PM

reduction efficiencies are limited by

sulfur in diesel fuel and that, in order

to realize the PM emissions benefits

sought in this rule, diesel fuel sulfur

levels must be at or below 15 ppm. The

data further indicates that were the fuel

sulfur level set at a 30 ppm average, as

some commenters suggested, the PM

emissions from the controlled vehicles

would be nearly three times the

emissions from a vehicle operating on

fuel with a 7 ppm average.

c. Increased Maintenance Cost for Diesel

Particulate Filters Due to Sulfur

In addition to the direct performance

and durability concerns caused by

sulfur in diesel fuel, it is also known

that sulfur can lead to increased

maintenance costs, shortened

maintenance intervals, and poorer fuel

economy for particulate filters. Diesel

particulate filters are highly effective at

capturing the inorganic ash produced

from metallic additives in engine oil.

This ash is accumulated in the filter and

is not removed through oxidation,

unlike the trapped carbonaceous PM.

Periodically the ash must be removed by

mechanical cleaning of the filter with

compressed air or water. This

maintenance step is anticipated to occur

on intervals of well over one hundred

thousand miles. However, sulfur in

diesel fuel increases this ash

accumulation rate through the formation

of metallic sulfates in the filter, which

increases both the size and mass of the

trapped ash. By increasing the ash

accumulation rate, the sulfur shortens

the time interval between the required

maintenance of the filter and negatively

impacts fuel economy.

2. Diesel NOX Catalysts and the Need for

Low Sulfur Fuel

All of the NOX exhaust emission

control technologies discussed

previously in Section III are expected to

utilize platinum to oxidize NO to NO2

to improve the NOX reduction efficiency

of the catalysts at low temperatures or

as in the case of the NOX adsorber, as

an essential part of the process of NOX

storage. This reliance on NO2 as an

integral part of the reduction process

means that the NOX exhaust emission

control technologies, like the PM

exhaust emission control technologies,

will have problems with sulfur in diesel

fuel. In addition, NOX adsorbers have

the added problem that the adsorption

function itself is poisoned by the

presence of sulfur. The resulting need to

remove the stored sulfur (desulfate)

leads to a need for extended high

temperature operation which can

deteriorate the NOX adsorber. These

limitations due to sulfur in the fuel

affect the overall performance and

feasibility of the technologies.

a. Sulfur Poisoning (Sulfate Storage) on

NOX Adsorbers

The NOX adsorber technology relies

on the ability of the catalyst to store

NOX as a nitrate (MNO3) on the surface

of the catalyst, or adsorber (storage) bed,

during lean operation. Because of the

similarities in chemical properties of

SOX and NOX, the SO2 present in the

exhaust is also stored by the catalyst

surface as a sulfate (MSO4). The sulfate

compound that is formed is significantly

more stable than the nitrate compound

and is not released and reduced during

the NOX release and reduction step

(NOX regeneration step). Since the NOX

adsorber is essentially 100 percent

effective at capturing SO2 in the

adsorber bed, the sulfur build up on the

adsorber bed occurs rapidly. As a result,

sulfate compounds quickly occupy all of

the NOX storage sites on the catalyst

5060 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

144 Dou, Danan and Bailey, Owen, ‘‘Investigation

of NOX Adsorber Catalyst Deactivation,’’ SAE

982594.

145 Guyon M. et al, ‘‘Impact of Sulfur on NOX Trap

Catalyst Activity—Study of the Regeneration

Conditions’’, SAE 982607.

146 though it was favroable to decompose sulfate

at 800°C, performance of the NSR (NOX Storage

Reduction catalyst, i.e. NOX Adsorber) catalyst

decreased due to sintering of precious metal.—

Asanuma, T. et al, ‘‘Influence of Sulfur

Concentration in Gasoline on NOX Storage—

Reduction Catalyst’’, SAE 1999–01–3501.

147Memo from Byron Bunker, to docket A–99–06,

‘‘Estimating Fuel Economy Impacts of NOX

Adsorber De-Sulfurization.’’

thereby rendering the catalyst

ineffective for NOX storage and

subsequent NOX reduction (poisoning

the catalyst).

The stored sulfur compounds can be

removed by exposing the catalyst to hot

(over 650°C) and rich (air-fuel ratio

below the stoichiometric ratio of 14.5 to

1) conditions for a brief period.144 Under

these conditions, the stored sulfate is

released and reduced in the catalyst.145

While research to date on this procedure

has been very favorable with regards to

sulfur removal from the catalyst, it has

revealed a related vulnerability of the

NOX adsorber catalyst. Under the high

temperatures used for desulfation, the

metals that make up the storage bed can

change in physical structure. This leads

to lower precious metal dispersion, or

‘‘metal sintering,’’ (a less even

distribution of the catalyst sites)

reducing the effectiveness of the

catalyst.146 This degradation of catalyst

efficiency due to high temperatures is

often referred to as thermal degradation.

Thermal degradation is known to be a

cumulative effect. That is, with each

excursion to high temperature

operation, some additional degradation

of the catalyst occurs.

One of the best ways to limit thermal

degradation is by limiting the

accumulated number of desulfation

events over the life of the vehicle. Since

the period of time between desulfation

events is expected to be determined by

the amount of sulfur accumulated on

the catalyst (the higher the sulfur

accumulation rate, the shorter the

period between desulfation events) the

desulfation frequency is expected to be

proportional to the fuel sulfur level. In

other words for each doubling in the

average fuel sulfur level, the frequency

and accumulated number of desulfation

events are expected to double. We

believe, therefore, that the diesel fuel

sulfur level must be set as low as

possible in order to limit the frequency

and duration of desulfation events.

Without control of fuel sulfur levels

below 15 ppm, we can no longer

conclude with any confidence that

sulfur poisoning can be controlled

without unrecoverable thermal

degradation. Some commenters have

suggested that the NOX adsorber

technology could meet the NOX

standard using diesel fuel with a 30

ppm average sulfur level. This would

imply that the NOX adsorber could

tolerate as much as a four fold increase

in desulfation frequency (when

compared to an expected seven to 10

ppm average) without any increase in

thermal degradation. This conclusion is

inconsistent with our understanding of

the technology that, with each

desulfation event, some thermal

degradation occurs. Therefore, we

believe that diesel fuel sulfur levels

must be at or below 15 ppm in order to

limit the number and frequency of

desulfation events. Limiting the number

and frequency of desulfation events will

limit thermal degradation and, thus,

enable the NOX adsorber technology to

meet the NOX standard.

Sulfur in diesel fuel for NOX adsorber

equipped engines will also have an

adverse effect on fuel economy. The

desulfation event requires controlled

operation under hot and net fuel rich

exhaust conditions. These conditions,

which are not part of a normal diesel

engine operating cycle, can be created

through the addition of excess fuel to

the exhaust. This addition of excess fuel

causes an increase in fuel consumption.

We have developed a spreadsheet model

that estimates the frequency of

desulfation cycles from published data

and then estimates the fuel economy

impact from this event.147 Table III–F.2

shows the estimated fuel economy

impact for desulfation of a NOX

adsorber at different fuel sulfur levels

assuming a desired 90 percent NOX

conversion efficiency. The estimates in

the table are based on assumed average

fuel sulfur levels associated with

different sulfur level caps. Note that,

although we can estimate the fuel

consumption penalty of operation on

diesel fuel sulfur levels higher than 15

ppm, this analysis does not consider the

higher degree of thermal degradation

due to the more frequent desulfation

events which are required for operation

on these higher sulfur levels.

TABLE III.F–2.—ESTIMATED FUEL

ECONOMY IMPACT FROM

DESULFATION OF A 90% EFFICIENT

NOX ADSORBER

Fuel sulfur cap

(ppm)

Average

fuel sulfur

(ppm)

Fuel economy penalty

(in percent)

500 .................... 350 27

50 ...................... 30 2

TABLE III.F–2.—ESTIMATED FUEL

ECONOMY IMPACT FROM

DESULFATION OF A 90% EFFICIENT

NOX ADSORBER—Continued

Fuel sulfur cap

(ppm)

Average

fuel sulfur

(ppm)

Fuel economy penalty

(in percent)

25 ...................... 15 1

15 ...................... 7 <1

5 ........................ 2 <<<1

The table highlights that the fuel

economy penalty associated with sulfur

in diesel fuel is noticeable even at

average sulfur levels as low as 15 ppm

and increases rapidly with higher sulfur

levels. It also shows that the use of a

NOX adsorber with a 15 ppm sulfur cap

fuel would be expected to result in a

fuel economy impact due to the need for

desulfation of the catalyst of less than

one percent, absent other changes in

engine design. However, as discussed in

Section G below, we anticipate that

other engine modifications could be

made to offset this fuel economy impact.

For example, a NOX control device in

the exhaust system could allow use of

fuel saving engine strategies, such as

advanced fuel injection timing, that

could be used to offset the increased

fuel consumption associated with the

NOX adsorber. The result is that low

sulfur fuel enables the NOX adsorber

which, in turn, enables fuel saving

engine modifications. The total

emission control system fuel economy

impact, which we estimate to be zero

under a 15 ppm cap program, is

discussed below in Section III.G.

Future improvements in the NOX

adsorber technology are expected and

needed if the technology is to provide

the environmental benefits we have

projected today. Some of these

improvements are likely to include

improvements in the means and ease of

removing stored sulfur from the catalyst

bed. However because the stored sulfate

species are inherently more stable than

the stored nitrate compounds (from

stored NOX emissions), we expect that

a separate release and reduction cycle

(desulfation cycle) will always be

needed in order to remove the stored

sulfur. Therefore, we believe that fuel

with a sulfur level at or below 15 ppm

sulfur will be necessary in order to

control thermal degradation of the NOX

adsorber catalyst and to limit the fuel

economy impact of sulfur in diesel fuel.

b. Sulfate Particulate Production and

Sulfur Impacts on Effectiveness of NOX

Control Technologies

The NOX adsorber technology relies

on a platinum based oxidation function

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5061

148Platinum group metals include platinum,

palladium, rhodium, and other precious metals.

149Whitacre, Shawn. ‘‘Catalyst Compatible’’

Diesel Engine Oils, DECSE Phase II, Presentation at

DOE/NREL Workshop ‘‘Exploring Low Emission

Diesel Engine Oils.’’ January 31, 2000.

in order to ensure high NOX control

efficiencies. As discussed more fully in

section III.F.1, platinum based oxidation

catalysts form sulfate PM from sulfur in

the exhaust gases significantly

increasing PM emissions when sulfur is

present in the exhaust stream. The NOX

adsorber technology relies on the

oxidation function to convert NO to NO2

over the catalyst bed. For the NOX

adsorber this is a fundamental step prior

to the storage of NO2 in the catalyst bed

as a nitrate. Without this oxidation

function the catalyst will only trap that

small portion of NOX emissions from a

diesel engine which is NO2. This would

reduce the NOX adsorber effectiveness

for NOX reduction from in excess of 90

percent to something well below 20

percent. The NOX adsorber relies on

platinum to provide this oxidation

function due to the need for high NO

oxidation rates under the relatively cool

exhaust temperatures typical of diesel

engines. Because of this fundamental

need for a catalytic oxidation function,

the NOX adsorber inherently forms

sulfate PM when sulfur is present in

diesel fuel, since sulfur in fuel

invariably leads to sulfur in the exhaust

stream.

The Compact-SCR technology, like

the NOX adsorber technology, uses an

oxidation catalyst to promote the

oxidation of NO to NO2 at the low

temperatures typical of much of diesel

engine operation. As discussed above,

there are substantial questions regarding

the ability of SCR systems to be

implemented successfully to meet the

requirements finalized today. By

converting a portion of the NOX

emissions to NO2 upstream of the

ammonia SCR reduction catalyst, the

overall NOX reductions are improved

significantly at low temperatures.

Without this oxidation function, low

temperature SCR NOX effectiveness is

dramatically reduced making

compliance with the NOX standard

impossible. As discussed previously in

Section III, platinum group metals are

known to be good catalysts to promote

NO oxidation, even at low

temperatures.148 Therefore, future

Compact-SCR systems would need to

rely on a platinum oxidation catalyst in

order to provide the required NOX

emission control. This use of an

oxidation catalyst in order to enable

good NOX control means that Compact

SCR systems will produce significant

amounts of sulfate PM when operated

on anything but the lowest fuel sulfur

levels due to the oxidation of SO2 to

sulfate PM promoted by the oxidation

catalyst.

Without the oxidation catalyst

promoted conversion of NO to NO2,

neither of these NOX control

technologies can meet the NOX standard

set here. Therefore each of these

technologies will require low sulfur

diesel fuel to control the sulfate PM

emissions inherent in the use of

oxidation catalysts. The NOX adsorber

technology may be able to limit its

impact on sulfate PM emissions by

releasing stored sulfur as SO2 under rich

operating conditions. The Compact-SCR

technology, on the other hand, has no

means to limit sulfate emissions other

than through lower catalytic function or

lowering sulfur in diesel fuel. The

degree to which the NOX emission

control technologies increase the

production of sulfate PM through

oxidation of SO2 to SO3 varies

somewhat from technology to

technology, but it is expected to be

similar in magnitude and environmental

impact to that for the PM control

technologies discussed previously in

section III.F.1, since both the NOX and

the PM control catalysts rely on

precious metals to achieve the required

NO to NO2 oxidation reaction.

Thus, we believe that diesel fuel

sulfur levels will need to be at or below

15 ppm in order to apply any of these

NOX control technologies. Without this

low sulfur fuel, the NOX control

technologies are expected to create PM

emissions well in excess of the PM

standard regardless of the engine-out

PM levels. Again, as noted with the PM

control technologies, test results to date

on catalysts with high oxidation

potential indicate that were the fuel

sulfur level set with a 30 ppm average,

as some commenters suggested, the PM

emissions from the controlled vehicles

would increase nearly three fold over

the level expected from fuel with a 7

ppm average, the average fuel sulfur

level we would expect from a 15 ppm

cap fuel (see Table III.F.1).

3. What About Sulfur in Engine

Lubricating Oils?

Current engine lubricating oils have

sulfur contents which can range from

2,500 ppm to as high as 8,000 ppm by

weight. Since engine oil is consumed by

heavy-duty diesel engines in normal

operation, it is important that we

account for the contribution of oil

derived sulfur in our analysis of the

need for low sulfur diesel fuel. One way

to give a straightforward comparison of

this effect is to express the sulfur

consumed by the engine as an

equivalent fuel sulfur level. This

approach requires that we assume

specific fuel and oil consumption rates

for the engine. Using this approach,

estimates ranging from two to seven

ppm diesel fuel sulfur equivalence have

been made for the sulfur contribution

from engine oil.149 150 If values at the

upper end of this range accurately

reflect the contribution of sulfur from

engine oil to the exhaust this would be

a concern as it would represent 50

percent of the total sulfur in the exhaust

under a 15 ppm diesel fuel sulfur cap

(with an average sulfur level assumed to

be approximately seven ppm). However,

we believe that this simplified analysis,

while valuable in demonstrating the

need to investigate this issue further,

overstates the likely sulfur contribution

from engine oil by a significant amount

due to its inclusion of engine oil lost

through the open crankcase system in

the estimate of oil consumption to the

exhaust.

Current heavy-duty diesel engines

operate with open crankcase ventilation

systems which ‘‘consume’’ oil by

carrying oil from the engine crankcase

into the environment. This consumed

oil is correctly included in the total oil

consumption estimates, but should not

be included in estimates of oil entering

the exhaust system for this analysis,

since as currently applied this oil is not

introduced into the exhaust. At present

we estimate that the majority of lube oil

consumed by an engine meeting the 0.1

g/bhp-hr PM standard is lost through

crankcase ventilation, rather than

through the exhaust. Based on assumed

engine oil to PM conversion rates and

historic soluble organic fraction

breakdowns we have estimated the

contribution of sulfur from engine oil to

be less than two ppm fuel equivalency.

With our action to close the crankcase,

coupled with the use of closed

crankcase ventilation systems that

separate in excess of 90 percent of the

oil from the blow-by gases, we believe

that this very low contribution of lube

oil to sulfur in the exhaust can be

maintained. For a further discussion of

our estimates of the sulfur contribution

from engine oil refer to the final RIA in

the docket.

G. Fuel Economy Impact of High

Efficiency Control Technologies

The high efficiency emission control

technologies expected to be applied in

order to meet the NOX and PM

standards involve wholly new system

components integrated into engine

designs and calibrations, and as such

5062 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

150This estimate assumes that a heavy-duty diesel

engine consumes 1 quart of engine oil in 2,000

miles of operation, consumes fuel at a rate of 1

gallon per 6 miles of operation and that engine oil

sulfur levels range from 2,000 to 8,000 ppm.

151Typically, the filtering media is a porous

ceramic monolith or a metallic fiber mesh.

152Engine, Fuel, and Emissions Engineering,

Incorporated, ‘‘Economic Analysis of Diesel

Aftertreatment System Changes Made Possible by

Reduction of Diesel Fuel Sulfur Content,’’

December 14, 1999, Air Docket A–99–06.

154Zelenka, P. et al, Cooled EGR—A Key

Technology for Future Efficient HD Diesels, SAE

980190, Society of Automotive Engineers 1998.

Figure 2 from this paper gives a graphical

representation of how new technologies (including

exhaust emission control technologies) can shift the

trade-off between NOX emissions and fuel economy.

155 ‘‘2007 Diesel Emission Test Program, Initial

Test Report,’’ December 11, 2000, Air Docket A–99–

06, Item IV–A–29.

may be expected to change the fuel

consumption characteristics of the

overall engine design. After reviewing

the likely technology options available

to the engine manufacturers, we believe

that the integration of the engine and

exhaust emission control systems into a

single synergistic emission control

system will lead to heavy-duty vehicles

which can meet demanding emission

control targets without increasing fuel

consumption beyond today’s levels.

1. Diesel Particulate Filters and Fuel

Economy

Diesel particulate filters are

anticipated to provide a step-wise

decrease in diesel particulate (PM)

emissions by trapping and oxidizing the

diesel PM. The trapping of the very fine

diesel PM is accomplished by forcing

the exhaust through a porous filtering

media with extremely small openings

and long path lengths.151 This approach

results in filtering efficiencies for diesel

PM greater than 90 percent but requires

additional pumping work to force the

exhaust through these small openings.

The additional pumping work is

anticipated to increase fuel

consumption by approximately one

percent.152 However, we believe this

fuel economy impact can be regained

through optimization of the engine—PM

trap—NOX adsorber system, as

discussed below.

2. NOX Control Technologies and Fuel

Economy

NOX adsorbers are expected to be the

primary NOX control technology

introduced in order to provide the

reduction in NOX emissions envisioned

in this rulemaking. NOX adsorbers work

by storing NOX emissions under fuel

lean operating conditions (normal diesel

engine operating conditions) and then

by releasing and reducing the stored

NOX emissions over a brief period of

fuel rich engine operation. This brief

periodic NOX release and reduction step

is directly analogous to the catalytic

reduction of NOX over a gasoline threeway catalyst. In order for this catalyst

function to occur the engine exhaust

constituents and conditions must be

similar to normal gasoline exhaust

constituents. That is, the exhaust must

be fuel rich (devoid of excess oxygen)

and hot (over 250°C). Although it is

anticipated that diesel engines can be

made to operate in this way, it is

assumed that fuel economy while

operating under these conditions will be

worse than normal. We have estimated

that the fuel economy impact of the

NOX release and reduction cycle would,

all other things being equal, increase

fuel consumption by approximately one

percent. Again, we believe this fuel

economy impact can be regained

through optimization of the engine—PM

trap—NOX adsorber system, as

discussed below.

In addition to the NOX release and

regeneration event, another step in NOX

adsorber operation may affect fuel

economy. As discussed earlier, NOX

adsorbers are poisoned by sulfur in the

fuel even at the low sulfur levels

mandated here. As discussed in the RIA,

we anticipate that the sulfur poisoning

of the NOX adsorber can be reversed

through a periodic ‘‘desulfation’’ event.

The desulfation of the NOX adsorber is

accomplished in a similar manner to the

NOX release and regeneration cycle

described above. However it is

anticipated that the desulfation event

will require extended operation of the

diesel engine at rich conditions.153 This

rich operation will, like the NOX

regeneration event, require an increase

in the fuel consumption rate and will

cause an associated decrease in fuel

economy. With a 15 ppm fuel sulfur

cap, we are projecting that fuel

consumption for desulfation would

increase by one percent or less, which

we believe can be regained through

optimization of the engine-PM trapNOX adsorber system as discussed

below.

While NOX adsorbers require nonpower producing consumption of diesel

fuel in order to function properly and,

therefore, have an impact on fuel

economy, they are not unique among

NOX control technologies in this way. In

fact NOX adsorbers are likely to have a

very favorable NOX to fuel economy

trade-off when compared to other NOX

control technologies like cooled EGR

and injection timing retard that have

historically been used to control NOX

emissions. Today, most diesel engines

rely on injection timing control

(retarding injection timing) in order to

meet the 4.0 g/bhp-hr NOX emission

standard. For 2004 model year

compliance, we expect that engine

manufacturers will use a combination of

cooled EGR and injection timing control

to meet the 2.0 g/bhp-hr NOX standard.

Because of the more favorable fuel

economy trade-off for NOX control with

EGR when compared to timing control,

we have forecast that less reliance on

timing control will be needed in 2004.

Therefore, fuel economy will not be

changed even at this lower NOX level.

NOX adsorbers have a significantly

more favorable NOX to fuel economy

trade-off when compared to cooled EGR

or timing retard alone, or even when

compared to cooled EGR and timing

retard together.154 Current NOX adsorber

data show greater than 90 percent

reduction in NOX emissions over the

SET, while only increasing fuel

consumption by a very reasonable two

percent. Further the data show that, for

significant portions of the engine’s

typical operating range, NOX control in

excess of 98 percent is possible even

with engine-out emissions as high as 5

g/bhp-hr.155 Therefore, we expect

manufacturers to take full advantage of

the NOX control capabilities of the NOX

adsorber and project that they will

decrease reliance on technologies with a

less favorable emissions to fuel

economy trade-off, especially injection

timing retard, when operating at

conditions where the NOX adsorber

performance is significantly greater than

90 percent. We would therefore predict

that the fuel economy impact currently

associated with NOX control from

timing retard would be decreased by at

least three percent. In other words,

through the application of advanced

NOX emission control technologies,

which are enabled by the use of low

sulfur diesel fuel, we expect the NOX

trade-off with fuel economy to continue

to improve significantly when compared

to today’s technologies. This will result

in both much lower NOX emissions, and

potentially overall improvements in fuel

economy. Improvements could easily

offset the fuel consumption of the NOX

adsorber itself and, in addition, the one

percent fuel economy loss projected to

result from the application of PM filters.

Consequently, we are projecting no fuel

economy penalty to result from this

rule.

3. Emission Control Systems for 2007

and Net Fuel Economy Impacts

We anticipate that, in order to meet

the stringent NOX and PM emission

standards set today, the engine

manufacturers will integrate enginebased emission control technologies and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5063

156As defined in the Tier 2 final rulemaking (see

65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the GPA

encompasses the states of Alaska, Colorado, Idaho,

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and

Wyoming. Note that minor changes to this area are

currently under consideration. Any such changes

subsequent to today’s rule are intended to be

carried over into today’s rule as well.

post-combustion emission control

technologies into a single systems-based

approach that will fundamentally shift

historic trade-offs between emissions

control and fuel economy. As outlined

in the preceding two sections,

individual components in this system

will introduce new constraints and

opportunities for improvements in fuel

efficient control of emissions. Having

considered the many opportunities to

fundamentally improve these

relationships, we believe that it is

unlikely that fuel economy will be

lower than today’s levels and, in fact,

may improve through the application of

these new technologies and this new

systems approach. Therefore, for our

analysis of economic impacts in Section

V, no penalty or benefit for changes to

fuel economy are considered.

H. Review of the Status of Heavy-Duty

Diesel NOX Emission Control

Technology

In the NPRM, we provided a detailed

technical evaluation of test data and

other information that concluded that

the proposed program would be

technologically feasible for all heavyduty engines. During the public

comment period, we received many

comments as well as additional

information about the likely status and

capability of emission control

technology development in the 2007

time frame. To this information we have

added our own updated evaluation of

test data as well as technical

information developed by ourselves and

others.

Based on this information, and as

discussed in Sections III.E and III.F

above, we now have an even higher

degree of confidence that manufacturers

will be able to meet the new heavy-duty

standards. Manufacturers of heavy-duty

gasoline engines will apply essentially

the same technology that is being

developed for light-duty trucks under

the Tier 2 program and should not have

major problems doing so, especially

given the significant available lead time.

Regarding diesels, although the

technological challenges are somewhat

greater than for gasoline engines, we

believe that manufacturers will achieve

the engine standards adopted today for

2007 and later years, in conjunction

with the low sulfur diesel fuel we are

also requiring.

As we discussed earlier, there are two

primary technologies that diesel engine

manufacturers expect to use to meet the

standards adopted in today’s rule, and

they are at different stages of

commercial development. Catalyzed

diesel PM trap technologies are in

widespread fleet testing today, we have

shown that there are no serious

impediments to the widespread

application of this technology to heavyduty diesel engines that can meet our

new standards by 2007, if not earlier.

Diesel NOX adsorber technology, the

emission control technology we believe

will be used for heavy-duty diesel

engines to meet the very low NOX

emission standards adopted today, is

less developed relative to PM control

technology. Still, as we discussed

earlier, we have identified a clear

technological pathway to compliance

with the NOX standards using NOX

adsorber technology. While we do not

anticipate major obstacles in

commercializing these systems by 2007,

it is important that the various parties

in the industry continue to make good

progress in their development of NOX

adsorber technology for heavy-duty

diesel engines.

As a mechanism for monitoring and

evaluating this technological progress,

we believe it will be important to

publicly reassess the status of heavyduty diesel NOX adsorber systems on an

ongoing basis. To accomplish this, we

will conduct regular biennial reviews of

the status of heavy-duty NOX adsorber

technology. For each review, we will

collect and analyze information from

engine manufacturers, NOX adsorber

manufacturers, our own testing, and

other sources. At the end of each review

cycle, we will release (and post on the

Web) a report discussing the status of

the technology and any implications for

the heavy-duty engine emission control

program. We will release the first report

by December 31, 2002 and subsequent

reports at the end of each second year

through December 31, 2008. This

biennial process is similar to that used

by the State of California to monitor and

evaluate their emission control

programs.

IV. Our Program for Controlling

Highway Diesel Sulfur

With today’s action, we are requiring

substantial reductions in highway diesel

fuel sulfur levels nationwide, because

sulfur significantly inhibits the ability of

the diesel emission control devices to

function which are necessary to meet

the emission standards finalized today.

With the highway diesel fuel sulfur

standard we are finalizing today, we

have concluded that there will be

technology available to achieve the

reductions required by the stringent

emission standards we are

implementing for model year 2007 and

later heavy-duty engines.

In developing the provisions of the

fuel program being adopted today, we

identified several goals that we want the

program to achieve. First, we must

ensure that there will be an adequate

supply of highway diesel fuel for all

vehicles. Second, we must ensure that

low sulfur diesel fuel will be readily

available nationwide for the 2007 and

later model year heavy-duty vehicles

that need it. Finally, we want to ensure

a smooth transition to low sulfur fuel.

In the NPRM, we proposed that

refiners be required to start producing

all of their highway diesel fuel at the 15

ppm sulfur level beginning in 2006. We

also requested comment on a range of

options for transitioning to the low

sulfur diesel fuel over time. With regard

to the programmatic goals noted above,

the proposed approach, which would

have required all highway diesel fuel to

meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard in

2006, guaranteed availability of the low

sulfur diesel fuel throughout the nation.

However, many commenters stated

concerns that the proposed program

would not ensure adequate overall

supplies of highway diesel fuel,

especially if some refiners chose not to

continue producing highway diesel fuel

to avoid the changes needed to meet the

low sulfur levels.

The final diesel fuel program we are

adopting today includes flexibilities for

the refining industry as a whole, as well

as additional flexibilities for refiners

experiencing hardship circumstances.

First, the program gives refiners a

temporary compliance option for low

sulfur diesel fuel beginning in mid2006. The final program also includes

additional flexibilities for refineries

located in certain western states (the

Geographic Phase-In Area (GPA) 156),

provisions for qualifying small refiners,

and a general hardship provision for

which any refiner may apply under

certain conditions. These flexibilities

ensure that the vast majority of refiners

nationwide can fully comply at the

earliest possible date while avoiding an

excessive burden on a subset of refiners.

The following section details each of the

requirements of the highway diesel fuel

program for refiners and importers,

summarizes the analyses we have

performed on the impacts of the

temporary compliance option being

adopted today, and describes additional

information we have received that

supports the changes made to the

proposed program. Section VII provides

additional information about the

5064 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

157Highway diesel fuel (referred to as motor

vehicle diesel fuel in the regulatory language to be

consistent with language in existing laws and

regulations) includes any diesel fuel or any

distillate product that is used, intended for use, or

made available for use as a fuel in highway diesel

vehicles or engines that are subject to the standards

finalized today. However, kerosene or other

distillates such as JP–8 are only considered to be

highway diesel fuel and thus subject to our program

at the point in the production or distribution system

that they are either designated as such, or otherwise

used, intended for use, or made available for use in

highway diesel vehicles. Thus, if refiners do not

designate these other distillates as highway diesel

fuel, they are not subject to the 15 ppm sulfur

standard.

158As described above, distributors and retailers

marketing low sulfur diesel fuel have deadlines for

compliance with the sulfur standards, as well as

other requirements such as pump labeling. Section

VII of today’s action provides further details on the

downstream requirements for distributors and

retailers.

compliance and enforcement provisions

that will accompany these requirements.

We believe the highway diesel fuel

program we are adopting today meets all

of the programmatic goals noted above.

We believe that the final program will

ensure that the overall supply of

highway diesel fuel will be sufficient for

all vehicles. To the extent there may

have been supply concerns with a

complete fuel turnover to low sulfur

diesel in 2006 as some commenters have

suggested, the flexibilities for refiners

contained in the final program will

serve as a ‘‘safety valve’’ by allowing up

to 25 percent of the highway diesel fuel

to remain at the current 500 ppm sulfur

standard and providing additional time,

if needed, for some refiners to fully

convert over to low sulfur fuel. The

combination of flexibilities provided to

refiners in today’s final rule should

eliminate any concerns about the

potential for supply shortfalls of

highway diesel fuel. The final diesel

fuel program is carefully structured so

that we are confident there will be

widespread availability of low sulfur

fuel across the nation for 2007 and later

model heavy-duty vehicles. In this way,

the important health benefits of this

program to people throughout the

country can be achieved expeditiously,

at a reasonable cost, while minimizing

the burden on the affected industries.

This section also summarizes our

technical feasibility analysis of the low

sulfur highway diesel fuel program, and

the impact of the program on other fuel

properties and specialty fuels. Finally,

the following section describes how

state programs will be affected by

today’s action including a provision that

allows the State of Alaska the option of

developing an alternative transition

plan for implementing low sulfur fuel.

A. Highway Diesel Sulfur Standards for

Refiners and Importers

The requirements of the highway

diesel fuel sulfur control program will

become effective in time to be available

with the introduction of the first heavyduty engines meeting the model year

2007 and later engine standards we are

adopting today. The following

paragraphs describe the requirements,

standards, and deadlines that apply to

refiners and importers of highway diesel

fuel and the options available to all

refiners.

1. Standards and Deadlines That

Refiners and Importers Must Meet

As described earlier in Section III.H.

above, the new standards being adopted

today for heavy-duty engines will begin

with the 2007 model year. With today’s

action, we are adopting specific dates

when fuel intended to be marketed as

low sulfur diesel fuel must be produced

at the refinery, distributed at the

terminal level, and marketed at the

retail level. Refiners and importers are

required to produce highway diesel fuel

meeting the 15 ppm sulfur standard

beginning June 1, 2006.157 At the

terminal level, highway diesel fuel sold

as low sulfur fuel is required to meet the

15 ppm sulfur standard beginning July

15, 2006. For retail stations and

wholesale purchaser-consumers,

highway diesel fuel sold as low sulfur

fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur

standard by September 1, 2006.

In the NPRM, we proposed a set of

compliance dates slightly earlier than

the dates contained in today’s final rule.

Under the proposal, refiners, terminals

and retailers would have had to begin

producing low sulfur diesel fuel by

April 1, 2006, May 1, 2006 and June 1,

2006, respectively. Several commenters

pointed out that the April introduction

date for refiners occurred at the same

time refiners would be changing over

from winter to summer gasoline to

comply with Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

requirements. They recommended that

the introduction of low sulfur diesel

fuel be delayed for a couple of months

to provide refiners and the distribution

system the opportunity to focus on the

two conversions separately and ensure

that each occurs as designed.

Commenters also suggested that we

extend the time period between the

refinery and downstream deadlines to

better allow for the time it may take the

distribution system to make a complete

transition to the 15 ppm sulfur level.

In response to these concerns, today’s

action provides a few additional months

for introduction of the low sulfur diesel

fuel compared to the NPRM and

provides an additional month between

the refinery and retail compliance dates,

to provide a smoother transition through

the distribution system. We believe the

additional time provides appropriate

relief for the refiners, while still

assuring that low sulfur diesel fuel will

be available at the retail level no later

than September 1, 2006. This schedule

will allow manufacturers to introduce

2007 and later model year diesel

engines and vehicles as early as

September 1, 2006. While a slight delay

from the dates of the proposal, the

Agency does not believe this delay will

place any undue burden on the engine

manufacturers. Historically, new heavyduty vehicle models were introduced on

or around January 1 (of the same

calendar year as the model year). Only

recently, manufacturers have begun

introducing some model lines earlier,

particularly light heavy-duty vehicles.

In the NPRM, we proposed that all

highway diesel fuel be required to

comply with the 15 ppm sulfur standard

starting in 2006. Today’s program

includes a combination of flexibilities

available to refiners to ensure a smooth

transition to low sulfur highway diesel

fuel. Refiners can take advantage of a

temporary compliance option, including

an averaging, banking and trading

component, beginning in June 2006 and

lasting through 2009, with credit given

for early compliance before June 2006.

Under this option, up to 20 percent of

highway diesel fuel may continue to be

produced at the existing 500 ppm sulfur

maximum standard, though it must be

segregated from 15 ppm fuel in the

distribution system, and may only be

used in pre-2007 model year heavy-duty

vehicles. We are providing additional

hardship provisions for small refiners to

minimize their economic burden in

complying with the 15 ppm sulfur

standard and giving additional

flexibility to refiners subject to the

Geographic Phase-in Area (GPA)

provisions of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur

program, which will allow them the

option of staggering their gasoline and

diesel investments. Finally, we are

adopting a general hardship provision

for which any refiner may apply on a

case-by-case basis under certain

conditions. These hardship provisions,

coupled with the temporary compliance

option, will provide a ‘‘safety valve’’

allowing up to 25 percent of highway

diesel fuel produced to remain at 500

ppm for these transitional years to

effectively address the concerns over

highway diesel fuel supply.

It should be noted that the

requirements of the fuel program

described below apply to refiners and

importers only.158 We are not adopting

any retailer availability requirements

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5065

159Up to 5 percent of which is small refiner

production.

160We are aware that today there are refiners that

produce one grade of diesel fuel for both highway

and off-highway purposes, where dye is added by

parties downstream if it is to be sold as off-highway

diesel fuel. To the extent possible, we do not want

to interfere with this practice. Consequently, for

purposes of determining compliance with these

optional requirements, a refiner producing all 15

ppm fuel may include the entire volume it produces

in the calculation. Furthermore, a refiner producing

all 500 ppm fuel must count any diesel fuel

produced with a sulfur content of 500 ppm or less

unless it has been dyed by the refiner to be used

as nonroad diesel fuel. A refiner would only

include kerosene in its volume calculation if the

kerosene is less than 500 ppm sulfur content and

the kerosene is blended at the refinery into nondyed fuel with a sulfur content of less than 500

ppm.

161The Department of Energy divides the United

States into five Petroleum Administrative Districts

for Defense, or PADDs. The states encompassed by

each of the five PADDs are defined in the Code of

Federal Regulations at Title 40, § 80.41.

with these provisions. In other words,

we are not requiring that diesel retailers

sell the 15 ppm fuel. Rather, retailers

may sell 15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel, 500

ppm sulfur diesel fuel, or both. We

believe the program being adopted

today for refiners and importers will

ensure that adequate supplies of low

sulfur diesel fuel are available

throughout the nation. The voluntary

compliance and hardship provisions

have been designed with a required

level of production that we believe will

ensure that 15 ppm fuel is distributed

widely through pipelines and at

terminals throughout the country

without the need for a retailer

availability requirement. Our analysis

supporting the design of these

provisions can be found in Chapter IV

of the RIA for today’s action.

2. Temporary Compliance Option for

Refiners and Importers

We believe there are several

advantages to allowing some flexibility

in the early years of the program such

that not all of the highway diesel fuel

pool must be converted to low sulfur

diesel fuel at one time. First, some

commenters expressed concerns over

adequate supplies of highway diesel

fuel if the entire pool converted to low

sulfur diesel fuel in 2006, because they

believe some refiners might produce

less total highway diesel fuel volume or

choose to leave the highway diesel fuel

market altogether. Allowing the

temporary compliance option lowers

this concern because a portion of the

highway diesel pool can remain at the

current 500 ppm sulfur standard, if

necessary, providing additional time for

the market to adjust. This portion of the

highway diesel pool that refiners choose

to delay will likely be the portion that

is more costly for them to desulfurize

and, thus, most likely to raise concerns

with respect to shortfalls. Second, a

temporary compliance option can

benefit refiners by reducing the fuel

production costs in the early years of

the program, because refiners are able to

spread out their capital investments.

The option also benefits refiners by

spreading out the industry-wide

demand for engineering and

construction resources over several

years, and also by allowing more time

between the gasoline sulfur and diesel

sulfur compliance dates. Third, refiners

that are able to delay investment could

attain lower costs for such equipment as

technology improvements are realized

during that time and as refiners see how

well the desulfurization technologies

achieve the 15 ppm sulfur standard.

The primary emissions benefits of low

sulfur highway diesel fuel are the

emissions reductions that will occur

over time as new vehicles designed to

meet the emission standards adopted

today are introduced into the vehicle

fleet. Consequently, in the NPRM we

requested comment on several options

that would allow refiners and importers

to phase in the production of low sulfur

highway diesel fuel. With today’s

action, we are adopting a temporary

compliance option for refiners and

importers that will allow them to

produce less than 100 percent of their

highway diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur

level. Refiners and importers may

choose to participate in the compliance

option on a refinery-by-refinery basis. A

refiner must demonstrate compliance

with the compliance option on an

annual basis. Refiners with special

financial hardships have additional

flexibility provisions, which are

described further in Section IV.C.

We believe today’s temporary

compliance option in combination with

the hardship provisions discussed in

Section IV.C. has the potential to

provide flexibility to more than half of

all U.S. refineries by allowing up to 25

percent159 of the highway diesel fuel

volume in the country to continue to be

produced at the current sulfur level of

500 ppm. We estimate that refiners will

be able to save as much as $1.7 billion

over the duration of the optional

compliance program compared to the

proposed requirement that all highway

diesel fuel comply with 15 ppm sulfur

in 2006. Much, but not all, of this

potential savings will be offset by

increased costs in the distribution

system. We project that in total a small

overall savings should result from

refiners taking advantage of the

temporary compliance option.

Under the temporary compliance

option finalized today, a refinery may

produce up to 20 percent of its total

highway diesel fuel at the existing

highway diesel fuel sulfur standard of

500 ppm, determined on an annual

basis. The remaining 80 percent of the

highway diesel fuel produced at that

refinery during the year must meet a

sulfur standard of 15 ppm.160 As part of

this temporary compliance option, a

PADD-based averaging, banking, and

trading (ABT) program will be available.

Figure IV–1 presents the five PADDs

into which the United States is

divided.161 For example, a refinery

could produce more than 80 percent of

its highway diesel fuel as low sulfur

diesel fuel and generate credits based on

the volume of highway diesel fuel

produced at 15 ppm that exceeded the

80 percent requirement. Within that

same PADD (within the limits noted

below for California, Alaska, Hawaii,

and any state with an EPA-approved

waiver from the federal program), these

credits may be averaged with another

refinery owned by that refiner, banked

for use in future years, or sold to

another refinery.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

5066 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

162Today, many pipelines carry only one grade of

distillate (e.g., only 500 ppm sulfur high diesel fuel)

rather than both 500 ppm sulfur highway fuel and

off-highway fuel which has even higher levels of

sulfur (e.g., on the order of 3,000 ppm).

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

Also, a refinery may produce less than

80 percent of its highway diesel fuel at

the 15 ppm sulfur level, as long as it

obtains enough credits from another

refinery within the PADD to offset the

volume of 500 ppm sulfur fuel produced

that exceeded the 20 percent of highway

diesel fuel allowed to be produced at

the 500 ppm sulfur level. As noted

above, any credit trading will be limited

to those refineries within the same

PADD (within the limits noted below for

California, Alaska, Hawaii, and any state

with an EPA-approved waiver from the

federal program). This restriction is

necessary to limit the possibility that

any area of the country is dominated by

refineries complying via purchases of

credits and, thus, producing a small

volume of low sulfur diesel fuel, which

could lead to concerns that the low

sulfur diesel fuel would not be

sufficiently available throughout the

country.

Based on an extensive analysis which

incorporates the hardship provisions

and GPA refiner provisions discussed in

Section IV.B. and C., we have chosen a

level of 80 percent to have confidence

that there will be widespread

availability of 15 ppm fuel throughout

the United States. Given the

requirements of today’s program, we

believe that all pipelines are likely to

carry the 15 ppm fuel. Pipelines that

may be able to carry only one grade of

highway diesel fuel are likely to carry

15 ppm as the majority diesel fuel in the

market.162 Those that are able to carry

more than one grade of highway diesel

fuel will facilitate the distribution of the

remaining 500 ppm fuel. In addition, to

ensure widespread availability of low

sulfur diesel fuel throughout the nation,

we have found it necessary to set the 15

ppm production threshold high enough

so that there is a sufficient geographic

scattering of refineries producing low

sulfur diesel fuel around the country. At

a lower threshold, there could be

isolated regions of the country where 15

ppm fuel would not be available in

sufficient quantities.

We have analyzed the refinery/

pipeline distribution system in the

United States in the context of the small

refiner hardship and other provisions of

the rule and believe a 80 percent

temporary compliance option level for

15 ppm is necessary to achieve

widespread availability and avoid

shortages in specific areas. At levels

below an 80 percent level, we would

have concerns over whether 15 ppm

sulfur diesel fuel would be the primary

highway diesel fuel distributed through

pipelines and whether the low sulfur

diesel fuel would be available to all

areas of the country in sufficient

quantities. The reader is directed to

Chapter IV of the RIA for today’s action

for our complete analysis supporting the

development of the temporary

compliance option.

While we have set the minimum

requirement under the compliance

option at 80 percent, we believe most

refineries will focus on production of

one grade or the other. We expect that

certain refineries will find it more

economically advantageous to install

the necessary equipment to produce all

of their highway diesel fuel at the 15

ppm sulfur level and generate credits.

Conversely, other refineries may find it

advantageous to continue producing all

of their highway diesel fuel at the 500

ppm sulfur fuel through the period of

the compliance option, by obtaining

credits to demonstrate compliance. This

will provide additional time for those

refiners that have not converted to low

sulfur fuel. This will allow refiners to

spread out their capital investments and

provide more time to arrange for

engineering and construction resources.

In addition, the refiners that are able to

delay investment could attain lower

costs for such equipment as technology

improvements are realized during that

time and as refiners see how well the

range of desulfurization technologies

works to achieve the 15 ppm sulfur

standard.

Foreign refiners may choose to

participate in the temporary compliance

option. For purposes of determining

compliance with the low sulfur diesel

requirements, foreign refiners must

demonstrate compliance based on the

amount of highway diesel fuel they

import into the United States. Therefore,

a given foreign refiner must demonstrate

that at least 80 percent of the highway

diesel fuel it imported into each PADD

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5067

meets a 15 ppm sulfur level, or show

that it has enough credits from other

refiners in the PADD into which it

imported the fuel to cover the volume

of fuel below the 80 percent

requirement. Foreign refineries may also

generate credits if they exceed the 80

percent requirement in a given PADD,

and may sell those credits within the

same PADD. A foreign refiner may also

choose to not participate in the

temporary compliance option and, as

described below, let the fuel importer be

the party which demonstrates

compliance.

Importers of highway diesel fuel (i.e.,

companies that import fuel but are not

solely refiners) may also participate in

the temporary compliance option.

Importers must demonstrate that at least

80 percent of the highway diesel fuel

imported into each PADD (within the

limits noted below for California,

Alaska, Hawaii, and any state with an

EPA-approved waiver from the federal

program) meets a 15 ppm sulfur level,

or show that they have enough credits

from other refiners in the PADD into

which the fuel is imported to cover the

volume of fuel below the 80 percent

requirement. Importers may also

generate credits if they exceed the 80

percent requirement in a given PADD.

Importers that import highway diesel

fuel from foreign refiners that are

participating in the temporary

compliance option must exclude the

volume of fuel purchased from those

refiners in their compliance calculations

or credit generation calculations.

Because we expect most refineries to

choose to produce fuel either all at the

15 ppm sulfur level or all at the 500

ppm sulfur level, credits will be

generated by some refiners and desired

by others. Thus, the ABT program will

play an important part in achieving

overall compliance. The details of the

ABT program are described below.

a. Generating Credits

Beginning on June 1, 2006 and

continuing through December 31, 2009,

refineries and importers may generate

credits based on the volume of low

sulfur diesel fuel produced above the

required percentage (i.e., 80 percent).

One credit will be generated for every

gallon of highway diesel fuel produced

at 15 ppm sulfur that exceeds the 80

percent requirement. Credits will be

calculated on a calendar-year basis. For

example, if a refinery produces 10

million gallons of highway diesel fuel in

2007, it must produce 80 percent of its

highway diesel volume (8 million

gallons) as low sulfur during 2007. If the

refinery actually produces 100 percent

of its highway diesel fuel as low sulfur

during 2007, it can generate credits

based on the volume of the ‘‘extra’’ 20

percent of low sulfur fuel it produced

above the required minimal

percentage—that is, two million gallons

of credits. Because the requirements for

low sulfur fuel begin in the middle of

2006, a refinery will generate credits in

2006 based on the volume of low sulfur

fuel produced beginning June 1, 2006

that exceeds 80 percent of the highway

diesel fuel produced at its facility

between June 1, 2006 and December 31,

2006. Once credits are generated by a

refinery, they may be used by the

refinery for averaging purposes with

other refineries owned by the same

refiner, traded to another refinery, or

banked for use in future calendar year

averaging or trading. Credits may only

be used in the PADD in which they are

generated, with the further limitations

on credit generation and use in PADD

V noted below for California, Alaska,

and Hawaii.

Refineries may no longer generate

credits after December 31, 2009.

Beginning January 1, 2010, every

refinery must either comply with the

low sulfur diesel fuel requirements by

(1) producing 100 percent of its highway

diesel fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur level or

(2) by using credits through May 31,

2010 to demonstrate compliance with

the 100 percent requirement, provided

that banked credits are available to the

refinery (described in more detail

below). Starting June 1, 2010, all

refineries must produce 100 percent of

their highway diesel fuel as low sulfur

fuel (without the use of credits).

Finally, early credits, or credits from

low sulfur fuel produced at a refinery

prior to June 1, 2006, may be generated,

but only under limited circumstances.

Unlike in the Tier 2 program, where

significant emission benefits accrued

with the early introduction of low sulfur

gasoline, very little emission benefit

(only a small reduction in sulfate PM

emissions from the in-use fleet) will

result from the early introduction of 15

ppm diesel fuel. Consequently, the main

purpose in allowing early credits under

the diesel program is to smooth program

implementation beginning June 1, 2006,

by allowing a pool of credits to be

available upon program startup. By

allowing the generation of early credits,

both purchasers and sellers of credits

can have confidence in the legitimacy of

the credits traded, which, in turn,

allows for the purchaser to have

increased confidence in their ability to

rely on the ABT program for

compliance. Consequently, beginning

June 1, 2005 we will allow refineries to

generate credits for any volume of

highway diesel fuel produced which

meets the 15 ppm cap. Any refiner that

chooses to do so may bank these credits

for later use during the compliance

option years, or may trade them to other

refineries within the same PADD for use

during the compliance option years. The

one restriction placed on the generation

of these credits is that refiners will have

to demonstrate that the 15 ppm fuel

produced early is segregated in the

distribution system and not commingled

with current 500 ppm sulfur fuel. Only

that volume that the refiner verifies was

actually sold as 15 ppm fuel at retail or

into centrally-fueled fleets will be

eligible for early credits.

Providing refiners with an incentive

to produce diesel fuel complying with

the 15 ppm cap earlier than required

will not only instill confidence in the

ABT program under the temporary

compliance option, but will also

provide both refiners and the

distribution system the opportunity to

gain valuable experience prior to the

start of the program with producing and

distributing fuel meeting the 15 ppm

cap. We believe that allowing early

credit generation for one year prior to

the start of the program will provide the

opportunity for the generation of

sufficient early credits to provide

refiners with the program

implementation flexibility they will

need. If we allowed early credits to be

generated in this manner for a longer

time period, we are concerned that the

significant amounts of early credits that

could be generated could compromise

availability of 15 ppm fuel at the startup

of the program. Use of these credits after

June 1, 2006 could affect the availability

of low sulfur highway diesel fuel across

the country when the 2007 model year

heavy-duty engines are introduced in

the market, because the amount of 500

ppm fuel could significantly exceed the

20 percent threshold allowed under our

temporary compliance option.

The only situation in which we will

allow for the generation of credits prior

to June 1, 2005 is if a refiner

demonstrates that the fuel will be used

in vehicles certified to meet the 2007

particulate matter standard being

adopted today for heavy-duty engines

(0.01 g/bhp-hr) or in vehicles with

retrofit technologies that achieve

emission levels equivalent to the 2007

NOX or PM standard verified as part of

a retrofit program administered by EPA

or a state. (Refer to section I.C.7 for more

discussion on retrofit programs.) Under

this situation, we will have confidence

that emission benefits are in fact

accruing early, along with the fuel

sulfur credits. The early credit provision

of this fuel program will complement

the provisions that encourage the

5068 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

163See Section IV.F. for a discussion of

preemption of state diesel sulfur requirements.

introduction of cleaner vehicles earlier

than the 2007 model year, as discussed

in Section III.D.

b. Using Credits

If a refinery does not meet the 80

percent minimum requirement for low

sulfur highway diesel fuel with actual

production at that refinery, the refinery

will be able to use credits to

demonstrate compliance with the 80

percent requirement. The use of credits

is limited to credits generated by

refineries within the same PADD

(within the limits noted below for

California, Alaska, Hawaii, and any state

with an EPA-approved waiver from the

federal program). Under the temporary

compliance option, for every gallon of

500 ppm sulfur fuel produced by a

refinery that exceeds the maximum

allowed limit of 20 percent, the refinery

must obtain one credit from another

refinery within the same PADD or use

banked credits (that were generated

within the same PADD).

Although credits will not officially

exist until the end of the calendar year

(based on the generating refinery’s

actual low sulfur fuel production for

that calendar year), refineries may

contract with each other for credit sales

prior to the end of the year, based on

anticipated production. The actual

trading of credits will not take place

until the end of the year. All credit

transfer transactions will have to be

concluded by the last day of February

after the close of the annual compliance

period and each refinery must submit

documentation (as described in Section

VII.E.) demonstrating compliance with

the appropriate volume of low sulfur

highway diesel fuel. For example, a

refinery that wishes to purchase credits

from another refinery to comply with

the 2007 required percentage of low

sulfur fuel can do so based on the

generating refinery’s projections of low

sulfur fuel production. By the end of

February 2008, both the creditpurchasing refinery and the creditselling refinery must reconcile the

validity of the credits, and demonstrate

compliance with the 80 percent

requirement. As noted earlier, at the

beginning of the program, the initial

compliance period will begin on June 1,

2006 and end on December 31, 2006.

For this initial period, refineries must

submit documentation, by February 28,

2007, demonstrating compliance with

the appropriate levels of low sulfur

highway diesel fuel for the period

between June 1, 2006 and December 31,

2006.

Because there could be situations

where a refinery planning to use credits

to comply with the minimum

percentage of fuel required comes up

short at the end of the year, we are

adopting provisions that allow a limited

amount of carryover, or ‘‘credit

deficits.’’ A refinery that does not meet

the required percentage of low sulfur

fuel production in a given year will be

allowed to carry forward a credit deficit

for one year, as long as the deficit does

not exceed five percent of its annual

highway diesel fuel production.

However, the refinery will have to make

up the credit deficit and come into

compliance with the required low sulfur

production percentage in the next

calendar year, or the refinery will be in

violation of the program requirements.

This provision is intended to give some

relief to refineries faced with an

unexpected shutdown or that otherwise

are unable to obtain sufficient credits to

meet the required percentage of low

sulfur fuel production.

With regard to credit trading, any

person can act as a broker in facilitating

credit transactions, whether or not such

person is a refiner and/or importer, so

long as the title to the credits are

transferred directly from the refinery

generating the credits to the refinery

purchasing the credits. Whether credits

are transferred directly from the

generating refinery to the purchasing

refinery, or through a broker, the

refinery purchasing the credits should

have sufficient information to fully

assess the likelihood that credits are

valid. Any credits that are traded to

another refinery may, in turn, be traded

to another refinery; however, the credits

cannot be traded more than twice. We

believe this provision is necessary

because repeated transfers of credits

would significantly reduce our ability to

verify the validity of credits.

c. How Long Will Credits Last?

The goal of the ABT provisions is to

provide additional flexibility to refiners

in the early years of the low sulfur

diesel fuel program. After the first few

years of the program, there will be a

significantly greater proportion of aftertreatment-equipped vehicles in the fleet.

It will be important to ensure a full

transition to the new low sulfur fuel to

prevent misfueling of those vehicles and

preserve the environmental benefits of

the program. Therefore, the ability of

refineries to generate credits will end on

December 31, 2009. Refineries will be

allowed to use any available banked

credits, including early credits, for fuel

produced through May 31, 2010. Any

remaining credits not used for the

compliance period until May 31, 2010

will expire. Beginning June 1, 2010, all

refineries must produce 100 percent of

their highway diesel fuel at the 15 ppm

sulfur level without the use of credits,

and the ABT program will end.

d. Additional Limitations on Credit

Trading for Some States

At this time we are adopting a low

sulfur highway diesel fuel program that

will apply throughout the United States,

with trading of credits limited to those

refineries located within the same

PADD. Although we are adopting a

diesel fuel program that currently will

apply nationwide, it is possible that the

State of California, or some other state,

may adopt in the future a different

highway diesel fuel program than that

adopted today.163 To assure that

adequate supplies of low sulfur diesel

fuel will be available throughout all

regions of the country, we are adopting

provisions that do not allow refineries

located in states with a state-approved

15 ppm highway diesel sulfur program

to participate in the credit program. In

other words, credit trading is limited

only to those refineries complying with

the federal program. For example,

without such provisions, if California

were to adopt its own state program

requiring the production of 15 ppm

diesel fuel, we are concerned that it

might be possible for California

refineries to generate enough credits

such that areas outside of California in

PADD V are dominated by the

production of 500 ppm sulfur diesel

fuel, with little or no 15 ppm fuel

available. This would be problematic for

the model year 2007 and later heavyduty engines designed to be operated on

low sulfur fuel. The reader is directed

to Chapter IV of the RIA for today’s

action for our complete analysis

supporting the development of the

temporary compliance option.

As discussed in Section IV.F. of this

preamble, the State of Alaska, which is

a part of PADD V, will have the

opportunity to develop, and submit to

us for approval, an alternative transition

plan for implementing the low sulfur

highway diesel fuel program. Such a

plan will allow Alaska to develop a

transition program tailored to its

isolated market. If, for some reason,

Alaska does not submit an alternative

plan, or we do not approve the plan

submitted by Alaska, then the federal

program described in today’s action will

apply. In the event we do not approve

an alternative plan for Alaska, based on

our analysis of the likely response of

refineries in Alaska to the temporary

compliance option and because its fuel

distribution system is essentially

isolated from the rest of PADD V, we are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5069

164As described in Sections IV.B., IV.C. and

VII.E., small refiners and GPA refiners have special

supplementary reporting requirements relating to

the optional program they are participating in.

concerned that all of the fuel offered for

sale in Alaska could be 500 ppm sulfur

fuel if refineries in Alaska were allowed

to purchase credits from other PADD V

refineries. For this reason, under today’s

program, refineries in Alaska will be

allowed to generate credits as described

earlier. However, they may only sell

credits to, or purchase credits from,

other refineries in or importers of fuel

to Alaska. We believe this will provide

assurance that low sulfur highway

diesel fuel will be sufficiently available

in Alaska and will also reduce the

chance that credits from Alaska will

result in significantly less low sulfur

diesel fuel in PADD V areas outside of

Alaska. Again, these default provisions

of the national program will only be

effective in the event that we do not

approve an alternate transition plan for

Alaska.

Hawaii is in a similar situation to

Alaska with regard to fuel distribution.

Hawaii, which is part of PADD V, is an

isolated market and we have similar

concerns with regard to whether low

sulfur diesel fuel would be available in

Hawaii if the two refineries currently

operating were able to purchase credits

from other PADD V refineries and

produce all 500 ppm sulfur fuel. For

this reason, under today’s program, the

refineries in Hawaii will be allowed to

generate credits as described earlier.

However, they may only sell credits to,

or purchase credits from, other

refineries in or importers of fuel to

Hawaii. We believe this will ensure that

low sulfur highway diesel fuel will be

available in Hawaii.

3. What Information Must Refiners/

Importers Submit to Us?

To ensure a smooth transition to the

program and to evaluate compliance

once the program has begun, we are

requiring refiners and importers to

submit a variety of information to us.

Section VII.E of this document and the

regulatory language for today’s action

provide detailed description of the

information that must be submitted and

the dates when such submittals are

due.164

First, refiners and importers that

currently or in 2006 expect to produce

or supply highway diesel fuel are

required to register with us by December

31, 2001. This will inform us on the

universe of refiners that we expect to

participate in the highway diesel market

once the program begins.

Second, to help facilitate the market

for credit trading under the temporary

compliance option, any refiner or

importer planning to produce or import

highway diesel in 2006, is required to

submit to us an annual pre-compliance

report. Refiners and importers are

required to submit these annual precompliance reports from 2003 through

2005. These reports must contain

estimates of the volumes of 15 ppm

sulfur fuel and 500 ppm sulfur fuel that

will be produced at each refinery, and,

for those refineries planning to

participate in the trading program, a

projection of how many credits will be

generated or must be used by each

refinery. These pre-compliance reports

must also contain information outlining

each refinery’s timeline for compliance

and provide information regarding

engineering plans (e.g., design and

construction), the status of obtaining

any necessary permits, and capital

commitments for making the necessary

modifications to produce low sulfur

highway diesel fuel. Based on the

information submitted by refiners and

importers, we plan to issue an annual

report that summarizes, in a way that

protects the confidentiality of

individual refiners and importers, the

information contained in the precompliance reports. Our annual report

will provide information, summarized

and aggregated on a PADD basis,

describing the volumes of 15 ppm and

500 ppm highway diesel planned to be

produced, and estimates of the number

of credits that refineries expect to

generate or use. We believe this

information will be important to refiners

as they make plans for complying with

the temporary compliance option. For

example, this information will be useful

in giving refiners a better indication of

the potential market for credits and

availability of credits in their PADD. To

prevent the release of confidential

information, our annual report will not

contain any information on individual

refinery compliance plans.

Third, refiners and importers are

required to submit annual compliance

reports that demonstrate compliance

with the requirements of this final rule.

The first annual compliance report is

due by the end of February 2007 (for the

period of June 1, 2006 through

December 31, 2006) and is required

annually through February 2011. The

reports must show, on a refinery basis,

the volumes of 15 ppm and 500 ppm

sulfur highway diesel fuel produced at

each refinery during the compliance

period, the number of credits used (or

generated) at each refinery to

demonstrate compliance with the 80

percent requirement for low sulfur

diesel fuel, and the sources of the

credits used. The information submitted

in the annual compliance reports must

be segregated by PADD.

4. Impacts of the Highway Diesel Fuel

Program

Based on analyses we have

performed, as described in more detail

below, we believe the temporary

compliance provisions contained in

today’s final rule will assure adequate

supplies of highway diesel fuel, will

provide flexibility for refiners, and

should result in lower costs for both

refiners and consumers. In addition, we

believe the temporary compliance

provisions as adopted today will ensure

sufficient availability of low sulfur

highway diesel fuel to new vehicle

owners who need it without the need

for a retailer availability requirement,

and should not lead to significant levels

of misfueling and the associated loss of

emission benefits. We have analyzed

each of these issues in developing the

final fuel program. A summary of our

analyses and the conclusions we have

drawn are discussed below. A detailed

description of these analyses are

contained in the RIA for today’s action.

In addition, a complete list of the

comments related to a possible phase-in

program and our response to those

comments is included in the Response

to Comments document for this final

rule.

a. Ensures Adequate Supplies of

Highway Diesel Fuel

We received several comments on the

NPRM fuel program that suggested there

would be a shortfall in the amount of

highway diesel supply if all of the

highway diesel fuel were required to

meet a 15 ppm sulfur limit beginning in

2006. As described later in Section V.C.,

in response to these comments we

analyzed the capability of the entire

diesel fuel refining industry in the U.S.

to adjust to the low sulfur fuel

requirements. Based on this analysis, we

believe that supplies of highway diesel

fuel will be sufficient even if all

highway diesel fuel were required to

comply with the 15 ppm standard in

2006. The temporary compliance option

included in today’s rule is intended as

a ‘‘safety valve’’ that, along with the

hardship provisions discussed in

Section IV.C.,will further help to ensure

adequate supplies of highway diesel

fuel beginning in 2006.

In performing the analysis of diesel

fuel supply, we examined all diesel fuel

refiners (including those that currently

make only off-highway diesel fuel but

not highway diesel fuel) to assess the

likelihood of their investing in the

production of 15 ppm highway diesel

5070 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

fuel. Using a refinery cost model, we

made projections of the likely response

by refineries to today’s low sulfur

requirements by estimating the cost for

each refinery to produce low sulfur

diesel fuel. The results of our analysis

show that the overall supply of highway

diesel fuel will continue to be adequate

to meet market demands as refiners are

required to start producing low sulfur

highway diesel fuel. Most refineries that

currently produce highway diesel fuel

will produce about the same volume of

low sulfur diesel fuel once the program

takes effect. However, several refineries

could economically expand their

current highway diesel fuel production

by shifting some of their off-highway

production today, and a few others

currently producing only off-highway

diesel fuel could economically shift to

some highway diesel production.

Consequently, our analysis indicates

that there is ample capability in the

refining industry to continue to

economically supply sufficient

quantities of highway diesel fuel when

today’s program goes into effect. For a

fuller discussion of this analysis, see

Section V of this preamble and Chapter

IV of the RIA.

If any potential for highway diesel

fuel shortfalls exists by requiring all fuel

to meet 15 ppm sulfur in 2006, as CRA’s

analysis suggests, we believe that

allowing some continued supply of 500

ppm, as we are doing under the

temporary compliance option and

hardship provisions contained in

today’s action, addresses this concern.

Since the final rule allows some

transition period before the entire

highway diesel pool is required to meet

the 15 ppm sulfur standard, some

refiners will not need to change their

current operations and will be able to

continue producing 500 ppm fuel

during these years. Those refiners that

delay production of low sulfur diesel

fuel until the later years of the program

will tend to be the refiners with the

highest cost to comply and, thus,

refiners that would otherwise have the

greatest tendency not to invest and

thereby impact supply. Refiners that

begin producing low sulfur diesel fuel

in the later years of the program will

also be able to take advantage of ongoing

improvements in desulfurization

technology. Together, these factors will

help avoid or reduce any potential

losses in highway diesel fuel production

when the program requires full

compliance with low sulfur diesel fuel.

b. Ensures Widespread Availability of

Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel

A major concern we noted in the

NPRM regarding a fuel phase-in

program was ensuring the widespread

availability of low sulfur diesel fuel.

Without an assurance of widespread

availability, there would be concerns

whether the 2007 and later model year

heavy-duty vehicles that were designed

to operate on low sulfur fuel would be

able to purchase it in all parts of the

country. If such vehicles were fueled

with 500 ppm diesel fuel, the emission

control systems could be irreversibly

damaged and any benefit of the new

emission standards could be eliminated

(see Section III.F. above). Therefore, in

setting the requirements for the

temporary compliance option, we have

analyzed the likelihood that fuel will be

widely available so that 2007 and later

model year heavy-duty vehicles will be

able to find low sulfur fuel in all local

markets across the country. To achieve

this goal, we believe there need to be

assurances that refineries producing 15

ppm fuel are sufficiently scattered

throughout each of the PADDs and that

most pipelines will carry 15 ppm fuel

(either as the only highway diesel fuel

or in addition to 500 ppm highway

fuel).

In determining what fraction of

highway diesel fuel would need to be

low sulfur under the temporary

compliance option provision, taking

into account the potential impact of the

hardship provisions, we used a refinery

cost model to estimate the costs of

producing 15 ppm fuel for all refineries.

We then assumed that the refineries

with the lowest costs would convert to

15 ppm fuel and assumed the other

refineries would purchase credits and

continue producing 500 ppm fuel

through the compliance option period.

We then overlaid the information on

which refineries were estimated to be

producing 15 ppm fuel with the

highway diesel fuel distribution system

in the United States. We examined

different levels for the temporary

compliance option beginning as low as

20 percent and ranging as high as 90

percent. The results of the analysis

show that at temporary compliance

option levels for 15 ppm below 80

percent, there are local regions of the

country where we believe there would

likely be shortages of low sulfur diesel

fuel. The areas where we believe there

would be shortages are either (1) served

by pipelines that we believe would not

carry 15 ppm fuel, because the refineries

serving those pipelines are projected to

produce primarily 500 ppm; or (2)

dominated by refineries we believe

would continue producing 500 ppm fuel

under the temporary compliance option

and are not currently capable of

receiving significant supplies of a

second grade of diesel fuel through

other reasonable means. At the 80

percent level, we believe that all

pipelines will carry low sulfur diesel

fuel, since there are a sufficient number

of refineries scattered across the country

producing low sulfur diesel fuel and at

sufficient volumes for pipelines to

choose to carry it. We also believe that

the program ensures that low sulfur

diesel fuel will be sufficiently available

to retail outlets at a reasonable cost

either at a local terminal or by trucking

the fuel a limited distance.

As noted earlier, we are not adopting

any retailer availability requirements

with today’s fuel program. Given the

amount of low sulfur diesel fuel

required under today’s temporary

compliance option, we believe the

distribution system will make low

sulfur diesel fuel widely available

without any requirements on retail

outlets to supply low sulfur diesel fuel.

c. Provides Lower Costs to Refineries

One benefit of the temporary

compliance option being adopted today

is that a significant number of refiners

will have the ability to delay the date

when they convert their highway diesel

fuel production to 15 ppm, allowing the

refining industry to stretch out its

engineering and construction resources.

Given the flexibilities being adopted

today, we believe that many large

refineries, and other refineries for which

diesel desulfurization is least expensive,

will make the commitment to convert

their entire highway diesel pool to 15

ppm sulfur in 2006 and sell credits to

other refineries that will continue to

produce all of their fuel at the 500 ppm

sulfur level. Using a refinery cost model

to estimate how refineries will respond

to the temporary compliance option

requirements, we believe that more than

half of the refineries will delay capital

investment by buying credits and

continue producing 500 ppm sulfur

diesel fuel under the temporary

compliance option and small refiner

hardship provisions. We estimate that

refiners will be able to save as much as

$1.7 billion over the transition period

compared to a requirement that all

highway diesel fuel comply with 15

ppm sulfur in 2006. As noted earlier,

much of this potential savings will be

offset by increased costs in the

distribution system. Nevertheless, we

project that in total, an overall savings

of approximately $0.65 billion could

result.

d. Misfueling Concerns Should Be

Minimized

By allowing a 500 ppm and 15 ppm

sulfur highway diesel fuels to be in the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5071

165Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New

Mexico, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Note

that minor changes to this area are currently under

consideration. Any such changes subsequent to

today’s rule are intended to be carried over into

today’s rule as well.

market at the same time, there is the

possibility that model year 2007 and

later heavy-duty vehicles will be

misfueled with 500 ppm sulfur fuel,

either accidentally or intentionally. As

discussed above, if such vehicles are

fueled with 500 ppm diesel fuel, the

emission control systems could be

irreversibly damaged and any benefit of

the new emission standards could be

eliminated. To minimize the possibility

of misfueling, we are adopting labeling

requirements that apply to both retail

stations and vehicle manufacturers.

Under these provisions, labels will be

applied at the diesel fuel pumps at retail

stations and at the fuel tank inlet on the

vehicle. The labels must indicate that

only 15 ppm sulfur highway diesel fuel

may be used in 2007 and later model

year heavy-duty vehicles. The labeling

requirements for fuel pumps and

vehicles are described in detail in

Sections VII.C. and VI.G., respectively.

Given the program being adopted

today, we believe that intentional

misfueling will not be a serious

problem. The main incentive vehicle

owners may have for using 500 ppm

sulfur fuel would likely be cost savings.

In general, producing 500 ppm sulfur

should be cheaper than producing 15

ppm fuel. However, given the

requirements adopted today, we believe

there should not be a large cost

differential between the 15 ppm sulfur

fuel and the 500 ppm sulfur fuel at retail

outlets. Under the credit trading

program, to produce 500 ppm fuel, most

refiners will have to purchase credits

from other refiners producing 15 ppm

fuel, increasing the cost of the 500 ppm

fuel, while decreasing the cost of the 15

ppm fuel. At the refinery gate, the cost

of both fuels should be approximately

the same. In addition, given the amount

of 15 ppm fuel required under the

temporary compliance option, 15 ppm

fuel will be distributed through

essentially the entire pipeline system.

The distribution of 500 ppm fuel, on the

other hand, will be more limited, due to

its much lower volume. We expect that

the 500 ppm fuel will be distributed by

truck in the areas nearby refineries

producing this fuel and through a few

major pipelines to a limited number of

major fuel consuming areas. Overall, the

better economies of scale of transporting

15 ppm fuel should compensate for any

additional handling cost due to the need

to more carefully avoid contamination

with higher sulfur fuels. For these

reasons, we expect the price to

consumers of 500 ppm sulfur fuel to be

generally close to that of 15 ppm sulfur

fuel and, therefore, there should not be

a significant economic incentive to

misfuel with 500 ppm sulfur fuel.

Finally, because vehicle owners will

likely void the manufacturer’s warranty

if they misfuel with 500 ppm sulfur

fuel, they will have an additional

incentive not to misfuel. Owners of

heavy-duty vehicles make significant

investments in these vehicles and will

not want to take the chance of voiding

their warranty for a relatively small

savings in fuel cost.

In addition to our concern about

intentional misfueling, we also have

some concerns about accidental

misfueling during the optional

compliance program years. This concern

is lessened to some extent because of

the limited amount of 500 ppm sulfur

fuel that will be available, the short

duration of the optional compliance

program, the knowledgeable owners and

operators of trucks and most

importantly, the labels that will be

required on both the vehicle and the

fuel pumps. Thus, we do not expect

either type of misfueling to be a

significant problem.

e. Summary

In summary, today’s program has

been structured to ensure a smooth

transition to low sulfur highway diesel

fuel. We believe this will allow the

refining industry the ability to spread

out capital investments and provide

more time for the market to transition to

the low sulfur diesel fuel. This, in turn,

will help to mitigate any potential for

concerns about highway diesel fuel

supply shortfalls. We also believe the

provisions included in the program will

continue to provide assurance that

adequate supplies of low sulfur highway

diesel fuel will be available throughout

the nation for the 2007 and later model

year heavy-duty vehicles that will

require the fuel to comply with the

emission standards. Moreover, because

the flexibilities included in the program

should reduce the economic impact on

refiners, we will also expect there to be

a reduction in the costs to highway

diesel fuel users.

B. What Provisions Apply in the

Geographic Phase-in Area?

1. What Is the Geographic Phase-in Area

and How Was it Established?

In the low sulfur gasoline rule, we

established the GPA provision which

provides temporarily less stringent

standards for gasoline sold in certain

parts of the West and Alaska (40 CFR

80.215). A map of the area is shown in

Figure IV–2, below.165 As described in

the preamble to the low sulfur gasoline

final rule, we used two criteria to

develop and evaluate the GPA

approach: (1) Relative environmental

need and (2) the ability of U.S. refiners

and the distribution system to provide

compliant gasoline.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

5072 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

166As stated in the Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur final

rule (See § 80.215(a)(2)), we plan to expand the GPA

to include counties and tribal lands in states

adjacent to the eight core GPA states.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

In part, we defined the GPA based on

the relative difficulty of producing or

obtaining complying low sulfur gasoline

(see preamble to the low sulfur gasoline

rule at 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000).

The refining industry in the GPA is

dominated by small capacity,

geographically-isolated refineries

located within that area. As a general

rule, refineries in this area will (because

of their crude oil capacity, corporate

size, and location) have the most

difficult time of all refineries

nationwide in competing for the

engineering and construction resources

needed to modify their refineries to

comply with the low sulfur gasoline

standards.

Furthermore, an assessment of

gasoline production and use data and

information on the products pipeline

system shows that states and counties in

the GPA are solely or predominantly

dependent on gasoline produced by

these refineries and have limited or no

access to gasoline from other parts of the

country. Specifically, Department of

Energy data for 1998 indicate that over

80 percent of the gasoline sold in this

area is produced by the relatively small

refineries located within the region.

Much of this gasoline is produced by

small volume refineries that are not

owned by small businesses, and are

therefore not afforded the flexibility of

the small refiner provisions described in

Section IV.C. Providing low sulfur

gasoline to these states and counties is

expected to be more difficult and costly

in the near term.

The temporary gasoline provisions for

the GPA apply for three years, 2004

through 2006. Since the low sulfur

gasoline standards for the rest of the

country require compliance in January

2006 with a 30 ppm refinery average

standard and an 80 ppm gallon cap, the

geographic phase-in provides an

additional year for refiners to reach

those standards. This extra year and the

somewhat less stringent standards

during the gasoline phase-in will

provide the refining industry the

opportunity for a more orderly

transition to the 30/80 ppm gasoline

sulfur standards by January 2007.

The gasoline GPA provision covers all

gasoline produced (or imported) for use

in the GPA166, whether refined within

the area or distributed within the area

via pipeline, barge, truck, or rail.

Foreign refiners are involved in this

program through importers, which are

the regulated entities.

2. Highway Diesel Provisions for GPA

Refiners

In response to our proposal, we

received many comments from the

refining industry and others regarding

the timing of our proposed highway

diesel fuel sulfur program. Commenters

argued that the proposed schedule for

diesel sulfur compliance, beginning in

mid-2006, would be a problem since it

directly coincides with the December

2006 gasoline sulfur compliance date for

the GPA. Some said that the timing of

the diesel program could effectively

negate the benefit to refiners of the GPA

program since desulfurization

investments would need to take place

during essentially the same time period.

This could thus increase the difficulty

of refiners in this region to raise capital

and to engage engineering and

construction resources. Some also said

that an extension of the GPA gasoline

program would allow more rational

planning without unduly reducing the

air quality benefits of the program.

We agree with many of the

commenters in this regard—refineries

supplying the GPA tend to be

disproportionately challenged compared

to other refiners with respect to capital

formation, the availability of

engineering and construction resources,

and the isolated nature of many of the

markets. Moreover, the introduction of

low sulfur highway diesel fuel in June

2006 indeed overlaps with the

conclusion of the interim low sulfur

gasoline standards for GPA refiners.

In consideration of these comments,

we believe that it is appropriate to grant

additional flexibility to refiners that

supply gasoline to the GPA while also

meeting the low sulfur diesel standards.

Additional flexibility for GPA refiners

will allow them to spread out their

capital investments for producing low

sulfur gasoline and highway diesel fuel.

In light of the above, we are modifying

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5073

167Prior to 2007, foreign refiners can participate

in the GPA program through importers. Under

today’s provisions for 2007 and 2008, importers are

not eligible and foreign refiners can participate

directly as refiners.

168 If the refiner was not producing 15 ppm fuel

for all its highway diesel production at that refinery

by June 1, 2006, the July 1, 2006 letter must confirm

that the refiner is forfeiting the ‘‘automatic’’ twoyear extension of that refinery’s interim gasoline

program.

the GPA gasoline program while still

achieving significant environmental

benefits. We expect this provision will

have little long-term impact on the

environmental benefits of the Tier 2/

Gasoline Sulfur program, while

providing for considerable near-term

implementation flexibility and

improved feasibility of the highway

diesel fuel program.

Refiners that produce both gasoline

and highway diesel fuel and are subject

to the GPA gasoline sulfur program may

choose to stagger their desulfurization

investments for the two fuels. Refiners

that comply with the low sulfur diesel

fuel standard by June 1, 2006 for all of

their highway diesel fuel production

may receive a two-year extension of

their interim GPA gasoline standards for

2006, that is through December 31,

2008. In addition to allowing refiners

the opportunity to spread out their

desulfurization investments, we believe

this provision will encourage the

production of 15 ppm diesel fuel by

some refiners producing fuel for the

GPA, which will further help to ensure

the new fuel is widely available for new

vehicles throughout the area. Although

the GPA gasoline program applies to

both refiners and importers, the

extension of the GPA gasoline program

under today’s program applies only to

refiners. This reflects the fact that only

refiners have to make capital

investments to comply with the diesel

sulfur standard.

To receive the two-year extension of

the GPA standards, a U.S. refinery must

by June 1, 2006 produce 100 percent of

its highway diesel fuel at 15 ppm sulfur

(including refineries that supply only a

fraction of their gasoline production to

the GPA). In addition, the refinery must

maintain a production volume of 15

ppm highway diesel fuel that is at least

85 percent of the baseline highway

diesel volume that was produced at that

refinery on average during calendar

years 1998 and 1999. We believe that it

is very important that the extension of

a GPA refinery’s interim gasoline sulfur

standard be linked to a substantial

environmental benefit from the

production of 15 ppm diesel fuel in

2006. We have established a minimum

volume requirement to prevent the

extension of the GPA gasoline program

from applying in situations where a

refinery changes its refinery product

slate to produce very little highway

diesel fuel—even though this

production is at 15 ppm sulfur. We

believe the 85 percent level is sufficient

to reflect a substantial investment in

desulfurization technology. At the same

time the 85 percent level should allow

for any reasonable variation in

production of highway diesel fuel that

would be expected to occur in typical

situations between now and 2006,

particularly given the continued growth

of the highway diesel market.

Similarly, a foreign refinery that

meets the same conditions as a domestic

GPA refiner may also sell gasoline into

the GPA that meets a less stringent

sulfur standard during 2007 and

2008.167 That is, a foreign refinery that

by June 1, 2006 sells 100 percent of the

highway diesel fuel it imports into the

U.S. as 15 ppm fuel (and that maintains

the 85 percent of baseline volume

requirement) may sell somewhat highersulfur gasoline into the GPA in 2007

and 2008. The actual gasoline sulfur

standard during this period, as with

domestic refiners, would be based on

the foreign refinery’s gasoline sulfur

baseline.

If a situation arises where a GPA

refinery did not produce highway diesel

fuel in 1998 or 1999 but later begins to

produce 15 ppm diesel fuel, use of the

GPA gasoline phase-in extension will

require case-by-case EPA approval. In

its application for such approval, a

refinery must show us that the loss of

emission reductions will not be

significant and must propose an

appropriate minimum production

volume. In evaluating such a proposed

minimum volume, we may consider,

among other factors, the typical ratio

between highway diesel and gasoline

production for other refineries in the

industry. Again, the reason for the twoyear extension of the gasoline interim

program is to allow the GPA refinery to

spread out its capital investments while

increasing the quantity of 15 ppm fuel

being produced. We expect that GPA

refineries using this option will make a

substantive capital investment in diesel

desulfurization and have thus set this

minimum 15 ppm diesel production

volume limit.

Since refiners participating in this

program are required to produce 100

percent of their highway diesel at 15

ppm, those that choose this option

cannot participate in the highway diesel

temporary compliance option, and,

therefore, are not permitted to generate

credits on the low sulfur diesel fuel that

they produce. If, after June 1, 2006, a

foreign refinery is not producing 100

percent of its highway diesel fuel

imported into the U.S. at 15 ppm sulfur

in the required volume, it forfeits the

two-year extension or any remaining

portion of the extension of its interim

gasoline program.

3. How Do Refiners Apply for an

Extension of the GPA Gasoline

Program?

Any refinery that seeks an extension

of its GPA gasoline standards must

apply to us as a part of its registration,

due by December 31, 2001. In this

application, the refinery must indicate

its intention to produce 100 percent of

its highway diesel fuel at 15 ppm (and

at a volume at least 85 percent of the

highway diesel fuel volume it produced

on average during calendar years 1998

and 1999) by June 1, 2006.

4. Required Reporting for GPA Refiners

As described in Section VII.E below,

refiners that plan to use the extension of

the GPA gasoline standard must report

their plans and progress several times

over the course of the program. In

addition to their initial registration and

application discussed above, a refinery

must submit pre-compliance reports in

2003, 2004, and 2005, describing its

progress toward the capacity to produce

100 percent of its highway diesel fuel at

15 ppm sulfur (at a volume at least 85

percent of its baseline volume). Then,

by July 1, 2006, such a refinery must

confirm to us that by June 1, 2006 it was

producing 100 percent of its highway

diesel fuel at 15 ppm, at the appropriate

volume.168 After the diesel sulfur

program is underway in 2006, the

refinery must provide us with annual

compliance reports by the end of

February of 2007, 2008, and 2009 (i.e.,

until after the end of the extended

interim gasoline sulfur program for GPA

refiners on December 31, 2008).

C. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying

Refiners

This section describes various

provisions for certain qualifying

refiners, both domestic and foreign, that

may face hardship circumstances.

1. Hardship Provisions for Qualifying

Small Refiners

In developing our diesel sulfur

program, we evaluated the need and the

ability of refiners to meet the 15 ppm

standard as expeditiously as possible.

This analysis is described in detail in

Chapter IV of the RIA. As a part of this

analysis, we found that while the

majority of refiners would be able to

meet the needed air quality goals in the

5074 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2006 time frame, there would be some

refiners that would face particularly

challenging circumstances which would

cause them to have more difficulty, in

comparison to the industry as a whole,

in meeting the standards.

We believe it is feasible and necessary

for the vast majority of the program to

be implemented reasonably quickly to

achieve the air quality benefits as soon

as possible. To do otherwise would be

to base the time frame of the entire

program on the lowest common

denominator. Thus, we have provided

special flexibility provisions for a subset

of refiners that qualify as ‘‘small

refiners,’’ which represent about five

percent of the overall highway diesel

volume. As described in more detail

below, and in the Regulatory Impact

Analysis (Chapter VIII of the RIA), we

concluded that refineries owned by

small businesses face unique hardship

circumstances, compared to larger

companies.

a. Qualifying Small Refiners

The primary reason for special small

refiner provisions is that small

businesses generally lack the resources

available to large companies which

enable the large companies (including

those large companies that own small

volume refineries) to raise capital for

investing in desulfurization equipment.

The small businesses are also likely to

have more difficulty in securing loans,

competing for engineering resources,

and completing construction of the

needed desulfurization equipment in

time to meet the standards adopted

today which begin in 2006. In addition,

the implementation of the low sulfur

diesel program will occur in the same

general time frame as the

implementation of the low sulfur

gasoline program, since most of those

small refiners that are covered by the

interim standards under the Tier 2/

Gasoline Sulfur program (40 CFR Part

80, Subpart H) are also covered by

today’s diesel fuel sulfur program.

The emissions benefits of the low

sulfur diesel program are needed as

soon as possible—to allow the

implementation of new emission

reduction requirements on heavy-duty

engines and vehicles and, thus, to

reduce ozone, particulate matter, and

other harmful air pollutants. Since our

analysis showed that small businesses

in particular face hardship

circumstances, we are adopting

temporary provisions that will provide

refineries owned by small businesses

additional time to meet the ultimate 15

ppm sulfur cap or balance investments

of this program with those related to the

Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program. This

approach allows us to achieve the

earliest implementation date for

advanced technology diesel vehicles

(i.e., the 2007 model year) and the

needed emission reductions they will

bring.

We believe that the temporary

flexibilities described below are an

effective way to begin the broad

implementation of the standards as

expeditiously as is feasible and thereby

achieve significant air quality benefits

in an expeditious manner. This section

describes the special provisions we are

offering small businesses to mitigate the

impacts of our program on them and

generally explains the analysis we

undertook of those impacts. Please refer

to the Response to Comments document

for a detailed discussion of comments

we received on these provisions, and to

the RIA for a more detailed discussion

of our analysis of small refiner

circumstances.

As explained in the discussion of our

compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act in Section X.B. and in

the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in

Chapter VIII of the RIA, we considered

the impacts of our proposed regulations

on small businesses. We have

historically, as a matter of practice,

considered the potential impacts of our

regulations on small businesses. We

believe that the temporary flexibilities

we are adopting for small refiners

contributed to our development of a

framework to achieve significant

environmental benefits from lower

sulfur diesel in the most expeditious

manner that is reasonably practicable.

A large part of the analysis of small

business impacts conducted for this

rulemaking was performed in

conjunction with a Small Business

Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel we

convened, pursuant to the Regulatory

Flexibility Act as amended by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In the

SBREFA amendments, Congress stated

that ‘‘uniform Federal regulatory

requirements have in numerous

instances imposed unnecessary and

disproportionately burdensome

demands including legal, accounting,

and consulting costs upon small

businesses . . . with limited

resources[,]’’ and directed agencies to

consider the impacts of certain actions

on small entities. The final report of the

Panel is available in the docket.

Through the SBREFA process, the Panel

provided information and

recommendations regarding:

• The significant economic impact of

the proposed rule on small entities;

• Any significant alternatives to the

proposed rule which would ensure that

the objectives of the proposal were

accomplished while minimizing the

economic impact of the proposed rule

on small entities;

• The projected reporting,

recordkeeping, and other compliance

requirements of the proposed rule; and,

• Other relevant federal rules that

may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

the proposed rule.

In addition to our participation in the

SBREFA process, we conducted our

own outreach, fact-finding, and analysis

of the potential impacts of our

regulations on small businesses. Some

of the small refiners with whom we and

the Panel met indicated their belief that

their businesses may close due to the

substantial costs, capital and other

impacts of meeting the 15 ppm diesel

fuel standard without either additional

time or flexibility with respect to

gasoline sulfur compliance. Based on

these discussions and analyses, the

Panel and we agree that small refiners

would likely experience a significant

and disproportionate financial hardship

in reaching the objectives of our diesel

fuel sulfur program. However, the Panel

also noted that the burden imposed

upon the small refiners by our sulfur

requirements varied from refiner to

refiner and could not be alleviated with

a single provision. We agree with the

Panel and are offering qualifying small

refiners three options to choose from in

moving toward compliance with the low

sulfur diesel fuel requirements.

For today’s action, we have structured

a selection of temporary flexibilities for

qualifying small refiners, both domestic

and foreign, based on the factors

described below. Generally, we

structured these provisions to address

small refiner hardship while

expeditiously achieving air quality

benefits and ensuring that the low sulfur

diesel fuel coincides with the

introduction of 2007 model year diesel

vehicles.

First, the compliance deadlines in the

program, combined with flexibility for

small refiners, will quickly achieve the

air quality benefits of the program,

while helping to ensure that small

refiners will have adequate time to raise

capital for new or revamped equipment.

Most small refiners have limited

additional sources of income beyond

refinery earnings for financing the

equipment necessary to produce low

sulfur diesel. Because these small

refiners typically do not have the

financial backing that larger and

generally more integrated companies

have, they can benefit from additional

time to secure capital financing from

their lenders.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5075

Second, we believe that allowing time

for refinery sulfur-reduction

technologies to be proven out by larger

refiners before small refiners have to put

them in place will reduce the risks

incurred by small refiners that utilize

these technologies to meet the

standards. The added time will likely

allow for lower costs of these

improvements in desulfurization

technology (e.g., better catalyst

technology or lower-pressure

hydrotreater technology). Because of the

poorer economies of scale and the

higher relative capital and operating

costs faced by small refiners, more time

for technology development and

commercialization will limit the

economic consequences for small

refiners. Small refiners are

disadvantaged by the economies of scale

that exist for the larger refining

companies-capital costs and per-barrel

fixed operating costs are generally

higher for small refiners.

Third, providing small refiners more

time to comply will increase the

availability of engineering and

construction resources. Since most large

and small refiners must install

additional processing equipment to

meet the sulfur requirements, there will

be a tremendous amount of competition

for technology services, engineering

manpower, and construction

management and labor. Our analysis

shows that there are limits to the price

elasticity of these resources. In addition,

vendors will be more likely to contract

their services with the major companies

first, as their projects will offer larger

profits for the vendors.

Finally, because the gasoline and

diesel sulfur requirements will occur in

approximately the same time frame,

small refiners that produce both fuels

will have a greater difficulty than most

other refiners in securing the necessary

financing. Hence, any effort that

increases small refiners’ ability to

stagger investments for low sulfur

gasoline and diesel will facilitate

compliance with the two programs.

Providing these options to assist small

refiners experiencing hardship

circumstances enables us to go forward

with the 15 ppm sulfur standard

beginning in 2006. Without this

flexibility, the benefits of the 15 ppm

standard would possibly not be

achieved as quickly. By providing

temporary relief to those refiners that

need additional time, we are able to

adopt a program that expeditiously

reduces diesel sulfur levels in feasible

manner for the industry as a whole. In

addition, we believe the volume of

diesel that will be affected by this

hardship provision is marginal. We

estimate that small refiners contribute

approximately five percent of all

domestic diesel fuel production.

b. How Do We Define Small Refiners?

The following definition of small

refiner is based closely on our small

refiner definition in the Tier 2/Gasoline

Sulfur rule. We define a refiner that

meets both of the following criteria as a

‘‘small refiner’’ for purposes of this rule:

• No more than 1,500 employees

corporate-wide, based on the average

number of employees for all pay periods

from January 1, 1999 to January 1, 2000.

• A corporate crude oil capacity less

than or equal to 155,000 barrels per

calendar day (bpcd) for 1999.

In determining the total number of

employees and crude oil capacity, a

refiner must include the number of

employees and crude oil capacity of any

subsidiary companies, any parent

company and subsidiaries of the parent

company, and any joint venture

partners. We define a subsidiary of a

company to mean any subsidiary in

which the company has a 50 percent or

greater ownership interest. This

definition of small refiner is the same

definition used under the recently

promulgated Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur

program (40 CFR 80.225), except that we

have included additional regulatory

language to clarify our interpretation of

the term ‘‘subsidiary’’ and we have

updated the time period used to

determine the employee number and

crude oil capacity criteria to reflect data

for the most recent calendar years. This

approach is consistent with the Small

Business Administration’s regulations,

which specify that, where the number of

employees is used as a size standard,

the size determination is to be based on

the average number of employees for all

pay periods during the preceding 12

months (13 CFR 121.106).

The gasoline sulfur standards and the

diesel sulfur standards will impact

small refiners in approximately the

same time frame. For this reason, we

will consider any refiner that we

approve as meeting the small refiner

definition under the gasoline sulfur

program (40 CFR 80.235) to be a small

refiner under the highway diesel sulfur

rule as well without further

demonstration.

In addition, a company that after

January 1, 2000 either acquires or

reactivates a refinery that was shutdown

or non-operational between January 1,

1999 and January 1, 2000 may also

apply for small refiner status. Such an

application needs to be submitted to us

no later than June 1, 2003. In this case,

we will judge eligibility under the

employment and crude oil capacity

criteria based on the most recent 12

consecutive months unless data

provided by the refiner indicates that

another period of time is more

appropriate. Companies with refineries

built after January 1, 2000 are not

eligible for the small refiner hardship

provisions.

If a refiner with approved small

refiner status later exceeds the 1,500

employee threshold or the corporate

crude oil capacity of 155,000 bpcd

without merger or acquisition, it may

keep its small refiner status. This is to

avoid stifling normal company growth

and is subject to our finding that the

company did not apply for and receive

the small refiner status in bad faith. On

the other hand, if a refiner with

approved small refiner status later

exceeds the small refiner criteria

through merger or acquisition, its

refineries must forfeit their small refiner

status and begin complying with the

national standards by January 1 of the

next calendar year. For example, if a

small refiner with two refineries

purchases a third refinery in 2007 and

that purchase causes the refiner to

exceed the employee or corporate crude

oil capacity thresholds for small refiner

status, then that refiner must forgo its

small refiner status and begin

complying with the national standards

by January 1, 2008 at all its refineries.

c. What Options Are Available for Small

Refiners?

All refiners producing highway diesel

fuel are able to take advantage of the

temporary compliance option discussed

in Section IV.A. Diesel producers that

also market gasoline in the GPA may

receive additional flexibility under

today’s rule (Section IV.B.). As an

alternative, refiners that seek and are

granted small refiner status may choose

from the following three options under

the diesel sulfur program. These three

options have evolved from concepts on

which we requested and received

comment in the proposal. In most cases,

we believe that small refiners will find

these options preferable to either the

broader diesel fuel temporary

compliance option or the GPA provision

discussed above.

500 ppm Option. A small refiner may

continue to produce and sell diesel fuel

meeting the current 500 ppm sulfur

standard for four additional years, until

May 31, 2010, provided that it

reasonably ensures the existence of

sufficient volumes of 15 ppm fuel in the

marketing area(s) that it serves.

Small Refiner Credit Option. A small

refiner that chooses to produce 15 ppm

fuel prior to June 1, 2010 may generate

and sell credits under the broader

5076 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

169 If circumstances arise that cause the

availability of 15 ppm fuel in the refiner’s market

area to decline, the refiner must provide a

supplemental showing in its pre-compliance reports

due in June 1, 2004 and/or June 1, 2005. As with

the 2003 report, we will either approve or

disapprove these additional showings within four

months or, if we take no action, the showing will

be deemed approved.

temporary compliance option. Since a

small refiner has no requirement to

produce 15 ppm fuel under this option,

any fuel it produces at or below 15 ppm

sulfur will qualify for generating credits.

Diesel/Gasoline Compliance Date

Option. For small refiners that are also

subject to the Tier 2/Gasoline sulfur

program (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart H),

the refiner may choose to extend by

three years the duration of its applicable

interim gasoline standards, provided

that it also produces all its highway

diesel fuel at 15 ppm sulfur beginning

June 1, 2006.

All refiners producing diesel fuel are

required to provide us with basic data

on their progress toward compliance in

2003–2005 under the pre-compliance

reporting requirements described above

in Section IV.A. As a part of their precompliance reports, small refiners must

provide a limited amount of additional

information specific to the option they

choose. We discuss each option, and the

special pre-compliance reporting

requirements for each option, in the

next paragraphs and in Section VII.E

below.

i. 500 ppm Option

The 500 ppm option is available for

any refiner that qualifies as a small

refiner. Under this option, small refiners

may continue selling highway diesel

fuel with sulfur levels meeting the

current 500 ppm standard for four

additional years, provided that they

supply information showing that

sufficient alternate sources of 15 ppm

diesel fuel in their market area will exist

for fueling new heavy-duty highway

vehicles. Under this option, small

refiners may supply current 500 ppm

highway diesel fuel to any markets for

use only in vehicles with older (pre2007) technology until May 31, 2010. In

other words, small refiners that choose

this option may delay production of

highway diesel fuel meeting the 15 ppm

standard for four years.

This 500 ppm option for small

refiners is similar to the option provided

to all refiners under the temporary

compliance option described in Section

IV.A above in that it allows a refiner to

continue producing and selling the

current 500 ppm fuel for a period of

time. However, this option differs from

the broader compliance option in that

small refiners may produce and sell 100

percent of their highway fuel at 500

ppm without needing to buy credits. In

contrast, under the broader temporary

compliance option, refiners must buy

credits to produce any volume of 500

ppm fuel over 20 percent of their total

highway diesel production.

At the retail level, retailers will not be

subject to any availability requirements

and thus may sell 500 ppm fuel, 15 ppm

highway fuel, or both (as is the case

under the broader diesel temporary

compliance option described in Section

IV.A). All parties in the diesel fuel

distribution system will have to

maintain the segregation of 15 ppm fuel

and 500 ppm fuel and only 15 ppm fuel

may be sold for use in model year 2007

and later heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

As a part of their pre-compliance

reporting due June 1, 2003 (see Section

IV.A. above), any small refiners taking

advantage of this 500 ppm option must

show that sufficient sources of 15 ppm

fuel will likely exist in the area served

by the small refiner in the absence of

production of 15 ppm fuel by that

refiner.169 A small refiner could

approach this showing in different

ways. For example, depending on the

circumstances, the refiner might point

to the presence of other refiners in the

area that are expected to produce 15

ppm fuel, or to the refiner’s proximity

to a major pipeline that will be carrying

15 ppm fuel. Similarly, the refiner might

show that its market share in the area’s

highway diesel market will be too small

to significantly affect the volume of 15

ppm fuel regardless of the small

refiner’s actions.

Another approach could be to

indicate practical steps that the refiner

itself is prepared to take to help ensure

that 15 ppm diesel fuel will be

available. One commenter suggested a

plan to add a separate tank and expand

its fuel loading rack for handling 15

ppm diesel fuel that would be supplied

by a different refiner—thus making low

sulfur fuel available, at least at the

wholesale level, at its refinery gate even

though it produced no 15 ppm fuel.

Because of the wide distribution of 15

ppm fuel that we believe will occur

under the industry-wide optional

compliance program discussed in

Section IV.A. above, we expect that few

if any small refiners wishing to use the

500 ppm option will find it difficult to

make the showing that 15 ppm fuel will

exist in the area. If we do not take action

on this showing within four months of

receiving a refiner’s 2003 precompliance report (i.e., by October 1,

2003 at the latest), the refiner’s showing

will be considered approved.

Finally, we are providing this option

so that small refiners may use the

temporary flexibility provided by the

500 ppm option as a pathway toward

compliance with the 15 ppm standard

and not as an opportunity for those

refiners to greatly expand their

production of fuel meeting the 500 ppm

sulfur standard. To help ensure that any

significant expansion of refining

capacity that a small refiner undertakes

in the future will be accompanied by an

expansion of desulfurization capacity,

we are limiting the volume of 500 ppm

sulfur fuel that a small refiner may

produce under this option to a baseline

level. Specifically, small refiners

selecting this 500 ppm option must

limit the volume they produce of

highway diesel fuel meeting the 500

ppm sulfur standard to the lesser of the

following values: (1) 105 percent of the

average highway diesel volume it

produced from crude oil in calendar

years 1998 and 1999 or (2) the average

highway diesel volume it produced

from crude oil in calendar years 2004

and 2005. Any volume of 500 ppm

highway diesel fuel (averaged over the

previous 12 consecutive months) that

exceeds this limitation after 2006 must

comply with the diesel sulfur standards

that apply to other refiners under the

broader program (i.e., the standards

described in Section IV.A. above,

including the 80% requirement of the

temporary compliance option).

ii. Small Refiner Credit Option

We believe that the relative difficulty

for small refiners to comply with today’s

program warrants compliance flexibility

for these refiners. At the same time, we

want to encourage all refiners to

produce low sulfur diesel fuel as early

and in as many geographic areas as

possible. As an incentive for small

refiners to invest in desulfurization

capacity, those that choose to produce

15 ppm fuel earlier than required under

the 500 ppm option may generate

credits for each gallon of diesel fuel

produced that meets the 15 ppm

standard. This includes the ability to

generate credits prior to the start of the

program on June 1, 2006 under the

provisions described in Section

IV.A.1.a. They could then sell these

credits to other refiners for use in the

broader optional diesel fuel compliance

program described above in Section

IV.A, helping to offset some low sulfur

diesel fuel production costs.

Under this option, credits may be

generated based on the volume of any

diesel fuel that meets the 15 ppm

standard. Refiners may then sell their

remaining highway diesel fuel under the

500 ppm option above.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5077

170 If a situation arises where a small refiner did

not produce highway diesel fuel in 1998 or 1999

but later begins to produce 15 ppm diesel fuel, use

of the Diesel/Gasoline Compliance Date option will

require case-by-case EPA approval. In its

application for such approval, a refiner must show

us that the net loss of emission reductions will not

be significant and must propose an appropriate

minimum production volume. In evaluating such a

proposed minimum volume, we may consider,

among other factors, the typical ratio between

highway diesel and gasoline production for smallto-medium sized refineries in the industry.

Pre-compliance reporting for small

refiners choosing this Small Refiner

Credit option is identical to that for the

500 ppm option (that is, if the small

refiner is also producing 500 ppm

highway diesel fuel), with the

additional requirement that the refiner

also report on any credits it expects to

generate and sell. If the quantity of 15

ppm fuel that the refiner is preparing to

produce is significant, this factor may be

useful in making the necessary showing

that 15 ppm fuel will be available in the

refiner’s market area.

iii. Diesel/Gasoline Compliance Date

Option

The Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program

included a special provision that

applies for refiners that qualify as small

refiners (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart H).

Under that program, each small refiner

is assigned an interim gasoline sulfur

standard for each of its refineries. This

interim standard for each refinery is

established based on the baseline sulfur

level of that refinery. The standards are

designed to require each small refiner to

either make a partial reduction in their

gasoline sulfur levels or, if they already

produce low sulfur fuel, to maintain

their current levels. The interim

program lasts for four years, 2004

through 2007, and the refiner can apply

for an extension of up to three years.

After the interim program expires, small

refiners must produce the same low

sulfur gasoline as other refiners.

Today’s diesel sulfur program takes

effect in the same time frame as the

small refiner interim program for low

sulfur gasoline. To avoid the need for

simultaneous investments in both

gasoline and diesel fuel desulfurization,

several small refiners subject to both

programs raised the concept of allowing

those investments to be staggered in

time. Because of the relative difficulty

small refiners will face in financing

desulfurization projects, especially for

both diesel and gasoline desulfurization

in the same time frame, we agree that

this concept has merit and have adopted

it for this rule. Under this concept,

small refiners may extend the duration

of their gasoline sulfur interim

standards and, thus, potentially

postpone some or all of their gasoline

desulfurization investments while they

work to achieve the low sulfur diesel

standard ‘‘on time’’ in 2006. To the

extent that small refiners choose this

Diesel/Gasoline Compliance Date

option, this provision will benefit the

overall diesel program by increasing the

availability of 15 ppm diesel fuel in the

small refiners’ market areas.

Specifically, this option provides that

a small refiner can receive a three-year

extension of a refinery’s interim

gasoline standard, until January 1, 2011,

if it meets two criteria: (1) It produces

both gasoline and diesel fuel at a

refinery and chooses to comply with the

15 ppm diesel fuel sulfur standard by

June 1, 2006 for all its highway diesel

production at that same refinery, and (2)

it produces a minimum volume of 15

ppm fuel at that refinery that is at least

85 percent of the average volume of

highway diesel fuel that it produced at

that refinery during calendar years 1998

and 1999. We believe that it is very

important that the extension of a small

refiner’s interim low sulfur gasoline

standard be linked to a substantial

environmental benefit from the

production of low sulfur diesel fuel in

2006. We have established a minimum

volume requirement to prevent the

Diesel/Gasoline Compliance Date option

from applying in situations where a

refiner changes its refinery product slate

to produce very little highway diesel

fuel—even though this production is at

a 15 ppm sulfur level—and yet receives

an extension of its interim gasoline

sulfur standard.170 We believe the 85

percent level is sufficient to reflect a

substantial investment in

desulfurization technology. At the same

time the 85 percent level should allow

for any reasonable variation in

production of highway diesel fuel that

would be expected to occur in typical

situations between now and 2006,

particularly given the continued growth

of the highway diesel market. Again, the

three-year extension of the gasoline

interim program is to allow small

refiners to stretch out their capital

investments while increasing the

quantity of 15 ppm fuel being produced.

We expect that small refiners using this

option will make a substantive capital

investment in diesel desulfurization and

have thus set this minimum 15 ppm

diesel volume limit.

We believe that the additional threeyear extension of the interim gasoline

sulfur standards provided today is

warranted without any further action by

small refiners, provided that they

assume the financial burden of full low

sulfur diesel compliance in 2006 (i.e.,

instead of choosing the flexibility of the

broader temporary compliance

program). The diesel and gasoline

desulfurization investments for those

refiners can thus be staggered in time.

We believe a three-year extension is

appropriate due to the substantial

investment in highway diesel fuel that

these small refiners will be undertaking.

By July 1, 2006, small refiners that

plan to use the Diesel/Gasoline

Compliance Date option for one or more

refineries must send a letter to us

confirming that by June 1, 2006 they

were producing 100 percent of their

highway diesel fuel in compliance with

the 15 ppm sulfur standard at their

refinery(ies). These refiners must make

similar confirmations each year through

2011 in their annual compliance reports

(due by the end of February of each

year)—until after the end of the

extended interim low sulfur gasoline

program for small refiners on December

31, 2010.

If a given small refiner was not

producing 15 ppm fuel for all its

highway diesel production at that

refinery by June 1, 2006, the July 1, 2006

letter must confirm that the refiner is

forfeiting the ‘‘automatic’’ three-year

extension of that refinery’s interim

gasoline program (although the refiner

may still apply for a case-by-case

extension through the Tier 2/Gasoline

Sulfur program under 40 CFR 80.260).

In this case, we will consider a request

that the refiner be allowed to use either

the 500 ppm option or the Small Refiner

Credit option, or both, provided that

information addressing the conditions

of these options as described above are

included in the July 1, 2006 letter. If the

refiner does not request the use of the

500 ppm option or the Small Refiner

Credit option, the letter must confirm

that the refiner is complying with the

diesel sulfur requirements applicable to

refiners that are not small refiners.

The Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program

includes a general hardship provision

for which refiners may apply. (Today’s

program also includes a similar

provision). Depending on the nature of

its hardship, a small refiner that applies

for this general hardship provision

under the gasoline program may be

granted a ‘‘tailor-made’’ interim gasoline

sulfur program different from the

‘‘default’’ program established in the

rule. If such a small refiner were then

to be covered by today’s diesel fuel

requirements and chose this Diesel/

Gasoline Compliance Date option, we

will allow it an extension of its special

interim program for gasoline (as

established under the general hardship

provision) for three years beyond the

scheduled end date (although no later

than December 31, 2010) so long as it

5078 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

171See the Section VII.E below and regulatory

language associated with this rule for detailed

requirements for registration and application for

small refiner status.

172 ‘‘Subsidiary’’ here covers entities of which the

parent company has 50 percent or greater

ownership.

173We will evaluate each foreign refiner’s

documentation of crude oil capacity on an

individual basis.

met the 15 ppm diesel fuel standard and

production volume requirements in

2006.

As with the other two options,

refiners expecting to use the Diesel/

Gasoline Compliance Date option and

thus to produce their highway diesel

fuel exclusively at 15 ppm fuel will

have to report certain information

beginning in 2003. As a part of their precompliance reporting due June 1, 2003

(see Section IV.A. above), any small

refiners taking advantage of this option

must provide information showing that

diesel desulfurization plans are on

track. The information supplied under

this requirement must include, but will

not be limited to, the following: (1)

Status of applying for and receiving any

necessary air pollution control permits,

(2) financing that is in place or being

sought, and (3) the status of engineering

or construction contracts. As a part of

the pre-compliance reporting due in

2004 and 2005, the refiner must provide

more complete information as it

becomes available to update its earlier

report (e.g., the status of beginning or

completing construction of

desulfurization equipment).

iv. Relationship of the Options to Each

Other

By definition, since a small refiner

must produce 100 percent of its

highway diesel as 15 ppm under the

Diesel/Gasoline Compliance Date

option, that option is not compatible

with either the 500 ppm option or the

Small Refiner Credit option. Thus a

refiner choosing the Diesel/Gasoline

Compliance Date option may not choose

either of the other two options.

However, the 500 ppm option and the

Small Refiner Credit option are

compatible with each other, and so a

refiner may choose either or both of

these options.

d. How Do Small Refiners Apply for

Small Refiner Status?

Refiners that are not small refiners

under the gasoline sulfur program but

that are seeking small refiner status

under the diesel sulfur program must

apply to us as a part of their registration

for the general diesel sulfur program,

due no later than December 31, 2001.

The application must include the

following information: 171

• The name and address of each

location at which any employee of the

company, including any parent

companies or subsidiaries,172 worked

during the 12 months preceding January

1, 2000;

• The average number of employees

at each location, based on the number

of employees for each of the company’s

pay periods for the 12 months preceding

January 1, 2000;

• The type of business activities

carried out at each location; and

• The total crude oil refining capacity

of its corporation. We define total

capacity as the sum of all individual

refinery capacities for multiple-refinery

companies, including any and all

subsidiaries, as reported to the Energy

Information Administration (EIA) for

1999, or in the case of a foreign refiner,

a comparable reputable source, such as

professional publication or trade

journal.173 Refiners do not need to

include crude oil capacity used in 1999

through a lease agreement with another

refiner in which it has no ownership

interest.

The crude oil capacity information

reported to the EIA or comparable

reputable source is presumed to be

correct. However, in cases where a

company disputes this information, we

will allow 60 days after the company

submits its application for small refiner

status for that company to petition us

with detailed data it believes shows that

the EIA or other source’s data was in

error. We will consider this data in

making a final determination about the

refiner’s crude oil capacity.

We will consider any refiner that was

granted small refiner status under the

Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur program to also

qualify as a small refiner under today’s

program, provided that it also produced

highway diesel fuel in 1999. Such a

refiner only needs to indicate as a part

of its registration for this program that

it is covered by the gasoline sulfur small

refiner program and that it expects to be

eligible for any small refiner optioins

available in today’s diesel program.

2. Farmer Cooperative Refiners Will

Benefit From the Flexible Provisions

Available to Other Refiners

Some refineries in the U.S. are owned

by farmer cooperatives. In the NPRM,

we asked for comment on whether it

would be appropriate to extend

hardship relief to farmer cooperatives,

similar to the flexibility options for

small refiners. Representatives of farmer

cooperative refiners have commented to

us that as refiners they face unique

challenges under a diesel fuel sulfur

program. As described in more detail

below and in the Response to Comments

document, we have carefully considered

the situation of farmer cooperative

refiners. We have concluded that while

there are clearly differences in how

farmer cooperative refiners are

organized and are financed compared to

other refiners, we are not able to make

a determination that farmer cooperative

refiners, as a class, face unique

economic hardship. As discussed

further below, we believe that the

combination of flexibilities built into

today’s diesel program will be valuable

to farmer cooperative refiners. To the

extent any of the farmer cooperative

refiners face economic hardship in

complying with the diesel sulfur

program, this determination can best be

made on a case-by-case basis for each

farmer cooperative refiner, as discussed

further below.

As is the case for all refiners, we

believe that farmer cooperative refiners

will be able to benefit significantly from

the several flexibility provisions

discussed elsewhere in Section IV of

this preamble. As we mentioned above,

the farmer cooperative refiner with the

smallest refinery appears to meet the

criteria for status as a ‘‘small refiner,’’

and thus will likely be eligible for the

special provisions discussed earlier

(Section IV.C.1. above). The second

smallest refinery owned by a farmer

cooperative is located and markets all or

most of its gasoline within the

geographic GPA and, as such, is eligible

for GPA low sulfur gasoline extension

described in Section IV.B. above (if it

meets the production and volume

requirements for 15 ppm fuel).

Alternatively, this refinery could

participate in the temporary compliance

option for diesel fuel described in

Section IV.A. above.

The two other farmer cooperative

refiners (as well as any other refiner)

may participate in the temporary

compliance option for diesel fuel and

the averaging, banking, and trading

provisions described above (Section

IV.A.), potentially allowing them to

postpone diesel desulfurization

investments. If needed, any of the

farmer cooperative refiners may also

apply for case-by-case hardship relief

(Section IV.C.3. below). Through such a

case-by-case review, we will be in a

better position to make a determination

of whether a particular farmer

cooperative refiner faced an economic

hardship situation, as we would then

have available to us specific financial

information about each cooperative

owner. If we determine that a

cooperative refiner faced an economic

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5079

hardship situation, we could then tailor

any temporary hardship provisions to

best suit the needs of that refiner. Given

this combination of options and ‘‘safety

valves’’ built into the diesel sulfur

program, and the factors discussed

below, we do not believe it is necessary

to provide special provisions

specifically for farmer cooperative

refiners as a class.

Farmer cooperatives that own

refineries, like all farmer cooperatives,

are organized as a means for individual

farmers (or local cooperatives owned by

individual farmers) to collectively gain

benefits in important aspects of their

farming businesses—in this case, the

production and distribution of the fuel

needed for their operation. It should

also be noted that the diesel fuel

produced by farmer cooperative refiners

is sold not only to farmers, but also to

the wholesale petroleum market, for sale

at service stations, truck stops, or fleets.

Individual farmers and others become

members of local cooperatives that

provide a range of products and services

to their members. These local

cooperatives in turn often form the

membership of larger, regional

cooperatives, including those that own

three of the four farmer cooperative

refineries in the U.S.

Refiners that are also cooperative

businesses are significantly different

from other refiners in several respects.

The key aspect is that several avenues

for accessing capital used by many other

refiners (in this case, the capital needed

to carry out diesel fuel desulfurization

projects in their refineries) are not

available to, or are not practical for,

cooperative refiners. In particular,

farmer cooperatives, unlike publiclyheld corporations, are generally not

permitted to raise equity capital in the

securities markets (that is, by selling

stock). At the same time, the equity

financing provided by the membership,

usually a modest amount assessed from

each member as a condition of

membership, provides a return for the

members only to the extent that the

members purchase the products or

services of the cooperative.

Conventional investors that do not

regularly patronize the cooperative have

little incentive to provide investment

from the outside, since their investment

will not appreciate in value.

For farmer cooperatives, money for

capital projects is generally raised

internally as equity from members and

as loans from banks or other financial

institutions. In this sense, farmer

cooperative refiners are similar to

privately-held refining companies,

which are also unable to raise capital by

selling public stock. In the case of

farmer cooperatives, equity capital is

raised either by assessment of the

members or, more often, by retaining a

portion of the cooperative’s earnings

that would otherwise be distributed to

the members (on the basis of how much

business they have done with the

cooperative). The amount of equity

available to the cooperative, as well as

the earning prospects of the cooperative,

usually determine whether financial

institutions will lend additional capital,

how much money will be lent, and what

terms the cooperative will have to agree

to. For example, when a cooperative’s

equity is low and/or the farm economy

is stressed (and thus the prospects for

strong earnings performance by the

cooperative are diminished)

cooperatives can have difficulty

competing among other potential

borrowers for loans for large capital

projects.

While the unique structural and

financial characteristics of farmer

cooperative refiners can present special

challenges to these refiners, their status

as cooperatives can also provide

advantages not shared by other refiners.

The same federal and state laws and

regulations that place limitations on the

financial avenues available to

cooperatives also tend to include special

provisions only available to

cooperatives. These include special

treatment for cooperatives under

securities laws, antitrust laws,

contractual marketing laws, and

restrictive corporate entity laws, some

or all of which may come into play in

efforts to capitalize refinery

desulfurization projects.

Also, the relatively large regionallybased cooperatives that own refineries

have a variety of other business interests

as well. This broader business base,

which involves not only the refining

and distribution of fuels but also a

variety of other agricultural supply,

processing, and related operations, may

often provide an advantage to these

larger cooperative refiners as compared

to competing refiners that have little or

no business beyond refining and fuel

marketing. Finally, the three larger

farmer cooperative refiners have

developed several economic

relationships among one another—

including joint refinery ownership, a

joint refinery operating agreement, and

a joint fuel distribution and marketing

organization—that together create

greater options for financing than are

available to many other refiners.

Based on the compliance option

provisions in this action we do not

believe that farmer cooperative refiners

as a class face a disproportionate

economic burden in complying with the

diesel sulfur program. However, certain

cooperative refiners may face additional

economic obstacles, therefore the

potential need exists for some financial

assistance to farmer cooperative refiners

from U.S. government programs. During

interagency review, concerns were

discussed relating to the uniqueness of

the structure of farmer cooperative

refineries and the key issue of accessing

capital was identified. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) has

indicated an interest and willingness to

review its existing authorities for the

potential mechanisms to provide

financial assistance to refiner

cooperatives who do invest in

desulfurization programs. Congress and

USDA have long recognized the unique

circumstances of farmers and rural

communities by establishing programs

to provide assistance. This assistance

would be primarily in the form of

guaranteed loans, which could provide

a significant source of funding for

cooperative refiners to make capital

investment in desulfurization. However,

USDA’s loan program is subject to

limitations, including a $25 million

annual cap on individual loans, so the

cooperative refiners may have to acquire

additional financing. EPA understands

that USDA supports efforts, where

appropriate, to provide assistance to

farmer-owned cooperatives from other

sources.

In conclusion, after reviewing this

information, we have not been able to

clearly distinguish a unique economic

burden that today’s program will place

on farmer cooperative refiners, as a

class, apart from other refiners,

especially other refiners of similar size

and/or those that are privately-held

companies. However, as described

above, several of the flexible provisions

we have incorporated into the overall

diesel sulfur program will be valuable to

farmer cooperative refiners.

3. General Hardship Provisions

a. Temporary Waivers from Low Sulfur

Diesel Requirements in Extreme

Unforseen Circumstances

In this final rule, we are adopting a

provision which, at our discretion, will

permit domestic or foreign refiners to

seek a temporary waiver from the

highway diesel sulfur standards under

certain rare circumstances. This waiver

provision is similar to provisions in the

reformulated gasoline (RFG) and low

sulfur gasoline regulations. It is

intended to provide refiners short-term

relief in unanticipated circumstances—

such as a refinery fire or a natural

disaster—that cannot be reasonably

foreseen now or in the near future.

5080 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Under this provision, a refiner may

seek permission to distribute highway

diesel fuel that does not meet the

applicable low sulfur standards for a

brief time period. An approved waiver

of this type could, for example, allow a

refiner that has reached its maximum

allowable production volume of 500

ppm sulfur fuel under the temporary

compliance option to temporarily and

modestly exceed that volume, so long as

the other conditions described below

were met. Such a request will be based

on the refiner’s inability to produce

complying highway diesel fuel because

of extreme and unusual circumstances

outside the refiner’s control that could

not have been avoided through the

exercise of due diligence. The request

will also need to show that other

avenues for mitigating the problem,

such as purchase of credits toward

compliance under the temporary

compliance option, had been pursued

and yet were insufficient.

As with other types of relief

established in this rule, this type of

temporary waiver will have to be

designed to prevent fuel exceeding the

15 ppm standard from being used in

2007 and later vehicles. As with the

small refiner hardship provisions

described above, any such waiver must

show that other sources of 15 ppm fuel

exist in the refiner’s market area to help

reduce the risk that owners of 2007 and

later diesel vehicles will have difficulty

finding the 15 ppm fuel they need

during the period of the waiver.

The conditions for obtaining a low

sulfur diesel waiver are similar to those

in the RFG and low sulfur gasoline

regulations. These conditions are

necessary and appropriate to ensure that

any waivers that are granted are limited

in scope, and that refiners do not gain

economic benefits from a waiver.

Therefore, refiners seeking a waiver

must show that the waiver is in the

public interest, that the refiner was not

able to avoid the nonconformity, that it

will make up the air quality detriment

associated with the waiver, that it will

make up any economic benefit from the

waiver, and that it will meet the

applicable diesel sulfur standards as

expeditiously as possible.

b. Temporary Waivers Based on Extreme

Hardship Circumstances

In addition to the provision for shortterm relief in extreme unforseen

circumstances, we are adopting a

provision for relief based on extreme

hardship circumstances. In developing

our diesel sulfur program, we

considered whether any refiners would

face particular difficulty in complying

with the standards in the lead time

provided. As described earlier in this

section, we concluded that refineries

owned by small businesses will

experience more difficulty in complying

with the standards on time because they

have less ability to raise the capital

necessary for refinery investments, face

proportionately higher costs because of

poorer economies of scale, and are less

able to successfully compete for limited

engineering and construction resources.

However, it is possible that other

refiners that are not small refiners will

also face particular difficulty in

complying with the sulfur standards on

time. Therefore, we are including in this

final rule a provision which allows us,

at our discretion, to grant temporary

waivers from the diesel sulfur standards

based on a showing of extreme hardship

circumstances.

The extreme hardship provision

allows any domestic or foreign refiner to

request a waiver from the sulfur

standards based on a showing of

unusual circumstances that result in

extreme hardship and significantly

affect a refiner’s ability to comply with

the low sulfur diesel standards by June

1, 2006. An approved extreme hardship

waiver may provide refiners with

provisions similar to those for small

refiners, or as with the waiver for

extreme unforseen circumstances, may

provide a greater allowance for

producing 500 ppm (for sale only for

use in pre-2007 vehicles) during the

period the temporary compliance option

is in effect. As with other relief

provisions established in this rule, any

waiver under this provision must be

designed to prevent fuel exceeding the

15 ppm standard from being used in

2007 and later vehicles.

By providing short-term relief to those

refiners that need additional time

because they face hardship

circumstances, we can adopt an overall

program that reduces diesel fuel sulfur

beginning in 2006 for the majority of the

industry. However, we do not intend for

this waiver provision to encourage

refiners to delay planning and

investments they would otherwise

make. We do not expect to grant

temporary waivers that apply to more

than approximately one percent of the

national highway diesel fuel pool in any

given year.

The regulatory language for today’s

action includes a complete list of the

information that must be included in a

refiner’s application for an extreme

hardship waiver. If a refiner fails to

provide all the information, as specified

in the regulations, as part of its hardship

application, we can deem the

application void. The following are

some examples of the types of

information that must be contained in

an application:

—The crude oil refining capacity and

diesel fuel sulfur level at each of the

refiner’s refineries.

—Details on how the refiner plans to

modify its current operation to achieve

future diesel fuel sulfur levels.

—The anticipated timing for the

overall project the refiner is proposing

and key milestones to ultimately

produce 100 percent of highway diesel

fuel at the 15 ppm sulfur standard.

—The refiner’s capital requirements

for the proposed project

—Plans for financing the project and

financial statements

—List of the areas where the refiner’s

diesel fuel will be sold.

We will consider several factors in

our evaluation of the hardship waiver

applications. Such factors will include

whether a refinery’s configuration is

unique or atypical; the proportion of

diesel fuel production relative to other

refinery products; whether the refiner,

its parent company, and its subsidiaries

are faced with severe economic

limitations (for example, a demonstrated

inability to raise necessary capital or an

unfavorable bond rating); steps the

refiner has taken to attempt to comply

with the standards, including efforts to

obtain credits towards compliance. In

addition, we will consider the total

crude oil capacity of the refinery and its

parent or subsidiary corporations, if

any, in assessing the degree of hardship

and the refiner’s role in the diesel

market. Finally, we will consider where

the diesel fuel will be sold in evaluating

the environmental impacts of granting a

waiver.

This extreme hardship provision is

intended to address unusual

circumstances that should be apparent

now or will emerge in the near future.

Thus, refiners seeking additional time

under this provision must apply for

relief by June 1, 2002. Applicants for a

hardship waiver must also submit a

plan demonstrating how they will

achieve the standards as quickly as

possible. In submitting the plan,

applicants must include a timetable for

obtaining the necessary capital,

contracting for engineering and

construction resources, obtaining any

necessary permits, and beginning and

completing construction.

We will review and act on

applications and, if a waiver is granted,

will specify a time period, not to extend

beyond May 31, 2010, for the waiver.

D. Technological Feasibility of the Low

Sulfur Diesel Fuel Program

This section summarizes our

assessment of the feasibility of refining

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5081

174Technology vendors were invited to submit

projections of technology and cost to two studies of

the cost of diesel fuel desulfurization by Mathpro,

Inc. One study was performed for EMA, and the

other for the National Petroleum Council.

175California allows refiners to use an engine test

to certify an alternative fuel mixture which meets

or exceeds the NOX reducing performance of a 10

volume percent maximum aromatics and a 500 ppm

maximum sulfur diesel fuel.

and distributing diesel fuel with a sulfur

content of no more than 15 ppm. Based

on this evaluation, we believe it is

technologically feasible for refiners to

meet the 15 ppm sulfur standard in the

lead time provided. We are

summarizing our analysis here and we

refer the reader to the RIA for more

details.

1. What Technology Will Refiners Use?

Conventional diesel desulfurization

technologies have been available and in

use for many years. Conventional

hydrotreating technology involves

combining hydrogen with the distillate

(material falling into the boiling range of

diesel fuel) at moderate pressures and

temperatures and flowing the mixture

through a fixed bed of catalyst.

We project that all refiners will be

technically capable of meeting the 15

ppm sulfur cap with extensions of the

same conventional hydrotreating which

they are using to meet the current

highway diesel fuel standard of 500

ppm sulfur. This extension will likely

mean adding a second stage of

conventional hydrotreating. Converting

an existing one-stage hydrotreater into a

two-stage hydrotreater will involve

adding an additional reactor as well as

other, more minor units to support the

new desulfurization unit. These units

could include hydrogen plants, sulfur

recovery plants, amine plants and sour

water scrubbing facilities. All of these

units are already operating in refineries,

but may have to be expanded or

enlarged. We also project that all

refiners will utilize recently developed,

high activity catalysts, which increase

the amount of sulfur that can be

removed relative to the catalysts which

were available when the current

desulfurization units were designed and

built.

While still utilizing this conventional

hydrotreating technology, we expect

that some refiners (roughly 20 percent of

current production volume) will decide

to invest in a completely new two-stage

hydrotreater rather than revamp their

current unit. This could occur because

the current hydrotreater is too old or

designed to operate at too low a

pressure, or because the refiner desires

to expand production of highway diesel

fuel.

The sufficiency of conventional

hydrotreating to meet a 15 ppm sulfur

cap with current diesel fuel blendstocks

is based primarily on information

provided by several refining technology

vendors.174 The vendors all projected

that two-stage hydrotreating would be

sufficient to meet a 15 ppm sulfur cap.

However, their projections of hydrogen

consumption and requisite reactor

volume varied widely. Our projections

for hydrogen consumption and reactor

volume are near the lower end of the

range and are essentially the same

projections as were made in support of

the proposed rule.

Many refiners commented that we

had underestimated the cost of meeting

the 15 ppm sulfur cap. They argued that

higher pressure, thick walled reactors of

greater volume would be needed and

that hydrogen consumption would be

much higher than we projected. With

one exception, neither the refiners, nor

the technology vendors provided any

underlying catalyst performance data

with which we could use to arbitrate

between the varying projections. One

vendor did submit catalyst performance

data from a commercial unit processing

a diesel fuel like that produced in the

U.S. Such commercial data is very

limited, as refiners are generally not

currently producing diesel fuel at sulfur

levels below 10 ppm with this

technology from diesel fuel feedstocks

typical of U.S. refiners. Some refiners

are currently producing diesel fuel at

sulfur levels below either 10 or 50 ppm.

However, their diesel fuel blendstocks

differ substantially in quality from those

available in the U.S., so their experience

cannot be extrapolated easily to

producing sub-15 ppm sulfur diesel fuel

in the U.S.

Based on our review of the limited

catalyst performance data in the

published literature and the one set of

confidential data submitted, we believe

that the projections of the more

optimistic vendors are the most accurate

for the 2006 timeframe. For example,

the confidential commercial data

indicated that five ppm sulfur levels

could be achieved with two-stage

hydrotreating a moderate hydrogen

pressures despite the presence of a

significant amount of light cycle oil

(LCO). The key factor was the inclusion

of a hydrogenation catalyst in the

second stage, which saturated many of

the poly-nuclear, aromatic rings in the

diesel fuel, allowing the removal of

sulfur from the most sterically hindered

compounds. In addition, refiners that

are able to defer production of 15 ppm

diesel fuel through the purchase of

credits will have the added benefit of

being able to observe the operation of

those hydrotreating units starting up in

2006. This should allow these refiners

to be able to select from the best

technologies which are employed in the

first phase of the program.

In addition, alternative technologies

are presently being developed which

could produce additional savings for

refiners that are able to delay

production of 15 ppm fuel until 2010.

Phillips 66 Company, for example, just

announced that they are developing a

version of their S-Zorb technology for

diesel fuel desulfurization. This

technology has been selected by at least

one major refiner (Marathon-Ashland) to

meet the Tier 2/low sulfur gasoline

requirements. In conjunction with a

DOE research program, Phillips is

designing and constructing a

commercially sized S-Zorb diesel fuel

unit at their Borger refinery. This unit

is currently scheduled for start-up in

2004. We believe that this technology

could reduce the cost of meeting the 15

ppm cap by roughly 25 percent.

2. Have These Technologies Been

Commercially Demonstrated?

As mentioned above, conventional

diesel desulfurization technologies have

been available and in use for many

years. U.S. refiners have roughly seven

years of experience with this technology

in producing highway diesel fuel with

less than 500 ppm sulfur. Refiners in

California also have the same length of

experience with meeting the California

500 ppm cap on sulfur and an

additional aromatics standard.175 To

meet both sulfur and aromatics

standards, refineries in California are

producing highway and nonroad diesel

fuel with an average sulfur level of 150

ppm.

Some refiners in Europe are

producing a very low-sulfur, low

aromatics diesel fuel for use in the cities

in Sweden (Class I Swedish Diesel)

using two-stage hydrotreating. This

‘‘Swedish city diesel’’ is averaging

under 10 ppm sulfur and under 10

volume percent aromatics. While clearly

demonstrating the feasibility of

consistently producing diesel fuel with

less than 10 ppm sulfur from selected

feedstocks, there are a few differences

between the Swedish fuel and typical

U.S. diesel fuel. First, the tight

aromatics specification applicable to

Swedish City diesel fuel usually

requires the use of ring-opening or

dearomatization catalysts in the second

stage of the two-stage hydrotreating

unit. Second, Swedish Class I diesel fuel

also must meet a tight density

specification. Third, it is not clear

5082 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

176Nonroad diesel fuel has a sulfur cap of 5,000

ppm versus a 500 ppm for current highway diesel

fuel.

whether any refiner is producing a large

fraction of their distillate production to

this specification. Thus, the European

experience demonstrates the efficacy of

the two-stage process and its ability to

produce very low sulfur diesel fuel.

However, doing so without saturating

most of the aromatics present and with

heavier feedstock has only been

demonstrated in pilot plants and not

commercially. Even this pilot plant data

has not been available for us to evaluate

directly, due to vendors’

competitiveness concerns.

Europe has adopted a 50 ppm cap

sulfur standard for all diesel fuel which

takes effect in 2005. Some countries,

including England, have implemented

tax incentives for refiners to produce

this fuel sooner. The majority of diesel

fuel in England already meets the 50

ppm specification. Refiners have

reported no troubles with this

technology. This diesel fuel is being

produced in one-stage hydrotreaters.

However, as mentioned above,

European diesel fuel contains less

heavier compounds than diesel fuel in

the U.S., so the use of one-stage

conventional hydrotreating to meet very

low sulfur levels is applicable, but not

sufficient to demonstrate feasibility in

the U.S. Germany has also established a

tax incentive, but for diesel fuel

containing 10 ppm or less sulfur. One

European technology vendor indicated

that they have already licensed two

desulfurization units to German refiners

planning to produce diesel fuel to

obtain this tax credit. Europe also is

considering a 10 ppm sulfur cap to take

effect later in the decade. However, no

refiner is currently producing number

two diesel fuel to this specification.

Phillips Petroleum is currently in the

process of designing and constructing a

commercial sized S-Zorb unit to

produce sub-15 ppm diesel fuel at their

Borger, Texas refinery. This plant is

scheduled to begin commercial

operation in 2004. This may not be in

time to give refiners sufficient

confidence in this novel process to rely

on it to meet the 2006 deadline.

However, this process, with its

attendant hydrogen, cost, and global

emission savings should be available for

those refiners that are able to defer

investment under the temporary

compliance option and hardship

provisions of today’s rule. While we are

confident that this and other technology

will be available to meet the

requirements of today’s rule, EPA will

work with the Department of Energy,

refiners and technology providers to

continue to monitor and analyze the

progress in further developing and

implementing this new diesel

desulfurization technology. This will

allow us to improve our understanding

of how this new technology can be

employed to enhance the

implementation of this program.

3. Feasibility of Distributing Low Sulfur

Highway Diesel Fuel

We believe that with relatively minor

changes and associated costs, the

existing distribution system will be

capable of adequately managing sulfur

contamination during the transportation

of 15 ppm highway diesel fuel from the

refinery through to the end-user.

Further, we believe that the existing

system is capable of handling two

grades of highway diesel fuel (500 ppm

and 15 ppm sulfur cap) in a limited

fashion during the transition period of

the sulfur program at acceptable cost

with the addition of storage tanks at a

fraction of distributor facilities.

The following minor changes in

distribution practices will be needed as

a result of today’s rule during the

transition years of the fuel program

when various hardship and optional

compliance provisions are in effect and

thereafter:

—To adequately separate shipments

of highway diesel fuel from shipments

of higher sulfur products, pipeline

operators will need to increase the

amount of highway diesel fuel that they

downgrade to a lower value product.

—Instead of cutting the mixture of jet

fuel and highway diesel fuel that results

during pipeline shipments of these

products into the highway diesel pool,

pipeline operators will need to segregate

this mixture and sell it into the nonroad

diesel pool. This change will necessitate

the addition at some terminals of small

tanks to handle the mixture of jet fuel

and highway diesel fuel.

—Terminal operators will need to

perform additional quality control

testing to ensure compliance with the 15

ppm sulfur cap.

We also recognize that tank truck

operators will need to more carefully

and consistently observe current

industry practices to limit

contamination during the transport of

15 ppm sulfur highway diesel fuel.

However, because these practices

already exist and need only to be better

enforced by distributors, we continue to

believe that this can be accomplished at

insignificant cost. We believe that there

will not be a significant increase in the

volume of highway diesel fuel

discovered to exceed the sulfur standard

downstream of the refinery as a result of

today’s rule. Distributors will quickly

optimize the distribution system using

the means described above to avoid

creating additional volumes of out of

specification product.

To accommodate two grades of

highway diesel fuel during the

transition period, additional storage

tanks will need to be added at some

refineries, terminals, bulk plants, and

truck stops. There are significant costs

associated with the addition of tanks

which are fully accounted for during the

transition period (see Section V).

Commenters on the NPRM stated that in

addition to the substantial economic

burden that adding additional storage

tanks would represent for some

distributors, limitations in available

space and permitting restrictions could

preclude some distributors from

installing additional tanks. This

transition is also an added concern for

those users of specialty fuels (i.e.,

military fuels, etc.) who currently

compete for the limited storage tanks

because these fuels must be segregated.

We believe that the burden of adding

new storage tanks to the system is made

manageable by the fact that not all

distributors will need to handle 500

ppm as well as 15 ppm sulfur highway

diesel fuel during this time period.

Marketplace forces will determine

which facilities assume the additional

burden of handling both grades of

highway diesel fuel. Those facilities for

which the addition of a storage tank

would represent an unacceptable

burden would opt not to serve the 500

ppm sulfur highway diesel market

during the transition years.

We received several comments on the

proposed rule that substantial

uncertainties exist regarding the ability

of the distribution system to adapt to the

added hardship of limiting sulfur

contamination of highway diesel fuel

meeting a 15 ppm sulfur cap. These

commenters noted that under today’s

rule other products in the distribution

system would have a sulfur content of

over 300 times the 15 ppm highway

diesel fuel sulfur cap, and that

unavoidable mixing of small quantities

of these high sulfur products into

highway diesel fuel could easily cause

the 15 ppm sulfur cap to be exceeded.

To illustrate the magnitude of the

challenge, these commenters noted that

currently the maximum sulfur content

of any product that shares the

distribution system with highway diesel

fuel is no more than 10 times the

current 500 ppm sulfur cap for highway

diesel fuel.176 Some commenters stated

that the only way to adequately limit

sulfur contamination in the distribution

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5083

177See the Response to Comments document for

this rule.

178See letter from MTC to Michael P. Walsh,

dated October 16, 2000. In public docket, document

IV–G–42.

of diesel fuel with a 15 ppm sulfur cap

may be to create a completely segregated

system (at an unacceptably high cost).

These commenters stated that

unavoidable contamination could cause

many batches of highway diesel fuel to

be noncompliant with the 15 ppm cap

resulting in shortages and high costs.

Some commenters stated that additional

evaluation is needed to determine the

capability of the distribution system to

limit contamination to the very low

levels necessitated by today’s rule.

While we acknowledge that today’s

rule will pose a substantial new

challenge to the distribution system, we

believe that the additional measures

outlined in this section will

substantially address issues associated

with adequately limiting sulfur

contamination during the distribution of

15 ppm sulfur highway diesel fuel.177 Its

true that not all of the potential minute

sources of sulfur contamination in the

distribution sources have been

identified and that the cumulative

magnitude from these sources is

uncertain. However, we believe that the

contamination from such sources, while

made more significant by the

implementation of the 15 ppm sulfur

cap, is not of a sufficient magnitude to

jeopardize the feasibility of distributing

low sulfur highway diesel fuel. We will

work with the Department of Energy,

refiners and others involved in diesel

fuel distribution to analyze, compile

data, and conduct additional research,

where appropriate, to not only more

fully understand all sources of

contamination and deliverability in the

distribution of diesel fuel below the

15ppm cap, but also their impact on the

deliverability of other fuels, including

specialty military fuels. This

information will be used, in conjunction

with information being developed on

the operation of emission control

devices (which are affected by exposure

to sulfur), to monitor progress on the

successful implementation of this final

rule which depends on an integrated

vehicle/fuel systems approach. Please

refer to Section V.D. on the costs of

today’s rule to the distribution system,

and to the Regulatory Impact Analysis

and Response to Comments documents

for additional discussion regarding the

feasibility of distributing highway diesel

fuel with a 15 ppm sulfur cap.

E. What Are the Potential Impacts of the

Low Sulfur Diesel Program on Lubricity

and Other Fuel Properties?

1. What Is Lubricity and Why Might It

Be a Concern?

Engine manufacturers depend on

diesel fuel lubricity properties to

lubricate and protect moving parts

within fuel pumps and injection

systems for reliable performance. Unit

injector systems and in-line pumps,

commonly used in heavy-duty engines,

are actuated by cams lubricated with

crankcase oil, and have minimal

sensitivity to fuel lubricity. However,

rotary and distributor type pumps,

commonly used in light and mediumduty diesel engines, are completely fuel

lubricated, resulting in high sensitivity

to fuel lubricity.

In the United States, there is no

government or industry standard for

diesel fuel lubricity. Thus,

specifications for lubricity are

determined by the market. Since the

beginning of the 500 ppm sulfur

highway diesel program in 1993, fuel

system producers, engine and vehicle

manufacturers, and the military have

been working with the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) to develop protocols and

standards for diesel fuel lubricity in its

D–975 specifications for diesel fuel.

Although the ASTM has not yet adopted

specific protocols and standards, we

understand that refiners have been

treating diesel fuel with lubricity

additives on a batch to batch basis,

when poor lubricity fuel is expected. In

addition, the military has found that

traditional corrosion inhibitor additives

that it uses in its fuels have been highly

effective in reducing fuel system

component wear. Some commenters

expressed concern about the impacts of

a 15 ppm standard on fuel lubricity.

Experience has shown that it is very

rare for a naturally high-sulfur fuel to

have poor lubricity, although, most

studies show relatively poor overall

correlation between sulfur content and

lubricity. Considerable research remains

to be performed for a better

understanding of the fuel components

most responsible for lubricity.

Consequently, we are uncertain about

the potential impacts of the 15 ppm

sulfur standard on fuel lubricity. There

is evidence that the typical process used

to remove sulfur from diesel fuel—

hydrotreating—can impact lubricity

depending on the severity of the

treatment process and characteristics of

the crude. Because refiners will likely

rely on hydrotreating to achieve the

proposed sulfur limit, there may be

reductions in the concentration of those

components of diesel fuel which

contribute to adequate lubricity. As a

result, the lubricity of some batches of

fuel may be reduced compared to

today’s levels, resulting in an increased

need for the use of lubricity additives in

highway diesel fuel. In response to the

proposal, all comments submitted

regarding lubricity either stated or

implied that the proposed sulfur

standard of 15 ppm would likely cause

the refined fuel to have lubricity

characteristics that would be inadequate

to protect fuel injection equipment, and

that mitigation measures such as

lubricity additives would be necessary.

However, the commenters suggested

varied approaches for addressing

lubricity. For example, some suggested

that we need to establish a lubricity

requirement by regulation, but others

suggested that the current voluntary

(market) system would be adequate. The

Department of Defense recommended

that we encourage the industry (ASTM)

to adopt lubricity protocols and

standards before the implementation

date of the low sulfur fuel established

by today’s action. Other suggested

approaches included incorporation of

biodiesel as a solution to the lubricity

issue, and the need to further examine

the issues.

Blending small amounts of lubricityenhancing additives increases the

lubricity of poor-lubricity fuels to

acceptable levels. These additives are

available in today’s market, are

effective, and are in widespread use

around the world. For example, in the

U.S., we understand that refiners are

treating diesel fuel with lubricity

additives on a batch to batch basis,

when poor lubricity fuel is expected.

Other examples include Sweden,

Canada, and the U.S. military. Since

1991, the use of lubricity additives in

Sweden’s 10 ppm sulfur Class I fuel and

50 ppm sulfur Class II fuel has resulted

in acceptable equipment durability.178

Since 1997, Canada has required that its

500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel not meeting

a minimum lubricity be treated with

lubricity additives. The U.S. military

has found that the traditional corrosion

inhibitor additives that it uses in its

fuels have been highly effective in

reducing fuel system component wear.

2. Today’s Action on Lubricity: A

Voluntary Approach

We have decided to not establish a

lubricity standard in today’s action, but

have included a 0.2 cents per gallon cost

in our calculations for the economic

5084 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

impact to account for the potential

increased use of lubricity additives (see

section V.D.2). We believe the best

approach is to allow the industry and

the market to address the lubricity issue

in the most economical manner, while

avoiding an additional regulatory

scheme. A voluntary approach should

provide adequate customer protection

from engine failures due to low

lubricity, while providing the maximum

flexibility for the industry. This

approach will be a continuation of

current industry practices for diesel fuel

produced to meet the current federal

and California 500 ppm sulfur diesel

fuel specifications, and benefits from

the considerable experience gained

since 1993. It will also include any new

specifications and test procedures that

we expect will be adopted by the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) regarding lubricity of

highway diesel fuel quality.

We do not believe that an EPA

regulation for lubricity is appropriate for

several reasons. First, the expertise and

mechanism for a lubricity standard

already exist in the industry. According

to the comments, the industry has been

working on a lubricity specification for

ASTM D–975, and low cost remedies for

poor lubricity have already been proven

and are already being used around the

world. Although some commenters

expressed concerns that the ASTM

process might move too slowly to

establish a lubricity specification by

2006, we fully expect the refining

industry, engine manufacturers and end

users to work together to resolve any

issues as part of their normal process in

dealing with customer and supplier fuel

quality issues. Today’s action will

increase the urgency of those working to

establish an ASTM D–975 lubricity

specification, and we believe they will

do so in time for the production and

distribution of the low sulfur highway

diesel fuel. We will do our part to

encourage the ASTM process be brought

to a successful conclusion.

Second, we have no firm basis to

justify a lubricity specification in

today’s action. One such basis might be

adequate demonstration that a lubricity

level below or above a certain

specification would either cause

emissions to increase, or hinder the

operation of emission control

equipment. However, we have no

evidence that lubricity impacts

emissions, or emission control

equipment. This issue is primarily a

concern about equipment performance.

Equipment performance is more

appropriately addressed by the industry

rather than government regulation by

this Agency.

Third, even if we had a statutory basis

to justify a lubricity standard, we are

concerned that establishing an EPA

lubricity regulation would provoke the

same disagreements that the industry is

now engaged in its efforts to establish an

ASTM D–975 specification. We are in

no better position to judge those issues

than the industry experts who are

already involved. Further, once a

specification is put into the regulations

and the industry subsequently

determines that the specification should

be changed, based on new information

or circumstances, the burden would be

on us to amend the mandated

specification by rulemaking. This is a

significant burden to put on the Agency

for an engine performance issue that can

and should be resolved by the industry

without government intervention.

Subsequent to the close of the

comment period another issue related to

lubricity concerns was raised to the

Agency. These concerns related to

potential incompatibilities in old

vehicles of the new engine oils the

industry hopes to develop for use in the

new 2007 and later model year vehicles.

Much of the ash in today’s motor oil

results from the need to control

acidification of the engine oil (maintain

total base number, or TBN control),

which is in large part a function of the

sulfur content of the fuel and the

sulfuric acid that it forms. Without the

ability to control acidification of the

engine oil, engine wear increases

significantly. The ash in the oil,

however, will tend to shorten the

maintenance intervals for particulate

filters to remove built up ash on new

2007 and later model year vehicles. At

the same time, engines operated on low

sulfur fuel have much less need for TBN

control and the high ash levels that

result. Consequently, manufacturers are

investigating with the lubricant industry

the potential of lower ash oils for use in

engines operated on low sulfur diesel

fuel and equipped with particulate

traps. If the new oil developed is not

‘‘backwards compatible’’ to sufficiently

control acidification and wear in the

pre-existing fleet of vehicles on the road

that may still be operated on high sulfur

diesel fuel for the first few years of the

program, then two grades of motor oil

would have to be on the market

simultaneously. This has caused some

stakeholders to raise vehicle

performance and durability concerns

that might result from using the new oil

in the old vehicles—namely ‘‘misoiling.’’

Since the engine and lubricant

industries still have a number of years

to develop these new oil formulations,

it is still premature to determine

whether or not the new oils will be

backwards compatible and whether misoiling would raise any serious concerns.

While this would not appear to be an air

quality concern and as such something

the Agency generally leaves up to the

industry to resolve, we will nevertheless

offer to work with the industry and

industry associations on this issue over

the coming years.’’ EPA anticipates that

engine manufacturers would likely

provide engine labels to distinguish low

ash oil from high ash oil because

misoiling could result in engine

damage.

3. What Are Today’s Actions on Fuel

Properties Other Than Sulfur?

We are not taking action today on any

fuel properties other than sulfur. We

have examined the impact of fuel

properties other than sulfur, such as

aromatics, on the materials used in

engines and fuel supply systems. We do

not believe there will be impacts on

materials from such other fuel

properties.

While there were some problems with

leaks from fuel pump O-ring seals made

of a certain material (Nitrile) after the

introduction of 500 ppm sulfur diesel

fuel in the United States in 1993, these

issues have since been addressed by

equipment manufacturers who switched

to materials that are compatible with

low aromatic fuels. The leakage from the

Nitrile seals was determined to be due

to low aromatics levels in some 500

ppm sulfur fuel, not the low sulfur

levels. In the process of lowering the

sulfur content of some fuel, some of the

aromatics had also been removed.

Normally, the aromatics in the fuel

penetrate the Nitrile material and cause

it to swell, thereby providing a seal with

the throttle shaft. When low-aromatics

fuel is used after conventional fuel has

been used, the aromatics already in the

swelled O-ring will leach out into the

low-aromatics fuel. Subsequently, the

Nitrile O-ring will shrink and pull away,

thus causing leaks, or the stress on the

O-ring during the leaching process will

cause it to crack and leak. Not all 500

ppm sulfur fuels caused this problem,

because the amount and type of

aromatics varied. Fuel pumps using a

different material (Viton) for the seals

did not experience leakage. We believe

that no additional problems will occur

with a change of fuel from 500 to 15

ppm sulfur.

F. How Are State Programs Affected by

the Low Sulfur Diesel Program?

1. State Preemption

Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA

prohibits states (and political

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5085

179 In evaluating whether a state fuel prohibition

or control is ‘‘identical’’ to a prohibition or control

adopted by us, we might consider but is not limited

to the following factors in comparing the measures:

(1) The level of an emission reduction or pollution

control standard for any particular batch of diesel

fuel; (2) the use of ‘‘per gallon’’ or ‘‘averaged’’

amounts in setting that level; (3) the lead time

allowed to the affected industry for compliance; (4)

the test method(s) and sampling requirements used

in determining compliance; and (5) reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

subdivisions of states) from prescribing

or attempting to enforce controls or

prohibitions respecting any fuel

characteristic or component if EPA has

prescribed a control or prohibition

applicable to such fuel characteristic or

component under section 211(c)(1). This

preemption applies to all states except

California, as explained in section

211(c)(4)(B). For states other than

California, the Act provides two

mechanisms for avoiding preemption.

First, section 211(c)(4)(A)(ii) creates an

exception to preemption for state

prohibitions or controls that are

identical 179 to the prohibition or control

adopted by EPA. Second, states may

seek EPA approval of SIP revisions

containing fuel control measures, as

described in section 211(c)(4)(C). We

may approve such SIP revisions, and

thereby ‘‘waive’’ preemption, only if it

finds the state control or prohibition ‘‘is

necessary to achieve the national

primary or secondary ambient air

quality standard which the plan

implements.’’

When we adopted the current

highway diesel fuel sulfur standard of

500 ppm pursuant to our authority

under section 211(c)(1) of the CAA in

1990, States were preempted from also

doing so under the provisions of section

211(c)(4)(A). The 15 ppm highway

diesel fuel sulfur standard promulgated

today modifies the existing standard

and, as a result, do not initiate any new

preemption of state authority. Today’s

action continues the explicit

preemption under section 211(c)(4)(A)

of state actions to prescribe or enforce

highway diesel fuel sulfur controls.

States other than California with

highway diesel fuel sulfur control

programs not already approved into

their SIPs are preempted under Section

211(c)(4)(A) and will therefore need to

obtain a waiver from us under the

provisions described in section

211(c)(4)(C) for all state fuel sulfur

control measures, unless the state

control or prohibition is identical to

ours.

Aside from the explicit preemption in

Section 211(c)(4)(A), a court could also

consider whether a state sulfur control

is implicitly preempted under the

Supremacy Clause of the U.S.

Constitution. Courts have determined

that a state law is preempted by federal

law where the state requirement

actually conflicts with federal law by

preventing compliance with both

federal and state requirements, or by

standing as an obstacle to

accomplishment of Congressional

objectives. A court could thus consider

whether a given state sulfur control is

preempted, notwithstanding waiver of

preemption under 211(c)(4)(C), if it

places such significant cost and

investment burdens on refiners that

refiners cannot meet both state and

federal requirements in time, or if the

state control would otherwise meet the

criteria for conflict preemption.

2. What Provisions Apply in Alaska?

There are important nationwide

environmental and public health

benefits that will be achieved with

cleaner diesel engines and fuel,

particularly from reduced particulate

emissions, nitrogen oxides, and air

toxics (as further discussed in section

II). Therefore, it is also important to

implement this program in Alaska. Any

2007 and later model year diesel

vehicles in Alaska, or driven to Alaska,

must be fueled with low sulfur highway

diesel, or risk potential damage to the

aftertreatment technologies or even the

engines themselves. Although the

engine standards established today are

not based upon different technology and

cost implications for Alaska as

compared to the rest of the country, the

low sulfur fuel program has different

implications.

Unlike the rest of the nation, Alaska

is currently exempt from the 500 ppm

sulfur standard for highway diesel fuel

and dye requirements. Since the

beginning of the 500 ppm highway

diesel fuel program, we have granted

Alaska exemptions from meeting the

sulfur standard and dye requirements,

because of its unique geographical,

meteorological, air quality, and

economic factors. (These unique factors

are discussed generally in this section,

and in more detail in the RIA.) Because

of these unique factors, we are

establishing in today’s action an

alternative option for implementing the

low sulfur fuel program in Alaska.

We are providing the State of Alaska

an opportunity to develop an alternative

low sulfur transition plan. We intend to

facilitate the development of this plan

by working in close cooperation with

the state and key stakeholders. This

plan must ensure that sufficient

supplies of low sulfur diesel fuel are

available in Alaska to meet the demand

of any new 2007 and later model year

diesel vehicles. Given that Alaska’s

demand for highway diesel fuel is very

low and only a small number of new

diesel vehicles are introduced in Alaska

each year, it may be possible to develop

an alternative implementation plan for

Alaska in the early years of the program

that provides low sulfur diesel only in

sufficient quantities to meet the demand

from the small number of new diesel

vehicles. This would give Alaska

refiners more flexibility during the

transition period because they would

not have to desulfurize the entire

highway diesel volume. Our goal in

offering this additional flexibility is to

transition Alaska into the low sulfur

fuel program in a manner that

minimizes costs, while still ensuring

that the new vehicles receive the low

sulfur fuel they need. We expect that the

transition plan will begin to be

implemented at the same time as the

national program, but the state will have

an opportunity to determine what

volumes of low sulfur fuel must be

supplied, and in what timeframes, in

different areas of the state.

At a minimum, this transition plan

must: (1) Ensure an adequate supply

(either through production or imports)

of 15 ppm fuel to meet the demand of

any 2007 or later model year vehicles,

(2) ensure sufficient retail availability of

low sulfur fuel for new vehicles in

Alaska, (3) address the growth of supply

and availability over time as more new

vehicles enter the fleet, (4) include

measures to ensure segregation of the 15

ppm fuel and avoid contamination and

misfueling, and (5) ensure

enforceability. We anticipate that, to

develop a workable transition plan, the

state will likely work in close

cooperation with refiners and other key

stakeholders, including retailers,

distributors, truckers, engine

manufacturers, environmental groups,

and other interested groups. For

example, the state will likely rely on

input from the trucking industry in

determining the expected low sulfur

fuel volume needed in Alaska, based on

the anticipated number of new vehicles,

and how this volume is expected to

grow during the first few years of the

program. Similarly, the state will likely

rely on the Alaska refiners’ input

regarding plans for supplying (either

through production or imports) low

sulfur fuel to meet the expected

demand. Further, the state will likely

rely on input and cooperation from

retailers and distributors to determine at

which locations the low sulfur fuel

should be made available. Retailers

offering low sulfur fuel will have to take

measures to prevent misfueling, such as

pump labeling, which must include

5086 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

provisions that are at least as stringent

as those required of retailers nationally

by the regulations and as described in

section VII. Similarly, all parties in the

distribution system must ensure the low

sulfur fuel remains segregated and must

take measures to prevent sulfur

contamination, in a manner that is at

least as stringent as that required

nationally by the regulations and as

described in section VII.

If the state anticipates that the

primary demand for low sulfur fuel will

be along the highway system (e.g., to

address truck traffic from the lower-48

states) in the early years of the program,

then the initial stages of the transition

plan could be focused in these areas. We

believe it would be appropriate for the

state to consider an extended transition

schedule for implementing the low

sulfur program in rural Alaska, as part

of the state’s overall plan, based on

when they anticipate the introduction of

a significant number of 2007 and later

model year vehicles in the remote areas.

Under this approach, the state will be

given the opportunity to develop such a

transition plan, as an alternative to the

national program, and submit it to us for

approval. We intend to help facilitate

the development of the plan, by working

closely with the state and the relevant

stakeholders so they will have an

opportunity to address our concerns in

their submittal. It is our intent that any

flexibility that is available to small

refiners nationwide (as described in

Section IV) will also be available to

small refiners in Alaska under an

approved alternative transition plan. To

ensure that refineries and other affected

parties will have certainty regarding

their regulatory requirements with

adequate lead time, Alaska must submit

this plan by April 1, 2002

(approximately one year after the

effective date of today’s rule). If Alaska

submits such a plan to us within one

year, and if it provides a reasonable

alternative as described above, we will

conduct a rulemaking with notice for

public comment and then publish a

final rule promulgating the new

regulatory scheme for Alaska. Our intent

is to issue such a final rule within one

year of Alaska’s submittal of the plan.

However, if the state chooses not to

submit an alternative plan, or if the plan

it submits does not provide a reasonable

alternative for Alaska as described

above, then refiners and other regulated

parties in Alaska will be subject to the

national program, including the

implementation schedule established in

today’s action, without further

regulatory action.

a. Today’s Action Regarding the 500

ppm Standard in Alaska

We are extending the existing

temporary exemption from the current

diesel fuel sulfur standard of 500 ppm

for the areas of Alaska served by the

Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) to

the effective date for the new standard

(i.e., June 1, 2006 at the refinery level;

July 15, 2006 at the terminal level; and

September 1, 2006 at all downstream

locations). While Alaska submitted a

petition for a permanent exemption

from the 500 ppm standard for these

areas, we are not taking further action

on that petition. Our goal is to take

action on that petition in a way that

minimizes costs through Alaska’s

transition to the new low sulfur

program. The cost of compliance could

be reduced if Alaska refiners were given

the flexibility to meet the low sulfur

standard in one step, rather than two

steps (i.e., once for the current 500 ppm

sulfur standard in 2004 when the

temporary exemption expires, and again

for the new 15 ppm standard in 2006).

As already discussed, we are allowing

Alaska to develop an alternative

transition plan for implementing the

low sulfur diesel fuel program. During

such a transition period, it is possible

that both low sulfur diesel fuel (for 2007

and later model year vehicles) and

higher sulfur (for older vehicles)

highway fuels might be available in

Alaska. To avoid the two-step sulfur

program described above during an

alternative transition period, we will

consider additional extensions to the

temporary exemption of the 500 ppm

standard beyond 2006 (e.g., for that

portion of the highway diesel pool that

is available for the pre-2007 vehicles)

during Alaska’s transition period. We

will make a decision on any additional

temporary extensions, if appropriate, in

the context of the separate rulemaking

taking action on the alternative

transition plan submitted by Alaska.

As in previous actions to grant Alaska

sulfur exemptions, we will not base any

vehicle or engine recall on emissions

exceedences caused by the use of highsulfur (>500 ppm) fuel in Alaska during

the period of the temporary sulfur

exemption. Our in-use testing goals are

to establish whether representative

engines, when properly maintained and

used, will meet emission standards for

their useful lives. These goals are

consistent with the requirements for

recall outlined in Section 207(c)(1) of

the CAA. Further, manufacturers may

have a reasonable basis for denying

emission related warranties where

damage or failures are caused by the use

of high sulfur fuel in Alaska.

The Engine Manufacturers

Association commented that the level of

protection provided to engine

manufacturers under the current

exemption for Alaska and the proposal,

as described above, falls short of what

is reasonable and necessary. It asserted

that the use of high sulfur diesel fuel by

an engine should raise a ‘‘rebuttable

presumption’’ that the fuel has caused

the engine failure, and that EPA should

have the burden of rebutting that

presumption. It also asserted that the

emissions warranty is a regulatory

requirement under Section 207, that

only EPA has the authority to exclude

claims based on the use of high sulfur

diesel fuel. We understand and concur

with the manufacturers’ concerns about

in-use testing of engines operated in an

area exempt from fuel sulfur

requirements. Consequently, we affirm

that, for recall purposes, we will not

seek to conduct or cause the in-use

testing of engines we know have been

exposed to high sulfur fuels. We will

likely screen any engines used in our

testing program to see if they have been

operated in the exempt area. We believe

we can readily obtain sufficient samples

of engines without testing engines from

exempt areas. Also, in any recall that we

order, manufacturers have the option of

requesting a public hearing. The use of

engines that have seen high sulfur fuel

will increase the likelihood of a recall

hearing. We expect manufacturers to

scrutinize any test engines for sulfur

usage that were used to justify an

ordered recall. In reviewing the

warranty concerns of the Engine

Manufacturers Association, we have

determined that our position regarding

warranties, as previously stated and

described above, is consistent with

section 207(a) and (b) of the CAA and

does not require any new or amended

regulatory language to implement.

Today’s action also grants Alaska’s

request for a permanent exemption from

the dye requirement of 40 CFR 80.29

and 40 CFR 80.446 for the entire state.

The costs of complying with the low

sulfur (both the current 500 ppm sulfur

and new 15 ppm sulfur) diesel fuel

requirements could be reduced

significantly if Alaska were not required

to dye the non-highway fuel. Dye

contamination of other fuels,

particularly jet fuel, is a serious

potential problem. This is a serious

issue in Alaska since the same transport

and storage tanks used for jet fuel

(which is more than half of Alaska’s

distillate market) are generally also used

for other diesel products, including offhighway diesel products which are

required to be dyed under the current

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5087

180Copies of information regarding Alaska’s

petition for exemption, subsequent requests by

Alaska, public comments received, and actions by

EPA area available in public docket A–96–26.

national program. This issue is

discussed further in the RIA (Chapter

VIII).

b. Why Are We Treating Alaska

Uniquely?

Section 211(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) provides that the states of Alaska

and Hawaii may seek an exemption

from the diesel fuel sulfur standard (500

ppm as specified in section 211(i)) in

the same manner as provided in section

325 of the CAA. The requested

exemption could be granted if EPA

determines that compliance with such

requirement is not feasible or is

unreasonable due to unique

geographical, meteorological, or

economic factors of the territory, or

other local factors as EPA considers

significant.

On February 12, 1993, Alaska

submitted a petition under section 325

of the CAA to exempt highway vehicle

diesel fuel in Alaska from paragraphs (1)

and (2) of section 211(i) of the CAA,

except for the minimum cetane index

requirement.180 The petition requested

that we temporarily exempt highway

vehicle diesel fuel in communities

served by the FAHS from meeting the

sulfur content (500 ppm) specified in

section 211(i) of the CAA and the dye

requirement for non-highway diesel fuel

of 40 CFR 80.29, until October 1, 1996.

The petition also requested a permanent

exemption from those requirements for

areas of Alaska not reachable by the

FAHS’the remote areas. On March 22,

1994, (59 FR 13610), we granted the

petition based on geographical,

meteorological, air quality, and

economic factors unique to Alaska.

On December 12, 1995, Alaska

submitted a petition for a permanent

exemption for all areas of the state

served by the FAHS, that is, those areas

covered only by the temporary

exemption. On August 19, 1996, we

extended the temporary exemption until

October 1, 1998 (61 FR 42812), to give

us time to consider comments to that

petition that were subsequently

submitted by stakeholders. On April 28,

1998 (63 FR 23241) we proposed to

grant the petition for permanent

exemption. Substantial public

comments and substantive new

information were submitted in response

to the proposal. To give us time to

consider those comments and new

information, we extended the temporary

exemption for another nine months

until July 1, 1999 (September 16, 1998,

63 FR 49459). During this time period,

we started work on a nationwide rule to

consider more stringent diesel fuel

requirements, particularly for the sulfur

content (today’s action). To coordinate

the decision on Alaska’s request for a

permanent exemption with the new

nationwide rule on diesel fuel quality,

we extended the temporary exemption

until January 1, 2004 (June 25, 1999, 64

FR 34126).

As discussed in the previous section,

in today’s action we are extending the

temporary exemption from the 500 ppm

diesel fuel sulfur standard to the

effective date for the new nationwide 15

ppm diesel fuel sulfur standard in 2006.

While it is important to implement in

Alaska the cleaner diesel engines and

fuel of today’s action, our goal is to take

action on the petition in a way that

minimizes costs through Alaska’s

transition to the new low sulfur

program. The cost of compliance could

be reduced if Alaska refiners were given

the flexibility to meet the low sulfur

standard in one step (i.e., going straight

from uncontrolled levels to the 15 ppm

sulfur standard), rather than in two

steps. We considered the prior public

comments we received as a result of our

previous notices and actions regarding

exemptions from the 500 ppm sulfur

standard for highway diesel fuel in

Alaska (see RIA).

Unlike in the rest of the country,

diesel fuel consumption for highway

use in Alaska represents only five

percent of the State’s total distillate fuel

consumption. Aviation and marine

applications, power generation and

heating consume most of the distillate,

while Alaska’s highway diesel vehicle

fleet is relatively small, particularly

outside the FAHS. The state estimates

that there are less than 9000 diesel

vehicles in the entire state, with less

than 600 of these vehicles in all of rural

Alaska. The state also indicates that new

model vehicles are introduced into the

Alaska market at a slower rate than

elsewhere, thus Alaska does not need to

transition its highway fuel to low sulfur

as quickly as the rest of the nation.

Most of the fuel consumed in Alaska

is produced by refineries located in

Alaska. This is primarily because of the

more severe cloud point specification

needed for the extremely low

temperatures experienced in much of

Alaska during the winter and the high

cost to import fuel that is produced

elsewhere. There are four commercial

refineries in Alaska. Only one of these

refineries currently has any

desulfurization capacity, which is

relatively small. Consequently, because

these refineries will have to reduce

sulfur from uncontrolled levels to meet

the new 15 ppm standard established by

today’s action, these refineries could

incur substantially higher costs than

those in the rest of the nation. Given the

very small highway diesel demand,

however, it is doubtful that more than

one or two Alaska refineries will choose

to produce low sulfur highway fuel, and

these refiners could even decide to

import it from refineries outside of

Alaska.

Further, Alaska’s fuel distribution

system faces many unique challenges.

Unlike the rest of the country, because

of its current exemption from the 500

ppm sulfur standard and dye

requirements, Alaska does not currently

segregate highway diesel fuel from that

used for off-road, marine, heating oil,

and other distillate uses. Therefore, the

distribution system costs for segregating

a low sulfur grade of diesel for highway

uses will be significant. The existing

fuel storage facilities limit the number

of fuel types that can be stored. In

addition to significant obstacles to

expanding tankage in Alaska, the cost of

constructing separate storage facilities,

and providing separate tanks for

transporting low sulfur diesel fuel (e.g.,

by barge or truck), could be significant.

Most of Alaska’s communities rely on

barge deliveries, and ice formation on

the navigable waters during the winter

months restricts fuel delivery to these

areas. Construction costs are 30 percent

higher in Alaska than in the lower-48

states, due to higher costs for freight

deliveries, materials, electrical,

mechanical, and labor. There is also a

shorter period of time during which

construction can occur, because of

seasonal extremes in temperature and

the amount of daily sunlight.

The severe impacts to Alaska’s fuel

distribution system of implementing a

low sulfur requirement for highway

diesel fuel would likely occur whether

we require the current 500 ppm

standard or the new 15 ppm standard.

The impacts to Alaska’s refineries and

fuel importers are greater at 15 ppm

than at 500 ppm. It is likely that the

refiners and fuel importers would have

a significant incremental impact if we

required Alaska to implement the 500

ppm diesel fuel sulfur standard in 2004

when the current exemption expires,

and the 15 ppm diesel fuel sulfur

standard in 2006 when the new national

requirement becomes effective, rather

than only once for the 15 ppm diesel

fuel sulfur standard in 2006.

5088 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

181See 57 FR 32010, July 20, 1992 for American

Samoa; 57 FR 32010, July 30, 1992 for Guam; and

59 FR 26129, May 19, 1994 for CNMI.

182Hydrotreating diesel fuel involves the use of

process heaters, which have the potential to emit

pollutants associated with combustion, such as

NOX, PM, CO and SO2. In addition, reconfiguring

refinery processes to add desulfurization equipment

could increase fugitive VOC emissions. The

emissions increases associated with diesel

desulfurization will vary widely from refinery to

refinery, depending on many source-specific

factors, such as crude oil supply, refinery

configuration, type of desulfurization technology,

amount of diesel fuel produced, and type of fuel

used to fire the process heaters.

3. What Provisions Apply in American

Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth

of Northern Mariana Islands?

a. Today’s Action Regarding the

Highway Diesel Fuel Standard in the

Territories

As we proposed, today’s action

excludes American Samoa, Guam and

the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana

Islands from the new diesel fuel sulfur

requirement of 15 ppm and the 2007

heavy-duty diesel vehicle and engine

emissions standards, and other

requirements associated with those

emission standards. The territories will

continue to have access to 2006 heavyduty diesel vehicle and engine

technologies, at least as long as

manufacturers choose to market those

technologies. We will not, however,

allow the emissions control technology

in the territories to backslide from those

available in 2006. If, in the future,

manufacturers choose to market only

heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines

with 2007 and later emission control

technologies, we believe the market will

determine when and if the territories

will make the investment needed to

obtain and distribute the low sulfur

diesel fuel necessary to support these

technologies.

This exclusion from emission

standards does not apply to the new

heavy-duty gasoline engine and vehicle

emission standards, because low sulfur

gasoline that complies with our

regulations will be available, and so

concerns about damage to engines and

emissions control systems will not exist.

This exclusion from emission standards

also does not apply to light-duty diesel

vehicles and trucks because gasoline

vehicles and trucks meeting the

emission standards and capable of

fulfilling the same functions will be

available. We believe that the market

will determine when and if having

access to new light-duty diesel

technologies in the territories, in place

of or in addition to gasoline

technologies, is important enough to

obtain and distribute the low sulfur

diesel fuel needed to support those

technologies.

As we also proposed, we are requiring

all heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and

engines for these territories to be

certified and labeled to the applicable

requirements (either to the 2006 model

year standards and associated

requirements under the exclusion, or to

the standards and associated

requirements applicable for the model

year of production under the

nationwide requirements) and

warranted, as otherwise required under

the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations.

Special recall and warranty

considerations due to the use of

excluded high sulfur fuel are the same

as those for Alaska during its exemption

and transition periods (see the

discussion in previous section). To

protect against this exclusion being used

to circumvent the emission

requirements applicable to the rest of

the United States (i.e., continental

United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) after

2006 by routing exempted (pre-2007

technology) vehicles and engines

through one of these territories, we are

restricting the importation of vehicles

and engines from these territories into

the rest of the United States. After the

2006 model year, diesel vehicles and

engines certified under this exclusion to

meet the 2006 model year emission

standards for sale in American Samoa,

Guam and the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands will not be

permitted entry into the rest of the

United States.

b. Why Are We Treating These

Territories Uniquely?

Unlike the rest of the nation (except

Alaska), these territories are currently

exempt from the 500 ppm sulfur

standard for highway diesel fuel.

Section 325 of the CAA provides that

upon request of Guam, American

Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands, we may exempt any person or

source, or class of persons or sources, in

that territory from any requirement of

the CAA, with some specific exceptions.

The requested exemption could be

granted if we determine that compliance

with such requirement is not feasible or

is unreasonable due to unique

geographical, meteorological, or

economic factors of the territory, or

other local factors as we consider

significant.

Prior to the effective date of the

current highway diesel sulfur standard

of 500 ppm, the territories of American

Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth

of Northern Mariana Islands petitioned

us for an exemption under section 325

of the CAA from the sulfur requirement

under section 211(i) of the CAA and

associated regulations at 40 CFR 80.29.

The petitions were based on

geographical, meteorological, air

quality, and economic factors unique to

those territories. We subsequently

granted the petitions.181

These U.S. territories are islands with

limited transportation networks.

Combined, these three territories have

only approximately 1300 registered

diesel vehicles. Diesel fuel consumption

in these vehicles represents just a tiny

fraction of the total diesel fuel volume

consumed on these islands; the bulk of

diesel fuel is burned in marine,

nonroad, and stationary applications.

Consequently highway diesel vehicles

are believed to have a negligible impact

on the air quality in these territories,

which, with minor exceptions, is very

good.

All three of these territories lack

internal petroleum supplies and refining

capabilities and rely on long distance

imports. Given their remote location

from Hawaii and the U.S. mainland,

most petroleum products are imported

from East rim nations, particularly

Singapore. Although Australia, the

Philippines, and certain other Asian

countries have or will soon require low

sulfur diesel fuel, their sulfur limit is

500 ppm, not the new 15 ppm sulfur

limit established by today’s action for

the United States. Compliance with low

sulfur (15 ppm) requirements for

highway fuel would require

construction of separate storage and

handling facilities for small quantities of

a unique grade of diesel fuel for

highway purposes, or use of low sulfur

(15 ppm) diesel fuel for all purposes to

avoid segregation. Either of these

alternatives would require importation

of the low sulfur fuel from Hawaii or the

U.S. mainland, and would significantly

add to the already high cost of diesel

fuel in these territories, which rely

heavily on United States support for

their economies.

G. Refinery Air Permitting

Prior to making diesel desulfurization

changes, some refineries may be

required to obtain a preconstruction

permit, under the New Source Review

(NSR) program, from the applicable

state/local air pollution control

agency.182 We believe that today’s

program provides sufficient lead time

for refiners to obtain any necessary NSR

permits well in advance of the

compliance date. Further, refiners will

be able to stagger their construction of

desulfurization projects, since many

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5089

183Best Available Control Technology (BACT)

and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)

technology.

refineries could take advantage of the

temporary compliance option for low

sulfur diesel fuel from 2006–2009, as

described in Section IV.A. Although

some refiners commented that obtaining

air permits would be a factor in their

ability to comply in the 2006 time

frame, state/local agencies commented

that they will make the issuance of

permits a top priority, because they

strongly support achieving the

environmental objectives of the low

sulfur highway diesel program. State/

local agencies further commented that

they are committed to working with all

affected parties to expedite the

processing and issuance of any

necessary permits.

For the Tier 2/gasoline sulfur control

program promulgated in December

1999, refiners had expressed concerns

that permit delays might impede their

ability to meet compliance dates.

Although we believed that the Tier 2

program provided sufficient lead time

for refiners to obtain permits, we

committed to undertake several actions

to minimize the possibility of any

delays for refineries obtaining major

NSR permits for gasoline

desulfurization projects. These actions

include providing federal guidance on

emission control technologies183 and the

appropriate use of motor vehicle

emission reductions (resulting from the

use of low sulfur gasoline), where

available, as emission offsets, as well as

forming EPA permit teams to assist

states in quickly resolving issues, where

needed. These three items are discussed

in more detail in the Tier 2 final rule

(see 65 FR 6773, Feb. 10, 2000).

Given that today’s diesel sulfur

program provides more than five years

of lead time, as well as an additional

transitional period, we believe refiners

will have ample time to obtain any

necessary preconstruction permits.

Nevertheless, we believe it is reasonable

to continue our efforts under the Tier 2

program, as described above, to help

states in facilitating the issuance of

permits under the highway diesel sulfur

program. For example, the guidance on

BACT and LAER control technology that

is currently under development for the

gasoline sulfur program should have

application for diesel desulfurization

projects as well. We will plan to

reevaluate this guidance to the extent

that it may need to be revised or

updated for application to highway

diesel desulfurization projects.

Similarly, we believe the concept of

EPA permit teams for gasoline sulfur

projects could readily be extended to

permits related to diesel projects as

well. These teams will track the overall

progress of permit issuance and will be

available to assist state/local permitting

authorities, refineries and the public

upon request to resolve site-specific

permitting questions. Further, in Tier 2,

we announced our plan to issue

guidance to help states determine

whether and to what extent they may

wish to use vehicle emissions

reductions as offsets for refineries

implementing gasoline desulfurization

projects. We are currently in the process

of evaluating public comments received

on the draft guidance relating to the use

of Tier 2 reductions as refinery offsets.

Whatever resolution we determine is

appropriate for this guidance in the Tier

2 context, we plan to apply a similar

approach for diesel desulfurization

projects as well. Finally, to facilitate the

processing of permits, we encourage

refineries to begin discussions with

permitting agencies and to submit

permit applications as early as possible.

V. Economic Impact

This Section discusses the projected

economic impact and cost effectiveness

of the emission standards and lowsulfur fuel requirement. Full details of

our cost and cost effectiveness analyses

can be found in the RIA.

A. Cost for Diesel Vehicles to Meet

Emissions Standards

1. Summary of New System and

Operating Costs

The technologies described in Section

III represent significant technological

advancements for controlling emissions,

but also make clear that much effort

remains to develop and optimize these

new technologies 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

investment in long-term cost savings

potential, the cost analysis includes an

estimated $385 million in R&D outlays

for heavy-duty engine designs and $220

million in R&D for catalysts systems

giving a total R&D outlay for improved

emission control of more than $600

million. The cost and technical

feasibility analyses accordingly reflect

substantial improvements on the current

state of technology due to these future

developments.

Estimated costs are broken into

additional hardware costs and life-cycle

operating costs. The incremental

hardware costs for new engines are

comprised of variable costs (for

hardware and assembly time) and fixed

costs (for R&D, retooling, and

certification). Total operating costs

include the estimated incremental cost

for low-sulfur diesel fuel, any expected

increases in maintenance cost or fuel

consumption costs along with any

decreases in operating cost expected

due to low-sulfur fuel. Cost estimates

based on these projected technology

packages represent an expected

incremental cost of engines in the 2007

model year. Costs in subsequent years

will 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 1999 dollars.

The costs of these new technologies

for meeting the 2007 model year

standards are itemized in the RIA and

summarized in Table V.A–1. For light

heavy-duty vehicles, the cost of an

engine is estimated to increase by

$1,990 in the early years of the program

reducing to $1,170 in later years and

operating costs over a full life-cycle to

increase by approximately $500 in the

near term. For medium heavy-duty

vehicles the cost of a new engine is

estimated to increase by $2,560 initially

decreasing to $1,410 in later years with

life-cycle operating costs increasing by

approximately $900 in the near term.

Similarly, for heavy heavy-duty engines,

the vehicle cost in the first year is

expected to increase by $3,230

decreasing to $1,870 in later years.

Estimated additional life-cycle operating

costs for heavy heavy-duty engines in

the near term are approximately $3,800.

The higher incremental increase in

operating costs for the heavy heavy-duty

vehicles is due to the larger number of

miles driven over their lifetime (714,000

miles on average) and their

correspondingly high lifetime fuel

usage. Emission reductions are also

proportional to VMT and so are

significantly higher for heavy heavyduty vehicles.

We also believe there are factors that

will cause cost impacts to decrease over

time, making it appropriate to

distinguish between near-term and long

term costs. 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

5090 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

184See Chapter V of the final Tier 2 Regulatory

Impact Analysis, contained in Air Docket A–97–10.

assembly operations, use lower cost

materials, and reduce the number or

complexity of component parts.184 Our

analysis, as described in more detail in

the RIA, 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 (2009 model year) and by

reducing variable costs again by 20

percent starting with the fifth year of

production. Additionally, since fixed

costs are assumed to be recovered over

a five-year period, these costs are not

included in the analysis after the first

five model years. Finally, manufacturers

are expected to apply ongoing research

to make emission controls more

effective and to have lower operating

cost over time. However, because of the

uncertainty involved in forecasting the

results of this research, we have

conservatively not accounted for it in

this analysis. Table V.A–1 lists the

projected costs for each category of

vehicle in the near-and long-term. For

the purposes of this analysis, ‘‘nearterm’’ costs are those calculated for the

2007 model year and ‘‘long term’’ costs

are those calculated for 2012 and later

model years.

TABLE V.A–1.—PROJECTED INCREMENTAL SYSTEM COST AND LIFE CYCLE OPERATING COST FOR HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL

VEHICLES

[net present values in the year of sale, 1999 dollars]

Vehicle class Model year Hardware

cost

Life-cycle

operating

cost a b

Light ............................................................................................. near term ............................................................... 1,990 509

Heavy-duty ................................................................................... long term ............................................................... 1,170 537

Medium ........................................................................................ near term ............................................................... 2,560 943

Heavy-duty ................................................................................... long term ............................................................... 1,410 996

Heavy ........................................................................................... near term ............................................................... 3,230 3,785

Heavy-duty ................................................................................... long term ............................................................... 1,870 3,979

a Incremental life-cycle operating costs include the incremental costs to refine and distribute low sulfur diesel fuel, the service cost of closed

crankcase filtration systems, the maintenance cost for PM filters and the lower maintenance costs realized through the use of low sulfur diesel

fuel (see discussion in Section V.C). bThese costs are for new vehicles only and do not reflect any costs or savings for the existing fleet.

2. New System Costs for NOX and PM

Emission Control

Several new technologies are

projected for complying with the 2007

model year emission standards. We are

projecting that NOX adsorbers and

catalyzed diesel particulate filters will

be the most likely technologies applied

by the industry in order to meet the

emissions standards. The fact that

manufacturers will have several years

before implementation of the new

standards ensures that the technologies

used to comply with the standards will

develop significantly before reaching

production. This ongoing development

could lead to reduced costs in three

ways. First, we expect 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, we anticipate

that the continuing effort to improve the

emission control technologies will

include innovations that allow lowercost production. Finally, we believe that

manufacturers will focus research

efforts on any drawbacks, such as fuel

economy impacts or maintenance costs,

in an effort to minimize or overcome

any potential negative effects.

We anticipate that in order to meet

the standards, industry will introduce a

combination of primary technology

upgrades for the 2007 model year.

Achieving very low NOX emissions will

require continued development of NOX

emission control technologies and

improvements in engine management to

take advantage of the exhaust emission

control system capabilities. The

manufacturers are expected to take a

systems approach to the problem of

optimizing the engine and exhaust

emission control system to realize the

best overall performance possible. Since

most research to date with exhaust

emission control technologies has

focused on retrofit programs, there

remains room for significant

improvements by taking such a systems

approach. The NOX adsorber technology

in particular is expected to benefit from

re-optimization of the engine

management system to better match the

NOX adsorbers performance

characteristics. The majority of the $600

million dollars we have estimated for

research is expected to be spent on

developing this synergy between the

engine and NOX exhaust emission

control systems. PM control

technologies are expected to be less

sensitive to engine operating conditions

as they have already shown good

robustness in retrofit applications with

low-sulfur diesel fuel.

The NOX adsorber system that we are

anticipating will be applied in 2007

consists of a catalyst which combines

traditional gasoline three-way

conversion technology with a newly

developed NOX storage function, a

reductant metering system and a means

to control exhaust air fuel (A/F) ratio.

The NOX adsorber catalyst itself is a

relatively new device, but is benefitting

in its development from over 20 years

of gasoline three-way catalyst

development. In order for it to function

properly, a systems approach that

includes a reductant metering system

and control of exhaust A/F ratio is also

necessary. Many of the new air handling

and electronic system technologies

developed in order to meet the 2004

heavy-duty engine standards can be

applied to accomplish the NOX adsorber

control functions as well. Some

additional hardware for exhaust NOX or

O2 sensing, for exhaust partitioning and

for fuel metering will likely be required.

The RIA also calculates an increase in

warranty costs for this additional

hardware. In total the new NOX control

technologies required in order to meet

the 2007 emission standards are

estimated to increase light heavy-duty

engine costs by $1,000, medium heavyduty engine costs by $1,310 and heavy

heavy-duty engine costs by $1,650 in

the year 2007. In the year 2012 and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5091

185Letter from Bruce Bertelsen, Manufacturers of

Emission Controls Association (MECA) to William

Charmley, US EPA, December 17, 1998. The letter

documents a MECA member survey of expected

diesel particulate filter costs. Air Docket A–98–32

Item II–D–09.

beyond the incremental costs are

expected to decrease to $590 for a light

heavy-duty engine, $690 for a medium

heavy-duty engine and to $930 for a

heavy heavy-duty engine.

Catalyzed diesel particulate filters are

experiencing widespread retrofit use in

much of Europe as low-sulfur diesel fuel

becomes readily available. These

technologies are proving to be robust in

their non-optimized retrofit applications

requiring no modification to engine or

vehicle control functions. We therefore

anticipate that catalyzed diesel

particulate filters can be integrated with

new diesel engines with only a minimal

amount of engine development. We do

not anticipate that additional hardware

beyond the diesel particulate filter itself

and an exhaust pressure sensor for OBD

will be required in order to meet the PM

standard. However, in order to ensure

trap durability under all possible

operating conditions, some engine

manufacturers may choose to provide

backup regeneration technologies for

their PM filter based systems. As

detailed further in the RIA and the RTC

documents, we do not anticipate that

these redundant systems will add to

variable costs. We estimate in 2007 that

diesel particulate filter systems will add

$730 to the cost of a light heavy-duty

vehicle, $950 to the cost of a medium

heavy-duty vehicle and $1,190 to the

cost of a heavy heavy-duty vehicle. By

2012 these costs are expected to

decrease to $425, $530, and $690

respectively. These cost estimates are

comparable to estimates made by the

Manufacturers of Emission Controls

Association for these technologies.185

The hydrocarbon (HC) exhaust

standards set in this rulemaking will be

challenging for both diesel and gasoline

engine technologies. For diesel engines

utilizing the NOX adsorber based

technology solution to control NOX

emissions, HC control due to imprecise

NOX regeneration control may be

difficult. One way to ensure HC

compliance will be to apply a separate

diesel oxidation catalyst which can

control HC emissions to the limits set

here. These diesel oxidation catalysts

are expected to add an additional cost

to the system of $206 for light heavyduty vehicles, $261 for medium heavyduty vehicles, and $338 for heavy

heavy-duty vehicles.

We have eliminated the exemption

that allowed turbo-charged heavy-duty

diesel engines to vent crankcase gases

directly to the environment, so called

open crankcase systems, and have

projected that manufacturers will rely

on engineered closed crankcase

ventilation systems which filter oil from

the blow-by gases. We estimate that the

initial cost of these systems in 2007 will

be $37, $42, and $49 for light, medium

and heavy heavy-duty diesel engines

respectively. Additionally we expect a

portion of the oil filtration system to be

a service replacement oil filter which

will be replaced on a 30,000 mile

service interval with a service cost of

$10, $12, and $15 for light, medium,

and heavy heavy-duty diesel engines

respectively. These cost are summarized

with the other cost for emission controls

in Table V.A–1 and are included in the

aggregate cost reported in Section V.D.

3. Operating Costs Associated With NOX

and PM Control

The RIA assumes that a variety of new

technologies will be introduced to

enable heavy-duty vehicles to meet the

new emissions standards. Primary

among these are advanced emission

control technologies and low-sulfur

diesel fuel. The many benefits of lowsulfur diesel fuel are described in

Section III, and the incremental cost for

low-sulfur fuel is described in Section

V.C. The new emission control

technologies are themselves not

expected to introduce additional

operating costs in the form of increased

fuel consumption. Operating costs are

estimated in the RIA over the life of the

vehicle and are expressed as a net

present value (NPV) in 1999 dollars for

comparison purposes.

Total operating cost estimates include

both the expected increases in

maintenance and fuel costs (both the

incremental cost for low-sulfur fuel and

any fuel consumption penalty) due to

the emission control systems

application and the predicted decreases

in maintenance cost due to the use of

low-sulfur fuel. Our analysis projects

some increase in operating costs due to

the incremental cost of low-sulfur diesel

fuel but no net increase in fuel

consumption with the application of the

new emission control technologies (see

discussion in Section III.G). The net

increase in operating costs are

summarized in Table V.A–1. While we

are using these incremental operating

cost estimates for our cost effectiveness

calculations, it is almost certain that the

manufacturers will improve existing

technologies or introduce new

technologies in order to offset at least

some of the increased operating costs.

We estimate that the low-sulfur diesel

fuel required in order to enable these

technologies will have an incremental

cost of approximately $0.045/gallon in

the near term increasing to $0.050/

gallon in the long term as discussed in

Section V.C. The low-sulfur diesel fuel

may also provide additional benefits by

reducing the engine maintenance costs

associated with corrosion due to sulfur

in the current diesel fuel. These

benefits, which are discussed further in

Section V.C.5 and in the RIA, include

extended oil change intervals due to the

slower acidification rate of the engine

oil with low-sulfur diesel fuel. Service

intervals for the EGR system are also

expected to increase due to lower-sulfur

induced corrosion than will occur with

today’s higher-sulfur fuel. This

lengthening of service intervals provides

a significant savings to the end user. As

described in more detail in the RIA we

anticipate that low-sulfur diesel fuel

will provide additional cost savings to

the consumer of $153 for light heavyduty vehicles, $249 for medium heavyduty vehicles and $610 dollars for heavy

heavy-duty vehicles.

The operating costs for replacement

filters in the closed crankcase filtration

systems expressed as a net present value

in the year of sale are estimated to be

$31 for light heavy-duty vehicles, $59

for medium heavy-duty vehicles and

$218 for heavy heavy-duty vehicles for

vehicles sold in 2007.

PM filter based technologies capture

all forms of particulate in the exhaust

including inorganic solid particles

which can come from the engine oil or

wear products of the engine. These

inorganic particles (often call ash) must

be periodically cleaned from the

particulate filter. We have estimated the

additional maintenance cost to clean the

PM filter expressed as a net present

value in the year of sale of $55 for light

heavy-duty vehicles, $56 for medium

heavy-duty vehicles and $208 dollars

for heavy heavy-duty vehicles, as

detailed in the RIA.

Factoring the cost savings due to low

sulfur diesel fuel into the additional

cost for low-sulfur diesel fuel and the

service cost of the closed crankcase

ventilation system and the PM filter

system yields an increase in vehicle

operating costs expressed as a net

present value in the year of sale of $509

for a light heavy-duty vehicle, $943 for

a medium heavy-duty vehicle and

$3,785 for a heavy heavy-duty vehicle.

These life cycle operating costs are also

summarized in Table V.A–1. The net

increase in operating cost can also be

expressed as an average annual

operating cost for each class of heavyduty vehicle by dividing the total

undiscounted operating costs by the

average vehicle life assumed to be 9

years for light heavy-duty vehicles, and

5092 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

186See Chapter V of the final Tier 2 Regulatory

Impact Analysis, contained in Air Docket A–97–10.

11 years for medium and heavy heavyduty engines. Expressed as an

approximate annual per vehicle cost,

the additional operating cost is

estimated as $80 for a light heavy-duty

vehicle, $130 for a medium heavy-duty

vehicle, and $510 for a heavy heavyduty vehicle.

B. Cost for Gasoline Vehicles to Meet the

New Emissions Standards

1. Summary of New System Costs

To perform a cost analysis for the

final gasoline standards, we first

determined a package of likely

technologies that manufacturers could

use to meet the standards and then

determined the costs of those

technologies. In making our estimates,

we have relied on our own technology

assessment which included publicly

available information such as that

developed by California, confidential

information supplied by individual

manufacturers, and the results of our

own in-house testing.

In general, we expect that heavy-duty

gasoline vehicles would (like Tier 2

light duty vehicles) be able to meet

these standards through refinements of

current emissions control components

and systems rather than through the

widespread use of new technology.

More specifically, we anticipate a

combination of technology upgrades

such as the following:

• Improvements to the catalyst

system design, structure, and

formulation, plus an increase in average

catalyst size and loading.

• Air and fuel system modifications

including changes such as improved

oxygen sensors, and calibration changes

including improved precision fuel

control and individual cylinder fuel

control.

• Exhaust system modifications,

possibly including air gapped

components, insulation, leak free

exhaust systems, and thin wall exhaust

pipes.

• Increased use of fully electronic

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).

• Increased use of secondary air

injection.

• Use of ignition spark retard on

engine start-up to improve upon cold

start emission control.

• Use of low permeability materials

and minor improvements to designs,

such as the use of low-loss connectors,

in evaporative emission control systems.

We expect that the technologies

needed to meet the heavy-duty gasoline

standards will be very similar to those

required to meet the Tier 2 standards for

vehicles over 8,500 pounds GVWR. Few

heavy-duty gasoline vehicles currently

rely on technologies such as close

coupled catalysts and secondary air

injection, but we expect they would to

meet the new standards.

For each group we developed

estimates of both variable costs (for

hardware and assembly time) and fixed

costs (for R&D, retooling, and

certification). Cost estimates based on

the current projected costs for our

estimated technology packages

represent an expected incremental cost

of vehicles in the near-term. For the

longer term, we have identified factors

that would cause cost impacts to

decrease over time. First, since fixed

costs are assumed to be recovered over

a five-year period, these costs disappear

from the analysis after the fifth model

year of production. Second, the analysis

incorporates the expectation that

manufacturers and suppliers would

apply ongoing research and

manufacturing innovation to making

emission controls more effective and

less costly over time. Research in the

costs of manufacturing has consistently

shown that as manufacturers gain

experience in production and use, they

are able to apply innovations to simplify

machining and assembly operations, use

lower cost materials, and reduce the

number or complexity of component

parts.186 These reductions in production

costs are typically associated with every

doubling of production volume. Our

analysis incorporates the effects of this

‘‘learning curve’’ by projecting that a

portion of the variable costs of

producing the new vehicles decreases

by 20 percent starting with the third

year of production. We applied the

learning curve reduction only once

since, with existing technologies, there

would be less opportunity for lowering

production costs than would be the case

with the adoption of new technology.

We did not apply the learning curve

reduction to precious metal costs, nor

did we apply it for the evaporative

standards.

We have prepared our cost estimates

for meeting the new heavy-duty gasoline

standards using a baseline of current

technologies for heavy-duty gasoline

vehicles and engines. Finally, we have

incorporated what we believe to be a

conservatively high level of R&D

spending at $2,500,000 per engine

family where no California counterpart

exists. We have included this large R&D

effort because calibration and system

optimization is likely to be a critical

part of the effort to meet the standards.

However, we believe that the R&D costs

may be generous because the projection

probably underestimates the carryover

of knowledge from the development

required to meet the light-duty Tier 2

and CARB LEV–II standards.

Table V.B–1 provides our estimates of

the per vehicle cost for heavy-duty

gasoline vehicles and engines. The nearterm cost estimates in Table V.B–1 are

for the first years that vehicles meeting

the standards are sold, prior to cost

reductions due to lower productions

costs and the retirement of fixed costs.

The long-term projections take these

cost reductions into account.

TABLE V.B–1.—PROJECTED INCREMENTAL SYSTEM COST AND LIFE CYCLE OPERATING COST FOR HEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE

VEHICLES

[Net Present Values in the year of sale, 1999 dollars]

Vehicle class Model year Incremental

system cost

Life-cycle

operating

cost

Heavy-Duty ....................................................................... near term .......................................................................... $198 $0

Gasoline ............................................................................ long term .......................................................................... 167 0

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5093

2. Operating Costs Associated With

Meeting the Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Standard

Low sulfur gasoline is a fundamental

enabling technology which will allow

heavy-duty gasoline vehicles to meet the

very low emission standards being

finalized today. The low sulfur gasoline

required under the Tier 2 proposal will

enable advanced exhaust emission

control for heavy-duty vehicles as well.

Today’s final rule puts no additional

requirements on gasoline sulfur levels

and as such should not increase

gasoline fuel costs. Additionally, the

new technologies being employed in

order to meet the new standards are not

expected to increase fuel consumption

for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles. In fact,

there may be some small improvement

in fuel economy from the application of

improved fuel and air control systems

on these engines. Therefore, in the

absence of changes to gasoline

specifications and with no decrease in

fuel economy, we do not expect any

increase in vehicle operating costs.

C. Cost of Fuel Change

We estimate that the overall net cost

associated with producing and

distributing 15 ppm diesel fuel, when

those costs are allocated to all gallons of

highway diesel fuel, will be

approximately 5.0 cents per gallon in

the long term, or an annual cost of

roughly $2.2 billion per year once the

program is fully effective starting June 1,

2010. During the initial years under

temporary compliance option, the

overall net cost is projected to be 4.5

cents per gallon, or an annual cost of

roughly $1.7 billion per year.

This cost consists of a number of

components associated with refining

and distributing the new fuel. The

majority of the cost is related to refining.

From 2006–2010, refining costs are

estimated to be approximately 3.3 cents

per gallon of highway diesel fuel (4.1

cents per gallon for that portion

produced to the 15 ppm standard),

increasing to 4.3 cents per gallon once

the program is fully in place. In annual

terms, the 2006–2010 refining costs are

expected to be about $1.4 billion per

year, increasing to about $1.8 billion in

2011. These figures include the cost of

producing slightly more volume of

diesel fuel because: (1) Desulfurization

decreases the energy density of the fuel

and (2) slightly more highway diesel

fuel is expected to be downgraded to

nonroad diesel fuel in the distribution

system.

A small cost of 0.2 cents per gallon is

associated with an anticipated increase

in the use of additives to maintain fuel

lubricity. Also, distribution costs are

projected to increase by 1.0 cents per

gallon during the initial years under the

temporary compliance option, including

the cost of distributing slightly greater

volumes of fuel. Together, these two

cost components only amount to about

$0.5 billion per year beginning in 2006.

These costs drop to only about $0.3

billion in 2011.

As discussed in Sections V.A. and

V.C.5, operation with 15 ppm sulfur

diesel fuel is expected to reduce average

vehicle maintenance costs by

approximately 1 cent on a per gallon

basis. Beginning in 2011, this reduction

in maintenance costs will total roughly

$400 million per year. All of these cost

estimates are discussed in more detail

below and in the RIA.

1. Refinery Costs

As explained in Section IV, EPA

believes that refiners will meet the 15

ppm sulfur standard through an

extension of the same hydrotreating

technology which is used today to meet

the current 500 ppm sulfur standard.

Meeting the new standard will generally

require refiners to install additional

hydrotreating equipment. Most refiners

are expected to add another

hydrotreating reactor and other related

equipment to their existing

desulfurization unit. However, we

project that some refiners, roughly 20

percent, will conclude that it is not

economical to add onto their existing

unit and will instead build an entirely

new hydrotreater.

Consistent with our analysis for the

NPRM, we estimate that a refinery’s

diesel fuel will have to average 7 ppm

in order to consistently meet the 15 ppm

standard. For the NPRM, we estimated

the cost of producing highway diesel

fuel with a 7 ppm average sulfur level

for the average U.S. refinery. We

received a number of comments on the

NPRM which indicated that the cost for

various refiners would differ

dramatically, as would the cost of

treating the various blendstocks which

comprise highway diesel fuel. In

response, we extended our refining cost

model to be specific to each refinery in

the U.S., based on a refinery’s

production volume and estimated

composition of its highway diesel fuel.

Using this model, we estimated each

refinery’s cost of producing 7 ppm

sulfur highway diesel fuel and then

aggregated these results to estimate a

national average cost.

This analysis considers the fact that

some diesel fuel blendstocks are more

difficult to desulfurize than others. As

indicated in some comments on the

NPRM, this could lead refiners to shift

their blendstocks between highway

diesel fuel and other distillate products

in order to minimize costs. For example,

our analysis found that the incremental

cost of desulfurizing current highway

diesel fuel can be more expensive for

some refiners than the cost to other

refiners of desulfurizing nonroad diesel

fuel to meet the 15 ppm standard,

despite the fact that the current sulfur

level of nonroad diesel fuel is roughly

2500–3000 ppm.

We evaluated costs under two

scenarios: (1) all current producers of

highway diesel fuel continued to do so,

and (2) some refiners increase

production of highway diesel fuel and

some refiners facing higher

desulfurization costs leave the highway

diesel fuel market. Our cost projections

presented below are based on the first

scenario. This is conservative, because

in this scenario, some refineries

currently produce relatively low

volumes of highway diesel fuel and

would face relatively high costs per

gallon to desulfurize this same volume

of fuel.

We project that the average refining

cost to meet the 15 ppm cap standard

will be 4.3 cents per gallon, including

capital costs amortized at 7 percent per

year before taxes, once the standard is

fully in place in June, 2010. Refining

costs will be lower, 4.1 cents per gallon

of 15 ppm fuel (or 3.3 cents per gallon

of all highway diesel fuel), during

optional compliance provisions (2006–

2010), because we expect that those

refiners facing the lowest cost of

meeting the standard in each PADD will

invest to produce the new fuel. We

project that refiners will invest $3.8

billion in new equipment in order for

about 80 percent of highway diesel fuel

to meet the 15 ppm standard in 2006.

An additional $1.4 billion will be

invested for the rest of the highway

diesel fuel market to meet the new

standard in 2010, for a total capital cost

of $5.2 billion. The average refinery is

projected to spend about $43 million in

capital costs, and $7 million per year in

operating costs.

Table V.C–1 shows the range of

average costs per refinery by PADD.

Despite the varying size of refineries

and differences in their available

distillate blendstocks, the variations in

the average cost between PADDs in

either 2006 or 2010 are small, with the

exception of PADD 4. PADD 4 average

costs are 30–40 percent higher than the

costs in the other PADDs.

5094 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE V.C–1.—AVERAGE REFINING

COSTS BY PADD (CENTS PER GALLON OF 15 PPM FUEL)

2006 2010

PADD 1 ............. 4.4 4.7

PADD 2 ............. 4.3 4.5

PADD 3 ............. 3.8 3.9

PADD 4 ............. 5.1 5.3

PADD 5 ............. 4.2 4.5

U.S. Average .... 4.1 4.3

A number of other estimates of the

cost of the 15 ppm sulfur standard were

submitted as part of the comments.

Mathpro used a notional refinery model

to estimate the national average costs of

the proposed standard for EMA. Charles

River Associates (CRA), along with

Baker and O’Brien, used the Prism

refinery model to estimate the cost for

each refinery in the U.S. for API.

Finally, EnSys used the Oak Ridge

National Laboratory PADD 3 refinery

model to estimate costs for DOE. Table

V.C–2 summarizes these estimates after

adjusting the projected costs to

represent a 7 percent rate of return on

investment before taxes (except for the

CRA cost, which could not be adjusted).

TABLE V.C–2.—COMPARISON OF NATIONAL AVERAGE REFINING COST ESTIMATES

[7 percent rate of return on investment before taxes]

Average cost

(cents per gallon of 15 ppm

fuel)

Capital cost

($ billion)

EPA (Full program) .................................................................................................................................................. 4.4 5.3

Methpro for EMA* .................................................................................................................................................... 4.2–6.1 3.4–6.1

CRA for API (10% after tax rate of return) .............................................................................................................. 6.2 —

EnSys for DOE (conservative technology)* † .......................................................................................................... 5.1–6.0 3.9–6.5

EnSys for DOE (optimistic technology)* † ............................................................................................................... 4.2–4.4 2.7–4.5

* Lower end of range assumes 100 percent revamped equipment; upper end assumes all new equipment.

† Costs are only for the Gulf Coast refining region, which have slightly lower per-gallon costs than the entire U.S., and about half the capital

costs.

The costs estimated by Mathpro are

the most similar to those estimated by

EPA. This is primarily because the

desulfurization technology projected to

be used were similar in the two studies.

CRA projected the use of similar

technology, but estimated that 40

percent of refiners would build new

desulfurization units, versus our

estimate of 20 percent. CRA also

assumed that technology vendors are

inherently optimistic in their

projections and increased their

projected costs by roughly 20 percent.

CRA also projected that nonroad diesel

fuel sulfur levels would be capped at

500 ppm. How this affected the

projected cost of producing 15 ppm fuel

is not clear. CRA assumed that this 500

ppm fuel would be produced by

blending 8 ppm sulfur highway diesel

fuel and 3000 ppm heating oil. Much of

this production was assumed to occur

due to mixing in the distribution

system. An unknown amount of 500

ppm fuel was produced at refineries.

Desulfurization costs are not linear, as

shown by CRA’s own study. Thus, any

blending of 15 ppm sulfur highway

diesel fuel with non-desulfurized

heating oil at refineries was much more

costly than simply hydrotreating

nonroad diesel fuel to 500 ppm. It also

required refiners to hydrotreat the most

difficult blendstocks at a much higher

cost. Because of these significant

differences in both methodology and

assumptions, it is not surprising that

CRA’s costs would be higher than those

estimated by Mathpro or ourselves.

EnSys’s cost estimates require some

explanation due to the number of

scenarios they analyzed. EnSys did not

estimate how many refiners would build

new desulfurization units and how

many would modify their current

hydrotreaters, but simply presented

costs if refiners took one approach or

the other. Thus, the lower limits of the

ranges shown in Table V.C–2 assume

refiners modify their current

hydrotreaters, while the upper limits

assume that refiners would build new

units. EnSys also projected costs for two

separate sets of technologies. One set

was considered conservative and relied

on technologies that are already in

commercial use. The other was

considered to be optimistic and was

similar to that projected to be used by

EPA, Mathpro and CRA. EnSys’ costs

using the conservative technology are

higher than our estimates. This is due to

the fact that this technology involves

greater capital investment and greater

consumption of hydrogen. These greater

costs are due to the fact that this

technology is not just designed to

reduce sulfur, but to reduce aromatic

content, increase cetane levels and

perform some cracking. EnSys’ costs

using the optimistic technology are

much more similar to those of EPA and

Mathpro, considering that EnSys’ range

of costs reflects both revamped and new

desulfurization units and that EPA’s

costs are dominated (80 percent) by

revamped units.

Some of the variation in the costs

projected by the various studies

involves uncertainty in exactly what

degree of hydrotreating will be

necessary to meet the 15 ppm sulfur

standard day in and day out with a

variety of distillate feedstocks. As

discussed in Section IV above, there is

currently no commercial experience in

the U.S. and only a limited amount of

information in the public literature on

the costs associated with reducing the

sulfur level in diesel fuel to very low

levels on an ongoing operational basis.

Thus, any cost projections involve a

significant amount of uncertainty.

2. Highway Diesel Fuel Supply

While API and many refiners did not

question the feasibility of the 15 ppm

standard, they did indicate that the cost

would be higher than that projected by

EPA. API believes that those refiners

facing higher than average costs may

decide to leave the highway diesel fuel

market. They argue this is especially a

possibility if they are faced with a sulfur

standard below a 30 ppm average (or 50

ppm cap), which they believe will

require very large investments for high

pressure hydrotreating to maintain

current highway diesel production

volumes. API also believes that many

refiners may reduce their production of

highway diesel fuel, by switching the

feedstocks (i.e., LCO) which are most

difficult to desulfurize to other markets,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5095

187 ‘‘Alternate Markets for Highway Diesel Fuel

Components,’’ Muse, Stancil & Co., for Southwest

Research Institute, for U.S. EPA, September, 2000.

thus avoiding the higher investments

associated with high pressure

hydrotreating. If some refiners reduce

highway diesel fuel production, that

could present an opportunity for other

refiners, who choose to make the

investment, of higher prices for the new

15 ppm sulfur product.

This view is embodied by a study by

Charles River Associates (CRA) and

Baker and O’Brien which was

commissioned by API. CRA polled

refiners concerning their plans under a

15 ppm sulfur cap. Using the results of

this survey, as well as other

information, CRA projected refiners’

costs of meeting the 15 ppm standard,

as well as their likely production

volumes. CRA concluded that U.S.

refiners would likely reduce their

highway diesel fuel production by an

average of 12 percent, creating

significant shortages and price spikes.

CRA’s conclusions appear to have

been strongly affected by their

assumptions, as well as the refiner

survey they conducted. For example,

CRA assumed that the new sulfur

standard would cause 10 percent more

highway diesel fuel to be ‘‘lost’’ in the

distribution system compared to today

(i.e., downgraded to off-highway diesel

fuel). We believe based on the analysis

outlined in the RIA that 2.2 percent is

a more accurate estimate, resulting in 9

percent more 15 ppm fuel being

available than CRA estimated. This

difference alone accounts for 75 percent

of the potential national supply shortfall

projected by CRA.

CRA also concluded, with little

explanation, that 20 refineries

producing highway diesel fuel today

would not produce highway diesel fuel

under the 15 ppm standard and that

many more would reduce production.

Given the lack of information provided

in the study, it was not possible to

evaluate CRA’s criteria in selecting

these 20 refineries, nor was it possible

to determine how much of the shortfall

was attributable to this conclusion.

While CRA evaluated whether refiners

currently producing highway diesel fuel

would be likely to leave the market,

they did not assess whether any

refineries currently not producing

highway diesel fuel might enter the

market. EPA did conduct such an

assessment. We found 2 refineries that

produce essentially no highway diesel

fuel today which could meet the new

standard for less than 5 cents per gallon.

Production from these refineries would

increase highway diesel fuel production

by 9 percent. We also found based on

our assessment that 4 other refineries

could produce highway diesel fuel from

their off-highway diesel fuel

blendstocks for less than 5 cents per

gallon. Production from these 6

refineries would increase highway

diesel fuel production by 7 percent.

Together with a more reasonable

estimate of downgrades in the

distribution system, this would more

than compensate for any potential lost

production, even as estimated by CRA.

CRA also implicitly assumed that the

material it projected could be removed

from the highway diesel market could

be sold at a reasonable price. However,

CRA did not analyze the impact of this

additional supply on the prices which

could be obtained in these markets, or

even if these alternative markets could

physically absorb all of this material.

Much of this material is not diesel fuel,

but poor quality blendstock. It is not

clear that such material could be

blended into non-highway diesel fuel

and CRA did not analyze this likely

problem. Our analyses, supported by a

study by Muse, Stancil and Co., indicate

that any substantial quantities of

highway diesel fuel diverted to other

markets will depress prices in those

markets substantially.187 Hydrotreating

diesel fuel to meet the 15 ppm standard

avoids these depressed prices, reducing

the net cost of meeting the new

standard. Since CRA only considered

the cost to desulfurize highway diesel

fuel, and ignored the added cost of

dumping this fuel into markets with

depressed prices, CRA’s conclusions

must be considered to be seriously

flawed in this regard.

Furthermore, CRA ignored the fact

that roughly 15 percent of today’s

highway diesel fuel is consumed in

engines and furnaces not requiring this

fuel. Any shortage of highway diesel

fuel would lead many of these nonessential users to switch to nonroad

diesel fuel or heating oil. Only

limitations in the fuel distribution

system would cause these users to

continue to burn highway diesel fuel.

These problems with CRA’s analysis,

plus the lack of detail available

concerning the specifics of the study,

lead us to reject the study’s conclusions

that there will be significant supply

shortfalls under a 15 ppm sulfur

standard.

Finally, if any potential for highway

diesel fuel shortfalls exists by requiring

all fuel to meet 15 ppm sulfur in 2006,

as CRA’s analysis suggests, we believe

that allowing some continued supply of

500 ppm, as we are doing under the

temporary compliance option and

hardship provisions contained in

today’s action, addresses this concern.

Since the final rule allows some

transition period before the entire

highway diesel pool is required to meet

the 15 ppm sulfur standard, some

refiners will not need to change their

current operations and will be able to

continue producing 500 ppm fuel

during these years. Those refiners that

delay production of low sulfur diesel

fuel until the later years of the program

will tend to be the refiners with the

highest cost to comply and, thus,

refiners that would otherwise have the

greatest tendency not to invest and

thereby impact supply. Refiners that

begin producing low sulfur diesel fuel

in the later years of the program will

also be able to take advantage of ongoing

improvements in desulfurization

technology. Together, these factors will

help avoid or reduce any potential

losses in highway diesel fuel production

when the program requires full

compliance with low sulfur diesel fuel.

As mentioned above, EPA agrees that

some refiners will face higher

desulfurization costs than others. This is

generally the case with any fuel quality

regulation, since the crude oils

processed by, as well as the

configurations and product slates of

individual refineries vary dramatically.

As mentioned above and summarized in

the RIA, we used our refining cost

model to assess the likelihood that

refiners would leave the highway diesel

fuel market or reduce their production

of highway diesel fuel. We also assessed

the likelihood of other refiners entering

this market. We found that a number of

refiners appear to be in a position to

expand their highway diesel fuel

production capacity very economically

relative to other refiners facing higher

desulfurization costs. We also found

that up to 2 refineries not now

producing highway diesel fuel could

easily enter the highway diesel fuel

market at very competitive costs.

Some refiners may have an alternative

market for their diesel fuel. In the

extreme, a refiner would likely prefer to

only shift his light cycle oil to other

distillate products, like nonroad diesel

fuel and No. 2 heating oil, retaining his

other blendstocks in the higher value

highway diesel fuel market. However, in

many cases, a refiner cannot shift light

cycle oil directly to a distillate product,

because the resulting non-highway fuel

would no longer meet applicable

specifications, such as sulfur or cetane.

In most cases, we expect that the refiner

must shift highway diesel fuel to

alternative markets in order to be able

to obtain a reasonable price.

As mentioned above, Muse, Stancil, &

Co. analyzed the ability of refiners to

5096 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

188This cost is expressed in terms of the total

volume of highway diesel fuel supplied, including

the fuel which meets the 15 ppm sulfur cap and that

which meets the 500 ppm sulfur cap.

divert highway diesel fuel or its

blendstocks to other distillate markets.

Muse, Stancil found that this ability

varied significantly by PADD. In PADDs

II and IV, it would be difficult for

refiners to move any appreciable

quantity of highway diesel fuel to other

markets. For example, compared to the

value of highway diesel fuel today, the

achievable value for the diverted

material would decrease by 14 to 20

cents per gallon if refiners tried to move

more than 5 percent of their highway

diesel fuel to other markets. The loss in

value was highest in these two PADDs,

because growth in nonroad diesel fuel

consumption is small or negative, the

ability to reduce the consumption of

highway diesel fuel by users other than

highway vehicles was limited, and

exports are only available through the

Gulf or West Coasts with a large

transportation cost of getting the

material there.

In PADDs III and V, the loss of value

was lower, at 4.5–5 cents per gallon and

was the lowest in PADD I, 2 cents per

gallon. This was primarily because of

the ability to export high sulfur diesel

fuel overseas. Generally, these losses in

value apply if diesel fuel was being

diverted to other distillate markets. If

light cycle oil was being diverted, the

value would drop an additional 3–3.5

cents per gallon.

At lower levels of diversion (e.g., 5

percent or less), the loss in value was

much less, ranging from 1.6–5 cents per

gallon across the five PADDs. However,

the primary reason for this was the

reduced use of highway diesel fuel by

users other than highway vehicles, who

do not require this fuel. Muse believed

that such conversions were limited, but

real and could represent roughly a third

of the current use of highway diesel fuel

in other than highway vehicles. If this

occurs, then demand for highway diesel

fuel drops at the same time. Thus, in

this case, the total refining costs

associated with the new sulfur standard

will decline because the total amount of

fuel; needing to be desulfurized will

decrease.

The only area where refiners could

easily divert substantial amounts of

highway diesel fuel is PADD I. PADD I

refiners currently produce a relatively

low amount of highway diesel fuel and

substantial amounts of high sulfur

diesel fuel/heating oil are imported.

Thus, refiners in PADD I facing

relatively high costs of meeting the 15

ppm standard could shift some or all of

their highway diesel fuel to other

markets, reducing imports and not

substantially affecting prices in this

market.

In the end, refiners will make their

decisions regarding investment based on

their projections of demand of 15 and

500 ppm diesel fuel, the prices of these

fuels and the prices available in

alternative markets. At this time, we do

not project that the specifics involved in

this case (technology, cost, alternative

markets) are significantly different from

those which have existed in the past.

The last time EPA regulated diesel fuel,

the refining industry actually overbuilt

desulfurization capacity for the current

500 ppm standard, as evidenced by the

significant use in the nonroad market of

diesel fuel produced to the current

highway diesel sulfur standard of 500

ppm and the relatively low price of

highway diesel fuel relative to nonroad

diesel fuel. Some of this overproduction

may have been due to limitations in the

distribution system to distribute both

highway and nonroad grades of diesel

fuel. However, the refinery system as a

whole was able to supply both highway

diesel vehicles, plus the use of highway

diesel fuel by other users. This was

accomplished despite the fact that a

number of small refiners did decide to

switch from the highway diesel fuel

market to the nonroad diesel fuel

market, presumably for economic

reasons.

3. Cost of Lubricity Additives

As discussed in Section IV, the

refinery processes needed to achieve the

sulfur standard have some potential to

degrade the natural lubricity

characteristics of the fuel. Consequently,

an increase in the use of lubricity

additives for diesel fuel may be

anticipated over the amounts used

today. As described in more detail in

the Regulatory Impact Analysis in the

Public Docket, we include in our fuel

cost estimate an average cost of 0.2 cents

per gallon for lubricity additives over

the entire pool of low sulfur highway

diesel fuel (the same cost estimate as

used in the proposal). This estimate is

comparable to an estimate made by

Mathpro in a study sponsored by the

Engine Manufacturers Association, and

is consistent with the cost estimate

submitted by Cummins in its comments.

Prior to the proposal, we contacted

various producers of lubricity additives

to get their estimates of what costs

might be incurred for this increase in

the use of lubricity additives. The cost

estimates varied from 0.1 to 0.5 cents

per gallon. The cost is likely to be a

strong function of not only the additive

type, but also the assumed treatment

rate and the volume of fuel that needs

to be treated, both of which will be, to

some extent, a function of the sulfur

cap. We requested comment on our cost

estimate, including whether there may

be unique costs for the military to

maintain the lubricity of their distillate

fuels. We requested that comments

addressing this issue include a detailed

discussion of the volumes of fuel

affected, current lubricity additive use,

and the additional measures that might

be needed (and associated costs) to

maintain the appropriate level of fuel

lubricity. In response to the proposal,

we received few comments on the cost

of lubricity additives, and none on the

volumes of fuel affected, current

lubricity additive use, or additional

measures that might be needed to

maintain the appropriate level of

lubricity. In considering the comments,

we have found no basis in today’s action

to use a different average cost estimate

to treat low sulfur diesel for lubricity

than that which was used in the

proposal (0.2 cents per gallon). See more

discussion in the Response to

Comments Document in the Public

Docket.

4. Distribution Costs

We estimate that as a result of today’s

rule, distribution costs will increase by

0.5 cents per gallon of highway diesel

fuel supplied when the sulfur

requirements are fully implemented

beginning in the year 2010. During the

initial years (2006 through May 31,

2010) we estimate that the increase in

distribution costs will be 0.4 cents per

gallon of highway diesel fuel supplied,

with an additional 0.7 cents per gallon

equivalent related to capital costs for

additional storage tanks to handle two

grades of highway diesel fuel.188

In the proposal, we estimated that

distribution costs would increase by 0.2

cents per gallon if the proposed

requirement that the entire highway

diesel fuel pool meet a 15 ppm sulfur

cap beginning in 2006 be adopted. This

cost was comprised of roughly 0.1 cents

per gallon due to an increase in pipeline

interface and testing costs, and 0.1 cents

per gallon for distributing the additional

volume of highway diesel fuel needed

due to an anticipated decrease in fuel

energy density as a side effect of

reducing the sulfur content to the

proposed 15 ppm cap. The case

evaluated in the NPRM is most similar

to that for the fully implemented sulfur

program in this final rule.

We took advantage of additional

information contained in the comments

to the NPRM in formulating a more

comprehensive estimate of the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5097

189 During the initial years of the sulfur program,

the current practice used to handle the interface

between shipments of jet fuel and highway diesel

fuel can be used for that portion of the highway

diesel fuel that continues to meet a 500 ppm sulfur

cap.

distribution costs under today’s rule. In

some cases this involved adjusting an

estimate for a parameter that factored

into our calculation of costs in the

NPRM. One important example is that

we increased our estimate of the

additional volume of highway diesel

shipped by pipeline that would need to

be downgraded to a lower-value

product. This product downgrade is

necessitated by mixing that takes place

between products that abut each other

while in the pipeline. The mixture is

referred to as interface when it can be

blended into another product and

transmix when it must be returned to

the refinery for reprocessing. In other

cases, our reevaluation of distribution

costs included the consideration of

parameters that did not factor into the

estimation of distribution costs in the

proposed rule. For example,

commenters to the NPRM brought to our

attention that there would be additional

costs associated with needed changes in

the handling practices for interface

volumes which result from shipments of

jet fuel and highway diesel fuel that

abut each other in the pipeline.

There are a number of common

factors in the estimation of distribution

costs during the initial period and after

the sulfur requirements are fully

implemented, such as the increase in

interface volumes for pipeline

shipments of highway diesel fuel.

However, there are other factors that are

unique to the estimation of costs during

the initial years as well. For example,

with two grades of highway diesel fuel

in the distribution system at the same

time there are costs associated with the

need for additional storage tanks at

some petroleum terminals and

refineries. Our estimation of distribution

costs under these two periods is

discussed separately in the following

sections. Where there is a commonality,

the issue is discussed under the section

on distribution costs for the fully

implemented program.

a. Distribution Costs Under the Fully

Implemented Program

Based on the considerations discussed

below, we estimate that the increase in

distribution costs under the fully

implemented sulfur program will be 0.5

cents per gallon of highway diesel fuel

supplied.

The cost of distributing the additional

volume of highway diesel fuel needed to

compensate for the lower energy density

of highway diesel fuel that meets a 15

ppm sulfur cap is estimated at 0.17

cents per gallon of highway diesel fuel

supplied. As in the NPRM, the cost of

producing this additional volume was

included in the calculation of refinery

costs (see Section V.C.1.). In the NPRM,

we estimated that the cost of

distributing highway diesel fuel was

equal to the difference in price at the

refinery rack and the retail price. For

today’s final rule, we based our estimate

of distribution cost on a PADD by PADD

evaluation of the difference in the price

of highway diesel fuel at the refiner rack

versus the retail price. The price

differential for each PADD was

weighted by the additional volume of

fuel we anticipate will need to be

produced in each PADD to arrive at an

estimate of distributing the additional

volume needed for the nation as a

whole. We believe this approach

provides a more accurate estimate of

costs.

Based on additional information

provided in the comments on the

changes in pipeline interface practices

that would result from today’s rule, we

adjusted our estimate of the increased

volume of highway diesel fuel that

would be downgraded to a lower-value

product from 1.5 percent to 2.2 percent

of highway diesel fuel supplied (see the

RIA to this rule). As in the NPRM, the

cost of producing this additional

volume was included in the calculation

of refinery costs (see Section V.C.1.).

The cost of downgrading the increased

volume of highway diesel fuel to a

lower-value product is based on the

difference in the cost of 15 ppm sulfur

diesel fuel and the product to which the

interface is downgraded. Under the fully

imlemented program, this downgrade

would be made into the nonroad diesel

pool. The cost of this increased volume

of downgrade is estimated at

approximately 0.14 cents per gallon of

highway diesel supplied.

We identified that there would also be

an increase in the economic impact for

the existing volume of interface

currently associated with pipeline

shipments of highway diesel fuel. This

is because the cost of downgrading the

existing interface volume would be

determined by the difference between

the cost of 15 ppm sulfur fuel and

nonroad diesel fuel rather than the

difference in cost between current 500

ppm diesel fuel and nonroad diesel fuel

as it is today. We estimate that the

increase in the cost of downgrading the

existing highway diesel interface would

be 0.09 cents per gallon of highway

diesel fuel supplied.

We anticipate that there may be minor

costs in addition to those discussed

above associated with optimizing the

distribution system to adequately limit

sulfur contamination. These costs could

result from various minor changes to

distribution practices and or hardware

discovered to be needed by industry

while preparing to comply with today’s

rule. While it is not possible to

specifically identify the nature of these

changes, they could include the

occasional replacement of a leaking

valve or improvements in

communication practices to facilitate

batch changes in the pipeline system.

There may also be some cost associated

with the process that we anticipate the

distribution industry will undertake to

evaluate its readiness to comply with

the requirements in today’s rule. Such

costs might result from testing to

determine the level of contamination

introduced through the use of various

distribution hardware or practices. It is

not possible to specifically identify the

costs that might be associated with this

optimization process. However, given

the limited nature of the changes that

might be needed and that the need for

such changes would not be widespread,

we believe that the associated costs

would not pose a substantial burden.

We estimate that the miscellaneous

costs associated with optimizing the

distribution system to limit sulfur

contamination would be 0.025 cents per

gallon of highway diesel fuel supplied

(on average) during the period from

when the sulfur program is fully

implemented (2010) through the year

2020. These costs were amortized at a

rate of 7% over the period of 2006

through 2020. The per gallon cost is

somewhat higher during the initial

years.

Commenters to the proposed rule

stated that it is current practice for all

of the interface generated when highway

diesel fuel abuts jet fuel in the pipeline

to be cut into highway diesel fuel. They

pointed out that this practice would no

longer be possible when all highway

diesel fuel is required to meet a 15 ppm

sulfur cap because of the relatively high

sulfur content of jet fuel (as high as 3000

ppm).189 They stated that the mixture of

highway diesel fuel meeting a 15 ppm

sulfur cap and jet fuel would need to be

returned from the terminal to the

refinery for reprocessing, at high cost

(i.e. would need to be treated as

transmix). While we agree that handling

procedures for this mixture will need to

change, we believe that it will not be

necessary to treat it as transmix. We

believe that there will be opportunity

for the mixture to be sold from the

terminal into the nonroad diesel pool.

This will increase the cost associated

with downgrading this mixture.

5098 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Expressed in terms of the volume of

highway diesel fuel supplied, we

estimate this cost at 0.07 cents per

gallon. Additional storage tanks will be

needed to handle the mixture at those

terminals that currently do not handle

nonroad diesel fuel. The cost of these

tanks has been fully accounted for in the

calculation of costs during the initial

years of the program.

The additional quality control testing

at the terminal level needed to ensure

compliance with the 15 ppm sulfur cap

would be the same during the initial

years as after the requirements are fully

implemented. We estimate that the cost

of this additional testing would be as we

projected in the proposal, 0.002 cent per

gallon of highway diesel supplied (see

the RIA to this rule).

We believe that there will not be a

significant increase in the volume of

highway diesel fuel discovered to

exceed the sulfur standard downstream

of the refinery as a result of today’s rule.

We believe this will be the case both

during the initial years and after the

sulfur requirements are fully

implemented. We anticipate that

distributors will quickly optimize their

practices to avoid sulfur contamination.

We also anticipate that distributors will

gain some experience in reducing sulfur

contamination in the distribution

system through complying with the

recently finalized Tier 2 low sulfur

gasoline requirements (65 FR 6698,

February 10, 2000). While outside the

scope of this final rule, it is worth

pointing out that potential difficulties in

distributing 15 ppm diesel fuel would

be lessened if the sulfur content of

nonroad diesel fuel is reduced by a

future rulemaking (as discussed in

Section 8). We anticipate that the

batches of highway diesel fuel that are

discovered to exceed the 15 ppm sulfur

cap will be coped with as follows:

—When possible, by blending highway

diesel fuel that is below the 15 ppm

cap with the out-of-specification

batch to bring the resulting mixture

into compliance. This practice will be

more difficult than it is currently

because the amount of fuel needed to

blend the out-of-specification batch

into compliance may increase.

However, we expect it to continue to

be the method of choice for handling

out-of-specification highway diesel

whenever possible.

—By downgrading the batch either to

nonroad diesel fuel or to 500 ppm

highway diesel during the initial

years.

—By reprocessing the batch to meet the

15 ppm cap, but only in those

infrequent instances where the

previous options do not exist.

We do not believe that the cost of

handling out-of specification highway

diesel batches will increase significantly

as a result of today’s action.

Tank truck, tank wagon, and barge

operators may need to more carefully

and consistently observe current

industry practices to limit

contamination in some situations.

However, these situations are more the

exception than the rule and are of a

limited nature. Consequently, we

believe that this can be accomplished at

an insignificant cost. Additional

considerations exist for distributors

during the initial years as discussed in

the following section.

Please refer to the Response to

Comments Document for an evaluation

of the comments received on the

increase in fuel distribution costs

associated with today’s rule, and to the

RIA for a detailed discussion of the way

in which we derived the our cost

estimates.

b. Distribution Costs During the Initial

Years

The factors that cause distribution

costs to differ during the initial years

include:

—Having a lesser volume of 15 ppm

diesel fuel in the system reduces the

costs associated with distributing 15

ppm fuel.

—Having an additional grade of

highway diesel fuel in the system (500

ppm) creates additional pipeline

interface volumes, and additional

product downgrade costs.

—The need for additional equipment to

handle an additional grade leads to

additional costs that must be

accounted for during the initial years.

—Having 500 ppm highway diesel fuel

in the system allows some

opportunity for the pipeline interface

volumes associated with the shipment

of 15 ppm fuel and jet fuel to be

downgraded to 500 ppm diesel fuel

rather than nonroad diesel fuel. This

will reduce the cost associated with

downgrading the subject interface

volumes.

In calculating the distribution costs

for the initial years of the program, we

estimated that 60 percent of the 15 ppm

highway diesel fuel shipped by pipeline

will be carried in pipelines that choose

not to carry 500 ppm diesel fuel. We

estimated that the remaining 40 percent

of 15 ppm highway diesel fuel shipped

by pipeline would be carried in

pipelines that carry 500 ppm as well as

nonroad diesel fuel. For the sake of

simplicity and to allow a comparison

with distribution costs when the

program is fully implemented, the

distribution costs during the initial

years as discussed below are expressed

in terms of the total volume of highway

diesel fuel supplied. This includes 500

ppm as well as 15 ppm highway diesel

fuel.

For the reasons outlined above, the

following costs, which are also present

under the fully implemented sulfur

program, were adjusted to reflect the

unique conditions during the initial

years. During the initial years, the cost

of distributing the additional volume of

highway diesel fuel needed to

compensate for lower energy density of

15 ppm sulfur fuel is estimated at 0.14

cents per gallon of highway diesel fuel

supplied. The cost of the increased

volume of highway diesel fuel that must

be downgraded to a lower-value product

is estimated at 0.1 cents per gallon of

highway diesel supplied. We estimate

that during the initial years of the

program the increase in the cost of

downgrading the existing highway

diesel interface would be 0.08 cents per

gallon of highway diesel fuel supplied.

During the initial years, the cost of

downgrading the interface between

pipeline shipments of jet fuel and

highway diesel fuel is estimated to

increase by 0.03 cents per gallon of

highway diesel fuel supplied. The cost

of the additional tanks required at

terminals to handle this interface is

estimated at 0.009 cents per gallon of

highway diesel fuel supplied. This tank

cost was amortized over the period of

the four-year transition period. We

estimate that the miscellaneous costs

associated with optimizing the

distribution system to limit sulfur

contamination would be 0.027 cents per

gallon of highway diesel fuel supplied

(on average) during the initial period

(2006—2010).

As noted in the previous section, the

additional quality control testing at the

terminal level needed to ensure

compliance with the 15 ppm sulfur cap

would be the same during the initial

years and after the requirements are

fully implemented. We estimate that the

cost of this additional testing would be

as we projected in the proposal, 0.002

cent per gallon of highway diesel

supplied.

The cost during the initial years of

downgrading the additional interface

volumes associated with having two

grades of highway diesel fuel in part of

the pipeline system is estimated at 0.004

cents per gallon of highway diesel full

supplied

The most substantial costs associated

with the provisions during the initial

years of the program are due to the need

to handle an additional grade of

highway diesel fuel in the distribution

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5099

190Figure V.E–1 is based on the amortized engine,

vehicle and fuel costs as described in the RIA.

Actual capital investments, particularly important

for fuels, would occur prior to and during the initial

years of the program.

system. Under the final program, the

production of 500 ppm sulfur fuel will

be much less than that of 15 ppm fuel.

At the same time, most of the diesel

vehicle fleet can burn 500 ppm fuel

during the initial period. Because of its

greater volume and the need to

distribute it everywhere in the country,

we expect that essentially all pipelines

and terminals will handle 15 ppm fuel.

In contrast, distribution of 500 ppm fuel

will concentrate on those areas nearest

the refineries producing that fuel, plus

a few major pipelines serving major

refining areas.

Regarding distribution to the final

user, we expect that nearly all truck

stops in areas where 500 ppm fuel is

available will invest in piping and

tankage to handle a second fuel.

Because of the significant expense

involved in adding a second tank, in

these areas, we expect service stations

will only carry one fuel or the other, as

market demands dictate. Likewise, we

expect that centrally fueled fleets and

card locks will only handle 15 ppm fuel.

Under this scenario, sales of 500 ppm

fuel are limited to only those vehicles

which refuel at truck stops and service

stations. This is somewhat conservative

since some centrally fueled fleets may

have the flexibility to inexpensively

handle two fuels. Likewise, some card

locks in a given area may be able to

carry 15 ppm fuel and others 500 ppm

fuel and still serve their clients at little

extra cost. Still, given the above

assumptions, we project that the 500

ppm fuel will have to be distributed to

areas representing about 50 percent of

the national diesel fuel demand. Also,

as the fleet turns over to 2007 and later

vehicles during the initial years, the

amount of 500 ppm fuel produced will

gradually decrease from just over 20

percent in 2007 to about 16 percent in

2010.

The tankage cost at refineries,

terminals, pipelines and bulk plants

handling both fuels is estimated to be

$0.81 billion. The cost for truck stops to

handle two fuels is roughly $0.24

billion, for a total cost of $1.05 billion.

Amortized over all of the highway

diesel fuel supplied during the initial

four-years (15 ppm and 500 ppm) at 7

percent per annum, the cost per gallon

is 0.7 cents.

5. Benefits of Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel for

the Existing Diesel Fleet

We estimate that the low-sulfur diesel

fuel will provide additional benefits to

the existing heavy-duty vehicle fleet as

soon as the fuel is introduced. We

believe these benefits will offer

significant cost savings to the vehicle

owner without the need for purchasing

any new technologies. The RIA has

catalogued a variety of benefits from the

low-sulfur diesel fuel. These benefits are

summarized in Table V.C–3.

TABLE V.C–3.—COMPONENTS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY LOWER SULFUR LEVELS IN DIESEL FUEL

Affected components Effect of lower sulfur Potential impact on engine system

Piston Rings ......................................... Reduce corrosion wear ........................................... Extended engine life and less frequent rebuilds.

Cylinder Liners ..................................... Reduce corrosion wear ........................................... Extended engine life and less frequent rebuilds.

Oil Quality ............................................. Reduce deposits and less need for alkaline additives.Reduce wear on piston ring and cylinder liner and

less frequent oil changes.

Exhaust System (tailpipe) .................... Reduces corrosion wear ......................................... Less frequent part replacement.

EGR ..................................................... Reduces corrosion wear ......................................... Less frequent part replacement.

The actual value of these benefits over

the life of the vehicle will depend upon

the length of time that the vehicle

operates on low-sulfur diesel fuel and

the degree to which vehicle operators

change engine maintenance patterns to

take advantage of these benefits. For a

vehicle near the end of its life in 2007

the benefits will be quite small.

However for vehicles produced in the

years immediately preceding the

introduction of low-sulfur fuel the

savings will be substantial. The RIA

estimates that a heavy heavy-duty

vehicle introduced into the fleet in 2006

will realize savings of $610 over its life.

This savings could alternatively be

expressed in terms of fuel costs as

approximately 1 cent per gallon as

discussed in the RIA. These savings will

occur without additional new cost to the

vehicle owner beyond the incremental

cost of the low-sulfur diesel fuel,

although these savings will require

changes to existing maintenance

schedules. Such changes seem likely

given the magnitude of the savings and

the nature of the regulated industry.

D. Aggregate Costs

Using current data for the size and

characteristics of the heavy-duty vehicle

fleet and making projections for the

future, the diesel per-engine, gasoline

per-vehicle, and per-gallon fuel costs

described above can be used to estimate

the total cost to the nation for the

emission standards in any year. Figure

V.D–1 portrays the results of these

projections.190 All capital costs have

been amortized.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

5100 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5151

this section and the requirements of this

section.

(g) Notification of Completion. The

party shall notify EPA in writing within

thirty (30) days of completion of the

R&D program.

§ 80.601 What requirements apply to

motor vehicle diesel fuel for use in the

Territories?

The sulfur standards of § 80.520(a)(1)

and (c) do not apply to diesel fuel that

is produced, imported, sold, offered for

sale, supplied, offered for supply,

stored, dispensed, or transported for use

in the Territories of Guam, American

Samoa or the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands provided that

such diesel fuel is:

(a) Designated by the refiner or

importer as high sulfur diesel fuel only

for use in Guam, American Samoa, or

the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands;

(b) Used only in Guam, American

Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands;

(c) Accompanied by documentation

that complies with the product transfer

document requirements of

§ 80.590(e)(3); and

(d) Segregated from non-exempt

motor vehicle diesel fuel at all points in

the distribution system from the point

the diesel fuel is designated as exempt

fuel only for use in Guam, American

Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands, while the

exempt fuel is in the United States but

outside these Territories.

§ 80.602 What exemption applies to diesel

fuel used in vehicles having a national

security exemption from motor vehicle

emissions standards?

The motor vehicle diesel fuel

standards of § 80.520(a)(1), (a)(2), and

(c) do not apply to diesel fuel that is

produced, imported, sold, offered for

sale, supplied, offered for supply,

stored, dispensed, or transported for use

in:

(a) Vehicles for which EPA has

granted a national security exemption

under 40 CFR 85.1708 from motor

vehicle emissions standards under 40

CFR Part 86; or

(b) Tactical military motor vehicles

that are not subject to a national security

exemption from motor vehicle

emissions standards but for national

security purposes (for purposes of

readiness for deployment oversees) need

to be fueled on the same fuel as motor

vehicles for which EPA has granted a

national security exemption, provided

that such fuel is:

(1) Used only in vehicles identified in

paragraph (a) of this section or this

paragraph (b);

(2) Accompanied by product transfer

documents as required under § 80.590;

(3) Segregated from non-exempt motor

vehicle diesel fuel at all points in the

distribution system; and

(4) Dispensed from a fuel pump stand,

fueling truck or tank that is labeled

under the provisions of § 80.570(c). Any

such fuel pump stand, fueling truck or

tank may also be labeled with the

appropriate designation of the fuel, such

as ‘‘JP–8’’.

§ 80.603–80.609 [Reserved]

Violation Provisions

§ 80.610 What acts are prohibited under

the diesel fuel sulfur program?

No person shall:

(a) Standard or dye violation.

Produce, import, sell, offer for sale,

dispense, supply, offer for supply, store

or transport motor vehicle diesel fuel

that does not comply with the

applicable standards and dye

requirements under § 80.520.

(b) Additive violation. (1) Produce,

import, sell, offer for sale, dispense,

supply, offer for supply, store or

transport any motor vehicle diesel fuel

additive for use at a downstream

location that does not comply with the

requirements under § 80.521(a) or (b), as

applicable.

(2) Blend or permit the blending into

motor vehicle diesel fuel at a

downstream location, or use, or permit

the use, as motor vehicle diesel fuel, of

any additive which does not comply

with the requirements of § 80.521(a) or

(b), as applicable.

(c) Used motor oil violation. Introduce

into the fuel system of model year 2007

or later diesel motor vehicles, or permit

the introduction into the fuel system of

such vehicles of used motor oil, or used

motor oil blended with diesel fuel,

which does not comply with the

requirements of § 80.522.

(d) Improper fuel usage violation. (1)

Introduce, or permit the introduction of,

diesel fuel into model year 2007 or later

diesel motor vehicles, and beginning

December 1, 2010 into any diesel motor

vehicle, which does not comply with

the standards and dye requirements of

§ 80.520(a) and (b).

(2) Produce, import, sell, offer for sale,

dispense, offer for supply, store, or

transport for use in model year 2007 or

later diesel motor vehicles, or introduce

or permit the introduction into such

motor vehicles, motor vehicle diesel

fuel that is identified as other than

diesel fuel complying with the 15 ppm

sulfur standard; and beginning

December 1, 2010, diesel fuel for use in

or introduced into any diesel motor

vehicle.

(e) Cause another party to violate.

Cause another person to commit an act

in violation of paragraphs (a) through

(d) of this section.

(f) Cause violating fuel or additive to

be in the distribution system. Cause

motor vehicle diesel fuel to be in the

motor vehicle diesel fuel distribution

system which does not comply with the

applicable standard and dye

requirements of § 80.520(a) and (b), or

cause any motor vehicle diesel fuel

additive to be in the motor vehicle

diesel fuel additive distribution system

which does not comply with the

applicable sulfur, cetane, and/or

aromatics standards of § 80.521.

§ 80.611 What evidence may be used to

determine compliance with the prohibitions

and requirements of this subpart and

liability for violations of this subpart?

(a) Compliance with sulfur, cetane,

and aromatics standards. Compliance

with the standards in §§ 80.520, 80.521,

and 80.522 shall be determined based

on the level of the applicable

component or parameter, using the

sampling methodologies specified in

§ 80.330(b), as applicable, and the

appropriate testing methodologies

specified in § 80.580(a)(2) for sulfur, or

one of the alternative methodologies for

sulfur as approved under § 80.580(a)(3);

§ 80.2(w) for cetane index; and § 80.2(z)

for aromatic content. Any evidence or

information, including the exclusive use

of such evidence or information, may be

used to establish the level of the

applicable component or parameter in

the diesel fuel or additive, or motor oil

to be used in diesel fuel, if the evidence

or information is relevant to whether

that level would have been in

compliance with the standard if the

regulatory sampling and testing

methodology had been correctly

performed. Such evidence may be

obtained from any source or location

and may include, but is not limited to,

test results using methods other than the

compliance methods in this paragraph

(a), business records, and commercial

documents.

(b) Compliance with other

requirements. Determination of

compliance with the requirements of

this subpart other than the standards

described in paragraph (a) of this

section and in §§ 80.520, 80.521, and

80.522, and determination of liability

for any violation of this subpart, may be

based on information obtained from any

source or location. Such information

may include, but is not limited to,

business records and commercial

documents.

5152 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§ 80.612 Who is liable for violations of this

subpart?

(a) Persons liable for violations of

prohibited acts.—(1) Standard, dye,

additives, motor oil, and introduction

violations. (i) Any refiner, importer,

distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, or

wholesale purchaser-consumer who

owned, leased, operated, controlled or

supervised a facility where a violation

of § 80.610(a) through (d) occurred, or

any other person who violates

§ 80.610(a) through (d), is deemed liable

for the applicable violation.

(ii) Any person who causes another

person to violate § 80.610(a) through (d)

is liable for a violation of § 80.610(e).

(iii) Any refiner, importer, distributor,

reseller, carrier, retailer, or wholesale

purchaser-consumer who produced,

imported, sold, offered for sale,

dispensed, supplied, offered to supply,

stored, transported, or caused the

transportation or storage of, motor

vehicle diesel fuel that violates

§ 80.610(a), is deemed in violation of

§ 80.610(e).

(iv) Any person who produced,

imported, sold, offered for sale,

dispensed, supplied, offered to supply,

stored, transported, or caused the

transportation or storage of a motor

vehicle diesel fuel additive which is

used in motor vehicle diesel fuel that is

found to violate § 80.610(a), is deemed

in violation of § 80.610(e).

(2) Cause violating motor vehicle

diesel fuel or additive to be in the

distribution system. Any refiner,

importer, distributor, reseller, carrier,

retailer, or wholesale purchaserconsumer or any other person who

owned, leased, operated, controlled or

supervised a facility from which motor

vehicle diesel fuel or additive was

released into the motor vehicle diesel

fuel or additive distribution system

which does not comply with the

applicable standards or dye

requirements of § 80.520 or § 80.521, is

deemed in violation of § 80.610(f).

(3) Branded refiner/importer liability.

Any refiner or importer whose

corporate, trade, or brand name, or

whose marketing subsidiary’s corporate,

trade, or brand name appeared at a

facility where a violation of § 80.610(a)

occurred, is deemed in violation of

§ 80.610(a).

(4) Carrier causation. In order for a

motor vehicle diesel fuel or motor

vehicle diesel fuel additive carrier to be

liable under paragraph (a)(1)(ii), (iii) or

(iv) of this section, as applicable, EPA

must demonstrate, by reasonably

specific showing by direct or

circumstantial evidence, that the carrier

caused the violation.

(5) Parent corporation. Any parent

corporation is liable for any violations

of this subpart that are committed by

any subsidiary.

(6) Joint venture. Each partner to a

joint venture is jointly and severally

liable for any violation of this subpart

that occurs at the joint venture facility

or is committed by the joint venture

operation.

(b) Persons liable for failure to comply

with other provisions ofthis subpart.

Any person who:

(1) Fails to comply with the

requirements of a provision of this

subpart not addressed in paragraph (a)

of this section is liable for a violation of

that provision; or

(2) Causes another person to fail to

comply with the requirements of a

provision of this subpart not addressed

in paragraph (a) of this section, is liable

for causing a violation of that provision.

§ 80.613 What defenses apply to persons

deemed liable for a violation of a prohibited

act?

(a) Presumptive liability defenses. (1)

Any person deemed liable for a

violation of a prohibition under

§ 80.612(a)(1)(i) or (iii), (a)(2), or (a)(3),

will not be deemed in violation if the

person demonstrates:

(i) The violation was not caused by

the person or the person’s employee or

agent;

(ii) Product transfer documents

account for fuel or additive found to be

in violation and indicate that the

violating product was in compliance

with the applicable requirements when

it was under the party’s control;

(iii) The person conducted a quality

assurance sampling and testing

program, as described in paragraph (d)

of this section, except for those parties

subject to the provisions of paragraph

(a)(1)(iv) or (v) of this section. A carrier

may rely on the quality assurance

program carried out by another party,

including the party who owns the diesel

fuel in question, provided that the

quality assurance program is carried out

properly. Retailers, wholesale

purchaser-consumers, and ultimate

consumers of diesel fuel are not

required to conduct quality assurance

programs;

(iv) For refiners and importers of

motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the

15 ppm standard under § 80.520(a)(1),

test results which:

(A) Were conducted according to the

test methodology required under

§ 80.580 (a)(2) or an approved

alternative test method under

§ 80.580(a)(3); and

(B) Establish that, when it left the

party’s control, the sulfur content of

motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the

15 ppm standard did not exceed 15

ppm; and

(v) For any person who, at a

downstream location, blends a diesel

fuel additive subject to the requirements

of § 80.521(b) into motor vehicle diesel

fuel subject to the sulfur standard under

§ 80.520(a)(1), except a blender who

blends additives into fuel trucks at a

truck loading rack subject to the

provisions of (d)(1) of this section, test

results which are conducted subsequent

to the blending of the additive into the

fuel, and which comply with the

requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(A)

and (B) of this section.

(2) Any party deemed liable for a

violation under § 80.612(a)(1)(iv), in

regard to a diesel fuel additive subject

to the requirements of § 80.521(a), will

not be deemed in violation if the person

demonstrates that:

(i) Product transfer document(s)

account for the additive in the fuel

found to be in violation, which comply

with the requirements under § 80.591(a),

and indicate that the additive was in

compliance with the applicable

requirements while it was under the

party’s control; and

(ii) For the additive’s manufacturer or

importer, test results which accurately

establish that, when it left the party’s

control, the additive in the diesel fuel

determined to be in violation did not

have a sulfur content in excess of 15

ppm.

(A) Analysis of the additive sulfur

content pursuant to this paragraph (a)(2)

may be conducted at the time the batch

was manufactured or imported, or on a

sample of that batch which the

manufacturer or importer retains for

such purpose for a minimum of two

years from the date the batch was

manufactured or imported.

(B) After two years from the date the

additive batch was manufactured or

imported, the additive manufacturer or

importer is no longer required to retain

samples for the purpose of complying

with the testing requirements of this

paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(C) The analysis of the sulfur content

of the additive must be conducted

pursuant to the requirements of

§ 80.580(a).

(3) Any person who is deemed liable

for a violation under § 80.612 (a)(1)(iv)

with regard to a diesel fuel additive

subject to the requirements of

§ 80.521(b), will not be deemed in

violation if the person demonstrates

that:

(i) The violation was not caused by

the party or the party’s employee or

agent;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5153

(ii) Product transfer document(s)

which comply with the additive

information requirements under

§ 80.591 (b), account for the additive in

the fuel found to be in violation, and

indicate that the additive was in

compliance with the applicable

requirements while it was under the

party’s control; and

(iii) For the additive’s manufacturer or

importer, test results which accurately

establish that, when it left the party’s

control, the additive in the diesel fuel

determined to be in violation was in

conformity with the information on the

additive product transfer document

pursuant to the requirements of

§ 80.591(b). The testing procedures

applicable under paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, also apply under this paragraph

(a)(3).

(b) Branded refiner defenses. In the

case of a violation found at a facility

operating under the corporate, trade or

brand name of a refiner or importer, or

a refiner’s or importer’s marketing

subsidiary, the refiner or importer must

show, in addition to the defense

elements required under paragraph

(a)(1) of this section, that the violation

was caused by:

(1) An act in violation of law (other

than the Clean Air Act or this Part 80),

or an act of sabotage or vandalism;

(2) The action of any refiner, importer,

retailer, distributor, reseller, oxygenate

blender, carrier, retailer or wholesale

purchaser-consumer in violation of a

contractual agreement between the

branded refiner or importer and the

person designed to prevent such action,

and despite periodic sampling and

testing by the branded refiner or

importer to ensure compliance with

such contractual obligation; or

(3) The action of any carrier or other

distributor not subject to a contract with

the refiner or importer, but engaged for

transportation of diesel fuel, despite

specifications or inspections of

procedures and equipment which are

reasonably calculated to prevent such

action.

(c) Causation demonstration. Under

paragraph (a)(1) of this section for any

person to show that a violation was not

caused by that person, or under

paragraph (b) of this section to show

that a violation was caused by any of the

specified actions, the person must

demonstrate by reasonably specific

showing, by direct or circumstantial

evidence, that the violation was caused

or must have been caused by another

person and that the person asserting the

defense did not contribute to that other

person’s causation.

(d) Quality assurance and testing

program. To demonstrate an acceptable

quality assurance program under

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, a

person must present evidence of the

following:

(1) A periodic sampling and testing

program to ensure the motor vehicle

diesel fuel or additive the person sold,

dispensed, supplied, stored, or

transported, meets the applicable

standards.

(2) For those parties who, at a

downstream location, blend diesel fuel

additives subject to the requirements of

§ 80.521(b) into fuel trucks at a truck

loading rack, the periodic sampling and

testing program required under this

paragraph (d) must ensure, by taking

into account the greater risk of

noncompliance created through use of a

high sulfur additive, that the diesel fuel

into which the additive was blended

meets the applicable standards

subsequent to the blending.

(3) On each occasion when motor

vehicle diesel fuel or additive is found

not in compliance with the applicable

standard:

(i) The person immediately ceases

selling, offering for sale, dispensing,

supplying, offering for supply, storing or

transporting the non-complying

product; and

(ii) The person promptly remedies the

violation and the factors that caused the

violation (for example, by removing the

non-complying product from the

distribution system until the applicable

standard is achieved and taking steps to

prevent future violations of a similar

nature from occurring).

(4) For any carrier who transports

motor vehicle diesel fuel or additive in

a tank truck, the quality assurance

program required under this paragraph

(d) need not include its own periodic

sampling and testing of the motor

vehicle diesel fuel or additive in the

tank truck, but in lieu of such tank truck

sampling and testing, the carrier shall

demonstrate evidence of an oversight

program for monitoring compliance

with the requirements of this subpart

relating to the transport or storage of

such product by tank truck, such as

appropriate guidance to drivers

regarding compliance with the

applicable sulfur standard and product

transfer document requirements, and

the periodic review of records received

in the ordinary course of business

concerning motor vehicle diesel fuel or

additive quality and delivery.

§ 80.614 What penalties apply under this

subpart?

(a) Any person liable for a violation

under § 80.612 is subject to civil

penalties as specified in section 205 of

the Clean Air Act for every day of each

such violation and the amount of

economic benefit or savings resulting

from each violation.

(b)(1) Any person liable under

§ 80.612(a)(1) for a violation of an

applicable standard or requirement

under § 80.520, or of causing another

party to violate such standard or

requirement, is subject to a separate day

of violation for each and every day the

non-complying motor vehicle diesel fuel

remains any place in the distribution

system.

(2) Any person liable under

§ 80.612(a)(2) for causing motor vehicle

diesel fuel to be in the distribution

system which does not comply with an

applicable standard or requirement of

§ 80.520, is subject to a separate day of

violation for each and every day that the

non-complying motor vehicle diesel fuel

remains any place in the motor vehicle

diesel fuel distribution system.

(3) Any person liable under

§ 80.612(a)(1) for blending into motor

vehicle diesel fuel an additive violating

the applicable sulfur standard pursuant

to the requirements of § 80.521(a) or (b),

as appropriate, or of causing another

party to so blend or add such an

additive, is subject to a separate day of

violation for each and every day the

motor vehicle diesel fuel into which the

noncomplying additive was blended,

remains any place in the fuel

distribution system.

(4) For purposes of this paragraph (b),

the length of time the motor vehicle

diesel fuel in question remained in the

motor vehicle diesel fuel distribution

system is deemed to be twenty-five

days, unless a person subject to liability

or EPA demonstrates by reasonably

specific showings, by direct or

circumstantial evidence, that the noncomplying motor vehicle diesel fuel

remained in the distribution system for

fewer than or more than twenty-five

days.

(c) Any person liable under

§ 80.612(b) for failure to meet, or

causing a failure to meet, a provision of

this subpart is liable for a separate day

of violation for each and every day such

provision remains unfulfilled.

§§ 80.615–80.619 [Reserved]

Provisions for Foreign Refiners and

Importers for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

Subject to a Temporary Compliance

Option or Hardship Provision

§ 80.620 What are the additional

requirements for motor vehicle diesel fuel

produced by foreign refineries subject to a

temporary refiner compliance option or

hardship provisions?

(a) Definitions. (1) A foreign refinery

is a refinery that is located outside the

5154 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

United States, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,

American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands (collectively referred to in this

section as ‘‘the United States’’).

(2) A foreign refiner is a person who

meets the definition of refiner under

§ 80.2(i) for a foreign refinery.

(3) A diesel fuel program foreign

refiner (‘‘DFR’’) is a foreign refiner that

has been approved by EPA for

participation in any motor vehicle

diesel fuel credits program, motor

vehicle diesel fuel temporary

compliance option, hardship or GPA

provisions of §§ 80.530 through 80.532,

§ 80.540, § 80.552, § 80.553, § 80.560 or

§ 80.561 (collectively referred to as

‘‘diesel foreign refiner program’’).

(4) ‘‘DFR-Diesel’’ means motor vehicle

diesel fuel produced at a DFR refinery

that is imported into the United States.

(5) ‘‘Non-DFR-Diesel’’ means motor

vehicle diesel fuel that is produced at a

foreign refinery that has not been

approved as a DFR foreign refiner,

motor vehicle diesel fuel produced at a

DFR foreign refinery that is not

imported into the United States, and

motor vehicle diesel fuel produced at a

DFR foreign refinery during a period

when the foreign refiner has opted to

not participate in the DFR-Diesel diesel

foreign refiner program under paragraph

(c)(3) of this section.

(6) ‘‘Certified DFR-Diesel’’ means

DFR-Diesel the foreign refiner intends to

include in the foreign refinery’s

compliance calculations under

§§ 80.530 through 80.532, § 80.540,

§ 80.552, § 80.553, § 80.560 or § 80.561

and does include in these compliance

calculations when reported to EPA.

(7) ‘‘Non-Certified DFR-Diesel’’ means

DFR-Diesel fuel that a DFR foreign

refiner imports to the United States that

is not Certified DFR-Diesel.

(b) Baseline. For any foreign refiner to

obtain approval under the diesel foreign

refiner program of this subpart for any

refinery, it must apply for approval

under the applicable provisions of this

subpart. To obtain approval the refiner

is required, as applicable, to

demonstrate a volume baseline for

calendar years 1998 and 1999 for motor

vehicle diesel fuel produced for use in

the United States under §§ 80.595 and

80.596.

(1) The refiner shall follow the

procedures, applicable to volume

baselines and using motor vehicle diesel

fuel instead of gasoline, in §§ 80.91

through 80.93 to establish the volume of

motor vehicle diesel fuel that was

produced at the refinery and imported

into the United States during 1998 and

1999 for purposes of establishing a

baseline under §§ 80.595 and 80.596.

(2) In making determinations for

foreign refinery baselines EPA will

consider all information supplied by a

foreign refiner, and in addition may rely

on any and all appropriate assumptions

necessary to make such determinations.

(3) Where a foreign refiner submits a

petition that is incomplete or

inadequate to establish an accurate

baseline, and the refiner fails to correct

this deficiency after a request for more

information, EPA will not assign an

individual refinery motor vehicle diesel

fuel volume baseline.

(c) General requirements for DFR

foreign refiners. A foreign refiner of a

refinery that is approved under the

diesel foreign refiner program of this

subpart must designate each batch of

motor vehicle diesel fuel produced at

the foreign refinery that is exported to

the United States as either Certified

DFR-Diesel or as Non-Certified DFRDiesel, except as provided in paragraph

(c)(3) of this section. It must further

designate all Certified DFR-Diesel as

complying with either the 15 ppm

sulfur standard under § 80.520(a)(1) or

the 500 ppm sulfur standard under

§ 80.520(c).

(1) In the case of Certified DFR-Diesel,

the foreign refiner must meet all

requirements that apply to refiners

under this subpart, except that:

(i) For purposes of complying with

the compliance option requirements of

§ 80.530, motor vehicle diesel fuel

produced by a foreign refinery must

comply separately for each Credit

Trading Area of import, as defined in

§ 80.531(a)(5).

(ii) For purposes of complying with

the compliance option requirements of

§ 80.530, credits obtained from any

other refinery or from any importer

must have been generated in the same

Credit Trading Area as the Credit

Trading Area of import of the fuel for

which credits are needed to achieve

compliance.

(iii) For purposes of generating credits

under this subpart, credits shall be

generated separately by Credit Trading

Area of import and shall be designated

by Credit Trading Area of importation

and by port of importation.

(2) In the case of Non-Certified DFRDiesel, the foreign refiner shall meet all

the following requirements:

(i) The designation requirements in

this section.

(ii) The reporting requirements in this

section and § 80.593.

(iii) The product transfer document

requirements in this section.

(iv) The prohibitions in this section

and § 80.610.

(3)(i) Any foreign refiner that has been

approved to produce motor vehicle

diesel fuel subject to the diesel foreign

refiner program for a foreign refinery

under this subpart may elect to classify

no diesel fuel imported into the United

States as DFR-Diesel provided the

foreign refiner notifies EPA of the

election no later than November 1 of the

prior calendar year.

(ii) An election under paragraph

(c)(3)(i) of this section shall be for an

entire calendar year and apply to all

motor vehicle diesel fuel that is

produced by the foreign refinery that is

imported into the United States, and

shall remain in effect for each

succeeding year unless and until the

foreign refiner notifies EPA of the

termination of the election. The change

in election shall take effect at the

beginning of the next calendar year.

(d) Designation, product transfer

documents, and foreign refiner

certification. (1) Any foreign refiner of a

foreign refinery that has been approved

by EPA to produce motor vehicle diesel

fuel subject to the diesel foreign refiner

program must designate each batch of

DFR-Diesel as such at the time the

diesel fuel is produced, unless the

refiner has elected to classify no diesel

fuel exported to the United States as

DFR-Diesel under paragraph (c)(3) of

this section.

(2) On each occasion when any

person transfers custody or title to any

DFR-Diesel prior to its being imported

into the United States, it must include

the following information as part of the

product transfer document information

in this section:

(i) Identification of the diesel fuel as

Certified DFR-Diesel or as Non-Certified

DFR-Diesel, and if it is Certified DFRDiesel, further designation as meeting

the 500 ppm sulfur standard under

§ 80.520(c) or the 15 ppm sulfur

standard under § 80.520(a)(1) pursuant

to § 80.523; and

(ii) The name and EPA refinery

registration number (under § 80.593) of

the refinery where the DFR-Diesel was

produced.

(3) On each occasion when DFRDiesel is loaded onto a vessel or other

transportation mode for transport to the

United States, the foreign refiner shall

prepare a certification for each batch of

the DFR-Diesel that meets the following

requirements.

(i) The certification shall include the

report of the independent third party

under paragraph (f) of this section, and

the following additional information:

(A) The name and EPA registration

number of the refinery that produced

the DFR-Diesel;

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5155

(B) The identification of the diesel

fuel as Certified DFR-Diesel or NonCertified DFR-Diesel;

(C) The volume of DFR-Diesel being

transported, in gallons;

(D) In the case of Certified DFRDiesel:

(1) The sulfur content as determined

under paragraph (f) of this section, and

the designation of the fuel as complying

with the 15 ppm sulfur content standard

for motor vehicle diesel fuel under

§ 80.520(a)(1) or the 500 ppm sulfur

content standard for motor vehicle

diesel fuel under § 80.520(c); and

(2) A declaration that the DFR-Diesel

is being included in the applicable

compliance calculations required by the

EPA under this subpart.

(ii) The certification shall be made

part of the product transfer documents

for the DFR-Diesel.

(e) Transfers of DFR-Diesel to nonUnited States markets. The foreign

refiner is responsible to ensure that all

diesel fuel classified as DFR-Diesel is

imported into the United States. A

foreign refiner may remove the DFRDiesel classification, and the diesel fuel

need not be imported into the United

States, but only if:

(1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes:

(A) The volume of diesel from the

refinery’s compliance report under

§ 80.593; and

(B) In the case of Certified DFR-Diesel,

the volume of the diesel fuel from the

compliance report under § 80.593.

(ii) The exclusions under paragraph

(e)(1)(i) of this section shall be on the

basis of the designations under § 80.523

and volumes determined under

paragraph (f) of this section.

(2) The foreign refiner obtains

sufficient evidence in the form of

documentation that the diesel fuel was

not imported into the United States.

(f) Load port independent sampling,

testing and refinery identification. (1)

On each occasion that DFR-Diesel is

loaded onto a vessel for transport to the

United States a foreign refiner shall

have an independent third party:

(i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading

and determine the volume of any tank

bottoms;

(ii) Determine the volume of DFRDiesel loaded onto the vessel (exclusive

of any tank bottoms before loading);

(iii) Obtain the EPA-assigned

registration number of the foreign

refinery;

(iv) Determine the name and country

of registration of the vessel used to

transport the DFR-Diesel to the United

States; and

(v) Determine the date and time the

vessel departs the port serving the

foreign refinery.

(2) On each occasion that Certified

DFR-Diesel is loaded onto a vessel for

transport to the United States a foreign

refiner shall have an independent third

party:

(i) Collect a representative sample of

the Certified DFR-Diesel from each

vessel compartment subsequent to

loading on the vessel and prior to

departure of the vessel from the port

serving the foreign refinery;

(ii) Determine the sulfur content value

for each compartment using the

methodology specified in § 80.580 by:

(A) The third party analyzing each

sample; or

(B) The third party observing the

foreign refiner analyze the sample;

(iii) Review original documents that

reflect movement and storage of the

certified DFR-Diesel from the refinery to

the load port, and from this review

determine:

(A) The refinery at which the DFRDiesel was produced; and

(B) That the DFR-Diesel remained

segregated from:

(1) Non-DFR-Diesel and Non-Certified

DFR-Diesel; and

(2) Other Certified DFR-Diesel

produced at a different refinery.

(3) The independent third party shall

submit a report:

(i) To the foreign refiner containing

the information required under

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this

section, to accompany the product

transfer documents for the vessel; and

(ii) To the Administrator containing

the information required under

paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this

section, within thirty days following the

date of the independent third party’s

inspection. This report shall include a

description of the method used to

determine the identity of the refinery at

which the diesel fuel was produced,

assurance that the diesel fuel remained

segregated as specified in paragraph

(n)(1) of this section, and a description

of the diesel fuel’s movement and

storage between production at the

source refinery and vessel loading.

(4) The independent third party must:

(i) Be approved in advance by EPA,

based on a demonstration of ability to

perform the procedures required in this

paragraph (f);

(ii) Be independent under the criteria

specified in § 80.65(e)(2)(iii); and

(iii) Sign a commitment that contains

the provisions specified in paragraph (i)

of this section with regard to activities,

facilities and documents relevant to

compliance with the requirements of

this paragraph (f).

(g) Comparison of load port and port

of entry testing. (1) Load port and port

of entry testing requirements, as follows:

(i) Any foreign refiner and any United

States importer of Certified DFR-Diesel

shall compare the results from the load

port testing under paragraph (f) of this

section, with the port of entry testing as

reported under paragraph (o) of this

section, for the volume of diesel and the

sulfur value; except that

(ii) Where a vessel transporting

Certified DFR-Diesel off loads this diesel

fuel at more than one United States port

of entry, and the conditions of

paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met

at the first United States port of entry,

the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of

this section do not apply at subsequent

ports of entry if the United States

importer obtains a certification from the

vessel owner that meets the

requirements of paragraph(s) of this

section, that the vessel has not loaded

any diesel fuel or blendstock between

the first United States port of entry and

the subsequent port of entry.

(2)(i) The requirements of this

paragraph (g)(2) apply if:

(A) The temperature-corrected

volumes determined at the port of entry

and at the load port differ by more than

one percent; or

(B) The sulfur value determined at the

port of entry is higher than the sulfur

value determined at the load port, and

the amount of this difference is greater

than the reproducibility amount

specified for the port of entry test result

by the American Society of Testing and

Materials (ASTM).

(ii) The United States importer and

the foreign refiner shall treat the diesel

fuel as Non-Certified DFR-Diesel, and

the foreign refiner shall exclude the

diesel fuel volume from its motor

vehicle diesel fuel volumes calculations

and sulfur standard designations under

§ 80.523.

(h) Attest requirements. Refiners, for

each calendar year, must arrange to have

an attest engagement performed of the

underlying documentation that forms

the basis of any report required under

this subpart. The attest engagement

must comply with the procedures and

requirements that apply to refiners

under §§ 80.125 through 80.130 and

must be submitted to the Administrator

of EPA by May 30 of each year for the

prior calendar year. The following

additional procedures shall be carried

out for any foreign refiner of DFRDiesel:

(1) The inventory reconciliation

analysis under § 80.128(b) and the

tender analysis under § 80.128(c) shall

include Non-DFR-Diesel.

(2) Obtain separate listings of all

tenders of Certified DFR-Diesel and of

Non-Certified DFR-Diesel, and obtain

separate listings of Certified DFR-Diesel

5156 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

based on whether it is 15 ppm sulfur

content motor vehicle diesel fuel or 500

ppm sulfur content motor vehicle diesel

fuel. Agree the total volume of tenders

from the listings to the diesel fuel

inventory reconciliation analysis in

§ 80.128(b), and to the volumes

determined by the third party under

paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(3) For each tender under paragraph

(h)(2) of this section, where the diesel

fuel is loaded onto a marine vessel,

report as a finding the name and

country of registration of each vessel,

and the volumes of DFR-Diesel loaded

onto each vessel.

(4) Select a sample from the list of

vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of

this section used to transport Certified

DFR-Diesel, in accordance with the

guidelines in § 80.127, and for each

vessel selected perform the following:

(i) Obtain the report of the

independent third party, under

paragraph (f) of this section, and of the

United States importer under paragraph

(o) of this section.

(A) Agree the information in these

reports with regard to vessel

identification, diesel fuel volumes and

sulfur content test results.

(B) Identify, and report as a finding,

each occasion the load port and port of

entry sulfur content and volume results

differ by more than the amounts

allowed in paragraph (g) of this section,

and determine whether the foreign

refiner adjusted its refinery calculations

as required in paragraph (g) of this

section.

(ii) Obtain the documents used by the

independent third party to determine

transportation and storage of the

Certified DFR-Diesel from the refinery to

the load port, under paragraph (f) of this

section. Obtain tank activity records for

any storage tank where the Certified

DFR-Diesel is stored, and pipeline

activity records for any pipeline used to

transport the Certified DFR-Diesel, prior

to being loaded onto the vessel. Use

these records to determine whether the

Certified DFR-Diesel was produced at

the refinery that is the subject of the

attest engagement, and whether the

Certified DFR-Diesel was mixed with

any Non-Certified DFR-Diesel, NonDFR-Diesel, or any Certified DFR-Diesel

produced at a different refinery.

(5) Select a sample from the list of

vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of

this section used to transport certified

and Non-Certified DFR-Diesel, in

accordance with the guidelines in

§ 80.127, and for each vessel selected

perform the following:

(i) Obtain a commercial document of

general circulation that lists vessel

arrivals and departures, and that

includes the port and date of departure

of the vessel, and the port of entry and

date of arrival of the vessel.

(ii) Agree the vessel’s departure and

arrival locations and dates from the

independent third party and United

States importer reports to the

information contained in the

commercial document.

(6) Obtain separate listings of all

tenders of Non-DFR-Diesel, and perform

the following:

(i) Agree the total volume and sulfur

content of tenders from the listings to

the diesel fuel inventory reconciliation

analysis in § 80.128(b).

(ii) Obtain a separate listing of the

tenders under this paragraph (h)(6)

where the diesel fuel is loaded onto a

marine vessel. Select a sample from this

listing in accordance with the

guidelines in § 80.127, and obtain a

commercial document of general

circulation that lists vessel arrivals and

departures, and that includes the port

and date of departure and the ports and

dates where the diesel fuel was off

loaded for the selected vessels.

Determine and report as a finding the

country where the diesel fuel was off

loaded for each vessel selected.

(7) In order to complete the

requirements of this paragraph (h) an

auditor shall:

(i) Be independent of the foreign

refiner;

(ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public

Accountant in the United States and a

citizen of the United States, or be

approved in advance by EPA based on

a demonstration of ability to perform the

procedures required in §§ 80.125

through 80.130 and this paragraph (h);

and

(iii) Sign a commitment that contains

the provisions specified in paragraph (i)

of this section with regard to activities

and documents relevant to compliance

with the requirements of §§ 80.125

through 80.130 and this paragraph (h).

(i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any

foreign refiner shall commit to and

comply with the provisions contained

in this paragraph (i) as a condition to

being approved for a temporary refiner

diesel fuel program option.

(1) Any United States Environmental

Protection Agency inspector or auditor

must be given full, complete and

immediate access to conduct

inspections and audits of the foreign

refinery.

(i) Inspections and audits may be

either announced in advance by EPA, or

unannounced.

(ii) Access will be provided to any

location where:

(A) Diesel fuel is produced;

(B) Documents related to refinery

operations are kept;

(C) Diesel fuel or blendstock samples

are tested or stored; and

(D) DFR-Diesel is stored or

transported between the foreign refinery

and the United States, including storage

tanks, vessels and pipelines.

(iii) Inspections and audits may be by

EPA employees or contractors to EPA.

(iv) Any documents requested that are

related to matters covered by

inspections and audits must be

provided to an EPA inspector or auditor

on request.

(v) Inspections and audits by EPA

may include review and copying of any

documents related to:

(A) Refinery baseline establishment, if

applicable, including the volume and

sulfur content; transfers of title or

custody of any diesel fuel or

blendstocks whether DFR-Diesel or

Non-DFR-Diesel, produced at the

foreign refinery during the period

January 1, 1998 through the date of the

refinery baseline petition or through the

date of the inspection or audit if a

baseline petition has not been approved,

and any work papers related to refinery

baseline establishment;

(B) The volume and sulfur content of

DFR-Diesel;

(C) The proper classification of diesel

fuel as being DFR-Diesel or as not being

DFR-Diesel, or as Certified DFR-Diesel

or as Non-Certified DFR-Diesel, or as

meeting the 15 ppm sulfur standard

under § 80.520(a)(1) or the 500 ppm

sulfur standard under § 80.520(c);

(D) Transfers of title or custody to

DFR-Diesel;

(E) Sampling and testing of DFRDiesel;

(F) Work performed and reports

prepared by independent third parties

and by independent auditors under the

requirements of this section, including

work papers; and

(G) Reports prepared for submission

to EPA, and any work papers related to

such reports.

(vi) Inspections and audits by EPA

may include taking samples of diesel

fuel, diesel fuel additives or blendstock,

and interviewing employees.

(vii) Any employee of the foreign

refiner must be made available for

interview by the EPA inspector or

auditor, on request, within a reasonable

time period.

(viii) English language translations of

any documents must be provided to an

EPA inspector or auditor, on request,

within 10 working days.

(ix) English language interpreters

must be provided to accompany EPA

inspectors and auditors, on request.

(2) An agent for service of process

located in the District of Columbia shall

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5157

be named, and service on this agent

constitutes service on the foreign refiner

or any employee of the foreign refiner

for any action by EPA or otherwise by

the United States related to the

requirements of this subpart.

(3) The forum for any civil or criminal

enforcement action related to the

provisions of this section for violations

of the Clean Air Act or regulations

promulgated thereunder shall be

governed by the Clean Air Act,

including the EPA administrative forum

where allowed under the Clean Air Act.

(4) United States substantive and

procedural laws shall apply to any civil

or criminal enforcement action against

the foreign refiner or any employee of

the foreign refiner related to the

provisions of this section.

(5) Submitting a petition for

participation in the diesel foreign

refiner program or producing and

exporting diesel fuel under any such

program, and all other actions to comply

with the requirements of this subpart

relating to participation in any diesel

foreign refiner program, or to establish

an individual refinery motor vehicle

diesel fuel volume baseline (if

applicable) constitute actions or

activities that satisfy the provisions of

28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(2), but solely

with respect to actions instituted against

the foreign refiner, its agents and

employees in any court or other tribunal

in the United States for conduct that

violates the requirements applicable to

the foreign refiner under this subpart,

including conduct that violates Title 18

U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act

section 113(c)(2).

(6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or

employees, will not seek to detain or to

impose civil or criminal remedies

against EPA inspectors or auditors,

whether EPA employees or EPA

contractors, for actions performed

within the scope of EPA employment

related to the provisions of this section.

(7) The commitment required by this

paragraph (i) shall be signed by the

owner or president of the foreign refiner

business.

(8) In any case where DFR-Diesel

produced at a foreign refinery is stored

or transported by another company

between the refinery and the vessel that

transports the DFR-Diesel to the United

States, the foreign refiner shall obtain

from each such other company a

commitment that meets the

requirements specified in paragraphs

(i)(1) through (7) of this section, and

these commitments shall be included in

the foreign refiner’s petition to

participate in any diesel foreign refiner

program .

(j) Sovereign immunity. By submitting

a petition for participation in any diesel

foreign refiner program under this

subpart (and baseline, if applicable)

under this section, or by producing and

exporting diesel fuel to the United

States under any such program, the

foreign refiner, and its agents and

employees, without exception, become

subject to the full operation of the

administrative and judicial enforcement

powers and provisions of the United

States without limitation based on

sovereign immunity, with respect to

actions instituted against the foreign

refiner, its agents and employees in any

court or other tribunal in the United

States for conduct that violates the

requirements applicable to the foreign

refiner under this subpart including

conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C.

section 1001 and Clean Air Act section

113(c)(2).

(k) Bond posting. Any foreign refiner

shall meet the requirements of this

paragraph (k) as a condition to approval

for any diesel foreign refiner program

under this subpart.

(1) The foreign refiner shall post a

bond of the amount calculated using the

following equation: Bond = G × $0.01

Where:

Bond = amount of the bond in U.S. dollars.

G = the volume baseline for motor vehicle

diesel fuel produced at the foreign

refinery and exported to the United

States, in gallons.

(2) Bonds shall be posted by:

(i) Paying the amount of the bond to

the Treasurer of the United States;

(ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper

amount from a third party surety agent

that is payable to satisfy United States

administrative or judicial judgments

against the foreign refiner, provided

EPA agrees in advance as to the third

party and the nature of the surety

agreement; or

(iii) An alternative commitment that

results in assets of an appropriate

liquidity and value being readily

available to the United States, provided

EPA agrees in advance as to the

alternative commitment.

(3) Bonds posted under this paragraph

(k) shall:

(i) Be used to satisfy any judicial

judgment that results from an

administrative or judicial enforcement

action for conduct in violation of this

subpart, including where such conduct

violates Title 18 U.S.C. 1001 and Clean

Air Act section 113(c)(2);

(ii) Be provided by a corporate surety

that is listed in the United States

Department of Treasury Circular 570

‘‘Companies Holding Certificates of

Authority as Acceptable Sureties on

Federal Bonds’’ (available from the

Department of Treasury website at http:/

/www.fms.treas.gov or from the

Government Printing Office, phone

(202) 512–1800); and

(iii) Include a commitment that the

bond will remain in effect for at least

five (5) years following the end of latest

annual reporting period that the foreign

refiner produces motor vehicle diesel

fuel pursuant to the requirements of this

subpart.

(4) On any occasion a foreign refiner

bond is used to satisfy any judgment,

the foreign refiner shall increase the

bond to cover the amount used within

90 days of the date the bond is used.

(5) If the bond amount for a foreign

refiner increases, the foreign refiner

shall increase the bond to cover the

shortfall within 90 days of the date the

bond amount changes. If the bond

amount decreases, the foreign refiner

may reduce the amount of the bond

beginning 90 days after the date the

bond amount changes.

(l) [Reserved]

(m) English language reports. Any

report or other document submitted to

EPA by a foreign refiner shall be in

English language, or shall include an

English language translation.

(n) Prohibitions. (1) No person may

combine Certified DFR-Diesel with any

Non-Certified DFR-Diesel or Non-DFRDiesel, and no person may combine

Certified DFR-Diesel with any Certified

DFR-Diesel produced at a different

refinery, until the importer has met all

the requirements of paragraph (o) of this

section, except as provided in paragraph

(e) of this section.

(2) No foreign refiner or other person

may cause another person to commit an

action prohibited in paragraph (n)(1) of

this section, or that otherwise violates

the requirements of this section.

(o) United States importer

requirements. Any United States

importer shall meet the following

requirements:

(1) Each batch of imported motor

vehicle diesel fuel shall be classified by

the importer as being DFR-Diesel or as

Non-DFR-Diesel, and each batch

classified as DFR-Diesel shall be further

classified as Certified DFR-Diesel or as

Non-certified DFR-Diesel, and each

batch of Certified DFR-Diesel shall be

further classified as complying with the

500 ppm motor vehicle diesel fuel

sulfur standard under § 80.520(c) or the

15 ppm motor vehicle diesel fuel sulfur

standard under § 80.520(a)(1).

(2) Motor vehicle diesel fuel shall be

classified as Certified DFR-Diesel or as

Non-Certified DFR-Diesel according to

the designation by the foreign refiner if

this designation is supported by product

5158 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

transfer documents prepared by the

foreign refiner as required in paragraph

(d) of this section, unless the diesel fuel

is classified as Non-Certified DFR-Diesel

under paragraph (g) of this section.

Additionally, the importer shall comply

with all requirements of this subpart

applicable to domestic refiners subject

to any diesel foreign refiner program

under this subpart.

(3) For each diesel fuel batch

classified as DFR-Diesel, any United

States importer shall perform the

following procedures:

(i) In the case of both Certified and

Non-Certified DFR-Diesel, have an

independent third party:

(A) Determine the volume of diesel

fuel in the vessel;

(B) Use the foreign refiner’s DFRDiesel certification to determine the

name and EPA-assigned registration

number of the foreign refinery that

produced the DFR-Diesel;

(C) Determine the name and country

of registration of the vessel used to

transport the DFR-Diesel to the United

States; and

(D) Determine the date and time the

vessel arrives at the United States port

of entry.

(ii) In the case of Certified DFR-Diesel,

have an independent third party:

(A) Collect a representative sample

from each vessel compartment

subsequent to the vessel’s arrival at the

United States port of entry and prior to

off loading any diesel fuel from the

vessel;

(B) Obtain the compartment samples;

and

(C) Determine the sulfur value of each

compartment sample using the

methodologies specified in § 80.580, by:

(1) The third party analyzing the

sample; or

(2) The third party observing the

importer analyze the sample.

(4) Any importer shall submit reports

within thirty days following the date

any vessel transporting DFR-Diesel

arrives at the United States port of entry:

(i) To the Administrator containing

the information determined under

paragraph (o)(3) of this section; and

(ii) To the foreign refiner containing

the information determined under

paragraph (o)(3)(ii) of this section, and

including identification of the port and

Credit Trading Area at which the

product was offloaded.

(5) Any United States importer shall

meet the requirements specified in

§ 80.520, for any imported motor vehicle

diesel fuel that is not classified as

Certified DFR-Diesel under paragraph

(o)(2) of this section.

(p) Truck Imports of Certified DFRDiesel produced at a Foreign Refinery.

(1) Any refiner whose Certified DFRDiesel is transported into the United

States by truck may petition EPA to use

alternative procedures to meet the

following requirements:

(i) Certification under paragraph (d)(5)

of this section;

(ii) Load port and port of entry

sampling and testing under paragraphs

(f) and (g) of this section;

(iii) Attest under paragraph (h) of this

section; and

(iv) Importer testing under paragraph

(o)(3) of this section.

(2) These alternative procedures must

ensure Certified DFR-Diesel remains

segregated from Non-Certified DFRDiesel and from Non-DFR-Diesel until it

is imported into the United States. The

petition will be evaluated based on

whether it adequately addresses the

following:

(i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline

shipments, if applicable, from the

refinery, that ensure segregation of

Certified DFR-Diesel from that refinery

from all other diesel fuel;

(ii) Contracts with any terminals and/

or pipelines that receive and/or

transport Certified DFR-Diesel, that

prohibit the commingling of Certified

DFR-Diesel with any of the following:

(A) Other Certified DFR-Diesel from

other refineries.

(B) All Non-Certified DFR-Diesel.

(C) All Non-DFR-Diesel;

(iii) Procedures for obtaining and

reviewing truck loading records and

United States import documents for

Certified DFR-Diesel to ensure that such

diesel fuel is only loaded into trucks

making deliveries to the United States;

(iv) Attest procedures to be conducted

annually by an independent third party

that review loading records and import

documents based on volume

reconciliation, or other criteria, to

confirm that all Certified DFR-Diesel

remains segregated throughout the

distribution system and is only loaded

into trucks for import into the United

States.

(3) The petition required by this

section must be submitted to EPA along

with the application for temporary

refiner relief individual refinery

highway diesel sulfur standard under

this subpart I and this section.

(q) Withdrawal or suspension of a

foreign refinery’s temporary refinery

flexibility program approval. EPA may

withdraw or suspend a diesel refiner

temporary compliance option diesel fuel

sulfur program approval for a foreign

refinery where:

(1) A foreign refiner fails to meet any

requirement of this section;

(2) A foreign government fails to

allow EPA inspections as provided in

paragraph (i)(1) of this section;

(3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of,

or a right to claim, sovereign immunity

in an action to enforce the requirements

in this subpart; or

(4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil

or criminal penalty that is not satisfied

using the foreign refiner bond specified

in paragraph (k) of this section.

(r) Early use of a foreign refiner

baseline. (1) A foreign refiner may begin

using an individual refinery baseline

before EPA has approved the baseline,

provided that:

(i) A baseline petition has been

submitted as required in paragraph (b)

of this section;

(ii) EPA has made a provisional

finding that the baseline petition is

complete;

(iii) The foreign refiner has made the

commitments required in paragraph (i)

of this section;

(iv) The persons who will meet the

independent third party and

independent attest requirements for the

foreign refinery have made the

commitments required in paragraphs

(f)(3)(iii) and (h)(7)(iii) of this section;

and

(v) The foreign refiner has met the

bond requirements of paragraph (k) of

this section.

(2) In any case where a foreign refiner

uses an individual refinery baseline

before final approval under paragraph

(r)(1) of this section, and the foreign

refinery baseline values that ultimately

are approved by EPA are more stringent

than the early baseline values used by

the foreign refiner, the foreign refiner

shall recalculate its compliance, ab

initio, using the baseline values

approved by the EPA, and the foreign

refiner shall be liable for any resulting

violation of the motor vehicle highway

diesel fuel requirements.

(s) Additional requirements for

petitions, reports and certificates. Any

petition for approval to produce motor

vehicle diesel fuel subject to the diesel

foreign refiner program, any alternative

procedures under paragraph (p) of this

section, any report or other submission

required by paragraph (c), (f)(2), or (i) of

this section, and any certification under

paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be:

(1) Submitted in accordance with

procedures specified by the

Administrator, including use of any

forms that may be specified by the

Administrator.

(2) Be signed by the president or

owner of the foreign refiner company, or

by that person’s immediate designee,

and shall contain the following

declaration:

I hereby certify: (1) that I have actual

authority to sign on behalf of and to bind

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5159

[insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to

all statements contained herein; (2) that I am

aware that the information contained herein

is being certified, or submitted to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency,

under the requirements of 40 CFR Part 80,

subpart I, and that the information is material

for determining compliance under these

regulations; and (3) that I have read and

understand the information being certified or

submitted, and this information is true,

complete and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief after I have taken

reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the

accuracy thereof.

I affirm that I have read and understand the

provisions of 40 CFR Part 80, subpart I,

including 40 CFR 80.620 apply to [insert

name of foreign refiner]. Pursuant to Clean

Air Act section 113(c) and Title 18, United

States Code, section 1001, the penalty for

furnishing false, incomplete or misleading

information in this certification or

submission is a fine of up to $10,000 U.S.,

and/or imprisonment for up to five years.

PART 86—CONTROL OF EMISSIONS

FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY

VEHICLES AND ENGINES

11. The authority citation for part 86

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

12. Section 86.1 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 86.1 Reference materials.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) ASTM material. The following

table sets forth material from the

American Society for Testing and

Materials that has been incorporated by

reference. The first column lists the

number and name of the material. The

second column lists the section(s) of

this part, other than this section, in

which the matter is referenced. Copies

of these materials may be obtained from

American Society for Testing and

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959.

Document number and name 40 CFR part 86 reference

ASTM E29–67 (Reapproved 1980), Standard Recommended Practice for Indicating Which

Places of Figures Are To Be Considered Significant in Specified Limiting Values.

86.1105–87.

ASTM E29–90, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications.86.609–84; 86.609–96; 86.609–97; 86.609–98;

86.1009–84; 86.1009–96; 86.1442; 86.1708–

99; 86.1709–99; 86.1710–99; 86.1728–99.

ASTM D5186–91, Standard Test Method for Determination of Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuels

by Supercritical Fluid Chromatography.

86.113–07; 86.1313–91; 86.1313–94; 86.1313–

98; 1313–2007.

ASTM D2163–91, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases and

Propane Concentrates by Gas Chromatography.

86.113–94; 86.1213–94; 86.1313–94.

ASTM D1945–91, Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatography 86.113–94; 86.513–94; 86.1213–94; 86.1313–

94.

ASTM E29–93a, Standard Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to Determine Conformance with Specifications.86.098–15; 86.004–15; 86.007–11; 86.007–15;

86.1803–01; 86.1823–01; 86.1824–01;

86.1825–01; 86.1837–01.

ASTM D2986–95a, (Reapproved 1999) Standard Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay Media by

the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test.

86.1310–2007.

ASTM F1471–93, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High-Efficiency

Particulate Air-Filter System.

86.1310–2007.

* * * * *

13. Section 86.004–2 is amended by

adding in alphabetical order a definition

of ‘‘U.S.-directed production’’ to read as

follows:

§ 86.004–2 Definitions.

* * * * *

U.S.-directed production means the

engines and/or vehicles (as applicable)

produced by a manufacturer for which

the manufacturer has reasonable

assurance that sale was or will be made

to ultimate purchasers in the United

States, excluding engines and/or

vehicles that are certified to state

emission standards different than the

emission standards in this part.

* * * * *

14. Section 86.004–28 is amended by

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 86.004–28 Compliance with emission

standards.

* * * * *

(i) Emission results from heavy-duty

engines equipped with exhaust

aftertreatment may need to be adjusted

to account for regeneration events. This

provision only applies for engines

equipped with emission controls that

are regenerated on an infrequent basis.

For the purpose of this paragraph (i), the

term ‘‘regeneration’’ means an event

during which emissions levels change

while the aftertreatment performance is

being restored by design. Examples of

regenerations are increasing exhaust gas

temperature to remove sulfur from an

adsorber or increasing exhaust gas

temperature to oxidize PM in a trap. For

the purpose of this paragraph (i), the

term ‘‘infrequent’’ means having an

expected frequency of less than once per

transient test cycle. Calculation and use

of adjustment factors are described in

paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(5) of this

section.

(1) Development of adjustment

factors. Manufacturers must develop

separate pairs of adjustment factors (an

upward adjustment factor and a

downward adjustment factor) for each

pollutant based on measured emission

data and observed regeneration

frequency. Adjustment factors may be

carried-over to subsequent model years

or carried-across to other engine

families only where the Administrator

determines that such carry-over or

carry-across is consistent with good

engineering judgment. Adjustment

factors should generally apply to an

entire engine family, but manufacturers

may develop separate adjustment factors

for different engine configurations

within an engine family. All adjustment

factors for regeneration are additive.

(2) Calculation of adjustment factors.

The adjustment factors are calculated

from the following parameters: the

measured emissions from a test in

which the regeneration occurs (EFH), the

measured emissions from a test in

which the regeneration does not occur

(EFL), and the frequency of the

regeneration event in terms of fraction

of tests during which the regeneration

occurs (F). The average emission rate

(EFA) is calculated as:

EFA = (F)(EFH) + (1 ¥ F)(EFL)

(i) The upward adjustment factor

(UAF) is calculated as: UAF = EFA ¥

EFL.

(ii) The downward adjustment factor

(DAF) is calculated as: DAF = EFA ¥

EFH.

(3) Use of adjustment factors. Upward

adjustment factors are added to

5160 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

measured emission rates for all tests in

which the regeneration does not occur.

Downward adjustment factors are added

to measured emission rates for all tests

in which the regeneration occurs. The

occurrence of the regeneration must be

identified in a manner that is readily

apparent during all testing. Where no

regeneration is identified, the upward

adjustment factor shall be applied.

(4) Sample calculation. If EFL is 0.10

g/bhp-hr, EFH is 0.50 g/bhp-hr, and F is

0.1 (i.e., the regeneration occurs once for

each ten tests), then:

EFA = (0.1)(0.5 g/bhp-hr) + (1.0 ¥

0.1)(0.1 g/bhp-hr) = 0.14 g/bhp-hr

UAF = 0.14 g/bhp-hr ¥ 0.10 g/bhp-hr =

0.04 g/bhp-hr

DAF = 0.14 g/bhp-hr ¥ 0.50 g/bhp-hr =

¥0.36 g/bhp-hr

(5) Options. (i) A manufacturer may

elect to omit adjustment factors for one

or more of its engine families (or

configurations) because the effect of the

regeneration is small, or because it is

not practical to identify when

regenerations occur. In these cases, no

upward or downward adjustment factor

shall be added, and the manufacturer is

liable for compliance with the emission

standards for all tests, without regard to

whether a regeneration occurs.

(ii) Upon request by the manufacturer,

the Administrator may account for

regeneration events differently than is

provided in this paragraph (i). However,

this option only applies for events that

occur extremely infrequently, and

which cannot be practically addressed

using the adjustment factors described

in this paragraph (i).

15. Section 86.004–40 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 86.004–40 Heavy-duty engine rebuilding

practices.

The provisions of this section are

applicable to heavy-duty engines subject

to model year 2004 or later standards

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)).

* * * * *

16. Section 86.005–10 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) to read as

follows:

§ 86.005–10 Emission standards for 2005

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty

engines and vehicles.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

(C) Idle carbon monoxide. For all

Otto-cycle HDEs utilizing aftertreatment

technology, and not certified to the

onboard diagnostics requirements of

§ 86.005–17: 0.50 percent of exhaust gas

flow at curb idle.

* * * * *

17. Section 86.005–17 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) introductory

text, (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5),

and (k) to read as follows:

§ 86.005–17 On-board diagnostics.

* * * * *

(b) Malfunction descriptions. The

OBD system must detect and identify

malfunctions in all monitored emissionrelated engine systems or components

according to the following malfunction

definitions as measured and calculated

in accordance with test procedures set

forth in subpart N of this part (enginebased test procedures) excluding the test

procedure referred to as the

‘‘Supplemental emission test; test cycle

and procedures’’ contained in § 86.1360,

and excluding the test procedure

referred to as the ‘‘Not-To-Exceed Test

Procedure’’ contained in § 86.1370, and

excluding the test procedure referred to

as the ‘‘Load Response Test’’ contained

in § 86.1380.

(1) Catalysts and particulate traps. (i)

Otto-cycle. Catalyst deterioration or

malfunction before it results in an

increase in NMHC (or NOX+NMHC, as

applicable) emissions 1.5 times the

NMHC (or NOX+NMHC, as applicable)

standard or FEL, as compared to the

NMHC (or NOX+NMHC, as applicable)

emission level measured using a

representative 4000 mile catalyst

system.

(ii) Diesel. (A) If equipped, catalyst

deterioration or malfunction before it

results in exhaust emissions exceeding

1.5 times the applicable standard or FEL

for NOX (or NOX+NMHC, as applicable)

or PM. This requirement applies only to

reduction catalysts; monitoring of

oxidation catalysts is not required. This

monitoring need not be done if the

manufacturer can demonstrate that

deterioration or malfunction of the

system will not result in exceedance of

the threshold.

(B) If equipped with a particulate trap,

catastrophic failure of the device must

be detected. Any particulate trap whose

complete failure results in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the

applicable standard or FEL for NMHC

(or NOX+NMHC, as applicable) or PM

must be monitored for such catastrophic

failure. This monitoring need not be

done if the manufacturer can

demonstrate that a catastrophic failure

of the system will not result in

exceedance of the threshold.

(2) Engine Misfire. (i) Otto-cycle.

Engine misfire resulting in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the

applicable standard or FEL for NMHC,

NOX (or NOX+NMHC, as applicable) or

CO; and any misfire capable of

damaging the catalytic converter.

(ii) Diesel. Lack of cylinder

combustion must be detected.

(3) Oxygen sensors. If equipped,

oxygen sensor deterioration or

malfunction resulting in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the

applicable standard or FEL for NMHC,

NOX (or NOX+NMHC, as applicable) or

CO.

(4) Evaporative leaks. If equipped, any

vapor leak in the evaporative and/or

refueling system (excluding the tubing

and connections between the purge

valve and the intake manifold) greater

than or equal in magnitude to a leak

caused by a 0.040 inch diameter orifice;

an absence of evaporative purge air flow

from the complete evaporative emission

control system. Where fuel tank

capacity is greater than 25 gallons, the

Administrator may, following a request

from the manufacturer, revise the size of

the orifice to the smallest orifice

feasible, based on test data, if the most

reliable monitoring method available

cannot reliably detect a system leak

equal to a 0.040 inch diameter orifice.

(5) Other emission control systems.

Any deterioration or malfunction

occurring in an engine system or

component directly intended to control

emissions, including but not necessarily

limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation

(EGR) system, if equipped, the

secondary air system, if equipped, and

the fuel control system, singularly

resulting in exhaust emissions

exceeding 1.5 times the applicable

emission standard or FEL for NMHC,

NOX (or NOX+NMHC, as applicable),

CO or diesel PM. For engines equipped

with a secondary air system, a

functional check, as described in

paragraph (b)(6) of this section, may

satisfy the requirements of this

paragraph (b)(5) provided the

manufacturer can demonstrate that

deterioration of the flow distribution

system is unlikely. This demonstration

is subject to Administrator approval

and, if the demonstration and associated

functional check are approved, the

diagnostic system must indicate a

malfunction when some degree of

secondary airflow is not detectable in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5161

the exhaust system during the check.

For engines equipped with positive

crankcase ventilation (PCV), monitoring

of the PCV system is not necessary

provided the manufacturer can

demonstrate to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that the PCV system is

unlikely to fail.

* * * * *

(k) Phase-in for heavy-duty engines.

Manufacturers of heavy-duty engines

must comply with the OBD

requirements in this section according

to the following phase-in schedule,

based on the percentage of projected

engine sales within each category. The

2004 model year requirements in the

following phase-in schedule are

applicable only to heavy-duty Ottocycle engines where the manufacturer

has selected Otto-cycle Option 1 or

Option 2 for alternative 2004

compliance according to § 86.005–

01(c)(1) or (2). The 2005 through 2007

requirements in the following phase-in

schedule apply to all heavy-duty

engines intended for use in a heavyduty vehicle weighing 14,000 pounds

GVWR or less. Manufacturers may

exempt 2005 model year diesel heavyduty engines from the requirements of

this section if the 2005 model year

commences before July 31, 2004 from

the requirements of this section.

Manufacturers may exempt 2005 model

year Otto-cycle heavy-duty engines and

vehicles from the requirements of this

section if the manufacturer has selected

Otto-cycle Option 3 and if the 2005

model year commences before July 31,

2004. For the purposes of calculating

compliance with the phase-in

provisions of this paragraph (k), heavyduty engines may be combined with

heavy-duty vehicles subject to the

phase-in requirements of paragraph

§ 86.1806–05(l). The OBD Compliance

phase-in table follows:

OBD COMPLIANCE PHASE-IN FOR HEAVY-DUTY ENGINES INTENDED FOR USE IN A HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE WEIGHING

14,000 POUNDS GVWR OR LESS

Model year Otto-cycle phase-in based on projected sales Diesel Phase-in based on projected sales

2004 MY ............................... Applicable only to Otto-cycle engines complying with

Options 1 or 2; 40% compliance; alternative fuel

waivers available.

2005 MY ............................... 60% compliance; alternative fuel waivers available ....... 50% compliance; alternative fuel waivers available.

2006 MY ............................... 80% compliance; alternative fuel waivers available ....... 50% compliance; alternative fuel waivers available.

2007 MY ............................... 80% compliance; alternative fuel waivers available ....... 100% compliance.

2008+ MY ............................ 100% compliance ............................................................ 100% compliance.

18. Section 86.007–11 is amended by

revising the introductory text,

paragraphs (a) through (a)(2), (a)(3),

(a)(4)(i), (b)(3) through (d), and adding

paragraphs (a)(4)(iv)(C), (a)(4)(v), (e), (f),

(g) and (h) to read as follows:

§ 86.007–11 Emission standards and

supplemental requirements for 2007 and

later model year diesel heavy-duty engines

and vehicles.

This section applies to new 2007 and

later model year diesel HDEs. Section

86.007–11 includes text that specifies

requirements that differ from § 86.004–

11. Where a paragraph in § 86.004–11 is

identical and applicable to § 86.007–11,

this may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.004–11.’’.

(a)(1) Exhaust emissions from new

2007 and later model year diesel HDEs

shall not exceed the following:

(i) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX). (A) 0.20

grams per brake horsepower-hour (0.075

grams per megajoule).

(B) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its diesel HDE

families in any or all of the NOX and

NOX plus NMHC emissions ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.007–15 or

§ 86.004–15. If the manufacturer elects

to include engine families in any of

these programs, the NOX FELs may not

exceed the following FEL caps: 2.00

grams per brake horsepower-hour (0.75

grams per megajoule) for model years

before 2010; 0.50 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.19 grams per

megajoule) for model years 2010 and

later. This ceiling value applies whether

credits for the family are derived from

averaging, banking, or trading programs.

(ii)(A) Non-Methane Hydrocarbons

(NMHC) for engines fueled with either

diesel fuel, natural gas, or liquefied

petroleum gas. 0.14 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.052 grams per

megajoule).

(B) Non-Methane Hydrocarbon

Equivalent (NMHCE) for engines fueled

with methanol. 0.14 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.052 grams per

megajoule).

(iii) Carbon monoxide. (A) 15.5 grams

per brake horsepower-hour (5.77 grams

per megajoule).

(B) 0.50 percent of exhaust gas flow at

curb idle (methanol-, natural gas-, and

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled diesel

HDEs only). This does not apply for

vehicles certified to the requirements of

§ 86.005–17

(iv) Particulate. (A) 0.01 grams per

brake horsepower-hour (0.0037 grams

per megajoule).

(B) 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 § 86.007–15 or

other applicable sections. If the

manufacturer elects to include engine

families in any of these programs, the

particulate FEL may not exceed 0.02

grams per brake horsepower-hour

(0.0075 grams 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 § 86.007–

23(c)(2).

(3) SET (i) The weighted average

exhaust emissions, as determined under

§ 86.1360–2007(e)(5) pertaining to the

supplemental emission test cycle, for

each regulated pollutant shall not

exceed 1.0 times the applicable

emission standards or FELs specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(ii) For engines not having a NOX FEL

less than1.5 g/bhp-hr, gaseous exhaust

emissions shall not exceed the steadystate interpolated values determined by

the Maximum Allowable Emission

Limits (for the corresponding speed and

load), as determined under § 86.1360–

2007(f), when the engine is operated in

the steady-state control area defined

under § 86.1360–2007(d).

(4) NTE (i)(A) The brake-specific

exhaust NMHC or NOX emissions in g/

bhp-hr, as determined under § 86.1370–

2007 pertaining to the not-to-exceed test

procedures, shall not exceed 1.5 times

the applicable NMHC or NOX emission

standards or FELs specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, during

engine and vehicle operation specified

5162 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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

except as noted in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)

of this section.

(B) For engines not having a NOX FEL

less than1.50 g/bhp-hr, the brakespecific NOX and NMHC exhaust

emissions in g/bhp-hr, as determined

under § 86.1370–2007 pertaining to the

not-to-exceed test procedures, shall not

exceed 1.25 times the applicable

emission standards or FELs specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section (or of

§ 86.004–11, as allowed by paragraph (g)

of this section), during engine and

vehicle operation specified in paragraph

(a)(4)(ii) of this section except as noted

in paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section.

(C) The brake-specific exhaust PM

emissions in g/bhp-hr, as determined

under § 86.1370–2007 pertaining to the

not-to-exceed test procedures, shall not

exceed 1.5 times the applicable PM

emission standards or FEL (for FELs

above the standard only) specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, during

engine and vehicle operation specified

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

except as noted in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)

of this section.

(D) The brake-specific exhaust CO

emissions in g/bhp-hr, as determined

under § 86.1370–2007 pertaining to the

not-to-exceed test procedures, shall not

exceed 1.25 times the applicable CO

emission standards or FEL specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, during

engine and vehicle operation specified

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

except as noted in paragraph (a)(4)(iii)

of this section.

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

(C) For model years 2010 through

2013, the Administrator may allow up

to three deficiencies per engine family.

The provisions of paragraphs

(a)(4)(iv)(A) and (B) of this section apply

for deficiencies allowed by this

paragraph (a)(4)(iv)(C). In determining

whether to allow the additional

deficiencies, the Administrator may

consider any relevant factors, including

the factors identified in paragraph

(a)(4)(iv)(A) of this section. If additional

deficiencies are approved, the

Administrator may set any additional

conditions that he/she determines to be

appropriate.

(v) The emission limits specified in

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this

section shall be rounded to the same

number of significant figures as the

applicable standards in paragraph (a)(1)

of this section using ASTM E29–93a

(Incorporated by reference at § 86.1).

* * * * *

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

guidance see § 86.004–11.

(c) No crankcase emissions shall be

discharged directly into the ambient

atmosphere from any new 2007 or later

model year diesel HDE, with the

following exception: HDEs equipped

with turbochargers, pumps, blowers, or

superchargers for air induction may

discharge crankcase emissions to the

ambient atmosphere if the emissions are

added to the exhaust emissions (either

physically or mathematically) during all

emission testing. Manufacturers taking

advantage of this exception must

manufacture the engines so that all

crankcase emission can be routed into a

dilution tunnel (or other sampling

system approved in advance by the

Administrator), and must account for

deterioration in crankcase emissions

when determining exhaust deterioration

factors. For the purpose of this

paragraph (c), crankcase emissions that

are routed to the exhaust upstream of

exhaust aftertreatment during all

operation are not considered to be

‘‘discharged directly into the ambient

atmosphere.’’

(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.

(e) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.004–11.

(f) (1) Model year 2007 and later

diesel-fueled heavy-duty engines and

vehicles for sale in Guam, American

Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands shall be

subject to the same standards and

requirements as apply to 2006 model

year diesel heavy-duty engines and

vehicles, but only if the vehicle or

engine bears a permanently affixed label

stating:

THIS ENGINE (or VEHICLE, as applicable)

CONFORMS TO US EPA EMISSION

STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO MODEL

YEAR 2006. THIS ENGINE (or VEHICLE, as

applicable) DOES NOT CONFORM TO US

EPA EMISSION REQUIREMENTS IN

EFFECT AT TIME OF PRODUCTION AND

MAY NOT BE IMPORTED INTO THE

UNITED STATES OR ANY TERRITORY OF

THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT GUAM,

AMERICAN SAMOA, OR THE

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN

MARIANA ISLANDS.

(2) The importation or sale of such a

vehicle or engine for use at any location

U.S. other than Guam, American Samoa,

or the Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands shall be considered a

violation of section 203(a)(1) of the

Clean Air Act. In addition, vehicles or

vehicle engines subject to this

exemption may not subsequently be

imported or sold into any state or

territory of the United States other than

Guam, American Samoa, or

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana

Islands.

(g) Phase-in options. (1) For model

years 2007, 2008, and 2009,

manufacturers may certify some of their

engine families to the combined NOX

plus NMHC standard applicable to

model year 2006 engines under

§ 86.004–11, in lieu of the separate NOX

and NMHC standards specified in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. These

engines must comply with all other

requirements applicable to model year

2007 engines. The combined number of

engines in the engine families certified

to the 2006 combined NOX plus NMHC

standard may not exceed 50 percent of

the manufacturer’s U.S.-directed

production of heavy-duty diesel motor

vehicle engines for model year 2007,

2008, or 2009, except as explicitly

allowed by this paragraph (g).

(2)(i) Manufacturers certifying engines

to all of the applicable standards listed

in paragraph (a) and (c) of this section

(without using credits) prior to model

year 2007 may reduce the number of

engines that are required to meet the

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section in model year 2007, 2008 and/

or 2009, taking into account the phasein option provided in paragraph (g)(1) of

this section. For every two engines that

are certified early, the manufacturer

may reduce the number of engines that

are required by paragraph (g)(1) of this

section to meet standards listed in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section by three

engines. For example, if a manufacturer

produces 100 heavy-duty diesel engines

in 2006 that meet all of the applicable

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section, and it produced 10,000 heavyduty diesel engines in 2007, then only

4,850 ((10,000)(0.50) ¥ (100)(1.5)) of the

engines would need to comply with the

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section.

(ii) Manufacturers certifying engines

to the PM standards listed in paragraph

(a), and to all of the applicable

standards in paragraph (c) of this

section (without using credits) prior to

model year 2007 may reduce the

number of engines that are required to

meet the PM standard listed in

paragraph (a) of this section in model

year 2007, 2008 and/or 2009. For every

two engines that are certified to the PM

standard early, the manufacturer may

reduce the number of engines that are

otherwise required to meet the PM

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5163

standard listed in paragraph (a)(1) of

this section by three engines.

(3) Manufacturers may initially base

compliance with the phase-in

requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)

of this section on projected U.S.-

directed production estimates. This is

allowed for model year 2007 and/or

2008. However, if a manufacturer’s

actual U.S. directed production volume

of engines that comply with the model

year 2007 NOX and NMHC standards is

less than the required amount, the

shortfall (in terms of number of engines)

must be made up prior to 2010. For

example, if a manufacturer plans in

good faith to produce 50 percent of its

projected 10,000 2007 engines (i.e.,

5,000 engines) in compliance with the

2007 NOX and NMHC standard, but is

only able to produce 4,500 such engines

of an actual 10,000 2007 engines, the

manufacturer would need to produce an

extra 500 engines in 2008 or 2009 in

compliance with the 2007 NOX and

NMHC standard. The deficit allowed by

this paragraph (g)(3) may not exceed 25

percent of the U.S. directed production

volume.

(4) Manufacturers certifying engines

to a voluntary NOX standard of 0.10 g/

bhp-hr (without using credits) in

addition to all of the other applicable

standards listed in paragraphs (a) and

(c) of this section prior to model year

2007 may reduce the number of engines

that are required to meet the standards

listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section

in model year 2007, 2008 and/or 2009,

taking into account the phase-in option

provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this

section. For every engine that is

certified early under this provision, the

manufacturer may reduce the number of

engines that are required by paragraph

(g)(1) of this section to meet the

standards listed in paragraph (a)(1) of

this section by two engines.

(5) For engines certified under

paragraph (g)(1) of this section to the

NOX+NMHC standard in § 86.004–11,

the standards or FELs to which they are

certified shall be used for the purposes

of paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this

section.

(h)(1) For model years prior to 2012,

for purposes of determining compliance

after title or custody has transferred to

the ultimate purchaser, for engines

having a NOX FEL no higher than 1.30

g/bhp-hr, the applicable compliance

limit shall be determined by adding the

applicable adjustment from paragraph

(h)(2) of this section to the otherwise

applicable standard or FEL for NOX.

(2)(i) For engines with 110,000 or

fewer miles, the adjustment is 0.10 g/

bhp-hr.

(ii) For engines with 110,001 to

185,000 miles, the adjustment is 0.15 g/

bhp-hr.

(iii) For engines with 185,001 or more

miles, the adjustment is 0.20 g/bhp-hr.

(3) For model years prior to 2012, for

purposes of determining compliance

after title or custody has transferred to

the ultimate purchaser, the applicable

compliance limit shall be determined by

adding 0.01 g/bhp-hr to the otherwise

applicable standard or FEL for PM.

19. A new § 86.007–is added to

Subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.007–15 NOX and particulate

averaging, trading, and banking for heavyduty engines.

Section 86.007–15 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.004–15. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.004–15 is identical and applicable

to § 86.007–15, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.004–15.’’

(a) through (l) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.004–15.

(m) The following provisions apply

for model year 2007 and later engines

(including engines certified during years

2007–2009 under the phase-in

provisions of § 86.007–11(g)(1),

§ 86.005–10(a), or § 86.008–10(f)(1)).

These provisions apply instead of the

provisions of paragraphs § 86.004–15 (a)

through (k) to the extent that they are in

conflict.

(1) Manufacturers of Otto-cycle

engines may participate in an NMHC

averaging, banking and trading program

to show compliance with the standards

specified in § 86.008–10. The generation

and use of NMHC credits are subject to

the same provisions in paragraphs

§ 86.004–15 (a) through (k) that apply

for NOX plus NMHC credits, except as

otherwise specified in this section.

(2) Credits are calculated as NOX or

NMHC credits for engines certified to

separate NOX and NMHC standards.

NOX plus NMHC credits (including

banked credits and credits that are

generated during years 2007–2009

under the phase-in provisions of

§ 86.007–11(g)(1), § 86.005–10(a), or

§ 86.008–10(f)(1)) may be used to show

compliance with 2007 or later NOX

standards ( NOX or NMHC standards for

Otto-cycle engines), subject to an 0.8

discount factor (e.g., 100 grams of NOX

plus NMHC credits is equivalent to 80

grams of NOX credits).

(3) NOX or NMHC (or NOX plus

NMHC) credits may be exchanged

between heavy-duty Otto-cycle engine

families certified to the engine

standards of this subpart and heavyduty Otto-cycle engine families certified

to the chassis standards of subpart S of

this part, subject to an 0.8 discount

factor (e.g., 100 grams of NOX (or NOX

plus NMHC) credits generated from

engines would be equivalent to 80

grams of NOX credits if they are used in

the vehicle program of subpart S, and

vice versa).

(4) Credits that were previously

discounted when they were banked

according to paragraph (c) of § 86.004–

15, are subject to an additional discount

factor of 0.888 instead of the 0.8

discount factor otherwise required by

paragraph (m)(2) or (m)(3) of this

section. This results in a total discount

factor of 0.8 (0.9 × 0.888 = 0.8).

(5) For diesel engine families, the

combined number of engines certified to

FELs higher than 0.50 g/bhp-hr using

banked NOX (and/or NOX plus NMHC)

credits in any given model year may not

exceed 10 percent of the manufacturer’s

U.S.-directed production of engines in

all heavy-duty diesel engine families for

that model year.

(6) The FEL must be expressed to the

same number of decimal places as the

standard (generally, one-hundredth of a

gram per brake horsepower-hour). For

engines certified to standards expressed

only one-tenth of a gram per brake

horsepower-hour, if the FEL is below

1.0, then add a zero to the standard in

the second decimal place and express

the FEL to nearest one-hundredth of a

gram per brake horsepower-hour.

(7) Credits are to be rounded to the

nearest one-hundredth of a Megagram

using ASTM E29–93a (Incorporated by

reference at § 86.1).

(8) Credits generated for 2007 and

later model year diesel engine families,

or generated for 2008 and later model

year Otto-cycle engine families are not

discounted (except as specified in

paragraph (m)(2) or (m)(3) of this

section), and do not expire.

(9) For the purpose of using or

generating credits during a phase-in of

new standards, a manufacturer may

elect to split an engine family into two

subfamilies (e.g., one which uses credits

and one which generates credits). The

manufacturer must indicate in the

application for certification that the

engine family is to be split, and may

assign the numbers and configurations

of engines within the respective

subfamilies at any time prior to the

submission of the end-of-year report

required by § 86.001–23.

(i) Manufacturers certifying a split

diesel engine family to both the Phase

1 and Phase 2 standards with equally

sized subfamilies may exclude the

engines within that split family from

end-of-year NOX (or NOX+NMHC) ABT

calculations, provided that neither

5164 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

subfamily generates credits for use by

other engine families, or uses banked

credits, or uses averaging credits from

other engine families. All of the engines

in that split family must be excluded

from the phase-in calculations of

§ 86.007–11(g)(1) (both from the number

of engines complying with the standards

being phased-in and from the total

number of U.S.-directed production

engines.)

(ii) Manufacturers certifying a split

Otto-cycle engine family to both the

Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards with

equally sized subfamilies may exclude

the engines within that split family from

end-of-year NOX (or NOX+NMHC) ABT

calculations, provided that neither

subfamily generates credits for use by

other engine families, or uses banked

credits, or uses averaging credits from

other engine families. All of the engines

in that split family must be excluded

from the phase-in calculations of

§ 86.008–10(f)(1) (both from the number

of engines complying with the standards

being phased-in and from the total

number of U.S.-directed production

engines.)

(iii) Manufacturers certifying a split

engine family may label all of the

engines within that family with a single

NOX or NOX+NMHC FEL. The FEL on

the label will apply for all SEA or other

compliance testing.

(iv) Notwithstanding the provisions of

paragraph (m)(9)(iii) of this section, for

split families, the NOX FEL shall be

used to determine applicability of the

provisions of § 86.007–11(a)(3)(ii),

(a)(4)(i)(B), and (h)(1), and § 86.008–

10(g).

(10) For model years 2007 through

2009, to be consistent with the phase-in

provisions of § 86.007–11(g)(1), credits

generated from engines in one diesel

engine service class (e.g., light-heavy

duty diesel engines) may be used for

averaging by engines in a different

diesel engine service class, provided the

credits are calculated for both engine

families using the conversion factor and

useful life of the engine family using the

credits, and the engine family using the

credits is certified to the standards

listed in § 86.007–11(a)(1). Banked or

traded credits may not be used by any

engine family in a different service class

than the service class of the engine

family generating the credits.

20. A new § 86.007–23 is added to

Subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.007–23 Required data.

Section 86.007–23 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.095–23, § 86.098–23, or § 86.001–

23. Where a paragraph in § 86.095–23,

§ 86.098–23, or § 86.001–23 is identical

and applicable to § 86.007–23, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.’’, ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.’’, or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.001–

23.’’.

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

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.001–23.

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

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(c) Emission data.—(1) Certification

vehicles. The manufacturer shall submit

emission data (including, methane,

methanol, formaldehyde, and

hydrocarbon equivalent, as applicable)

on such vehicles tested in accordance

with applicable test procedures and in

such numbers as specified. These data

shall include zero-mile data, if

generated, and emission data generated

for certification as required under

§ 86.000–26(a)(3). In lieu of providing

emission data 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

certain applicable emission standards of

this part. Standards eligible for such

manufacturer requests are those for idle

CO emissions, smoke emissions, or

particulate emissions from methanolfueled or gaseous-fueled diesel-cycle

certification vehicles, those for

particulate emissions from Otto-cycle

certification vehicles or gaseous-fueled

vehicles, and those for formaldehyde

emissions from petroleum-fueled

vehicles. Also eligible for such requests

are standards for total hydrocarbon

emissions from model year 1994 and

later certification vehicles. By separate

request, including appropriate

supporting test data, the manufacturer

may request that the Administrator also

waive the requirement to measure

particulate or formaldehyde emissions

when conducting Selective Enforcement

Audit testing of Otto-cycle vehicles.

(2) Certification engines. 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

§ 86.000–26(c)(4). In lieu of providing

emission data on idle CO emissions or

particulate emissions from methanolfueled or gaseous-fueled diesel-cycle

certification engines, on particulate

emissions from Otto-cycle engines, or

on CO emissions from diesel-cycle

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 this

part. In lieu of providing emission data

on smoke emissions from methanolfueled 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 this

part. In lieu of providing emissions data

on smoke emissions from diesel-cycle

engines when conducting Selective

Enforcement Audit testing under

subpart K of this part, 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 this part .

(d) through (e)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(e)(2) and (e)(3) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.001–23.

(f) through (g) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–23.

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

guidance see § 86.098–23.

(l) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.095–23.

(m) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.098–23.

21. A new § 86.007–25 is added to

Subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.007–25 Maintenance.

Section 86.007–25 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.094–25, § 86.098–25, or § 86.004–

25. Where a paragraph in § 86.094–25,

§ 86.098–25, or § 86.004–25 is identical

and applicable to § 86.007–25, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–25.’’, ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.098–25.’’, or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.004–

25.’’.

(a) through (a)(2) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.004–25.

(b) introductory text through (b)(3)(ii)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.094–

25.

(b)(3)(iii) through (b)(3)(v)(H)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.004–

25.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5165

(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.

(b)(4) introductory text through

(b)(4)(iii)(C) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.004–25.

(b)(4)(iii)(D) Particulate trap or trap

oxidizer systems including related

components (adjustment and cleaning

only for filter element, replacement of

the filter element is not allowed during

the useful life).

(b)(4)(iii)(E) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.004–25.

(F) Catalytic converter (adjustment

and cleaning only for catalyst beds,

replacement of the bed is not allowed

during the useful life).

(b)(4)(iii)(G) through (b)(6) [Reserved].

For guidance see § 86.004–25.

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

guidance see § 86.094–25.

(i) Notwithstanding the provisions of

§ 86.004–25(b)(4)(iii) introductory text

through (b)(4)(iii)(C), paragraph

(b)(4)(iii)(D) of this section, § 86.004–

25(b)(4)(iii)(E), paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(F) of

this section, § 86.004–25(b)(4)(iii)(G),

and § 86.004–25(b)(6), manufacturers of

heavy-duty engines may schedule

replacement or repair of particulate trap

(or trap oxidizer) systems or catalytic

converters (including NOX adsorbers),

provided:

(1) The manufacturer demonstrates to

the Administrator’s satisfaction that the

repair or replacement will be performed

according to the schedule; and

(2) The manufacturer pays for the

repair or replacement.

22. A new § 86.007–35 is added to

Subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.007–35 Labeling.

Section 86.007–35 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.095–35. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.095–35 is identical and applicable

to § 86.007–35, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–35.’’.

(a) Introductory text through

(a)(1)(iii)(L) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.095–35.

(a)(1)(iii)(M) [Reserved.]

(a)(1)(iii)(N)(1) For vehicles exempted

from compliance with certain revised

performance warranty procedures, as

specified in § 86.096–21(j), a statement

indicating the specific performance

warranty test(s) of 40 CFR part 85,

subpart W, not to be performed.

(2) For vehicles exempted from

compliance with all revised

performance warranty procedures, as

specified in § 86.096–21(k), a statement

indicating:

(i) That none of the performance

warranty tests of 40 CFR part 85,

subpart W, is to be performed; and

(ii) The name of the Administratorapproved alternative test procedure to

be performed.

(2) Light-duty truck and heavy-duty

vehicles optionally certified in

accordance with the light-duty truck

provisions.

(i) A legible, permanent label shall be

affixed in a readily visible position in

the engine compartment.

(ii) The label shall be affixed by the

vehicle manufacturer who has been

issued the certificate of conformity for

such vehicle, in such a manner that it

cannot be removed without destroying

or defacing the label. The label shall not

be affixed to any equipment which is

easily detached from such vehicle.

(iii) The label shall contain the

following information lettered in the

English language in block letters and

numerals, which shall be of a color that

contrasts with the background of the

label:

(A) The label heading: Important

Vehicle Information;

(B) Full corporate name and

trademark of the manufacturer;

(C) Engine displacement (in cubic

inches or liters), engine family

identification, and evaporative/refueling

family;

(a)(2)(iii)(D) through (a)(2)(iii)(E)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.095–

35.

(a)(2)(iii)(F) [Reserved]

(a)(2)(iii)(G) through (a)(2)(iii)(K)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.095–

35.

(a)(2)(iii)(L) [Reserved]

(a)(2)(iii)(M) through (a)(2)(iii)(N)

[Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.095–

35.

(a)(2)(iii)(O)(l) For vehicles exempted

from compliance with certain revised

performance warranty procedures, as

specified in § 86.096–21(j), a statement

indicating the specific performance

warranty test(s) of 40 CFR part 85,

subpart W, not to be performed.

(2) For vehicles exempted from

compliance with all revised

performance warranty procedures, as

specified in § 86.096–21(k), a statement

indicating:

(i) That none of the performance

warranty tests of 40 CFR part 85,

subpart W, is to be performed, and

(ii) The name of the Administratorapproved alternative test procedure to

be performed.

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

For guidance see § 86.095–35.

(c) Model year 2007 and later dieselfueled vehicles must include permanent

readily visible labels on the dashboard

(or instrument panel) and near all fuel

inlets that state ‘‘Use Low-Sulfur Diesel

Fuel Only’’ or ‘‘Low-Sulfur Diesel Fuel

Only’’.

(d) through (i) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.095–35.

23. A new § 86.007–38 is added to

Subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.007–38 Maintenance instructions.

Section 86.007–38 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

those specified in § 86.094–38 or

§ 86.004–38. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.094–38 or § 86.004–38 is identical

and applicable to § 86.007–38, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–38.’’, or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.004–38.’’.

(a) through (f) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.004–38.

(g) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.094–38.

(h) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.004–38.

(i) For each new diesel-fueled engine

subject to the standards prescribed in

§ 86.007–11, as applicable, the

manufacturer shall furnish or cause to

be furnished to the ultimate purchaser

a statement that ‘‘This engine must be

operated only with low sulfur diesel

fuel (that is, diesel fuel meeting EPA

specifications for highway diesel fuel,

including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).’’

24. A new § 86.008–10 is added to

subpart A to read as follows:

§ 86.008–10 Emission standards for 2008

and later model year Otto-cycle heavy-duty

engines and vehicles.

Section 86.008–10 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.099–10. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.099–10 is identical and applicable

to § 86.008–10, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.099–10.’’.

(a)(1) Exhaust emissions from new

2008 and later model year Otto-cycle

HDEs shall not exceed:

(i)(A) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX). 0.20

grams per brake horsepower-hour (0.075

grams per megajoule).

(B) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its Otto-cycle HDE

families in any or all of the NOX and

NOX plus NMHC emissions ABT

programs for HDEs, within the

restrictions described in § 86.008–15 or

§ 86.004–15. If the manufacturer elects

to include engine families in any of

these programs, the NOX FEL may not

exceed 0.50 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.26 grams per

5166 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

megajoule). This ceiling value applies

whether credits for the family are

derived from averaging, banking, or

trading programs. The NOX FEL cap is

0.80 for model years before 2011 for

manufacturers choosing to certify to the

1.5 g/bhp-hr NOX+NMHC standard in

2003 or 2004, in accordance with

§ 86.005–10(f).

(ii)(A) Non-methane Hydrocarbons

(NMHC) for engines fueled with either

gasoline, natural gas, or liquefied

petroleum gas. 0.14 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.052grams per

megajoule).

(B) Non-methane Hydrocarbon

Equivalent (NMHCE) for engines fueled

with methanol. 0.14 grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.052grams per

megajoule).

(C) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its Otto-cycle HDE

families in any or all of the NMHC

emissions ABT programs for HDEs,

within the restrictions described in

§ 86.008–15 or § 86.004–15. If the

manufacturer elects to include engine

families in any of these programs, the

NMHC FEL may not exceed 0.30 grams

per brake horsepower-hour. This ceiling

value applies whether credits for the

family are derived from averaging,

banking, or trading programs. The

NMHC FEL cap is 0.40 for model years

before 2011 for manufacturers choosing

to certify to the 1.5 g/bhp-hr

NOX+NMHC in 2004, as allowed in

§ 86.005–10.

(iii)(A) Carbon monoxide. 14.4 grams

per brake horsepower-hour (5.36 grams

per megajoule).

(B) Idle Carbon Monoxide. For all

Otto-cycle HDEs utilizing aftertreatment

technology, and not certified to the

onboard diagnostics requirements of

§ 86.005–17: 0.50 percent of exhaust gas

flow at curb idle.

(iv) Particulate. 0.01grams per brake

horsepower-hour (0.0037grams 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)(1) 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.

(3) [Reserved]

(4) [Reserved]

(b) Evaporative emissions from heavyduty vehicles 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.

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.

(1) Hydrocarbons (for vehicles

equipped with gasoline-fueled, natural

gas-fueled or liquefied petroleum gasfueled engines).

(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: 1.4

grams per test.

(2) For the supplemental two-diurnal

test sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements

(gasoline-fueled vehicles only): 1.75

grams per test.

(B) Running loss test (gasoline-fueled

vehicles only): 0.05 grams per mile.

(C) Fuel dispensing spitback test

(gasoline-fueled vehicles only): 1.0

grams 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: 1.9

grams per test.

(2) For the supplemental two-diurnal

test sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements

(gasoline-fueled vehicles only): 2.3

grams per test.

(B) Running loss test (gasoline-fueled

vehicles only): 0.05 grams per mile.

(2) Total Hydrocarbon Equivalent (for

vehicles equipped with methanol-fueled

engines).

(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: 1.4

grams carbon per test.

(2) For the supplemental two-diurnal

test sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements:

1.75 grams carbon per test.

(B) Running loss test: 0.05 grams

carbon per mile.

(C) Fuel dispensing spitback test: 1.0

grams carbon 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: 1.9

grams carbon per test.

(2) For the supplemental two-diurnal

test sequence described in § 86.1230–96,

diurnal plus hot soak measurements: 2.3

grams carbon per test.

(B) Running loss test: 0.05 grams

carbon per mile.

(3)(i) For vehicles with a Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating of up to 26,000

lbs, the standards set forth in paragraphs

(b)(1) and (b)(2) 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.

(ii) For vehicles with a Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating of greater than 26,000

lbs., the standards set forth in

paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(2)(ii) of this

section refer to the manufacturer’s

engineering design evaluation using

good engineering practice (a statement

of which is required in § 86.098–

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

(4) All fuel vapor generated in a

gasoline- or methanol-fueled heavy-duty

vehicle 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.

(c) No crankcase emissions shall be

discharged into the ambient atmosphere

from any new 2008 or later model year

Otto-cycle HDE.

(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 N or P of this part to ascertain

that such test engines meet the

requirements of this section.

(e) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.099–10.

(f) Phase-in options. (1)(i) For model

year 2008, manufacturers may certify

some of their engine families to the

exhaust standards applicable to model

year 2007 engines under § 86.005–10, in

lieu of the exhaust standards specified

in this section. These engines must

comply with all other requirements

applicable to model year 2008 engines,

except as allowed by paragraph (f)(1)(ii)

of this section. The combined number of

engines in the engine families certified

to the 2007 combined NOX plus NMHC

standard may not exceed 50 percent of

the manufacturer’s U.S.-directed

production of heavy-duty Otto-cycle

motor vehicle engines for model year

2008, except as explicitly allowed by

paragraph (f)(2) of this section.

(ii) For model year 2008,

manufacturers may certify some of their

engine families to the evaporative

standards applicable to model year 2007

engines under § 86.005–10, in lieu of the

standards specified in this section.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5167

These engines must comply with all

other requirements applicable to model

year 2008 engines, except as allowed by

paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section. The

combined number of engines in the

engine families certified to the 2007

standards may not exceed 50 percent of

the manufacturer’s U.S.-directed

production of heavy-duty Otto-cycle

motor vehicle engines for model year

2008.

(2)(i) Manufacturers certifying engines

to all of the applicable exhaust

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section prior to model year 2008

(without using credits) may reduce the

number of engines that are required to

meet the NOX and NMHC exhaust

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section in model year 2008 and/or 2009,

taking into account the phase-in option

provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this

section. For every engine that is

certified early, the manufacturer may

reduce the number of engines that are

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this

section to meet the NOX and NMHC

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section by one engine. For example, if

a manufacturer produces 100 heavyduty Otto-cycle engines in 2007 that

meet all of the applicable standards

listed in paragraph (a) of this section,

and it produced 10,000 heavy-duty

Otto-cycle engines in 2009, then only

9,900 of the engines would need to

comply with the NOX and NMHC

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section.

(ii) Manufacturers certifying engines

to all of the applicable evaporative

standards listed in paragraph (b) of this

section prior to model year 2008 may

reduce the number of engines that are

required to meet the evaporative

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section in model year 2008 and/or 2009,

taking into account the phase-in option

provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this

section. For every engine that is

certified early, the manufacturer may

reduce the number of engines that are

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this

section to meet evaporative standards

listed in paragraph (b) of this section by

one engine.

(3) Manufacturers certifying engines

to a voluntary NOX standard of 0.10 g/

bhp-hr (without using credits) in

addition to all of the applicable

standards listed in paragraphs (a) and

(b) of this section prior to model year

2008 may reduce the number of engines

that are required to meet the NOX and

NMHC standards listed in paragraph (a)

of this section in model year 2008 and/

or 2009, taking into account the phasein option provided in paragraph (f)(1) of

this section. For such every engine that

is certified early, the manufacturer may

reduce the number of engines that are

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this

section to meet the NOX and NMHC

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section by two engines.

(g) For model years prior to 2012, for

purposes of determining compliance

after title or custody has transferred to

the ultimate purchaser, for engines

having a NOX FEL no higher than 0.50

g/bhp-hr, the applicable compliance

limits for NOX and NMHC shall be

determined by adding 0.10 g/bhp-hr to

the otherwise applicable standards or

FELs for NOX and NMHC.

25. A new § 86.113–07 is added to

subpart B to read as follows:

§ 86.113–07 Fuel specifications.

Section 86.113–07 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.113–94 or § 86.113–04. Where a

paragraph in § 86.113–94 or § 86.113–04

is identical and applicable to § 86.113–

07, this may be indicated by specifying

the corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.113–94.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.113–04.’’.

(a) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.113–04.

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

§ 86.113–94.

(b)(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel

vehicles meeting the following

specifications, or substantially

equivalent specifications approved by

the Administrator, must be used in

exhaust emissions testing. The grade of

petroleum diesel fuel recommended by

the engine manufacturer, commercially

designated as ‘‘Type 2–D’’ grade diesel,

must be used:

Item ASTM test

method No. Type 2–D

(i) Cetane Number ............................................................................................................................................ D613 ................. 40–50

(ii) Cetane Index ............................................................................................................................................... D976 ................. 40–50

(iii) Distillation range:

(A) IBP ........................................................................................................................ °F ...................... D86 ................... 340–400

(°C) ................... ........................... (171.1–204.4)

(B) 10 pct. point .......................................................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 400–460

(°C) ................... ........................... (204.4–237.8)

(C) 50 pct. point .......................................................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 470–540

(°C) ................... ........................... (243.3–282.2)

(D) 90 pct. point .......................................................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 560–630

(°C) ................... ........................... (293.3–332.2)

(E) EP ......................................................................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 610–690

(°C) ................... ........................... (321.1–365.6)

(iv) Gravity ......................................................................................................................... °API .................. D287 ................. 32–37

(v) Total sulfur .................................................................................................................... ppm .................. D2622 ............... 7–15

(vi) Hydrocarbon composition:

(A) Aromatics, minimum (Remainder shall be paraffins, naphthenes, and olefins) .. pct. .................... D5186 ............... 27

(vii) Flashpoint, min. .......................................................................................................... °F ...................... D93 ................... 130

(°C) ................... ........................... (54.4)

(viii) Viscosity ..................................................................................................................... centistokes ........ D445 ................. 2.0–3.2

(3) Petroleum fuel for diesel vehicles meeting the following specifications, or substantially equivalent specifications

approved by the Administrator, shall be used in service accumulation. The grade of petroleum diesel fuel recommended

by the engine manufacturer, commercially designated as ‘‘Type 2-D’’ grade diesel fuel, shall be used: (b)(4) through

(g) [Reserved]. For guidance see § 86.113–94.

Item ASTM test

method No. Type 2–D

(i) Cetane Number ............................................................................................................................................ D613 ................. 38–58

5168 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Item ASTM test

method No. Type 2–D

(ii) Cetane Index ............................................................................................................................................... D976 ................. min. 40

(iii) Distillation range:

90 pct. point ................................................................................................................ °F ...................... D86 ................... 540–630

(iv) Gravity ......................................................................................................................... °API .................. D287 ................. 30–39

(v) Total sulfur .................................................................................................................... ppm .................. D2622 ............... 7–15

(vi) Flashpoint, min. ........................................................................................................... °F ...................... D93 ................... 130

(°C) ................... ........................... (54.4)

(vii) Viscosity ...................................................................................................................... centistokes ....... D445 ................. 1.5–4.5

(h)(1) For model year 2004 through

2006 Tier 2 diesel-fueled vehicles that

incorporate sulfur-sensitive

technologies, the manufacturer may test

the vehicle using a test fuel meeting the

specifications listed in paragraphs (b)(2)

and (b)(3) of this section, provided the

manufacturer clearly recommends to the

ultimate purchaser in the owner’s

manual that the vehicle should use fuel

with no higher than 15 ppm sulfur.

(2) For model year 2004 through 2006

Tier 2 diesel-fueled vehicles that

incorporate sulfur-sensitive

technologies and that are certified for

50-state sale (i.e., certified to California

and EPA standards), the manufacturer

may test the vehicle using a test fuel

whose qualities, on a specification by

specification basis, meet the

requirements of either the specifications

listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section

or the California test fuel specifications,

provided the manufacturer clearly

recommends to the ultimate purchaser

in the owner’s manual that the vehicle

should use fuel with no higher than 15

ppm sulfur.

(3) Where a manufacturer uses a test

fuel under paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of

this section, EPA shall use the same fuel

for its compliance testing.

26. A new § 86.1213–04 is added to

Subpart M to read as follows:

§ 86.1213–04 Fuel specifications.

The test fuels listed in § 86.1313–04

shall be used for evaporative emission

testing.

27. A new § 86.1306–07 is added to

subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1306–07 Equipment required and

specifications; overview.

Section 86.1306–07 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.1306–96. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.1306–96 is identical and applicable

to § 86.1306–07, this may be indicated

by specifying the corresponding

paragraph and the statement

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1306–96.’’.

(a) and (b) [Reserved]. For guidance

see § 86.1306–96.

(c)(1) Upon request, the Administrator

may allow a manufacturer to use some

of the test equipment allowed for model

year 2006 and earlier engines instead of

the test equipment required for model

year 2007 and later engines, provided

that good engineering judgment

indicates that it would not adversely

affect determination of compliance with

the applicable emission standards of

this part.

(2) A manufacturer may use the test

equipment required for model year 2007

and later engines for earlier model year

engines, provided that good engineering

judgment indicates that it would not

adversely affect determination of

compliance with the applicable

emission standards of this part.

(d) Approval of alternate test system.

(1) If on the basis of the information

described in paragraph (d)(5) of this

section, the Administrator determines

that an alternate test system would

consistently and reliably produce

emission test results that are at least

equivalent to the results produced using

the test systems described in this

subpart, he/she shall approve the

alternate system for optional use instead

of the test systems described in this

subpart.

(2) Any person may submit an

application for approval of an alternate

test system.

(3) In approving an alternate test

system, the Administrator may approve

it for general use, or may approve it

conditionally.

(4) The Administrator may revoke the

approval on the basis of new

information that indicates that the

alternate test system is not equivalent.

However, revocation of approval must

allow manufacturers sufficient lead-time

to change the test system to an approved

system. In determining the amount of

lead-time that is required, the

Administrator will consider relevant

factors such as:

(i) The ease with which the test

system can be converted to an approved

system.

(ii) The degree to which the alternate

system affects the measured emission

rates.

(iii) Any relevant conditions included

in the approval.

(5) The application for approval must

include:

(i) An explanation of the theoretical

basis of the alternate system. This

technical description should explain

why the detection principle of the

alternate system would provide

equivalent results to the detection

principle of the prescribed system for

the full range of emission properties

being measured. This description may

include equations, figures, and

references. For example, a NOX

measurement application should

theoretically relate the alternate

detection principle to the

chemiluminescent detection principle

of detecting nitric oxide for a typical

range of NO to NO2 ratios. A PM

measurement application should

explain the principle(s) by which the

alternate system quantifies PM mass

independent of PM composition, and

how it is impacted by semi-volatile and

volatile species= phase distributions.

For any proportioning or integrating

system, the application should compare

the alternate system’s theoretical

response to the prescribed system’s

response.

(ii) A technical description of the

alternate system. This section shall

detail all of the hardware and software

included in the alternate system.

Dimensioned drawings, flow-charts,

schematics, and component

specifications shall be included. Any

data manipulation (i.e. calculations) that

the system performs shall be presented

in this section.

(iii) A description of the procedures

used to operate the system including the

level of training that an operator must

have to achieve acceptable results. This

section of the application shall describe

all of the installation, calibration,

operation, and maintenance procedures

in a step-by-step format. Note that

empirical calibration with respect to

another prescribed or approved

measurement system is not acceptable.

Calibration should be performed with

NIST traceable standards, or equivalent

national standards. Diagrams,

schematics, and other graphics may be

used to enhance the description.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5169

(iv) A comparison of results from the

alternate system and from the

prescribed system (or other system

approved by the Administrator). The

two systems must be calibrated

independently to NIST traceable

standards or equivalent national

standards for this comparison. While

other statistical analyses may be

acceptable, it is recommended that the

comparison be based on a minimum of

7 collocated and simultaneous tests.

This comparison shall be performed

over the ‘‘hot-start’’ portion of the FTP

test cycle. If the comparison is paired,

it must demonstrate that the alternate

system passes a two-sided, paired t-test

described in this paragraph. If the test

is unpaired, it must demonstrate that

the alternate system passes a two-sided,

unpaired t-test described in this

paragraph. Other statistical criteria may

be set by the Administrator. The average

of these tests for the reference system

must return results less than or equal to

the applicable emissions standard. The

t-test is performed as follows, where ‘‘n’’

equals the number of tests:

(A) Calculate the average of the

alternate system results; this is Aavg.

(B) Calculate the average of the results

of the system to which the alternate

system was referenced; this is Ravg.

(C) For an unpaired comparison,

calculate the ‘‘n¥1’’ standard deviation

for the alternate and reference averages;

these are Asd and Rsd respectively. Asd

must be less than or equal to Rsd. If Asd

is greater than Rsd, the Administrator

will not approve the application.

(D) For an unpaired comparison,

calculate the t-value:

tunpaired = (Aavg¥Ravg)/((Asd2+Rsd2)/n)1⁄2

(E) For a paired comparison, calculate

the ‘‘n¥1’’ standard deviation (squared)

of the differences, di, between the paired

results, where ‘‘i’’ represents the ith test

of n number of tests:

SD2 = (Sdi

2¥ ((Sdi)2/n))/(n¥1)

(F)(1) For a paired comparison,

calculate the t-value:

tpaired = (Aavg¥Ravg)/(SD2/n)1⁄2

(2) The absolute value of t must be

less than the critical t value, tcrit at a

90% confidence interval for ‘‘n¥1’’

degrees of freedom. The following table

lists 90% confidence interval tcrit values

for n¥1 degrees of freedom:

90% Confidence interval critical t values vs.

n¥1 degrees of freedom for a two-sided,

paired t¥test

n ¥1 tcrit

6 ................................................ 1.94

7 ................................................ 1.89

8 ................................................ 1.86

9 ................................................ 1.83

10 .............................................. 1.81

90% Confidence interval critical t values vs.

n¥1 degrees of freedom for a two-sided,

paired t¥test

n ¥1 tcrit

11 .............................................. 1.80

12 .............................................. 1.78

13 .............................................. 1.77

14 .............................................. 1.76

15 .............................................. 1.75

16 .............................................. 1.75

17 .............................................. 1.74

18 .............................................. 1.73

19 .............................................. 1.73

20 .............................................. 1.72

28. Section 86.1309–90 is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

§ 86.1309–90 Exhaust gas sampling

system; Otto-cycle and non-petroleumfueled engines.

(a)(1) General. The exhaust gas

sampling system described in this

paragraph is designed to measure the

true mass of gaseous emissions in the

exhaust of either gasoline-fueled,

natural gas-fueled, liquefied petroleum

gas-fueled or methanol-fueled engines.

In the CVS concept of measuring mass

emissions, two conditions must be

satisfied; the total volume of the mixture

of exhaust and dilution air must be

measured, and a continuously

proportioned volume of sample must be

collected for analysis. Mass emissions

are determined from the sample

concentration and total flow over the

test period.

* * * * *

29. A new section 86.1310–07 is

added to Subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1310–2007 Exhaust gas sampling and

analytical system for gaseous emissions

from heavy-duty diesel-fueled engines and

particulate emissions from all engines.

(a) General. The exhaust gas sampling

system described in this paragraph is

designed to measure the true mass of

both gaseous and particulate emissions

in the exhaust of heavy-duty diesel

engines, and particulate emissions in

the exhaust of all heavy-duty engines.

(Gaseous emissions from nonpetroleum-fueled diesel engines are

measured using the system described in

§ 86.1309.) This system utilizes the CVS

concept (described in § 86.1309) of

measuring the combined mass

emissions of THC, NOX, CH4 (if

applicable) CO, CO2 and particulate

matter. For all emission measurement

systems described in this section,

multiple or redundant systems may be

used during a single test. Statistical

averages of data from multiple systems

may be used to calculate test results,

consistent with good engineering

judgment. Weighted averages are

allowed, where appropriate Statistical

outliers may be discarded, but all results

must be reported. If the Administrator

determines that the statistical analysis is

not consistent with good engineering

judgment, he/she may determine

compliance from the arithmetic mean of

the results. A continuously integrated

system may be used for THC, NOX , CO

and CO2 measurement. The use of

proportional bag sampling for sample

integration is allowed for THC, NOX,

CO, and CO2 measurement, but

requirements specific to bag sampling

from diesel exhaust must be met for the

THC and NOX emissions measurements.

CH4 measurement for calculation of

NMHC (if applicable) is measured using

GC–FID analysis of a proportional bag

sample. The mass of gaseous emissions

is determined from the sample

concentration and total flow over the

test period. The mass of particulate

emissions is determined from a

proportional mass sample collected on a

filter and from the sample flow and total

flow over the test period. As an option,

the measurement of total fuel mass

consumed over a cycle may be

substituted for the exhaust measurement

of CO2. General requirements are as

follows:

(1) This sampling system requires the

use of a CVS The CVS system may use

a PDP or a CFV. PDP systems must use

a heat exchanger. CFV systems may use

either a heat exchanger or electronic

flow compensation. When electronic

flow compensation is used, the CFV

may be replaced by a subsonic venturi

(SSV) as long as the CVS concept as

defined in § 86.1309 is maintained (i.e.,

a constant volumetric flow-rate through

the CVS is maintained for the duration

of the test). Figure N07–1 is a schematic

drawing of the CVS system.

(2) The THC analytical system for

diesel engines requires a heated flame

ionization detector (HFID) and heated

sample system (191 ± 11 °C) using

either:

(i) Continuously integrated

measurement of diluted THC meeting

the minimum requirements and

technical specifications contained in

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Unless

compensation for varying mass flow is

made, a constant mass flow system must

be used to ensure a proportional sample;

or

(ii) Heated (191 ± 11 °C) proportional

bag sampling systems for hydrocarbon

measurement will be allowed if the bag

sampling system meets the performance

specifications for outgassing and

permeability as defined in paragraph

(b)(2) of this section.

5170 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(3) CH4 measurement, if applicable,

shall be conducted using a proportional

bag sampling system with subsequent

analysis using a gas chromatograph and

FID. The CH4 measurement shall be

done in accordance with SAE

Recommended Practice J1151,

‘‘Methane Measurement Using Gas

Chromatography’’ (1994 SAE Handbook,

Volume 1: Materials, Fuels, Emissions,

and Noise, Section 13, Page 13.170),

which is incorporated by reference

pursuant to § 86.1(b)(2). As an

alternative, the manufacturer may

choose one of the options set forth in

§ 86.004–28(c)(8).

(4) [Reserved]

(5) [Reserved]

(6) The CO and CO2 analytical system

requires:

(i) Bag sampling (§ 86.1309) and

analytical (§ 86.1311) capabilities, as

shown in Figure N07–1; or

(ii) Continuously integrated

measurement of diluted CO and CO2

meeting the minimum requirements and

technical specifications contained in

paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Unless

compensation for varying flow is made,

a constant flow system must be used to

ensure a proportional sample; and

(7) The NOX analytical system

requires:

(i) Continuously integrated

measurement of diluted NOX meeting

the minimum requirements and

technical specifications contained in

paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Unless

compensation for varying flow is made,

a constant flow system must be used to

ensure a proportional sample.

(ii) Bag sampling (§ 86.1309) and

analytical (§ 86.1311) capabilities, as

shown in Figure N07–1 (or Figure 07–

2) will be allowed provided that sample

gas temperature is maintained above the

sample’s aqueous dewpoint at all times

during collection and analysis.

(8) The mass of particulate in the

exhaust is determined via filtration. The

particulate sampling system requires

dilution of the exhaust to a temperature

of 47 °C ± 5 °C, measured upstream of

a single high-efficiency sample filter (as

close to the filter as practical).

(9) Since various configurations can

produce equivalent results, exact

conformance with these drawings is not

required. Additional components such

as instruments, valves, solenoids,

pumps, and switches may be used to

provide additional information and

coordinate the functions of the

components of the system. Other

components, such as snubbers, which

are not needed to maintain accuracy on

some systems, may be excluded if their

exclusion is based upon good

engineering judgment.

(10) Other sampling and/or analytical

systems may be used if shown to yield

equivalent results and if approved in

advance by the Administrator (see

§ 86.1306–07).

(b) Component description. The

components necessary for exhaust

sampling shall meet the following

requirements:

(1) Exhaust dilution system. The CVS

shall conform to all of the requirements

listed for the exhaust gas CVS systems

in § 86.1309(b), (c), and (d). With

respect to PM measurement, the intent

of this measurement procedure is to

perform the sample cooling primarily

via dilution and mixing with air rather

than via heat transfer to the surfaces of

the sampling system. In addition the

CVS must conform to the following

requirements:

(i) The flow capacity of the CVS must

be sufficient to maintain the diluted

exhaust stream at the temperatures

required for the measurement of

particulate and hydrocarbon emission

noted below and at, or above, the

temperatures where aqueous

condensation in the exhaust gases could

occur. This is achieved by the following

method. The flow capacity of the CVS

must be sufficient to maintain the

diluted exhaust stream in the primary

dilution tunnel at a temperature of 191

°C or less at the sampling zone and as

required to prevent condensation at any

point in the dilution tunnel. Gaseous

emission samples may be taken directly

from this sampling point. An exhaust

sample must then be taken at this point

to be diluted a second time for use in

determining particulate emissions. The

secondary dilution system must provide

sufficient secondary dilution air to

maintain the double-diluted exhaust

stream at a temperature of 47 C ± 5 C,

measured at a point located between the

filter face and 16 cm upstream of the

filter face.

(ii) For the CVS , either a heat

exchanger (i.e. CFV–CVS) or electronic

flow compensation (i.e. EFC–CFV–CVS),

which also includes the particulate

sample flows is required Refer to Figure

N07–1.

(iii) When a heat exchanger is used,

the gas mixture temperature, measured

at a point immediately ahead of the

critical flow venturi, shall be within ±11

°C of the average operating temperature

observed during the test with the

simultaneous requirement that aqueous

condensation does not occur. The

temperature measuring system (sensors

and readout) shall have an accuracy and

precision of ±1.9 °C. For systems

utilizing a flow compensator to

maintain proportional sampling, the

requirement for maintaining constant

temperature is not necessary.

(iv) The primary dilution air and

secondary dilution air:

(A) Shall have a primary and

secondary dilution air temperature

equal to or greater than 15 °C.

(B) Primary dilution air shall be

filtered at the dilution air inlet. The

manufacturer of the primary dilution air

filter shall state that the filter design has

successfully achieved a minimum

particle removal efficiency of 98% (less

than 0.02 penetration) as determined

using ASTM test method F 1471–93

(incorporated by reference at section

86.1). Secondary dilution air shall be

filtered at the dilution air inlet using a

high-efficiency particulate air filter

(HEPA). The HEPA filter manufacturer

shall state the HEPA filter design has

successfully achieved a minimum

particle removal efficiency of 99.97%

(less than 0.0003 penetration) as

determined using ASTM test method F

1471–93. It is recommended that the

primary dilution air be filtered using a

HEPA filter. EPA intends to utilize

HEPA filters to condition primary

dilution air in its test facilities. It is

acceptable to use of a booster blower

upstream or downstream of a HEPA

filter in the primary dilution tunnel

(and upstream of the introduction of

engine exhaust into the CVS) to

compensate for the additional pressure

loss associated with the filter. The

design of any booster blower located

downstream of the filter should

minimize the introduction of additional

particulate matter into the CVS.

(C) Primary dilution air may be

sampled to determine background

particulate levels, which can then be

subtracted from the values measured in

the diluted exhaust stream. In the case

of primary dilution air, the background

particulate filter sample shall be taken

immediately downstream of the dilution

air filter and upstream of the engine

exhaust flow (Figure N07–1). The

provisions of paragraphs (b)(7) of this

section, and of § 86.1312–2007 also

apply to the measurement of

background particulate matter, except

that the filter temperature must be

maintained below 52 °C.

(2) Heated proportional bag sampling

systems. If a heated (191 ± 11 °C)

proportional bag sampling system is

used for THC measurement, sample bags

must demonstrate minimal outgassing

and permeability by passing the

following performance test:

(i) Performance test for sample bag HC

outgassing and CO2 permeability. Bring

the bag system to its operational

temperature. Fill the heated sample bag

with a nominal mixture of 1% CO2 in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5171

N2. Perform an initial measurement of

CO2 and THC from the sample bag, and

repeat the measurement after one hour.

Acceptable performance criteria are

<2% decrease of the initial CO2 reading

and <1 ppmC THC.

(ii) [Reserved]

(3) Continuous HC measurement

system. (i) The continuous HC sample

system (as shown in Figure N07–1) uses

an ‘‘overflow’’ zero and span system. In

this type of system, excess zero or span

gas spills out of the probe when zero

and span checks of the analyzer are

made. The ‘‘overflow’’ system may also

be used to calibrate the HC analyzer per

§ 86.1321(b), although this is not

required.

(ii) No other analyzers may draw a

sample from the continuous HC sample

probe, line or system, unless a common

sample pump is used for all analyzers

and the sample line system design

reflects good engineering practice.

(iii) The overflow gas flow rates into

the sample line shall be at least 105%

of the sample system flow rate.

(iv) The overflow gases shall enter the

heated sample line as close as

practicable to the outside surface of the

CVS duct or dilution tunnel.

(v) The continuous HC sampling

system shall consist of a probe (which

must raise the sample to the specified

temperature) and, where used, a sample

transfer system (which must maintain

the specified temperature). The

continuous hydrocarbon sampling

system (exclusive of the probe) shall:

(A) Maintain a wall temperature of

191°C ± 11°C as measured at every

separately controlled heated component

(i.e., filters, heated line sections), using

permanent thermocouples located at

each of the separate components.

(B) Have a wall temperature of 191°C

± 11°C over its entire length. The

temperature of the system shall be

demonstrated by profiling the thermal

characteristics of the system at initial

installation and after any major

maintenance performed on the system.

The temperature profile of the HC

sampling system shall be demonstrated

by inserting thermocouple wires

(typically TeflonTM coated for ease of

insertion) into the sampling system

assembled in-situ where possible, using

good engineering judgment. The wire

should be inserted up to the HFID inlet.

Stabilize the sampling system heaters at

normal operating temperatures.

Withdraw the wires in increments of 5

cm to 10 cm (2 inches to 4 inches)

including all fittings. Record the

stabilized temperature at each position.

The system temperature will be

monitored during testing at the

locations and temperature described in

§ 86.1310–90(b)(3)(v)(A).

Note: It is understood that profiling of the

sample line can be done under flowing

conditions also as required with the probe.

This test may be cumbersome if test facilities

utilize long transfer lines and many fittings;

therefore it is recommended that transfer

lines be kept as short as possible and the use

of fittings should be kept minimal.

(C) Maintain a gas temperature of

191°C ±11°C immediately before the

heated filter and HFID. These gas

temperatures will be determined by a

temperature sensor located immediately

upstream of each component.

(vi) The continuous hydrocarbon

sampling probe shall:

(A) Be defined as the first 25.4 cm (10

in) to 76.2 cm (30 in) of the continuous

hydrocarbon sampling system;

(B) Have a 0.483 cm (0.19 in)

minimum inside diameter;

(C) Be installed in the primary

dilution tunnel at a point where the

dilution air and exhaust are well mixed

(i.e., approximately 10 tunnel diameters

downstream of the point where the

exhaust enters the dilution tunnel);

(D) Be sufficiently distant (radially)

from other probes and the tunnel wall

so as to be free from the influence of any

wakes or eddies; and

(E) Increase the gas stream

temperature to 191°C ± 11°C by the exit

of the probe. The ability of the probe to

accomplish this shall be demonstrated

at typical sample flow rates using the

insertion thermocouple technique at

initial installation and after any major

maintenance. Compliance with the

temperature specification shall be

demonstrated by monitoring during

each test the temperature of either the

gas stream or the wall of the sample

probe at its terminus.

(vii) The response time of the

continuous measurement system shall

be no greater than:

(A) 1.5 seconds from an instantaneous

step change at the port entrance to the

analyzer to within 90 percent of the step

change;

(B) 10 seconds from an instantaneous

step change at the entrance to the

sample probe or overflow span gas port

to within 90 percent of the step change.

Analysis system response time shall be

coordinated with CVS flow fluctuations

and sampling time/test cycle offsets if

necessary; and

(C) For the purpose of verification of

response times, the step change shall be

at least 60 percent of full-scale chart

deflection.

(4) Primary-dilution tunnel. (i) The

primary dilution tunnel shall be:

(A) Small enough in diameter to cause

turbulent flow (Reynolds Number

greater than 4000) and of sufficient

length to cause complete mixing of the

exhaust and dilution air. Good

engineering judgment shall dictate the

use of mixing plates and mixing orifices

to ensure a well-mixed sample. To

verify mixing, EPA recommends flowing

a tracer gas (i.e. propane or CO2) from

the raw exhaust inlet of the dilution

tunnel and measuring its concentration

at several points along the axial plane at

the sample probe. Tracer gas

concentrations should remain nearly

constant (i.e. within 2%) between all of

these points.

(B) At least 8 inches (20 cm) in

diameter.

(C) Constructed of electrically

conductive material which does not

react with the exhaust components.

(D) Electrically grounded.

(E) EPA recommends that the tunnel

should have minimal thermal

capacitance such that the temperature of

the walls tracks with the temperature of

the diluted exhaust.

(ii) The temperature of the diluted

exhaust stream inside of the primary

dilution tunnel shall be sufficient to

prevent water condensation.

(iii) The engine exhaust shall be

directed downstream at the point where

it is introduced into the primary

dilution tunnel.

(5) Continuously integrated NOX, CO,

and CO2 measurement systems. (i) The

sample probe shall:

(A) Be in the same plane as the

continuous HC probe, but shall be

sufficiently distant (radially) from other

probes and the tunnel wall so as to be

free from the influences of any wakes or

eddies; and

(B) Heated and insulated over the

entire length, to prevent water

condensation, to a minimum

temperature of 131°F (55° C). Sample

gas temperature immediately before the

first filter in the system shall be at least

131° F (55° C).

(ii) The continuous NOX, CO, or CO2

sampling and analysis system shall

conform to the specifications of subpart

D of this part, with the following

exceptions:

(A) The system components required

to be heated by subpart D need only be

heated to prevent water condensation,

the minimum component temperature

shall be 131° F (55° C);

(B) The system response defined in

§ 86.329–79 shall be no greater than 10

seconds. Analysis system response time

shall be coordinated with CVS flow

fluctuations and sampling time/test

cycle offsets, if necessary;

(C) Alternative NOX measurement

techniques outlined in § 86.346–79 are

5172 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

not permitted for NOX measurement in

this subpart;

(D) All analytical gases shall conform

to the specifications of § 86.1314;

(E) Any range on a linear analyzer

below 100 ppm shall have and use a

calibration curve conforming to § 86.

1323–07; and

(F) The measurement accuracy

requirements are specified in § 86.

1338–07 .

(iii) The signal output of analyzers

with non-linear calibration curves shall

be converted to concentration values by

the calibration curve(s) specified in

subpart D of this part (§ 86.330–79)

before flow correction (if used) and

subsequent integration takes place.

(6) Particulate sampling system. This

method collects a proportional sample

from the primary tunnel, and then

transfers this sample to a secondary

dilution tunnel where the sample is

further diluted. The double-diluted

sample is then passed through the

collection filter. Proportionality (i.e.,

mass flow ratio) between the primary

tunnel flow rate and the sample flow

rate must be maintained within ±5%,

excluding the first 10 seconds of the test

at start-up. The requirements for this

system are:

(i) The particulate sample transfer

tube shall be configured and installed so

that:

(A) The inlet faces upstream in the

primary dilution tunnel at a point where

the primary dilution air and exhaust are

well mixed.

(B) The particulate sample exits on

the centerline of the secondary tunnel.

(ii) The entire particulate sample

transfer tube shall be:

(A) Sufficiently distant (radially) from

other sampling probes (in the primary

dilution tunnel) so as to be free from the

influence of any wakes or eddies

produced by the other probes.

(B) 0.85 cm minimum inside

diameter.

(C) No longer than 36 in (91 cm) from

inlet plane to exit plane.

(D) Designed to minimize the

diffusional and thermophoretic

deposition of particulate matter during

transfer (i.e., sample residence time in

the transfer tube should be as short as

possible, temperature gradients between

the flow stream and the transfer tube

wall should be minimized). Doublewall, thin-wall, air-gap insulated, or a

controlled heated construction for the

transfer tube is recommended.

(E) Constructed such that the surfaces

exposed to the sample shall be an

electrically conductive material, which

does not react with the exhaust

components, and this surface shall be

electrically grounded so as to minimize

electrostatic particulate matter

deposition.

(iii) The secondary dilution air shall

be at a temperature equal to or greater

than 15° C.

(iv) The secondary-dilution tunnel

shall be constructed such that the

surfaces exposed to the sample shall be

an electrically conductive material,

which does not react with the exhaust

components, and this surface shall be

electrically grounded so as to minimize

electrostatic particulate deposition.

(v) Additional dilution air must be

provided so as to maintain a sample

temperature of 47° C ± 5° C upstream of

the sample filter. Temperature shall be

measured with a thermocouple with a

3⁄16′′ shank, having thermocouple wires

with a gage diameter 24 AWG or

smaller, a bare-wire butt-welded

junction; or other suitable temperature

measurement with an equivalent or

faster time constant and an accuracy

and precision of ± 1.9° C.

(vi) The filter holder assembly shall

be located within 12.0 in (30.5 cm) of

the exit of the secondary dilution

tunnel.

(vii) The face velocity through the

sample filter shall not exceed 100 cm/

s (face velocity is defined as the

standard volumetric sample flow rate

(i.e., scm3/sec) divided by the sample

filter stain area (i.e., cm2)).

(7) Particulate sampling. (i) Filter

specifications. (A)

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or

TeflonTM) coated borosilicate glass fiber

high-efficiency filters or

polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE or

TeflonTM) high-efficiency membrane

filters with an integral support ring of

polymethylpentene (PMP) or equivalent

inert material are required. Filters shall

have a minimum clean filter efficiency

of 99% as measured by the ASTM

D2986–95a DOP test (incorporated by

reference at § 86.1).

(B) Particulate filters must have a

diameter of 46.50 ± 0.6 mm ( 38 mm

minimum stain diameter).

(C) The dilute exhaust is

simultaneously sampled by a single

high-efficiency filter during the coldstart test and by a second high efficiency

filter during the hot-start test.

(D) It is recommended that the filter

loading should be maximized consistent

with temperature requirements.

(ii) Filter holder assembly. The filter

holder assembly shall comply with the

specifications set forth for ambient PM

measurement in 40 CFR Part 50,

Appendix L 7.3.5, figures L–25 and L–

26, with the following exceptions:

(A) The material shall be 302, 303, or

304 stainless steel instead of anodized

aluminum.

(B) The 2.84 cm diameter entrance to

the filter holder may be adapted, using

sound engineering judgment and leakfree construction, to an inside diameter

no smaller than 0.85 cm, maintaining

the 12.5° angle from the inlet of the top

filter holder to the area near the sealing

surface of the top of the filter cartridge

assembly. Figure N07–2 shows

acceptable variation from the design in

40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. Similar

variations using sound engineering

design are also acceptable provided that

they provide even flow distribution

across the filter media and a similar

leak-free seal with the filter cartridge

assembly.

(C) If additional or multiple filter

cartridges are stored in a particulate

sampler as part of an automatic

sequential sampling capability, all such

filter cartridges, unless they are

installed in the sample flow (with or

without flow established) shall be

covered or sealed to prevent

communication of semi-volatile matter

from filter to filter; contamination of the

filters before and after sampling; or loss

of volatile or semi-volatile particulate

matter after sampling.

(iii) Filter cartridge assembly. The

filter cartridge assembly shall comply

with the specifications set forth for

ambient PM measurement in 40 CFR

Part 50, Appendix L 7.3.5, figures L–27,

L–28, and L–29, with the following

exceptions:

(A) In addition to the specified

Delrin TM material, 302, 303, or 304

stainless steel, polycarbonate or

acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene (ABS)

resin, or a combination of these

materials may also be used.

(B) A bevel introduced on the inside

diameter of the entrance to the filter

cartridge, as used by some commercially

available automated sequential

particulate filter cartridge changers, is

also acceptable (see Figure N07–3).

(iv) Particle preclassifier. A particle

preclassifier shall be installed

immediately upstream of the filter

holder assembly (N07–1). The purpose

of the preclassifier is to remove coarse,

mechanically generated particles (e.g.,

rust from the engine exhaust system or

carbon sheared from the sampling

system walls) from the sample flow

stream while allowing combustiongenerated particles to pass through to

the filter. The preclassifier may be either

an inertial impactor or a cyclonic

separator. The preclassifier

manufacturer 50% cutpoint particle

diameter shall be between 2.5 μm and

10 μm at the volumetric flow rate

selected for sampling of particulate

matter emissions. Sharpness of cut is

not specifically defined, but the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5173

preclassifier geometry shall allow at

least 99% of the mass concentration of

1 μm particles to pass through the exit

of the preclassifier to the filter at the

volumetric flow rate selected for

sampling particulate matter emissions.

Periodic servicing of the preclassifier

will be necessary to prevent a buildup

of mechanically separated particles. The

particle preclassifier may be made

integral with the top of the filter holder

assembly. The preclassifier may also be

made integral with a mixing-tee for

introduction of secondary dilution air,

thus replacing the secondary dilution

tunnel; provided that the preclassifier

provides sufficient mixing.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

5174 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5175

5176 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5177

30. A new section 86.1312–2007 is

added to Subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1312–2007 Filter stabilization and

microbalance workstation environmental

conditions, microbalance specifications,

and particulate matter filter handling and

weighing procedures.

(a) Ambient conditions for filter

stabilization and weighing.—(1)

Temperature and humidity. (i) The filter

stabilization environment shall be

maintained at 22 °C ± 3 °C and a

dewpoint of 9.5 °C ± 1 °C. Dewpoint

shall be measured with an instrument

that exhibits an accuracy of at least

±0.25 °C NIST traceable as stated by the

instrument manufacturer. Temperature

shall be measured with an instrument

that exhibits an accuracy of at least

±0.2°C or better.

(ii) The immediate microbalance

workstation environment shall be

maintained at 22 °C ± 1 °C and a

dewpoint of 9.5 °C ± 1 °C. If the

microbalance workstation environment

freely circulates with the filter

stabilization environment, and this

entire environment meets 22 °C ± 1 °C

and a dewpoint of 9.5 °C ± 1 °C , then

there is no requirement to measure

temperature and dewpoint at the

microbalance separate from the filter

stabilization location. Otherwise,

temperature at the microbalance

workstation shall be measured with an

instrument that exhibits an accuracy of

at least ±0.2°C or better, and dewpoint

shall be measured with an instrument

that exhibits an accuracy of at least

±0.25 °C NIST traceable as stated by the

instrument manufacturer.

(2) Cleanliness. (i) The microbalance

and filter stabilization environments

shall be free of ambient contaminants

(such as dust or other aerosols) that

could settle on the particulate filters. It

is recommended that these

environments be built to conform with

the Class 1000 specification (or cleaner)

as determined by Federal Standard

209D or 209E for clean room

classification (Available from the

Institute of Environmental Standards

and Technology website at www.iest.org

or phone (847) 255–1561). An

alternative recommendation would be to

equilibrate and/or weigh the filters

within a separate, smaller, particle-free,

temperature and humidity-controlled

chamber (i.e., ‘‘glove box’’).

(ii) Reference filters shall be used to

monitor for gross particle

contamination. It is required that at least

two unused reference filters remain in

the filter stabilization environment at all

times in partially covered glass petri

dishes, as in paragraph (c) (1) of this

section. These reference filters shall be

placed in the filter stabilization

environment. The reference filters shall

be weighed within 2 hours of, but

preferably at the same time as, the

sample filters. The reference filters shall

be changed at least once a month, but

never while any sample filters are

between their tare weight (pre-sampling)

and gross weight (post-sampling)

measurements. The reference filters

shall be the same size and material as

the sample filters.

(3) Quality control of ambient

conditions. (i) If, before the start of a

weighing session, the temperature or

dewpoint of the filter stabilization

environment are not within

specifications, then filters must remain

in the environment for at least 30

minutes after conditions are corrected. If

the filter stabilization environment

changes during a weighing session such

that the specifications are no longer met,

the weighing session shall be suspended

until the environment has returned to

within specifications for at least 30

minutes. Once the environment has

returned to within specifications for at

least 30 minutes, the reference filters

shall be reweighed and the criteria in

paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section shall

apply. Note that temperature and

dewpoint shall be sampled once per

second, and an unweighted 5-minute

moving average of this data shall be

calculated once per second. This

moving average shall be used to

determine the environment temperature

and dewpoint for the purpose of

determining whether or not the

environment is within specifications.

(ii) If the average change in weight of

the reference filters is more than 10

micrograms (after correcting for

buoyancy as described in paragraph

(c)(3) of this section), then all filters in

the process of stabilization shall be

discarded and all data collected with

respect to the discarded filters shall be

considered void. Note that more than 2

reference filters may be used to achieve

a more robust average of the change in

weight of the reference filters.

(b) Microbalance specifications. The

microbalance used to determine the

weights of all filters shall have a

precision (standard deviation) of at least

±0.25 micrograms or better for repeated

weighing of a calibration weight, a

precision of at least ±2.5 micrograms or

better for repeated weighing of a clean

filter, and a readability equal to or less

than 0.1 micrograms. It is recommended

that the microbalance be installed on a

vibration isolation platform to isolate

the microbalance’s load cell from

external vibration. It is also

recommended that the microbalance

should be shielded from convective

airflow by means of an electrically

grounded static dissipative draft shield.

Microbalance manufacturer

specifications for all preventive

maintenance, periodic certification,

calibration, and re-zeroing shall be

followed. All certification and

calibration procedures shall be NIST

traceable, or traceable to an equivalent

national standard.

(c) Particulate matter filter handling

and weighing. Care should be taken to

prevent contamination of the sample

filters and to prevent a buildup of static

charge on the filters that could interfere

with filter weighing. Static neutralizers,

such as Po-210 sources, shall be used to

neutralize charge on a filter prior to

each weighing. A static neutralizer

should be replaced at the interval

recommended by its manufacturer, or

when it is no longer able to reduce static

charge on a filter to less than ±2 VDC

as measured with an electrostatic

monitor at the microbalance

workstation. The person weighing filters

shall be grounded with respect to the

microbalance to prevent imparting a

static charge on the filters. This can be

accomplished safely by using a

grounding strap such as the wrist straps

that are commonly used in the

microelectronics industry, or by

connecting a similar grounding strap to

the tweezers. To prevent electrical

shock, a 1-megohm resistor should be

installed in series between the person

weighing filters and ground.

(1) Within the filter stabilization

environment, a pair of clean and

electrically conductive tweezers shall be

used to place a filter in the lower half

of a filter cassette and the cassette shall

be placed in a partially open glass petri

dish. The petri dish lid should extend

over the filter to prevent gross

contamination, but it should be left

slightly open on one edge to permit

stabilization with the environment for at

least 30 minutes.

(2) After at least 30 minutes of

stabilization, each filter shall be

weighed using the specified

microbalance. The process of weighing

a filter may be repeated and a statistical

mean weight of a single filter may be

calculated. Sound engineering judgment

shall dictate the use of statistics to

discard outliers and the weighting of

averages. For a clean filter its single

weight or statistical mean weight shall

be considered the uncorrected tare

weight of the filter.

(3) All filter weights shall be corrected

for filter buoyancy in air. For the

uncorrected tare weight of a filter, this

calculated value is the corrected tare

weight of the filter, and it must be

recorded (see § 86.1344(e)(18)).

5178 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Barometric pressure of the microbalance

environment shall be measured with an

instrument that exhibits ±0.01% fullscale accuracy and 0.01% per-year full

scale stability, and the full-scale value

used for such a specification shall not

exceed 200 kPa.

(i) Buoyancy correction calculation.

(A) Calculate vapor pressure of liquid

water using the dewpoint temperature

in the Magnus formula:

Pw = 0.6113 × 10∧ ((7.5 × Tdp)/(237.3 + Tdp))

Where:

Pw=vapor pressure of liquid water, kPa.

Tdp=dewpoint temperature, °C.

(B) Calculate air density using the

ideal gas relationship and molecular

weights of standard air and water:

A=(3.484×P¥1.317×Pw)/(T+273.15)

Where:

A=air density, kg/m3.

P=barometric pressure, kPa.

Pw=vapor pressure of liquid water, kPa.

T=temperature, °C.

(C) Buoyancy correction:

M=R×(1¥(A/ρw))/(1¥(A/ρs)).

Where:

M=corrected mass in units of the balance

display.

R=uncorrected filter weight in units of the

balance display.

A=calculated air density, kg/m3.

ρw=density of calibration weight used to

calibrate the balance, kg/m3.

ρs=density of filter material used to sample

PM emissions, kg/m3.

(ii) For determining ρs note that PTFE

(TeflonTM) and borosilicate glass both

have densities in the range of 2,200 to

2,400 kg/m3. Therefore, for PTFE-coated

borosilicate glass fiber filters, an

acceptable ρs is 2,300 kg/m3. Note also

that polymethylpentene has a density of

850 kg/m3. Because Teflon PTFE

membrane filters have an integral

polymethylpentene support ring that

accounts for 95% of the filter mass, an

acceptable ρs for these filters is 920 kg/

m3. Other ρs values for other filters may

be obtained similarly. Information about

‘‘ρs should be available from the

calibration weight manufacturer.

(iii) This paragraph (c)(3)(iii) shows

an example of the buoyancy correction.

This example assumes the following

inputs: Barometric pressure (P)=101.325

kPa, temperature (T)=22.0 °C, dewpoint

temperature (Tdp)=9.5 °C, balance

display (R)=100.0000 mg, calibration

weight density (ρw)=8,000 kg/m3, and

filter material density (ρs)=2,300 kg/m3.

Then:

(A) The water vapor pressure (Pw) is

calculated as:

Pw = 0.6113 × 10 ((7.5 × 9.5)/(237.3 + 9.5))

= 1.186 kPa.

(B) The air density (A) is calculated

as:

A = (3.484 ×101.325 ¥ 1.317 × 1.186)/(22.0

+ 273.15) = 1.191 kg/m3.

(C) The corrected mass (M) is

calculated as:

M=100.0000 × (1 ¥ (1.191/8000))/(1 ¥

(1.191/2300)) = 100.0369 mg.

(4) The uncorrected weight, corrected

weight, barometric pressure,

temperature and humidity, of the filter

shall be recorded. Afterward the filter

shall be returned to the lower half of the

filter cassette, and the upper half of the

cassette shall be set in place. The

cassette-with filter-shall then be stored

in a covered glass petri dish or a sealed

(i.e., ends plugged) filter holder

assembly, either of which shall remain

in the filter stabilization environment

until needed for testing. It is

recommended that the filter be

transported between the filter

stabilization environment and the

location of the emissions test within a

sealed filter holder assembly.

(5) After the emissions test, the filter

cassette shall be removed from the filter

holder assembly. If this removal is

performed in the filter stabilization

environment, the upper half of the

cassette shall be removed using a

properly designed separator tool, the

lower half of the cassette-with filtershall be placed in a partially covered

petri dish, and allowed to stabilize for

at least 30 minutes. Otherwise, the

cassette and filter shall be placed in a

closed petri dish until it can be returned

to the filter stabilization environment.

Once the closed petri dish is returned to

the filter stabilization environment, the

petri dish shall be opened, the upper

half of the cassette shall be removed

using a properly designed separator

tool, the lower half of the cassette-with

filter-shall be placed in a partially

covered petri dish, and allowed to

stabilize for at least one hour.

(6) After at least 30 minutes, but no

more than 60 hours of stabilization,

each filter may be weighed using the

specified microbalance. The process of

weighing a filter may be repeated and a

statistical mean may be calculated.

Sound engineering judgment shall

dictate the use of statistics to discard

outliers and the weighting of averages.

For a used filter, its single weight or

statistical mean weight shall be

identified as the uncorrected gross

weight of the filter. The uncorrected

gross weight shall be corrected for filter

buoyancy using the procedure in (c)(3)

of this section. The uncorrected gross

filter weight, corrected gross filter

weight, barometric pressure,

temperature, and dewpoint shall be

recorded.

(7) The net particulate matter weight

(Pf) of each filter shall be equal to the

corrected gross filter weight minus the

corrected tare filter weight.

(8) Should the particulate matter on

the filters contact the petri dish,

tweezers, microbalance or any other

surface, the data with respect to that

filter is void.

31. A new § 86.1313–2004 is added to

subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1313–2004 Fuel specifications.

Section 86.1313–04 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.1313–94 and § 86.1313–98. Where a

paragraph in § 86.1313–94 or § 86.1313–

98 is identical and applicable to

§ 86.1313–04, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph

and the statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1313–94.’’ or

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1313–98.’’.

(a) Gasoline fuel. (1) Gasoline having

the following specifications will be used

by the Administrator in exhaust and

evaporative emission testing of

petroleum-fueled Otto-cycle engines,

except that the Administrator will not

use gasoline having a sulfur

specification higher than 0.0045 weight

percent. Gasoline having the following

specification or substantially equivalent

specifications approved by the

Administrator, must be used by the

manufacturer in exhaust and

evaporative testing except that octane

specifications do not apply:

Item ASTM test

method No. Value

(i) Octane, Research, Min. ................................................................................................................... D2699 93

(ii) Sensitivity, Min. ............................................................................................................................... 7.5

(iii) Lead (organic), maximum: g/U.S. gal. (g/liter) ............................................................................... D3237 0.050 (0.013)

(iv) Distillation Range: .......................................................................................................................... D86

(A) IBP1: °F (°C) .................................................................................................................................. 75–95 (23.9–35)

(B) 10 pct. point: °F (°C) ...................................................................................................................... 120–135 (48.9–57.2)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5179

Item ASTM test

method No. Value

(C) 50 pct. point: °F (°C) ...................................................................................................................... 200–230 (93.3–110)

(D) 90 pct. point: °F (°C) ...................................................................................................................... 300–325 (148.9–162.8)

(E) EP, max: °F (°C) ............................................................................................................................ 415 (212.8)

(v) Sulfur, weight pct. ........................................................................................................................... D1266 0.0015–0.008

(vi) Phosphorous, max. g/U.S. gal (g/liter) ........................................................................................... D3231 0.005 (0.0013)

(vii) RVP2, 3 .......................................................................................................................................... D3231 8.7–9.2 (60.0–63.4)

(viii) Hydrocarbon composition: ............................................................................................................ D1319

(A) Olefins, max. pct. ........................................................................................................................... 10

(B) Aromatics, max, pct. ....................................................................................................................... 35

(C) Saturates ........................................................................................................................................ Remainder

1For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m (4000 feet), the specified range is 75–105 deg. F (23.9–40.6 deg. C). 2For testing which is unrelated to evaporative emission control, the specified range is 8.0–9.2 psi (55.2–63.4 kPa). 3For testing at altitudes above 1,219 m (4000 feet), the specified range is 7.6–8.0 psi (52–55 kPa).

(2) For engines certified for sale in the

50 United States, ‘‘California Phase 2’’

gasoline having the specifications listed

in the table in this section may be used

in exhaust emission testing as an option

to the specifications in paragraph (a)(1)

of this section. If a manufacturer elects

to utilize this option, the manufacturer

must conduct exhaust emission testing

with gasoline having the specifications

listed in the table in this paragraph

(a)(2). However, the Administrator may

use or require the use of test fuel

meeting the specifications in paragraph

(a)(1) of this section for certification

confirmatory testing, selective

enforcement auditing and in-use testing.

All fuel property test methods for this

fuel are contained in Chapter 4 of the

California Regulatory Requirements

Applicable to the National Low

Emission Vehicle Program (October,

1996). These requirements are

incorporated by reference (see § 86.1).

The table follows:

Fuel property Limit

(i) Octane, (R+M)/2 (min) .................................................................................................. 91

(ii) Sensitivity (min) ............................................................................................................ 7.5

(iii) Lead, g/gal (max) (No lead added) ............................................................................. 0–0.01

(iv) Distillation Range, °F: ..................................................................................................

(A) 10 pct. point, ................................................................................................................ 130–150

(B) 50 pct. point, ................................................................................................................ 200–210

(C) 90 pct. point, ................................................................................................................ 290–300

(D) EP, maximum .............................................................................................................. 390

(v) Residue, vol % (max) ................................................................................................... 2.0

(vi) Sulfur, ppm by wt. ....................................................................................................... 15–40, except that Administrator may use and approve

for use, lower ranges where such ranges are consistent with current California requirements.

(vii) Phosphorous, g/gal (max) .......................................................................................... 0.005

(viii) RVP, psi ..................................................................................................................... 6.7–7.0

(ix) Olefins, vol % .............................................................................................................. 4.0–6.0

(x) Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (vol %) .......................................................................... 22–25

(xi) Benzene, vol % ........................................................................................................... 0.8–1.0

(xii) Multi-Substituted Alkyl Aromatic Hydrocarbons, vol % .............................................. 12–14

(xiii) MTBE, vol % .............................................................................................................. 10.8–11.2

(xiv) Additives .................................................................................................................... See Chapter 4 of the California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (October, 1996). These procedures are

incorporated by reference (see § 86.1).

(xv) Copper Corrosion ....................................................................................................... No. 1

(xvi) Gum, Washed, mg/100 ml (max) .............................................................................. 3.0

(xvii) Oxidation Stability, minutes (min) ............................................................................. 1000

(xviii) Specific Gravity ........................................................................................................ No limit; report to purchaser required

(xix) Heat of Combustion ................................................................................................... No limit; report to purchaser required

(xx) Carbon, wt % .............................................................................................................. No limit; report to purchaser required

(xxi) Hydrogen, wt % ......................................................................................................... No limit; report to purchaser required

(3)(i) Unless otherwise approved by

the Administrator, unleaded gasoline

representative of commercial gasoline

that will be generally available through

retail outlets must be used in service

accumulation. Unless otherwise

approved by the Administrator, this

gasoline must have a minimum sulfur

content of 15 ppm. Unless otherwise

approved by the Administrator, fuel

used for evaporative emission durability

demonstration must contain ethanol as

required by § 86.1824–01(a)(2)(iii).

Leaded gasoline must not be used in

service accumulation.

(ii) Unless otherwise approved by the

Administrator, the octane rating of the

gasoline used must be no higher than

1.0 Retail octane number above the

lowest octane rating that meets the fuel

grade the manufacturer will recommend

to the ultimate purchaser for the

relevant production vehicles. If the

manufacturer recommends a Retail

octane number rather than a fuel grade,

then the octane rating of the service

accumulation gasoline can be no higher

than 1.0 Retail octane number above the

recommended Retail octane number.

The service accumulation gasoline must

5180 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

also have a minimum sensitivity of 7.5

octane numbers, where sensitivity is

defined as the Research octane number

minus the Motor octane number.

(iii) The Reid Vapor Pressure of the

gasoline used must be characteristic of

the motor fuel used during the season in

which the service accumulation takes

place.

(4) The specification range of the

gasoline to be used under paragraph (a)

of this section must be reported in

accordance with § 86.094–21(b)(3).

(b) heading and (b)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1313–94.

(b)(2) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1313–98.

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

guidance see § 86.1313–94.

32. A new § 86.1313–2007 is added to

Subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1313–2007 Fuel specifications.

Section 86.1313–2007 includes text

that specifies requirements that differ

from § 86.1313–94 and § 86.1313–2004.

Where a paragraph in § 86.1313–94 or

§ 86.1313–2004 is identical and

applicable to § 86.1313–2007, this may

be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1313–94.’’ or ‘‘[Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1313–04.’’.

(a) [Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1313–2004.

(b) heading and (b)(1) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1313–94.

(b)(2) Petroleum fuel for diesel

engines meeting the specifications in

Table N07–2, or substantially equivalent

specifications approved by the

Administrator, shall be used in exhaust

emissions testing. The grade of

petroleum fuel used shall be

commercially designated as ‘‘Type 2-D’’

grade diesel fuel except that fuel

commercially designated as ‘‘Type 1-D’’

grade diesel fuel may be substituted

provided that the manufacturer has

submitted evidence to the Administrator

demonstrating to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that this fuel will be the

predominant in-use fuel. Such evidence

could include such things as copies of

signed contracts from customers

indicating the intent to purchase and

use ‘‘Type 1-D’’ grade diesel fuel as the

primary fuel for use in the engines or

other evidence acceptable to the

Administrator. (Note: Vehicles certified

under § 86.007–11(f) must be tested

using the test fuel specified in

§ 86.1313–2004, unless otherwise

allowed by the Administrator.) Table

N07–2 follows:

TABLE N07–2

Item ASTM test

method No. Type 1–D Type 2–D

(i) Cetane Number .............................................................................. ........................... D613 ................. 40–54 ............... 40–50

(ii) Cetane Index ................................................................................. ........................... D976 ................. 40–54 ............... 40–50

(iii) Distillation range:

(A) IBP ......................................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 330–390 ........... 340–400

(°C) ................... ........................... (165.6–198.9) ... (171.1–204.4)

(B) 10 pct. point ........................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 370–430 ........... 400–460

(°C) ................... ........................... (187.8–221.1) ... (204.4–237.8)

(C) 50 pct. point ........................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 410–480 ........... 470–540

(°C) ................... ........................... (210.0–248.9) ... (243.3–282.2)

(D) 90 pct. point ........................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 460–520 ........... 560–630

(°C) ................... ........................... (237.8–271–1) .. (293.3–332.2)

(E) EP .......................................................................................... °F ...................... D86 ................... 500–560 ........... 610–690

(°C) ................... ........................... (260.0–293.3) ... (321.1–365.6)

(iv) Gravity ........................................................................................... °API .................. D287 ................. 40–44 ............... 32–37

(v) Total sulfur ..................................................................................... ppm .................. D2622 ............... 7–15 ................. 7–15

(vi) Hydrocarbon composition:.

(A) Aromatics, minimum (Remainder shall be paraffins,

naphthenes, and olefins).

pct. .................... D5186 ............... 8 ....................... 27

(vii) Flashpoint, min ............................................................................. °F ...................... D93 ................... 120 ................... 130

(°C) ................... ........................... (48.9) ................ (54.4)

(viii) Viscosity ...................................................................................... centistokes ........ D445 ................. 1.6–2.0 ............. 2.0–3.2

(3) Petroleum Diesel fuel for diesel

engines meeting the specifications in

table N07–3, or substantially equivalent

specifications approved by the

Administrator, shall be used in service

accumulation. The grade of petroleum

diesel fuel used shall be commercially

designated as Type 2–D’’ grade diesel

fuel except that fuel commercially

designated as ‘‘Type 1–D’’ grade Diesel

fuel may be substituted provided that

the manufacturer has submitted

evidence to the Administrator

demonstrating to the Administrator’s

satisfaction that this fuel will be the

predominant in-use fuel. Such evidence

could include such things as copies of

signed contracts from customers

indicating the intent to purchase and

use ‘‘Type 1–D’’ grade diesel fuel as the

primary fuel for use in the engines or

other evidence acceptable to the

Administrator. Table N07–03 follows:

TABLE N07–3

Item ASTM test

method No. Type 1–D Type 2–D

(i) Cetane Number .............................................................................. ........................... D613 ................. 40–56 ............... 38–58

(ii) Cetane Index ................................................................................. ........................... D976 ................. min. 40 ............. min. 40

(iii) Distillation range:

90 pct. point ................................................................................. °F ...................... D86 ................... 440–530 ........... 540–630

(°C) ................... ........................... (226.7–276–7) .. (293.3–332.2)

(iv) Gravity ........................................................................................... °API .................. D287 ................. 39–45 ............... 30–39

(v) Total sulfur ..................................................................................... ppm .................. D2622 ............... 7–15 ................. 7–15

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5181

TABLE N07–3—Continued

Item ASTM test

method No. Type 1–D Type 2–D

(vi) Flashpoint, min ............................................................................. °F ...................... D93 ................... 130 ................... 130

(°C) ................... ........................... (54.4) ................ (54.4)

(vii) Viscosity ....................................................................................... centistokes ....... D445 ................. 1.2–2.2 ............. 1.5–4.5

(b)(4) through (g) [Reserved]. For

guiDance see § 86.1313–94.

33. Section 86.1319–90 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph

(f), and adding a new paragraph (e) to

read as follows:

§ 86.1319–90 CVS calibration.

* * * * *

(e) SSV calibration. (1) The

calibration of the SSV located in the

tunnel shall be conducted in a similar

manner as the CFV or PDP calibration.

Gas flow within the SSV is a function

of inlet pressure, P1, the inlet

temperature, T1, and the pressure drop

between the throat and the inlet, DP.

Note that the following procedure is

consistent with SAE J244. The

calibration procedure described in

paragraph (e)(3) of this section

establishes the values of the coefficients

at measured values of pressure,

temperature and airflow.

(i) The flow rate for a subsonic venturi

is calculated as a volumetric flow rate

(Qs) or a mass flow rate (Qm) as follows:

or

Q Q K C Yd s P m

s

q

s

d = = i

∗ ∗

−















 ∗ ρ ρ β

ρ

2

4 1

∆

Q K C Yd P

m qd

i = ∗ ∗∗ ∗

−





 



 2

4

1 2

1

ρ

β

∆

/

Where:

Kq = 0.0021074 (SI units).

Qs = Air Volume Flow, SCFM (m3/min).

Qm = Air Mass Flow, lbm/min (kg/min).

ρs = Density at Standard Conditions, lbm/ft3

(kg/m3) as specified in paragraph

(e)(1)(v) of this section.

ρs = Density at inlet conditions, lbm/ft3 (kg/

m3), as specified in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)

of this section.

Cd = Coefficient of Discharge = Actual Air

Flow/Theoretical Air Flow.

Y = Expansion factor, as specified in

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section.

d = Throat diameter, inch (mm).

β = Ratio of venturi throat diameter to

approach pipe diameter.

∆P = Pressure drop between inlet and throat,

in. H2O (kPa).

(ii) The expansion factor (Y) is

calculated as follows:

Y r k

k

r

r

r

Where

r

P

P

d

D

d Throat dia

k

k

k

k

abs

= −









−

−





















−

− ∗













































= −

=

=

 −



 2 

1

4

4

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

β

β

β

:

∆

m., in (mm)

D = Inlet Pipe diam., in (mm)

k = Ratio of Specific Heat (1.40 for Air)

(iii) The inlet density (ρ1) is

calculated as follows:

ρ1 = ∗

P

R T

abs

mix abs

Where:

Pabs = P1+PB

Tabs = T1 + 2731

Rmix = Ru/|MWmix

Ru = 8.3144 kJ/kg-mole-K

MWmix = the molecular weight of the mix, as

calculated in paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this

section.

(iv) The molecular weight of the mix,

is calculated as follows:

MW

MW P P MW P

P mix

AIR abs V H O v

abs

= ∗ − ( ) + ∗ 2

Where:

PV = Vapor pressure, in Hg (kPa)

MWAIR = 28.964 kg/kg-mole

MWH20 = 18.015 kg/kg-mole (v) The density at standard conditions

of 101.33 kPa and 20 °C is calculated as

follows:

5182 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

ρs = m

∗

= 10133

8 3144

28 964

29315

1 2041 3 .

.

. .

. / kg (2) The venturi manufacturer’s

recommended procedure shall be

followed for calibrating electronic

portions of the SSV.

(3) Measurements necessary for flow

calibration of the SSV are as follows:

CALIBRATION DATA MEASUREMENT

Parameter Sym Units Tolerance

(i) Barometric pressure (corrected to 32° F) .................................................................................. PB in. Hg (kPa) .. ± .01in. Hg (±

.034kPa)

(ii) Air temperature, into calibration venturi .................................................................................... ETI ° F (° C) ....... ±.5 °F (.28° C)

(iii) Pressure drop between the inlet and throat of calibration venturi (corrected to 68° F). ......... EDP in. H2O (kPA) ± .05 in. H2O

(±.012kPa)

(iv) Air Flow .................................................................................................................................... QS Std ft3/min

(m3/min).

± 5% of NIST ‘‘true’’

value

(v) SSV inlet depression ................................................................................................................ P1 in. H2O (kPa) ± .23 in. H2O

(±.057kPa)

(vi) Pressure drop between the inlet and throat of SSV ............................................................... DP in. H2O (kPa) ±.05 in. H2O

(±.012kPa)

(vii) Water vapor pressure of inlet air ............................................................................................ PV in. Hg (kPa) .. ±.10 in. Hg (±

.34kPa)

(vii) Temperature at SSV inlet ....................................................................................................... T1 °F (°C) .......... ±4.0 °F (2.2° C)

(4) Set up equipment similar to CFV

or PDP calibration except the variable

flow restrictor valve can be deleted or

set in the open position, and the

pressure drop reading device must be

added. The calibration test must be

conducted with the test subsonic

venturi in place in its permanent

position. Any subsequent changes in

upstream or downstream configuration

could cause a shift in calibration. Leaks

between the calibration metering device

and the SSV must be eliminated.

(5) Adjust the variable flow blower or

restrictor valve to its maximum in-use

flow rate. Allow the system to stabilize

and record data from all instruments. Be

sure to avoid choke condition.

(6) Vary the flow through a minimum

of eight steps covering the intended inuse operating range of the SSV.

(7) Data analyses. If the calibration

venturi is used at the tunnel inlet (free

standing), then assume a value of β=0.

If the SSV installed in the CVS tunnel,

use the actual inside tunnel diameter

and the throat diameter to compute β.

(i) Assume an initial value for Cd =

0.98 to calculate Qm for the calculation

of Reynolds number, Re,:

Re . = ∗

∗ ∗

6 667 4 E Q

d

m

π μ

Where: μ = viscosity of air, centipoise

μ = ∗μ ( ) +K T

T

k

K

1 5

110

.

.4

Kμ=1.458E–3

TK=(T1°C+273.16)

(ii) From the initial calibration of the

venturi, establish an equation of Cd as

a function of Re. The following

functional forms should be reviewed,

but a power series, least-squares fit

polynomial equation may result in the

best fit. Many factors involved in the

installation of SSV and the operating

range of the Reynolds number can affect

the functional relationship of the Cd

with Re. Calculate Cd based on this

initial equation of Re. Compute a final

Qm based on this calculated Cd for both

the calibration nozzle and the inline

SSV.

(8)(i) Compute the percent difference

in air flow between the calibration

venturi and the inline SSV. If the

difference in percent of point is greater

than 1%, compute a new Cd and Re for

the in-tunnel venturi as follows:

Cdnew=Actual Air Flow/Theoretical Air

Flow=Qmact /Qmtheo

Re . new

Qmcal

d = ∗ ∗

0 8

π μ

(ii) Qmact is flow measured by the

calibration venturi and Qmtheo is the

theoretical calculated flow based on the

in-tunnel SSV conditions with Cd set

equal to 1. Renew is based on the

calibrated venturi flow, but the intunnel SSV properties. Recalculate a

new curve fit of Cdnew for the inline

venturi as a function of Renew following

the guidelines in paragraph (e)(7) of this

section. Agreement of the fit should be

within 1.0% of point. Install the new Cd

curve fit in the test cell flow computing

device and conduct the propane

injection, flow verification test.

* * * * *

34. A new section 86.1323–2007 is

added to Subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1323–2007 Oxides of nitrogen

analyzer calibration.

This section describes the initial and

periodic calibration of the

chemiluminescent oxides of nitrogen

analyzer.

(a) Prior to introduction into service

and at least monthly thereafter, the

chemiluminescent oxides of nitrogen

analyzer must be checked for NO2 to

NO converter efficiency. The

Administrator may approve less

frequent checks of the converter

efficiency. Figure N84–9 is a reference

for paragraphs (a) (1) through (11) of this

section.

(1) Follow good engineering practices

for instrument start-up and operation.

Adjust the analyzer to optimize

performance.

(2) Zero the oxides of nitrogen

analyzer with zero-grade nitrogen.

(3) Connect the outlet of the NOX

generator to the sample inlet of the

oxides of nitrogen analyzer, which has

been set to the most common operating

range.

(4) Introduce into the NOX generatoranalyzer system an NO-in-nitrogen (N2)

mixture with an NO concentration equal

to approximately 80 percent of the most

common operating range. The NO2

content of the gas mixture shall be less

than 5 percent of the NO concentration.

(5) With the oxides of nitrogen

analyzer in the NO mode, record the

concentration of NO indicated by the

analyzer.

(6) Turn on the NOX generator O2

supply and adjust the O2 flow rate so

that the NO indicated by the analyzer is

about 10 percent less than indicated in

paragraph (a)(5) of this section. Record

the concentration of NO in this NO + O2

mixture.

(7) Switch the NOX generator to the

generation mode and adjust the

generation rate so that the NO measured

by the analyzer is 20 percent of that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5183

measured in paragraph (a)(5) of this

section. There must be at least 10

percent unreacted NO at this point.

Record the concentration of residual

NO.

(8) Switch the oxides of nitrogen

analyzer to the NOX mode and measure

total NOX. Record this value.

(9) Switch off the NOX generator but

maintain gas flow through the system.

The oxides of nitrogen analyzer will

indicate the NOX in the NO + O2

mixture. Record this value.

(10) Turn off the NOX generator O2

supply. The analyzer will now indicate

the NOX in the original NO-in-N2

mixture. This value should be no more

than 5 percent above the value indicated

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

(11) Calculate the efficiency of the

NOX converter by substituting the

concentrations obtained into the

following equation:

Percent efficiency a b

c d

− =+ −

−







 1 100 ×

Where:

a = concentration obtained in paragraph

(a)(8) of this section,

b = concentration obtained in paragraph

(a)(9) of this section,

c = concentration obtained in paragraph

(a)(6) of this section,

d = concentration obtained in paragraph

(a)(7) of this section.

(12) If converter efficiency is not

greater than 90 percent, repair the

analyzer. The repaired analyzer must

achieve a converter efficiency greater

than 90 percent before the analyzer may

be used.

(b) Accuracy. The accuracy at the

minimum limit of the NOX analyzer is

defined in § 86.1338–2007. In general

the analyzer’s minimum limit shall be

the lowest concentration within a given

range, in which it has an accuracy of ±2

percent of point.

(c) Initial and periodic calibration.

Prior to its introduction into service and

monthly thereafter, the

chemiluminescent oxides of nitrogen

analyzer shall be calibrated on all

normally used instrument ranges. Use

the same flow rate as when analyzing

samples. Proceed as follows:

(1) Adjust analyzer to optimize

performance.

(2) Zero the oxides of nitrogen

analyzer with zero-grade nitrogen (N2).

(3) (i) Calibrate all operating ranges

with a minimum of 9 NO-in-N2

calibration gases (e.g., 10, 20, 30, 40, 50,

60, 70, 80, and 90 percent of that range)

and one zero-grade N2 gas. Sound

engineering judgment shall dictate

appropriate spacing and weighting of

the calibration points.

(ii) For each range calibrated, if all

deviations from a least-squares best-fit

straight line are within ±2 percent of the

value at each non-zero data point and

within ±0.3 percent of full scale on the

zero data point, then concentration

values may be calculated using the

linear calibration equation for that

range. If the specified deviations are

exceeded for ranges that have a

minimum limit of 1 ppm or greater, then

the best-fit non-linear equation that

represents the data within these

deviations may be used to determine

concentration values. For ranges that

have a minimum limit less than 1 ppm,

only a linear or second order non-linear

equation that represents the data within

these deviations, may be used to

determine concentration values.

(d) Chemiluminescent NOX analyzer

interference check (i.e., quench check).

Prior to its introduction into service and

at least once per year thereafter, the

quench check described in this section

shall be performed on CLD NOX

analyzers. CO2 and water vapor

interfere with the response of a CLD by

collisional quenching. The combined

quench effect at their highest expected

concentrations shall not exceed 2

percent.

(1) CO2 quench check procedure: (i)

For the procedure described in this

paragraph, variations are acceptable

provided that they produce equivalent

%CO2quench results. Connect a pressureregulated CO2 span gas to one of the

inlets of a three-way valve. Its CO2

concentration should be approximately

twice the maximum CO2 concentration

expected during testing. The valve must

be leak-free, and its wetted parts must

be made of a stainless steel or other

inert material. Connect a pressureregulated zero-grade N2 gas to the other

inlet of the three-way valve. Connect the

single outlet of the valve to the balancegas port of a properly operating gas

divider. Connect a pressure-regulated

NO span gas, which has approximately

twice the typical NO concentration

expected during testing, to the span-port

of the gas divider. Configure the gas

divider such that nearly equal amounts

of the span gas and balance gas are

blended with each other. Viscosity

corrections shall be applied

appropriately to ensure correct mass

flow determinations.

(ii) With the CO2 flowing to the

balance port and the NO flowing to the

span port, measure a stable CO2

concentration from the gas divider’s

outlet with a properly calibrated NDIR

analyzer. Record this concentration in

percent (%); this is ‘‘%CO2’’. This value

will be used in the water vapor quench

check calculations that are detailed in

the following section. After the %CO2

measurement, measure the NO

concentration at the gas divider outlet

with the CLD analyzer in the NO mode.

Record this concentration in ppm; this

is ‘‘NOCO2’’. Then switch the three-way

valve such that 100 percent N2 flows to

the balance port inlet. Monitor the CO2

concentration of the gas divider’s outlet

until its concentration stabilizes at zero.

Then measure the stable NO

concentration from the gas divider’s

outlet. Record this value in ppm; this is

‘‘NON2’’. Calculate %CO2quench as

follows:

%CO2quench = (1.00¥(NOCO2/NON2)) ×

100

(2) Water vapor quench check

procedure:

(i) For all dry CLD analyzers it must

be demonstrated that for the highest

expected water vapor concentration

(i.e., ‘‘%H2Oexp’’ as calculated later in

this section), the water removal

technique maintains CLD humidity at

less than or equal to 5 gwater/kgdry air (or

about 0.008 percent H2O), which is

100% RH at 3.9 °C and 101.3 kPa. This

humidity specification is also

equivalent to about 25% RH at 25 °C

and 101.3 kPa. This may be

demonstrated by measuring the

temperature at the outlet of a thermal

dehumidifier, or by measuring humidity

at a point just upstream of the CLD.

Humidity of the CLD exhaust might also

be measured as long as the only flow

into the CLD is the flow out of the

dehumidifier.

(ii) For all ‘‘wet’’ CLD analyzers the

following water vapor quench check

procedure shall be followed. Measure an

NO span gas, which has 90% to 100%

of the typical NO expected during

testing, using the CLD in the NO mode.

Record this concentration in ppm; this

is ‘‘NOdry’’. Then bubble the same NO

span gas through distilled water in a

sealed vessel at 25 °C ±10 °C. This

temperature specification imposed to

ensure that the H2Ovol calculation (refer

to (iii) of this section) returns an

accurate result. To prevent subsequent

condensation, this temperature must

also be less than any temperature that

the wetted sample will experience

between the sealed vessel’s outlet and

the CLD. Record the vessel’s water

temperature in °C; this is ‘‘Tsat’’. Record

the vessel’s absolute pressure in kPa;

this is ‘‘Psat’’. Measure the wetted span

gas with the CLD, and record this value

in ppm; this is ‘‘NOwet’’.

(iii) Calculations for water quench

must consider dilution of the NO span

gas with water vapor and scaling of the

water vapor concentration to that

expected during testing.

5184 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(A) Calculate the volume fraction of

water vapor in the wetted span gas, as

H2Ovol = (exp(3.69¥(81.28/Tsat)) + 1.61)/

Psat. This calculation approximates some

of the thermodynamic properties of

water based on the ‘‘1995 Formulation

for the Thermodynamic Properties of

Ordinary Water Substance for General

and Scientific Use’’, issued by The

International Association for the

Properties of Water and Steam (IAPWS).

However, this approximation should

only be used as prescribed in this

section because it is an exponential fit

that is accurate for data at 25 °C ±10 °C.

Then, assuming a diesel fuel atomic

hydrogen to carbon ratio of 1.8, and an

intake and dilution air humidity of 75

grains (10.71 gwater/kgdry air or 54.13

percent RH at 25 °C and 101.3 kPa),

(B) Calculate the maximum percent

water vapor expected during testing; as

%H2Oexp = (0.90 × %CO2) + 1.69. %CO2

is the value measured during the %CO2

quench check.

(C) Calculate the expected wet

concentration of NO in ppm; as NOexp

= NOdry × (1.00¥H2Ovol)

(iv) Calculate the percent water vapor

quench as:

%H2Oquench = ((NOexp¥NOwet)/NOexp) ×

(%H2Oexp/H2Ovol)

(3) Add the %CO2quench and the

%H2Oquench values. Their sum may not

exceed the limit set in paragraph (d). If

their sum is greater than this limit, then

the CLD instrument may not be used to

perform testing unless it is repaired. The

analyzer must be shown to pass this

quench check after the repair before it

may be used for testing.

35. Section 86.1330–90 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 86.1330–90 Test sequence; general

requirements.

(a) The test sequence shown in Figure

N90–10 shows the major steps of the

test procedure, as follows:

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5185

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

5186 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

36. Section 86.1334–84 is amended by

revising paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 86.1334–84 Pre-test engine and

dynamometer preparation.

(a) * * * (1) Before the cold soak or

cool down:

(i) Final calibration of the

dynamometer and throttle control

systems may be performed. These

calibrations may consist of steady-state

operations and/or actual practice cycle

runs, and must be completed before

sampling system preconditioning (if

applicable).

(ii) Conduct sampling system

preconditioning for diesel engines

(optional for model years prior to 2007)

by operating the engine at a condition

of rated-speed, 100 percent torque for a

minimum of 20 minutes while

simultaneously operating the CVS and

secondary dilution system and taking

particulate matter emissions samples

from the secondary dilution tunnel .

Particulate sample filters need not be

stabilized or weighed, and may be

discarded. Filter media may be changed

during conditioning as long as the total

sampled time through the filters and

sampling system exceeds 20 minutes.

Flow rates shall be set at the

approximate flow rates selected for

transient testing. Torque shall be

reduced from 100 percent torque while

maintaining the rated speed condition

as necessary to prevent exceeding the

maximum sample zone temperature

specifications of § 86.1310–2007.

(2) Following sampling system

preconditioning cycle, the engine shall

be cooled per § 86.1335–90.

* * * * *

37. A new section 86.1337–2007 is

added to subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1337–2007 Engine dynamometer test

run.

(a) The following steps shall be taken

for each test:

(1) Prepare for the cold-start test.

(i) For gasoline- and methanol-fueled

engines only, evaporative emission

canisters shall be prepared for use in

this testing in accordance with the

procedures specified in § 86.1232–96 (h)

or (j). The size of the canisters used for

testing shall correspond with the largest

canister capacity expected in the range

of vehicle applications for each engine.

(The Administrator may, at his/her

discretion, use a smaller canister

capacity.) Attach the evaporative

emission canister(s) to the engine, using

the canister purge plumbing and

controls employed in vehicle

applications of the engine being tested.

Plug the canister port that is normally

connected to the fuel tank.

(ii) Prepare the engine, dynamometer,

and sampling system.

(iii) Change filters, etc., and leak

check as necessary.

(2) Connect evacuated sample

collection bags to the dilute exhaust and

dilution air sample collection systems if

bag sampling is used.

(3) For methanol-fueled vehicles,

install fresh methanol and

formaldehyde impingers (or cartridges)

in the exhaust and dilution air sample

systems for methanol and

formaldehyde. A single dilution air

sample covering the total test period

may be utilized for methanol and

formaldehyde background. (Background

measurements of methanol and

formaldehyde may be omitted and

concentrations assumed to be zero for

calculations in § 86.1344.)

(4) Attach the CVS to the engine

exhaust system any time prior to

starting the CVS.

(5) Start the CVS (if not already on),

the sample pumps (except for the

particulate sample pump(s), if

applicable), the engine cooling fan(s),

and the data collection system. The heat

exchanger of the constant volume

sampler (if used), and the heated

components of any continuous sampling

system(s) (if applicable) shall be

preheated to their designated operating

temperatures before the test begins. (See

§ 86.1340(e) for continuous sampling

procedures.)

(6) Adjust the sample flow rates to the

desired flow rates and set the CVS gas

flow measuring devices to zero. CFV–

CVS sample flow rate is fixed by the

venturi design.

(7) For engines tested for particulate

emissions, carefully install a clean,

loaded particulate sample filter

cartridge into the filter holder assembly.

It is recommended that this be done

within the filter stabilization

environment, with both ends of the

filter holder assembly plugged during

transport to the emissions test facility.

Install the assembled filter holder into

the sample flow line.

(8) Follow the manufacturer’s

instructions for cold starting.

Simultaneously start the engine and

begin exhaust and dilution air sampling.

For petroleum-fueled diesel engines

(and natural gas-fueled, liquified

petroleum gas-fueled or methanolfueled diesels, if used) Turn on the

hydrocarbon and NOX (and CO and CO2,

if continuous) analyzer system

integrators (if used), and turn on the

particulate sample pumps and indicate

the start of the test on the data

collection medium.

(9) Allow the engine to idle freely

with no-load for 24±1 seconds. This idle

period for automatic transmission

engines may be interpreted as an idle

speed in neutral or park. All other idle

conditions shall be interpreted as an

idle speed in gear. It is permissible to

lug the engine down to curb idle speed

during the last 8 seconds of the free idle

period for the purpose of engaging

dynamometer control loops.

(10) Begin the transient engine cycles

such that the first non-idle record of the

cycle occurs at 25±1 seconds. The free

idle time is included in the 25±1

seconds.

(i) During particulate sampling it must

be demonstrated that the ratio of main

tunnel flow to particulate sample flow

does not change by more than ±5.0

percent of its set point value (except for

the first 10 seconds of sampling). For

double dilution operation, sample flow

is the net difference between the flow

rate through the sample filters and the

secondary dilution air flow rate.

(ii) Record flow. If the set flow rate

cannot be maintained because of high

particulate loading on the filter, the test

shall be terminated. The test shall be

rerun using a lower sample flow rate or

greater dilution.

(11) Begin the transient engine cycles

such that the first non-idle record of the

cycle occurs at 25±1 seconds. The free

idle time is included in the 25±1

seconds.

(12) On the last record of the cycle,

cease sampling. Immediately turn the

engine off and start a hot-soak timer.

Also turn off the particulate sample

pumps, the gas flow measuring device(s)

and any continuous analyzer system

integrator and indicate the end of the

test on the data collection medium.

Sampling systems should continue to

sample after the end of the test cycle

until system response times have

elapsed.

(13) Immediately after the engine is

turned off, turn off the engine cooling

fan(s) if used. As soon as possible,

transfer the ‘‘cold start cycle’’ exhaust

and dilution air bag samples to the

analytical system and process the

samples according to § 86.1340. A

stabilized reading of the exhaust sample

on all analyzers shall be obtained within

20 minutes of the end of the sample

collection phase of the test. Analysis of

the methanol and formaldehyde

samples shall be obtained within 24

hours of the end of the sample

collection period. For particulate

measurements, carefully remove the

filter holder from the sample flow

apparatus

(14) Allow the engine to soak for 20±1

minutes.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5187

(15) Prepare the engine and

dynamometer for the hot start test.

(16) Connect evacuated sample

collection bags to the dilute exhaust and

dilution air sample collection systems.

(17) Install fresh methanol and

formaldehyde impingers (or capsules) in

the exhaust and dilution air sample

systems for methanol and

formaldehyde.

(18) Start the sample pumps (except

the particulate sample pump(s), if

applicable), the engine cooling fan(s)

and the data collection system. The heat

exchanger of the constant volume

sampler (if used) and the heated

components of any continuous sampling

system(s) (if applicable) shall be

preheated to their designated operating

temperatures before the test begins. See

§ 86.1340(e) for continuous sampling

procedures.

(19) Adjust the sample flow rates to

the desired flow rate and set the CVS

gas flow measuring devices to zero.

(20) For diesel engines tested for

particulate, carefully install a clean,

loaded particulate sample filter

cartridge in the filter holder assembly

and install the filter holder assembly in

the sample flow line.

(21) Follow the manufacturer’s choke

and throttle instruction for hot starting.

Simultaneously start the engine and

begin exhaust and dilution air sampling.

For diesel engines, turn on the

hydrocarbon and NOX (and CO and

CO2, if continuous) analyzer system

integrator (if used), indicate the start of

the test on the data collection medium,

and turn on the particulate sample

pump(s).

(22) [Reserved]

(23) Allow the engine to idle freely

with no-load for 24±1 seconds. The

provisions and interpretations of

paragraph (a)(9) of this section apply.

(24) Begin the transient-engine cycle

such that the first non-idle record of the

cycle occurs at 25±1 seconds. The free

idle is included in the 25±1 seconds.

(25) On the last record of the cycle,

allow sampling system response times

to elapse and cease sampling. Turn off

the particulate sample pump(s) (if

appropriate), the gas flow measuring

device(s) and any continuous analyzer

system integrator and indicate the end

of the test on the data collection

medium.

(26) As soon as possible, transfer the

‘‘hot start cycle’’ exhaust and dilution

air bag samples to the analytical system

and process the samples according to

§ 86.1340. A stabilized reading of the

exhaust sample on all analyzers shall be

obtained within 20 minutes of the end

of the sample collection phase of the

test. Analyze the methanol and

formaldehyde samples within 24 hours.

(If it is not possible to perform analysis

within 24 hours, the samples should be

stored in a cold (approximately 0 deg.C)

dark environment until analysis can be

performed). For particulate

measurements, carefully remove the

filter holder assembly. It is

recommended that the filter cartridge be

transferred to and from the filter

stabilization environment within the

filter holder assembly with both ends

plugged, and that the cartridge be

removed from the filter holder assembly

within the stabilization environment.

Transfer the particulate filter to the

stabilization environment for post-test

stabilization. Filters may be stabilized in

the petri dishes while still within the

filter cartridges, or the cartridge tops

may be removed for stabilization, or the

filters may be entirely removed from the

filter cartridges and stabilized in the

petri dishes alone. Removal of the filters

from the filter cartridges shall only take

place within the stabilization

environment.

(27) The CVS and the engine may be

turned off, if desired.

(b) The procedure in paragraph (a) of

this section is designed for one sample

bag for the cold start portion and one for

the hot start portion.

(c) If a dynamometer test run is

determined to be void, corrective action

may be taken. The engine may then be

allowed to cool (naturally or forced) and

the dynamometer test rerun.

38. A new section 86.1338–2007 is

added to Subpart N to read as follows:

§ 86.1338–2007 Emission measurement

accuracy.

(a) Minimum limit. (1) The minimum

limit of an analyzer must be equal to or

less than one-half of the average diluted

concentration for an engine emitting the

maximum amount of the applicable

pollutant allowed by the applicable

standard. For example, if with a given

dilution and sampling system, an engine

emitting NOX at the level of the

standard (e.g., 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOX)

would result in an average NOX

concentration of 1.0 ppm in the diluted

sample, then the minimum limit for the

NOX analyzer must be less than or equal

to 0.5 ppm.

(2) For the purpose of this section,

‘‘minimum limit’’ means the lowest of

the following levels:

(i) The lowest NOX concentration in

the calibration curve for which an

accuracy of ±2 percent of point has been

demonstrated as specified in paragraph

(a)(3) of this section; or

(ii) Any NOX concentration for which

the test facility has demonstrated

sufficient accuracy to the

Administrator’s satisfaction prior to the

start of testing, such that it will allow a

meaningful determination of

compliance with respect to the

applicable standard.

(3) For determination of the analyzer’s

minimum limit, a NOX concentration

that is less than or equal to one-half of

the average NOX concentration

determined in paragraph (a)(1) of this

section shall be measured by the oxides

of nitrogen analyzer following the

analyzer’s monthly periodic calibration.

This measurement must be made to

ensure the accuracy of the calibration

curve to within ±2 percent of point

accuracy of the appropriate leastsquares fit, at less than or equal to one

half of the average expected diluted

NOX concentration determined in

paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

(b) Measurement accuracy—Bag

sampling. Analyzers used for bag

analysis must be operated such that the

measured concentration falls between

15 and 100 percent of full scale, with

the following exception: concentrations

below 15 percent of full scale may be

used if the minimum limit of the

analyzer within the range meets the

requirement of paragraph (a) of this

section.

(c) Measurement accuracy—

Continuous measurement. (1) Analyzers

used for continuous analysis must be

operated such that the measured

concentration falls between 15 and 100

percent of full scale, with the following

exceptions:

(i) Concentrations below 15 percent of

full scale may be used if the minimum

limit of the analyzer within the range

meets the requirement of paragraph (a)

of this section.

(ii) Analyzer response over 100% of

full scale may be used if it can be shown

that readings in this range are accurate.

(2) If the analyzer response exceeds

the level allowed by paragraph (c)(1)(ii)

of this section, the test must be repeated

using a higher range and both results

must be reported. The Administrator

may waive this requirement.

(d) If a gas divider is used, the gas

divider shall conform to the accuracy

requirements specified in § 86.1314–

84(g), and shall be used according to the

procedures contained in paragraphs (a)

and (b) of this section.

39. Section 86.1339–90 is amended by

adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 86.1339–90 Particulate filter handling

and weighing.

* * * * *

(h) This section does not apply for

tests conducted according to the

provisions of § 86.1312–2007.

5188 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

40. Section 86.1360–2007 is amended

by revising the section heading, adding

introductory text, and revising

paragraphs (b), (e)(2), (e)(3), and

(e)(6)(ii), to read as follows:

§ 86.1360–2007 Supplemental emission

test; test cycle and procedures.

The test procedures of this subpart N

apply for supplemental emission

testing, except as specified otherwise in

this section.

* * * * *

(b) Test cycle. (1)(i) The following 13-

mode cycle must be followed in

dynamometer operation on the test

engine:

Mode number Engine speed Percent load Weighting

factor

Mode length

(minutes)

1 ....................................................................................................................... Idle ........................ 0.15 4

2 ....................................................................................................................... A 100 0.08 2

3 ....................................................................................................................... B 50 0.10 2

4 ....................................................................................................................... B 75 0.10 2

5 ....................................................................................................................... A 50 0.05 2

6 ....................................................................................................................... A 75 0.05 2

7 ....................................................................................................................... A 25 0.05 2

8 ....................................................................................................................... B 100 0.09 2

9 ....................................................................................................................... B 25 0.10 2

10 ..................................................................................................................... C 100 0.08 2

11 ..................................................................................................................... C 25 0.05 2

12 ..................................................................................................................... C 75 0.05 2

13 ..................................................................................................................... C 50 0.05 2

(ii) Upon Administrator approval, the

manufacturer may use mode lengths

other than those listed in paragraph

(b)(1)(i) of this section.

(2) In addition to the 13 test points

identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section, for engines not certified to a

NOX standard or FEL less than1.5 g/

bhp-hr, EPA may select, and require the

manufacturer to conduct the test using,

up to 3 additional test points within the

control area (as defined in paragraph (d)

of this section). EPA will notify the

manufacturer of these supplemental test

points in writing in a timely manner

before the test. Emissions sampling for

the additional test modes must include

all regulated gaseous pollutants.

Particulate matter does not need to be

measured.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) Test sequence. The test must be

performed in the order of the mode

numbers in paragraph (b)(1) of this

section. Where applicable, the EPAselected test points identified under

paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be

performed immediately upon

completion of mode 13. The engine

must be operated for the prescribed time

in each mode, completing engine speed

and load changes in the first 20 seconds

of each mode. The specified speed must

be held to within ±50 rpm and the

specified torque must be held to within

plus or minus two percent of the

maximum torque at the test speed.

(3) Particulate sampling. One filter

shall be used for sampling PM over the

13-mode test procedure. The modal

weighting factors specified in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section shall be taken into

account by taking a sample proportional

to the exhaust mass flow during each

individual mode of the cycle. This can

be achieved by adjusting sample flow

rate, sampling time, and/or dilution

ratio, accordingly, so that the criterion

for the effective weighting factors is met.

The sampling time per mode must be at

least 4 seconds per 0.01 weighting

factor. Sampling must be conducted as

late as possible within each mode.

Particulate sampling shall be completed

no earlier than 5 seconds before the end

of each mode.

* * * * *

(6) * * *

(ii) For PM measurements, a single

filter must be used to measure PM over

the 13 modes. The brake-specific PM

emission level for the test must be

calculated as described for a transient

hot start test in § 86.1343. Only the

power measured during the sampling

period shall be used in the calculation.

* * * * *

41. Section 86.1370–2007 is amended

by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(6) and (d),

removing and reserving paragraph

(b)(5), and adding paragraphs (b)(7) and

(g) to read as follows:

§ 86.1370–2007 Not-To-Exceed test

procedures.

(a) General. The purpose of this test

procedure is to measure in-use

emissions of heavy-duty diesel engines

while operating within a broad range of

speed and load points (the Not-ToExceed Control Area) and under

conditions which can reasonably be

expected to be encountered in normal

vehicle operation and use. Emission

results from this test procedure are to be

compared to the Not-To-Exceed Limits

specified in § 86.007–11 (a)(4), or to

later Not-To-Exceed limits. The Not-ToExceed Limits do not apply for engine

starting conditions.

(b) * * *

(5) [Reserved]

(6)(i) For petroleum-fueled diesel

cycle engines, the manufacturer may

identify particular engine-vehicle

combinations and may petition the

Administrator at certification to exclude

operating points from the Not-to-Exceed

Control Area defined in § 86.1370(b)(1)

through (5) if the manufacturer can

demonstrate that the engine is not

capable of operating at such points

when used in the specified enginevehicle combination(s).

(ii) For diesel cycle engines that are

not petroleum-fueled, the manufacturer

may petition the Administrator at

certification to exclude operating points

from the Not-to-Exceed Control Area

defined in § 86.1370(b)(1) through (5) if

the manufacturer can demonstrate that

the engine is not expected to operate at

such points in normal vehicle operation

and use.

(7) Manufacturers may petition the

Administrator to limit NTE testing in a

single defined region of speeds and

loads. Such a defined region must

generally be of elliptical or rectangular

shape, and must share some portion of

its boundary with the outside limits of

the NTE zone. Under this provision

testing would not be allowed with

sampling periods in which operation

within that region constitutes more than

5.0 percent of the time-weighted

operation within the sampling period.

Approval of this limit by the

Administrator is contingent on the

manufacturer satisfactorily

demonstrating that operation at the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5189

speeds and loads within that region

accounts for less than 5.0 percent of all

in-use operation (weighted by vehiclemiles-traveled or other EPA-approved

weightings) for the in-use engines of

that configuration (or sufficiently

similar engines). At a minimum, this

demonstration must include operational

data from representative in-use vehicles.

* * * * *

(d) Not-to-exceed control area limits.

(1) When operated within the Not-ToExceed Control Area defined in

paragraph (b) of this section, diesel

engine emissions shall not exceed the

applicable Not-To-Exceed Limits

specified in § 86.007–11(a)(4) when

averaged over any period of time greater

than or equal to 30 seconds, except

where a longer averaging period is

required by paragraph (d)(2) of this

section.

(2) For engines equipped with

emission controls that include discrete

regeneration events, if a regeneration

event occurs during the NTE test, then

the averaging period must be at least as

long as the time between the events

multiplied by the number of full

regeneration events within the sampling

period. The requirement in this

paragraph (d)(2) only applies for engines

that send an electronic signal indicating

the start of the regeneration event.

* * * * *

(g) NOX and NMHC aftertreatment

warm-up. For engines equipped with

one or more aftertreatment devices that

reduce NOX or NMHC emissions, the

NTE NOX and NMHC emission limits do

not apply when the exhaust gas

temperature is measured within 12

inches of the outlet of the aftertreatment

device and is less the 250°C. For multibed systems, it is the temperature at the

outlet of the device with the maximum

flow rate that determines whether the

NTE limits apply.

42. § 86.1803–01 is amended by

adding a definition of ‘‘U.S. heavy-duty

vehicle sales’’ in alphabetical order to

read as follows:

§ 86.1803–01 Definitions.

* * * * *

U.S. heavy-duty vehicle sales means

sales of heavy-duty vehicles subject to

the standards of this subpart, where the

sale takes place in any state of the

United States except for California (or a

state that has adopted California motor

vehicle standards for that model year

pursuant to section 177 of the Clean Air

Act).

* * * * *

43. § 86.1806–05 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) introductory

text, (b)(1), and (l) to read as follows:

§ 86.1806–05 On-board diagnostics.

* * * * *

(b) Malfunction descriptions. The

OBD system must detect and identify

malfunctions in all monitored emissionrelated powertrain systems or

components according to the following

malfunction definitions as measured

and calculated in accordance with test

procedures set forth in subpart B of this

part (chassis-based test procedures),

excluding those test procedures defined

as ‘‘Supplemental’’ test procedures in

§ 86.004–2 and codified in §§ 86.158,

86.159, and 86.160.

(1) Catalysts and particulate traps. (i)

Otto-cycle. Catalyst deterioration or

malfunction before it results in an

increase in NMHC emissions 1.5 times

the NMHC standard or FEL, as

compared to the NMHC emission level

measured using a representative 4000

mile catalyst system.

(ii) Diesel. (A) If equipped, catalyst

deterioration or malfunction before it

results in exhaust emissions exceeding

1.5 times the applicable standard or FEL

for NOX or PM. This requirement

applies only to reduction catalysts;

monitoring of oxidation catalysts is not

required. This monitoring need not be

done if the manufacturer can

demonstrate that deterioration or

malfunction of the system will not

result in exceedance of the threshold.

(B) If equipped with a particulate trap,

catastrophic failure of the device must

be detected. Any particulate trap whose

complete failure results in exhaust

emissions exceeding 1.5 times the

applicable standard or FEL for NOX or

PM must be monitored for such

catastrophic failure. This monitoring

need not be done if the manufacturer

can demonstrate that a catastrophic

failure of the system will not result in

exceedance of the threshold.

* * * * *

(l) Phase-in for complete heavy-duty

vehicles. Complete heavy-duty vehicles

weighing 14,000 pounds GVWR or less

that are not Otto-cycle MDPVs must

meet the OBD requirements of this

section according to the following

phase-in schedule, based on the

percentage of projected vehicle sales.

The 2004 model year requirements in

the following phase-in schedule are

applicable only to heavy-duty Ottocycle vehicles where the manufacturer

has selected Otto-cycle Option 1 or 2 for

alternative 2003 or 2004 compliance

according to § 86.004–01(c)(1) or (2).

The 2005 through 2007 requirements in

the following phase-in schedule apply

to all heavy-duty vehicles weighing

14,000 pounds GVWR or less, excluding

MDPVs. If the manufacturer has selected

Otto-cycle Option 3 it may exempt 2005

model year complete heavy-duty

engines and vehicles whose model year

commences before July 31, 2004 from

the requirements of this section. For the

purposes of calculating compliance with

the phase-in provisions of this

paragraph (l), heavy-duty vehicles

subject to the phase-in requirements of

this section may be combined with

heavy-duty vehicles subject to the

phase-in requirements of paragraph

§ 86.005–17 (k). The phase-in schedule

follows:

OBD COMPLIANCE PHASE-IN FOR

COMPLETE HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES

WEIGHING 14,000 POUNDS GVWR

OR LESS

Model

year Phase-in based on projected sales

2004

MY

Applicable only to Otto-cycle engines complying with Options 1

or 2; 40% compliance; alternative

fuel waivers available.

2005

MY

60% compliance; alternative fuel

waivers available.

2006

MY

80% compliance; alternative fuel

waivers available.

2007

MY

80% compliance; alternative fuel

waivers available.

2008+

MY

100% compliance.

44. A new § 86.1807–07 is added to

subpart S to read as follows:

5190 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§ 86.1807–07 Vehicle labeling.

Section 86.1807–07 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

those specified in § 86.1807–01. Where

a paragraph in § 86.1807–01 is identical

and applicable to § 86.1807–07, this

may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1807–01.’’.

(a) through (g) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1807–01.

(h) Model year 2007 and later dieselfueled Tier 2 vehicles (certified using a

test fuel with 15 ppm sulfur or less),

must include permanent readily visible

labels on the dashboard (or instrument

panel) and near all fuel inlets that state

‘‘Use Low-sulfur Diesel Fuel Only’’ or

‘‘Low-sulfur Diesel Fuel Only’’.

45. A new § 86.1808–07 is added to

subpart S to read as follows:

§ 86.1808–07 Maintenance instructions.

Section 86.1808–07 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

those specified in § 86.1808–01. Where

a paragraph in § 86.1808–01 is identical

and applicable to § 86.1808–07, this

may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1808–01.’’.

(a) through (f) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1808–01.

(g) For each new diesel-fueled Tier 2

vehicle (certified using a test fuel with

15 ppm sulfur or less), the manufacturer

shall furnish or cause to be furnished to

the purchaser a statement that ‘‘This

vehicle must be operated only with low

sulfur diesel fuel (that is., diesel fuel

meeting EPA specifications for highway

diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur

cap).’’.

46. Section 86.1810–01 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 86.1810–01 General standards; increase

in emissions; unsafe conditions; waivers.

This section applies to model year

2001 and later light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks fueled by gasoline,

diesel, methanol, natural gas and

liquefied petroleum gas fuels. This

section also applies to MDPVs and

complete heavy-duty vehicles certified

according to the provisions of this

subpart. Multi-fueled vehicles

(including dual-fueled and flexiblefueled vehicles) shall comply with all

requirements established for each

consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in the

case of flexible fueled vehicles). The

standards of this subpart apply to both

certification and in-use vehicles unless

otherwise indicated. For Tier 2 and

interim non-Tier 2 vehicles, this section

also applies to hybrid electric vehicles

and zero emission vehicles. Unless

otherwise specified, requirements and

provisions of this subpart applicable to

methanol fueled vehicles are also

applicable to Tier 2 and interim nonTier 2 ethanol fueled vehicles.

* * * * *

47. Section 86.1816–05 is amended by

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 86.1816–05 Emission standards for

complete heavy-duty vehicles.

* * * * *

(g) Idle exhaust emission standards,

complete heavy-duty vehicles. Exhaust

emissions of carbon monoxide from

2005 and later model year gasoline,

methanol, natural gas-and liquefied

petroleum gas-fueled complete heavyduty vehicles shall not exceed 0.50

percent of exhaust gas flow at curb idle

for a useful life of 11 years or 120,000

miles, whichever occurs first. This does

not apply for vehicles certified to the

requirements of § 86.1806–05

* * * * *

48. A new § 86.1816–08 is added to

subpart S, to read as follows:

§ 86.1816–08 Emission standards for

complete heavy-duty vehicles.

Section 86.1816–08 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

those specified in § 86.1816–05. Where

a paragraph in § 86.1816–05 is identical

and applicable to § 86.1816–08, this

may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1816–05.’’. This section applies to

2008 and later model year complete

heavy-duty vehicles (excluding MDPVs)

fueled by gasoline, methanol, natural

gas and liquefied petroleum gas fuels

except as noted. Multi-fueled vehicles

shall comply with all requirements

established for each consumed fuel. For

methanol fueled vehicles, references in

this section to hydrocarbons or total

hydrocarbons shall mean total

hydrocarbon equivalents and references

to non-methane hydrocarbons shall

mean non-methane hydrocarbon

equivalents.

(a) Exhaust emission standards. (1)

Exhaust emissions from 2008 and later

model year complete heavy-duty

vehicles at and above 8,500 pounds

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating but equal

to or less than 10,000 Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating pounds shall not exceed

the following standards at full useful

life:

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Non-methane hydrocarbons. (A)

0.195 grams per mile; this requirement

may be satisfied by measurement of

non-methane organic gas or total

hydrocarbons, at the manufacturer’s

option. For alcohol-fueled vehicles, this

standard is 0.195 grams per mile

NMHCE.

(B) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its test groups in

the NMHC emissions ABT programs for

heavy-duty vehicles, within the

restrictions described in § 86.1817–05.

or § 86.1817–08. If the manufacturer

elects to include test groups in any of

these programs, the NMHC FEL may not

exceed 0.28 grams per mile. This ceiling

value applies whether credits for the

family are derived from averaging,

banking, or trading.

(iii) Carbon monoxide. 7.3 grams per

mile.

(iv) Oxides of nitrogen. (A)0.2 grams

per mile.

(B) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its test groups in

the NOX emissions ABT programs for

heavy-duty vehicles, within the

restrictions described in § 86.1817–05 or

§ 86.1817–08. If the manufacturer elects

to include test groups in any of these

programs, the NOX FEL may not exceed

0.9 grams per mile. This ceiling value

applies whether credits for the family

are derived from averaging, banking, or

trading.

(v) Particulate. 0.02 grams per mile.

(vi) Formaldehyde. 0.032 grams per

mile.

(2) Exhaust emissions from 2008 and

later model year complete heavy-duty

vehicles above 10,000 pounds Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating but less than

14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight

Rating shall not exceed the following

standards at full useful life:

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Non-methane hydrocarbons. (A)

0.230 grams per mile; this requirement

may be satisfied by measurement of

non-methane organic gas or total

hydrocarbons, at the manufacturer’s

option. For alcohol-fueled vehicles, this

standard is 0.230 grams per mile

NMHCE.

(B) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its test groups in

the NMHC emissions ABT programs for

heavy-duty vehicles, within the

restrictions described in § 86.1817–05.

or § 86.1817–08. If the manufacturer

elects to include test groups in any of

these programs, the NMHC FEL may not

exceed 0.33 grams per mile. This ceiling

value applies whether credits for the

family are derived from averaging,

banking, or trading.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5191

(iii) Carbon monoxide. 8.1 grams per

mile.

(iv) Oxides of nitrogen. (A)0.4 grams

per mile.

(B) A manufacturer may elect to

include any or all of its test groups in

the NOX emissions ABT programs for

heavy-duty vehicles, within the

restrictions described in § 86.1817–05.

or § 86.1817–08. If the manufacturer

elects to include test groups in any of

these programs, the NOX FEL may not

exceed 1.0 grams per mile. This ceiling

value applies whether credits for the

family are derived from averaging,

banking, or trading.

(v) Particulate. 0.02 grams per mile.

(vi) Formaldehyde. 0.040 grams per

mile.

(b) [Reserved]

(c) [Reserved]

(d) Evaporative emissions.

Evaporative hydrocarbon emissions

from gasoline-fueled, natural gas-fueled,

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled, and

methanol-fueled complete heavy-duty

vehicles 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.

(1) For the full three-diurnal test

sequence, diurnal plus hot soak

measurements: 1.4 grams per test.

(2) Gasoline and methanol fuel only.

For the supplemental two-diurnal test

sequence, diurnal plus hot soak

measurements: 1.75 grams per test.

(3) Gasoline and methanol fuel only.

Running loss test: 0.05 grams per mile.

(4) Gasoline and methanol fuel only.

Fuel dispensing spitback test: 1.0 grams

per test.

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

guidance see § 86.1816–05.

(i) Phase-in options. (1)(i) For model

year 2008, manufacturers may certify

some of their test groups to the

standards applicable to model year 2008

vehicles under § 86.1816–05, in lieu of

the exhaust standards specified in this

section. These vehicles must comply

with all other requirements applicable

to model year 2007 vehicles. The

combined number of vehicles in the test

groups certified to the 2008 standards

may not exceed 50 percent of the

manufacturer’s U.S. heavy-duty vehicle

sales of complete heavy-duty Otto-cycle

motor vehicles for model year 2008,

except as explicitly allowed by

paragraph (i)(2) of this section.

(ii) For model year 2008,

manufacturers may certify some of their

test groups to the evaporative standards

applicable to model year 2007 engines

under § 86.1816–05, in lieu of the

evaporative standards specified in this

section. These vehicles must comply

with all other requirements applicable

to model year 2008 vehicles, except as

allowed by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this

section. The combined number of

vehicles in the test groups certified to

the 2007 standards may not exceed 50

percent of the manufacturer’s U.S.

heavy-duty vehicle sales of complete

heavy-duty Otto-cycle motor vehicles

for model year 2008.

(2)(i) Manufacturers certifying

vehicles to all of the applicable

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section prior to model year 2008

(without using credits) may reduce the

number of vehicles that are required to

meet the standards listed in paragraph

(a) of this section in model year 2008

and/or 2009, taking into account the

phase-in option provided in paragraph

(i)(1) of this section. For every vehicle

that is certified early, the manufacturer

may reduce the number of vehicles that

are required by paragraph (i)(1) of this

section to meet the standards listed in

paragraph (a) of this section by one

vehicle. For example, if a manufacturer

produces 100 heavy-duty Otto-cycle

vehicles in 2007 that meet all of the

applicable the standards listed in

paragraph (a) of this section, and it

produced 10,000 heavy-duty Otto-cycle

vehicles in 2009, then only 9,900 of the

vehicles would need to comply with the

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section.

(ii) Manufacturers certifying vehicles

to all of the applicable evaporative

standards listed in paragraph (d) of this

section prior to model year 2008 may

reduce the number of vehicles that are

required to meet the standards listed in

paragraph (d) of this section in model

year 2008 and/or 2009, taking into

account the phase-in option provided in

paragraph (i)(1) of this section. For

every vehicle that is certified early, the

manufacturer may reduce the number of

vehicles that are required by paragraph

(i)(1) of this section to meet the

evaporative standards listed in

paragraph (d) of this section by one

vehicle.

(3) Manufacturers certifying vehicles

to all of the applicable standards listed

in paragraph (i)(3)(i) or (ii) of this

section (without using credits) and the

evaporative standards listed in

paragraph (d) of this section prior to

model year 2008 may reduce the

number of vehicles that are required to

meet the standards listed in paragraph

(a) of this section in model year 2008

and/or 2009, taking into account the

phase-in option provided in paragraph

(i)(1)(i) of this section. For every such

vehicle that is certified early with

sufficiently low emissions, the

manufacturer may reduce the number of

vehicles that are required by paragraph

(i)(1)(i) of this section to meet the

standards listed in paragraph (a) of this

section by two vehicles. The applicable

standards are:

(i) For complete heavy-duty vehicles

at and above 8,500 pounds Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating but equal to or

less than 10,000 Gross Vehicle Weight

Rating: 0.100 g/mile NMHC, 0.10 g/mile

NOX, 3.2 g/mile CO, 0.008 g/mile

formaldehyde, and 0.02 g/mile PM.

(ii) For complete heavy-duty vehicles

at or above 10,000 pounds Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating but equal to or less than

14,000 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating:

0.117 g/mile NMHC, 0.20 g/mile NOX,

3.7 g/mile CO, 0.010 g/mile

formaldehyde, and 0.02 g/mile PM.

(j) (1) For model years prior to 2012,

for purposes of determining compliance

after title or custody has transferred to

the ultimate purchaser, for vehicles

meeting the applicable emission

standards of this section, the applicable

compliance limits shall be determined

by adding the applicable adjustment

from paragraph (j)(2) of this section to

the otherwise applicable standard or

FEL.

5192 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(2) The in-use adjustments are:

(i) 0.1 g/bhp-hr for NOX.

(ii) 0.100 g/bhp-hr NMHC.

(iii) 0.01 g/bhp-hr for PM.

49. A new § 86.1817–08 is added to

Subpart S to read as follows:

§ 86.1817–08 Complete heavy-duty vehicle

averaging, trading, and banking program.

Section 86.1817–08 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

§ 86.1817–05. Where a paragraph in

§ 86.1817–05 is identical and applicable

to § 86.1817–08, this may be indicated

by specifying the corresponding

paragraph and the statement

‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1817–05.’’

(a) through (o) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1817–05.

(p) The following provisions apply for

model year 2008 and later engines.

These provisions apply instead of the

provisions of paragraphs § 86.1817–05

(a) through (o) to the extent that they are

in conflict.

(1) Manufacturers of Otto-cycle

vehicles may participate in an NMHC

averaging, banking and trading program

to show compliance with the standards

specified in § 86.1806–08. The

generation and use of NMHC credits are

subject to the same provisions in

paragraphs § 86.1817–05 (a) through (o)

that apply for NOX credits, except as

otherwise specified in this section.

(2) NOX or NMHC (or NOX plus

NMHC) credits may be exchanged

between heavy-duty Otto-cycle test

groups certified to the engine standards

of subpart A of this part and heavy-duty

Otto-cycle test groups certified to the

chassis standards of this subpart, subject

to an 0.8 discount factor (e.g., 100 grams

of NOX credits generated from vehicles

would be equivalent to 80 grams of NOX

credits if they are used in the engine

program of subpart A of this part, and

vice versa). Credits that were previously

discounted when they were banked

according to § 86.1817–05(c), are subject

to an additional discount factor of 0.888

instead of the 0.8 discount factor

otherwise required by this paragraph

(p)(2). This results in a total discount of

0.8 (0.9 × 0.888 = 0.8).

(3) Credits are to be rounded to the

nearest one-hundredth of a Megagram.

(4) To calculate credits relative to the

NOX standards listed in § 86.1816–08

(a)(1)(iv)(A) or (a)(2)(iv)(A) (0.2 or 0.4

grams per mile, respectively) express

the standard and FEL to the nearest onehundredth of a gram per mile prior to

calculating the credits. Thus, either 0.20

or 0.40 should be used as the value for

‘‘Std’’.

(5) Credits generated for 2008 and

later model year test groups are not

discounted (except as specified in

§ 86.1817–05(c) and paragraph (p)(2) of

this section), and do not expire.

(6) For the purpose of using or

generating credits during a phase-in of

new standards, a manufacturer may

elect to split an test group into two

subgroups: one which uses credits and

one which generates credits. The

manufacturer must indicate in the

application for certification that the test

group is to be split, and may assign the

numbers and configurations of vehicles

within the respective subfamilies at any

time prior to the submission of the endof-year report described in § 86.1817–05

(i)(3). Manufacturers certifying a split

test group may label all of the vehicles

within that test group with the same

FELs: either with a NOX FEL and an

NMHC FEL, or with a single

NOX+NMHC FEL. The FEL(s) on the

label will apply for all SEA or other

compliance testing.

(7) Vehicles meeting all of the

applicable standards of § 86.1816–08

prior to model year 2008 may generate

NMHC credits for use by 2008 or later

test groups. Credits are calculated

according to § 86.1817–05(c), except

that the applicable FEL cap listed in

§ 86.1816–08(a)(1)(ii)(B) or (2)(ii)(B)

applies instead of ‘‘Std’’ (the applicable

standard).

50. A new § 86.1824–07 is added to

subpart S, to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 5193

§ 86.1824–07 Durability demonstration

procedures for evaporative emissions.

§ 86.1824–07 includes text that

specifies requirements that differ from

those specified in § 86.1824–01. Where

a paragraph in § 86.1824–01 is identical

and applicable to § 86.1824–07, this

may be indicated by specifying the

corresponding paragraph and the

statement ‘‘[Reserved]. For guidance see

§ 86.1824–01.’’. This section applies to

gasoline-, methanol-, natural gas- and

liquefied petroleum gas-fueled LDV/Ts,

MDPVs, and HDVs.

(a) through (f) [Reserved]. For

guidance see § 86.1824–01.

51. § 86.1829–01 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) and

adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(F) to read as

follows:

§ 86.1829–01 Durability and emission

testing requirements; waivers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii)* * *

(B) In lieu of testing an Otto-cycle

light-duty vehicle, light-duty truck, or

heavy-duty vehicle for particulate

emissions for certification, a

manufacturer may provide a statement

in its application for certification that

such vehicles comply with the

applicable standards. Such a statement

must be based on previous emission

tests, development tests, or other

appropriate information.

* * * * *

(F) In lieu of testing a petroleumfueled heavy-duty vehicle for

formaldehyde emissions for

certification, a manufacturer may

provide a statement in its application

for certification that such vehicles

comply with the applicable standards.

Such a statement must be based on

previous emission tests, development

tests, or other appropriate information.

* * * * *

52. A new § 86.1863–07 is added to

subpart S, to read as follows:

§ 86.1863–07 Optional chassis certification

for diesel vehicles.

(a) A manufacturer may optionally

certify heavy-duty diesel vehicles under

14,000 pounds GVWR to the standards

specified in § 86.1816–08. Such vehicles

must meet all requirements of Subpart

S that are applicable to Otto-cycle

vehicles, except for evaporative,

refueling, and OBD requirements.

(b) Diesel vehicles optionally certified

under this section are subject to the

OBD requirements of § 86.005–17.

(c) Diesel vehicles optionally certified

under this section may be tested using

the test fuels, sampling systems, or

analytical systems specified for diesel

engines in Subpart N of this part.

(d) Diesel vehicles optionally certified

under this section may not be included

in any averaging, banking, or trading

program.

(e) The provisions of § 86.004–40

apply to the engines in vehicles certified

under this section.

(f) Diesel vehicles may be certified

under this section to the standards

applicable to model year 2008 prior to

model year 2008.

(g) Diesel vehicles optionally certified

under this section in model years 2007,

2008, or 2009 shall be included in

phase-in calculations specified in

§ 86.007–11(g).

[FR Doc. 01–2 Filed 1–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P