******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 1 of 842 **EO12866_Ti er_3_2060**  **- AQ86_NPRM_FRN_20121130**  **.doc ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Parts 80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066 [EPA** 

**– HQ** 

**– OAR** 

**– 2011** 

**– 0135; FRL_XXXX**  **- X]**  **RIN 2060 -**  **AQ86 Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emi**  **ssion and Fuel Standards**  **AGENCY** : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION** : Proposed Rule. **SUMMARY** : This action would establish more stringent vehicle emissions standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a systems approach to addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control sy stems more effective for both existing and new vehicles, and would enable more stringent vehicle emissions standards. The proposed vehicle standards would reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light
- dut y trucks, medium
- duty passenger vehicles, and some heav y - dut y vehicles. This would result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics across the country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain and maintain health
- based National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Motor vehicles are an important source o f exposure to air pollution both regionally

and near roads. These proposed vehicle standards are intended to harmonize with California’s Low Emission Vehicle program, thus creating a federal vehicle emissions program that would allow automakers to sell th e same vehicles in all 50 states. The proposed vehicle standards would be implemented over the same timeframe as the greenhouse gas/fuel efficiency standards for light
- duty

vehicles, as part of a comprehensive approach toward regulating emissions from mot or vehicles. **DATES** : Comments on this proposal must be received on or before [ **insert date 30 days from date of first hearing**  ]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a cop y of your comments on or before [ **insert date 30 days after publication in the federal register**  ], thirty day s after date of publication in the **Federal Register**
. **ADDRESSES** : Submit your comments, identifi ed by Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

– 2011

– 0135, by

one of the following methods:******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 2 of 842  www.regulations.gov: Follow the on
- line instructions for submitting comments.
 Email: A
- and
- R
- Docket@epamail.epa.gov.

 Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency , Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information c ollection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.

 Hand Delivery : EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are onl y accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135. EPA's policy

is that all comments received will be included in the public do cket without change and may

be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including an y personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e
- mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anon ym ous access” sy stem, which means EPA will not know your identity or co ntact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e
- mail comment directl y to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e - mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is pla ced in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
- ROM you submit. If EPA cannot re ad your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, an y form of encry ption, and be free of any

defects or viruse s. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.B of the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Certain other material, such as cop yri ghted material, will be publicly available only

in hard copy . Publicly

available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, EP A/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 3 of 842 is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566
- 1742. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** : Julia MacAllister, Office of Transportation and Air Quality , Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency , 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; Telephone number: (734) 214
- 4131; Fax number: (734) 214
- 4816; E
- mail address: macallister.julia@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information**  **A. Does this Action Apply to Me?** Entities potentially

affected by

this proposed rule includ e gasoline refiners and importers, ethanol producers, gasoline additive manufacturers, transmix processors, terminals and fuel distributors, light
- duty vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers, alternative fuel converters, and manufacturers and converters of vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Potentially

regulated categories include: Category NAI CS a Code SI C b Code Examples of Potentially Affected Entities Industry 324110 2911 Petroleum refineries (inc luding importers) Industry 325110 2869 Butane manufacturers Industry 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturing Industry 211112 1321 Natural gas liquids extraction and fractionation Industry 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing Industry 486910 4613 Natural gas liquids pipelines, refined petroleum products pipelines. Industry 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers Industry 325199 2869 Manufacturers of gasoline additives Industry 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk statio ns and terminals. E51
- 83 manufacturers. Industry 493190 4226 Other warehousing and storage
- bulk petroleum storage Industry 336111,

336112 3711 Li ght
- dut y vehicle and light
- dut y truck manufacturers Industry 811111,

811112, 811198 7538,

7533, 7534 Indep endent commercial importers Industry 335312, 3621, Alternative fuel converters******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 4 of 842 336312, 336322, 336399, 811198 3714,

3519, 3599, 7534 Industry 333618,

336120, 336211, 336312 3699,

3711, 3713, 3714 On
- highway heavy
- dut y engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) m anufacturers a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely

to be regulated b y this propo sed action. This table lists the ty pes of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by

this proposed action. Other ty pes of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities would be regul ated b y this proposed action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 80, 85, 86, 1065, and 1068 and the referenced regulations. If you have an y questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entit y, consult the person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**  section. **B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?** 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www .regulations.gov or e - mail. Clearl y m ark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically

within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a cop y of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. In f ormation so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

 Id entify

the rulemaking by

docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

 Follow directions
- The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments b y referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 5 of 842  Explain why

you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.

 Describe an y assumptions and provide an y technical information and/or data that you used.

 If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

 Explain your views as clearl y as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. **C. Did EPA Conduct a Peer Review before Issuing this Notice?**  This regulatory

action was supported b y influential scientific information. Therefore, EPA conducted peer reviews in accordance with OMB’s F inal Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Specifically , EPA conducted six peer reviews in connection with data supporting the proposed Tier 3 program, including the new research on the effects of fuel properties changes (including sulfur effects) on exhaust and evaporative emissions of Tier 2 vehicles. The refinery
- by
- refinery cost model was also peer reviewed. The peer review reports are located in the docket for today's action, as well as the agency 's response to the peer review comments. **Tabl e of Contents**  I. Executive Summary

and Overview Of Proposed Program A. Introduction B. What Are the Basic Components of the Proposed Program? 1. Proposed Standards for Light
- Dut y Vehicle, Light
- Duty Truck, and Medium
Duty Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emi ssions 2. Proposed Heav y - Dut y Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards 3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards 4. Onboard Diagnostic S ys tems (OBD) 5. Emissions Test Fuel 6. Fuel Standards 7. Regulatory

Streamlining and Technical Amendments C. What Would the Impacts of the Proposed Standards Be ? II. Why is EPA Making This Proposal? A. Basis for Action under the Clean Air Act 1. Clean Air Act Section 202 2. Clean Air Act Section 211******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 6 of 842 B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels 1. Ozone 2. Particulate Matter 3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides 4. Carbon Monoxide 5. Mobile Source Air Toxics 6. Near
- Roadway

Pollution 7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels III. How Would This Proposal Reduce Emissi ons and Air Pollution? A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile Source Emissions 1. How Do Vehicles Produce the Emissions Addressed in this Proposal? 2. How Would the Proposed Changes to Gasoline Sulfur Content Affect Vehicle Emi ssions? B. How Would Emissions Be Reduced? 1. NO X 2. VOC 3. CO 4. Direct PM 2.5 5. Air Toxics 6. SO 2 7. Greenhouse Gases C. How Would Air Pollution Be Reduced? 1. Ozone 2. Particulate Matter 3. Nitrogen Dioxide 4. Air Toxics 5. Vis ibility 6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition 7. Environmental Justice IV
. Proposed Vehicle Emissions Program A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light
- Dut y Vehicles, L ight
- Duty Trucks, and Medium
- Duty

Passenger Vehicles 1. Overview 2. Summary

of Propo sed FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards 3. Proposed FTP Standards 4. Proposed SFTP Standards 5. Feasibility

of the Proposed NMOG+NO X and PM Standards 6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the Proposed Vehicle Emission Standards 7
. Other Provisions B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heav y - Dut y Vehicles 1. Overview 2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards 3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs 4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 7 of 842 5. Feasibility

of HDV Standards 6
. Other HDV Provisions C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic S ys tem Requirements 1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards 2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation Flexibilities 3. Heav y - Duty

Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements 4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel 5. Improvements to In
- Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Sy stems 6. Other Initiatives D. Emissions Test Fuel 1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel 2. Proposed Fl exible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel 3. Proposed Implementation Schedule 4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel Economy L abels 5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy
- Duty Engine Emissions Test Fuel 6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuels E. Small
- Business Provisions 1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards 2. Assigned Deterioration Factors 3. Reduced Testing Burden 4. Hardship 5. Applicability

of Flexibilities F. Complianc e Provisions 1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures 2. Reduced Test Burden 3. Miscellaneous Provisions 4. Manufacturer In
- Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements V. Proposed Fuel Program A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards 1. Overview 2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard 3. Per
- Gallon Sulfur Caps B. Refinery

Air Permitting Interactions 1. Background on New Source Review Programs 2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program 3. Changes in the NSR Permitt ing Program since Tier 2 Final Rule 4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting Implications 5. Proposed New Source Performance Standards and Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries 6. Possible Steps for Addressing Permitting Roadblocks C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles 1. Standards for E51
- 83******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 8 of 842 2. Standards for Mid
- Level Ethanol Blends (E16
- 50) E. Proposed Program Flexibilities 1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program 2. Regulatory

Flexibility

Provisions 3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations F. Compliance Provisions 1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements 2. Sampling and Testing Requirements 3. Small Refiner Compliance 4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance 5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties 6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions G. Statutory

Authorit y for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls 1. Sect ion 211(c)(1)(A) 2. Section 211(c)(1)(B) VI
. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining A. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 80 1. Regulatory

Streamlining 2. Subpart ITechnical Amendments 3. Performance
- Based Measurement Sy stems (PBMS) B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs 1. Fuel Econom y Labeling 2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text 3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules 4. Updating Reference Procedures VII. What are the Cost Impacts of the Proposed Rule? A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle St andards B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program 1. Overview 2. Methodology 3. Summary

of Costs without ABT Program 4. Summary

of Costs with ABT Program 5. Other Cost Estimates C. Summary

of Proposed Program Costs D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Re duced VIII. What are the Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule? A. Overview B. Quantified Human Health Impacts C. Monetized Benefits D. What are the Limitations of the Benefits Anal ys is? E. Illustrative Anal ys is of Monetized Impacts Associated with the Proposal in 2017 IX
. Alternatives Anal ys is A. Vehicle Emission Standards 1. Shorter NMOG+NO X Standard Phase
- in 2. Longer NMOG+NO X Standards Phase
- in Due to Early Credits******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 9 of 842 3. Shorter PM Standards Phase
- in 4. NMOG+NO X Standards 5. PM Standards B. Fuel Sulfur Standards X. Economic Impact Anal ys is A. Introduction B. Vehicle Sales Impacts C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production D. Employ

ment Impacts 1. Employ

ment Impacts in the Auto Sector 2. Refinery

Employ ment Impacts XI
. Publi c Participation A. How Do I Submit Comments? B. How Should ISubmit CBI to the Agency? C. Will There Be a Public Hearing? D. Comment Period E. What Should IConsider as I Prepare M y Comments for EPA? XII. Statutory

And Executive Order Reviews A. Exec utive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory

Flexibility

Act 1. Overview 2. Background 3. Reason for Today ’s Proposed Rule 4. Lega l Basis for Agency Action 5. Summary

of Potentiall y Affected Small Entities 6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance 7. Related Federal Rules 8. Summary

of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Ex ecutive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safet y Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Co ncerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and L ow - Income Popu lations XIII. Statutory

Provisions And L egal Authorit y******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 10 of 842 

## I. **Executive Summary and Overview of Pr oposed Pr**  **ogram A.**  **Introduction** In this action, EPA is proposing a major program designed to reduce air pollution from passenger cars and trucks. This program include s new standards for both vehicle emissions and the sulfur content of gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated s ys tem. We refer to this proposed program as the “Tier 3” vehicle and fuel standards. This proposed rule is part of a comp rehensive approach to address the impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. Approximately 159 million Americans are currentl y experiencing unhealthy levels of air pollution, which are linked with respiratory

and cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts that lead to increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and premature mortality
. 1 Motor vehicles are a particularly important source of exposure to air pollution, especially

in urban areas. By

2014 we project that in man y nonattainment areas, cars and light trucks will contribute 30
- 45 percent of total nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissions, 20
- 25 percent of total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and 5
- 10 percent of total direct particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) emissions. These compounds form ozone, PM, and other air pollutants, whose health and environmental effects are described in more detail in Section II. Cars and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor to air pollution directly near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting for more than 50 percent of near
- road concentrations of some criteria and toxic pollutants. 2 More than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close proximity to high
- traffic roadway s, and the average American s pends more than one hour traveling along roads each day
. 3 , 4 Almost 90 percent of daily trips use personal vehicles. 5 The standards set forth in this proposed rule would significantl y reduce levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of ozone, PM, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and

1 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2011
- 0135. 2 For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow , J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in Motor Vehicle
- Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org 3 U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html 4 Drago, R. (2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. Available at http://www.bls.gov 5 U.S. Department of Transportatio n, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2003). National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 11 of 842 mobile source air toxics (MSATs)) across the country , with immediate impacts expected due to the proposed sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These reductions would help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain health
- based National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, man y areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQ S in the future. Specificall y, in 2017 almost 50 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8
- hour ozone NAAQS, without additional controls. Nonattainment with the NAAQS will continue into the future unless additional controls such as Tier 3 are adopted; in 2030 almost 32 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8
- hour ozone NAAQS, and 31 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Few other s trategies exist that would deliver the same magnitude of multi
pollutant reductions projected to result from the proposed Tier 3 standards. The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (section 202). EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution (section 211). These statutory authorities are described in Section II.A. The vehicle and gasoline sulfur standards we are proposing represent a “s ys tems approach” to reducing vehicle
- related exhaust and evaporative emissions by addressing the vehicle and fuel as a sy stem. The s ys tems approach enables emission reductions that are both technolog ically

feasible and cost
- effective beyond what would be possible looking at vehicle and fuel standards in isolation. We first applied such an approach with our Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur standards (finalized in 2000). 6 We believe that a similar appro ach for the proposed Tier 3 standards would be a cost
- effective way to achieve substantial additional emissions reductions. The proposed Tier 3 standards include new light
- and heav y - dut y vehicle emission standards for exhaust emissions of VOC (specifica lly , non - methane organic gases, or NMOG), NO X , and PM, as well as evaporative emissions standards. The proposed standards for light
- dut y vehicle, light
- duty truck, and medium
- duty

passenger vehicle tailpipe emissions are an 80 percent reduction in fleet average NMOG+NO X compared to current standards, and a 70 percent reduction in per
- vehicle PM standards. The proposed Tier 3 heavy
- dut y vehicle tailpipe emissions standards provide reductions in both NMOG+NO X and PM that are on the order of 60 percent , comp ared to current standards. The proposed evaporative emissions standards represent a 50 percent reduction from current standards. The vehicle emission standards, combined with the proposed reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the current 30 parts per m illion (ppm) average down to a 10
-

6 6 5 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 12 of 842 ppm average, would result in dramatic emissions reductions for NO X , VOC, direct PM 2.5 , carbon monoxide (CO) and air toxics. For example, in 2030, when Tier 3 vehicles would make up the majority of the fleet as well as veh icle miles travelled, NO X and VOC emissions from on
- highway vehicles would be reduced by about one quarter, and CO emissions would be reduced b y about 30 percent. Emissions of many air toxics would also be reduced b y 10 to nearl y 40 percent of national em issions from on
- highway vehicles. Reductions would continue beyond 2030 as more of the fleet is composed of Tier 3 vehicles. For example, the Tier 3 program would reduce on
- highway emissions of NO X and VOC nearl y 40 percent b y 2050, when Tier 3 vehicles would comprise almost the entire fleet. Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on cataly tic converters to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and NO X , as well as PM (specificall y, the volatile hydrocarbon fraction), CO, and mos t air toxics. The cataly tic converters become significantl y less efficient when sulfur from the gasoline is deposited (adsorbed) onto the precious metals that catalyze the reactions to reduce the emissions. The Tier 2 rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline by approximately

90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling case that even this level of sulfur not only degrades the emission performance of ve hicles on the road today , but also inhibits necessary further reductions in vehicle emissions performance to reach the proposed Tier 3 standards. Thus, the proposed Tier 3 10
- ppm average sulfur standard is significant in two way s: it enables vehicles de signed to the proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards in
- use for the duration of their useful life, and it facilitates immediate emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the sulfur controls are implemente d. We are not the first regulatory agency to recognize the need for lower
- sulfur gasoline. Agencies in Europe and Japan have already imposed gasoline sulfur caps of 10 ppm, and the State of California is already averaging 10 ppm sulfur. Other states are preempted by the Clean Air Act from adopting new fuel programs to meet air quality objectives. Consequently, they could not receive the air quality benefits of lower sulfur gasoline without federal action. This proposal is one aspect of a comprehensive n ational program regulating emissions from motor vehicles. EPA’s recent final rule for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light
- dut y (LD) vehicles starting with model ye ar (MY) 2017 (referred to here as the “2017 LD GHG” standards) is another asp ect of this comprehensive program. 7 The Tier 3 proposal addresses interactions with the 2017 LD GHG rule in a manner that aligns implementation of the two actions, to achieve significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions while providing regulatory certaint y and compliance efficiency. As vehicle manufacturers introduce new vehicle platforms for compliance with the GHG standards, they will be able to design them for compliance with the Tier 3 standards at the same time. The proposed Tier 3 st andards are

7 7 7 FR 62623 ( October 1 5 , 201 2 ).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 13 of 842 also closely

coordinated with California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program to create a vehicle emissions program that would allow automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states . We have worked closel y with individual vehicle manu facturers and their trade associations, who have emphasized the importance of a harmonized national program. Together, the Tier 3, 2017 LD GHG, and LEV III standards would maximize reductions in GHGs, criteria pollutants and air toxics from motor vehicles while streamlining programs and allowing manufacturers the flexibility to design a single vehicle for nationwide sales, thus reducing their costs of compliance. In this way , the Tier 3 proposal responds to the May 21, 2010 Presidential Memorandum that re quested that EPA develop a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor vehicles, including consideration of non
- GHG emissions standards. 8 As part of the s ys tems approach to this program, we are considering the future fuels on which vehicles will be operating. In particular, the renewable fuels mandate that was revised b y the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and is being implemented through the Renewable Fuel Standards program (RFS2) 9 will result in significant amounts of ethanol
- blended gasol ine in the implementation timeframe of the proposed Tier 3 program. We are proposing to update the specifications of the certification test fuel with which vehicles demonstrate compliance with emissions standards, in order to better reflect the ethanol co ntent and other properties of gasoline that will be in use. This section provides an overview of the vehicle
- and fuel
- related standards we are proposing as well as the impacts of the proposed standards. The public health issues and statutory

requirements that have prompted this proposal are described in Section II, and our discussion of how the proposal would reduce emissions and air pollution is presented in Section III. Details of proposed standards and how they would be implemented can be found in Sec tions IV through VI. Sections VII through X contain our discussion of the proposed standards’ technological feasibility and cost, benefits, alternatives and economic impacts. **B. What Are the Basic Components of the Proposed Program?**  In the more than 10 ye ars since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, manufacturers of light
- duty vehicles have continued to develop a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust emissions, especially VOC, NO X , and PM. The California LEV II program has been instrumental in the continuous technology improvements by

requiring year after ye ar reductions in the fleet average hydrocarbon levels, in addition to requiring the introduction of advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero em ission vehicles (PZEVs). This progress in vehicle

8 The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the
- press - of fice/presidential
memorandum
- regarding
- fuel
- efficiency
- standards. 9 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010)
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 14 of 842 technology

has made it possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions well beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels are lowered further. As a result, we are propo sing new standards for exhaust emissions of NMOG, NO X , and PM, as well as evaporative emissions standards. These standards would phase in beginning with MY 2017. The proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the existing Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed standards would appl y to all light
- duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), light
- duty trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and Medium
- Duty Passenger Vehicles (or MDPVs). We are also proposing separate but closely related standards for heavy
- dut y vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). We have concluded that the proposed vehicle emissions standards, in conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur also proposed in this action are feasible and cost
- effective across the fleet in the proposed time frame. In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program for light
- and heav y - dut y vehicles throughout this preamble, we describe how the provisions would be consistent w ith the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program. Auto manufacturers have stressed to us the importance of their being able to design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as well as greenhouse gas/Corporate Average Fuel Econom y (CAFE) requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency among the federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, development, calibration, and manufacturing. In addition, because both programs include fleet
- average standards, consistency among the programs means that manufacturers would not need to separatel y monitor the numbers of different vehicle versions that were sold in different parts of the country . Consistency among programs would also elimin ate the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of multiple versions of a vehicle. We believe that the most cost
- effective national program will result from close coordination of CARB LEV III and federal Tier 3 program elements and their implementatio n. To that end, we worked closel y with CARB and with the vehicle manufacturers, both with individual companies and with their trade associations, to align the two programs in most respects
. We have also designed the proposed Tier 3 program to be impleme nted in the same timeframe as the federal and California GHG emissions and fuel economy standards for model years 2017
- 2025. We expect that in response to these programs, manufacturers will be developing entirely new powertrains for most of their vehicles
. Because the Tier 3 standards would phase in over the same timeframe, manufacturers would be in a position to simultaneously respond to all of these requirements.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 15 of 842 1. Proposed Standards for Light
- Dut y Vehicle, Light
- Duty Truck, and Medium
Duty Passenger Vehi cle Tailpipe Emissions We are proposing a comprehensive program that would include new fleet
- average standards for the sum of NMOG and NO X emissions (presented as NMOG+NO X ) and for PM. These proposed standards, when applied in conjunction with reduced gas oline sulfur content, would result in very significant improvements in vehicle emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these pollutants, we are proposing standards as measured on test procedures that represent a range of vehicle operation, in cluding the Federal Test Procedure (or FTP, simulating typical driving) and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (or SFTP, a composite test simulating higher temperatures, higher speeds, and quicker accelerations). In addition to the standards, we are also proposing to extend the regulatory

useful life period during which the standards appl y and to make test fuel more representative of expected real
- world fuel (see Section I.B. 5 below). As discussed in Section IV.A.6., the impact of gasoline sulfur pois oning on exhaust cataly st performance provides a compelling argument, particularl y for larger vehicles and trucks, that these vehicle standards would be achievable onl y with a reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the current 30
- ppm average down to a 1 0
- ppm average. Sulfur is a well
- known catal ys t poison. The nature of sulfur’s interactions with active cataly

tic materials is complex and varies with catal ys t composition, exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. Thus, even if a manufacturer wer e able to certify a new vehicle to the proposed new stringent standards, the manufacturer’s ability to maintain the emission performance of that vehicle in
- use is greatl y jeopardized if the vehicle is being operated on gasoline sulfur levels greater than 1 0 ppm. Manufacturers, both individually

and through their trade associations, have emphasized that reduced gasoline sulfur would be required to meet the proposed standards. 10 , 11 Due to the variation in actual vehicle operation, an y amount of gasoline sulfur will deteriorate catal ys t efficiency . However, we believe that a 10
- ppm average sulfur level is sufficient to enable compliance with these proposed Tier 3 vehicle standards, and as described below and in Section V, reducing sulfur levels further would c ause sulfur control costs to quickly escalate. The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NO X standards would be fleet
- average standards, meaning that a manufacturer would calculate the average emissions of the vehicles it produces in each model year and compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year. The manufacturer would certify each of its vehicles to a per - vehicle “bin” standard (see Section IV.A.2) and sales
- weight these values to calculate its fleet
- average NMOG+NO X emissions for each mod el year. The proposed fleet average standards for NMOG+NO X evaluated over the FTP are summarized in Table I
- 1
.

10 Letter to E PA Administrator Jackson, with white paper, from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, October 6, 2011. 11 Global Automakers letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, October 21, 2011.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 16 of 842 The standards for light
- duty vehicles would begin in MY 2017 at a level representing a 46 percent red

uction from the current Tier 2 requirements. (For vehicles at or over 6000 lbs GVWR, the standards would apply beginning in MY 2018). As shown, these proposed fleet
- average standards would decline during the first several years of the program, becoming i ncreasingl y stringent until ultimately reaching an 81 percent reduction when the transition is complete. The proposed FTP NMOG+NO X program includes two separate sets of declining fleet
- average standards, with LDVs and LDT1s in one grouping and heavier LDT s (LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s) and MDPVs in a second grouping that would converge at 30 milligram per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and later. 12 , 13 Manufacturers could also earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NO X levels below the applicable standard in any model year. C redits that were previously banked or obtained from other manufacturers could be used, or credits could be transferred to other manufacturers. Unused credits would expire after 5 model years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry

deficits in their credit balance for up to 3 model ye ars. **Table I**  **- 1**  **Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **FT P**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

Model Year 2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later LDV/LDT1 b 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30 LDT2,3,4 and MDPV 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. b These proposed standards would apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturer s could choose to certify all of its LDVs and LDT1s to a useful life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet
- average standard would apply, calculated by multiplying the re spective 150,000 standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. Similarly , the proposed NMOG+NO X standards measured over the SFTP would be fleet
- average standards, declining from MY 2017 until MY 2025, as shown in Table I
- 2 . In this case, the same standards would apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP NMOG+NO X standard would reach its final fleet average level of 50 mg/mi.

12 The proposed declining NMOG+NO X fleet
- average standards would consist of on e set of declining standards that would apply to LDVs and small light trucks (LDT1s) and a second set of declining standards that would apply to heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s) and MDPVs. 13 Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to certify i ts entire fleet of passenger cars and light trucks to the 30 mg/mi level beginning in MY 2017 and continuing for all subsequent model years. A percent phase
in would apply. This would not be a fleet
- average standard.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 17 of 842 **Table I**  **- 2**  **Propo sed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NO**  **X SF**  **TP Standards (mg/mi)** 

Model Year 2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later NMOG + NO X 103 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50 a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR , the fleet average standards would appl y beginning in MY 2018
. We are also proposing PM standards as part of this Tier 3 program, both on the FTP and US06 cycles (US06 is a component of the SFTP test). Research has demonstrated that the level of PM from gasoline light
- dut y vehicles is more s ignificant than previously

thought. 14 Although man y vehicles today are performing at or near the levels of the proposed standards, the data indicate that improvements, especially in high
load fuel control and in the durability of engine components, are pos sible. Under t ypical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of most current - technology

gasoline vehicles are fairly low at certification and in use, well below the Tier 2 PM standards. At the same time we see considerable variation in PM emi ssions among vehicles of various makes, models, and designs. As a result, we are proposing a new FTP PM standard that is set to ensure that all new vehicles perform at the level already being achieved b y well
- designed Tier 2 emission control technologies. The proposed PM standards would apply to each vehicle separatel y (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to the declining NMOG+NO X standards, the proposed PM standard on the FTP for certification testing is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for all model ye ars. As for the NMOG+NOx standards, for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR , the FTP PM standard would apply beginning in MY 2018. Manufacturers could phase in their vehicle models as a percent of U.S. sales through MY 2022. Most vehicles are already pe rforming at this stringent PM level, and the primary intent of the proposed standard is to bring all light
- duty

vehicles to the ty

pical level of PM performance being demonstrated by the current light
- dut y fleet. The proposed program also includes a separate in
- use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in
- use vehicles that would apply during the percent phase
- in period only . This in
- use standard would address the uncertainties that accompany the introduction of new technologies, and then expire. Table I
- 3 presents the FTP certification and in
- use PM standards and the phase
- in percentages. The proposed standards represent a significant numerical reduction from the Tier 2 PM emission standards of 10 mg/mi f

or light
- dut y vehicles.

14 Nam , E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.; Baldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarbro, C. (2008). Analysis of Particulate Matter Emissions from Light
- Duty Gasoline Vehicles in Kansas City, EPA420
- R
- 08
- 010. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Qual ity U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 18 of 842 **Table I**  **- 3**  **Phase -**  **In for Proposed PM Standards 2017**  **a 2018**  **2019 2020**  **2021 2022 and**  **later Phase**  **- In**  (percent of U.S. sales) 20 20 40 70 100 100 **Certification Standard (mg/mi)**  3 3 3 3 3 3 **In -**  **Use Standard (mg/mi)**  6 6 6 6 6 3

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR , the proposed FTP PM standards would apply beginning in MY 2018.
. Finally , the proposed Tier 3 program includes certification PM standards evaluated over the SFTP (specifically the US06 component of the SFTP procedure) at a level of 10 mg/mi for lighter vehicles and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. PM levels over the SFTP are t ypically higher than the PM emitted over the FTP due to the increased load on the vehicle. Test data shows that most current light
- duty vehicles are already performing in the range of the proposed standard. As in the case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being demo nstrated b y many vehicles in the current light
- duty fleet. As with the FTP PM standard, we propose separate in
- use US06 PM standards during the percent phase
- in only , of 15 and 25 mg/mi for vehicles up to and above 6,000 lbs (lbs) GVWR, respectively . The US06 PM standards would also phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM standards, reaching 100 percent of each company’ s U.S. production by

MY 2022. 2. Proposed Heav y - Dut y Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, we are proposing Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards for complete heav y - dut y vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 14,000 lb GVWR. Vehicles in this GVWR range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,501
- 10,000 lb) and Class 3 (10,001
- 14,000 lb) vehicles, and are ty pic ally full
- size pickup trucks and work vans. Most are built by companies with even larger light
- dut y truck markets, and as such they frequently

share major design characteristics and potential emissions control technologies with their LDT counterparts. Ho wever, in contrast to the largely gasoline
fueled LDT fleet, roughly half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel
- fueled, which is a consideration in setting emissions standards, as diesel engine emissions and control strategies differ from th ose of gasoline engines. The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs would parallel those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation schedules, appropriate to thi s sector. These key elements include a combined NMOG+NO X declining fleet average standard, new stringent PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, adoption of a 15 percent******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 19 of 842 ethanol by

volume (E15) certification test fuel for gasoline
- fueled vehicles , extension of the regulatory

useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 years (whichever occurs first), and a new requirement to meet standards over an SFTP that would address real
- world driving modes not well
- represented b y the FTP cycle alone. We are proposing the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average NMOG+NO X standards shown in Table I
- 4. The proposed standards would become more stringent in successive model ye ars from 2018 to 2022, with voluntary standards made available in 2016 and 2017, all of which w ould be set at levels that match those of California’s LEV III program for these classes of vehicles. Each covered HDV produced b y a manufacturer in each model year would contribute to this fleet average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NO X level of the emission l evel (“bin”) declared for it b y the manufacturer. Manufacturers could also earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NO X levels below the standard in any model year. Tier 3 credits that were previously banked, obtained from other manufacturers, or transferred across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories could be used to help demonstrate compliance. Unused credits would expire after 5 model years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in their credit balance for up to 3 model years. **Table I**  **- 4**  **Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

Voluntary Required Program Model Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later Class 2b 333 310 278 253 228 203 178 Class 3 548 508 451 400 349 298 247 We are proposing PM standards of 8 mg/mi and 10 mg/mi for Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs, respectivel y, phasing in as an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s production per ye ar. We are proposing the same phase
- in schedule as proposed for the light
- duty sector during model years 2018
- 2019
- 2020
- 2021: 20
- 40
- 70
- 100 percent, respectivel y, and a more flexible but equivalent alternative PM phase
- in is also being proposed. Tier 3 HDVs would also be subject to more stringent CO and formaldehyde exhaust emissi ons standards. Finally , we are proposing first
- ever SFTP standards for HDVs to ensure a robust overall control program that precludes high off
- FTP cycle emissions by

having vehicle designers consider them in their choice of compliance strategies. As for l ight
- duty vehicles, we are proposing that SFTP compliance be based on a weighted composite of measured emissions from testing over the FTP cycle, the SC03 cycle, and an aggressive driving cycle, with the latter tailored to various HDV sub
- categories: the U S06 cycle for******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 20 of 842 most HDVs, the highway portion of the US06 cycle for low power
- to - weight Class 2b HDVs, and the LA
- 92 (or “Unified”) cycle for Class 3 HDVs. The proposed SFTP standards are the same as those adopted for California LEV III vehicles, and would apply to NMOG+NO X , PM, and CO emissions. Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs to result in substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of work trucks and vans. The final Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NO X and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than the current stringent standards that took full effect in the 2009 model year. 3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel sy stems occur when a vehicle is in operation , when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. These evaporative emissions, which occur on a dail y basis from gasoline
- powered vehicles, are primarily functions of temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and activity. EPA first instituted evaporative emis sion standards in the earl y 1970s to address emissions when vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly referred to as hot soak plus diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have been modified and improved and the s tandards have become more numerically stringent. We have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel sy stem designs by putting in place new requirements such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions to address permeation emission s. Subsequently

standards were put in place to control refueling emissions from all classes of gasoline
- powered motor vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. Even though evaporative and refueling emission control sy stems have been in place for most of these vehi cles for many years, they

still contribute about 30
- 40 percent of the summer on
- highway mobile source h ydrocarbon inventory . These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also contain air toxics such as benzene. To control evaporative emiss ions, EPA is proposing more stringent standards that would require covered vehicles to have essentiall y zero fuel vapor emissions in use. These include more stringent evaporative emissions standards, new test procedures, and a new fuel/evaporative s ys tem l eak emission standard. The program also includes refueling emission standards for a portion of heav y - duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is proposing phase
- in flexibilities as well as credit and allowance programs. The proposed stan dards, harmonized with California’s “ z ero e vap” standards, are designed to essentially allow for a use of common technology in vehicle models sold throughout the U.S. The level of the standard remains above zero to account for nonfuel background emissions from the vehicle hardware itself. In Table I
- 5 we present the proposed evaporative diurnal plus hot soak emission standards b y vehicle class. The standards are approximately a 50 percent reduction from the existi ng standards. To enhance flexibility and reduce costs, EPA is proposing a program that would allow manufacturers to generate allowances through early certifications (basicall y before the 2017 model year) and to demonstrate compliance using averaging concepts. Manufacturers may comply on average within each of the four******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 21 of 842 vehicle categories, but not across these categories. EPA is not proposing any changes to the existing light
- duty

running loss or refueling emission standards, with the exception of the cert ification test fuel requirement discussed in Section I .B.5 below.

**Table I**  **- 5**  **Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test)** Vehicle Class Highest Diurnal + Hot Soak Level (over both 2
- day

and 3
- day

diurnal te sts) LDV, LDT1 0.300 LDT2 0.400 LDT3, LDT4, MDPV 0.500 HDGV s 0.600 EPA is proposing a new testing requirement referred to as the bleed emission test procedure to help ensure fuel vapor emissions are eliminated. Under this proposal, manufacturers woul d be required to measure diurnal emissions over the 2
- day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister and comply with a 0.020 gram per test (g/test) standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, without averaging. The co rresponding canister bleed test standard for HDGVs would be 0.030 g/test. The proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards would be phased in over a period of six model years between MY 2017 and MY 2022, with the leak test phasing in beginning in 2018. Data from in
- use evaporative emissions testing indicates that vapor leaks from vehicle fuel/evaporative sy stems are found in the fleet and that even very small leaks have the potential to make relativel y significant contributions to the mobile source VOC inventory . To help address this issue, we are also proposing to add a new emission standard and test procedure to control vapor leaks from vehicle fuel and vapor control sy stems. The standard would prohibit leaks with a cumulative equivalent diameter of 0 .02 inches or greater. We are proposing to add this simple and inexpensive test and emission standard to help ensure vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor emissions over their full useful life. New LD V, LDT, MDPV, and Class 2b/3 models meeting the proposed T ier 3 evaporative emission standards would also be required to meet the leak emission standard beginning in the 2018 model year. The requirement to meet the leak emission standard would phase
- in on the same schedule as the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emis sion standard. Compliance with the leak emission standard would be addressed during certification and during In
- Use Verification Program (IUVP) testing as otherwise applicable . To streamline th e IUVP testing, the manufacturers could use either the EPA le ak emission certification test procedure or the proposed 0.020 inch OBD evaporative sy stem leak detection and monitoring sy stem. EPA is not proposing that the leak emission standard appl y to HDGVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is also proposing new refueling emission control requirements for all HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3 HDGVs), starting in the 2018 model year. EPA is proposing to include these vehicles as part of the same basic implementation scheme used for LDVs and LDTs . The current refueling emission******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 22 of 842 control requirements apply to complete Class 2b HDGVs, and EPA is proposing to extend those requirements to Class 3 HDGVs as well, since the fuel and evaporative control sy stems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their slightly lighter
- weight Class 2b counterparts. 4. Onboard Diagnostic S ys tems (OBD) EPA and CARB both have OBD regulations applicable to the vehicle classes covered b y the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. In the past the requirements have been very similar, so most manufacturers have met CARB OBD requirements and as permitted in our regulations, EPA has generally accepted compliance with CARB’s OBD requirements as satisfying EPA’s OBD requirements. Over the past several years CARB has upgraded its requirements to help improve the effectiveness of OBD in ensuring good in
- use exhaust and evaporative s ys tem emissions performance. We have reviewed these provisions and agree with CARB that these revisions will help to improve in
- use emissions perfor

mance. One goal of this proposed rule is to create the technical opportunity

for a single national vehicle from an emissions perspective. Toward that end, we are proposing to adopt and incorporate b y reference the current CARB OBD regulations effective f

or the 2017 MY. EPA would retain the provision that certifying with CARB’s program would permit manufacturers to seek a separate EPA certificate on that basis. 5. Emissions Test Fuel In
- use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA’s test fuel specificat ions were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzene have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly, gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol b y volume (E10) has replaced clear gasoline (E0) across the country . This has had second
- order effec ts on other gasoline properties. In - use fuel is projected to continue to change with the implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the expansion of the number of retailers that offer E15) as well as today ’s proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. As a result, we are proposing to update our federal emissions test fuel to better match today ’s in
- use gasoline and also to be forward
- looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content. The new test fuel specifications would apply to new vehicle certi fication, assembly

line, and in
- use testing. EPA is also proposing changes consistent with CARB’s LEV III emissions test fuel specifications. Key changes include:

 Moving away

from “ Indolene” (E0) to a test fuel containing 15 percent ethanol by

volume (E1 5);

 Lowering octane to match regular
- grade gasoline (except for premium
required vehicles);

 Adjusting distillation temperatures, aromatics, and olefins to better match today ’s in
- use fuel and to be consistent with anticipated E15 impacts; and******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 23 of 842  Lowering the existing sulfur specification and setting a benzene specification to be consistent with proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur requirements and recent MSAT2 gasoline benzene requirements. 15 The proposed E15 emissions test fuel specifications are detailed in Secti on IV.D.1 as well as §1065.710 of the proposed regulations. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed fuel parameters and ASTM test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft Regulatory

Impact Analy sis (RIA). In addition to proposing a new E15 emissions test fuel, we are also proposing for the first time detailed specifications for the E85 emissions test fuel used for flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) certification , as discussed in Section IV.D.2. 16 This is intended to avoid uncertaint y and confusion in the certification of FFVs designed to operate on ethanol levels up to 8 3 percent. Furthermore, we are proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to request approval for an alternative certification fuel such as a high
- octane 30 percent ethanol by

volume (E30) blend for vehicles they might design or optimize for use on such a fuel. This could help manufacturers that wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency , as a step toward compl yi ng with the 2017 and later light
- duty greenhouse gas and CAFE standards (2017 LD GHG) . This in turn could help provide a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 and enhance the environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel b y using it to enable more fuel efficient engines. We ar e seeking comment on whether there are other aspects of today ’s proposed standards that might need to be modified to provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the development of highl y efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher level ethanol bl ends. 6. Fuel Standards Under the Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline and any ethanol
gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an annual average basis by January 1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to gasoline in the U.S. and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding California. The proposed program would result in gasoline that contains, on average, two
- thirds less sulfur than it does today . We are proposing an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program that would allow refiners and importers to spread out their investments through an earl y credit program and rel y on ongoing nationwide averaging to meet the 10
- ppm sulfur standard. We are also pr oposing a three
ye ar delay

for small refiners and “small volume refineries” processing less than or equal to 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day . As a result of the early credit program, even considering the proposed ABT program and flexibilities offered to small refiners and

15 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007). 16 Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to meet emissions certification requirements using both E0 and E85 test fuels. However, there are current ly no detailed regulatory specifications regarding the composition of E85 test fuels.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 24 of 842 small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery control to the 10
- ppm average occurring by January 1, 2020. For more on the proposed gasoline sulfur program flexibilities, refer to Section V.D. Under today ’s Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we are proposing to either maintain the current 80
- ppm refinery gate and 95
- ppm downstream per
- gallon caps or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, respectively . We also evaluate d and are seeking comment on the potential of lowering the per
- gallon caps to as low as 20 and 25 ppm. There are advantages and disadvantages with each of the various sulfur cap options (explained in more detail in Section V.A.3), but under all scenarios, the stringency of the 10
- ppm annual average standard would result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. A summary of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards is provided in Table I
- 6
. **Table I**  **- 6**  **Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur**  **Standards Cap Option 1**  **Cap Option 2 Limit**  **Effective Limit**  **Effective** Refinery annual average standard 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a Refinery gate per - gallon cap 80 ppm Already 50 ppm January 1, 2020 Downstream per
- gallon cap 95 ppm Already 65 ppm March 1, 2020

a Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries. We are proposing that manufacturers o f gasoline additives that are used downstream of the refinery at less than 1 volume percent must limit the sulfur contribution to the finished gasoline from the use of their additive to less than 3 ppm when the additive is used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. The proposed vehicle emissions standards are fuel neutral (i.e. they are applicable regardless of the type of fuel that the vehicle is designed to use). The sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is already

required to meet a 15ppm sulfur ca p. Thus, no further action is needed to enable diesel fuel vehicles to meet the proposed emissions standards. There currently

are no sulfur standards for the fuel used in compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) vehicles. We request co mment on whether it is necessary for EPA to establish sulfur standards for CNG and LPG, and whether a 15 ppm sulfur cap similar to that established for highway diesel fuel would be appropriate. Comment is also requested on whether and how to address the s ulfur contribution from odorants and other additives used in CNG and LPG. As the number of flex
- fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the in
- use fleet increases, it is now becoming increasingl y i mportant that all fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A lack of clarity regarding the standards that appl y to fuels used in FFVs could act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels with concentrations greater than 15 volume percent, which is important to satisfyingthe******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 25 of 842 requirements of the RFS2 program. For these reasons, we believe it is important that our gasoline quality

standards for not only

sulfur, but also benzene, RVP, detergency , and chemical composition (i.e., contains only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) ap ply to an y fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is not necessaril y clear how we should implement such standards within the context of our existing regulations as these fuels tend to be produced downstream of the petroleum refinery . For this reason w e are seeking comment on both the need to extend our gasoline standards to all gasoline
ethanol blends, as well as the appropriate regulatory mechanisms for doing so.
7. Regulatory

Streamlining and Technical Amendments We are proposing and requesting comment in this action on a number of items to help streamline the in
- use fuels regulations at 40 CFR part 80. The majority of items involve clarifying vague or inconsistent language, removal or updating of outdated provisions, and decrease in frequency and/ or volume of reporting burden where data are no longer needed or are redundant with other EPA fuels programs. In general, we believe that these changes would reduce burden on industry and allow us to achieve the standards and resulting environmental benef its as earl y as possible with no expected loss in environmental control. In some cases, these regulatory streamlining items are non
substantive amendments that correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the regulations. The regulatory

streamlining items that we are proposing for the in
- use fuels regulations are changes that we believe are straightforward and should be made quickl y. In addition, there are a number of items that we believe need further consideration and discussion on which we are seeking co mment. The proposal also includes a variety of technical amendments to certification
related requirements for engine and vehicle emission standards. We are proposing to revise the fuel econom y l abeling requirements to correspond to the new Tier 3 stand ards. We are proposing some clarifications and new provisions to more carefull y differentiate emission categories. We are also proposing to remove obsolete regulatory text and make several minor corrections and clarifications. Please refer to Section V I for a complete discussion of technical amendments and regulatory

streamlining provisions and issues. **C. What Would the Impacts of the Proposed Standards**  **Be ?**  The proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards together would reduce dramaticall y emissions of NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 , and air toxics. The gasoline sulfur standards, which would take effect in 2017, would provide large immediate reductions in emissions from existing gasoline vehicles and engines. NO X emissions would be reduced by about 284,000 tons, or about 8 percent of emissions from on
- highway vehicles, in 2017 alone. The emission reductions would increase over time as newer vehicles become******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 26 of 842 a larger percentage of the fleet. In 2030, when 80 percent of the light
- dut y fleet (and 90 percent of the vehicle mi les travelled) consists of Tier 3 vehicles, we expect the NO X and VOC emissions to be reduced b y about 525,000 tons and 226,000 tons, respectivel y, or one quarter of emissions from on
- highway vehicles compared to their 2030 levels without the Tier 3 program. Emissions of CO would decrease b y almost 6 million tons, or 30 percent of emissions from on
- highway vehicles. Emissions of many air toxics would also be reduced, including benzene, 1,3
- butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol, with reductions ranging from 10 to nearl y 40 percent of national emissions from on - highway

vehicles. We expect these reductions to continue beyond 2030 as more of the fleet continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for example, by 2050, when nearl y all of the fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce on
- highway emissions of NO X and VOC nearl y 40 percent from the level of emissions projected without Tier 3 controls. These reductions in emissions of NO X , VOC , PM 2.5 and air toxics from the proposed Tier 3 standards are projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 2.5 and air toxics by 2030, and would immediately reduce ozone in 2017 as the proposed sulfur controls take effec t. Specificall y, the proposed Tier 3 standards would significantly decrease ozone concentrations across the country , with a population
- weighted annual average decrease of 0.47 ppb in 2017 and 1.55 ppb in 2030. The magnitude of reductions is of significant enough to bring ozone levels in some counties from above the standard to below the standard, even without any additional controls. Few other strategies exist that would deliver the reductions needed for states to meet the current ozone standards. The proposed Tier 3 standards would decrease annual ambient PM 2.5 concentrations across the country in nonattainment and highly
- populated urban areas, with a population
- weighted annual average decrease of 0.05 μg/m 3 by 2030. Decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics are also projected with the proposed standards, including notable nationwide reductions in benzene concentrations. Additional information on the emission and air quality impacts of the proposed Tier 3 program is presented in Sections III.B and C. Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 2.5 , and air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature deaths as well as other important public health and environmental effects (see Section II.B). The proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce these adverse impacts and yi eld significant benefits, including those we can monetize and those we are unable to quantify . We estimate that by 2030, the annual emission reductions of the Tier 3 standards would annually prevent between 970 and 2,800 PM
- related premature deaths, between 170 and 770 ozone
- related premature deaths, 100,000 work days lost, and approximately 970,000 minor restricted
- activity day s. The estimated annual monetized health benefits of the proposed Tier 3 standards in 2030 (2010$) would be between $9.5 and $27 billion, assuming a 3
- percent discount rate (or between $8.7 billion and $25 billion assuming a 7
- percent discount rate). The proposed fuel standards are projected to cost on average less than one cent per gallo n of gasoline, and the proposed light
- duty vehicle standards would have an average cost that increases in proportion to the increase in stringency from $50 per vehicle in 2017 to $134******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 27 of 842 per vehicle when the standards are full y phased in 2025. The annual cos t of the overall program in 2030 would be approximately $3.4 billion. The 2030 benefits could outweigh the costs by

a factor of 8. Note that the benefits in Table I
- 7 include all of the human health impacts we ar e able to quantify and monetize at this time. However, the full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM, ozone and air toxics remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods and/or available data. As a result, the health benefits quantified in this section are likel y underestimates of the total benefits attributable to the proposed standards. See Sections VII and VIII for detailed descriptions of the costs and benefits of this proposal. **Table I**  **- 7**  **Summary of Annual Benefts and Costs Associated with the Proposed Tier 3 Program (Billions, 2010$)**  **a Description**  **2030** Vehicle Program Costs Fuels Program Costs Total Estimated Costs b $2.1 $1.3 $3.4 Total Estimated Health Ben efits c,d,e,f 3 percent discount rate 7 percent discount rate $9.5
- $27 $8.7
- $25 Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits

– Total Costs) 3 percent discount rate 7 percent discount rate $6.1
- $24 $5.3
- $22 Notes: a All estimates repre sent annual benefits and costs anticipated for the year 2030. Totals are rounded to two significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. b The calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of ann ual cost do not include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Section VII of the preamble for more information on vehicle and fuel costs). c Total includes ozone and PM 2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2004 ozone premature mortality function to PM 2.5 - related premature mortality derived from the American Cancer Society cohort study (Pope et al., 2002) for the low estimate and ozone premature mo rtality derived from the Levy et al., 2005 study to PM 2. 5 - related premature mortality derived from the Six
- Cities (Laden et al., 2006) study for the high estimate. d Annual benefits analysis results reflect the use of a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarctions, consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses. e Valuation of premature mortality based on long
- term PM exposure assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20
- year segmented lag structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (September, 2006). f Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis; the total monetized benefits presented here may therefore be underestimated. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized, due to current limitations in methods and/or data availability, are listed in Table VIII
- 2. For example, we have not quantified a number of known or suspected health and welfare effe cts linked with reductions in ozone and PM (e.g., reductions in heart rate variability, reduced material damage to structures and cultural monuments, and reduced eutrophication in coastal areas). We are also unable to quantify health and welfare benefits associated with reductions in air toxics
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 28 of 842 

## II. **Why Is EP**

**A Making**  **This Pr oposal?**  The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably

be anticipated to endanger public health or welf

are. EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution. These statutory requirements are described in Section II.A. Emissions from motor vehicles and their fuels contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, NO 2 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and CO, which are all pollutants for which EPA has established health
- based NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and premature mortality . Approximately 159 million people currently live in areas designated nonattainment for one or more of the current NAAQS. 17 Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans continue t o be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune sy stem damage, and neurological, reproductive, developmental, respiratory , and other health problems. 18 A more detailed discussion of the health and environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B. Cars and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor to air pollution directly near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting for m ore than 50 percent of near
road concentrations of some criteria and toxic pollutants. 19 More than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close proximity to high
- traffic roadway s, and the average American spends more than one hour traveling each day , with nearly 90 percent of daily trips occurring b y personal vehicle. 20 , 21 , 22 Exposure to traffic
- related pollutants has been

17 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: htt p://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2011
- 0135.
. 18 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National
- Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 19 For example, see Fujita, E.M ; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow , J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in Motor Vehicle
- Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org 20 U.S. Census Bureau ( 2011 ) . Current Housing Reports, Series H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html 21 Drago, R. ( 2011 ) . Secondary activities in the 2006 American Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. Available at http://www.bls.gov 22 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2003) National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights Re port. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 29 of 842 linked with adverse health impacts such as respiratory problems (particularly

in asthmatic children) and cardiovascular problems
. In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, many areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. Specifically , in 2017 almost 50 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 2008 8
- hour ozone NAAQS, without additional controls. Nonattainment with the NAAQS will continue into the future unless additional controls are adopted; in 2030 almost 32 million people will live in counties that are projected to exc eed the 2008 8
- hour ozone NAAQS, and 31 million people will live in counties that are projected to exceed the 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. States and local areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and, once attained, to demonstrate that c ontrol measures are in place sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten ye ars (and eight ye ars later, a similar demonstration is required for another ten
- ye ar period). The proposed Tier 3 standards would be a critical part of areas’ strategies to attain and maintain the standards. Maintaining the standards has been challenging in the past, particularl y for areas where high population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. We project that in 2017 over 120 counties (with over 68 million people) will be within 10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of additional controls. These counties in particular would benefit from the proposed Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long
- term maintenance of the NAAQS. Section III provides more detail on how this proposal would reduce motor vehicle emissions and ambient levels of pollution. The proposed rule would meaningfull y reduce ozone concentrations as earl y as 2017 (the first ye ar of the program), and even more significantl y in 2030. The reductions are of significant enough magnitude to bring ozone levels in some counties from above the standard to below the standard, even without any additional controls. We also project that the Tier 3 standards w ould reduce ambient PM 2.5 concentrations. Without this proposal to reduce nationwide motor vehicle emissions, areas would have to adopt other measures to reduce emissions from other sources under their state or local authority . Few other measures exist for providing multi
- pollutant reductions of the same magnitude and cost
- effectiveness as those expected from the proposed Tier 3 standards. Furthermore, states outside California do not have the authority to lower the sulfur in gasoline, which is needed to immediatel y reduce emissions from the existing fleet and also enable new vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards throughout their useful life. The reductions in ambient ozone and PM 2.5 that would result from the proposed Tier 3 standards would provide significant health benefits. By 2030, the standards would annually prevent between 970 and 2,800 PM
- related premature deaths, between 170 and 770 ozone
- related premature deaths, 100,000 work day s lost, and approximately 970,000 minor res tricted
- activity

day s (see Section VIII for more details). This proposal would also reduce air toxics; for example, we project that in 2030, the proposal would decrease******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 30 of 842 ambient benzene concentrations by 10
- 25 percent in some urban areas. Furthermore, the proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce traffic
- associated pollution near major roads. EPA is proposing Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards as part of a comprehensive nationwide program for regulating all ty pes of air pollution from motor vehicles. EPA r ecentl y finalized standards to reduce GHG emissions from light
- dut y vehicles, starting with model year 2017. 23 The Tier 3 standards in this proposal, which address non
- GHGs, would be implemented on the same timeframe, thus allowing manufacturers to optimiz e their vehicle redesigns over both sets of standards. Furthermore, the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards are also closely aligned with California’s LEV III program, in such a way that manufacturers could design a single vehicle for nationwide sales. Thi s reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers. This Tier 3 proposal responds to the President’s request in his May 2010 memorandum for EPA to review the adequacy of its existing non
- GHG standards for new motor vehicles and fuels, and to promulgat e new standards, if necessary , as part of a comprehensive approach to regulating motor vehicles. 24 Based on our review, we have concluded that improved vehicle technology , combined with lower sulfur gasoline, make it feasible and cost
- effective to reduce e missions well below the current Tier 2 levels. These emission reductions are necessary to reduce air pollution that is (and projected to continue to be) at levels that endanger public health and welfare. **A. Basis for Action under the Clean Air Act**  1. Clean Air Act Section 202 We are proposing to set motor vehicle emission standards under the authority of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Section 202(a) provides EPA with general authority to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to any specific limitations elsewh ere in the Act. EPA is also setting standards for larger light
- dut y trucks and MDPVs under the general authority of section 202(a)(1) and under section 202(a)(3), which requires that standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, NO X , CO and PM from h eav y - duty vehicles 25 reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction available for the model year to which such standards appl y, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy , and safet y. In addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from all gasoline
- fueled motor vehicles during: (1) operation, and (2) over 2 or more day s of nonuse; under ozone
- prone summertime conditions. Regulations under section 202(k) shal l take effect as expeditiously

as possible and shall require the greatest degree of emission reduction

23 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012). 24 The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the
- press - of fice/presidential
memorandum
- regarding
- fuel
- efficiency
- standards. 25 LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings above 6000 lbs are considered ‘‘heavy
- duty vehicles’’ under the CAA. See section 202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory purposes, we refer to those LDTs at or below 8500 lbs GVWR as ‘‘heavy light
- duty trucks’’ made up of LDT3s and LDT4s.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 31 of 842 achievable by means reasonably expected to be available for production during any model year to which the regulations appl y, giving appropriate consideration to fuel volatility , and to cost, energy , and safet y factors associated with the application of the appropriate technology . Further, section 206 and in particular section 206(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures f or testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements. 2. Clean Air Act Section 211 We are proposing to adopt gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our authority under section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. This section allow s EPA to establish a fuel control if at least one of the following two criteria is met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; or (2) the emission products of the fuel will impair to a significant degree the performance of an y emissions control device or s ys tem which is either in general use or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it will be in general use were the fuel control to be adopted. We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls based on both of these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that gasoline with current levels of sulfur contributes to ambient levels of air pollution that end anger public health and welfare, as described in Section II.B. Under the second criterion, we believe that gasoline sulfur impairs the emissions control sy stems of vehicles, as discussed in Section III.A.2. **B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor V**  **ehicles and Fuels** Motor vehicles emit pollutants that contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, NO 2 , SO 2 , CO, and air toxics. Motor vehicles are significant contributors to emissions of VOC and NO X , which contribute to the formation of both ozone and PM 2.5 . Approximately 159 million people currentl y live in counties designated nonattainment for one or more of the NAAQS, and this figure does not include the people living in areas with a risk of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. 26 The majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects. 27 Inaddition, populations who live, work, or attend school near major roads experience elevated exposure concentrations t o a wide range of air pollutants. 28

26 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 20 11
- 0 135. 27 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National
- Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 28 Health Effects I nstitute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic
- Related Air Pollution. (2010) Traffic
related air pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at http://www.healtheffects.o rg]******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 32 of 842 EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient pollution levels. As a result of these programs, the number of areas that continue to violate the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS or have h igh levels of air toxics is expected to continue to decrease. However, the baseline air quality modeling completed for this proposed rule predicts that without additional controls there will continue to be a need for reductions in ozone, PM 2.5 and air tox ics concentrations in the future. Section III.C of this preamble presents the air quality modeling results for this proposed rule. 1. Ozone a. Background Ground
- level ozone pollution is ty pically formed through reactions involving VOC and NO X in the lower atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many t ypes of pollution sources, such as highway

and nonroad motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical plants, refineries, makers of con sumer and commercial products, industrial facilities, and smaller area sources. The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is complex. Ground
- level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical reactions, many of which ar e sensitive to temperature and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for several day s and the air is relativel y stagnant, ozone and its precursors can build up and result in more ozone than ty picall y occurs on a single high
- t emperature day . Ozone and its precursors can be transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or NO X emissions. b. Health Effects of Ozone The health and welfare effects o f ozone are well documented and are assessed in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality

Criteria Document and 2007 Staff Paper. 29 , 30 People who are more susceptible to effects associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderl y, and individuals with respirat ory disease such as asthma. Those with greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors (e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular concern. Ozone can irritate the respiratory s ys tem, causing coughing, throat irritation, an d breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce lung function and cause pulmonary

inflammation in healthy

individuals. Ozone can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require medical attention and/or the use of

29 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/R
- 05/004aF
- cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 30 U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA
- 452/R
- 07
- 003. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 33 of 842 additional medication. Thus, ambient ozone may cause both healthy

and asthmatic individuals to limit their outdoor activities. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular
- related morbidity and highl y suggestive evidence that short
- term ozon e exposure directl y or indirectly contributes to non
- accidental and cardiopulmonary
- related mortality , but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms causing these effects. In a report on the estimation of ozone
related premature m ortality published by

the National Research Council (NRC), a panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short
- term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that ozone
- related mortality should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure. 31 Animal toxicological evidence indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may

lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and irreversible reductions in lung function. The respiratory effects observed in controlled human exposure studies and animal studies are coherent with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supporting a causal relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures and increased respirato ry - related emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the warm season. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular
- related morbidity and non
- accidental and cardiopulmonary mortality
. c. Current and Projected Ozon e Levels Concentrations that exceed the level of the ozone NAAQS occur in many parts of the country , including many major population centers. In addition, our modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects that in the future we will continue to have man y areas that will have ambient ozone concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see Section III.C.1). States will need to meet the standard in the 2015
- 2032 timeframe. The emission reductions and significant ambient ozone improvements from this p roposed rule, which would take effect starting in 2017, would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS. The primary

and secondary

NAAQS for ozone are 8
- hour standards with a level of 0.075 ppm. The most recent revision to the ozone standards was in 2008; the previous 8
- hour ozone standards, set in 1997, had a level of 0.08 ppm. In 2004, the U.S. EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8
- hour ozone NAAQS. 32 , 33 As of July 20, 2012 , there were 4 3 ozone nonattainment are as for the 1997 ozone NAAQS composed of 2 37 full or partial counties w ith a total population of over 1 29 million. Nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone standard were finalized on April 30, 2012 and May 31, 2012. 34 These designations include 46 are as, composed of 227 full or partial counties,

31 National Research Council. (2008). Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution . The National Academi es Press: Washington, D.C. 32 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). 33 A nonattainment area is defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient standard or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. 34 77FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 34 of 842 with a population of over 123 million. As of July 20, 2012, 140 million people are living in ozone nonattainment areas. States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to take action to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area’s classification. Most ozone nonattainment areas are required to attain the 1997 8
- hour ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time frame and then to maintain it thereafter. 35 T he attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 8
- hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area. In addition, EPA is working to complete the current review of th e ozone NAAQS by

mid
- 2014. If EPA revises the ozone standards in 2014 pursuant to that review, the attainment dates associated with areas designated nonattainment for that NAAQS would likely

be in the 2019 to 2036 timeframe, depending on the severity of the problem in each area. EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, 8
- hour ozone levels are expected to improve in the futur e. However, even with the implementation of all current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating the ozone NAAQS well into the future. Thus additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas with atta inment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and may

relieve areas with already stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with adopting additional local controls. 2. Particulate Matter a. Background Particulate matter is a highly complex mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets distributed among numerous atmospheric gases which interact with solid and liquid phases. Particles range in size from those smaller than 1 nanometer (10 - 9 meter) to over 100 micrometer (μm, or 10 - 6 meter) in diameter (for reference, a typi cal strand of human hair is 70 um in diameter and a grain of salt is about 100 μm). Atmospheric particles can be grouped into several classes according to their aerodynamic and ph ys ical sizes, including ultrafine particles (<0.1 μm), accumulation mode or ‘fine’ particles (< 1 to 3 μm), and coarse particles (>1 to 3 μm). For regulatory purposes, fine particles are measured as PM 2.5 and inhalable or thoracic coarse particles are measured as PM 10
- 2.5 , corresponding to their size (diameter) range in micrometers and referring to total particle

35 The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8
- hour ozone nonattainment area and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 8
- hour ozone nonattainment area are designated as extreme and will have to attain before June 15, 2024. The Sacramento, Coachella Valle y , Western Mojave and Houston 8
- hour ozone nonattainment areas are designated as severe and will have to attain by June 15, 2019.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 35 of 842 mass under 2.5 and between 2.5 and 10 micrometers, respectivel y. The EPA currently has standards that measure PM 2.5 and PM 10 . 36 Particles span man y size s and shapes and consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” part icles. Particle pollution also varies by time of year and location and is affected by several weather
- related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity , and wind. A further layer of complexity comes from particles’ ability to shift between solid/liqui d and gaseous phases, which is influenced b y concentration and meteorology , especially

temperature. Fine particles are produced primaril y b y combustion processes and b y transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxides ( SO X ) , nitrogen oxides (NO X ) , and volatile organic compounds ( VOC ) ) in the atmosphere. The chemical and phy sical properties of PM 2.5 may

vary greatly with time, region, meteorology , and source category . Thus, PM 2.5 may include a complex mixture of different components including s ulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for day s to weeks and travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers. b. Health Effects of PM Scientific studies show ambient PM is associate d with a series of adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (I SA) for Particulate Matter. 37 Further discussion of health effects associated with PM can also be found in the draft RIA. The ISA summarizes health effects evidence associated with both short
- term and long
- term exposures to PM 2.5 , PM 10
- 2.5 , and ultrafine particles. The I SA concludes that health effects associated with short
- term exposures (hours to day s) to ambient PM 2.5 include mortality , cardiovascular effects, such as altered vasomotor function and myocardial ischemia, and hospital admissions and emergency department visits for ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure, and respiratory effects, such as exacerbation o f asthma sy mptoms in children and hospital admissions and emergency

department visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and

36 Regulatory definitions of PM size fractions, and information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in ambie nt air, are provided in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58. 37 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 36 of 842 respiratory

infections. 38 The I SA notes that long
- term exposure (months to years) to PM 2.5 is associated with the development/progression of cardiovascular disease, premature mortality , and respiratory effects, including reduced lung function growth in children, increased respiratory s ymptoms, and asthma development. 39 The I SA concludes that the currently available scientific e vidence from epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and toxicological studies supports a causal association between short
and long
- term exposures to PM 2.5 and cardiovascular effects and premature mortality
. Furthermore, the ISA concludes that the coll ective evidence supports likely causal associations between short
- and long
- term PM 2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. The ISA also concludes that the scientific evidence is suggestive of a causal association for reproductive and developmental effects including respiratory
- related infant mortality , and cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity and long
- term exposure to PM 2.5 . 40 For PM 10
- 2.5 , the I SA concludes that the current evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short
- term exposures and p remature mortality, cardiovascular effects, and respiratory

effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding the health effects associated with long
- term exposure to PM 10
- 2.5 . 41 For ultrafine particles, the I SA concludes that there is suggestive evidence of a causal relationship between short
- term exposures and cardiovascular effects, such as changes in heart rh ythm and blood vessel function. It also concludes that there is suggestive evidence of association between short
- term exposure to ultrafi ne particles and respiratory

effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding the health effects associated with long
- term exposure to ultrafine particles. 42
c. Current and Projected PM 2.5 Levels There are man y areas of the country that are currently in nonattainment for the annual and 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Our modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects that in the future we will continue to have many areas that will have ambient PM 2.5 concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see Secti on III.C.2). States will need to meet the 24
- hour standard in the 2014
- 2019 timeframe. The emission reductions and improvements in ambient PM 2.5 from this proposed rule, which would take effect

38 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F. Section 2.3.1.1. 39 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F. page 2
- 12, Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1. 40 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F. Sect ion 2.3.2. 41 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F. Section 2.3.4 and Table 2
- 6. 42 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F. Section 2.3.5 and Table 2
- 6.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 37 of 842 starting in 2017, would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the PM 2.5 NAAQS. There are two NAAQS for PM 2.5 : an annual standard (15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 )) and a 24
- hour standard (35 μg/m 3 ). The most recent revisions to these standards were in 1997 and 2006. InJune 2012, EPA proposed to revise the PM 2.5 NAAQS and is scheduled to issue final revisio ns in December 2012 under a court
ordered schedule. The proposed changes include revising the annual PM 2.5 standard to a level between 12 and 13 μg/m 3 , and establishing a distinct secondary PM 2.5 standard for the protection of visibility , particularl y in urban areas. In 2005 EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 43 As of July 20 , 201 2 , over 91 million people lived in the 35 areas that are designated as nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. These PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are compri sed of 191 full or partial counties. On October 8, 2009, the EPA issued final nonattainment area designations for the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 44 These designations include 32 areas composed of 121 full or partial counties with a population of over 70 mil lion. In total, there are 50 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas with a population of over 10 5 million people. 45 States with PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will be required to take action to bring those areas into attainment in the future. Most 1997 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are required to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the 2010 to 2015 time frame and then required to maintain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS thereafter. 46 The 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will be required to attain the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the 20 14 to 2019 time frame and then be required to maintain the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS thereafter. 47 The standards proposed here begin taking effect in 2017. EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control programs that are expected to reduce amb ient PM levels. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, the number of areas that fail to meet the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the future is expected to decrease. However, even with the implementation of all current state and federal regulati ons, there are projected to be counties violating the PM 2.5 NAAQS well into the future. Thus additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas with attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously as

43 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005). 44 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). 45 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Popul ation Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 20 11
- 0 135. 46 U.S. EPA. (2007). PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule (Final). Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007. 47 U.S. EPA . (2011). PM Standards Revision

– 2006: Timeline. Available at http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html#timeline . Accessed December 31, 2 011.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 38 of 842 practica ble and may

relieve areas with already stringent local regulations from some of the burden associated with adopting additional local controls. 3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides a. Background Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is a member of the NO X family of gases. Most NO 2 is formed in the air through the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high temperature. Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), a member of the sulfur oxide (SO X ) famil y of gases, is formed from burning fuels containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from oil, or extracting metals from ore. SO 2 and NO 2 and their gas phase oxidation products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form sulfuric and nitric acid which react with ammonia to form sulfates and nitrates, both of which are important components of ambient PM. The health effects of ambient PM are discussed in Section II.B.2.b of this preamble. NO X and VOC are the two major precursors of ozone. The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II.B.2.1.b. b. Health Effects of NO 2 In formation on the health effects of NO 2 can be found in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (I SA) for Nitrogen Oxides. 48 The EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and animal t oxicological studies provide evidence that is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory effects and short
- term NO 2 exposure. The I SA concludes that the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic studies of respiratory effects including sy mptoms, emergency

department visits, and hospital admissions. Based on both short
and long
- term studies, the I SA concludes that associations of NO 2 with respiratory health effects are stronger among a number of groups; these include individuals with preexisting pulmonary

conditions (e.g., asthma or COPD), children and older adults. The I SA also draws two broad conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO 2 exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO 2 exposure may enhance the sensitivity

to allergen
induced decrements in lung function and increase the allergen
- induced airway inflammatory

response following 30
- minute exposures of asthmatics to NO 2 concentrations as low as 0.26 ppm
. Second, exposure to NO 2 has b een found to enhance the inherent responsiveness of the airway to subsequent nonspecific challenges in controlled human exposure studies of asthmatic subjects. S mall but significant increases in non
- specific airway

hyperresponsiveness were reported follow ing 1
- hour exposures of asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO 2 . Enhanced airway responsiveness could have important clinical implications for asthmatics since transient increases in airway responsiveness

48 U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen

– Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R
- 08/071. Washington, DC: U.S.EPA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 39 of 842 following NO 2 exposure have the potential to increase s ymptoms and worsen asthma control. Together, the epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a plausible, consistent, and coherent description of a relationship between NO 2 exposures and an array of adverse health effects that range from the onset of respiratory sy mptoms to hospital admission. Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity , NO 2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These include all
- cause (nona ccidental) mortality , hospital admissions or emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure. c. Health Effects of SO 2 In formation on the health effects of SO 2 can be found in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides. 49 SO 2 has long been known to cause adverse respiratory

health effects, particularl y among individuals with asthma. Other potentially sensitive groups include children and the elderl y. During periods of elevated ventilation, asthmatics may

experience s ymptomatic bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relationship between respiratory health effects and short
- term exposure to SO 2 . Separatel y, based on an evaluation of the epidemiologic evidence of associations between short
- term exposure to SO 2 and mortality , the EPA has concluded that the overall evidence i s suggestive of a causal relationship between short
- term exposure to SO 2 and mortality
. d. Current Levels of NO 2 Between 2003 and 2005, national mean concentrations of NO 2 were about 15 parts per billion (ppb) for averaging periods ranging from a day to a ye ar. 50 There are two NAAQS for NO 2 : an annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1
- hour standard (100 ppb). The primary NAAQS for NO 2 was revised in January 2010
. EPA completed area designat ions in January

2012 and there are currently no nonattainment areas . The des ignations were based on the existing community
- wide monitoring network. Once the expanded network of NO 2 monitors is fully deplo yed and three years of air quality data

49 U.S. EPA. (2008). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur Oxides

– Health Criteria (Final Report) . EPA/600/R
- 08/047F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 50 U.S. EPA. (2010). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAf ulldocument.pdf******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 40 of 842 have been collected, EPA intends to redesignate areas in 2016 or 2017 , as appropriate, based on the air quality

data from the new monitoring network. 51 4. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from combustion processes. Nationally

and, particularl y in urban areas, the majority of CO emissions to ambient air c ome from mobile sources. a. Health Effects of Carbon Monoxide In formation on the health effects of CO can be found in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (I SA) for Carbon Monoxide. 52 The I SA concludes that ambient concentrations of CO are associated with a number of adverse health effects. 53 This section provides a summary of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of CO. 54 Human clinical studies of subjects with coronary artery disease show a decrease in the time to onset of e xercise
- induced angina (chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In addition, epidemiologic studies show associations between short
- term CO exposure and cardiovascular morbidity , particularl y increased emergency

room visits and hos pital admissions for coronary heart disease (including ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and angina). Some epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and c ardiovascular disease as a whole. The ISA concludes that a causal relationship is likely to exist between short
- term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity. It also concludes that available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists between long
- term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity
. Animal studies show various neurological effects with in
- utero CO exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report inconsistent neural and behavioral effects

51 U.S. EPA. (201 2 ). Fact Sheet

– Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) National Ambient A ir Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/designations/pdfs/20120120FS.pdf 52 U.S. EPA, (2010) . Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 09/019F, 2010. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. 53 The ISA evaluates the health evi dence associated with different health effects, assigning one of five “weight of evidence” determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal relationship. For definitions of these levels of evidence, please refer to Section 1.6 of the ISA. 54 Personal exposure includes contributions from many sources, and in many different environments. Total personal exposure to CO includ es both ambient and nonambient components; and both components may contribute to adverse health effects.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 41 of 842 following low
- level C O exposures. The I SA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship with both short
- and long
- term exposure to CO and central nervous sy stem effects. A number of epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies cited in the ISA have evaluated associations between CO exposure and birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. The epidemiologic studies provide limited evidence of a CO
induced effect on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease in birth weight. Animal toxicological studies have found associations between perinatal CO exposure and decrements in birth weight, as well as other developmental outcomes. The ISA concludes these studies are suggestive of a causal relationship between long
- term exposures to CO and developmental effects and birth outcomes. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of effects on respiratory morbidit y such as changes in pulmonary

function, respiratory

s ymptoms, and hospital admissions associated with ambient CO concentrations. A limited number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as ozone, SO 2 , and PM in two
- pollutant models and found that CO risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on respiratory morbidit y. Animal studies at levels of 50
- 100 ppm CO show preliminary

evidenc e of altered pulmonary vascular remodeling and oxidative injury
. The I SA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short
term CO exposure and respiratory morbidity , and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exi sts between long
- term exposure and respiratory morbidit y. Finally , the I SA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short
- term exposures to CO and mortality . Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of an as sociation between short
- term exposure to CO and mortality , but limited evidence is available to evaluate cause
- specific mortality outcomes associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk estimates which was often observed in copollutant models contributes to the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for other combustion
- related pollutants. The I SA also concludes that there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long
- term exposures to CO and mortality
. 5. Mobile Source Air Toxics Li ght
- dut y vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk of cancer an d other noncancer health effects from******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 42 of 842 exposure to the class of pollutants known collectively as “air toxics.” 55 These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3
- butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldeh yde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and na phthalene. These compounds were identified as national or regional risk drivers or contributors in the 2005 National
scale Air Toxics Assessment and have significant inventory contributions from mobile sources. 56
a. Health Effects of Air Toxics i. Benzene The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) b y all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased prolife ration of bone marrow cells in mice. 57 , 58 , 59 EPA states in its IRIS database that data indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute ly mphocy tic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene exposure and chronic non - ly mphocy tic leuk emia and chronic l ymphocy tic leukemia. EPA’s IRIS documentation for benzene also lists a range of 2.2 x 10 - 6 to 7.8 x 10 - 6 as the unit risk estimate (URE) for benzene. 60 , 61 The International Agency for Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human carcinogen. 62 , 63

55 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National
- Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 56 U.S. EPA (2011) 2 005 National
- Scale Air Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005. 57 U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
. 58 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 C ancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France 1982. 59 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. (1992). Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage colony
sti mulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 89:3691
- 3695. 60 A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the lifetime risk of an individual who is exposed for a lifetime to 1 μg/m3 benzene in air. 61 U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
. 62 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1987). Monographs on the evaluat ion of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 63 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report on Carcinogens
. Available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75
- E1BF
- FF40
- DBA9EC0928DF8B15.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 43 of 842 A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anem ia, have also been associated with long
- term exposure to benzene. 64 , 65 The most sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data, is the depression of the absolute ly mphocy te count in blood. 66 , 67 EPA’s inhalation reference concentration ( RfC) for benzene is 30 μg/m 3 . The RfC is based on suppressed absolute ly

mphocy te counts seen in humans under occupational exposure conditions. In addition, recent work, including studies sponsored by the Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides evidence that biochemical responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure than previously known. 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 EPA’s IRI S program has not yet evaluated these new data. EPA does not currentl y have an acute reference concentration for benzene. The Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk L evel (MRL) for acute exposure to benzene is 29 μg/m 3 for 1
- 14 day s exposure. 72 , 73

ii. Formaldehyde In 1991, EPA concluded that formaldeh yde is a carcinogen based on nasal tumors in animal bioassay s. 74 An Inhalation Unit Risk for cancer and a Reference Dose for oral noncancer effects were developed b y the Agency and posted on the Integrated Risk In formation Sy stem (IRI S) database. Since that time, the National Toxicology Program

64 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193
- 197. 65 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541
- 554
. 66 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko
- Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes. (1996). Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236
- 246. 67 U.S . EPA. (2002). Toxicological Revie w of Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental Protection Agency , Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
. 68 Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen , C.L.; Cohen, B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmond, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kwok, E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report 115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to Benzene in China. 69 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275
- 285. 70 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774
- 1776. 71 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human exposure from Urban Ai r. Research Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113. 72 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf. 73 A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. 74 EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde (CASRN 50
- 00
- 0) http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 44 of 842 (NTP) and International A gency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have concluded that formaldeh yde is a known human carcinogen. 75 , 76 , 77 The conclusions b y IAR C and NTP reflect the results of epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with previous animal, human and mechani stic evidence. Research conducted b y the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of nasophary

ngeal cancer and specific l ymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers exposed to formaldeh yde. 78 , 79 , 80 A National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study

of garment workers also reported increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers exposed to formaldeh yde. 81 Extended follow
- up of a cohort of British chemical workers did not report evidence of an increase in nasophary ngeal or ly mphoh ematopoietic cancers, but a continuing statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported. 82 Finally , a study of embalmers reported formaldeh yd e exposures to be associated with an increased risk of m yeloid leukemia but not brain cancer. 83 Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed b y the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999 84 and supplemented in 2010, 85 and by

the World Health Organization. 86 These organizations reviewed the literature concerning effect s on the eyes and respiratory s ys tem, the primary point of

75 National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011 76 IARC Mon ographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2
- Butoxyethanol and 1
- tert - Butoxypropan
- 2
- ol 77 IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde 78 Hauptmann, M..; Lub in, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95: 1615
- 1623. 79 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117
- 1130. 80 Beane Freeman, L. E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Hoover, R. N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer Inst. 101: 751
- 761. 81 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193
- 200. 82 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended follow
- up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608
- 1615. 83 Hauptmann, M,; Ste wart P. A.; Lubin J. H.; Beane Freeman, L. E.; Hornung, R. W.; Herrick, R. F.; Hoover, R. N.; Fraumeni, J. F.; Hayes, R. B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of the Natio nal Cancer Institute 101:1696
- 1708. 84 AT SDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999. 85 AT SDR. 2010. Addendum to theToxicological Profile for Formaldehyde
. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), October 2010. 86 IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 45 of 842 contact for inhaled formaldehyde, including sensory irritation of eyes and respiratory tract, pulmonary

function, nasal histopathology , and immune sy stem effects. In addition, research on reproduc tive and developmental effects and neurological effects were discussed. EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde

– Inhalation Assessment through the IRI S program for peer review by the National Research Council (NRC) and public comment i n June 2010. 87 The draft assessment reviewed more recent research from animal and human studies on cancer and other health effects. The NRC released their review report in April 2011. 88 The EPA is currentl y revising the draft assessment in response to thi s review.

iii. Acetaldehyde Acetaldeh yd e is classified in EPA’s IRI S database as a probable human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes. 89 The URE in IRI S for acetaldehyde is 2.2 × 10 - 6 per μg/m 3

. 90 Acetaldeh yd e is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. DHHS in the 12 th Report on Carcinogens and is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) b y the IARC. 91 , 92 EPA is currently conducting a reassessment o f cancer risk from inhalation exposure to acetaldeh yd e. The primary

noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. 93 In short
- term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium was observed at various concentration levels of

87 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (CAS No. 50
- 00
- 0)

– Inhalation Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information Sy stem (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R
- 10/002A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC [online]. Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/irs_drats/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614 88 NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde. Washington DC: Na tional Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13142 89 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm
. 90 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 91 NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, T we lfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 pp. 92 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1999). Re
- evaluation of some organ ic chemicals, hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France. 93 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is available el ectronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 46 of 842 acetaldeh yde exposure. 94 , 95 Data from these studies were used b y EPA to develop an inhalation reference concentration of 9 μg/m 3 . Some asthmatics have been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in functional expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon acetaldeh yde inhalation. 96 The agency is currently conducting a reassessment of the health hazards from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde.

iv. Acrolein EPA most recently

evaluated the toxicological and health effects literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human carcinogenic potential of acrolein could not be determined because the available data were inadequate. No information was available on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity. 97 The IARC determined in 1995 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans. 98 Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein. 99 The Agency has developed an RfC for acrolein of 0.02 μg/m 3 and an RfD of 0.5 μg/kg
- day
. 100 EPA is considering updating the acrolein assessment with data that have becom e available since the 2003 assessment was completed. Acrolein is extremely

acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, mucus hy persecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this carbon ylhas been demonstrated during controlled tests in human subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory

94 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronic ally at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm
. 95 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982). Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Ac ute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23: 293
- 297. 96 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda, T. (1993) Aerosolized acetaldehyde induces histamine
- mediated bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1): 940
- 943. 97 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm
. 98 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1995). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemical s to humans, Volume 63. Dry cleaning, some chlorinated solvents and other industrial chemicals, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 99 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm. 100 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 47 of 842 reactions within minutes of exposure. 101 These data and additional studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are summarized in EPA’s 2003 IRI S Human Health Assessment for acrolein. 102 Studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m 3 ) for five minutes may elicit subjective complaints of eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to m ore extensive eye, nose and respiratory sy mptoms. Acute exposures in animal studies report bronchial hy per - responsiveness. Based on animal data (more pronounced respiratory irritancy in mice with allergic airway disease in comparison to non
- diseased mice 103 ) and demonstration of similar effects in humans (e.g., reduction in respiratory rate), individuals with compromised respiratory function (e.g., emph ys ema, asthma) are expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. EPA does not currently have an acute reference concentration for acrolein. The available health effect reference values for acrolein have been summarized by EPA and include an ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to acrolein of 7 μg/m 3 for 1
- 14 day s exposure; and Reference Exposure Level (REL) values from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for one
- hour and 8
- hour exposures of 2.5 μg/m 3 and 0.7 μg/m 3 , respectivel y. 104

v. 1,3
-Butadiene EPA has characterize d 1,3
- butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. 105 , 106 The IARC has determined that 1,3
- butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized 1,3
- butadiene as a known human carcinogen. 107 , 108 , 109

101 U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) National Ce nter for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R
- 03/003. p. 10. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf
. 102 U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in support of summary information on Integrated Risk I nformation System (IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R
- 03/003. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf
. 103 Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. (2003). Immediate sensory nerve
- mediated respiratory responses to irritants in healthy and allergic airway - diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 94(4):1563
- 1571. 104 U.S. EPA. (2009). Graphical Arrays of Chemical
- Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 09/061, 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003 105 U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3
- Butadiene. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environm ental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No. EPA600
- P
- 98
- 001F. This document is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta
- sup.pdf
. 106 U.S. EPA. (2002). “Full IRIS Summary for 1,3
- butadiene (CASRN 106
- 99
- 0)” Enviro nmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. 107 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (199 9). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re
- evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in preparation), World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 108 International Agen cy

for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, 1,3
- Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides (Vinyl Fluoride, Vinyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World Health Organization, Lyo n, France.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 48 of 842 There are numerous studies consistently demon strating that 1,3
- butadiene is metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental animals and humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3
- butadiene
- induced carcinogenesis are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic metabolites. Animal data suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer effects associated with 1,3
- butadiene exposure; there are insufficient data in humans from which to draw conclusions about sensiti ve subpopulations. The URE for 1,3
- butadiene is 3 × 10 - 5 per μg/m 3

. 110 1,3
- butadiene also causes a variety of reproductive and developmental effects in mice; no human data on these effects are available. The most sensitive effect was ovarian atrophy obser ved in a lifetime bioassay of female mice. 111 Based on this critical effect and the benchmark concentration methodology , an RfC for chronic health effects was calculated at 0.9 ppb (approximately 2 μg/m 3 ). vi. Ethanol EPA is planning to develop an assessment of the health effects of exposure to ethanol, a compound which is not currentl y listed on EPA’s IRI S database. Extensive health effects data are available for ingestion of ethanol, while data on inhalation exposure effects are sparse. In developing the ass essment, EPA is evaluating pharmacokinetic models as a means of extrapolating across species (animal to human) and across exposure routes (oral to inhalation) to better characterize the health hazards and dose
- response relationships for low levels of ethan ol exposure in the environment. The IARC has classified “alcoholic beverages” as carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence that malignant tumors of the oral cavity , phary nx, lary nx, esophagus, and liver are causall y related to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. 112 The U.S. DHHS in the 12 th Report on Carcinogens also identified “alcoholic beverages” as a known human carcinogen (they have not evaluated the cancer risks specificall y from exposure to ethanol), with evidence for cancer of the mouth , phary nx, lary nx, esophagus, liver and breast. 113 There are no studies reporting carcinogenic effects from inhalation of ethanol. EPA is currently evaluating the available human and animal cancer data to

109 NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, T we lfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 pp. 110 U.S. EPA. (2002). “Full IRIS Summary for 1,3
- butadien e (CASRN 106
- 99
- 0)” Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. 111 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elli ot, G.S.; et al. (1996). Subchronic toxicity of 4
- vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1
- 10. 112 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1988). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 44, Alcohol Drinking, World Health Organization, Lyo n, France. 113 NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, T we lfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology P rogram. 499 pp.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 49 of 842 identify which cancer t yp e(s) are the most relevant to a human health assessment of low
level oral and inhalation exposure to ethanol. Noncancer health effects data are available from animal studies as well as epidemiology

studies. The epidemiologic data were obtained from studies of alcoholic beverage co nsumption. Reported effects included neurological impairment, developmental effects, cardiovascular effects, immune sy stem depression, and effects on the liver, pancreas and reproductive s ys tem. 114 There is evidence that children prenatall y exposed via mat ernal ingestion of alcoholic beverages during pregnancy are at increased risk of hy peractivity

and attention deficits, impaired motor coordination, a lack of regulation of social behavior or poor ps ychosocial functioning, and deficits in cognition, mathematical ability , verbal fluency , and spatial memory
. 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 Genetic factors influencing ethanol metabolism may render certain subpopulations more susceptible to the health effects of ethanol exposure b y altering internal levels of ethanol and/or its metabolites (e.g., acetaldeh yde).

vii. Polycyclic Organic Matter The term pol yc yclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discussed separately below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the major concern from exposure to POM. Epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of these mixtures contain POM

114 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). 10th Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health. June. 2000. 115 Goodlett CR, KH Horn, F Zhou. (2005). Alcohol teratogeniesis: mechanisms of damage and strategies for i ntervention. Exp. Biol. Med. 230:394
- 406. 116 Riley EP, CL McGee. (2005). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: an overview with emphasis on changes in brain and behavior. Exp. Biol. Med. 230:357
- 365. 117 Zhang X, JH Sliwowska, J Weinberg. (2005). Prenatal alcoh ol exposure and fetal programming: effects on neuroendocrine and immune function. Exp. Biol. Med. 230:376
- 388. 118 Riley, E. P., McGee, C. L. and Sowell, E. R. (2004). Teratogenic effects of alcohol: A decade of brain imaging. American Journal of Medical Ge netics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 127C: 35

–41. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.c.30014 119 Gunzerath, L., Faden, V., Zakhari, S. and Warren, K. (2004), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Report on Moderate Drinking. Alcoholism: Clinical and Exp erimental Research, 28: 829

– 847. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000128382.79375.B6 120 World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). Global status report on alcohol 2004. Geneva, Switzerland: Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Available: http://www. who.int/s ubstance_abuse/publications/global_status_report_2004_overview .pdf 121 Chen W
- JA, SE Maier, SE Parnell, FR West. (2003). Alcohol and the developing brain: neuroanatomical studies. Alcohol Res. Health 27:174
- 180. 122 Driscoll CD, AP Streissguth, EP Riley. (19 90). Prenatal alcohol exposure comparability of effects in humans and animal models. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 12:231
- 238.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 50 of 842 compounds. 123 , 124 Animal studies have reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to benzo[a]py

rene and alimentary tract and liver tumors from oral exposure to benzo[a]py

rene. 125 In1997 EPA classified seven PAHs (benzo[a]py rene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3
- cd]py rene) as Group B2, proba ble human carcinogens. 126 Since that time, studies have found that maternal exposures to PAHs in a population of pregnant women were associated with several adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight and reduced length at birth, as well as impaired cognitive development in preschool children (3 ye ars of age). 127 , 128 These and similar studies are being evaluated as a part of the ongoing IR IS assessment of health effects associated with exposure to benzo[a]py

rene. viii. PAN PAN (perox y acet ylnitrate) has not be en evaluated by EPA’s IRIS program. In formation regarding the potential carcinogenicity of PAN is limited. As noted in the EPA air quality

criteria document for ozone and related photochemical oxidants, cy togenetic studies indicate that PAN is not a pote nt mutagen, clastogen (a compound that can cause breaks in chromosomes), or DNA
- damaging agent in mammalian cells either in vivo or in vitro. Some studies suggest that PAN may be a weak bacterial mutagen at concentrations much higher than exist in present urban atmospheres. 129 Effects of ground
- level smog causing intense eye irritation have been attributed to

123 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (1995). Toxicological profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available electronically at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25. 124 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust . EPA/600/8
- 90/ 057F Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060
. 125 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2012). M onographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. Vol. 100F. Lyo n, France. 126 U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System File of indeno(1,2,3
- cd)pyrene. Research and Development , National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm. 127 Perera , F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W
- Y.; et al. (2002). Effect of transplacental exposure to environment al pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 201
- 205. 128 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Tang, D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney, P. (2006). Effect of prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of life among inner
- city children. Environ Health Perspect 114: 1287
- 1292. 129 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air quality criteria for ozone and related photochemical oxidants (Ozone CD). Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; report no. EPA/600/R
05/004aF
- cF.3v. page 5
- 78 Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 51 of 842 photochemical oxidants, including PAN. 130 Animal toxicological information on the inhalation effects of the non
- ozone oxidants has been limited to a few studies on PAN. Acute exposure to levels of PAN can cause changes in lung morphology , behavioral modifications, weight loss, and susceptibility to pulmonary

infections. Human exposure studies indicate minor pulmonary function effects at high PAN concentr ations, but large inter
- individual variability precludes definitive conclusions. 131 ix. Naphthalene Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in both gasoline and diesel exhaust compared with evaporative emissions from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily a product of combustion. Acute (short
- term) exposure of humans to naphthalene b y inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemoly tic anemia and d amage to the liver and the nervous sy stem. 132 Chronic (long term) exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been reported to cause cataracts and retinal damage. 133 EPA released an external review draft of a reassessment of the inhalation carcinogeni city

of naphthalene based on a number of recent animal carcinogenicity studies. 134 The draft reassessment completed external peer review. 135 Based on external peer review comments received, a revised draft assessment that considers all routes of exposure, as well as cancer and noncancer effects, is under development. The external review draft does not represent official agency opinion and was released solely for the purposes of external peer review and public comment. The National Toxicology Program listed naphthalene as "reasonabl y anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in 2004

130 U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxi dants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/R
- 05/004aF
- cF, 2006. page 5
- 63. This document is available in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0161. This document may be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/stand ards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html 131 U.S. EPA (2005).Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/R
- 05/004aF
- cF, 2006. page 5
- 78. This document is available in Docket E PA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0161. This document may be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html 132 U. S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental Protec tion Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/i ris/subst/0436.htm
. 133 U. S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Ass essment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm
. 134 U. S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm
. 135 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 52 of 842 on the basis of bioassay s reporting clear evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and some evidence of carcinogenicity in mice. 136 California EPA has released a new risk assessment for nap hthalene, and the IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and re
- classified it as Group 2B: possibly

carcinogenic to humans. 137 Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non
- cancer effects in animals, including abnormal cell changes and growth in respiratory an d nasal tissues. 138 The current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer data on h yperplasia and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis of the inhalation RfC of 3 μg/m 3

. 139 The ATSDR MRL for acute exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day.

x. Other Air Tox ics In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from light
- duty vehicles would be affected by this proposal. Mobile source air toxic compounds that would potentially be impacted include ethylbenzen e, propionaldehyde, toluene, and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds can be found in EPA’s IRI S database. 140 b. Current Levels of Air Toxics The majority

of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxi cs at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects. 141 The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail in U.S. EPA’ s most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule. 142 According to the National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) for 2005, 143 mobile sources were responsible for 43 percent of outdoor toxic emissions and over 50 percent of the cancer risk and noncancer hazard associated with primary

emissions. Mobile sources are also large contributors to precursor emissions which react to form secondary concentrations of air toxics.

136 NT P. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, T we lfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 pp. 137 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France. 138 U. S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm 139 U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm. 140 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris 141 U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency (2007). Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 142 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, Feb ruary 26, 2007. 143 U. S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National
- Scale Air Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 53 of 842 Formaldeh yd e is the largest contributor to cancer risk of all 80 pollutants quantitatively assessed in the 2005 NATA. Mobile sources were responsible for over 40 percent of primary emissions of this pollutant in 2005, and are major contributors to formaldeh yde precursor emissions. Benzene is also a large contributor to cancer risk, and mobile sources acco unt for over 70 percent of ambient exposure. Over the years, EPA has implemented a number of mobile source and fuel controls which have resulted in VOC reductions, which also reduced formaldeh yde, benzene and other air toxic emissions. 6. Near
- Roadway

Pollution Locations in close proximity to major roadway s generall y have elevated concentrations of man y air pollutants emitted from motor vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer
- reviewed journals, concluding that concentrations of CO, NO , NO 2 , benzene, aldeh ydes, particulate matter, black carbon, and many other compounds are elevated in ambient air within approximately 300
- 600 meters (about 1,000
- 2,000 feet) of major roadway s. Highest concentrations of most pollutants emitted directly by motor vehicles are found at locations within 50 meters (about 165 feet) of the edge of a roadway ’s traffic lanes. A recent large
- scale review of air quality measurements in vicinity of major roadway s between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pollutants with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadway s were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, NO X , and several VOCs. 144 These pollutants showed a large reduction in concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway . Pollutants that showed more gradual reductions with distance from roadway s included benzene, NO 2 , PM 2.5 , and PM 10 . In the review article, results varied based on the method of statistical anal ys is used to determine the trend. For pollutants with relati vely high background concentrations relative to near
road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients can be difficult. For example, many aldehydes have high background concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors from man y di fferent organic compounds. This can make detection of gradients around roadway s and other primary emission sources difficult. However, several studies have measured aldehydes in multiple weather conditions, and found higher concentrations of many carbonyls downwind of roadway s. 145 , 146 These findings suggest a substantial roadway source of these carbonyls.

144 Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010). Near
- roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real
- wo rld data. E nviron Sci Technol 44: 5334
- 5344. 145 Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et l. (2006). Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 56: 1196
- 1204. 146 Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J.; Seaman, V.Y. (2010). Development and application of a sensitive method to determine concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air. Health Effects Institute Research Report 149. Available at http://dx.doi.org******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 54 of 842 In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results showing that populations who live, work, or go to school near high
- traffic roadway s exp erience higher rates of numerous adverse health effects, compared to populations far away from major roads. 147 Inaddition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high
- traffic roadway s. The health outcomes with the strongest evidence linking them with traffic
- associated air pollutants are respiratory effects, particularly in asthmatic children, and cardiovascular effects. Numerous reviews of this body of health literature have been published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure, epidemiology , and toxicology studies. 148 The panel rated how the evidence for each type of health outcome supported a conclusion of a causal association with traffic
- associated air pollution as either “sufficient,” “suggestive but not sufficient,” or “inadequate and insufficient.” The panel categorized evidence of a causal association for exacerbation of childhood asthm a as “sufficient.” The panel categorized evidence of a causal association for new onset asthma as between “sufficient” and as “suggestive but not sufficient.” “Suggestive of a causal association” was how the panel categorized evidence linking traffic
- ass ociated air pollutants with exacerbation of adult respiratory sy mptoms and lung function decrement. It categorized as “inadequate and insufficient” evidence of a causal relationship between traffic
- related air pollution and health care utilization for res piratory problems, new onset adult asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease (COPD), nonasthmatic respiratory allergy , and cancer in adults and children. Other literature reviews have been published with conclusions similar to the HEI panel’s. 149 , 150 , 151 H ealth outcomes with few publications suggest the possibility of other effects still lacking sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological impacts (e.g., autism and reduced cognitive function) and reproductive outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth weight). 152 , 153 , 154 , 155

147 In the widely
- used PubM ed database of health publications, between January 1, 1990 and August 18, 2011, 605 publications contained the keywords “traffic, pollution, epidemiology,” with approximately half the studies published after 2007. 148 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic
- Related Air Pollution. (2010). Traffic
related air pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org 149 Boothe, V.L.; S hendell, D.G. (2008). Potential health effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primay roads: review of scientific literature, 1999
- 2006. J Environ Health 70: 33
- 41. 150 Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3
- 8. 151 Raaschou
-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution and childhood cancer: a review of the epidemiological literature. Int J Cancer 118: 2920
- 9. 152 Volk, H.E.; Hertz
- Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al. (2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873
- 877.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 55 of 842 In addition to health outcomes, particularl y cardiopulmonary effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which traffic
- related air pollution a ffects health. Numerous studies indicate that near
- roadway exposures increase sy stemic inflammation, affecting organ s ys tems, including blood vessels and lungs. 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 Long
- term exposures in near
- road environments have been associated with inflammation
a ssociated conditions, such as atherosclerosis and asthma. 160 , 161 , 162 Several studies suggest that some factors may increase susceptibility

to the effects of traffic
- associated air pollution. Several studies have found stronger respiratory associations in chil dren experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent neighborhoods or in homes with high family stress. 163 , 164 , 165 The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near major roads are of potentially

high public health significance due to the large population in such locations. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey , over 22 million homes (17.0 percent of all U.S. housing units) were located within 300 feet of an airport, railroad, or highway

153 Franco
- Suglia, S.; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al. (2007). Association of blac k carbon with cognition among children in a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm308. [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 154 Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, S.E.; et al. (2011). Traffic
- related air pollution and cognitive f unction in a cohort of older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682
- 687. 155 Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). Comparing exposure assessment methods for traffic
related air pollution in and adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111: 68 5
- 6692. 156 Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal Toxicol 19: 99
- 105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238 Available at http://dx.doi.org 157 Alexeef, S.E.; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011). Medium
- term exposure to traffic
- related air pollution and markers of inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119: 481
- 486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560 Available at http://dx.doi.org 158 Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T .; et al. (2011). Traffic
- related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric oxide in the Children’s Health Study. Environ Health Perspect (IN PRESS). doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516
. Available at http://dx.doi.org 159 Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. ( 2009). Health effects of real
- world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org] 160 Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air pollution and the microvasculatory: a cross sectional assessment of in vivo retinal images in the population
- based Multi
- Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000372
. Available at http://dx.doi.org 161 Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (200 8). Proxpective analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463
- 1468. doi:10.1289/ehp.11290
. Available at http://dx.doi.org 162 McC onnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010). Childhood incident asthma and traffic
- related air pollution at home and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021
- 1026. 163 Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011). Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure on children’s lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (In press) 164 Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; et al. (2007). Synergistic effects of traffic
- related air pollution and exposure to violence on urb an asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115: 1140
- 1146. 165 Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008). Chronic traffic
- related air pollution and stress interact to predict biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect 116 : 970
- 5.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 56 of 842 with four or more lanes. This corresponds t o a population of more than 50 million U.S. residents in close proximity to high
- traffic roadway s or other transportation sources. As discussed in Section III, populations near major roads have higher fractions of minority residents and lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, on average, Americans spend more than an hour traveling each day , bringing nearly all residents into a high
- exposure microenvironment for part of the day
. EPA continues to research near
- road air quality , including the t ypes of pollut ants found in high concentrations near major roads and health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads. 7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels a. Plant and Ecosy stem Effects of Ozone Elevated ozone levels contribute to environm ental effects, with impacts to plants and ecos ys tems being of most concern. Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury in sensitive species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the exposure. Ozone effects also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to plants includes visible injury to leaves and impaired photosy nthesis, both o f which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction, resulting in reduced crop yi elds, forestry production, and use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of photosy nthesis, the process by which the plant makes carbohydrates (its source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root growth and carboh ydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more subtle plant and ecos ys tems impacts. These latter impacts include increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease, harsh weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest and other natural vegetation can potentially lead to species shifts and loss from the affected ecos ys tems, resulti ng in a loss or reduction in associated ecos ys tem goods and services. Lastly , visible ozone injury to leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special scenic significance like national parks and wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone Ai r Quality Criteria Document presents more detailed information on ozone effects on vegetation and ecos ys tems. b. Visibility Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. 166 Visibility impairment is caused by l ight scattering and absorption by

166 National Research Council, (1993). Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 57 of 842 suspended particles and gases. Visibility is important because it has direct significance to people’s enjo ym ent of daily activities in all parts of the country . Individuals value good visibility for the well
- being it pro vides them directly , where they live and work, and in places where they

enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility is also highl y valued in significant natural areas, such as national parks and wilderness areas, and special emphasis is given to protecti ng visibility in these areas. For more information on visibility see the final 2009 PM I SA. 167 EPA is pursuing a two
- part strategy to address visibility

impairment. First, EPA developed the regional haze program which was put in place in July 1999 to prote ct the visibility in Mandatory

Class IFederal areas. 168 There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas. 169 These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, w ilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Second, EPA has concluded that PM 2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility

in other areas that are not protected by the Regiona l Haze Rule, depending on PM 2.5 concentrations and other factors that control their visibility impact effectiveness such as dry

chemical composition and relative humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composition of the particles), and has set secondary PM 2.5 standards to address these areas. The existing annual primary and secondary

PM 2.5 standards have been remanded and are being addressed in the currently ongoing PM NAAQS review.

i. Current Visibility Levels As mentioned in Section II.B.2.c , millions of people live in nonattainment areas for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. These populations, as well as large numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are likely to experience visibility

impairment. In addition, while v isibility trends have improved in mandatory class Ifederal areas, the most recent data show that these areas continue to suffer from visibility impairment. In summary , visibility impairment is experienced throughout the U.S., in multi
- state regions, urban areas, and remote mandatory class I federal areas. c. Atmospheric Deposition Wet and dry

deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a complex mixture of metals (e.g., mercury , zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium), organic compounds (e.g., pol yc ycli c organic matter, dioxins, furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems. The chemical form of the compounds
Academy Press, Washington, DC. This book can be viewed on the National Academy Press Website at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/ 167 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R
- 08/139F. 168 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 169 62 FR 38680
- 38681 (July 18, 1997).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 58 of 842 deposited depends on a variet y of factors including ambient conditions (e.g., temperature, humidi ty , oxidant levels) and the sources of the material. Chemical and phy sical transformations of the compounds occur in the atmosphere as well as the media onto which they

deposit. These transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and potent ial toxicity

of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been identified as a key component of the environmental and human health hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury , dioxin and PCBs. 170 Adverse impacts on water quality can occur when atmospheric contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effe cts to human health and welfare can occur from the addition of excess nitrogen via atmospheric deposition. The nitrogen
nutrient enrichment contributes to toxic algae blooms and zones of depleted ox ygen, which can lead to fish kills, frequentl y in coastal waters. Deposition of heavy metals or other toxics may

lead to the human ingestion of contaminated fish, impairment of drinking water, damage to freshwater and marine ecos ys tem components, and limits to recreational uses. Several studies have been condu cted in U.S. coastal waters and in the Great Lakes Region in which the role of ambient PM deposition and runoff is investigated. 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur contributes to acidification, altering biogeochemistry

and affecting animal and plant life in terrestrial and aquatic ecos ys tems across the United States. The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecos ys tems to acidification from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly governed by geology
. Prolonged exposure to ex cess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in surface waters creates inhospitable conditions for biota and affects the abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species, threatening biodiversity and ecos ys tem function. Over time, acidifying deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils, depleting the capacity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and negatively affecting forest sustainability
. Major effects inc lude a decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce ( Picea

170 U.S. EPA. (2000). Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA
- 453/R
- 00
- 0005. 171 U.S. EPA. (2004). Nat ional Coastal Condition Report II. Office of Research and Development/ Office of Water. EPA
- 620/R
- 03/002. 172 Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. (2002). Characterization of atmospheric trace elements on PM 2.5 particulate matter over the New York
-Ne w Jersey harbor estuary. Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077
- 1086. 173 Kim , G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. (2000). Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65
- 7 9. 174 Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. (2003). Dry deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11
- 1 to 11
- 24. 175 Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et a l. (2002). Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437
- 450.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 59 of 842 rubens ) and sugar maple ( Acer saccharum ), and a loss of biodiversity of fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates
. In addition to the role nitrogen deposition plays in acidificat ion, nitrogen deposition also leads to nutrient enrichment and altered biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic s ys tems increased nitrogen can alter species assemblages and cause eutrophication. In terrestrial sy stems nitrogen loading can lead to loss of nitro gen sensitive lichen species, decreased biodiversity of grasslands, meadows and other sensitive habitats, and increased potential for invasive species. For a broader explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the description in Section 6.3.2 of the RIA. Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed for areas heavily influenced by

atmospheric deposition of nutrients, metals and acid species, resulting in species shifts, loss of biodiversity , forest decline, damage to forest produ ctivity

and reductions in ecosy stem services. Potential impacts also include adverse effects to human health through ingestion of contaminated vegetation or livestock (as in the case for dioxin deposition), reduction in crop yield, and limited use of land due to contamination. Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings and culturall y important articles through soiling, and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to structural damage b y mean s of corrosion or erosion. Atmospheric deposition may affect materials principally by promoting and accelerating the corrosion of metals, by degrading paints, and by deteriorating building materials such as concrete and limestone. Particles contribute to these effects because of their electrol yt ic, h ygroscopic, and acidic properties, and their ability to adsorb corrosive gases (principall y sulfur dioxide).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 60 of 842 i. Current Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Over the past two decades, the EPA has undertaken numerous efforts to reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition across the U.S. Analy ses of long
- term monitoring data for the U.S. show that deposition of both nitrogen and sulfur compounds has decreased over the last 17 years . The data show that reductions were more s ubstantial for sulfur compounds than for nitrogen compounds. In the eastern U.S., where data are most abundant, total sulfur deposition decreased b y about 44 percent between 1990 and 2007, while total nitrogen deposition decreased b y 25 percent over the s ame time frame. 176 These numbers are generated b y the U.S. national monitoring network and they likel y underestimate nitrogen deposition because neither ammonia nor organic nitrogen is measured. Although total nitrogen and sulfur deposition has decreased o ver time, many areas continue to be negatively impacted b y deposition. Deposition of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species routinely measured in the U.S. between 2005 and 2007 were as high as 9.6 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three ye ars and 20.8 kilograms of sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over three years. 177 d. Environmental Effects of Air Toxics Emissions from producing, transporting and combusting fuel contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play a role in vegetation damage. 178 Inlaboratory experiments, a wide range of tolerance to VOCs has been observed. 179 Decreases in har vested seed pod weight have been reported for the more sensitive plants, and some studies have reported effects on seed germination, flowering and fruit ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or their role in conjunction with other stressors (e.g., acidific ation, drought, temperature extremes) have not been well studied. In a recent study of a mixture of VOCs including ethanol and toluene on herbaceous plants, significant effects on seed production, leaf water content and photosy

nthetic efficiency

were repo rted for some plant species. 180

176 U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA’s Report on the Environment. Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.g ov/eroe/index.cfm? fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=li st.listByChapter&r=216610. 177 U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm? fuseaction=de tail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341&lv=li st.listByChapter&r=216610. 178 U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3
- 91/001. 179 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants in an open
- top chamber experiment. Environ. Pollut. 124:341
- 343. 180 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on h erbaceous plants in an open
- top chamber experiment. Environ. Pollut. 124:341
- 343.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 61 of 842 Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in other cases to nitrogen oxides. 181 , 182 , 183 

## III. **How Wo**  **uld This Pr**  **oposal Reduce Em issions and**  **Air P**  **ollution? A.**  **Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile Source Emissions** The vehicle and fuel standards that EPA is proposing would significantl y reduce the tailpipe and evaporative emissions of light
- and heav y - dut y vehicles in several ways, as described in this section. In addition, the proposed gasoline sulfur standard would reduce emissions of SO 2 from existing gasoline
- powered vehicles and equipment. As described in Section II, all of these emission reductions would in turn improve air q ualit y nationwide and reduce the health effects associated with air pollution from mobile sources. As with the Tier 2 program, EPA is proposing to implement closely
- coordinated requirements for both automakers and refiners in the same rulemaking action. Th e proposed vehicle emission standards and gasoline sulfur standards represent a “sy stems approach” to reducing vehicle
- related exhaust and evaporative emissions. By recognizing the relationships among the various sources of emissions addressed by this pro posed rule, we have been able to integrate the provisions into a single, coordinated program. 1. How Do Vehicles Produce the Emissions Addressed in this Proposal? The degree to which vehicles produce exhaust and evaporative emissions depends on the design and functionality of the engine and the associated exhaust and evaporative emission controls, in concert with the properties of the fuel on which the vehicle is operating. In the following paragraphs, we discuss how light
- and heav y - duty vehicles produce e ach of these t yp es of emissions, both from the tailpipe and from the fuel s ys tem. a. Tailpipe (Exhaust) Emissions Which pollutants are emitted at the vehicle’s tailpipe and their quantities depend on how the fuel is combusted in the engine and how the resu lting gases are treated in the exhaust system. Historically , much of tailpipe emission control has focused on

181 Viskari E
- L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 121:327
- 337. 182 Ugrekhelidze D , F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and transformation of benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24
- 29. 183 Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler
- Jons, D Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emis sions for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235
- 243.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 62 of 842 hydrocarbon compounds (HC) and NO X . The portion of hydrocarbons that is methane is minimally

reactive in forming ozone, and is usually subtracte d from the total emitted hydrocarbons. Thus, for emission control purposes, the focus is generally on non methane h ydrocarbons (NMHC), which are also expressed as non
- methane organic gases (NMOG) in order to account for ox ygenates (usually ethanol) now us uall y present in the fuel. Tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions also include several toxic pollutants, including benzene, acetaldeh yde, and formaldeh yde. To varying degrees, the mass emissions of these pollutants are reduced along with other h ydrocarbons b y the catal yt ic converter and improved engine controls. Li ght
- and heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM forms directly as a combustion product (primaril y as elemental carbon, usually called soot) and also indirectly

as semi
- volatile hydrocarbon compounds that form particles in the exhaust sy stem or soon after exiting the tailpipe. CO is a product of incomplete fuel combustion. When operating properl y, modern exhaust emission controls (centering on the catal yt ic convertor) can reduce much of the HC (including toxics), NO X and CO exiting the engine. However, tailpipe emissions are increased during periods of vehicle startup, as catal yt ic convertors must warm up to be effective; during subsequent operation due to the interference of sulfur in the gasoline; during high load operating events, as the catal ys t is overwhelmed or its operation is modified to protect against permanent damage; and as a vehicle ages, as the catal ys t degrades in performance due to the effects of high temperature operatio n and contaminants in the fuel and lubricating oil. b. Evaporative Emissions Gasoline vehicles also produce vapors in the fuel tank and fuel s ys tem that can be released as evaporative emissions. These vapors are primarily the lighter, more volatile hydrocar bon compounds in the gasoline, which, like exhaust hydrocarbons, contribute to concentrations of VOCs in the atmosphere. As discussed in Section IV below, vehicle evaporative (“evap”) control sy stems are designed to block or capture vapors as they are ge nerated. Vapors are generated in the vehicle fuel tank and fuel sy stem (and released to the atmosphere if not adequatel y controlled), as fuel heats up due to ambient temperature increase and/or vehicle operation. Fuel vapors are also released when they p ermeate through hose material, when they

leak at connections or due to damaged components, and during refueling events. In general, the evap emission controls on current vehicles (and that would be improved under this proposed rule) consist of a canist er filled with activated charcoal and connected b y hoses to the fuel s ys tem. The hoses direct generated vapors to the canister, which collects the vapors on the carbon and stores them until the sy stem experiences a “purge” event. During purge, the engine draws fresh air through the canister, carrying******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 63 of 842 vapors released b y the carbon to the engine to be combusted and restoring the capacity of the canister. Evaporative emissions occur when vapors are emitted to the atmosphere because the evap s ys tem is compro mised, the carbon canister is overwhelmed, or vapors permeate or leak. As such, evaporative emission controls also involve proper material selection for fuel sy stem components, careful design of these components, and onboard diagnostics to check the syste m for failure. 2. How Would the Proposed Changes to Gasoline Sulfur Content Affect Vehicle Emissions? Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on cataly tic converters to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and NO X , as well as PM ( specificall y, the volatile hydrocarbon fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The presence of sulfur in gasoline has a strong impact on these emissions, particularl y NO X , due to its impact on proper catal ys t operation. Sulfur naturally

occurs in crude oil and thus in gasoline. In vehicle catal yt ic converters, the precious metals that catal yz e the reactions that convert the pollutants become significantl y less efficient when sulfur is deposited (adsorbed) onto them. The Tier 2 rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline b y approximately

90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. At the time there were indications that sulfur reductions below 30 ppm may continue to provide additional emission benefits. However, the data was ins ufficient to quantify the benefits to the existing fleet, and the Tier 2 vehicle standards could be achieved without lowering sulfur further. As a result, to minimize the cost of the Tier 2 program, the sulfur standard was not further reduced below 30 ppm
. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling case that even this level of sulfur degrades the emission performance of vehicles on the road today , and inhibits necessary further reductions in vehicle emissions performance, which depend on optimum cataly st performance to reach emission targets. A study conducted by EPA and the auto industry in support of the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule found significant reductions in NO X , CO and total HC when nine Tier 2 vehicles wer e tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32
- ppm fuel. 184 Inparticular, the study found a nearl y 50 percent increase in NO X when sulfur was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Another recent study b y Umicore showed reductions of 41 percent for NO X and 17 percent for HC on a PZEV operating on fuel with 33
- ppm and 3
- ppm fuel. 185 A larger study recently completed by EPA confirmed these results, showing significant reductions in FTP
- composite NO X (23 percent), CO (12 percent) and total HC

184 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420
- R
- 07
- 002, Chapter 6 185 Ball D., Clark D., Moser D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulf ur on FTP NOx Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE 2011 World Congress Paper 2011
- 01
- 0300******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 64 of 842 (13 percent) on the 5
- pp m fuel, relative to 28
- ppm fuel. For NO X , the majority of overall reductions were driven by large reductions on warmed
- up periods of the test cycle (Bag 2), which showed a 59 percent reduction between 28 and 5
- ppm fuel, consistent with the role of sulfur in catal ys t degradation discussed above. Applying individual bag reductions to in
- use activity patterns from EPA emission models suggests an overall NO X reduction of nearl y 40 percent on the road. Based on these studies, the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standard are significant in two ways: they enable vehicles designed to the proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards for the duration of their useful life, and they facilitate immediate emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the sulfur controls are implemented. **B. How Would Emissions Be Reduced?**  The proposed standards would reduce emissions of VOC, NO X (including NO 2 ), direct PM 2.5 , CO, SO 2 , and air toxics. The proposed sulfur standards would reduce emissions from the on
- road fleet immediatel y upon implementation, so to reflect these earl y reductions, we present emission reductions in calendar year 2017. The proposed vehicle standards would begin to reduce emissions as the cleaner cars and truc ks begin to enter the fleet in model year 2017. The magnitude of reduction would grow as more Tier 3 vehicles enter the fleet. Therefore, we also present emission reductions in calendar year 2030, when model year 2017 and later cars and trucks contribute nearl y 90 percent of fleet
- wide vehicle miles travelled. Although 2030 is the farthest year that is feasible for air quality

modeling, the full reduction of the vehicle program would be realized after 2030, when the fleet has fully turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. In Chapter 7 of the RIA, we present emission reductions projected in 2050, as well as additional calendar years between 2017 and 2030. Emission reductions are estimated on an annual basis, for all 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The reductions were estimated using a version of EPA’s MOVES model updated for this anal ys is, as described in detail in Chapter 7 of the RIA. This version of MOVES includes our most recent data on how vehicle emi ssions are affected by changes in sulfur, ethanol, and other fuel properties. We estimated emission reductions compared to a reference case that assumed partial RFS2 implementation by 2017, with full implementation in 2022 and beyond. The ethanol scenario s used for the reference and control cases were the “post
EPAct/EI SA” scenario defined in Chapter 7 of the RIA, reflecting a mix of E10 and E15 in 2017, and E15 only

in 2030. The reference case also assumed continuation of the Tier 2 vehicle program indef

initely , and an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 ppm in California). As discussed throughout this preamble, implementation of the proposed Tier 3 standards is aligned with the 2017 LD GHG standards to achieve significant criteria pollutant and GHG emiss ions reductions while providing regulatory certainty and compliance efficiency

to the auto and oil industries. The 2017 LD GHG standards were still in a preliminary

state of development (pre
- proposal) at the time we finalized our assumptions for the Tier 3 emissions, air quality , and cost anal ys es, so we were not able******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 65 of 842 to reflect them in these analy ses. However, our analy ses for the final Tier 3 rule will include the 2017 LD GHG standards and their impacts on the future vehicle fleet and future fuel consumption. We do not anticipate that it will substantially modify our results or conclusions, as discussed in Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.2.1 of the draft RIA. The anal ys is described here does account for the following national onroad rules:

 Tier 2 Motor Vehicl e Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)

 Heav y - Duty

Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001)

 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (72 FR 8 428, February 26, 2007)

 Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010)

 Li ght
- Dut y Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Econom y Standards for 2012
- 2016 (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010) The anal ys is also accounts for many other national rules and standards. In addition, the modeling accounts for state and local rules including local fuel standards, Inspection/Maintenance programs, Stage II refueling controls, the Nati onal L ow Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) LEV Program. See the Tier 3 emissions modeling TSD for more detail. A summary

of emission reductions projected to result from Tier 3, relative to the reference case, is sh own in calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030 for NO X , VOC, direct PM 2.5 , CO, SO 2 , and total air toxics in Table III
- 1 . For many pollutants, the immediate reductions in 2017 are significant; for example, combined NO X and VOC e missions would be reduced b y over 300,000 tons. By 2030, combined NO X and VOC emissions would be reduced b y roughl y 750,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad inventory . Man y of the modeled air toxics would be significantly reduced as well, including benze ne, 1,3
- butadiene, acetaldeh yd e, acrolein and ethanol (ranging from 20 to nearl y 40 percent of the national onroad inventory by 2030). The relative reduction in overall emissions would continue to increase beyond 2030 as more of the fleet continues to tur n over to Tier 3 vehicles; for example, by 2050, when nearly

all of the fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce onroad emissions of NO X and VOC nearl y 40 percent from the level of emissions projected wi thout Tier 3 controls.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 66 of 842 **Table III**  **- 1**  **Estimated Emission Reductions from the Proposed Tier 3 Standards (Annual U.S. short tons)**  2017 2030 Tons % of

Onroad Inventory Tons % of Onroad Inventory NO X 284,38 1 8% 524,790 28% VOC 44,782 3% 226,028 23% CO 746,683 4% 5,765,362 30% Direct PM 2.5 121 0.1% 7,458 10% Benzene 1,625 4% 8,58 2 36% SO 2 16,261 51% 17,267 51% 1,3
- Butadiene 322 5% 1,087 37% Formaldeh yd e 727 3% 2,707 12% Acetaldeh yd e 762 3% 4,414 26% Acrolein 23 1% 184 15% Ethanol 2,684 2% 27,821 24% Reductions for each pollutant are discussed in the following sections, focusing on the contribution of program elements to the total reductions summarized above. 1. NO X The proposed sulfur standards would significantl y reduce NO X emissions immediately

upon implementation of the program. As discussed above, recent research on the impact of sulfur on Tier 2 technology vehicles shows the potential for significant reductions in NO X emissions from the existin g fleet of Tier 2 vehicles b y lowering sulfur levels to 10 ppm. Prior research shows that NO X emissions would also be expected to decrease from the fleet of older (pre
- Tier 2) light
- duty vehicles as well as heavy
- duty gasoline vehicles, 186 although at to a lesser extent than for Tier 2 vehicles. Table III
- 2 shows the reduction in NO X emissions, in annual short tons, projected in calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030. The reductions are split into those attributable to the i ntroduction of low sulfur fuel in the pre
- Tier 3 fleet (defined for this anal ys is as model ye ars prior to 2017); and reductions attributable to vehicle standards enabled by low sulfur fuel (model ye ar 2017 and later) . As shown, upon implementation of the proposed sulfur standards, total onroad NO X emissions are project ed to drop 8 percent. This is primarily due to large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline vehicles, which contribute about one - quarter of the NO X emissions from the on
- road fleet in 2017. The rel ative reduction

186 Rao, V. (2001) Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust Emissions: Recommendations for MOBILE6 , EPA420
- R
- 01
- 039******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 67 of 842 grows as cleaner vehicles turn over into the fleet. By 2030, we project that the reduction in overall onroad NO X inventory would be close to 30 percent. **Table III**  **- 2**  **Projected NO X**  **Reductions f rom Tier 3 Program (Annual U.S. Tons)**  **2017 2030**  **Total reduction 284,381**  **524,790** Reduction from pre
- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 264,653 66,286 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 19,728 458,504 **Percent reduction in onroad NO**  **X emissions**  **8% 28%**  2. VOC Table III
- 3 shows the reduction in VOC emissions, in annual short tons, projected in calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030 resulting from the proposed standards. In 2017, as with NO X , we projec t reductions from the pre
- Tier 3 fleet with the proposed fuel standards. By 2030 the reduction in overall onroad VOC emissions would be over 20 percent, the majority of this from the Tier 3 fleet. The proposed evaporative standards are projected to acco unt for roughl y one quarter of the overall vehicle program reduction in 2030. **Table III**  **- 3**  **Projected VOC Reductions from Tier 3 Program (Annual U.S. Tons) 2017**  **2030 Total reduction**  **44,782 226,028**  Reduction from pre
- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 39,561 13,739 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 5,222 212,289

Exhaust 41,433 168,264 Evaporative 3,349 57,764 **Percent reduction in onroad VOC emissions**  **3% 23%**  3. CO Table III
- 4 shows the reductions for CO, broken down by pre - and post
- Tier 3 in the manner described for NO X and VOC above. Based on research showing sizeable CO reductions from lower sulfur fuel, the immediate reductions in the onroad fleet from sulfur control are also significant. The CO exhaust standards are projected to reduce onroad CO emissions 30 percent b y 2030.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 68 of 842 **Table III**  **- 4**  **Projected CO Reductions from Tier 3 Program (An nual U.S. Tons)**  **2017 2030**  **Total reduction 746,683**  **5,765,362** Reduction from pre
- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 608,502 139,074 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 138,181 5,626,288 **Percent reduction in onroad CO emissio**  **ns 4%**  **30%** 4. Direct PM 2.5 Reductions in direct emissions of PM 2.5 are projected to result solely from the proposed vehicle tailpipe standards, so meaningful reductions are realized mainly as the fleet turns over. By

2030, we project a reduction of about 7,5 00 tons annually , which represents approximately 10 percent of the onroad direct PM 2.5 inventory . However, since the PM standards are mainly focused on improving engine durabilit y through the end of a vehicle’s useful life, the relative reduction in onroad emissions is projected to grow to 17 percent with full fleet turnover in 2050. Reductions in NO X and VOC emissions would also reduce secondary PM formation, which is quantified as part of the air quality

anal ys is described in Section III.C. 5. Air Toxics Emissions of air toxics also would be reduced b y the proposed sulfur, exhaust and evaporative standards. Air toxics are generally a subset of compounds making up VOC, so the reduction trends tend to track the VOC reductions presented above. Table III
- 5 presents reductions for certain key air toxics, and Table III
- 6 presents reductions for the sum of 71 different toxic compounds. **Table III**  **- 5**  **Reductions for Certain Individual Compounds (Annual U.S. Tons)**

Tons Reduced in 2017 % Reduction

in Onroad Emissions Tons Reduced in

2030 % Reduction in

Onroad Emissions Acetaldeh yd e 762 3% 4,414 26% Formaldeh yd e 727 3% 2,707 12% Acrolein 2 3 1% 184 15% 1,3
- Butadiene 322 5% 1,087 37% Benzene 1,625 4% 8,581 36% Naphthalene 96 2% 420 17% Ethanol 2,684 2% 27,821 24% The totals shown in Table III
- 6 represent the sum of 71 species including the t oxics in Table III
- 5 , 15 polycyclic aromatic h ydrocarbon (PAH) compounds in gas and******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 69 of 842 particle phase, and additional gaseous compounds such as toluene, x yl enes, sty rene, hexane, 2,2,4
- trimethylpentane, n
- hexane, and prop ionaldehyde (Appendix 7A in the draft RIA). As shown, in 2030 the overall onroad inventory of total toxics would be reduced b y over 20 percent, with nearly one third of the vehicle program reductions coming from the proposed evaporative standards. **Table III**  **- 6**  **Reductions in Total Mobile Source Air Toxics (Annual U.S. Tons) 2017**  **2030 Total reduction**  **15,156 89,685**  Reduction from pre
- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 12,452 5,022 Reduction from Tier 3 flee t due to vehicle and sulfur standards 2,683 84,663

Exhaust 13,748 64,144 Evaporative 1,408 25,541 **Percent reduction in onroad toxics emissions**  **3% 23%**  6. SO 2 SO 2 emissions from mobile sources are a direct function of sulfur in the fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline would result in immediate reductions in SO 2 from the on and off
- road fleet. The reductions, shown in Table III
- 7 , are a function of the sulfur level and fuel consumption. This is reflected in the relati ve contribution of on
- road vehicles and off
- road equipment, where off
- road gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 5 percent of overall gasoline use. 187 **Table III**  **- 7**  **Projected SO 2**  **Reductions from Tier 3 P rogram (Annual U.S. Tons)**  **2017 2030**  **Total reduction 16,261**  **17,267** Reduction from onroad vehicles due to sulfur standard 15,494 16,370 Reduction from off

- road equipment due to sulfur standard 767 897 **Percent reduction in onroad SO**  **2 emissions**  **51% 51%** 

187 U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011) , Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA
- 0383(2011)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 70 of 842 7. Greenhouse Gases Reductions in nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions and methane (CH 4 ) emissions, both potent greenhouse gas emissions, are projected for gasoline cars and trucks due to the proposed sulfur and tailpipe standards. A study conducted b y the Universi ty of California at Riverside found a 29 percent reduction in N 2 O emissions over the FTP when sulfur was reduced from 30 to 5 ppm, 188 while EPA research described in Section IV.A on sulfur effects found a 25 percent reduction in CH 4 emissions when sulfur was reduced from 28 to 5 ppm. Several studies have established correlations between reductions in tailpipe NO X emissions and reductions in N 2 O from gasoline cars and trucks, 189 , 190 , 191 as well as correlations between reductions in tailpipe HC emissions and reduct ions in CH 4 . 192 , 193 One such study (Behrentz et al.) reported an N 2 O: NO X ratio of 0.095±0.035, and supported the application of N 2 O: NO X ratios to NO X emissions as a reasonable method for estimating N 2 O emission inventories. As detailed in RIA Chapter 7.3, a range of N 2 O reductions is bounded by appl yi ng this ratio to NO X reductions projected for this proposal (from Table III
- 1), and appl yi ng the UC Riverside sulfur results to MOVES N 2 O inventories for pre
- Tier 3 vehicles. Using a 100
- ye ar global warming po tential of 298 for N 2 O according to the 2007 IPCC AR4, 194 the range of reductions calculated for N 2 O is from 2.9 to 7.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO 2 e) in 2017, growing to 12.3 to 13.5 MMTCO 2 e in 2030. MOVES can be used to direct ly estimate CH 4 reductions from the sulfur and vehicle standards, estimating an additional 0.1 MMTCO 2 e reduction in 2017, growing to 0.5 MMTCO2e in 2030. The range of total GHG reductions from the Tier 3 rule is 3.0 to 7.4 MMTCO 2 e in 2017, growing to 12. 8 to 14.0 MMTCO 2 e in 2030. These reductions would be offset to some degree by CO 2 emissions associated with higher energy

use required in the process of removing sulfur. To assess refinery

188 Huai, et al. (2004) Estimates of the emission rates of nitrous oxide from light
- duty vehicles using different chassis dynamometer test cycles Atmo spheric Environment 6621
- 6629 189 Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Highway Mobile Sources , U.S. EPA EPA420
- R
98
- 009 190 Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of nitrous oxide emissions from light
- duty motor vehicles: a pilot study Atmo spheric Environment 4291
- 4303 191 Meffert, et. al (2000) Anal ysis of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Light Duty Passenger Cars , SAE 2000
- 01
- 1952 192 Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse Gas Impacts Study for Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future 193 Graham, L. Gree nhouse Gas Emissions from 1997
- 2005 Model Year Light Duty Vehicles Environment Canada ERMD Report #04
- 44 194 The global warming potentials (GWP) used in this rule are consistent with the 100
- year time frame values in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) 100
- year GWP values are used in the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (per the reporting requirements under that international convention, which were last updated in 2006). N 2 O has a 100
- year GWP of 298 and CH 4 has a 100
- year GWP of 25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 71 of 842 permitting implications, EPA has conducted an analy sis of these refinery impacts, and estimates an increase of up to 5.1 MMTCO 2 e in 2017 with the implementation of the lower sulfur standards. 195 The actual increase will be lower, since refineries will not be operating at their permit capacity . The actual increase will also be a function of several factors, including technology options selected by

the refineries and the projected use of averaging, banking and trading in avoiding the need for investments at some refineries. As a result , 5.1 MMTCO 2 e represents an upper - bo und estimate of the possible increase in refinery CO 2 emissions due to the need for additional process heat and hydrogen production to enable the additional hydrotreating required. In 2017, the range of potential decrease in CH 4 and N 2 O emissions overlap s with the range of projected increase in CO 2 from refinery processes, suggesting that a net increase or decrease in GHG emissions cannot be quantified with certainty . However, we estimate the program would result in net GHG reductions as the program cont inues into the future, as shown b y our 2030 estimates. **C. How Would Air Pollution Be Reduced?**  Reductions in emissions of NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 and air toxics expected as a result of the proposed Tier 3 standards are projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 2.5 , and air toxics. The results of our air quality modeling of the impacts of the Tier 3 proposal are summarized in the following section. The air quality modeling predicts significant improvements in ozone concentrati ons due to the proposed Tier 3 standards. Ambient PM 2.5 and NO 2 concentrations are also expected to improve as a result of the proposed Tier 3 program. Decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics are projected with the proposed standards, including notable nationwide reductions in benzene concentrations. Our air quality modeling also predicts improvements in visibility and sulfur deposition, as well as substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the proposed standards. 1. Ozone The a ir qualit y modeling done for this proposal projects that in 2017, with all current controls in effect but excluding the emissions changes expected to occur as a result of this proposed action or any other additional controls, at least 40 counties, with a p rojected population of almost 50 million people, would have projected design values above the level of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard of 75 ppb
. Even in 2030 the modeling projects that in the absence of additional controls there would be 12 counties with a population of almost 32 million people with projected design values above the level of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard of 75 ppb
. Since the emission changes from this proposal go into effect during the period when some areas are still working to attain t he

195 Keller, P. (2012, January). New Source Review Permitti ng Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to the docket.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 72 of 842 ozone NAAQS, the projected emission changes would help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain the ozone standard. Air quality modeling indicates ozone design value concentrations would decrease dramaticall y in man y areas of th e country as a result of this action and in some places those decreases would be enough to change the projected design values from being above the NAAQS to being below the NAAQS. The decreases in ozone design values are likely due to projected tailpipe re ductions in NO X and VOCs from reductions in fuel sulfur and engine controls. In 2017, the majority

of the design value decreases are between 0.5 and 1.0 ppb. The proposed rule would also reduce the projected ozone design values in three counties from ab ove the level of the standard to below. These three counties are Bucks County in Pennsylvania, Arlington County in Virginia and St L ouis County in Missouri. The projected population in these three counties in 2017 is almost 2 million people. In 2030, th e proposed rule would result in larger decreases in ozone design values, with the majority of counties projecting decreases of between 1.0 and 1.5 ppb, and over 200 more counties with decreases greater than 1.5 ppb. There are also two more counties whose projected design values would be reduced from above the level of the ozone standard to below by the proposed rule in 2030. These counties are Hudson County in New Jersey and Brazoria County

in Texas. The projected population in these two counties in 2030 is over 1 million people. Table III
- 8 and Table III
- 9 show the average change in 2017 and 2030 8
- hour ozone design values for: (1) all counties with 2005 baseline design v alues, (2) counties with 2005 baseline design values that exceeded the 2008 ozone standard, (3) counties with 2005 baseline design values that did not exceed the 2008 standard, but were within 10 percent of it, (4) counties with 2017/2030 design values that exceeded the 2008 ozone standard, and (5) counties with 2017/2030 design values that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 percent of it. Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended to reflect counties that although not violating the standards, will also be impacted by changes in ozone as they

work to ensure long
- term maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 2017 and 2030, indicating in five different way s the overall improvement in air quality
. On a population
- weighted basis, the average modeled future
- year 8
- hour ozone design values are projected to decrease b y 0.47 ppb in 2017 and 1.55 ppb in 2030. On a population
- weighted basis design values in those counties that are projected to be above the 2 008 ozone standard in 2017 and 2030 are projected to decrease by 0.30 and 1.62 ppb respectivel y due to the proposed standards. **Table III**  **- 8**  **Average Change in Projected 8 -**  **hour Ozone Design Value in 2017** Aver age a Number of U.S. Counties 2020

Populationb Change in

2017 design value (ppb)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 73 of 842 All 676 238,026,106
- 0.50 All, population
- weighted
- 0.47 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 393 176,910,535
- 0.56 Counties whos e 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
- weighted - 0.51 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 201 40,516,171
- 0.47 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of th e 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
weighted - 0.42 Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 37 47,659,433
- 0.35 Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
- weighted - 0.30 Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 124 68,625,934
- 0.51 Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
- weighted - 0.49

a Averages are o ver counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. **Table III**  **- 9**  **Average Change in Project ed 8**  **- hour Ozone Design Value in 2030**  Average a Number of U.S. Counties 2030

Populationb Change in

2030 design value (ppb) All 676 261,497,900
- 1.35 All, population
- weighted
- 1.55 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 393 194,118,748
- 1.54 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
- weighted - 1.69 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 201 44,436,103
- 1.18 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
weighted - 1.25 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 10 30,619,714
- 1.49******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 74 of 842 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population
- weighted - 1.62 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 40 21,541,863
- 1.37 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, popu lation
- weighted - 1.50

a Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. 2. Particulate Matter The air qualit y modeling conducted for this proposal projects that in 2030, with all current controls in effect but excluding the emissions changes expected to occur as a result of this proposal or any other additional controls, at least 2 counties, with a projected population of over 4.5 million people, would have projected design values above the level of the annual standard of 15 μg/m 3 and at least 21 counties, with a projected population of over 31 million people, would have projected design values above the level of the 24
- ho ur standard of 35 μg/m 3

. Since the emission changes from this proposed action would go into effect during the period when some areas are still working to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the projected emission changes would be useful to state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain the PM 2.5 standard. The proposed rule would reduce 24
- hour and annual PM 2.5 design values in 2030. Annual PM 2.5 design values in the majority of modeled counties would decrease by between 0.01 and 0.05 μg/m 3 and in over 100 additional counties design values are projected to decrease b y greater than 0.05 μg/m 3. The average modeled future
- ye ar annual PM 2.5 design values in 2030 decrease b y 0.05 μg/m 3 on a population
- weighted basis. Design values in those counties th at are projected to be above the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2030 decrease even more, b y 0.13 μg/m 3 on a population
- weighted basis, due to the proposed standards. In addition, the average modeled future
- ye ar 24
- hour PM 2.5 design values in 2030 decrease b y 0. 13 μg/m 3 on a population
- weighted basis . The decreases in PM 2.5 design values are likely due to the projected tailpipe reductions in primary PM 2.5 , NO X and VOCs. The proposed rule has little impact on PM 2.5 design values for the majority

of counties in 2 017, although our air qualit y modeling underestimated the PM decreases that would result from this proposal (see Section 7.4.2.3 of the draft RIA for more detail). Table III
- 10 and Table III
- 11 present the average change in 2030 annual and 24
- hour PM 2.5 design values for: (1) all counties with 2005 baseline design values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline design values that exceeded the 2006 PM 2.5 standard, (3) counties with 2005 baseline design values that did not exceed the 2006 standard, but were within 10 percent of it, (4) counties with 2030 design values that exceeded the 2006 PM 2.5 standard, and (5) counties with 2030 design values that did not exceed the standard,******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 75 of 842 but were within 10 percent of it. Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended to reflect counties that although not violating the standards, will also be impacted b y changes in PM 2.5 as they

work to ensure long
- term maintenance of the annual and /or 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 2030. On a population
weighted basis, there is a 0.05 μg/m 3 decrease in the average modeled future
- year annual PM 2.5 design values in 2030 and a decrease of 0.13 μg/m 3 in those counties that are projected to be above the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2030. In addition, the average population
- weighted modeled future
- year 24
- hour PM 2.5 design values are projected to decrease b y 0.14 μg/m 3 due to the proposed standards and design values in those co unties that are projected to be above the 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard in 2030 would decrease b y 0.13 μg/m 3

. **Table III**  **- 10**  **Average Change in Projected Annual PM 2.5**  **Design Values in 2030** Average a Number of U.S. Counties 2030

Population Change in 2030

design value (  g/m 3 ) All 576 247,415,381 - 0.05 All, population
- weighted
- 0.06 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard 70 65,106,709 - 0.07 Counties whose 2005 base ye ar is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard, population
- weighted - 0.09 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard 103 33,218,160 - 0.05 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual P M 2.5 standard, population
- weighted - 0.06 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard 2 5,398,687 - 0.13 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard, population
- weighted - 0.13 C ounties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard 3 2,707,417 - 0.19 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard, population
- weighted - 0.18

a Averages are over counti es with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 76 of 842 **Table III**  **- 11**  **Average Change in Projected 24 -**  **h our PM**  **2.5 Design Values in 2030**  Average a Number of U.S. Counties 2030

Populationb Change in

2030 design value (μg/m3 ) All 569 245,111,480 - 0.13 All, population
- weighted
- 0.14 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard 108 91,474,036 - 0.19 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM2 .5 standard, population
- weighted - 0.15 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard 140 53,990,060 - 0.16 Counties whose 2005 b ase year is within 10 percent of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard, population
weighted - 0.17 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard 21 31,002,272 - 0.13 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard, population
- weighted - 0.05 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard 7 4,212,913 - 0.12 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard, population
- w eighted - 0.10 a Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. 3. Nitrogen Dioxide Although our modeling indicates that by 2030 the majority

of the country

will experience decreases of less than 0.1 ppb in their annual NO 2 concentrations due to this proposal, annual NO 2 concentrations are projected to decrease b y more than 0.3 ppb in most urban areas. These emissions red uctions would also likely decrease 1
- hour NO 2 concentrations and help any potential nonattainment areas to attain and maintain the standard. Additional information on the emissions reductions that are projected with this proposal is available in Section 7 .2.1 of the draft RIA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 77 of 842 4. Air Toxics Our modeling indicates that the impacts of proposed Tier 3 standards include generall y small decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics, especially in urban areas, with notable nationwide reductions in benzene . Although reductions are greater in 2030 (when Tier 3 cars and trucks would contribute nearl y 90 percent of fleet
- wide vehicle miles travelled) than in 2017(the first ye ar of the proposed program), our modeling projects there would be small immediate red uctions in ambient concentrations of air toxics due to the proposed sulfur controls in 2017. Furthermore, the full reduction of the vehicle program would be realized after 2030, when the fleet has fully turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. Air toxics pollutants dominated by primary emissions (or a decay product of a directl y emitted pollutant) have the largest impacts, rather than air toxics that primarily result from photochemical transformation. Specificall y, in 2030, our modeling projects that the proposal would decrease ambient benzene concentrations across much of the country

on the order of 1 to 5 percent, with reductions ranging from 10 to 25 percent in some urban areas. Our modeling also shows reductions of 1,3
- butadiene and acrolein concentrations in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25 percent, with 1,3
- butadiene decreases of at least 0.005 μg/m3 in urban areas. These toxics are national risk drivers and the reductions in ambient concentrations from this proposed rule would result in reductions in risks from cancer and noncancer health effects. In some parts of the country (mainly urban areas), ethanol and formaldeh yde concentrations are projected to decrease on the order of 1 to 5 percent in 2030 as a result of the proposal. Decreases in ethanol concentr ations are expected due to reductions in VOC as a result of the proposed standards. Changes in ambient acetaldeh yd e concentrations are generally less than 1 percent across the U.S., although the proposal may decrease acetaldehyde concentrations in some urb an areas b y 1 to 2.5 percent in 2030. Although the reductions in ambient air toxics concentrations expected from the proposed Tier 3 standards are generall y small, they are projected to benefit the majority of the U.S. population. As shown in Table III
- 12 , over 80 percent of the total U.S. population is projected to experience a decrease in ambient benzene and acrolein concentrations of at least 2.5 percent, with more than 90 percent of the populations projected to e xperience 1,3
- butadiene concentrations of similar magnitude. Over 80 percent of the U.S population is projected to experience at least a 1 percent decrease in ambient ethanol concentrations, and over 60 percent would experience a similar decrease in ambie nt formaldeh yde concentrations with the proposed standards. **Table III**  **- 12**  **Percent of Total Population Experiencing Changes in Annual Ambient Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in 2030 as a Result of the Pr**  **oposed Standards** Percent Change Benzene Acrolein 1,3
- Butadiene Formaldeh yd e Ethanol Acetaldeh yd e ≤ - 50 > - 50 to ≤ - 25 0.1% > - 25 to ≤ - 10 2.8% 0.7% 56.8%******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 78 of 842 > - 10 to ≤ - 5 23.7% 36.8% 30.8% > - 5 to ≤ - 2.5 54.5% 43.7% 7.1% 1.2% 33.0% 0.3% > - 2.5 to ≤ - 1 17.7% 15.3% 3.4% 63.2% 55.3% 25.1% > - 1 to < 1 1.4% 3.5% 1.7% 35.6% 11.6% 74.6% ≥ 1 to < 2.5 0.0% ≥ 2.5 to < 5 ≥ 5 to < 10 ≥ 10 to < 25 ≥ 25 to < 50 ≥ 50
5. Visibility Air quality

modeling conduc ted for this proposed action was used to project visibility conditions in 139 mandatory class I federal areas across the U.S. The results show that in 2030 all the modeled areas would continue to have annual average deciview levels above background and th e proposed rule would improve visibility in all these areas. 196 The average visibility at all modeled mandatory class I federal areas on the 20 percent worst day s is projected to improve by 0.04 deciviews, or 0.28 percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 of the draft RIA contains more detail on the visibility portion of the air quality modeling. 6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Our air qualit y modeling projects substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the proposed standards. The standards would r esult in annual percent decreases of greater than 5 percent in most major urban areas and greater than 7 percent in a few areas. In addition, smaller decreases, in the 1 to 1.5 percent range, would occur over most of the rest of the country . The impacts of the proposed standards on sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging from no change to decreases of over 2 percent in some areas. For maps of 2030 deposition impacts and additional information on these impacts see Section 7.2.5.6 of the draft RIA.

196 The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on the light
- extinction coefficient and a unitless visibility index, called a “deciview”, which is used in the valuation of visibility. The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a change of one deciview . The higher the deciview value, the worse the visibility. Thus, an improvement in visibility is a decrease in deciview value.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 79 of 842 7. Enviro nmental Justice Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all people. As referenced below, numerous studies have found that some environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas with high population fractions of racial/ethnic minorities and people with low socioeconomic status (SE S), as would be expected on the basis of those areas’ share of the general population. As discussed in Section II of this document, concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated near high
- traffic roadway s. If minority populations and low
- income popul ations disproportionately live near such roads, then an issue of EJ may be present. Such disparities may

be due to multiple factors. 197 People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of obesity

and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease. Although questions remain, sev eral studies find stronger associations between air pollution and health in locations with such chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas may be more susceptible to the effects of air pollution. 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 Household
- level stresso rs such as parental smoking and relationship stress also may increase susceptibility

to the adverse effects of air pollution. 202 , 203

197 Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental equity: do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? North Caroline St ate University Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy 198 Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351
- 1358. Doi :10.1289/ehp.0900612 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 199 Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan, P.B.; Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007) Synergistic effects of traffic
- related air pollution and exposure to violence on urb an asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115: 1140
- 1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 200 Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein, N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation between income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med Assn J 169: 397
- 402. 201 Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.; Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the effect of traffic
- related air pollution on childhood asthma i ncidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406
- 12411. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812910106 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 202 Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L (2011) Non
- chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: an overvie w of current initiativ es and potential air pollutant interactions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8: 2020
- 2073. Doi:10.3390/ijerph8062020 [Online at http://dx.doi.org]******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 80 of 842 To address the existing conditions in areas near major roadway s, in comparison with other locations, we reviewed existing schol arly literature examining the topic, and conducted our own evaluation of two national datasets: the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey for calendar year 2009 and the U.S. Department of Education’s database of school locations. Existing publicati ons that address EJ issues generally report that populations living near major roadways (and other types of transportation infrastructure) tend to be composed of larger fractions of nonwhite residents. People living in neighborhoods near such sources of a ir pollution also tend to be lower in income than people living elsewhere. Numerous studies evaluating the demographics and socioeconomic status of populations or schools near roadway s have found that they include a greater percentage of minority

resident s, as well as lower SES (indicated by variables such as median household income). Locations in these studies include L os Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Way ne Count y, MI, Orange Count y, FL, and the State of California 204 , 205 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 We analyzed two national datab ases that allowed us to evaluate whether homes and schools were located near a major road. One database, the American Housing Survey (AHS), includes descriptive statistics of over 70,000 housing units across the nation. The study

is conducted every

two years by

the U.S. Census Bureau. We anal yz ed data from the 2009 AHS. The second database we analyzed was the U.S. Department of Education’s Common Core of Data, which includes enrollment and location information for schools across the U.S.

203 Rosa, M.J.; Jung, K.H.; Perzanowski, M.S.; Kelvin, E.A.; Darling, K.W.; Camann, D.E.; Chillrud, S.N.; Whyatt, R.M.; Kinney, P.L.; Perera, F.P.; Miller, R.L (2010) Prenatal exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, environmental tobacco smoke and asthma. Respir Med (In press). doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2010.11.022 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 204 Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air pollution exposures in California’s South Coast Air Basin. 205 Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M. (2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice: Vancouver and Seattle compared. Geo Journal 57: 595
- 608. doi:10.1007/s10708
- 009
- 9269
- 6 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 206 Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at risk: measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 1074
- 1079. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.054130 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 207 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2003) Proximity of California public schools to busy roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61
- 6 6. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566 [http://dx.doi.org] 208 Wu, Y; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci & Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 209 Su, J. G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011) Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319
- 328.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 81 of 842 In anal yz ing th e 2009 AHS, we focused on whether or not a housing unit was located within 300 feet of “4
- or - more lane highway , railroad, or airport.” 210 We anal yz ed whether there were differences between houses and householders in such locations and those not in them. 211 W e found that houses with a nonwhite householder were 22
- 34 percent more likely to be located within 300 feet of these large transportation facilities, while houses with a Hispanic householder were 17
- 33 percent more likely . Households near large transport ation facilities were, on average, lower in income and educational attainment, more likely to be a rental propert y and located in an urban area. In examining schools near major roadway s, we examined the Common Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes information on all public elementary

and secondary

schools and school districts nationwide. 212 To determine school proximities to major roadway s, we used a geographic information sy stem (GI S) to map each school and roadway s based on the U.S. Census’s TIGER roadway file. 213 We found that minority students were overrepresented at schools within 200 meters of the largest roadway s, and that schools within 200 meters of the largest roadway s also had higher than expected numbers of students eligible for free or reduced
price lunches. For example, Black students represent 21.57 percent of students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary road, whereas Black students represent 16.62 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Hispani c students represent 30.13 percent of students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary road, whereas Hispanic students represent 21.93 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school near major roadway s are more likely to be of a minority race, Hispanic ethnicity, and/or low SES. The reduction of near
- roadway concentrations of many

pollutants, discussed above, is likely

to help in mitigating this disparit y in racial, ethnic, an d economically
based exposures. 

## IV. **Proposed Ve**  **hicle Em issions Pr**  **ogram** In the more than 10 ye ars since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, manufacturers of light
- duty vehicles have continued to develop a wide range of improved technologies capable of red ucing key exhaust emissions, especially hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and particulate matter (PM). The California LEV II program has

210 This variable primarily represents roadway proximity. According to the Central I ntelligence Agency’s World Factbook, in 2010, the United States had 6,506,204 km or roadways, 224,792 km of railways, and 15,079 airports. As such, highways represent the overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this factor in the AHS. 211 Waterhouse, A. (2011) Near
- road E nvironmental Justice Analy sis. Memorandum to docket. 212 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ 213 Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of S chools within 200 M eters of U.S. P rimary and S econdary Roads. Memorandum to the docket
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 82 of 842 been instrumental in the continuous technology improvements by

requiring year after ye ar reductions in fleet averag e h ydrocarbon levels in addition to requiring the introduction of advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology has made it possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions well beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels are lowered further. Extensive data from existing Tier 2 (and California LEV II) vehicles show the opportunity

for further reductions, especiall y in addressing emissio ns produced at start
up, emissions under high
- speed, high
- load conditions, the effects of sulfur in gasoline, the effects of increased oil consumption, and the effects of vehicle and control sy stems age. For these reasons, we are proposing more stringent standards designed to reduce emissions, primarily

non - methane organic gases (NMOG), NO X , and PM from new vehicles. As discussed in detail below and in the draft RIA, we have concluded that, in conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur proposed in th is action, the proposed vehicle emissions standards are feasible and cost
- effective across the fleet in the proposed timeframe. We believe that simultaneous reductions in fuel sulfur would be a key factor in enabling the entire fleet of light
- dut y vehicle s to meet the proposed emission standards in
- use, throughout the life of the vehicle. This section describes in detail the proposed program for reducing tailpipe and evaporative emissions from light
- duty vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), light
- duty truck s (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s), Medium
- Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs), and heav y duty vehicles (HDVs). Sections IV.A and B discuss the proposed tailpipe emission standards and time lines, and other provisions for new light
- dut y vehicles and MDPVs and for new heav y - dut y vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). Section IV.C presents the proposed evaporative emissions standards and program as well as proposed improvements to the existing Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) provisions. In Section IV.D , we describe our proposal to update our federal certification fuel to better match today’s in
- use fuel and to be forward
- looking with respect to potential future gasoline ethanol and sulfur content. We also discuss in this section proposed compliance fle xibilities for small companies and small
- volume manufacturers (IV.E) and test procedure and other compliance provisions (IV.F). **A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light**  **- Duty Vehicles, Light**  **- Duty Trucks, and**  **Medium -**  **Duty Passenger Vehicles** 1. Overview The propose d Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed standards would apply to all LDVs and LDTs below 8,500 lbs GVWR, and MDPVs (8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR). (We discuss the proposed stan dards for heav y - dut y vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR other than MDPVs, in Section IV.B below.) Also as with Tier 2, manufacturers would select from several “bins” of emission standards such that the average of their vehicles’ emissions complies with the proposed fleet
- average standards.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 83 of 842 In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program for light
- and heav y - dut y vehicles throughout this preamble, we describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program. 214 Auto manufacturers have stressed to us the importance of their being able to design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as wel l as greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency among the federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, development, calibration, and manufacturing. In addition, because both programs include fleet
- average standards, consistency

among the programs means that manuf acturers would not need to separately monitor the numbers of different vehicle versions that were sold in different parts of the country . Consistency among programs would also eliminate the need to supply aftermarket parts for repair of multiple versions of a vehicle. We believe that the most cost - effective national program will result from close coordination of CARB LEV III and federal Tier 3 program elements and their implementation. To that end, we worked closel y with CARB and the vehicle manufacturer s, both individually and through their trade associations, to align the two programs. The proposed Tier 3 program is designed primarily to reduce exhaust and evaporative emissions during summer ambient temperature conditions when NMOG, NO X and PM emission s contribute to air quality concerns. We are not proposing new emission requirements for an y vehicle or fuel over the cold temperatures test cycles (i.e., the 20 ° F cold CO and NMHC tests). However, we seek comment on the need for doing so, including veh icles operating on E85 fuel, and on the appropriate form and level for any such cold
- temperature requirements. 2. Summary

of Proposed FTP and SFTP Tailpipe Standards We are proposing a comprehensive program that would address the key pollutants of concer n. We are proposing new standards for the sum of NMOG and NO X emissions, presented as NMOG+NO X , and PM. As discussed in Section III above, these proposed standards would result in very significant improvements in vehicle emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these pollutants, we are proposing standards as measured on test procedures that represent a range of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). Unless otherwise s pecified, the proposed FTP and SFTP standards would apply to vehicles operating on gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuels, including both flexible fuel and dedicated alternative fuel vehicles.

214 LEV III program as approved by the California Air Resources Board, January 2012******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 84 of 842 The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NO X standards would be fleet
- av erage standards, meaning that the manufacturer would calculate the average emissions of the vehicles it produces in each model year and compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year. The proposed fleet average standards for NMOG+NO X evaluated over the FTP are summarized in Table I
- 1
. (For comparison, the average NMOG and NOx standard for the Tier 2 program, when added together, equal 160 mg/mi). The standards would begin in MY 2017 at a level representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2 requirements for lighter vehicles and would become increasingl y stringent, culminating in an 81 percent reduction in MY 2025. The proposed FTP NMOG+NO X program includes separate fleet average st andards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would converge at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and later. 215 , 216 **Table IV**  **- 1**  **Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **FT P**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

Mod el Year 2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later LDV/LDT1 b 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30 LDT2,3,4 and MDPV 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. b Th ese proposed standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify their LDVs and LDV1s to a useful life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet
- average standard would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. Manufacturers would determine their fleet average FTP NMOG+NO X emission values based on the per
- vehicle “bin standards ” to which they certified each vehicle model. As with the Tier 2 program, manufacturers would be free to choose to certify vehicles to an y of the bins, so long as the sales
- weighted average of the NMOG+NO X values from the selected bins met the fleet avera ge standard for that model year. Table IV
- 5 presents the per
- vehicle bin standards.

215 The proposed declining NMOG+NO X fleet
- average standards would consist of one set of declining standards that would apply to light
- duty vehicles (LDVs) and small light tru cks (LDT1s) and a second set of declining standards that would apply to heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s. LDT4s), and MDPVs. 216 This preamble presents the proposed standards in terms of milligrams per mile for convenience. The associated regulatory langu age will continue to present the standard in terms of grams per mile for consistency with earlier programs.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 85 of 842 **Table IV**  **- 2**  **Proposed FTP Standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs (mg/mi)** Bin NMOG+ NO X

( mg/mi) PM

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) HCHO

(mg/mi) Bin 160 160 3 4.2 4 Bin 125 125 3 2.1 4 Bin 70 70 3 1.7 4 Bin 50 50 3 1.7 4 Bin 30 30 3 1.0 4 Bin 20 20 3 1.0 4 Bin 0 0 0 0 0 Similarly , the proposed fleet average NMOG+NO X standards measured over the SFTP are summarized in Table I
- 2 . The proposed SFTP NMOG+NO X fleet average standards decline from MY 2017 until MY 2025. In this case, the same standards would apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP NMOG+NO X standard would reach its full y phased
- in fleet average level of 50 mg/mi. **Table IV**  **- 3**  **Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **SF TP**  **Standards** Model Year 2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later NMOG + NO X (mg/mi) 103 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. We are also proposing PM standards as part of this Tier 3 program. The propo sed PM standards would apply to each vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to the declining NMOG+NO X standards, the proposed certification PM standard on the FTP is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for all model years, but phasi ng in beginning in MY 2017 for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and in MY 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. Based on EPA and CARB test programs, most current light duty vehicles are already

performing at or below this level. However, some vehicl es are emitting above this level, due to such factors as combustion chamber designs, and fuel and oil consumption controls that are not optimized for low PM emissions. The intent of the proposed 3 mg/mi standard is to bring all light
- duty vehicles to the PM level ty pical of that being demonstrated by most light
- duty

vehicles today
. To address the uncertainties that will accompan y the introduction of new technologies, the proposed program also includes a separate in
- use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in
- use vehicles during the phase
- in period, as described in more detail below. As presented in Table I
- 3 , for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR, these******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 86 of 842 FTP certification and in
- use standards would be ph ased in beginning with a requirement that at least 20 percent of a compan y’s U.S. production meet the standards in MY 2017 and reaching a 100 percent compliance requirement in MY 2021. The proposed standards represent a significant numerical reduction fro m the Tier 2 PM emission standards of 10 mg/mi for light
- dut y vehicles. **Table IV**  **- 4**  **Phase -**  **In for Proposed FTP PM Standards (percent of U.S. sales)**

**2017 a**  **2018 2019**  **2020 2021**  **2022 and later**  **Phase -**  **In** 20 20 40 70 100 100 **Certification Standard**  **(mg/mi)** 3 3 3 3 3 3
**In -**  **Use Standard**  **(mg/mi)** 6 6 6 6 6 3

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. Finally , the proposed Tier 3 program includes PM standards evaluated over the US06 cycle (a component of the SFTP test, discussed further below) at a level of 10 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. We are proposing separate standards for different sizes of vehicles because PM generation ty picall y increases when vehicles are carrying heavier loads and/or when they are pulling trailers. The US06 PM standards would phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM standards, reaching 100 percent of each compan y’ s U.S. production by MY 2022. These US06 standards would apply to the same vehicle models that a manufacture chose to certify to the FTP PM standard during the percent phase in period. PM levels over the US06 are t ypicall y higher than the PM emitted over the FTP due to the increased load on the vehicle. As in the case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being demonstrated by many vehicles in the current light
- dut y fleet. As with the FTP PM standard, we propose a separate in
- use US06 PM standard during the percent phase
- in period of 15 and 25 mg/mi for vehicles of 6000 lbs GVWR and less, and for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, respectivel y. The next subsections describe in more detail the proposed standards, how they would be implemented over time, and the technological approaches that we believe will be available to manufacturers in order to comply
. 3. Proposed FTP Standards As summarized above, we propose new standards for the pri mary pollutants of concern for this rule (NMOG, NO X , and PM) as measured on the FTP. The following******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 87 of 842 paragraphs describe in more detail these FTP standards for NMOG+NO X and PM, as well as for carbon monoxide (CO) and formaldeh yde (HCHO). a. FTP NMOG+NO X Stand ards We propose that the Tier 3 NMOG and NO X standards, both of which are important to reduce ambient ozone concentrations, be expressed in terms of the sum of the two pollutants, or as NMOG+NO X in mg/mi. 217 This approach contrasts with the Tier 2 standards , which were expressed as separate NMOG and NO X standards. We believe that the combined standard is appropriate for this proposed program for several reasons. At the stringent proposed emission levels, combining NMOG and NO X would provide a small amount of compliance flexibility , while at the same time significantly reducing both NMOG and NO X emission levels. For example, the combined standard would allow a gasoline vehicle manufacturer to have slightly higher NMOG if it were offset by lower NO X , or allo w a diesel vehicle manufacturer to have slightly higher NO X if offset by lower NMOG. This approach still ensures major reductions in both pollutants compared to today ’s levels. This is because the very stringent level of the full y phased
- in proposed comb ined standard (30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X ) means that even with a degree of allowed trading off of one pollutant for the other, the maximum emissions of either pollutant would need to be well below current levels. The standards of the California LEV III program wo uld also be expressed as NMOG+NO X ; aligning Tier 3 with LEV III in this respect would facilitate an important element of a national program. We believe that a full y phased
- in level for the proposed fleet
- average standard of 30 mg/mi is the most stringent l evel that we could reasonabl y propose in the context of our proposed 10
- ppm average standard for gasoline sulfur. As discussed in the feasibility Section IV.A.5 below, when necessary margins of compliance are considered, this proposed standard is very clo se to zero. We request comment on this level for the proposed standard, as well as the declining standards during the transition years (see Table IV
- 7 below). EPA is proposing compliance mechanisms for the new Ti er 3 FTP standards that are the same in most respects as those of the Tier 2 program. Using the Tier 2 approaches as much as possible would streamline the implementation of the program b y maintaining most of the compliance processes that manufacturers are familiar with today
. A key compliance mechanism adapted from the Tier 2 program is a “bin” structure for the proposed emission standards. For these purposes, a bin is a set of several standards that are intended to be complied with as a group. Thus each Tier 3 bin would have an NMOG+NO X standard and a PM standard , as well as CO and HCHO standards. A manufacturer choosing to certify a vehicle to a certain bin would need to meet each of that bin’s standards for the full useful life of the vehicle. In t his approach, manufacturers

217 In the past, EPA has taken a similar combined
- standard approach for heavy
- duty highway engines and many categories of nonroad engines.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 88 of 842 could certify

vehicles to any

of the bins, but they

would have to ensure that average NMOG+NO X of the bins to which all of its vehicles were certified met the fleet average standard specific to the vehicle category (i.e., LDV/LD T1 and LDT2/3/4/MDPVs) for that model year. That is, a manufacturer would comply by ensuring that the sales
weighted average of the NMOG+NO X values of the bins to which each of its vehicle models was certified was lower than the fleet average standard that applied for that model ye ar. For each proposed bin, we are including CO and HCHO standards at levels intended to prevent new engine and emission control designs that would result in increases in today ’s CO and HCHO emissions. The standards are based on the comparable current LEV II and Tier 2 bin standards for these pollutants. The current standards do not appear to be technology
- forcing, and we believe that this would continue to be the case as Tier 3 technologies are developed. The bin structure that we are proposing for light duty vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and MDPVs standards is presented in Table IV
- 5
. **Table IV**  **- 5**  **Proposed FTP Standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs (mg/mi)**  **218** Bin NMOG+ NO X

(mg/mi) PM a

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) HCHO

(mg/mi) Bin 160 160 3 4.2 4 Bin 125 125 3 2.1 4 Bin 70 70 3 1.7 4 Bin 50 50 3 1.7 4 Bin 30 30 3 1.0 4 Bin 20 20 3 1.0 4 Bin 0 0 0 0 0 a In MYs 2017
- 20, the PM standard applies only to that segment of a manufacturer’s vehicles covered by the percent of sales phase
- in for that model year. Consistent with the Tier 2 principle of vehicle and fuel neutrality, we are proposing that the same standards appl y to LDVs, LDTs, or MDPVs, regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles certified to operate on any fuel (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, E85, CNG, LNG, h ydrogen, and methanol) would all be subject to the same standards. We propose to maintain the fleet
- average approach of the Tier 2 stand ards. Unlike Tier 2, the proposed Tier 3 fleet
- average standards would decline annually to a fully phased
- in level of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . (The Tier 2 program, after a period of transition, established a single fleet average standard for all model ye ars.) Specificall y,

218 This tab le is identical to Table IV
- 2 , presented here for convenience.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 89 of 842 we are proposing NMOG+NO X standards as measured on the FTP that would reduce the combined fleet
- average emissions graduall y from MY 2017 through 2025, as shown in Table IV
- 6 below. Beginning in MY 2 017, we propose separate fleet average standards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would both decline annuall y, converging in MY 2025. These proposed declining average standards are identical to CARB’s LEV III standards. 219 The declining fleet
- average N MOG+NO X standard requirement would begin in 2017 for light
- dut y vehicles and light
- dut y trucks with a GVWR up to and including 6000 lbs and in 2018 for all other light
- dut y vehicles and light
- duty trucks (i.e., those with a GVWR greater than 6000 lbs). Th e standards would apply to the heavier vehicles a ye ar later to facilitate the transition to a 50
- state program for all manufacturers. During this transition period, there would be two fleet
- average NMOG+NO X standards for each model year, one for LDVs and LDT1s and a second fleet
- average standard for all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and for MDPVs. We are proposing that the fleet
average standards decline in a linear way from MY 2017 through MY 2025, at which point the two fleet
- average standards wo uld converge and stabilize for later model years at the same level, 30 mg/mi, as shown in Table IV
- 6 . Note that these fleet average standards are for LDT2 and larger vehicles, and for LDVs and LDT1s that manufact urers certify to the 150,000 mile useful life value. Section IV.A.7.b discusses how the Clean Air Act defines the useful life values for certification purposes and how EPA proposes to also provide for certification to slightly lower emissions standards to a useful life value of 120,000 miles, representing a level of stringency that is equivalent to that of the emission standards corresponding to the 150,000 mile useful life, for LDVs and LDT1s. **Table IV**  **- 6**  **Prop osed LD and MDPV Fleet Average FTP NMOG+NO**  **X Standards**  **(mg/mi)** Model Year 2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later LDV/LDT1 b 86 79 72 65 58 51 44 37 30 LDT2,3,4 and MDPV 101 92 83 74 65 56 47 38 30

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. b These proposed standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify its LDVs and LDV1s to a useful life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certif ied to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg.

219 See California Low
- Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 regulations adopted by State of California Air Resources Board, March 22, 2012, Resolution 12
- 21 incorporating by reference Resolution 12
- 11 , which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed November 19 9, 2012).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 90 of 842 EPA is also proposing an alternative phase
- in of the 30 mg/mi FTP NMOG+NOX standard that would be available if a manufacturer prefers a stable standard and four full ye ars of lead time, as specified in the Clean Air Act for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR. F or MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehi cles up to 6000 lbs GVWR to the primary

declining FTP fleet average standards, as in the primary program. Then, beginning in MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard of 30 mg/mi would apply to an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s light
- duty vehicl es, light
- dut y trucks, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6000 lbs GVWR. The percent phase
- in would match the proposed PM percent phase
- in schedule, as discussed below

– specificall y 40 percent of sales in MY 2019, 70 percent in MY 2020, and 100 percent in M Y 2021 and later model ye ars. A manufacturer choosing to certify any vehicle to this alternative phase
- in would need to use this approach for all its models in MYs 2019 and later; certifying part of its fleet to the declining fleet average after MY 2018 w ould not be permitted, since the structures of the two approaches, including the early credits provisions of of the NMOG+NOx fleet average program, would not be consistent. A m anufacturer certifying to this alternative phase
- in would also need to comply w ith the alternative SFTP NMOG+NOx phase
- in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM phase
- ins as described below. Vehicles covered by the alternative phase
- in programs would be considered “final Tier 3” vehicles and thus would also comply with the Tier 3 ce rtification fuel and full useful life provisions. EPA requests comment on this alternative phase
- in approach as well as on the primary option above. b. FTP PM Standards We also propose new FTP standards for PM emissions, as summarized in Table IV
- 7 below. For man y years, EPA’s focus for mobile source PM was on diesel engine emissions. In recent ye ars, the very effective controls on PM exhaust emissions that manufacturers have developed for heavy
- dut y diesel en gines have been successfull y applied to light
- dut y diesel engines as well. At the same time, attention to gasoline engine PM emissions has increased as research has demonstrated that the level of PM from gasoline light duty vehicles is more significant th an had been previously thought. 220 Under t ypical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of most current - technology

gasoline vehicles are fairly low, well below the Tier 2 PM standards. At the same time we see considerable variation in PM emissi ons among vehicle models not consistently

associated with any

specific engine or emission control technology (Section 1.5.1 of the draft RIA) . As a result, we are proposing a new FTP PM standard

220 Nam , E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michae ls, H.; Bauldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarboro, C. Analysis of Particulate Matter Emissions from Light
- Duty Gasoline Vehicles in Kansas City, EPA420
- R
08
- 010. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 91 of 842 that is set to ensure that all new vehicles would perform at a level representing what is already being achieved by well
- designed Tier 2 emission control technologies. PM emissions over the FTP are generall y attributed to the cold start, when PM formation from combustion of the fuel is facilitated by the operatin g conditions, including a cold combustion chamber and fuel enrichment . During cold start, PM control via oxidation of semi
- volatile organic compounds from the lubricating oil by catal yt ic converters is less effective . We believe that the proposed FTP PM standard can be achieved with improvements to the fuel controls during the cold start without the need for any new technology

or hardware . Improvements in cold
- start exhaust cataly st performance for NMOG+NOx control will also reduce emissions of semi
- volatile organic PM . As such, cold start PM levels are relativel y independent of vehicle application and therefore we are proposing a single FTP PM standard for all light
- dut y and MDPV vehicles. The PM standard level we are proposing would ensure that future PM performance is consistent with current well
- performing Tier 2 vehicles. Unlike the NMOG+NO X FTP standard, the PM standard would not decline over time, since most manufacturers are already producing vehicles that would meet the proposed new standards. Although we believe it is important that the proposed FTP PM standard apply from the beginning of the Tier 3 program, we are proposing several provisions to provide a degree of flexibility

for manufacturers in how many vehicle models would need to meet th at standard in the earl y ye ars of the program. Manufacturers have raised several issues that we believe these provisions would address. In meetings with EPA, several manufacturers have expressed concerns about how a PM standard in the range of the propo sed 3 mg/mi standard would be implemented. One concern related to the initial uncertainties about PM emissions performance that will accompan y the development of new engine technologies, including those that may be introduced to address the GHG emissions/ fuel economy standards that EPA and NHTSA recentl y finalized for these vehicles. Also, manufacturers expressed concerns related to the testing of PM on the FTP, particularl y about potential updates to the test procedures required to accuratel y measure PM at very low levels. Finally , related to the concerns about the new test procedures are the current limitations that exist for some manufacturers regarding the capacity of their test facilities to perform a significant volume of gasoline vehicle PM testing
. For these reasons, we are proposing a percent
- of
- sales phase
- in during the first 5 ye ars of the program to address these concerns. Beginning in MY 2017 (and in MY 2018 for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR), manufacturers would comply with the PM standard w ith a minimum of 20 percent of their U.S. sales. As shown in Table IV
- 7 , the percentage of the manufacturer’s sales that would need to compl y would increase each ye ar, reaching 100 percent in MY 2021. In addition to this percent phase
- in, we are proposing a separate PM standard of 6 mg/mi that would apply onl y for in
- use testing of vehicles certified to the new standards, and onl y during the percent phase
- in period.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 92 of 842 Because of the expected time and expense of perf orming emission tests on the improved PM test procedures, we are proposing to limit the number of tests using the new procedure s that a manufacturer would need to perform at certification and during in
use testing. Specificall y, manufacturers would be req uired to test vehicles representing a minimum of 25 percent of a model’s durability test groups during certification each model year (and a minimum of 2 durability groups). 221 Manufacturers could select which durability groups to test, but would need to rot ate the groups tested each ye ar to eventuall y cover their whole fleet. Similarly, manufacturers performing in
- use testing under the In
- Use Verification Program could limit their testing to 50 percent of their high
- mileage test vehicles (i.e., those operat ed for at least 4 years and more than 50,000 miles). Again, manufacturers would need to rotate their vehicle models so that each model would be tested every other ye ar. Overall, we believe that the flexibility that these proposed provisions would provide would facilitate the expeditious implementation of the proposed program, with no significant impact on the potential benefits of the program. The PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of this proposal. Although CARB has proposed a 1 mg/mi standard which will begin phasing in starting in MY 2025, they

acknowledge that there is a need for continuing PM measurement method development prior to implementing this standard. 222 In order for EPA to propose a standard at this level, there must be established methods to reliably and consistently measure PM below that standard, for compliance purposes. However, we request comment on CARB’s 1 mg/mi standard in the context of the propo sed federal Tier 3 program . We request comment on all of the proposed FTP standards, their structure, and their implementation schedules.

**Table IV**  **- 7**  **Summary of Proposed FTP Standards** Program Element Units Model Year Notes
2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 NMOG+NO X Standard (fleet average) mg/mi Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV
- 6 ) b
PM Standards

221 Durability groups are a subset of engine families. Several engine families may have the same durability group. 222 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider L EV III, , December 7, 2011******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 93 of 842 Phase
- in % 20 20 40 70 100 100 100
FTP Certification mg/mi 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Note c In
- use mg/mi 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 Note d a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM wo uld apply beginning in MY 2018. b The percent phase
- in would not apply to the declining fleet average standar ds. c Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2. d Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their high mileage in
- use vehicles (4 years, > 50,000 miles) As with the proposed FTP N MOG+NOX standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase
- in of the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard that would be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the alternative phase
- in for the FTP NMOG+NOX program above could also postpone the beginning of the phase
- in for PM compliance for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6000 lbs GVWR to the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard (and have a 6 mg/mi in
- use PM standard) for 20 percent of its sales in each of those ye ars, as with the primary PM percent phase
- in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later, it would comply with the 3 mg/mi ( and 6 mg/mi in
- use) PM standards for their LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6000 lbs GVWR. For MYs 2019 and 2020 (i.e., before the phase
- in is fully implemented in MY 2021), manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to meet the PM standard on the same segment of th eir fleet vehicles being used to meet the NMOG+NOx fleet average standard, and at the applicable phase
- in percentage of sales for the given model year. Manufacturers certifying to the alternative PM phase
- in standard would also need to comply with the alt ernative US06 PM phase
- in as described below, as well as the NMOG+NOx FTP and SFTP phase
- ins. EPA requests comment on this alternative phase
- in approach as well as on the primary PM phase
- in option above. 4. Proposed SFTP Standards In addition to the proposed FTP standards, we are proposing NMOG+NO X and PM standards as measured on the SFTP. The SFTP (and specifically the US06 component of the test) is designed to simulate higher speeds and higher acceleration rates (and thus higher loads) when substanti ally more heat can be generated during the combustion process. It is during these kinds of operation that engines can go into a fuel “enrichment” mode, where the engine’s controls may temporaril y create a rich air/fuel mixture to protect exhaust component s from thermal damage. Enrichment can increase emissions of NMOG+NO X and PM, primarily due to the incomplete combustion that occurs under rich conditions and the diminished effectiveness of the catal yst in these circumstances. However, enrichment can be minimized or eliminated in current and future engines, where components can be thermally protected even under high
- load conditions by

careful electronic management of the air/fuel mixture and the combustion process. To reduce emissions caused b y excessive enrichment, we are proposing new SFTP standards. Further, as described in Section IV.A.4.c below, we are proposing******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 94 of 842 limitations on the magnitude of enrichment that could be commanded b y the vehicle operator . We describe the proposed SFTP standards in the following paragraphs. We are also proposing an SFTP composite CO standard of 4.2 g/mi for all model ye ars 2017 (or 2018) and later. This standard represents no effective change from the current Tier 2 SFTP CO standard, which we believe is already at a l evel that is sufficiently

stringent. a. SFTP NMOG+NO X Standards We have reviewed certification and in
- use NMOG and NO X data on a wide range of recent vehicles as tested on the US06 cycle. See Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for an anal ys is of this data. It is clear that most current vehicles are generall y avoiding significant enrichment events during high
- load operation and thus achieve relativel y low NMOG+NO X emissions on the US06 test. The data shows that with minor (if any) improvements to engine calibratio ns and with no significant loss of performance, manufacturers are able to essentially eliminate enrichment events and their emissions consequences. Thus, as presented in Table IV
- 9 below, we are proposing new comp osite SFTP standards for NMOG+NO X at levels that would be more stringent than those required b y the existing Tier 2 program. We believe that the new standards would require emission performance at levels currentl y achieved today b y most vehicles under high
- load operation, and we do not believe that significant additional reductions would result from SFTP standards more stringent than the proposed 50 mg/mi fully phased
- in level. The SFTP emissions value for certification of gaseous pollutants would continu e to be calculated as a weighted composite value of emissions on three cycles (0.35 x FTP + 0.28 x US06 + 0.37 x SC03), as is done for the Tier 2 SFTP standards. We believe that the proposed standards could be more challenging in the early ye ars of the p rogram. Thus, we propose a declining fleet average standard that would become increasingl y stringent from MY 2017 to MY 2025. Manufacturers would comply with a declining NMOG+NO X fleet
- average SFTP standard for each year beginning in MY 2017 (MY 2018 for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR) and culminating for MY 2025 and later with a fleet
- average standard of 50 mg/mi. To provide flexibility

in meeting the fleet
- average standards, manufacturers would determine for themselves what the specific SFTP composite standard would be for an individual vehicle family and report that self

- selected standard and the measured emission performance. (These self
- selected standards are analogous to “family emission limits,” or “FELs,” used in other programs (e.g., heav y - dut y highway engine standards).) For each family , a manufacturer would choose any composite NMOG+NO X standard, up to 180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/mi increments. The manufacturer would then calculate the sales
- weighted average of all the selected standards of the fam ilies across its fleet and compare that emissions value to the applicable fleet
- average standards for that model ye ar. Table IV
- 8 presents the proposed declining fleet
- average SFTP NMOG+NO X standards.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 95 of 842 As with the proposed FTP NMOG+NOX and PM standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase
- in of the 50 mg/mi SFTP NMOG+NOX standard that would be available if a manufacturer prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR. F or MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify

vehicles up to 6000 lbs GVWR to the primary SFTP declining fleet average standards, as in the primary program. Then, beginning in MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard of 50 mg/mi would appl y to an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s light
- duty vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6000 lbs GVWR. The percent phase
- in would match the proposed PM percent phase
- in schedule, as discussed below . A m anufacturer certifyi ng to this alternative phase
- in would also need to comply with the alternative FTP NMOG+NOx phase
- in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM phase
- ins, as described elsewhere in this section. EPA requests comment on this alternative phase
- in approach as we ll as on the primary option above. b. US06 PM Standards Our proposed approach to addressing PM emissions on the US06 test (a component of the composite SFTP standard) is somewhat different from the SFTP standards that we are proposing for NMOG and NO X emissions. In the case of PM, US06 data on recent vehicles shows that current gasoline vehicles can have very low PM emissions, but a number of others have significantly higher PM emissions. In some cases, manufacturer emission control strategies that are sensitive to variations in operating conditions (e.g., variation due to driver behavior or automatic transmission shift points) appear to result in very low PM levels during some tests and yet dramatically higher PM on other tests on the same vehicle. W e also believe that some high PM emissions are partl y due to increasing oil consumption in vehicles as they age, especially under higher
- load conditions or hard closed
- throttle deceleration conditions. Thus, we now believe that more focus on vehicles as they age is important. We have designed the proposed US06 PM standards in light of all of these factors, which relate to PM emission formation under relatively extreme driving conditions. For these standards, we are proposing to focus on the US06 cycle c omponent of the composite SFTP, since most of our concern about PM formation and sensitivity of engine controls arises from high
- speed, high
- load driving conditions. Similarly , the quantity of PM emissions from warmed
- up engines is closely related to engi ne load, since the higher rate of fuel consumption results in more opportunities for PM to form. For this reason, we propose that heavier vehicles, which face high
- load conditions more frequentl y than lighter vehicles, comply with a higher US06 standard and lighter vehicles comply with a lower standard. The proposed US06 PM standard would be 10 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. As is the case for the proposed FTP PM standards, we are proposing a single per
v ehicle maximum standard to apply in each model year, with an allowable percentage phase
- in schedule identical to the FTP PM phase
- in.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 96 of 842 Finally , as with the FTP PM standard (and for the same reasons), we propose a slightly less stringent in
- use US06 PM s tandard that would apply during the percent phase
- in period onl y. The proposed in
- use SFTP PM standards would be 15 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. As with the proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NOx standards and FTP PM standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase
- in of the 20 mg/mi PM standard as measured on the US06 cycle, that would be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full ye ars of lead time for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that ch ooses the alternative phase
- in for the FTP NMOG+NOX program above could also postpone the beginning of the phase
- in for US06 PM compliance for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6 000 lbs GVWR to the 10 mg/mi FTP PM standard (and have a 15 mg/mi in
- use standard) for 20 percent of its sales in each of those years, as with the primary PM percent phase
- in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later , it would comply with the respective stan dards for vehicles up to and above 6000 lbs GVWR for their LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs (i.e., 10 mg/mi and 15 mg/mi (in
- use) for vehicles up to 6000 lbs GVWR, and 20 mg/mi and 25 mg/mi (in
- use) for vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR. ) F or MYs 2019 and 2020, manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to meet both the FTP PM and the US06 PM standards on the same segment of their fleet vehicles being used to meet the 30 mg/mi fleet average NMOG+NOx standards, at the applicable percent phase
- in requirement for the given model year . Manufacturers certifying to the alternative US06 PM phase
- in standard would also need to compl y with the alternative FTP PM phase
- in as described above, as well as the NMOG+NOx FTP and SFTP phase
ins
. EPA requests comment on thi s alternative phase
- in approach as well as on the primary US06 phase
- in option above. All of the proposed SFTP/US06 standards are shown in Table IV
- 8 and Table IV
- 9
. **Table IV**  **- 8**  **Proposed LD and MDPV SFTP Composite Fleet Average Standards** Model Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later NMOG + NO X (mg/mi) 103 a 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50 CO (g/mi) 4.2 a
a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the NMOG+NO X and CO standards would apply beginning in MY 2018
. **Table IV**  **- 9**  **Summary of Proposed SFTP Standards** Program Element Units Model Year Notes******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 97 of 842 2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 NMOG+NO X Standard (fleet average) mg/mi Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV
- 8 ) b PM Standards Phase
- in % 20 20 40 70 100 100 100
US06 LDV~LDT2 Certification mg/m i 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Note c LDV~LDT2 In
- use mg/mi 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 Note d US06 LDT 3~L DT4

Certification mg/mi 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Note c LDT 3~L DT4 In
- use mg/mi 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 Note d

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the standards would apply beginning in MY 2018
. b The percent phase
- in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards. c Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2. d Manufacturers would be required to t est 50 percent of their high mileage in
- use vehicles (4 years, > 50,000 miles)

We request comment on our proposed SFTP NMOG+NO X and PM standards, their structure, and their implementation schedules. c. Enrichment L imitation for Spark
- Ignition Engines To prev ent emissions from excessive enrichment during operating conditions represented b y the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations on the magnitude of enrichment that could be commanded, including enrichment episodes encountered during in
- use operation . During conditions where enrichment was demonstrated to be present on the SFTP, the nominal air to fuel ratio could not be richer at an y time than the leanest air to fuel ratio required to obtain maximum torque (lean best torque or LBT). An air to fuel ratio of LBT plus a tolerance of 4 percent additional enrichment would be allowed in actual vehicle testing to protect for any in
- use variance in the air to fuel ratio from the nominal LBT air to fuel determination, for such reasons as air or fuel distribution d ifferences from production variances or aging. LBT is defined as the leanest air to fuel ratio required at a speed and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque. Specificall y, an increase in fuel would not result in an increase in torque while maintaining a fixed spark advance. LBT is determined b y setting the spark advance to a setting that is less than or equal to the spark advance required for best torque (MBT) and maintaining that spark advance when sweeping the air to fuel ratio. T his fixed spark advance requirement is intended to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 98 of 842 prevent torque changes related to spark changes masking true LBT. Manufacturers may request approval of an alternative LBT definition for a unique technology or control strategy . The Agency

could determi ne that an enrichment amount was excessive or not necessary and therefore deem that the approach did not meet the air to fuel ratio requirements. Enrichment required for thermal protection would continue to be allowed upon demonstration of necessity to the Agency , based upon temperature limitations of the engine or exhaust components. Manufacturers would be required to provide descriptions of all components requiring thermal protection, temperature limitations of the components, how the enrichment strategy will detect over
- temperature conditions and correct them, and a justification regarding wh y the enrichment is the minimum necessary to protect the specific components. The Agency may determine that the enrichment is not justified or is not the minimum necessary based on the use of engineering judgment using industry
- reported thermal protection requirements. 5. Feasibility

of the Proposed NMOG+NO X and PM Standards In this section, with additional support in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA, we describe how we r eached our conclusion that the proposed Tier 3 standards would be technologicall y feasible in the time frame of the program
. For each of the proposed emission standards, the lead time provided b y the proposed program is more than sufficient for all manufa cturers to comply . First, manufacturers in many cases are already adopting complying technologies for reasons other than this proposed rulemaking. For example, man y of the technologies that manufacturers will begin to develop as earl y as MY 2014 in respo nse to the CARB LEV III FTP and SFTP NMOG+NO X standards for the California market will likely represent steps toward compliance with this proposed national program. Similarly , manufacturers are already building some vehicles that comply with our proposed evaporative emissions standards in response to the CARB LEV III evaporative standards. In addition, as described above, our proposed program incorporates a number of phase
- in provisions that would ease the transition to compliance, including time some manufacturers would need to install PM testing capability

and to ramp up production on a national scale . We invite comment on our conclusions relating to the feasibility of the proposed program for each of the standards, as discussed below, including our ove rall conclusion that technological lead time is not a driving factor in complying with any of the proposed standards. This feasibility

assessment is based on a variet y of complementary technical data, studies, and anal ys es. As described below, these inc lude our analy sis of the stringency of the proposed standards as compared to current Tier 2 emission levels. We also discuss below our observation that manufacturers are currently certifying several vehicle models under the California LEV II program that could likely achieve the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X and PM standards or similar levels. EPA has assessed the emissions control challenges manufacturers would generall y face (e.g., cold start NMOG reductions and running (warmed
- up) NO X emissions under ty pica l and more aggressive driving conditions) and the corresponding technologies that we expect to be available to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 99 of 842 manufacturers to meet these challenges. Our feasibility assessment accounts for the fact that the proposed Tier 3 program would appl y to all ty p es of new vehicles, ranging from small cars to large pick
- up trucks and MDPVs and representing a wide diversity in applications and in specific engine designs. It is important to note that our primary assessment of the feasibility of engine and emission control technologies is based on the assumption that vehicles would be certified on gasoline with a fuel sulfur content of 10 ppm and operated on in
- use gasoline with 10 ppm sulfur or less. 223 Therefore, our primary assessment does not incorporate the degra dation of emission control sy stem caused by higher levels of sulfur content, as is discussed in Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA. This assessment reinforces the critical role of gasoline sulfur control, as proposed in Section V below, in making it possible for EPA to propose emission standards at these very stringent levels. See Section IV.6 below for a full discussion of our current knowledge of the effects of gasoline sulfur on current vehicle emissions as well as our projections of how we expect that sulfur would affect compliance with standards in the range of the proposed Tier 3 standards. Since there are multiple aspects to the Tier 3 program, it is necessary to consider technical feasibility

in light of the different program requirements an d their interactions with each other. In man y cases, manufacturers would be able to address more than one requirement with the same general technological approach (e.g., faster cataly st light
- off can improve both FTP NMOG+NO X and PM emissions). At the same time, the feasibility assessment must consider that different technologies may be needed on different t ypes of vehicle applications (i.e., cars versus trucks) and must consider the relative effectiveness of these technologies in reducing emissions for the full useful life of the vehicle while operating on expected in
- use fuel. For example, certain smaller vehicles with correspondingl y small engines may be less challenged to meet FTP standards than larger vehicles with larger engines. Conversel y, these smaller vehicles may have more difficult y meeting the more aggressive SFTP requirements than vehicles with larger and more powerful engines. Additionally , the ability to meet the proposed SFTP emission requirements can also be impacted by the path taken t o meet the FTP requirements (e.g., larger volume catal ys ts for US06 emissions control vs. smaller catal ys ts for improved FTP cold
- start emissions control). Throughout the following discussion, we address how these factors, individually and in interaction with each other, affect the feasibility

of the proposed program.

223 Our technology, feasibility, and cost assessments are also consistent with an assumption that certification fuel would contain 15 percent ethanol and would have other properties as specified in Section IV.D below
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 100 of 842 a. FTP NMOG+NO X Standards The proposed new emission requirements include stringent NMOG+ NO X standards on the FTP that would require new vehicle hardware in order to achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet average level in 2025. The ty pe of new hardware that would be required would vary

depending on the specific application and emission challenges. Smaller vehicles with corresponding smaller engines would generall y need less new hardware while larger vehicle s may need additional hardware and improvements beyond what would be needed for the smaller vehicles. While some vehicles, especiall y larger light trucks, may

face higher costs in meeting the proposed standards, it is important to remember that not every vehicle needs to meet the standard. The proposed program has been structured to provide higher emission standard “bins” (see Table IV
- 5 above) to which manufacturers may certify more challenged vehicles, so long as these vehicles are offset with vehicles certified in lower emission bins such that the fleet
- wide average meets the standard. W e believe that the availability of the proposed less
- stringent bins would allow for feasible and cost
- effective compliance for all vehicles. In the Tier 2 program, manufacturers took advantage of this flexibility , especiall y in the earl y ye ars of the program. Then, as technologies improved and/or became less expensive and the need for averaging diminished, manufacturers began certifying all or most of their fleets to the average bin (Tier 2 Bin 5). We anticipate that manufacturers will follow a similar trend with the proposed Tier 3 standards, rel yi ng on fleet averaging more significantly in the transitional years but certifying increasing numbers of their vehicles to the final fleet average standard of 30 mg/mi in the later ye ars of the program. In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X national fleet average FTP standard, EPA conducted two supporting analyses. The initial analy ses perfo rmed were of the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleets. This provided a baseline for the current federal fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions performance of the California LEV II fleet. The second consideration was a modal analy sis of ty pical vehicle emissions under certain operating conditions. In this way EPA determined the specific emissions performance challenges that vehicle manufacturers would face in meeting the lower fleet average emission standards. Each of these considerations is d escribed in greater detail below. The current federal fleet is certified to an average of Tier 2 Bin 5, equivalent to 160 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . 224 For MY 2009, 92 percent of LDVs and LDT1s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 91 percent of LDT2s through LDT4s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5. This was not an unexpected result as there is currentl y no motivation for vehicle manufacturers to produce a federal fleet that over
- complies with respect to the current Tier 2 standards. By

comparison, in the California fleet, where compliance with the “PZEV” program encourages manufacturers to certify vehicles to cleaner levels, only 30

224 The current Tier 2 program does not combine NMOG and NO X emissions into one fleet
- average standard. The fleet
- average standard in that program is for NO X emissions alone.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 101 of 842 percent of the LDVs and LDT1s are certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 60 percent are certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. The situation regarding the truck f leet in California is similarly stratified, with 37 percent of the LDT2s through LDT4s being certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 55 percent being certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. In man y cases identical vehicles are being certified to a lower standard in California a nd a higher standard federall y. We note that vehicles certified to a lower standard in California are operated on gasoline with an average sulfur content of 10 ppm and thereb y are able to maintain their emissions performance in
- use. Based on these patter ns of federal and California certification, EPA believes that much of the existing Tier 2 fleet could be certified to a lower federal fleet average immediatel y, with no significant feasibility concerns, if lower sulfur gasoline were made available nationwi de Regardless of the Tier 2 bin standards at which manufacturers choose to certify their vehicles, actual measured emissions performance of these vehicles is typically well below the numerical standards. This difference is referred to as “compliance marg in” and is a result of manufacturers’ efforts to address all the sources of variability , including:

 Test
- to - test variability (within one test site and lab
- to - lab)

 Build variation expectations

 Manufacturing tolerances and stack
- up
 Vehicle operation (for e xample: driving habits, ambient temperature, etc.)

 Fuel composition

 The effects of fuel sulfur on exhaust cataly sts and oxygen sensors
 The effects of other fuel components, including ethanol and gasoline additives

 Oil consumption

 The impact of oil additiv es and oil ash on exhaust catal ys ts and ox ygen sensors For MY 2009, the compliance margin for a Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle averaged approximately

60 percent. In other words, actual vehicle emissions performance was on average about 40 percent of a 160 mg/mi NM OG+NO X standard, or about 64 mg/mi. By comparison, for California
- certified vehicles, the average Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) compliance margin was somewhat less for the more stringent standards, approximately 50 percent. We believe that the recent California experience is a likely indicator of compliance margins that manufacturers would design for in order to comply with the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. Thus, a ty pical Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle,******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 102 of 842 performing at 40 percent of the current standard (i.e., at about 64 mg/mi) would need improvements sufficient to reach about 15 mg/mi (50 percent of a 30 mg/mi standards). To understand how the several currently
- used technologies described below could be used b y manufacturers to reach the stringent pr oposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards, it is helpful to consider emissions formation in common modes of operation for gasoline engines, or modal analy sis. 225 The primary challenge faced b y m anufacturers for producing Tier 3 compliant light
- duty gasoline vehicle powertrains would be to reduce the emissions during cold
- start operation which, based on modal anal ys is of a gasoline powered vehicle being operated on the FTP cycle, occurs during about the first 50 seconds after engine start. Thus, effective control of these cold
- start emissions would be the primary

technological goal of manufacturers complying with the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. As discussed below, light
- dut y manufacturers are already appl yi ng several technologies capable of significant reductions in these cold start emissions to vehicles currentl y on the road. b. SFTP NMOG+NO X Standards The increase in the stringency of the SFTP NMOG+NO X standards, specifically across the US06 cycle, would generall y onl y require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and diligent implementation of new technologies that manufacturers are already introducing or are likely to introduce in response to the current and 2017 LD GHG emission standards. These include downsized gasoline direct injection (GDI) and tur bocharged engines, which may also include improvements to the engine and emission control hardware to tolerate higher combustion and exhaust temperatures expected in these future GHG
- oriented engine designs. The upgraded materials or components would enab le manufacturers to rely less on fuel enrichment during high
- speed/high
- load operation to protect components from overheating. This fuel enrichment is currentl y the source of elevated VOC, NO X , and PM emissions seen in a subset of the current Tier 2 fleet
. With respect to enrichment, changes to the fuel/air mixture by increasing the fuel fraction has historically

been the primary

method available to manufacturers to protect the catal ys t and other exhaust components from over
- temperature conditions. Changi ng the fuel/air mixture is no longer the only tool available to manufacturers for this purpose. With the application of electronic throttle controls, variable valve timing, exhaust gas recirculation and other exhaust temperature influencing technologies on nearly every light
- duty vehicle, the manufacturer has the ability to sy stematicall y control the operation and combustion processes of the engine to minimize or altogether avoid areas and modes of operation where thermal issues can occur. While some of these solutions could in some cases result in a small and temporary reduction in vehicle performance (absolute

225 A mo dal analysis provides a second
- by
- second view of the total amount of emissions over the entire cycle being considered.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 103 of 842 power levels), we believe that it could be an effective way to reduce NMOG+NO X emissions over the SFTP test. Additionally , some components, espe ciall y catal ys ts, can experience accelerated thermal deterioration that occurs when operating at higher temperatures for more time than expected under normal operation (e.g., trailer towing, mountain grades). Some upgrades of existing vehicle emission control technology , like catal ys t substrates and washcoats may

be required to limit thermal deterioration and ensure vehicle emissions compliance throughout the useful life of the vehicle. Inorder to assess the technical feasibility of a 50 mg/mi NMOG+NO X national fleet average SFTP standard, EPA conducted an analy sis of SFTP levels of Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles. The analy sis was performed on the US06 results from current Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles tested in the in
- use verification program (IUVP) by manufac turers and submitted to EPA. This anal ys is provided a baseline for the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleet emissions performance, as well as the SFTP emissions performance capability of the cleanest vehicles meeting the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. The analy sis concluded that most vehicles in the IUVP testing program are already capable of meeting the composite SFTP standard of 50 mg/mi when the Tier 3 FTP standard levels are factored into the composite calculation. With the technological improvements alre ady underway as discussed above, we believe all 2017 and later vehicles would be able to comply with the proposed SFTP standards, directl y, or through the flexibility of the averaging, banking and trading program. For further information on the analy sis s ee Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. c. FTP and SFTP PM Standards As described above for NMOG+NO X over the SFTP, the increase in the stringency

of the FTP and SFTP PM standards would generall y also onl y require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and di ligent implementation of new technologies like gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines. Some upgrades of existing vehicle emission control technology may be required to ensure vehicle emissions performance is maintained throughout the use ful life of the vehicle. These upgrades may

include improvements to the engine to control wear that could result in increased PM from oil consumption and selection of GDI s ys tems that would be capable of continuing to perform optimally even as the sy stems age. We based our conclusions about the ability of manufacturers to meet the proposed PM standards largel y on the PM performance of the existing fleet, both on the FTP and SFTP. In the case of FTP testing of current vehicles, data on both low and high mileage light
- duty vehicles demonstrate that the majorit y of vehicles are currentl y achieving levels at or below the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. The testing results can be found in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. A small number of vehicles are at or just over the proposed FTP PM standard at low mileage and could require calibration changes and/or catal ys t changes to meet the new standards. It is our******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 104 of 842 expectation that the same calibration and catal ys t changes required to address NMOG would also provide the necessary PM control. Vehicles that currently have higher PM emissions over the FTP or SFTP at higher mileages would likely be required to control oil consumption and combustion chamber deposits. We also analyzed PM test data on US06 emissions for curre nt Tier 2 vehicles. The data show that man y vehicles are already at or below the proposed standards on the US06. Vehicles that have high PM emission rates on the US06 would likely need to control enrichment, and oil consumption particularly later in life . As described above for SFTP NMOG+NO X control, enrichment can be more accuratel y managed through available electronic engine controls. The strategies for reducing oil consumption are similar to those described above for controlling oil consumption on th e FTP. However, given the higher engine speeds experienced on the US06 and the increase in oil consumption that can accompany this kind of operation, manufacturers would most likely focus on oil sources stemming from the piston to cylinder interface and p ositive crankcase ventilation (PCV). Manufacturers have informed us that they have already

reduced or are planning to reduce the oil consumption of their engines b y improved sealing of the paths of oil into the combustion chamber and improved piston
- to - c yl inder interfaces. They are already taking or considering these actions to address issues of customer satisfaction and cost of ownership. In addition, many vehicle manufacturers acknowledge the relationship between combustion chamber deposits and PM for mation and are activel y pursuing design changes to mitigate fuel impingement within the combustion chamber and its commensurate PM effects. Both ty pes of controls are being widely applied by manufacturers today
. d. Technologies Manufacturers are Likel y to Ap pl y Most of the technologies expected to be applied to light
- duty vehicles to meet the stringent proposed standards would address the emissions control sy stem’s ability to control emission during cold start. The effectiveness of current vehicle emissions control sy stems depends in large part on the time it takes for the catal ys t to light off, which is ty

picall y defined as the catal ys t reaching a temperature of 250 ° C. In order to improve catal ys t light
- off, we expect that manufacturers would add technolo gies that provide heat from combustion more readil y to the catal ys t or improve the cataly st efficiency at lower temperatures. These technologies include calibration changes, thermal management, close
- coupled catal ys ts, cataly st platinum group metals (PGM) loading and strategy , and secondary air injection, all which generally improve emission performance of all pollutants. In some cases where the cataly st light
- off and efficiency are not enough to address the cold start NMOG emissions, hydrocarbon adsorber s may be applied to trap h ydrocarbons until such time that the catal ys t is lit off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of these technologies addresses NMOG, NO X , and PM performance. The technologies are described in greater detail below.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 105 of 842  Engine Control Calibration Changes

– These include changes to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more combustion heat is created during the cold start. Control changes may include injection strategies in GDI applications, uniqu e cold
- start variable valve timing and lift, and other available engine parameters. Engine calibration changes can affect NMOG, NO X and PM emissions.

 Cataly st PGM Loading

– Additional PGM loading, increased loading of other active materials, and improved dispersion of PGM and other active materials in the catal ys t provide a greater number of sites available to catal yz e emissions and addresses NMOG, NO X and PM emissions. Cataly st PGM loading, when implemented in conjunction with low sulfur gasoline, will e ffectivel y eliminate NO X emissions under warmed
- up conditions.

 Thermal Management

– This category of technologies includes all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the catal ys t with minimal cooling. This includes insulating the exha ust piping between the engine and the catal ys t, reducing the wetted area of the exhaust path, reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust sy stem, and/or using close
- coupled catal ys ts (i.e., the catal ys ts are packaged as close as possible to the engine’s cylin der head to mitigate the cooling effects of longer exhaust piping). Thermal management technologies primaril y address NMOG emissions, but also affect NO X and PM emissions **.**
 Secondary

Air Injection

– By

injecting air directly

into the exhaust stream, close to the exhaust valve, combustion can be maintained within the exhaust, creating additional heat by which to increase the cataly st temperature. The air/fuel mixture must be adjusted to provide a richer exhaust gas for the secondary air to be effective.

 Hydrocarbon Adsorber

– Traps h ydrocarbons during a cold start until the catal ys t lights off, and then releases the hydrocarbons to be converted b y the catal ys t.
 Gasoline Sulfur

– The relative effectiveness for NMOG and NO X control of the exhaust
- catal ys t related technologies are constrained by gasoline fuel sulfur levels. Thus, reduced sulfur in gasoline is an enabling technology to achieve the standards and maintain this performance during in
- use operation. We discuss the relationship between gasoline sulfur and emissions in greater detail in Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA. Discussions between EPA, CARB, vehicle manufacturers, and major component suppliers indicated that large light
- dut y trucks (e.g., pickups and full
- size sport utility vehicles ( SUVs) in the LDT3 and LDT4 categories) would be the most challenging light
duty vehicles to bring into compliance with the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards at the 30 mg/mi corporate average emissions level. A similar challenge was addressed******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 106 of 842 when large l ight
- dut y trucks were brought into compliance with the Tier 2 standards over the past decade. Figure IV
- 1 provides a graphical representation of the effectiveness of Tier 3 technologies for large light
- dut y truck applications. A compliance margin is shown in both cases. Note that the graphical representation of the effectiveness of catal ys t technologies on NO X and NMOG when going from Tier 2 to Tier 3 levels also includes a reduction in gasoline sulfur levels from 30 ppm to 10 ppm.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 107 of 842 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Tier 2 Bin 5 LDT3/4

w/30 ppm S Gasoline Tier 3 LDT3/4 w/10 ppm S Gasoline**N M** **O G** **+ N** **O x** **E m** **i s** **s o** **i n** **s (** **m g** **/ m** **i )** **@ 1** **2 0** **, 0** **0 0** **m i** **l e** **s**
NMOG+NOx Emissons of Tier 3 LD3/T4 NMOG+NOx Emissions of Tier 2 Bin 5 LDT3/4

60% Compliance Margi n

50% Compliance Margin Tier 2 Bin 5 NMOG+NOx St andard

Tier 3 NMOG+NOx St andard **Hydroc ar**  **bo n**  **Adsorber Re**  **duced Thermal**  **Mass +**  **Calibration Changes**  **Increased Catalyst**  **Active Materials**  **+ Calibration**  **Changes Secondary**  **Air Injection**  **+ Calibration Changes**  77% Emissions

Re duction

**Figure IV**  **- 1**  **: Contribution of Tier 3 Technologies to Large Light -**  **Duty Truck Compliance**  **226********* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 108 of 842 6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the Proposed Vehicle Emission Standards a. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Exhaust Cataly sts Modern three
- way

catal ytic exhaust systems utilize platinum group metals (PGM), metal oxides and other active materials to selectivel y oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases. These s ys tems simultaneously reduce nitrogen oxides when air
- to - fuel ratio control operates in a condition of relatively low amplitude/high frequency oscillation about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well
known catal ys t poison. There is a large body of wor k demonstrating sulfur inhibition of the emissions control performance of PGM three
- way exhaust catal ys t sy stems. 227 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 The nature of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catal yt ic materials and catal ys t substrates is complex an d varies with catal ys t composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and temperature means that the operational history

of a vehicle is an important factor; continuous light
- load operation, throttle tip
- in events and enrichment under high
- load conditions can all impact sulfur interactions with the catal ys t.

226 The technologies and levels of control in this figure are based on a combination of confidential business information submitted by auto manufacturers and suppliers, public data, and EPA staff engineering judgment. 227 Bec k, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.L. (1994). Impact of sulfur on model palladium
- only catalysts under simulated three
- way operation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 3 , 205
- 227. 228 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995). Impact of sulfur on the performance of vehicle aged palladium mo noliths.” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 6 , 185
- 200. 229 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.I. (1997). Axial characterization of oxygen storage capacity in close coupled lightoff and underfloor catalytic converters and impac t of sulfur. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11 , 273
- 290. 230 Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., Touret, O. (1997), Study of ceria sulfation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11 , 193
- 205. 231 Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., Visciglio, V., Touret, O. (1997). “Influence of platinum on ceria sulfation.” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 13 , 265
- 274. 232 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technol ogy Engines. SAE Technical Paper 2000
- 01
- 2019. 233 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. (2001). “Fuel properties for advanced engines.” Automotive Engineering International 109 12 , 117
- 120. 234 Kubsh, J.E., Anthony, J.W. (2007). The Potential for Achieving Low Hydrocarbon and NO X Exhaust Emissions from Large Light
- Duty Gasoline Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2007
- 01
- 1261. 235 Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008). Effects of Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine Performance. SAE Technica l Paper 2008
- 01
- 0628. 236 Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NO X Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011
- 01
- 0300.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 109 of 842 Sulfur from gasoline is oxidized during spark
- ignition engine combustion primarily to SO 2 and, to a much lesser extent , SO 3 - 2 . Sulfur oxides selectively chemicall y bind (chemisorb) with, and in some cases react with, active sites and coating materials within the catal ys t, thus inhibiting the intended cataly tic reactions. Sulfur oxides inhibit pollutant cataly sis chiefly by selective poisoning of active PGM, ceria sites, and alumina washcoatings (see Figure IV
- 2 ). 237 The amount of sulfur retained b y the catalyst is primarily a function of its operating temperature, the active materials and coatings used within the catal ys t, the concentration of sulfur oxides in the incoming exhaust gases, and air
- to - fuel ratio feedback and control b y the engine management system.

237 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: Catalyst Deactivation in Cataly tic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 110 of 842 

### 100 Å Cataly

tic Site Deactivated by

S ulfur Poisoning Active Catalytic Site
Alumina Wa shcoat Mo nolith Substrate

**Figure IV**  **- 2**  **Functiona l schematic showing selective poisoning of active catalytic**  **sites by sulfur compounds. Adapted from Heck and Farrauto 2002. 237** ******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 111 of 842 Selective sulfur poisoning of platinum (Pt) and rhodium (Rh) is primarily from surfa ce - layer chemisorption. Sulfur poisoning of palladium (Pd) and ceria appears to be via chemisorption combined with formation of more stable metallic sulfur compounds, e.g. PdS and Ce 2 O 2 S, present in both surface and bulk form (i.e., below the surface laye r. 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 Ceria, zirconia and other ox ygen storage components (OSC) play an important role that is crucial to NO X reduction over Rh as the engine air
- to - fuel ratio oscillates about the stoichiometric closed
- loop control point. 242 Water
- gas - shift reactions are important for NO X reduction over cataly sts combining Pd and ceria. This reaction can be blocked b y sulfur poisoning and may be responsible for observations of reduced NO X activity over Pd/ceria cataly sts even with exposure to fairl y low levels of sulfur (equivalent to 15 ppm in gasoline). 243 , 244 Pd is also of increased importance for meeting Tier 3 standards due to its unique application in the closed
- coupled
- catal ys ts location required for vehicles certifying to very stringent emission standards. Pd is re quired in closed
- coupled catal ys ts due to its resistance to high temperature thermal sintering. Sulfur removal from Pd requires rich operation at higher temperatures than required for sulfur removal from other PGM catal ys ts. 245 In addition to its interacti on with catal ys t materials, sulfur can also react with the washcoating itself to form alumina sulfate, which in turn can block coating pores and reduce gaseous diffusion to active materials below the coating surface. 246 This may be a significant mechanism f

or the observed storage of sulfur compounds at light and

238 Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003). A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur Poisoning of the Water
- Gas
- Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria.” Catalysis Letters, 85 , Issues 3
- 4, pg. 139
- 146. 239 Li
- Dun, A., Quan, D.Y. (1990). “Mechanism of sulfur poisoning of supported Pd(Pt)/Al 2 O 3 catalysts for H 2 - O 2 reaction.” Applied Catalysis 61 , Issue 1, pg. 219
- 234. 240 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition
. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 241 Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. (2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles. Environmental Science and Technology, 3 6 , No. 2 pg. 276
- 282. 242 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 243 Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003) A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur Poisoning of the Water
- Gas
- Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria. Catalysis Letters, 85 , Issues 3
- 4, pg. 139
- 146. 244 Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NO X Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technical Paper No. 2011
- 01
- 0300. 245 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J .W. (1995) Impact of sulfur on the performance of vehicle aged palladium mo noliths. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 6 , 185
- 200. 246 Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. (2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.” Environmental Science and Technology, 36 , No. 2 pg. 276
- 282.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 112 of 842 moderate load operation with subsequent, rapid release as sulfate particulate matter when high
- load, high
- temperature conditions are encountered. 247 Operating the catal ys t at a sufficientl y high temper ature under net reducing conditions (e.g., air
- to - fuel equivalence that is net fuel
- rich of stoichiometry) can effectivel y release the sulfur oxides from the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently

high temperatures at rich air
- to - fue l ratios can minimize the effects of fuel sulfur levels on cataly st active materials and cataly st efficiency . However, it cannot completely

eliminate the effects of sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in
- use fleet recently completed b y EP A shows that emission levels immediately following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur level, suggesting that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission benefits unachievable b y catal ys t regeneration procedures alone. 248 Furthermo re, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air
to - fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal degradation of the catal ys t over time via thermal sint ering of active materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate in reactions. Additionally , it is not alway s possible to maintain these catal ys t temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light load operation) and the rich air
- to - fuel ratios necessary can result in increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels has been the primary regulatory

mechanism to minimize sulfur contamination of the cataly st and ensure optimum emissions performance over the useful life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline sulfur has become even more important as vehicle emission standards have become more stringent. Some studies have suggested an increase in catal ys t sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent conversi on efficiency) when standards increase in stringency and emissions levels decrease. Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the impact of sulfur was considered negligible. The Tier 2 program recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunction with the new emission standards. 249 At that time, very

little work had been done to evaluate the effe ct of further reductions in fuel sulfur, especiall y on in
- use vehicles that may have some degree of cataly st deterioration due to real
- world operation. In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties, benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2 compliant vehicles. Section 1.2.3 of the draft RIA provides

247 Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. (2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level on Moto r Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.” Environmental Science and Technology, 36 , No. 2 pg. 276
- 282. 248 See Chapter 1 of the RIA (Section 1.2.3.2) for more details on this study and its results. 249 Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420
- R
- 99
- 023, December 22, 1999), available at http://epa.gov/tier2/finalrule.htm#regs.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 113 of 842 details of the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Study
. 250 The study found significant reductions in NO X , CO and total hydrocarbons (HC) when the vehicles were tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32 ppm fuel. 251 In particular, the study found a nearl y 50 percent increase in NO X over the FTP when sulfur was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given the prep p rocedures related to cataly st clean
- out and loading used b y these studies, these results may

represent a “best case” scenario relative to what would be expected under more t ypical driving conditions. Nonetheless, these data suggested the effect of sulfur loading was reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, and that there were likel y to be significant emission reductions possible with further reductions in gasoline sulfur level. For more discussion of the impact of gasoline fuel sulfur on the current light
- duty veh icle fleet, see Section III.A. b. EPA Gasoline Sulfur Effects Testing Both the MSAT and Umicore studies showed the emission reduction potential of lower sulfur fuel on Tier 2 and later technology vehicles over the FTP cycle. However, assessing the potential for reduction on the in
- use fleet requires understanding how sulfur exposure over time impacts emissions, and what the state of loading is for the typical vehicle in the field. In response to these data needs, EPA conducted a new study to assess the emis sion reductions expected from the in
- use Tier 2 fleet with a reduction in fuel sulfur level from current levels. It was designed to take into consideration what was known from prior studies on sulfur build
- up in cataly sts over time and the effect of perio dic regeneration events that may result from higher speed and load operation over the course of day
- to - day

driving. The study sample described in this analy sis consisted of 81 cars and light trucks recruited from owners in southeast Michigan, covering mo del ye ars 2007
- 9 with approximately

20,000
- 40,000 odometer miles. The makes and models targeted for recruitment were chosen to be representative of high sales vehicles covering a range of ty pes and sizes. Test fuels were two non
- ethanol gasolines with properties ty pical of certification test fuel, one at a sulfur level of 5 ppm and the other at 28 ppm. A nominal concentration of approximately 25 ppm was targeted for the high level to be representative of retail fuel available to the public in the vehicle recruiting area. All emissions data was collected using the FTP cycle at a nominal temperature of 75 °F. Using the 28 ppm test fuel, emissions data were collected from vehicles in their as - received state as well as following a high
- speed/load “clean
- out” procedure consisting of two back
- to - back US06 cycles intended to reduce sulfur loading in the cataly st. A statistical analy sis of this data showed highl y significant reductions in several pollutants including NO X and h ydrocarbons, suggesting that reversible sulfur loading exists in the

250 This test program is described in Chapter 6 of the RIA of the MSAT2 final rulemaking, EPA 420
- R
- 07
- 002, February 2007, available athttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics /420r07002chp6.pdf. 251 See Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420
- R
- 07
- 002.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 114 of 842 in
- use fleet and has a measurable effect on aftertreatment performance ( Table IV
- 10 )
. For example, Bag 2 NO X emissions dropped 32 percent between the pre
- and post
cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel.
**Table IV**  **- 10**  **Average Clean -**  **out Effect on In -**  **use Emissions Using 28 ppm Test Fuel a** 

NO X (p
- value) THC

(p
- value) CO

(p
- value) NMHC

(p
- value) CH 4

(p
- value) PM

(p
- value) Bag 1

– – 4.7% (0.0737) – – 15.4% (< 0.0001) Bag 2 31.9%

(0.0009) 16.5%

(0.0024) – 17.8% (0.0181) 15.3%

(0.0015) – Bag 3 38.3%

(<0.0001) 21.4%

(<0.0001) 19.5%

(0.0011) 27.8%

(<0.0001) 12.0%

(<0.0001) 24.5%

(<0.0001) FTP Composite 11.4%

(<0.0001) 4.1%

(0.0187) 7.6%

(0.0008) 3.0%

(0 .0751) 6.9%

(0.0003) 13.7%

(<0.0001) Bag 1

– Bag 3

– – 4.2% (0.0714) – – –

a The clean
- out effect is not significant at α = 0.10 when no reduction estimate is provided. To assess the impact of lower sulfur fuel on in
- use emissions, further testing was c onducted on a representative subset of vehicles on 28 ppm and 5 ppm fuel with accumulated mileage. A first step in this portion of the study was to assess differences in the effectiveness of the clean
- out procedure when done using different fuel sulfur le vels. Table IV
- 11 presents a comparison of emissions immediately following (<50 miles) the clean
- out procedures at the low vs. high sulfur level. These results show significant emission reductions for the 5 ppm fuel relative to the 28 ppm fuel immediately after this clean
- out; for example, Bag 2 NO X emissions were 47 percent lower on the 5 ppm fuel vs. the 28 ppm fuel. This indicates that the cataly st is not fully desulfurized, even after a clean out procedure, as lo ng as there is sulfur in the fuel. **Table IV**  **- 11**  **: Percent Reduction in Exhaust Emissions When Going from 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline for the First Three Repeat FTP Tests Immediately Following**  **Clean -**  **out** NO X (p
- value) THC

(p
- value) CO

(p
- value) NMHC

(p
- value) CH 4

(p
- value) PM a Bag 1 5.9%

(0.0896) 5.4%

(0.0118) 7.3%

(0.0023) 4.6%

(0.0465) 11.1%

(<0.0001) – Bag 2 47.3%

(0.0010) 40.2%

(<0.0001) – a 34.4% (0.0041) 53.6%

(<0.0001) –******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 115 of 842 Bag 3 51.2%

(<0.0001) 35.0 %

(<0.0001) 10.1%

(0.0988) 45.0%

(<0.0001) 25.4%

(<0.0001) – FTP Composite 17.7%

(0.0001) 11.2%

(<0.0001) 8.3%

(0.0003) 8.8%

(0.0003) 21.4%

(<0.0001) – Bag 1

– Bag 3

– a

– a 5.8% (0.0412) – a

– a

–

**a** Sulfur level not significant at α = 0.10. To assess the overall in
- use reduction between high and low sulfur fuel, a mixed model anal ys is of all data as a function of fuel sulfur level and miles driven after cleanout was performed. This analy sis found highly significant reductions for several pollutants, as shown in Table IV
- 12 . Reductions for Bag 2 NO X were particularl y high, estimated at 59 percent between 28 ppm and 5 ppm overall. For some pollutants, such as Bag 2 NO X , the model fitting did n ot find a significant miles
- by
- sulfur interaction, suggesting the relative differences were not dependent on miles driven after clean
- out. Other results, such as Bag 1 h ydrocarbons, did show a significant miles
- by
- sulfur interaction. In this case, determ ination of a sulfur level effect for the in
- use fleet required estimation of a miles
- equivalent level of sulfur loading, which was determined b y the cleanout results obtained from the baseline testing on the vehicles as
- received.
**Table IV**  **- 12**  **Summary of Mixed Model Results for Emission Reductions When Going from 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline, Adjusted for In**  **- use Sulfur Loading** 

**(Mileage Accumulation) Where Appropriate** NO X (p
- value) THC

(p
- value) CO

(p
- va lue) NMHC

(p
- value) CH 4

(p
- value) NO X+NMOG

(p
- value) PM a Bag 1 10.7%

(0.0033) 8.5% b

(0.0382) 7.5% b

(0.0552) 7.5%

(< 0.0001) 13.9% b

(< 0.0001) N/A

– Bag 2 59.2%

(< 0.0001) 48.8%

(< 0.0001) – a 44.8% b (0.0260) 49.9%

(< 0.0001) N/A

– Bag 3 62.1%

(< 0.0001) 40.2%

(< 0.0001) 20.1%

(< 0.0001) 49.9%

(< 0.0001) 29.2%

(< 0.0001) N/A

– FTP Composite 23.0% b

(0.0180) 13.0% b

(0.0027) 11.9% b

(0.0378) 10.6% b

(0.0032) 25.8% b

(< 0.0001) 17.3%

(0.0140) – Bag 1

– Bag 3

– a 5.2% (0.0063) 4.3%

(0.0689) 5.1%

(0.0107) 4.6%

( 0.0514) N/A

–
**a** Sulfur level not significant at α = 0.10. For THC Bag 1 and CH 4 Bag 1, because the effect of clean
- out wa s not statistically significant, the reduction estimates are based on the estimates of least squares means. b Model with significant sulfur and mileage interaction term. Major findings from this study include:******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 116 of 842  Reversible sulfur loading is occurring in the in
- use fleet of Tier 2 vehicles and has a measureable effect on emissions of NO X , hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest.

 The effectiveness of high speed/load procedures in restoring catal ys t efficiency is limited when operating on higher sulfur fuel.

 Reducing fuel sulfur levels from current levels to levels in the range of the proposed gasoline sulfur standards would be expe cted to achieve significant reductions in emissions of NO X , hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest in the in
- use fleet. The overall reductions found in this study are in agreement with other low sulfur studies conducted on Tier 2 vehicles. The magnitude of NO X and HC reductions found in this study when switching from 28 ppm to 5 ppm fuel are consistent with those found in MSAT and Umicore studies mentioned above. For further details regarding the Tier 2 In
Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects Study , see th e draft report on this work. 252

. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Vehicles at the Proposed Tier 3 Levels As discussed in previous sections, the Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet average NMOG+NO X emissions by over 80 percent. The feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi N MOG+NO X fleet average standard depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust cataly st sy stems that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely control strategies would involve using exhaust catal ys t technologies and powertrain calibration primaril y focused on reducing cold
- start emissions of NMOG and on both cold
- start and warmed
- up (running) emissions of NO X . An important part of this strategy , particularl y for larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving cold
- start NM OG emissions control, would be to reduce NO X emissions to near
- zero levels. This would allow sufficient NMOG compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the combined NMOG+NO X emissions standards for their full useful life. Achieving the proposed Tier 3 em ission standards would require very careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to ensure high catal ys t efficiency . The impact of sulfur on OSC components in the cataly st makes this a challenge even at relatively low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels. NO X conversion by exhaust cataly sts is strongl y influenced b y the OSC components like ceria. Ceria sulfation may

play an important role in the degradation of NO X emission control with increased fuel sulfur levels observed in the MSAT, Umi core and EPA Tier 2 In - Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects studies. 253

252 U.S. EPA. 2013. "The Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level on Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles In
- Use " (Draft)
. 253 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 117 of 842 Li ght
- dut y vehicles certified to CARB SULEV and federal Tier 2 Bin 2 exhaust emission standards accounted for approximately 3.1 percent and 0.4 percent, respectivel y of vehicle sales for MY2009. Li ght
- dut y vehicles certified to SULEV under LEV II are more ty pically certified federall y to Tier 2 Bin 3, Bin 4 or Bin 5, and vehicles certified to SULEV and Tier 2 Bins 3
- 5 comprised approximately 2.5 percent of sales for MY2009. In particular, nonh yb rid vehicles certified in California as SULEV are not certified to federal Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions standards even though the numeric limits for NO X and NMOG are shared between the California LEV II and federal Tier 2 programs for SULEV and Bin 2. Confident ial business information shared b y the auto companies indicate that the primary

reason is an inability

to demonstrate compliance with SULEV/Bin 2 emission standards after vehicles have operated in
- use on gasoline with greater than 10 ppm sulfur and with e xposure to gasoline up to the Tier 2 80 ppm gasoline sulfur cap. While vehicles certified to the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards both demonstrate compliance using certification gasoline with 15
- 40 ppm sulfur content, in
- use compliance of SULEV vehicles in California occurs after operation on gasoline with an average of 10 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap of 30 ppm sulfur while federally certified vehicles operate on gasoline with an average of 30 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap of 80 ppm sulfur. Although the SUL EV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards are numericall y equivalent, the increased sulfur exposure of in
- use vehicles certified under the federal Tier 2 program results in a need for a higher emissions compliance margin to take into account the impact of in
- use gasol ine sulfur on full useful life vehicle emissions. As a result, vehicles certified to California SULEV ty pically certify to emissions standards under the federal Tier 2 program that are 1
- 2 certification bins higher (e.g., SULEV certified federally

as Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4) in order to ensure in
- use compliance with emissions standards out to the full useful life of the vehicle when operating on higher
sulfur gasoline. Emissions of vehicles certified to the SULEV standard of the California LEV II program, or the equivalent Tier 2 Bin 2 standards, can provide some insight into the impact of fuel sulfur on vehicles at the very low proposed Tier 3 emissions levels. Vehicle testing b y To yot a of LEV I, LEV II ULEV and prototype SULEV vehicles showed larger percentage increases in NO X and HC emissions for SULEV vehicles as gasoline sulfur increased from 8 ppm to 30 ppm, as compared to other LEV vehicles they tested. Testing of a SULEV
- certified PZEV vehicle by Umicore showed a pronounced, progressive trend of incr easing NO X emissions (referred to as “NO X creep”) when switching from a 3 ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, back
- to - back FTP tests using 33 ppm sulfur gasoline. 254 The PZEV Chevrolet Malibu, after being aged to an equivalent of 150,000 miles, demonstrated emi ssions at a level equivalent to the compliance margin for the Tier 3 Bin 30 NMOG+NO X standard when operated on 3 ppm sulfur fuel and for at least one FTP test after switching to 33 ppm certification fuel. Following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm su lfur fuel, NO X emissions alone were more than double the

254 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control , 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 118 of 842 proposed Tier 3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X standard. 255 This represents a NO X percentage increase that is approximately 2
- 3 times of what has been reported for similar changes in fuel sulfur level for Tier 2 and older vehicles over a similar difference in fuel sulfur. 256 , 257 There are no LDTs larger than LDT2 and no larger non
- hy brid LDVs. We expect that additional catal ys t technologies, for example increasing catal ys t surface area (volume or substrate cell dens ity) and/or increased PGM loading, would need to be applied to larger vehicles in order to achieve the cataly st efficiencies necessary to comply

with the proposed Tier 3 standards. Any sulfur impact on catal ys t efficiency would have a larger impact on veh icles and trucks that rel y more on very high catal ys t efficiencies in order to achieve very

low emissions. The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on cataly tic activity

and the resultant loss of exhaust catal ys t effectiveness to chemicall y reduce NO X and ox idize NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs across all vehicle categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur on NO X emissions control of cataly sts in the fully
- warmed
- up condition is particularl y of concern for larger vehicles (the largest LDVs and LDT 3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs). Manufacturers face the most significant challenges in reducing cold
- start NMOG emissions for these vehicles. Because of the need to reach near
- zero NO X levels, any significant degradation in NO X emissions control over the useful li fe of the vehicle would likely

prevent some if not most larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NO X low enough to comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet
- average standard. These vehicles represent a sufficiently large segment of light
- dut y vehicle sales now and in the foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset (and thus the fleet
- average standard achieved) b y certifying vehicles to bins below the fleet average. Any degradation in catal ys t performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or el iminate the margin necessary

to ensure in
- use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles versus the current 120,000 miles would further add to manufacturers’ compliance challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (See Section IV.7.b below for more on the useful life requirements.) c. Gasoline Sulfur Control Required to Meet Tier 3 Emissions Standards The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust cataly st performance and the relative stringency

of th e Tier 3 standards, particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10
- ppm standard for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering gasoline sulfur to levels below 10

255 Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NO X Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technial Paper No. 2011
- 01
- 0300. 256 Butler, A. and Choi, D. (2012). The Effects of Fuel Sul fur Level on Emissions In
- Use Tier 2 Vehicles. Found in the docket, EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135
. 257 Shapiro, E. (2009). National Clean Gasoline

– An Investigation of Costs and Benefits
. Published by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 119 of 842 ppm would further help ensure in
- use vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that a gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance by gasoline
- fueled engines with a national fleet average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . The level of the proposed Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10
- ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. N ot only should a 10
- ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to certify

their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but based on the results of testing both Tier 2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, red

ucing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their emission performance in
- use over their full useful life. It is important to note that while the preceding discussion focused on gasoline sulfur control, spark ignition engines operating on other fuels (i.e., CNG, LP G, E85) and utilizing a three way catal ys t sy stems for control of emission are similarly effected by the sulfur levels in the fuel. 7. Other Provisions a. Earl y Credits The California LEV III program is scheduled to begin at least two model years earlier than the proposed federal Tier 3 program. 258 As stated earlier, EPA proposes to implement the Tier 3 standards in MY 2017, for vehicles 6000 lbs GVWR and less, and in MY 2018 for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR. As a result, LE V III vehicles sold in California beginning in MY 2015 will be required to meet a lower fleet average NMOG+NO X level than the federal fleet is meeting at that time. In addition, the California NMOG+NO X standards will continue to decline resulting in the g ap growing between the current federal program and LEV III. The early credit program we are proposing is designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Encourage manufacturers to produce a cleaner federal fleet earlier than otherwise required; (2) provide need ed flexibility to the manufacturers to facilitate the “step down” from the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average required in MY 2016 to the LEV III
- based declining fleet average in MY 2017; and (3) create a Tier 3 program that is equivalent in stringency to the LEV III program such that manufacturers will be able to produce a 50
- state fleet at the earliest opportunity
. The first provision that we are proposing to address these goals is to allow manufacturers to generate earl y federal credits against the current Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement 259 in MYs 2015 and 2016 for vehicles under 6000 lbs GVWR and MYs 2016 and 2017 for vehicles greater than 6000 lbs GVWR. (Earl y credits would only be available for manufacturers compl yi ng under the primary program (declining flee t average), not the alternative phase
- in approach (Section IV.A.3.a above). In order to generate these credits, manufacturers would sum the NMOG and NO X certification

258 The LEV III program a s approved by the California Air Resources Board, January 2012. 259 Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of NMOG+NOx. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in NMOG+ NO X terms would be equal to 160 mg/mi (90 mg/mi NMOG + 70 mg/mi NO X ).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 120 of 842 standards for each federally certified Tier 2 vehicle and calculate an NMOG+ NO X fleet average. Credits would be based on the difference between the new, cleaner, fleet average and the Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement (160 mg/mi total of NMOG and NO X ). We expect that manufacturers could accomplish this by certifying existing Tier 2 vehicles to a lo wer fleet average, mainly for the higher bins as the current sulfur content in gasoline would preclude them from certifying the cleanest bins federall y (Our analysis, presented in Section IV.A.5 above and Chapter 1 of the draft RIA, shows that man y vehicl es currentl y certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 could likely be certified to a lower bin with some reduction in compliance margin; e.g., from Bin 5 to Bin 4 or Bin 3.) We expect to realize earl y environmental benefits, as the result of a cleaner federal fleet, that justifies the credits generated. We believe that this provision would help us realize both our first and our second goals. For example, a manufacturer certifying their federal fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 would earn 50 mg/mi of NMOG+ NO X credits per vehicle (i .e., 160 mg/mi minus 110 mg/mi) which should encourage manufacturers to certify a cleaner federal fleet and provide ample opportunity

for credit generation to facilitate the “step down” in stringency
. However, if we allowed excessive earl y credits to be g enerated it could allow manufacturers to delay

their federal compliance with the same fleet average as California for several ye ars. This would be in direct conflict with our third goal of creating a program of equal stringency to the California program a s earl y as possible. In order to address this concern we are proposing that the application of the earl y federal credits be constrained under the following conditions:

 Earl y federal credits generated under the provision described above could be used witho ut limitation in MY 2017.

 Credits used for compliance in MY 2018 and beyond would be capped at an amount equal to the lesser of the manufacturer’s federal credits as calculated above or the manufacturer’s LEV III credits multiplied by the ratio of 50
- state sales to California only

sales. Calculation of these credits would account for the fact that some LEV III credits may have begun to expire and would no longer be eligible as a basis for Tier 3 earl y credits. By capping the available federal credits we be lieve that the two programs, LEV III and Tier 3 would be at parity starting in 2018 MY. In addition, because the number of federal early

credits that could be used would be based on the number of LEV III credits that the manufacturer had generated, there may be additional motivation for manufacturers to over
- perform in California during the initial model years. We are proposing that early credit life be limited to 5 years with no discounting, consistent with the Tier 2 and LEV II program. We are not propo sing an y carry - over of Tier 2 credits.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 121 of 842 b. Useful L ife The “useful life” of a vehicle is the period of time, in terms of years and miles, during which a manufacturer is responsible for the vehicle’s emissions performance. (The useful life of the vehicle shou ld not be confused with the vehicle’s emissions warranty . The useful life value is relevant for certification and in
- use compliance purposes; the emissions warranty relates to the period during which the manufacturer is obligated to repair or replace fail ing emission control equipment on a properly maintained vehicle.) For LDVs and LDTs (including MDPVs) under the Tier 2 program, there have historicall y been both “full useful life” values, approximating the average life of the vehicle on the road, and “intermediate useful life” values, representing about half of the vehicle’s life. For the Tier 3 program, we are proposing several changes to the current useful life provisions that are appropriate to the proposed standards described above. Every

vehicle m anufacturer with which the EPA has met has expressed the desire for a single national vehicle fleet and has indicated an ability and willingness to certify their vehicles to a 150,000 mile, 15 year full useful life in support of that goal, since the LEV II I program would apply a single 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value for all of the new standards. However, the CAA, written at a time when vehicles did not last as long as today , precludes EPA from requiring a useful life value longer than the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 ye ar, as applicable) value set in Tier 2, for all LDVs and for LDTs up to 3,750 lbs LVW and up to 6000 lbs GVWR (LDT1s). For vehicles heavier than these limits (i.e., LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as MDPVs, representing a large fraction of the light
duty fleet) we are proposing a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value. For the lighter vehicles, we are proposing to continue to appl y the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as applicable) full useful life requirement from the Tier 2 program. Numerically , we are proposing 120,000 mile useful life NMOG+NO X standards that are 85 percent of the respective NMOG+ NO X 150,000 mile standards. (See Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for a description of our anal ys is of this relationship.) For the lighter vehicles , we propose that manufacturers be allowed to choose to certify to either useful life value in complying with the proposed fleet average and per
- vehicle standards. 260 A manufacturer choosing to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for any of their lighter vehicles would demonstrate compliance with the numericall y lower fleet
- average NMOG+ NO X standards for all LDV and LDT1 families. Standards for all other pollutants 261 would remain the same regardless of whether compliance was at the 120,000 mi le or the 150,000 mile useful life periods. If a vehicle manufacturer chose to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for their lighter vehicles, it would be required to

260 CARB has stated that they do not expect to accept vehicles certified under the federal Tier 3 program to a 120,000 mile useful life value for California certification, and thus for meeting California’s fleet average NMOG+NO X standards. 261 PM, CO, and HCHO******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 122 of 842 separately demonstrate that its larger vehicles complied with the 150,000 mile fleet average standards. Except for vehicles not required to meet a 150,000 miles useful life and for which a manufacturer chose to apply the 120,000 mile useful life value, we propose that manufacturers be required to certify vehicles to the 150,000 mile useful life beginning with the first model year that a vehicle model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NO X Bin 70 or lower. This useful
- life requirement would apply beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all vehicles would need to certify to the 15 0,000 mile useful life, regardless of NMOG+NO X certification bin, unless they are allowed and the manufacturer has chosen to remain at 120,000 mile useful life. (Note that the timing of the requirement to certify on the new test fuel would follow the same approach as for the useful life requirement (i.e., based on the first year a model is certified to Bin 70 or below) as described in Section IV.A.7.c below.) We request comment on the proposed useful life provisions, including the 85 percent factor we pro pose to use to establish the standards for the 120,000 mile useful life. c. Test Fuels We recognize that test fuels are an important element of a national program. Vehicle manufacturers have emphasized the desire to reduce test burden by producing one vehic le that is tested to a single test procedure and a single fuel and meets both California and federal requirements. Although we have been able to reasonably align the proposed Tier 3 program with the LEV III program in most key respects, we recognize that there would still exist some differences in emissions performance between vehicles operated on the LEV III and Tier 3 certification fuels. The largest differences between the two fuels are the amount of ethanol they contain and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RV P). The proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards assume operation on federal certification fuel. We propose that manufacturers begin to certify vehicles on the new Tier 3 fuels 262 beginning with the first model year that a vehicle model is certified to the FTP N MOG+NO X Bin 70 or lower, independent of its useful life. The new
- fuel requirement would apply

beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all gasoline
- fueled models would need to certify

on the new fuel, regardless of their certification bin. 263 As discus sed in Section IV.A.7.b above, manufacturers would also need to apply the 150,000 mile useful life value to these same vehicles as they begin to be certified to Bin 70 and lower.

262 This includ es fuels used for low tem perature and high altitude testing and durability requirements. See Section IV.D below
. 263 Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles would continue to test on the fuels used under the Tier 2 program.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 123 of 842 During the transition period from Tier 2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and LEV I II fuels, manufacturers have indicated a substantial workload challenge of developing and certifying a vehicle to the two new fuels simultaneously . To address this potential workload and certification challenge, we propose that vehicles certified in MY 20 15 through 2019 to California LEV III standards using California LEV III certification fuels and test procedures could be used for certifying to EPA standards. (For example, for MY 2015 and 2016, EPA would consider such vehicles to be Tier 2 vehicles, although they could be tested on California LEV III fuel. 264 Similarly , for MY 2017 through 2019, EPA would consider such vehicles to be Interim Tier 3 vehicles, although they could be tested on California LEV III fuel.) For these vehicles only , we would not perform or require in
- use exhaust testing on Tier 3 fuel. Certifications after MY 2019, however, would be required to use the Tier 3 fuel and carry
- over certifications using LEV II, LEV III or Tier 2 certification fuels would not be allowed after MY 2019 . CARB has indicated that they would accept Tier 3 test data (on federal certification fuel) to obtain a California certificate as earl y as MY 2015. In this manner manufacturers should be able to avoid compliance testing on more than one fuel as vehicles certified to LEV III using federal certification fuel could obtain F inal Tier 3 status. 265 d. High Altitude Requirements FTP emission standards are historicall y designed to be applicable at all altitudes. Under Tier 2, the same FTP emission bin standards ap plied to vehicles tested at both low and high
- altitude. However, fundamental ph ys ical challenges exist at high altitude resulting in typicall y higher emissions during cold starts compared with starts at lower altitudes (i.e., sea level). This expected i ncrease in emissions is primarily due to the lower air density

at higher altitudes. Due to the lower air density , the needed volume of the hot combustion exhaust required to quickl y heat the catal ys t in the first minute after a cold start is reduced. As a result, cataly st light
- off is delayed and cold start emissions increase. Vehicles under the Tier 2 program ty pically had sufficient compliance margins to absorb this increase in emissions during testing under high
- altitude conditions
. H owever, given th e near - zero standards we are proposing in Tier 3, vehicles will have less compliance margin with which to address the issue. Under the Tier 3 program, we expect that the emission control technologies selected for low altitude performance would also provi de very significant emission

264 Because the Tier 2 pro gram has NO X fleet average standards (instead of the NMOG+NO X fleet average standard of LEV III and Tier 3), manufacturers certifying to LEV III standards in MY 2015 and 2016 wo uld not include such vehicles in their Tier 2 NO X fleet average calculation. Tier 2 provisions that are not a part of the California program would still apply. For example, high altitude testing, which is only required in the federal program, would still need be performed on federal Tier 2 fuel. 265 That is, a manufacturer that ce rtifies a vehicle to LEV III in MY 2015 and MY 2016.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 124 of 842 control at high altitude. 266 However, as explained above, unique emission challenges exist with operation at higher altitude. The stringency of the Tier 2 standards is such that manufacturers compl y with the same standards at al l altitudes without the need to design their emission control strategies specificall y for the more challenging high altitude operation. The Tier 3 stringency may not allow manufacturers emission control strategies at lower altitude to maintain sufficient c ompliance margin when tested at higher altitude , therefore requiring manufacturers to design their emission controls specifically for higher altitude. To avoid requiring special high
- altitude emission control technologies, we propose to allow manufacture rs the limited relief of complying with the next less
stringent bin for testing at high altitude for vehicles certified at sea level to Bin 20, 30, and 50 (e.g., certifying to Bin 50 for testing at high altitude versus Bin 30 at sea level). For vehicles c ertified at sea level to Bins 70 and 125, 35 mg/mi of relief will be provided. No relief is proposed for Bin 160. We do not believe that the impact of the fairl y small fraction of overall U.S. driving that occurs in high altitude locations warrants a requirement for additional technologies to be applied specificall y for high
- altitude conditions. In addition, this provision is intended to be applicable to all F inal Tier 3 vehicles for the duration of the Tier 3 program. While vehicles would need to meet the Tier 3 standards at all intermediate altitudes, the question remains as to what the value of the standard should be at a given intermediate altitude. We request comment on both the level of the proposed high altitude standards and the appropriate level of the standard at intermediate altitudes. In particular, we seek comment on whether this could be addressed by requiring that all emission control strategies remain in effect at altitudes that are in between the specific altitudes used for high and low a ltitude testing and that an y altitude
- related AECDs must be identified by

the manufacturer and justified as not being defeat devices. **Table IV**  **- 13**  **Proposed High Altitude Standards** Bin Sea Level FTP Standard

(mg/mi NMOG+NO X ) Altitude FTP Standard (mg/mi NMOG+NO X ) Bin 160 160 160 Bin 125 125 160 Bin 70 70 105 Bin 50 50 70 Bin 30 30 50 Bin 20 20 30

266 High
- altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620 meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 125 of 842 e. Highway

Test Standards Sustained high
- speed operation can result in NO X emissions that may not be represented on either the FTP or SFTP cycles. Although we are not aware of any serious issues with this mode of operation with current Tier 2 vehicles, we are interested in preventing increases in these NO X emissions as manufacturers develop new or improved engine an d emission control technologies. For this reason, we are proposing that the same FTP NMOG + NO X standards proposed above also apply on the Highway

Fuel Economy

Test (HFET), which is performed as a part of GHG and Fuel Econom y compliance testing. Thus, the FTP NMOG+NO X standard for the bin at which a manufacturer has chosen to certify a vehicle would also apply

on the HFET test. For example, if a manufacturer certifies a vehicle to Bin 70, the vehicle’s NMOG+NO X performance over the HFET could not exceed 70 mg/mi. Manufacturers would simply need to ensure that the same emission control strategies implemented for the FTP and SFTP cycles were also effectivel y utilized during the highway

test cycle. We believe that this proposed requirement would not require manufacturers to take any unique technological action, would not add technology costs, and would not add significantly to the certification burden. We request comment on this proposed provision. f. Interim 4,000 mile SFTP Standards During the period of th e declining NMOG+ NO X standards, we are proposing that interim Tier 3 vehicles meet 4,000 mile SFTP standards, consistent with the existing Tier 2 and LEV II program requirements. The 4,000 mile standards are designed to prevent excessive emission levels from a single vehicle or a single SFTP cycle, which can occur if only a composite approach is taken. Under the Tier 3 program, the proposed composite standards would be fleet average standards that would decline from 2017 until 2025, as described in Secti on IV.A 4. While this approach is expected to result in fleet
- wide reductions in SFTP emissions during all years of the declining standard, the level of the fleet average requirement during the initial years provides an opportunity for backsliding of SFTP emissions on individual vehicles or on individual SFTP cycles. We believe it is appropriate to require any individual Interim Tier 3 vehicle to at a minimum meet the same requirements under the Tier 2 and LEV II programs. Table IV
- 14 below presents the proposed 4,000 mile SFTP standards for interim Tier 3 vehicles. **Table IV**  **- 14**  **Proposed 4,000 Mile SFTP Exhaust Standards for Interim Tier 3 Vehicles**  **(grams/mile)** Vehicle Category US06

NMOG+NO X US06

CO SC03

NMOG+NO X SC03

CO LDV/LDT1 0.14 8.0 0.20 2.7 LDT2 0.25 10.5 0.27 3.5 LDT3 0.4 10.5 0.31 3.5******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 126 of 842 LDT4 0.6 11.8 0.44 4.0 We believe that vehicles considered to be Final Tier 3 (i.e., they meet the Tier 3 PM requirements, specifically the stringent SFTP PM standards) will have sufficiently robust designs that the 4,000 mile SFTP standards will no longer be necessary
. Additionally , once the program reaches the fully phased
- in fleet average composite standard of 50 mg/mi in 2025, high SFTP emissions even on a limited portion of a manufacturer’s fleet should be effectivel y mitigated. We seek comment on this proposed 4,000 mile SFTP provision. g. Phase
- in Schedule As described in Section IV.A.3, under the proposed Tier 3 program, manufacturers would be required to certify each vehicle model to an FTP bin, which would then be used to calculate the NMOG+NO X fleet average of all of its vehicles. Manufacturers would also need to determine the SFTP levels of each model and calculate the NMOG+NO X fleet average for the SFTP requirements as described in Section IV .A.4. These separate FTP and SFTP fleet average calculations would satisfy one aspect of certification under the Tier 3 program, specificall y the standards associated with eac h model year. As described in Sections IV.A.7.b and IV.A.7.c above, the longer (150,000 mile) useful life value, as applicable, and the new Tier 3 certification fuel for exhaust testing would be implemented as manufacturers certified vehicles to more strin gent NMOG+NO X standards, with the threshold to implement both of these provisions being Bin 70. Beginning in MY 2017, an y vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lower would be required to be certified on Tier 3 test fuel. In addition, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lower that would be required to meet the longer 150,000 mile useful life would be required to do so. Beginning in MY 2020 all vehicles would be required to be certified to on the Tier 3 test fuel, regardless of the bin they are certified to or the useful life they are required to meet. Manufacturers would also be required to comply with more stringent PM standards on a percent phase
- in schedule. Compliance with the PM standards, which is consistent with the CARB LEV III program, would be independent of the fleet average requirements described above. The PM emission standards for FTP and SFTP described in Section IV.A.3 and 4 respectivel y would be implemented as a percent phase
- in requirement as described below under a basic phase
- in schedule or und er an alternative phase
- in schedule. Vehicles certified to a Tier 3 bin, meeting the requirements of the PM phase
- in schedule, and complying with the other Tier 3 requirements (i.e., 150,000 mile useful life (as applicable) and Tier 3 certification fuel, a s applicable) would be considered “Final Tier 3” compliant vehicles. All other vehicles certified to Tier 3 bins but not yet meeting******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 127 of 842 the PM and other Tier 3 requirements would be considered “Interim Tier 3” compliant vehicles. At the completion of the pe rcent phase
- in period for PM (2021 for the basic PM phase
- in schedule and 2022 for the alternative PM phase
- in schedule, as described below), 100 percent of vehicles would need to meet the all Tier 3 requirements and would be considered “Final Tier 3” vehi cles. For the PM requirements, each ye ar manufacturers would be required to meet either the basic PM percent phase
- in or alternative PM phase
- in as described in the following subsections. The basic percent PM phase
- in schedule is composed of fixed ye arl y minimum phase
- in percentages that we expect that most manufacturers would meet to comply

with the Tier 3 requirements. The alternative PM phase
- in schedule provides additional flexibility for manufacturers with product offerings that may not provide suf

ficient vehicle model granularity to allow for a gradual transition into the F inal Tier 3 requirements as described below. In either case, Interim Tier 3 vehicles not ye t meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must at a minimum meet the Tier 2 PM full useful lif e FTP standard of 10 mg/mi and the SFTP weighted composite standard of 70 mg/mi. i. Basic PM Percent Phase
-In Schedule It is important to note that the percent phase
- in of the new Tier 3 standards that we are proposing and the declining fleet average standards to which a manufacturer’s fleet is held are separate and independent elements of the Tier 3 program. “Phase
- in” in this context means the fraction of a manufacturer’s fleet that would be required to meet the new Tier 3 PM standards in a given model ye ar. We expect manufacturer fleets to consist of a mix of vehicles certified to Tier 2, LEV II, LEV III and Tier 3 standards throughout the percent phase
- in period. As discussed above, vehicles originally certified to Tier 2, LEV II, and LEV III would be carried over into the Tier 3 program as Interim Tier 3 vehicles. A vehicle would be considered a “ F inal Tier 3 vehicle” when it is certified to one of the Tier 3 bins; meets the Tier 3 PM standards; certifies to the 150,000 useful life value (for LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs); and certifies on the new certification test fuel. Table IV
- 15 below presents the proposed PM phase
- in schedule for F inal Tier 3 vehicles.

**Table IV**  **- 15**  **PM Phase -**  **in Schedule for Final Tier 3 Vehicles Model Year**  **2017 2018**  **2019 2020**  **2021 2022 and**  **later** Manufacturer’s Fleet (%) 20 a 20 40 70 100 100 Vehicle T ypes ≤ 6000 lbs

GVWR All vehicles ≤ 8,500 lbs GVWR and MDPV’s******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 128 of 842 a In 2017 model year, a manufac turer may optionally include vehicles up to 8,500 lbs GVWR and/or MDPVs in its phase
- in calculation.

ii. Optional PM Phase
- in The proposed PM percent
- of
- sales phase
- in schedule described above would allow manufacturers with multiple vehicle models to plan the phase
- in of those models based on anticipated volumes of each vehicle model. However, manufacturers certifying only a few vehicle models might not benefit from this schedule. This is because, in order to satisfy the phase
- in schedule percentages, they mi ght have to over
- comply with the required percentages earlier than would a manufacturer with many vehicle models available for the phase
- in. For instance, a manufacturer with onl y two models that each equally accounted for 50 percent of their sales would be required to introduce (at least) one of the models in MY 2017 meet the PM phase
- in requirement of 20 percent in the first year. Because it represented 50 percent of the manufacturer’s sales, this model would then also meet the requirements for MY 2018 (20 percent) and MY 2019 (40 percent). To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3 vehicle that year. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100 percent of its Tier 3 m odels one ye ar earlier than would have been required of a manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 2021 (by distributing its their models over the entire phase
- in period). To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all manufacturers in the earl y ye ars of the program, we are proposing an alternative PM phase
- in schedule that could be used b y a manufacturer to meet its PM percent phase
- in requirements. A manufacturer that exceeded the phase
- in requirements in any given ye ar would be allowed to, in effect, offset some of the phase
- in requirements in a later model year. The alternative phase
- in schedule would be acceptable if it passes a mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to provide manu facturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at higher volumes than obligated to under the normal phase
- in schedule, while ensuring that significant numbers of vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each ye ar of the alternative pha se - in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would weight the earlier years by multiplying their percent phase
- in by the number of ye ars prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second year of the 100 percent phase
- in requirement). The proposed mathematical equati on for appl yi ng an alternative PM phase
- in is as follows: (5 x APP2017) + (4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x APP2021) ≥540, where APP is the anticipated phase
- in percentage for the referenced model year. The sum of the calculation wou ld need to be greater than or equal to 540, which is the result when the alternative phase
- in equation is applied to the primary percent phase
in schedule (i.e., 5 x 20% + 4 x 20% + 3 x 40% + 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 540).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 129 of 842 Applying the proposed alternative PM phase
- in equation to the hy pothetical manufacturer in the example above, the manufacturer could postpone its model introductions by

one ye ar each, to MY 2018 and MY 2021. Its calculation would be (5 x 0% + 4 x 50% + 3 x 50% + 2 x 50% + 1 x 100% = 550, and thus the phase
- in would be acceptable. EPA requests comment on the proposed PM phase
- in schedules. h. In
- use Standards i. NMOG + NO

X The proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require a substantial migration of emission control technology historicall y use d only

on a small percent of the fleet and ty picall y limited to smaller vehicles and engines. While we believe that these technologies can generally be used on an y vehicle and are applicable to the entire fleet, manufacturers have less experience with the in
- use performance of these technologies across the fleet. For example, technologies that accelerate catal ys t warm - up such as catal ys t location close to the engine exhaust ports and other advanced thermal management approaches would be new to certain veh icle t ypes, particularly larger vehicles (i.e., LDT3/4s), which have historically not relied on these technologies to meet emission standards. To help manufacturers address the lack of in
- use experience and associated challenges with the initial introduc tion of these technologies, we are proposing temporaril y - relaxed in
- use NMOG + NO X standards that would apply to all vehicles certified as Final Tier 3 vehicles (i.e., they meet all the Tier 3 requirements) through MY 2021. The proposed in
- use standards w ould be 40 percent less stringent than the certification standards, providing a significant but reasonable temporary cushion for the uncertainties associated with new technologies (or new applications of existing technologies) over the life of the vehicle. The in
- use standards would apply to all vehicles certified to Interim or Final Tier 3 requirements during the entire percent phase
in period (i.e., through MY 2021). The proposed in
- use NMOG + NO X standards are shown in Table IV
- 16
. **Table IV**  **- 16**  **Proposed FTP In -**  **Use Standards for Light Duty Vehicles and MDPVs (mg/mi)**  Bin NMOG+NO X

(mg/mi) Bin 160 160 Bin 125 125 Bin 70 98 Bin 50 70 Bin 30 42******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 130 of 842 Bin 20 28

ii. PM As with the proposed NMOG+NO X standards, the introduction of new emission control technologies or new applications of existing technologies (e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized engines) would create significant uncertainties for manufacturers about in
- use perfo rmance over the vehicle’s useful life. We are proposing a temporary

in
- use FTP standard for PM of 6 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles and MDPVs certified to the Tier 3 full useful life 3 mg/mi standard. Since the Tier 3 PM standard has a percent phase
- in schedule spread over several years, starting in 2017 with full phase
- in completed in 2022, we are proposing that the in
- use standard apply to all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire percent phase
- in period (i.e., through MY 2021). We are also proposing temporarily
- relaxed in
- use US06 PM standards. We propose in
- use standards 5 mg/mi less stringent than the certification standards, or 15 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles up to and including 6000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi for all light duty

vehicles and light
- duty

trucks over 6000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. Consistent with the FTP in
- use standards, these in
- use standards would apply to all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire percent phase
- in period (i.e., through MY 20 21). EPA requests comment on the proposed in
- use standards. i. FFVs Because of the ph ys ical and chemical differences in how emissions are generated and controlled between vehicles operating on gasoline and ethanol, manufacturers of vehicles designed for high
- percentage blends of ethanol (usually called Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) may

face unique compliance challenges under the proposed Tier 3 program. Historicall y, under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have onl y been required to meet all Tier 2 emission standards while operating on gasoline; when operating on the alternative fuel (generally this means a blend that is nominally 85 percent ethanol, or E85), they

have onl y been required to meet the FTP emission standards. However, E85 use may

rise considerabl y in the future as ethanol use increases in response to the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Thus, it is increasingl y important that FFVs maintain their emission performance when operating on E85 across different operating conditions. We believe that at standard test conditions, requiring manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards on an y blend of gasoline and ethanol would not add technological feasibility concerns beyond compliance on gasoline alone (or low
- level blends like E10******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 131 of 842 or E15). We are thus proposing that in addition to complying with the Tier 3 requirements when operating on gasoline, FFVs also comply with both the FTP and the SFTP emission standards when operating on E85. This would include the requirement to meet emission standards for both gasoli ne and E85 for the FTP, highway test, and SFTP emission standards at standard test temperatures (i.e., 68 ° F to 86 ° F). Since FFVs can operate on an y blend of gasoline and ethanol (up to a nominal 85 percent ethanol), the emission requirements apply to op eration at all levels of the alternative fuel that can be achieved with commercially available fuels. However, for emission compliance demonstration purposes, we will continue to test on gasoline and the highest available level ethanol. EPA welcomes comm ent on this proposed approach to FFV compliance. j. Credit for Direct Ozone Reduction (DOR) Technology Since the late 1990s, technologies have been commercialized with which vehicles can remove ozone from the air that flows over the vehicle’s coolant radiator . In such direct ozone reduction (DOR) technology , a cataly tic coating on the radiator is designed to convert ambient ozone into gaseous ox ygen, addressing the air quality concerns about ozone. Detailed technical analy ses for the California LEV II and th e federal Tier 2 programs showed that when properl y designed these s ys tems can remove sufficient ozone from the air to be equivalent to a quantifiable reduction in tailpipe NMOG emissions. In the earlier programs, both California and EPA provided methodol ogies through which a manufacturer could demonstrate the capability and effectiveness of the ozone
- reducing technology

and be granted an NMOG credit. A small number of vehicle models with DOR applications received credit under the LEV II program; no manuf acturer formally applied for credits under the federal Tier 2 program. Some manufacturers have expressed an interest in the continued availability of a DOR credit as a part of their potential LEV III and Tier 3 compliance strategies. EPA believes that whe n a DOR sy stem is shown to be effective in reducing ozone, a credit toward Tier 3 compliance is warranted. We propose that manufacturers following the California methodology

for demonstrating effectiveness and calculating a appropriate credit for a DOR s y stem be granted a specific credit toward the NMOG portion of the NMOG+NO X standard. 267 As with the California program, such a credit could not exceed 5 mg/mi NMOG. We invite comment on the appropriateness of this proposed DOR credit approach, including the application of the California methodology to the federal Tier 3 program.

267 EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR metho dology by reference.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 132 of 842 k. Credit for Adopting a 150,000
- Mile Emissions Warranty Under the Tier 3 standards proposed above manufacturers would be expected to design their emission control sy stems to continue to operate effectivel y for a useful life of 150,000 miles (120,000 miles for some smaller vehicles). However, as with the current Tier 2 program, manufacturers are onl y required to replace failed emission control components or s ys tems on customers’ veh icles for a limited time period, specified in the Clean Air Act (80,000 miles/8 years for key emission control components). EPA believes that voluntary

extension of this warranty obligation by

manufacturers would provide additional emission reductions b y helping ensure that controls continue to operate effectivel y in actual operation through the full life of the vehicle. We propose that a manufacturer providing its customers with a robust emission control sy stem warranty

of 15 years or 150,000 miles be el igible for a modest credit of 5 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . 268 Because of the significant liability that manufacturers would be accepting, we do not expect that the use of this credit opportunity would be widespread. However, based on our modeling of the expected dete rioration of the emissions of future Tier 3 vehicles absent repair/replacement of failed emission controls, we anticipate that the value to the environment of long emissions warranties in terms of reduced real
- world emissions would significantly exceed the 5 mg/mi NMOG+NO X credit. 269 We propose to use the same criteria for approving such a credit as does the parallel California program. 270 Thus, in addition to committing to customers that failing emission controls would be repair ed or replaced for 15 years/15 0,000 miles, manufacturers would also need to accept the liability that in the event that a specific emissions control device failed on greater than 4 percent of a vehicle model’s production, they would recall the entire production of that model for repair . EPA requests comment on this optional credit opportunity
. l. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of Credits An averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program was established in the Tier 2 program to provide for credits to be generated b y certifying vehicles that perform better than the standards, for those credits to be used to offset vehicles that perform worse than the standards, and for credits to be banked for later use or traded to other manufacturers. The ABT program is largely unchanged b y this Tier 3 proposal. In some cases, especiall y during the transitional years, there would be specific restrictions on the generation of credits, as described above.

268 Manufacturers choosing to comply with the standards for a 120,000 mile useful life for their LDVs and LDT1s would not be eligible for this extended warranty credit for those vehicles. 269 Beardsley, M, et al (2012), Updates to MOVES f or the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to the docket. 270 EPA is incorporating the CARB extended emission warranty provisions by reference.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 133 of 842 **B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy**  **- Duty Vehicles**  1. Overview We are proposing Tier 3 exhaust emis sions standards for heav y - dut y vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR that are certified to gram per mile standards on a chassis dynamometer. Vehicles in this GVWR range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,501
- 10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001
- 1 4,000 lbs) vehicles, and are typicall y full
- size pickup trucks and work vans certified as complete vehicles. 271 Most are built by companies with even larger light
- dut y truck markets, and as such they frequently share major design characteristics and potenti al emissions control technologies with their LDT counterparts. However, in contrast to the largel y gasoline
- fueled LDT fleet, roughl y half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel
- fueled, which is a consideration in setting emissions standards , as diesel engine emissions and control strategies differ from those of gasoline engines. Manufacturers of diesel
- fueled complete HDVs have the option under existing EPA regulations to satisfy EPA criteria emissions requirements for these vehicles by usin g engines certified through engine dynamometer testing, but for the most part have chosen to certify

whole vehicles on the chassis test. We are proposing to codify this common practice and require that diesel
- fueled Class 2b and 3 complete Tier 3 vehicles , like their gasoline
- fueled counterparts, be certified to the Tier 3 standards on the chassis test. The current prohibition in 40 CFR 86.1863
- 07(d) on averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) credit generation and use b y chassis
- certified diesel HDVs would be replaced b y the proposed fleetwide averaging program. We are not proposing changes to the heav y - dut y engine certification requirements at this time. Manufacturers of incomplete HDVs that are sold to secondary manufacturers for subsequent completion (le ss than 10 percent of the Class 2b and 3 U.S. market) are also allowed under existing EPA regulations to certify via either the chassis or engine test, and those who choose to chassis
- certify in the future would be subject to Tier 3 requirements. We are n ot proposing to mandate chassis certification of incomplete Class 2b and 3 vehicles, but we note that California’s LEV III program does include such a requirement for Class 2b and we request comment on doing the same in the federal program. We further not e that MDPVs are classified as HDVs under the Clean Air Act but, as in our current Tier 2 program, would be covered as part of our Tier 3 light
- dut y program discussed in Section IV.A, and not in the proposed program described here. The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs parallel those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in standards levels, emissions

271 40 CFR 86.1803
- 01 defines HDVs to also include motor vehicles at or below 8,500 lbs GVWR that have a vehicle curb weight of mo re than 6,000 lbs or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet, and we are proposing that these vehicles also would be subject to the standards and other provisions applicable to Class 2b vehicles discussed in this section.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 134 of 842 test requirements, and implementation schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key elements include a combined NMOG+N O X declining fleet average standard beginning in 2018 and reaching the final, fully phased
- in level in 2022, creation of a bin structure for standards, new stringent PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, changes to the test fuel for gasoline
- and ethanol
- fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 150,000 miles, and a new requirement to meet standards over the SFTP that would address real
- world driving modes not well
- represented by the FTP cycle alone. We believe that other requir ements already in place for HDV testing and compliance remain appropriate. In particular, we believe the current HDV certification requirement to test at the adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW), equal to vehicle curb weight plus one
- half the payload wei ght, is more appropriate for these heav y - dut y work trucks and vans than the LDT requirement to test at curb weight plus 300 lbs. These differences from light
duty requirements also factor into the evaluation of potential control technologies and subsequent choice of standards levels, as discussed below. As with the proposed light
- duty Tier 3 program, we are putting strong emphasis on coordinating this HDV Tier 3 proposal with California’s LEV III program for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, referred to in LEV III as medium
- duty vehicles (MDVs). The goal is to create a coordinated “national program” in which California would accept compliance with Tier 3 standards as sufficient to also satisfy LEV III requirements, thus allowing manufacturers to compl y nationwide b y m arketing a single vehicle fleet. With this goal in mind, we discuss the relationship of the proposed HDV Tier 3 program provisions to LEV III throughout this section. Furthermore, in 2011 EPA and NHTSA set first
- ever standards for GHGs and fuel consump tion from HD pickups and vans (as well as other heav y - duty vehicles and engines). These standards phase in over 2014
- 2018, so in developing the Tier 3 HDV proposal we have carefully taken this new program into account to maximize the coordination between the two complementary heavy
- dut y regulatory

programs and avoid inconsistencies. 2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards a. Bin Standards We are proposing that manufacturers certify HDVs to Tier 3 requirements by having them meet the standards for one of the bins list ed in Table IV
- 17 . Manufacturers would choose bins for their vehicles based on their product plans and corporate strategy for compliance with the fleet average standards discussed in Section IV.A.2.b, and once a v ehicle’s bin is designated, those bin standards apply throughout its useful life. Because the fleet average standards become more stringent over time, the bin mix would graduall y shift from higher to lower bins. As in the past, we are proposing numerical ly higher standards levels for Class 3 vehicles than for Class 2b vehicles, reflective of the added challenge in reducing per
- mile emissions from large work trucks designed to carry and tow heavier loads. Also, the proposed standards levels for both Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs are significantl y higher than those being proposed for light
- duty trucks due to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 135 of 842 marked differences in vehicle size and capability, and to our requirement to test HDVs in a loaded condition (at ALVW). By conducting emissions testing wi th loaded vehicles, the heav y - dut y program ensures that emissions controls are effective when these vehicles are performing their core function: hauling heav y loads. This is a key difference between the heav y - dut y and light
- duty truck programs. The propo sed bin structure and standards levels are consistent with those in the LEV III program. We request comment on the usefulness of creating additional bins between Bin 0 and the next lowest bin in each vehicle class, as a means of encouraging clean technolo gies and adding flexibility
.

**Table IV**  **- 17**  **Proposed FTP Standards for HDVs** NMOG +NO X (mg/mi) NMOG

(mg/mi) NO X

(mg/mi) PM

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) Formaldeh yd e

(mg/mi) **Class 2b (8,501 -**  **10,000 lbs GVWR):** Bin 395 (interim)
-- 195 200 8 6.4 6 Bin 340 (interim)
-- 140 200 8 6.4 6 Bin 250 250
-- -- 8 6.4 6 Bin 200 200
-- -- 8 4.2 6 Bin 170 170
-- -- 8 4.2 6 Bin 150 150
-- -- 8 3.2 6 Bin 0 0
-- -- 0 0 0 **Class 3 (10,001 -**  **14,000 lbs GVWR):** Bin 630 (interim)
-- 230 400 10 7.3 6 Bin 570 (interim)
-- 170 400 10 7.3 6 Bin 400 400
-- -- 10 7.3 6 Bin 270 270
-- -- 10 4.2 6 Bin 230 230
-- -- 10 4.2 6 Bin 200 200
-- -- 10 3.7 6 Bin 0 0
-- -- 0 0 0 The proposed NMOG and NO X standards for the highest bins in each class ( Class 2b Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 630) are equal to the current non
- methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NO X standards that took full effect in 2009, as well as to equivalent LEV standards in California’s LEV II program. These bins are intended as carryover bin s. That is, we would expect them to be populated with vehicles that are designed to meet the current standards, and that are being phased out as new lower
- emitting vehicle designs phase in to satisfy

the proposed Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NO X standard. W e also consider the next highest bins (Class 2b Bin 340 and Class 3 Bin 570) to be carryover bins, because they

likewise can be readily

achieved by

vehicles designed for today ’s EPA and California LEV II emissions programs. As the 2018
- 2022 phase
- in progr esses, it would become increasingly difficult to produce vehicles in these bins and still meet the fleet average standard. Therefore vehicles in these bins (as well as some others not y et******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 136 of 842 designed to meet Tier 3 PM standards described in Section IV.B.2.d) would be considered “interim Tier 3” vehicles, and the bins themselves would be considered “interim bins”. To facilitate their use in this carryover function, we are proposing that the interim bins not include SFTP requirements, longer useful life require ments, or requirements to conduct exhaust emissions testing with the proposed new gasoline test fuel discussed in Section IV.D, although testing on this fuel would be allowed. For gasoline
- fueled HDVs in all other bins, we are proposing that exhaust emiss ions testing be conducted with the new test fuel. (See Section IV. D.5 for discussion of our request for comment on extending this requirement to testing of gasoline
- fueled heav y - duty engines as well.) In the context of these proposed accommodations for the interim bins, we propose two additional measures to help ensure these bins are focused on their function of helping manufacturers transition to F inal Tier 3 vehicles. First, we propose that the interim bins be available onl y in the phase
- in years of th e program, that is, through MY 2021, as is appropriate to their interim status. Second, we are proposing that vehicles in the interim bins meet separate NMOG and NO X standards, as indicated in Table IV
- 17 , rather than combined NMOG+NO X standards. This proposed provision is intended to keep a manufacturer from redesigning or recalibrating a vehicle design under combined NMOG+NO X Tier 3 standards for such purposes as reducing fuel consumption, through means that result in higher NO X or NMOG emissions than exhibited by today ’s vehicles, contrary to the intended carryover function of the interim bins. We note that other, more stringent, proposed bins also carry this potential but to a lesser degree, and we feel their relativel y low NMOG+NO X standards levels sufficiently mitigate this concern, whereas the interim bins have the potential to allow a doubling of emissions or more. We request comment on this issue and the proposed approach to addressing it. b. Fleet Average NM OG+NO X Standards As in the light
- dut y program, a key element of the Tier 3 program is a fleet average NMOG+NO X standard that becomes more stringent in successive model years: in the case of HDVs, from 2018 to 2022. Each HDV produced by a manufacturer in e ach model year contributes to this fleet average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NO X level of the bin declared for it b y the manufacturer. For the interim bins, with separate NMOG and NO X standards, the NMOG+NO X level is the simple sum of the NMOG and NO X standards. Manufacturers may also earn or use credits for fleet average NMOG+NO X levels below or above the standard in an y model year, as described in Section IV.B.4. We are proposing the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average standards shown in Table IV
- 18 , though a manufacturer could effectively average the two fleet classes using credits (see Section IV.B.4). We believe this split
- curve approach is superior to a single HDV phase
- in because it recognizes the diff erent Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes among manufacturers and the different challenges in meeting mg/mi standards between Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, while still allowing for a corporate compliance strategy based on a combined HDV fleet through the use of credits.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 137 of 842 The proposed fleet average standards are consistent with those set for the MDV LEV III program in model years 2018 and later. Note that the LEV III program also sets standards for model years before 2018, something EPA is not requiring due to l ead time considerations. However, we are proposing that manufacturers may voluntarily

meet bin and fleet average standards in model years 2016 and 2017 that are consistent with the MDV LEV III standards, for the purpose of generating credits that can be u sed later or traded to others. These proposed voluntary standards are shown in Table IV
- 18 . This proposed voluntary

opt - in program serves the important purpose of furthering consistency

between the federal and Ca lifornia programs, such that manufacturers who wish to can produce a single vehicle fleet for sale nationwide, with the opportunity for reciprocal certification in affected model ye ars. It further incentivizes pulling ahead of Tier 3 technologies, with re sulting environmental benefits, by providing for earl y compliance credits in this nationwide fleet. Manufacturers choosing to opt into this early compliance program could start in either model year 2016 or 2017. They would have to meet the full complement of applicable bin standards and requirements, including SFTP standards, but not the Tier 3 PM FTP and SFTP standards discussed in Section s IV .B.2.d and IV.B.3.a , or the evaporative emissions standards discussed in Section IV.C, because these requirements phase in on a later schedule. We are also requesting comment on extending the voluntary compliance opportunity to the 2015 model year. **Table IV**  **- 18**  **Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

Volunt ary Required Program Model Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later Class 2b 333 310 278 253 228 203 178 Class 3 548 508 451 400 349 298 247 We believe that offering this voluntary opt - in would benefit the environment, the regulated indus try , and vehicle purchasers, because it has potential to accomplish early emissions reductions while maintaining the goal of a cost
- effective, nationwide vehicle program in every

model year going forward. We request comment on all facets of this proposed approach. Although manufacturers would be allowed to meet the fleet average NMOG+NO X standard through whatever combination of bin
- specific vehicles they choose, it is instructive to note that the fully phased in fleet average standard for model years 2022 and later would be the equivalent of a Class 2b fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 170 and 10 percent Bin 250 vehicles, and a Class 3 fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 230 and 10 percent******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 138 of 842 Bin 400 vehicles. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider Bin 170 Class 2b vehic les and Bin 230 Class 3 vehicles to be representative of Tier 3
- compliant HDVs in the long term. The Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs would result in substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of work trucks and vans, vehic les that are t ypicall y driven over high annual miles on every part of the nation’s highway and urban roadway

s ys tem. The F inal Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NO X and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than the current stringent standards that took full effect three ye ars ago. c. Alternative NMOG+NO X Phase
- in We believe that the program described in Sections IV.B.2.a and b above would provide manufacturers with a flexible and effective compliance path. However, as in the case of the light
- dut y standard s discussed above, we are proposing to provide an alternative compliance path that would be available to any manufacturer who prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time, as specified in the Clean Air Act. 272 This alternative approach would be equivalent to the primary approach that is based on NMOG+NO X declining fleet average standard s and would apply during the program phase
- in over the 2016
- 2022 model years , with the first three of those model year standards made voluntary and set at level s to align with the California LEVIII program
. W e are proposing an alternative phase
- in structured to require an annuall y i ncreasing percent - of

- sales of HDVs certified to the full y phased in 178 mg/mi (Class 2b) and 247 mg/mi (Class 3) standards, as shown in Table IV
- 19
. **Table IV**  **- 19**  **Proposed Percent -**  **of -**  **Sales Alternative NMOG+NO X**  **Phase -**  **in** Voluntary Required Program Model Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and lat er Class 2b 29% 39% 54% 65% 77% 88% 100% Class 3 21% 32% 47% 60% 73% 87% 100%
Under our alternative phase
- in proposal, the availability of emissions averaging makes the two alternatives functionall y equivalent, not just in the annual emissions reductio ns they

achieve, but also in how manufacturers may design their mix of products

272 For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, CAA section 202(a)(3)(C) requires EPA to provide manufacturers with a minimum of 4 years of lead time before mandatory changes to any standard applicable to HC, NOx, CO or PM can be implemented, and 3 years of stability between change s to any such standard.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 139 of 842 to meet the phase
- in standards. Although we are proposing to make the alternative approach available, we believe that the primary approach

– the declining fleet average standard discussed above
-- is more consistent with the approach taken in California’s LEV III program and in recent GHG reduction rules
. To help ensure that the percent
- of
- sales alternative is fully

equivalent to the primary program in terms of fleet
- wide emiss ions control and technology mix choices, we are proposing that it include some additional provisions. First, we are proposing that the Tier 3 vehicles being phased in under the percent
- of
- sales alternative, in addition to meeting the fully

phased
- in NMOG+NO X FTP standards, must also meet all other FTP and (as described below) SFTP standards required by the primary

compliance program. These include the CO and formaldeh yde FTP standards in Table IV
- 17 , the 150,000 mile (15 year) useful life requirement, exhaust emissions testing with the new test fuel for gasoline
- and ethanol
- fueled vehicles discussed in Section IV.D, and the NMOG+NO X and CO SFTP standards in Table IV
- 20 . The s pecific proposed standards are those for the bins in these tables closest to the fully phased
- in NMOG+NO X standards: Bin 170 for Class 2b and Bin 230 for Class 3. (The PM and evaporative emissions standards phase in on separate schedules under both altern atives, as discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV .C.) Second, we are proposing to make an ABT program available for the percent
- of
sales alternative, structured like the one proposed for the primary option. This would involve certifying the vehicles in a m anufacturer’s HDV fleet to the bin standards in Table IV
- 17 , and demonstrating compliance with the fleet average standards for the primary program in each model year, including through the use of ABT credits as in the primary program. We are proposing to use the fleet average calculation method for purposes of ABT because, as explained above, we have determined that making this demonstration is equivalent to demonstrating compliance with the percent
- of
- sales requirement, and we see no value in complicating the program with another set of calculations. However, we are proposing one difference between the primary and alternative options with respect to ABT provisions. Unlike in the primary option, manufacturers would n ot have to certify all vehicles into bins in order to take advantage of the ABT provisions under the percent
- of
- sales alternative. Rather they could choose to certify

an y “phase
- out” vehicles (that is, those not counting toward the percent
- of
- sales phase
- in) to the pre
- Tier 3 NMHC and NO X standards, provided these vehicles do not have famil y emission limits (FEL s) above those standards. These non
- Tier 3 vehicles would not be subject to the Tier 3 standards or other vehicle
- specific elements of the Tier 3 compliance program. For the purposes of the fleet average ABT calculation, the NMOG+NO X levels for these non
- Tier 3 vehicles would be set equal to the sum of the NMOG and NO X standards for the highest bins: 395 mg/mi for Class 2b and 630 mg/mi for Class 3 , because these standards are numerically equal to the pre
- Tier 3 NMHC and NO X standards.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 140 of 842 d. Phase
- in of PM Standards Consistent with the light
- duty Tier 3 proposal discussed in Section IV.A, we are proposing to phase in the PM standards for HDVs as an increa sing percentage of a manufacturer’s production of chassis
- certified HDVs (combined Class 2b and 3) per year. The reasons discussed in Section IV.A for this phase
- in schedule in the light
- duty sector also apply

to the heavy
- duty

sector. In addition to con cerns regarding the availability and required upgrades of test facilities used for both light
- dut y and heav y - dut y vehicle testing, manufacturers have expressed uncertainty about PM emissions with new engine and emissions control technologies entering the m arket as a result of new GHG standards. Therefore we are proposing the same phase
- in schedule as proposed for the light
- duty sector in model years 2018
- 2019
- 2020
- 2021: 20
- 40
- 70
- 100 percent, respectively . This would apply

to HDVs certified under either N MOG+NO X phase
- in alternative. The California Air Resources Board is phasing in the LEV III PM standards for HDVs on the same schedule, except that LEVIII would also involve a 10 percent PM phase
- in in the 2017 model year, and we ask for comment on our doi ng so as well, in the context of the voluntary opt - in discussed in Section IV.B.2.b . The voluntary NMOG+NOx and PM standards may

be pursued separately , with no requirement that they be met on the same vehicles
. For manufacturers choosing the declining fl eet average NMOG+NO X compliance path, the PM phase
- in requirement for HDVs would be completel y independent of the NMOG+NO X phase
- in. As a result, vehicles certified to an y of the bin standards for NMOG and NO X need not necessaril y meet Tier 3 PM standards before the 2021 model ye ar. Instead, the current 0.02 g/mi PM standard would apply for those vehicles not yet phased into the Tier 3 PM standards. We are proposing that manufacturers choosing the percent - of

- sales phase
- in alternative for NMOG+NO X would be required to meet the PM phase
- in requirements with only those vehicles certified to the Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standard, except in the 2018 and earlier model years when the standards, including the PM standards, would be voluntary , and in the 2021 model year when the 100 percent PM phase
- in requirement exceeds the 87
- 88 percent NMOG+NO X phase
- in requirement. Consistent with the approach we are proposing for the light
- dut y sector, we would consider an y vehicle under either compliance path that is not certified to Tier 3 standards for PM, NMOG, and NO X (as well as the other, concomitant Tier 3 standards and requirements such as extended useful life), an “interim Tier 3” vehicle, a term that also applies to vehicles certified in one of the interim bins, as discus sed above. Note that compliance with Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements would follow a separate phase
- in schedule as described in Section IV.C, such that a vehicle in an exhaust emissions family that the manufacturer has phased into the new useful l ife and test fuel requirements, may be in an evaporative emissions family that has not yet phased these in for evaporative emissions testing.

i. Alternative PM Phase
- in******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 141 of 842 The proposed percent
- of

- sales phase
- in schedule for the PM standard, described above, woul d allow manufacturers with multiple vehicle models to determine and plan the phase
- in of those models based on anticipated volumes of each vehicle model. However, manufacturers certifying onl y a few vehicle models may not be able to take advantage of this schedule. This is because, in order to satisfy the phase
- in schedule percentages, they

may have to over
- comply

with the required percentages earlier than would a manufacturer with many vehicle models available for the phase
- in. For instance, a manufacturer with onl y two models that each equally accounted for 50 percent of its sales would be required to introduce (at least) one of the models in MY 2018 to meet the phase
- in requirement of 20 percent in the first year. At the 50 percent level, this model would then also meet the requirements for MY 2019 (40 percent). To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3 vehicle that ye ar. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100 percent of its Tier 3 models one year earlier compared to a manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 2021 by

distributing its redesigned models over the entire phase
- in period. To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all manufacturers in the earl y ye ars of the program, we are proposing an alternative phase
- in schedule that could be used b y a manufacturer to meet its phase
- in requirements. A manufacturer that exceeded the phase
- in requirements in any given year would be allowed to, in effect, offset some of the phase
- in requirements in a later model year. The alternative phase
- in schedule would be acceptable if it passes a mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at higher volumes than obligated to under the normal phase
- in schedule, while ensuring that significant numbers of vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each ye ar of the alternative phase
- in sche dule. In this approach, manufacturers would weight the earlier ye ars b y multiplying their percent phase
- in by the number of years prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second ye ar of the 100 percent phase
- in requirement). The proposed mathematical equation for app lying an alternative phase
- in is as follows: (4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x APP2021) ≥ 440, where APP is the anticipated phase
- in percentage for the referenced model year. The sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or equal to 440, which is the result when the alt ernative phase
- in equation is applied to the primary percent phase
- in schedule (4 x 20% + 3 x 40% + 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 440). EPA requests comment on this proposed alternative phase
- in mechanism. e. NMOG+NO X and NMOG vs. NMHC The reasons for setting combin ed NMOG+NO X standards outlined in Section IV .A.1.a for the light
- duty sector appl y to HDVs certified in the non
- interim Tier 3 bins******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 142 of 842 as well. In fact, the combined standard is especially appropriate in the heavy
- dut y sector with comparable sales of diesel and gasoline
- fueled vehicles, because it avoids the need to set “lowest common denominator” standards for NMOG (likel y based on feasible gasoline vehicle technologies) and NO X (likely based on feasible diesel vehicle technologies). These considerations al so appl y to the form of the SFTP standards, discussed below. The current HDV standards that control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), adopted in a 2001 final rule, 273 are in the form of NMHC. This is consistent with HD engine standards adopted in the same final rule, but contrasts with Tier 2 LDV/LDT standards to control VOCs that are in the form of NMOG. We believe it is appropriate to transition HDVs to NMOG
- based standards, and further to combined NMOG+NO X standards, consistent with the light
- duty Tier 3 proposal and light
- and medium
- duty

L EV III program. Further, the introduction of ox ygenated test fuels requires an NMOG calculation to properly control VOC emissions not properly accounted for in an NMHC calculation. This would improve co nsistency with the LEV III program and help to facilitate a single nationwide vehicle fleet. We do not believe that this change would add significant cost to the program as manufacturers are already capable of and experienced in making NMOG determinations at their test facilities. 3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs Unlike passenger cars and light trucks, HDVs are not currentl y subject to SFTP standards. SFTP standards are intended to ensure vehicles have robust emissions control over a wide range of real
- world driving patterns not well
- covered b y the FTP drive cycle. Even though HDVs are not ty picall y driven in the same way as passenger cars and LDTs, especiall y as they frequently carry or tow heav y l oads, we believe some substantial portion of real worl d heavy
- dut y pickup and van driving is not well
- represented on the FTP cycle. The goal in setting the SFTP standards levels is not to force manufacturers to add expensive new control hardware for off
- FTP cycle conditions, but rather to ensure a robust ov erall control program that precludes high off
- FTP cycle emissions by

having vehicle designers consider them in their choice of compliance strategies. High off
- FTP cycle emissions, even if encountered relatively infrequentl y in real
- world driving, could cr eate a substantial inadequacy in the Tier 3 program, which aims to achieve very low overall emissions in use. The SFTP provisions would also help make the HDV program more consistent with the HD engine program, which for several ye ars has included “not
to - exceed” provisions to control off
- cycle emissions. Therefore, in addition to the SFTP provisions, we are further limiting enrichment on spark ignition engines in all areas of operation unless absolutely necessary .

273 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 143 of 842 a. SFTP NMOG+NO X , PM and CO Standards The proposed SFTP standards levels are provided in Table IV
- 20 . These are consistent with those in the LEV III program.

**Table IV**  **- 20**  **Proposed SFTP Standards for HDVs** Vehicl es in FTP Bins: NMOG+NO X (mg/mi) PM

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) **Class 2b with horsepower (hp)/GVWR ≤ 0.024 hp/lb:**  **a** FTP Bins 200, 250, 340 550 7 22.0 FTP Bins 150, 170 350 7 12.0 **Class 2b:** FTP Bins 200, 250, 340 800 10 22.0 FTP Bins 150, 170 450 10 12.0 **Class 3:**  FTP Bins 270, 400, 570 550 7 6.0 FTP Bins 200, 230 350 7 4.0 a These standards apply for vehicles optionally tested using emissions from only the highway portion of the US06 cycle. We are proposing that Tier 3 SFTP implementation for HDVs be linked directly to the Tier 3 FTP phase
- in and bins for these vehicles. That is, an HDV certified to any of the Tier 3 FTP bin standards must meet the SFTP standards for that bin as well. However, because the FTP PM standard would phase in on a separate schedu le, we propose to require that SFTP PM compliance be linked to the same schedule. That is, an HDV certified to the Tier 3 FTP PM standard must meet the applicable SFTP PM standard as well. This approach recognizes the complementary nature of FTP and SFTP provisions and helps to ensure that Tier 3 emissions controls are robust in real world driving. There are no proposed SFTP requirements for the interim Tier 3 bins in each class (Class 2b Bins 340 and 395 and Class 3 Bins 570 and 630), because these are essentially

carry - over bins from the previous standards to aid the transition to Tier 3, and therefore are not intended to prompt vehicle redesigns to new standards. These implementation provisions are consistent with the approach taken in the LEV III pro gram, except that California would allow FTP and SFTP phase
- in requirements to be met on different vehicles, and would appl y more of the Tier 3 requirements for SFTP and extended useful life to vehicles in the interim bins. We request comment on the propo sed standards, and on whether or not EPA should adopt any LEV III provisions that differ from what we are proposing, such as the application of PM SFTP standards to vehicles that are in the interim bins and that also are certified to the Tier 3 PM FTP stan dards
. To help ensure a robust SFTP program that achieves good control over a wide range of real world conditions, the current Tier 2 light
- dut y program adopted a weighted
composite cycle, and we are proposing to retain this approach for light
- dut y Tier 3******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 144 of 842 testing, as discussed in Section IV.A.1.c. Under this composite cycle, NMOG+NO X emissions are calculated from results of testing over three cycles: the US06, the FTP, and the SC03, weighting these results by 0.28, 0.35, and 0.37, respectivel y. W e conside red applying the same composite cycle for all HDV SFTP testing. However, based on data provided b y industry stakeholders, we decided that the full US06 cycle, combined with the ALVW loaded test condition, would not be sufficiently representative of real
- w orld driving for two groups of HDVs: those with low power
- to - weight ratios and Class 3 vehicles. As part of their investigation of potential LEV III SFTP standards for MDVs, California Air Resources Board staff determined that it is not uncommon for vehi cles above 8500 lbs GVWR with low power
- to - weight ratio, which are largel y in Class 2b, to have to work extremely

hard to keep up with the accelerations required in the initial and final portions of the full US06 cycle, even proving phy sicall y unable to do so in some cases, and raising the concern that these vehicles would not be able to run a valid emissions test. 274 Although our SFTP provisions allow a test to continue when a vehicle is incapable of attaining the vehicle speed demanded by the drive trace, we believe routine occurrence of such an event for a group of vehicles would not be consistent with a well
- designed test regime. We would expect results from such tests to exhibit significant test - to - test variability , making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from them. Furthermore, in real
- world driving, we would expect that most drivers who regularl y demand and do not receive adequate response would modify either their driving behavior or their vehicle purchase decisions. Based on manufacturer
- s upplied data, the California Air Resources Board staff established a power
- to - weight (GVWR) ratio of 0.024 horsepower (hp)/lb as an approximate threshold in their efforts to characterize this issue. The vast majority of Class 2b vehicles are above this threshold today . Those below it tend to be used in applications where towing is not done extensively and the need for cargo space is more important than payload weight. Furthermore, it is possible that this group of vehicles will grow as purchasers adjust to sustained high fuel prices and when EPA’s GHG standards and NHTSA’s new fuel consumption standards take effect. In consideration of this matter, we are proposing that, in SFTP testing of Class 2b vehicles at or below 0.024 hp/lb, manufacturers may at th eir option replace the full US06 component of the composite SFTP emissions with the test results from only the second of the three emissions sampling bags in the US06 test, generall y referred to as the “highway” portion of the US06, subject to correspondin gl y lower SFTP standards levels discussed above. (These vehicles would still be driven during the test in the same way as the higher power
- to - weight Class 2b vehicles (over the full US06 cycle) just using best effort (maximum power) if the vehicle cannot maintain the driving schedule.) The large

274 Letter from Robert H. Cross, California Air Resources Board, to Dawn Friest, EMA, dated March 2, 2011.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 145 of 842 majority of Class 2b vehicles, with power
- to - weight above 0.024 hp/lb, would be required to measure and use emissions over the full US06 cycle in the composite SFTP. We believe that this approach would provide a robust but repeatable and reliable test for the full range of Class 2b vehicles, as the highway portion of the US06 retains broad coverage of vehicle speed/acceleration combinations measured in real
- world driving. For Class 3 vehicles, which can weigh as much as 14,000 lbs GVWR, we are also concerned that the full US06 cycle would not provide a representative drive cycle for SFTP testing. These vehicles are much larger than the light
- dut y vehicles that formed the basis for development of the US06 cycle, an d loading them to ALVW for the SFTP test yi elds a very

heavy test vehicle, not likely

to be safely

driven in the real world in the way ty pified b y this aggressive cycle. We believe that the LA
- 92 (or “Unified”) driving cycle developed b y CARB is more repr esentative of Class 3 truck driving patterns and would produce more robust results for use in SFTP evaluations. Therefore we are proposing that the LA
- 92 cycle be used in place of the US06 component of the composite SFTP for Class 3 HDVs. The set of comp osite SFTP cycles we are proposing is fully consistent with the MDV LEV III program. Although we consider the highway portion of the US06 cycle appropriate for low power - to - weight vehicles, we also believe that the corresponding NMOG+NO X standards should b e set at lower levels than for vehicles with emissions measured over the full US06 test. Our goal is to provide roughl y equivalent stringency and avoid creating an ease - of
- compliance incentive to produce vehicles in one group or the other. We have review ed the MDV SFTP standards set by the California Air Resources Board staff and consider them appropriate in achieving this goal. These proposed standards are included in Table IV
- 20
. HDVs do not have SC03 emissions requirements under the current HDV standards. Manufacturers of HDVs have indicated that they expect the SC03 emissions to be consistently

lower than either the US06 or the FTP emissions levels, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden may be unnecessary . We are therefore proposing that HDV manufacturers have the option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions results for purposes of compliance. However, we would retain the ability to determine the composite emissions using SC03 t est results in confirmatory or in
- use testing. b. Enrichment L imitation for Spark
- Ignition Engines To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment in areas not full y encountered in the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations in the frequency and magnitude of enrichment episodes for spark
- ignition HDVs. These limitations would be identical to those for light
- dut y vehicles discussed in detail in Section IV.A.4.c.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 146 of 842 4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading This section describes our proposed approach for emi ssions credits related to exhaust emissions. See Section V.C for similar provisions that apply for evaporative emissions. We are proposing to continue the current practice of allowing manufacturers to satisfy standards through the averaging of emissions, as well as through the banking of emissions credits for later use and the trading of credits with others. There are a number of facets of this proposed Tier 3 ABT program for HDVs that would be different from the current program. First, instead of separate NMHC and NO X credits, manufacturers would earn combined NMOG+NO X credits, consistent with the form of the standards. Second, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to accrue a deficit in their credit balance. Deficits incurred in a model year may be carried forward for up to 3 model years, but must be made up with surplus credits after that to avoid noncompliance and possible penalties. Manufacturers would have to use an y new credits to offset an y s hortfall before those credits can be traded or bank ed for additional model years. We are proposing that credits must be used within 5 years after they are earned, or otherwise be forfeited. The proposed 5/3
- ye ar credit/deficit life provisions are consistent with our proposed light
duty Tier 3 approach, the California LEV III program for MDVs, and EPA programs for controlling GHG emissions from light
- and heav y - duty vehicles. Third, as part of our proposal to require chassis certification of complete diesel HDVs, we are proposing to allow diesel HDVs to participate in this ABT program without restriction. Currently , they are not allowed to earn or use ABT credits. We are not proposing to restrict or adjust credit exchange between diesel and gasoline
- fueled HDVs, consistent with our shift to combined NMOG+NO X standards that helps to ensure comparable stringency

for these two engine typ es, and consistent also with the LEV III MDV program. We are proposing that credits earned b y a Tier 3 HDV may be used to demonstrate compliance with NMOG+NO X standards for an y other Tier 3 HDV, regardless of size and without adjustment. This effectivel y allows manufacturers to plan a comprehensive HDV compliance strategy for their entire Class 2b and Class 3 product offering, b y balancing credits so as to demonstrate complian ce with the standards for both classes. HDV manufacturers are currentl y certifying their vehicles to existing standards without the use of NO X or NMHC credits, and the levels we are proposing for Tier 3 standards are not based on any assumption of credit transfers into Tier 3. As a result, we are not proposing provisions for converting pre
- Tier 3 credits, should any exist at the time, into Tier 3 credits, including for use in the interim bins. In the past we have set caps, called famil y emission limit (FE L) caps, on how high emissions can be for vehicles that use credits, regardless of how many credits might be available. Under our proposed bin structure, we believe that exhaust emission FEL caps are no longer relevant for Tier 3 HDVs, as every vehicle mu st meet whatever standards appl y in the bin chosen for the vehicle by the manufacturer. (The bin standard becomes the effective FEL.) Indeed, because credits and deficits are calculated based on the difference between a manufacturer’s fleet average emissi ons and the fleet average******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 147 of 842 standards for a given model year, credits are not calculated for individual vehicle families at all. Under this proposed approach, the standards for NMOG and NO X in the highest available bin serve the purpose of the FEL caps in p revious programs. We are proposing no averaging program for the HDV SFTP program, because we believe that the bin structure and FTP
- centered NMOG+NO X ABT program provide adequate flexibility

for smooth program implementation, especiall y in light of our aim to have the FTP standards be the primary technology forcers. A separate ABT program for SFTP compliance would add substantial complexity with little benefit, and, by making it possible to demonstrate robust SFTP control on a vehicle that lacks commensurate FTP control, could prove at odds with the primary goal of the supplemental test for HDVs. However, we note that California’s LEV III program does provide some flexibility in this matter, on a vehicle
- for
- vehicle basis rather than through use of emissio ns credits, and for this reason we request comment on the need for and considerations surrounding our granting similar flexibility for HDVs in Tier 3. 5. Feasibility

of HDV Standards The feasibility

assessment, discussed in more detail in Chapter 1 of the dra ft RIA, recognizes that the proposed Tier 3 program is composed of several new requirements for Class 2b and 3 heav y - duty vehicles, which include primarily large gasoline and diesel pick
- up trucks and vans with diverse application
- specific designs. These proposed new exhaust emissions requirements include stringent NMOG+NO X and PM standards for the FTP and the newly

proposed SFTP, that would as a whole require new emissions control strategies and hardware in order to achieve the proposed standards. The ty pe of new hardware that would be required will vary depending on the specific application and emissions challenges. Additionally , gasoline and diesel vehicles would require different emissions control strategies and hardware. The level of stringency for the proposed SFTP NMOG+NO X standards would generall y only require additional precise control of the engine parameters not necessitated in the past because of the lack of SFTP requirements. Similarly , the new PM standards on both the FTP and SFTP cycles wo uld require more precise control of engine operation on gasoline vehicles while diesels already equipped with diesel particulate filters would require minimal changes. The new PM standards may

also require that manufacturers consider the durability of the ir engines to the 150,000 miles useful life requirement with respect to engine wear resulting in increased oil consumption and potentially higher PM emissions. In order to assess the technical feasibility of NMOG+NO X national fleet average FTP standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles, we conducted an anal ys is of certification data for the HDVs certified in the 2010 and 2011 MYs. This analy sis provided a baseline for the current HDV fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions performance specific to the Class 2b and 3 vehicles. The emissions performance of each heavy
- dut y vehicle class specific to gasoline and diesel is shown in Table IV
- 21 below. It is important to note that the emissions results are only the 4000 mile test point results and do not incorporate any deterioration which manufacturers must account for when certifying to a full useful life******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 148 of 842 standard. Designs limiting the deterioration of emission control hardware are critical to meeting the emission standards at the proposed useful life of the Tier 3 program. Deterioration factors to adjust the values to the proposed Tier 3 useful life standard of 150,000 miles were not available however deterioration fact ors to adjust to 120,000 miles useful life are discussed in the RIA Chapter 1. The anal ys is also reflects the importance of the NMOG+NO X standard approach where diesels and gasoline MDVs can balance their combined NMOG and NO X levels. Diesel vehicles in the analy sis produce very low NMHC emissions (NMOG is not reported for diesels) but higher NO X emissions, while gasoline vehicles have opposite performance. The combined standard allows manufacturers to determine the proper balance of the unique emissions challenges of a diesel or gasoline vehicle.

**Table IV**  **- 21**  **2010/11 Certification Test Results at 4k Miles**

NMHC NMOG NO X CO NMOG+NO X Gasoline Class 2b 0.050 0.052 0.041 1.648 0.092

Class 3 0.080 0 .083 0.073 2.373 0.156 NMHC+NO X Diesel Class 2b 0.037 0.138 0.195 0.174

Class 3 0.019 0.249 0.158 0.268 Combined Class 2b 0.043 0.026 0.089 0.922 0.133 Combined Class 3 0.050 0.041 0.161 1.265 0.212
Manufacturers t ypicall y certify their vehicles at emissions levels well below the numerical standards. This difference is referred to as “compliance margin” and is a result of manufacturers’ efforts to address all the sources of variability that could occur during the certification or in
- use testing processes and during in
- use operation. These sources of variability

include: test
- to - test variability , test location, build variation and manufacturing tolerances, vehicle operation (for example: driving habits, ambie nt temperature, etc.), and the deleterious effects of sulfur and other oil and fuel contaminants. To meet the proposed NMOG+NO X standard of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles and establish a compliance margin for these sources of v ariability , manufacturers will need to reduce their emission levels considerabl y from the levels indicated in this data set, particularl y diesel vehicles. However, as discussed above, these emission results do not include the expected emissions deterioration which would be determined by manufacturers during development and certification testing. Therefore, manufacturers would need to further reduce emissions levels in anticipation of the unavoidable emissions deterioration that will occur during the use ful life of the vehicle. Further, deterioration is a function of several factors, but it is predominantly due to emissions control hardware thermal******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 149 of 842 exposure (high temperatures), which is typicall y a significant issue on vehicles used for performing work l ike Class 2b and 3 vehicles. We also expect that the 2011 heav y - dut y GHG rule will present new challenges to manufacturers’ emissions performance goals as vehicles begin to use new engines designed to meet the new GHG requirements. 275 Some of these new technologies may result in emissions challenges that are specific to certain operating conditions. For example, downsized gasoline engines will likely have improved FTP exhaust emissions but have increased challenge with the high
- load SFTP requirements. Dies el
- fueled vehicles may

need to carefully

balance engine controls which reduce GHG emissions but can increase criteria emissions (NO X ). With regard to the ability of the heav y - duty fleet to meet the proposed PM standards for the FTP and the SFTP, we based o ur conclusions on some testing of current HDGVs and the PM performance of the existing light

–dut y fleet with similar engines. Testing of two HDGVs with the highest sales volume (Ford F250 and Chevrolet Silverado 2500), albeit not aged to full useful life, confirmed that they have similar PM emissions levels as the light
- dut y counterparts and therefore also meet the proposed standards for both the Class 2b and Class 3 configurations. Data from light
- duty gasoline vehicles with similar or common engines with their heavy
- dut y “sister” vehicle models demonstrates that these vehicles are currentl y meeting the proposed Tier 3 FTP PM standards at the Tier 2 useful life mileage of 120,000 miles. Heavy
- dut y diesel vehicles all are equipped with DPFs and have no challenges meeting the FTP or SFTP PM standards being proposed for Tier 3. The SFTP test data from the same two heav y - dut y vehicles described above indicates that gasoline vehicles can achieve the proposed standards for SFTP NMOG+NO X and PM. Since heavy
- dut y vehicles are not currentl y required to comply with any of the SFTP requirements, manufacturers have not focused on improving the emissions performance specificall y over the SFTP cycles (US06 and SC03). Therefore, although the limited testing results had a high degree of variability , several tests met the proposed PM standards for the high power
- to - weight Class 2b vehicles. Consistent with light
- duty , vehicles that are demonstrating high PM on the US06 would need to control enrichment and oil consumption from engine wear. Manufacturers have confirmed that they have been implementing product changes to reduce oil consumption to address both customer satisfaction issues and to reduce cost of vehicle ownership. Given the technologies likely to be applied to meet the proposed HDV exhaust emissions standards, discussed below , we consider the lead time available before the standards take effect under all of the proposed alternatives to be sufficient . HDV manufacturers are already adopting some of the complying technologies, e specially for their light
- dut y vehicles , and these can readily be adapted for heavy
- duty applications. In

275 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 150 of 842 addition, manufacturers have already begun developing these technologies for HDVs, including diesels, in response to California’s rec ently adopted LEV III MDVstandards which begin to take effect in the 2015 model year . Finally , as described above in section IV .B.2, IV.B.3, and IV.B.4, our proposed program incorporates a number of phase
- in and alternative compliance provisions that woul d ease the transition to final standards without disrupting HD pickup and van product redesign cycles. Among these is an alternative phase
- in that starts mandatory standards in model year 2019. We invite comment on our conclusions relating to the feasibi lity of the proposed program in the lead time we are proposing. i. Technologies Likely to be Applied The technologies expected to be applied to vehicles to meet the lower proposed standards levels would address the emissions control sy stem’s ability to control emissions during cold start. Current vehicle emissions control sy stems depend on the time it takes for the catal ys t to light
- off, which is ty pically defined as the catal ys t reaching a temperature of 250 ° C. While the specific emissions challenge is so mewhat different for gasoline engines than for diesel engines, achieving the necessary temperatures in the catal ys ts is a common challenge. In order to improve catal ys t light
- off, the manufacturers would likely

add technologies that provide heat from combu stion more readily to the catal ys t or improve the cataly st efficiency at lower temperatures. These technologies could include calibration changes, thermal management, close
- coupled cataly sts, cataly st PGM loading, and possibly secondary

air injection. In some cases, where the catal ys t light
- off response and efficiency are not enough to address the cold start emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catal ys t is lit
- off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of these technologies addresses both NMOG and NO X performance. Key potential technologies are described in greater detail below.

 Engine Control Calibration Changes

– These include changes to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mi xtures such that more combustion heat is created during the cold start on gasoline engines. Diesel engines may use unique injection timing strategies or other available engine control parameters. Engine calibration changes can affect NMOG, NO X and PM emis sions.

 Thermal Management

– This technology includes all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the catal ys t with minimal cooling on both gasoline and diesel engines. This includes insulating the exhaust piping between the engine and the catal ys t, reducing the wetted area of the exhaust path and/or reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust sy stem. Close
- coupling of catal ys ts (packaging the catal ys ts as close to the head of the engine as possible to mitigate the cooling effects of longe r exhaust piping) can also be effective, but is more difficult to employ than in light
- dut y applications because of durabilit y concerns with highly loaded operation and the potential increase in fuel consumption to protect the catal ys t from high temperatur es.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 151 of 842  Cataly st PGM Loading

– Additional Platinum Group Metal (PGM) loading in the catal ys t provides a greater number of sites to catalyze emissions and addresses NMOG, NO X and PM emissions.

 Selective Catal yt ic Reduction Optimization

– Diesel applications wou ld need to continue to refine this NO X emissions control strategy through improved hardware design and implementation in vehicle applications. Additional engineering enhancements in the control of the SCR system and related processes would also help reduc e emissions levels. 6. Other HDV Provisions a. HDV Useful L ife Currently the HDV regulatory

useful life, the period of use or time during which emissions standards apply, is 120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805
- 4). For Tier 3 veh icle criteria emissions we are proposing to extend the useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever occurs first. This change would better reflect the improvements in vehicle durability and longevit y that have occurred in the several ye ars since th e 120,000 mile useful life was established, and would maintain consistency

with the LEV III MDV program and with our Tier 3 program for large LDTs, for which the same useful life period has been proposed. California’s LEV III staff paper included a discus sion of the feasibility of this longer useful life based on experience with it in the PZEV element of the ZEV mandate. 276 We are proposing that the new useful life requirement apply to Tier 3 HDVs in all bins except those designated as interim bins, consiste nt with the purpose of the interim bins to provide for limited carry
- over of pre
- Tier 3 vehicle designs during the phase
- in period. Although the percentage application in each year will therefore depend on each manufacturer’s fleet binning strategy , the d eclining NMOG+ NO X fleet average standard would ensure a robust phase
- in of the new useful life requirement over the 2018
- 2022 model years, such that it is expected to be about 50 percent in 2018, and necessaril y reaches 100 percent b y 2022 when the interi m bins are no longer available. For those manufacturers choosing to certify to the voluntary

standards, the new useful life will apply even earlier, in 2016 or 2017. For manufacturers choosing the alternative percent
of
- sales NMOG+ NO X alternative, we ar e proposing that the new useful life requirement apply to all HDVs counted toward the phase
- in requirement, resulting in a generall y equivalent useful life phase
- in rate to that of the primary approach. See Section IV.D.4.b for further discussion of usefu l life with regard to GHG standards. We are also proposing that manufacturers may

optionally

retain the 120,000 mile/11 year useful life for PM on interim Tier 3 vehicles that are not phased in to the Tier 3 PM standards.

276 “Preliminary Discussion Paper

– Amendments to Californi a’s Low
- Emission Vehicle Regulations for Criteria Pollutants

– LEV III”, California Air Resources Board, February 8, 2010.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 152 of 842 b. Heav y - Duty

Alternative Fuel Vehic les As in the proposed light
- duty program, we are proposing that manufacturers demonstrate heav y - dut y flex fuel vehicle (FFV) and dual
- fuel vehicle compliance with both the FTP and the SFTP emissions standards when operating on both the conventional petrol eum - derived fuel and the alternative fuel. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles would demonstrate compliance with both the FTP and SFTP emission standards while operating on the alternative fuel. For all of these vehicles, this includes the requirement to meet FTP emissions standards when conducting fuel consumption and GHG emissions testing, and also to meet the FTP and highway test requirements at high altitudes (see Sections IV .B.6.e and f). Because FFVs can operate on various combinations of their co nventional and alternative fuel, the emissions requirements appl y to operation at an y mix of the fuels achievable in the fuel tank with commercially available fuels, including for compliance at high altitudes, even though the required demonstration of comp liance is limited to the conventional and alternative fuels designated for certification testing. c. Optional Certification for Vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR The HD greenhouse gas (GHG) standards include a provision for optional certification of complete ga soline
- fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR to g/mi GHG standards on the chassis test. 277 Because that rule does not change the requirements for certification to criteria pollutant standards, manufacturers choosing this option would have to certify

the vehicle for GHGs, but use installed engines certified to g/hp
- hr standards for all other emissions. We believe it may provide benefits for both the environment and the manufacturers to allow consistent certification of these vehicles on a chassis test for all em issions, treating an y vehicles so certified in the same way as Class 3 vehicles, including applicable standards, inclusion into fleet average calculations, test fuel, useful life, and the application of Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements. We reque st comment on the value of, and any issues concerning, our providing such an option to manufacturers of both gasoline and diesel
- fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR, including the applicability of the existing chassis test cycles for these larger trucks. Co mment is also requested on whether manufacturers of such vehicles that are certified to a F inal Tier 3 bin should be allowed to exclude them from the fleet average NMOG+NO X calculation, as a means of encouraging the production of such low
emissions vehicle s by

not penalizing them for having emissions somewhat above the Class 3 fleet average. Finally , we also request comment on whether any such option for diesel
- fueled HDVs should extend to GHG emissions as well.

277 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 153 of 842 d. Existing Provision to Waive HDV PM Testing E PA’s existing program includes a provision for manufacturers to waive measurement of PM emissions in non
- diesel heavy
- dut y vehicle emissions testing. We are proposing to eliminate this provision. We believe that the PM standards we are proposing for the se vehicles are of sufficient stringency that routine waiver of testing would not be appropriate. The California Air Resources Board LEV III program reflects this view. We do not expect this change to be onerous for manufacturers, as the number of heav y - dut y vehicle families is not large. Even so, we request comment on alternative approaches, such as that being proposed for light
- duty vehicles, involving measuring PM on a subset of families each year. We request comment on any other potential situations in which waiver of PM measurement may be appropriate. Note that we are proposing to waive the PM emissions measurement requirement for small manufacturers, for reasons explained in Section IV.E. e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel Consumption and GHG Emission s Testing As with the proposed light
- duty Tier 3 program, we are proposing that HDVs must meet the FTP bin standards when tested over both the city and highway

test cycles. We do not believe this adds a very significant test burden as vehicle emissions ar e already required to be measured when these tests are run for GHG and fuel consumption determinations. Nor do we believe that this proposed requirement is design forcing. Rather, we are proposing this requirement to ensure that test vehicle calibrations are not set by manufacturers to minimize fuel consumption and GHG emissions, at the expense of high criteria pollutant emissions. Considering the additional work involved in measuring PM emissions and the reduced likelihood of high PM emissions on the hi ghway t est, we are not proposing that PM emissions testing be included in this requirement, but we ask for comment on whether we should instead include them, but waive the requirement to measure them in manufacturers’ certification testing, to ensure that any unforeseen PM control technology challenges in highway

driving conditions are addressed in the future. f. HDV Altitude Requirements As in the past, we intend that HDV Tier 3 standards result in emissions controls that are effective over a full range of op erating altitudes. We do not anticipate that the proposed FTP bin standards would require the use of special hardware to achieve compliance at altitude. We also do not believe that adjustment to the FTP standards is appropriate for HDV testing at altitud e, as we expect that manufacturers would be able to meet these standards with adequate compliance margin to cover this test condition. As in the proposed light
- dut y program, and for the same reasons, we are not proposing to require that HDVs comply with S FTP standards at altitude.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 154 of 842 **C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic System**  **Requirements** Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel sy stems, which are a mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, occur when a vehicle is in operation, when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. These evaporative emissions from gasoline
- powered vehicles which occur on a dail y basis are primarily functions of temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and activity . EPA first instituted evaporative emissions standards in the early 1970s to address h ydrocarbon emissions when vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly

referred to as hot soak and diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have been modified and improved, the standards have been revised to be more stringent, and we have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel sy stem designs b y establishing new requirements such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions to address resting losses (e.g., permeation) . Onboard refueling vapor recovery

(ORVR) requirements for control of refueling emissions first began to phase
- in for light
- dut y vehicles (LDVs) and light
- duty trucks (LDTs) in the 1998 MY. These were later expanded to cover medium
- dut y passenger vehicle s (MDPVs) and some heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles (HDGVs). Even though evaporative and refueling emission control sy stems have been in place for most of these vehicles for many years, evaporative emissions still contribute30
- 40 percent of the on
- road mobile source h ydrocarbon inventory . These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also contain air toxics such as benzene. Even though there are mature evaporative emission control programs in place, further hydrocarbon emission reductions are n eeded and can be achieved from highway

motor vehicles. Vehicles demonstrating near zero fuel vapor emissions have been certified by CARB and a limited number are in
- use in California and other states. Furthermore, test programs conducted by the Coordinat ing Research Council and EPA show that attention is needed to insure better in
- use performance of current evaporative control sy stems. Cost effective hydrocarbon emission reductions can be achieved through new vehicle standards and improved focus on in
- us e performance. This section discusses the proposed vehicle
- related evaporative emission standards and related provisions for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. As discussed below, we are proposing more stringent standards that would apply for the 2
- and 3
- d ay evaporative emissions tests, a new canister bleed test and emission standard, a new certification test fuel specification, 278 and a new fuel/evaporative s ys tem leak test procedure and emission standard. We are also proposing ORVR controls for a portion of HDGVs over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). This section also describes proposed phase
- in flexibilities, credit and allowance programs, and seeks comment on several other issues related to evaporative emissions control.

278 For flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) certification fuel for evaporative and refueling emissions te sting wo uld remain a 9 RVP gasoline splash blended with ethanol to yield a blend containing 15 percent ethanol.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 155 of 842 The proposed evap orative emissions program has six basic elements: (1) the Tier 3 evaporative emission phase
- in program (MY 2018
- 2022+), (2) the earl y allowance/credit program (MY 2015
- 2016), (3) the transitional program (MY 2017), (4) requirements for HDGVs including ORVR, (5) a leak emission standard and test procedures, and (6) other miscellaneous proposed changes and areas for comment. In this proposed rule, the vehicle classifications, LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs, would remain unchanged from Tier 2. For purposes of this discussion of the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions program, the vehicle standards can be further placed in four categories: (1) “zero evaporative emission” PZEV vehicles certified by CARB as part of the ZEV program, (2) vehicles certified b y CARB to meet LEV III evaporative emission program requirements on CARB certification fuel (7 RVP E10), (3) vehicles meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions program requirements using the proposed certification test fuel (9 RVP E15), and (4) tra nsitional vehicles meeting current EPA evaporative requirements on Tier 2 certification fuel (9 RVP E0). 279 For ease of reference these four categories may be referred to as PZEV evap, LEV III evap, Tier 3 evap, and Tier 2 evap in this section. 280 1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards a. Proposed Standards This proposal for evaporative emissions builds on previous EPA requirements as well as CARB’s recent LEVIII rule which starts phasing in with the 2018 MY. This proposal facilitates a national program f or vehicle evaporative emissions control. We believe the proposed program is appropriate since it would require new evaporative emissions control technology in new vehicles while also achieving improved in
- use sy stem performance. This section describes proposed requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. The proposal includes more stringent emission standards for hot soak plus diurnal emissions (2
- and 3
- day tests), plus a new canister bleed standard and testing requirement for measuring emissions f rom the fuel tank and the evaporative canister. The proposal also introduces a limited corporate averaging program for demonstrating compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standards. We are proposing a phase
- in of the Tier 3 evaporative emission stand ards that would begin with the 2017 MY, with incentives for manufacturers to introduce Tier 3 compliant vehicles earlier or in greater numbers than required. The proposal includes revised provisions for demonstrating

279 We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission standards for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs in 2007 (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007). The mos t recent standards for HDGVs were adopted in 2000 (66 FR 5165, January 18, 2001). 280 “PZEV evap” as discussed here refers only to the evaporative emission and useful life requirements of the PZEV program, not the exhaust emission requirements.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 156 of 842 compliance with the evaporative emissi on standards at high altitude. See Section IV.C.3 for additional provisions for the HDGV category
.

i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards Previous hot soak and diurnal emission controls have dramaticall y reduced vehicle e vaporative emissions over the past thirty plus years. However, some emissions remain and control technology is available to capture these emissions in a cost effective manner. Toward that end, EPA is proposing more stringent hot soak plus diurnal evaporat ive emission standards for the Tier 3 program. The standards apply to both the 2
- day and 3
- day

evaporative emission test requirements. The standards are designed to bring into the broader motor vehicle fleet the “zero evap” technology

used by the manufa cturers in their partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). Manufacturers developed this “zero evap” technology as part of their response to meeting the requirements of the CARB Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. This program, which has been adopted b y 11 other states, allows manufacturers to meet their ZEV mandate percentages (totally or in
- part) by

the use of vehicles which among other characteristics have very

low fuel vapor emissions. The standard levels presented in **Error! Reference source not found.** are designed primaril y to accommodate what is often referred to as new vehicle background hydrocarbon emissions. These emissions arise from the off
- gassing of volatile hydrocarbons from plastics, rubbers, and other poly mers found in new v ehicles (e.g., new tires, interiors, seats, fuel sy stem components, paints, and adhesives). In the field these emissions decrease over time as the vehicle ages, but this cannot necessarily be replicated in the time that manufacturers normall y allocate for vehicle certification. In the past manufacturers have employed techniques such as vehicle baking (discussed below) to accelerate the rate of this off
- gassing, and until recently it has not been a major consideration for certification. In the past EPA ha s set relatively uniform (but not identical) evaporative emission standards for LDVs and LDTs and somewhat higher values for HDGVs. The proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards presented in **Error! Reference source not found.**  are so mewhat higher as vehicles get larger in weight and ph ys ical size. This is because in general the vehicles have higher levels of non
- fuel background emissions as they get larger. As mentioned above, the standards, which are approximately a 50 percent redu ction from the existing hot soak plus diurnal standards, are intended primarily to accommodate non
- fuel background emissions. Thus, the technology focus for the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards is for vehicles to have essentiall y zero fuel v apor emissions. As described in more detail in Section **Error! Reference source not found.** below, EPA is proposing a program that would allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standards using averaging concepts. Under the proposal, manufacturers may compl y b y averaging within******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 157 of 842 each of the four vehicle categories but for the reasons discussed below, may not rel y on averaging across categories. The technical approaches to meetin g the proposed standards are discussed in Section **Error! Reference source not found.** . EPA is not proposing an y changes to the existing light
- dut y running loss or refueling emission standards with the Tier 3 proposal, with the exception of the certification test fuel requirement. **Table IV**  **- 22**  **Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test) a,b,c**  Vehicle Category Highest Hot Soak + Diurnal Level (over both 2
- day

and 3
- day

diurnal tests) LDV, LDT1 0. 300 LDT2 0.400 LDT3, LDT4, MDPV 0.500 HDGV s 0.600 a The standards are in grams of hydrocarbons as measured by flame ionization detector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in the enclosure known as the sealed housing for evaporative determin ation (SHED). b Note that the proposed standards are the same for both tests; current standards are slightly different for the 2
- and 3
- day

tests c Vehicle categories are the same as in EPA’s Tier 2 final rule; see 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.

ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard Inaddition to more stringent hot soak plus diurnal standards, EPA is proposing a new canister bleed emission test and standard as part of the Tier 3 program. The proposed bleed test procedure is described in Section IV.C.4.a., b elow. The purpose of the new test and standard is to ensure that near
- zero fuel vapor emissions are being emitted by

vehicles from the fuel tank through the evaporative emission canister. Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to measure diurnal emissions over the 2
- day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister and comply

with a 0.020 g/test standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and 0.030 g/test for complete HDGVs. The feasibility of this standard is discussed in Section IV .C.2.g.ii below. EPA is proposing not to appl y the averaging program to this new bleed test standard as compliance is relativel y straightforward and low in cost. Therefore, each evaporat ive/refueling emission family certified by

manufacturers would need to demonstrate compliance with their respective standard. As discussed below, the canister bleed standard would not apply at high altitude. The canister bleed test and standard drives canister design elements such as total gasoline working capacity , internal architecture, and the typ e of carbon used. Since the performance of the canister is also evaluated in the hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emissions sealed housing for evaporative de termination (SHED) test we are proposing that this not be included in the In
- Use Verification Program but it must be met in use. We would not expect to have canister bleed specific family criteria for certification but the test would have to be completed and the standard met for each evaporative/refueling family including potentially

twice if there were two canisters used. A deterioration factor would not be required, but as mentioned above, the standard would have to be met in
- use.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 158 of 842 iii. Early and Transitio nal Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standard As part of its LEVIII program, CARB has included an alternative set of evaporative emission standards, referred to as Option 1 standards. These are shown in **Error! Reference source not found.**
.

**Table IV**  **- 23**  **CARB Option 1 Evaporative Emission Standards** Vehicle Category Highest Hot Soak + Diurnal Level (over both 2
- and 3
- day diurnal tests) (g/test) Running Loss (g/mile) Vehicle SHED Rig

SHED Passenger Car 0.350 0.0 0.05 LDT < 6,000 lbs GVWR 0.500 0.0 0.05 All other vehicles > 6.000 lbs

GVWR 0.750 0.0 0.05 The Option 1 standards include evaporative emission standards (hot soak plus diurnal) that are slightl y higher numerically than our proposed standards . Vehicles certified under this option may not use averaging in the CARB LEV III program because they basicall y represent the same evaporative emission standards as exist for PZEVs under CARBs ZEV program wherein averaging is not permitted. Option 1 also includes an additional test of the vehicle fuel s ys tem (rig test) that from an engineering perspective is practicall y more difficult to conduct than the bleed test discussed above and is intended to force manufacturers to demonstrate at certification that their stand alone (not in chassis) fuel/vapor control sy stem designs have no ( < 54 mg) fuel vapor emissions. EPA is not proposing that Option 1 be part of the long term Tier 3 evaporative emission program. While we see the merit of the rig test as an eng ineering design and development tool for the manufacturers, by its very nature, the rig SHED standard is not implementable as an enforceable standard
. We would further note that we believe that the hot soak + diurnal SHED test and the canister bleed test will accomplish the same basic objective of keeping fuel vapor emissions to the minimum. EPA believes most manufacturers will prefer to certify to the averaging based standards proposed b y EPA (similar in stringency and program construct to CARB Option 2). However, because some manufacturers may have vehicle models meeting the CARB Option 1 standards and emission requirements now or in the near future, EPA is proposing that compliance with the CARB Option 1 standards would be an acceptable interim alter

native to compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 159 of 842 standards if the model is certified b y CARB before the 2017 MY. EPA proposes that these vehicles could then be certified using carryover provisions through the 2019 MY. 281 As noted in the f

ollowing sections, vehicles certified under this provision would count toward the phase
- in percentage requirements and could earn allowances as discussed below , but the vehicles would not be eligible to earn or use credits for the evaporative emissions ave raging program. b. Useful L ife Trends indicate that vehicle lifetimes are increasing. It is important that emission control sy stems be designed to meet requirements while vehicles are in use. As discussed in Section IV.A of today ’s notice, along with th e new emission standards, we are proposing a longer useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years, whichever comes first, for LDTs up to 6000 lbs GVWR but over 3750 lbs loaded vehicle weight (LVW) (LDT2s), all LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR (LDT3/4), MDPVs, and complete HDGVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. The proposed longer useful life would also apply to certifications to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. For an evaporative/ refueling family

certified to 150,000 miles/15 year useful life for evaporat ive emissions this useful life would also apply to the refueling, leak, and high altitude standards, where applicable when a family certifies to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. All of these standards impact the fuel and vapor control sy stems and it is technologicall y consistent to require the same useful life for these standards because they all rely on the mechanical integrity , durability , and operational performance of the same components in the evaporative emissions control sy stem. Due t o limitations in the CAA, for LDVs and for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs GVWR and at or below 3,750 lbs LVW (LDT1s), we are keeping the current useful life of 120,000 miles/10 years unless, as described in Section IV.A, a manufacturer elects alternative exhaust emi ssion requirements that are associated with 150,000 mile/15 year useful life for these vehicles. For manufacturers that select those optional standards, the useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years would apply for all Tier3 evaporative emission standards inc luding the hot soak plus diurnal emission standards, the refueling emission standard, and the leak standard because of the design and operating relationships between the engine, the fuel sy stem, the evaporative control sy stem and their various components. During the early

and transitional program periods and until the final year of the allowed phase
- in period for the Tier 3 evaporative emission program (MY 2015
- 2022) the differences between the proposed exhaust and evaporative emission phase
- in programs p resents the possibility that in some cases a manufacturer could certify a model to the Tier 3 exhaust requirements but not necessarily to the Tier 3 evaporative emission

281 EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the CARB Option1 test procedures and emission standards for this interim period
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 160 of 842 requirements. 282 Inthose situations, we are proposing that a family could have a 150,0 00 miles/15 years useful life for exhaust emissions but maintain the current useful life for all of the evaporative and refueling emission standards. We also propose that during the phase
- in period, if a family is certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emiss ion requirements but not yet certified for Tier 3 exhaust emission requirements, then the useful life could be 150,000 miles/15 years for evaporative and refueling emissions standards but the current useful life for exhaust emissions, However, by the 2022 MY EPA proposes that the useful life for all of these requirements would be 150,000 miles/15 years for LDT2/3/4s, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR since by that model year all vehicles must be certified using Tier 3 certificatio n fuel and test procedures and meet Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 283 OBD regulations call for the sy stems to operate effectivel y over the useful life of the vehicle. We are not proposing to change that requirement, but rather to clarify that during the earl y and transition years of the phase
- in (MY2015
- 2022), all of the OBD monitoring requirements have the same useful life as that for the exhaust emission standard except for the evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring requirement which has the same as th at required for the evaporative and refueling emission standards control sy stems. 2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation Flexibilities a. Percentage Phase
- In Requirements The proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards would be phas ed in over a period of six model years ( MYs ) , including a transitional year in 2017. For MY 2017, except as discussed below, the requirement would apply to 40 percent of a manufacturer’s combined sales of LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s. To be consistent with the start date for new exhaust standards affecting these vehicles, the phase
- in requirements would not include vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the 2018 MY. For the 2018
- 2019 MYs, the requirement would apply to 60 percent of a manufacturer’s sales of all L DVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. This would increase to 80 percent for MYs 2020 and 2021 and by MY 2022 it would apply to 100 percent of sales in these four categories. Our proposal for MY 2017 has two options. The first, which we are calling the “percentage ” option, would require that 40 percent of a manufacturer ’ s LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s sold outside of California and the states that have adopted the CARB ZEV program must meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements on average
. The

282 By the 2020 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system emissions certifications must use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test procedures. T his affects evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal), canister bleed, refueling, and leak emission standards certification. 283 The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result of the u se of previously earned allowances and small businesses which have until the 2022 MY to meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements..******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 161 of 842 second which we ar e calling the “PZEV zero evap only” option, would require a manufacturer to sell all of the LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s certified with CARB as meeting the PZEV evaporative emission requirements (zero evap) in MY 2017 throughout all of the U.S. and not to offer for sale an y non - PZ EV zero evap version of those vehicles in any state whose vehicles are covered by the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards . Thus, this would apply

to sales in any

state except for California and states that have adopted the CARB ZEV program under section 177 of the Clean Air Act . Under this second option, no tracking of sales or end of ye ar compliance calculation would be required. Some manufacturers may find this option attractive, as they have more limited product offerings and find tracking of production and sales more difficult. At the time of certification, manufacturers would identify which families would be included in their Tier 3 evaporative emission percentage calculations (this could be families above or below the individual Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the given class of vehicles as well as vehicles meeting CARB’s option 1 standards) and could also include earned allowances as discussed below. They would use projected sales information for these families plus al lowances as desired and available to show how they expect to meet the phase
- in percentages for the MY of interest. At the end of the MY they would be expected to show that the percentages were met and if not they would either use additional allowances o r bring more vehicle families into the calculation. Requiring a showing at the time of certification based on projected sales requires due diligence b y the manufacturers and EPA, but the Tier 3 evaporative emissions program allows for fleet averaging, so a validation and “truing up” of sales is necessary for determining compliance with the requirements of the standard This is discussed in Section IV.C.2.c.and d. As discussed further below, v alidated sales information would also be used for earning earl y allowances and to show compliance with the alternative phase
- in schedule approach
. For these purposes, vehicles included in the phase
- in percentage could be: (1) families which certified to CARB LEVIII requirements in MY s 2015 and 2016 (CARB Options 1 or 2), (2) families certified to meet Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements, and (3) vehicles from the earl y allowance program (up to ten percent age points per model ye ar) as discussed below . However, beginning in the 2017 MY, any new evaporative/refue ling emission family certifications would have to meet the proposed EPA Tier 3 certification requirements for both test procedure and certification test fuel for the evaporative and refueling emission standards. Furthermore, assuming other regulatory

prov isions related to carryover of emissions data are met, 2015
- 2016 MY CARB evaporative emissions certifications could be carried over until the end of the 2019 MY and included as compliant vehicles within the program. The phase
- in percentages for MYs 2017 through 2022 reflect a percentage phase
in concept applied successfully by EPA in previous rules involving evaporative and refueling emissions control. The proposed phase
- in provides an appropriate balance between the needed emission reductions and time f or the manufacturers to make an orderl y transition to the new technology on such a broad scale. The higher initial******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 162 of 842 percentage here is appropriate because the expected evaporative emission control technology

is already

being used to varying degrees by 1 6 m anufacturers on over 50 vehicle models today

and is projected to gain even deeper penetration by 2017 due to the partial zero emission vehicles (PZEV) option within the CARB ZEV program. As a flexibility , we are proposing to allow manufacturers to demonstr ate compliance with the phase
- in percentage requirements of the evaporative emissions program b y using a manufacturer
- determined alternative phase
- in percentage scheme. Under this approach, before the 2018 MY, manufacturers would have to present a plan to EPA which demonstrates that the sum of the product of a weighting factor and the percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales for each model year from 2018 through 2022 is greater than or equal to 1040. Th e 1040 value is equal to the sum of the product of the weighting factors and the percentage requirements for MYs 2018 through 2022, calculated in the following manner: [(5)(2018MY %)+4(2019MY %)+3(2020MY %)+2(2021MY %)+(1)(2022MY %)]. This would allow manufacturers to use a phase
- in more consistent with pro duct plans which may call for a lower percentage in the earl y ye ars or to benefit from producing more than the minimum percentage of compliant vehicles earl y. This flexibility could also be helpful in the event that a manufacturer elects to put some vehic les on a different phase
- in schedule for meeting Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. As explained further below, any allowances earned could be counted toward compliance with the 1040 value. Within this proposed flexibility EPA asks for co mment in three areas. First, we seek comment on the need for and value of this alternative phase
- in percentage flexibility option. Second, we did not include the 2017 MY in this flexibility because we believe that the PZEV zero evap nationwide option, th e use of an y earned allowances, and the ability to have a deficit in a given year are sufficient. However, we ask for comment on including the 2017 MY “percentage” option in this flexibility . If after comment the 40 percent option from the 2017 MY is inc luded in the final rule , the sum of the percentages would include an additional 240= (6)(40) for a total; of 1280; the equation above would add a term of (6)(2017MY %). b. Earl y Allowance Program We are proposing incentives for earl y introduction of vehic les compliant with the Tier 3evaporative emission regulations . Manufacturers could take advantage of these incentives prior to MY 2018 by selling vehicles that meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations earlier than required or in greater numbers th an required. For MYs 2015
- 2016, manufacturers could earn “allowances” for selling any vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations . The vehicles could be LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs
. The allowances would be earned only for those vehicles sold outside of California and the states that have adopted CARB’s ZEV requirements. In order to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations , the vehicles could be certified to either the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or CARB’s PZEV zero evaporative emission and useful life requirements. Vehicles generating allowances would have to meet the proposed evaporative emission standards (CARB option 1 or EPA Tier 3) , the high altitude******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 163 of 842 evaporati ve emission standard, the canister bleed standard as well as the refueling emission standards. Manufacturers would earn one allowance for each qualifying vehicle sold. Manufacturers can use these allowances in MY 2017 through 2022 to help demonstrate compliance with the phase
- in percentage requirements and fleet average evaporative emission standards for those ye ars. Allowances would be used in the compliance determination in the following manner. Vehicles qualifying for allowances could be used in the fl eet average evaporative emission standard calculation for any year during the phase
- in. This would apply to the primary

phase
- in and alternative phase
- in programs. Vehicles would be entered into the compliance calculation with an emission value equivalent to the evaporative emission standard for their vehicle category from Table IV
- 22 even if it was certified to CARB option 1 standards (Table IV
- 23). This value would be multiplied by the weighting factor used for the alternative phase
- in scheme 5 for 2018 , 4 for 2019, 3 for 2020, etc. The use of a multiplier is appropriate to incentivize earl y reductions and widespread use of Tier 3 evaporative emission control technology
. The manufacturer would be limited to using these early allowances for no more than 10 percentage points of the phase
- in requirements in any given model year (e.g., MYs 201 8
- 2022 )
. EPA believes this limitation is appropriate. Earl y introduction of “zero evap” technology should be encouraged, but not necessaril y at the expense of its wi despread use across the various vehicle categories as the phase
- in progresses. The proposed allowances are designed primaril y to facilitate manufacturer transition during the program phase
- in. As such, we propose that they could not be traded between manufacturers and unused allowances would expire after the 2022 MY. An example here may

be helpful in demonstrating how the proposed concept would work. Take a h yp othetical manufacturer who earned 10,000 allowances in 2015 and 2016 and sells 100,000 units p er year. In 2018, the manufacturer would have a phase
in requirement of 60 percent or 60,000 vehicles. The proposed regulations would limit the use of allowances to 10 percentage points of the 60 percent. Without a multiplier this would require the use of all 10,000 allowances in 2018, but with the proposed multiplier only 2000 allowances would be needed to reach the 10 percentage point maximum. Using a similar calculus, the manufacturer could use another 10 percentage points in 2019, but it would require 2500 allowances since the multiplier is 4.The number of allowances to reach 10 percentage points would increase each ye ar as the multiplier decreased. For the MY 2017, manufacturers choosing EPA’s proposed “percentage” option (see Section IV.C.2.i) could e arn allowances for sales of LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and other related requirements if the ir sales exceed the 40 percent requirement. Similarly , m anufacturers choosing EPA’s proposed “PZE V zero evap onl y” option could earn allowances in MY 2017 for LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the CARB option 1 evaporative emission standards and related requirements.
. For both the “percentage” and “PZEV zero evap onl y” options for the 2017 mo del year, to avoid double counting, the allowances would be earned onl y for those vehicles sold outside of California and the states that have adopted CARB’s LEVIII/ZEV requirements. Vehicles earning allowances could either******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 164 of 842 be vehicles certified to the T ier 3 evaporative emission standards or vehicles certified using carryover data from the CARB PZEV zero evaporative emission requirements from the 2015 or 2016 MYs. Since credits and allowances serve primaril y the same purpose and allowing for splits of allowances/credits greatly complicates program implementation, we are proposing that manufacturers could onl y earn allowances in MYs 2015
- 201 7 for an y qualifying LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since these vehicles are not covered b y the proposed Tier 3 standards until the 2018 MY . EPA asks for comment on whether this opportunity to earn allowances coupled with the aforementioned restriction on their use is the appropriate balance. c. Evaporative Emissions ABT Throughout EPA’s programs for mobile source emissi on controls, we have often included emission averaging programs for exhaust emissions. An emission averaging program is an important factor we take into consideration in setting emission standards under the Clean Air Act. An emission averaging program can reduce the cost and improve the technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the standards achieve the greatest achievable reductions, considering cost and other relevant factors, in a time frame that is earlier than might otherwis e be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility

in product planning and the opportunity for a more cost
- effective introduction of product lines meeting a new standard. Emission averaging programs also create an incentive for the earl y introduction of new t echnology , which allows certain emission families to act as leaders for new technology . This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they

apply the technology throughout their product line. These programs generally involve averaging and banking, and sometimes trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more families at emission levels above the applicable emission standards as long as the increased emissions are offset b y one or more families c ertified below the applicable standards. These are referred to as famil y emission limits (FELs). The over
- compl yi ng families generate credits that are used b y the under
- complying families. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to acco unt for differences in production volume, and on other factors as necessary . The average of all emissions for a particular manufacturer’s production within category must be at or below the level of the applicable emission standards. Banking allows a manu facturer to generate emission credits and bank them for future use in its own averaging program in later ye ars. Trading allows a manufacturer to sell credits or obtain credits from another manufacturer. EPA is proposing an emissions ABT program for the Ti er 3 hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emissions standards. This would be the EPA’s first averaging program for evaporative emissions from light
- duty or heav y - duty

vehicles. It would not apply to the high altitude standard, the canister bleed standard or the leak emission standard because it is the low altitude “zero evap” hot soak plus diurnal standard which will drive the fundamental technology

used to comply

with all of these requirements. EPA is proposing to include trading of emission credits betwee n manufacturers, but in past similar******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 165 of 842 programs there have been very few trades. Incorporating trading within the program adds a significant degree of complexity , so we are seeking comment on the need for and value of including trading. The evaporative emis sions ABT program would start with the 2017 MY for the percentage option. The programs would continue for the 2018 MY and beyond and would not sunset, as does the allowance program. Vehicles generating averaging/ banking credits in the 2017 MY or later w ould not be permitted to also generate allowances as this would be double counting. A key element of an averaging program is the identification of the averaging sets. This sets the criteria for which emission families can be averaged for purposes of comp liance as well as credit and deficit determinations. We are proposing four averaging sets and the applicable emission standard for each of the averaging sets as shown in Table IV
- 22.Except as noted in section d below, credit exchanges between averaging set s would not be permitted. Participation in averaging is essentially voluntary

since a manufacturer could elect to certify

each family

within the averaging set to its individual limit as if there was no averaging program. An evaporative emission ABT inclu des two very distinct steps. The first is the determination of the credit/deficit status of each family relative to its applicable standard from Table IV
- 22. The second is the role of ABT in the overall compliance demonstration which will be discussed in section d. which follows. A manufacturer choosing to participate in the evaporative emissions ABT program would certify

each emission family

to an FEL. The FEL selected by the manufacturer becomes the emission standard for that emission family . As noted below, emission credits (or deficits) are based on the difference between the emission standard that applies (b y vehicle category) and the FE L. The vehicles would have to meet the FEL for all emission testing. We are proposing that the FELs selected b y the manufacturer would have to be selected at 0.025 g/test increments above or below the applicable Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for each vehicle category . FELs could not be set any higher than 0.500 g/test for LDVs, 0.650 g/test for LDT1s and LDT2s, 0.900 g/test for LDT3s and LDT4s, 1.000 g/test for MDPVs, 1.4 g/test for HDGVs at or below 14,000 lbs GVWR, and 1.9 g/test for those above 14,000 lbs GVWR, respectivel y. These FEL caps are the 3
- day hot soak plus diurnal emission standards currently applicable under EPA’s regulations. The vehicle groupings for defining these FEL caps differ somewhat from the groupings that appl y for the standards; we request comment on the need to reconcile these different groupings. Evaporative emission credits und er the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal standards would be calculated using the following equation: Credits = (fleet average Standard

– fleet average FEL) × U.S. sales. The “fleet average standard” term here is the applicable Tier 3 hot soak plus di urnal standard for the vehicle category from **Error!********* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 166 of 842 **Reference source not found.** . The sales number used in the calculation would be the number of vehicles of that evaporative emission families in that category sold in the U.S. which are subj ect to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, excluding any vehicles covered b y a separate evaporative emission averaging program. 284 Emission credits banked under the proposed evaporative emission ABT program would have a five ye ar credit life and woul d not be discounted. This means the credits would maintain their full value through the fifth model year after the model year in which they are generated. At the beginning of the sixth model year after they are generated, the credits would expire and cou ld not be used b y the manufacturer. We are proposing to limit credit life so there is a reasonable overlap between credit generating and credit using vehicles. We request comment on all aspects of the ABT program. In particular, we request comment on the structure of the proposed evaporative emission ABT program and how the various provisions may affect manufacturers’ ability to utilize ABT to achieve the desired evaporative emission
- reductions in the most efficient and economical way . d. Compliance Demons tration Demonstration of compliance with the evaporative emissions standards would be done after the end of each model year. There are two steps. In the first step, manufacturers would have to show compliance with the phase
- in percentages whether they us ed the primary

phase
- in scheme or the alternative phase
- in scheme (i.e., other than the 40, 60, 80,100 percent scheme proposed above). Itis sales from these families which would be used to make the demonstration of compliance with the emission standard o n average within each vehicle averaging set. Compliant vehicles for these purposes would be the same as described in Section IV.C.2.a above for projected sales. In the second step, using the family

emission limits, manufacturers would calculate the sales
- weighted average emission levels within each of the four vehicle categories using U.S. sales. 285 Manufacturers would be allowed to use credits only within a defined averaging set. The averaging sets are: (1) LDVs and LDT1s, (2) LDT2s, (3) LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs, and (4) HDGVs. These sales
- weighted calculated values would have to be at or below the emission standard for that vehicle category as proposed in **Error! Reference source not found.**  , unless credits from ABT are used. If the differen ce between the standard and the sales
- weighted average FEL is a positive value this could be a banked credit available for future use. If the difference between the standard and the sales
- weighted average FEL is a negative value this would be a credit def icit. Credit deficits would be allowed to be carried forward . However, manufacturers would be required to make up the deficit within the next three model years with credits from vehicles in the same averaging set

284 This would only be true if CARB and other section 177 states did not use a separate calculation for fleet
wide compliance for evaporative emissions. If there is a separate calculation then the calculation for EPA wo uld not include California and any other section 177 states which adopted the California program. 285 The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022MY as a result of the use of previously earned allowances.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 167 of 842 except as described below. As discussed above, m anufacturers would be required to identify vehicle families from each covered category (see **Error! Reference source not found.**  ) whose total annual nationwide sales in the given model ye ar equals or exceeds the prescribed percentages. Allowances could also be used to demonstrate compliance with the percentage phase
- in requirements and the vehicle category average emission standard. For purposes of the percentage phase
- in requirements vehicles which have earned allowances are counte d as compliant in the percentage calculation. For purposes of the calculations for compliance with the emission standard, allowance vehicles enters into the evaporative emissions ABT calculation as having an emission rate equivalent to the standard for th at category of vehicle. Thus, allowance vehicles would help in demonstrating compliance with the percentage phase
- in requirement (up to ten percentage points per model year) and would help in reducing deficits since their calculation value would be equivalent to the level of the standard. EPA asks for comment on whether allowances should be permitted to be used across vehicle categories during the transition years. As was discussed above, during the 2017
- 2019 model years EPA is allowing manufacturers t o meet the percentage phase
- in requirements using carryover certification data from vehicles certified to CARBs option 1 standards in the 2015 or 2016 model ye ars. These vehicles may have CARB option 1 certification values slightly higher than those propos ed for EPA’s Tier 3 program for the given vehicle and vehicle category . For purposes of simplification, EPA proposes that an y CARB option 1 vehicles used in the 2017
- 2019MY emission standard compliance determination be entered into the calculation with th e emission level equivalent to the Tier 3 vehicle category in which the vehicle model would otherwise fit. Furthermore, we are proposing not allowing manufacturers to generate emission credits for families certified with EPA based on carryover CARB PZEV ev aporative emissions data using CARB Option 1 as in **Error! Reference source not f** 

**ound.** . We are proposing not to include these vehicles in the ABT program since the programs are not directl y comparable, and the structure of the current CARB Z EV program, which is the genesis of most PZEV offerings, allows for a different number of PZEV sales as a function of manufacturer size. As mentioned above, we are proposing to limit use of credits only within a defined averaging set. Cost effective te chnology is available to meet the proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards on average within each of the vehicle categories in the averaging sets, especially since the proposed standards are designed to accommodate nonfuel h ydrocarbon background e missions. Thus, further flexibility is not needed. Moreover, we are proposing to constrain averaging to within these sets because of equity issues for the manufacturers. We are concerned that the four or five manufacturers with a wide variety

of produc t offerings in most or all of these categories would have a competitive advantage over the majority of manufacturers which have more limited product lines. This effect could be even more pronounced if the number of evaporative families was considered, sin ce larger more diverse manufacturers have more models and thus more evaporative families. EPA asks for comment on issues related to averaging sets.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 168 of 842 Manufacturer use of credits from different averaging sets to demonstrate compliance would be permitted in limited cases. As noted above, if a manufacturer has a credit deficit at the end of a model year in a given averaging set, they would have to use credits from the same averaging set during the next three years to make up the deficit. However, if a defici t still exists at the end of the third year, we propose that the manufacturer could use credits from a different averaging set to cover the remaining deficit with the following limitations. Manufacturers would be able to use credits from the LDV and LDT1 averaging set to address remaining deficits in the LDT2 averaging set, and vice versa. We also are proposing that manufacturers be permitted to use credits from the LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV averaging set to address remaining deficits in the HDGV averaging set , and vice versa. No other use of credit exchanges across different averaging sets would be allowed. These restrictions are being proposed because of equity concerns caused b y the different nature and size of various manufacturer product lines. During the program phase
- in there will be a declining percentage of vehicles not ye t covered by

the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements and thus covered by the current EPA requirements in 40 CFR 86.1811
- 09 and 86.008
- 10. These vehicles would need t o be certified to current EPA requirements or seek EPA certificates based on LEV II or LEVIII emission data, subject to the certification fuel requirements discussed below. For both the percentage phase
- in and sales
- weighted average calculation steps above , we are proposing to base the calculation on annual nationwide sales beginning in the 2018 MY. We believe this approach is consistent with the manufacturers’ plans for 50
- state vehicles. A program design which would enable a nationwide program has been an important premise of this proposal. Furthermore, this is simpler for the manufacturers and for EPA since it relieves the need to project future model year sales or track past model year sales at a disaggregated level. We recognize that decisions by manufacturers on a national fleet versus a bifurcated approach such as exists today (California and section 177
- states separated from rest of U.S. sales) have not y et been made. 286 The CARB LEV III and EPA phase
- in requirements are identical beginning in 2018 , so EPA sees little need for concern that a nationwide program could lead to disproportionate state by state impacts or the encouragement of practices which would lead to any particular state or area not receiving the anticipated emission reductions with this nationwide approach to the calculation. However, for evaporative emissions for the 2017 MY we are proposing that percentage phase
- in and sales be done on a disaggregated level (i.e., California and section 177 states and the remainder of the country) since at the present time the LEVII/ZEV programs which constitute the ARB program for evaporative emissions stay s in place through the 2017 MY. This is being done differently for the

286 If the decision is ultimately made to continue the disaggregated approach to fleet compliance calculations, the compliance with th e proposed Tier 3 requirements would be based on U.S. sales (non
California, non
- 177 states).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 169 of 842 calculations for the earl y allowance program because these “zero evap” v ehicles are already counted in the pre
- existing ARB program. e. Small Volume Manufacturers As another flexibility , we are proposing that small volume manufacturers, those with average annual nationwide sales of 5,000 units or less, be permitted to delay mee ting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards , including the requirement to use EPA certification test fuel, until the 2022 MY. This would include the hot soak plus diurnal standards, the canister bleed standard, and the leak emission standard. Inthe interim, these vehicles would have to meet the current evaporative and refueling emission standards. The initial determination of whether a manufacturer is under the 5,000 unit threshold would be based on the three ye ar average of actual nationwide sales for MYs 2012
- 2014. This allowance would not be affected if a qualifying manufacturer’s nationwide sales later exceeded that value before 2022. Similarly , new market entrants (not in the market in the 2012 MY) with projected sales of less than 5,00 0 units could be covered b y the small volume manufacturer provisions. However, in this case if actual running average nationwide sales exceeded 5,000 units per year in an y three consecutive model years they

would have to meet the Tier 3 evaporative requir ements in the third model year thereafter. For example, if a new market entrant in 2015 projected nationwide production of 4,000 units per year and the average of actual values in 2015
- 2017 exceeded 5,000 units per year they would have to meet Tier 3 evapo rative requirements by the 2020 MY. f. High
- Altitude Requirements We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission standards in 2007. 287 These newest standards apply onl y to testing under low
- altitude conditions. 288 Inthat rule, we decided to continu e to apply the previous “Tier 2” standards for testing under high
- altitude conditions. This was necessary to achieve an equivalent level of overall stringency

for high
- altitude testing. This was intended to account for the various effects of altitude and lower atmospheric pressure on vapor generation rates, canister loading and purging dyn amics, and other aspects of controlling evaporative emissions due primaril y to lower air and vapor concentrations in air. While it is important for vehicles to have eff ective emission controls at high altitudes, we do not want the high
- altitude standards and test procedures to dictate the fundamental design of the Tier 3 evaporative emission control sy stems since the high altitude vehicle population is only about five pe rcent of the national total. Therefore, w e believe it is appropriate to address this goal by appl yi ng the current EPA 2
- day

low altitude evaporative emission standards and requirements for high
- altitude testing. The vehicle categories for the high altit ude standards in this

287 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007). 288 High
- altitude conditions means a test altitude of 1,620 meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude le ss than 549 meters (1,800 feet).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 170 of 842 proposed rule are the same as for the low altitude standards. The proposed standards are presented below in Table IV
- 24 . This would both reduce emissions at high altitude and again create a requ irement to confirm that emission controls function effectively at high altitude without forcing manufacturers to appl y al titude
- specific technologies. Furthermore, the leak emission standard proposed in Section IV .C.5.b below would apply equally at low and high altitude testing.
**Table IV**  **- 24**  **Proposed High -**  **Altitude Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test)** Vehicle Category Highest Hot Soak + Diurnal Level (over both 2
- day

and 3
- day

tests)(g/test) LDV, LDT1 0.65 LDT2 0.85 LDT3, LDT4 1.15 MDPV 1.25 HDGVs < 14,000 lbs GVWR 1.75 HDGVs > 14,000 lbs GVWR 2.3 A few additional points should be noted about our proposed Tier 3 high altitude evaporative emissions control program. First, b y proposing to appl y the current low altitude evaporative emission standards and requirements by category for high
- altitude, we are proposing not to include the canister bleed test and emission standard. These vehicles would have to meet the canister bleed emission standard at low altitude and any adjustment to meet the standard at high altitude to account for canister adsorption and desorption effects of higher altitudes would result in fundamentally the same technology and increase the test ing burden, but not necessarily lead to more emissions control. Therefore, we believe the low
- altitude canister bleed test is sufficient for achieving the proposed level of emission control for operation in both low
- altitude and high
- altitude conditions. Second, for vehicles certified with FELs above or below the applicable standard for testing at low altitude, we propose that the same differential apply to the FELs for high
- altitude. For example, if an LDV was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead of the 0.300 g standard, the high
- altitude FELwould be 0.75 g (0.65g+0.1 0 g). This high
- altitude FEL would not be used for an y emission
- credit calculations, but it would be used as the emission standard for compliance purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for certi fication test fuel would be set at 7.8 RVP with 15 percent ethanol, as specified in Section IV.D. Finally , we are proposing a minor adjustment to the high altitude test procedures. Today , the 2
- and 3
- day test procedures apply

equall y at low and high alti tude. We are proposing to keep that requirement but to allow for an adjustment of 5 °F in the temperatures related to the running loss test within the 3
- day test cycle. Thus, the applicable fuel and ambient temperatures at §86.134
- 96 (f) and (g) would 90±5 °F instead of 95±5 °F for high altitude testing. EPA believes this is appropriate given the differences in atmospheric conditions at low versus high altitude and will still result in equivalent control of running loss emissions at higher altitudes. We re quest comment on******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 171 of 842 the alternative approach of keeping test temperatures the same, but omitting the 3
- day test cycle for testing at high altitude. This would effectively establish the 2
- day

test cycle as a sufficient means of demonstrating that emission control sy stems continue to operate properl y at high altitude. g. Technological Feasibility The basic technology

for controlling evaporative emissions was first introduced in the 1970s. Manufacturers routed fuel tank and carburetor vapors to a canister filled w ith activated carbon, where vapors were stored until engine operation allowed for purge air to be drawn through the canister to extract the vapors for delivery to the engine intake. Over the past 30 ye ars, evaporative emission standards have changed sever al times, most notably in the mid
- 1990s when enhanced evaporative controls were required to address 2
- and 3
- day

diurnal emissions and running losses. Refueling emission controls were added with phase
- in beginning in the 1998 MY. Almost universally manu facturers elected to integrate evaporative and refueling emission control sy stems. In the mid
- 2000s more stringent evaporative emission standards with E10 durability gasoline led to the development and adoption of technology to identify

and eliminate perme ation of fuel through fuel tanks, fuel lines, and other fuel
- sy stem components.

i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal The current baseline technology for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs is a properl y designed and assembled fuel/evaporative s ys tem for controlling emissions over the 2
- and 3
- day test sequences to meet the current standard of 0.650 grams/test. This involves activated carbon canisters which capture gasoline vapors, with engine calibrations designed to maximize canister purge over the test sequence. Fuel sy stems gene rall y include widespread use of various grades of permeation
- resistant materials. The anticipated control technologies to comply with the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standards include an improved carbon canister designs to even be tter capture vapor emissions from the canister, air intake designs to prevent the escape of unburned fuel from the engine’s crankcase, various upgrades to further limit potential micro
- sized leaks, and further steps to reduce permeation rates. Applying th ese new or improved technologies will allow manufacturers to meet the proposed 300 mg standard for LDVs/LDT1s. The proposed evaporative emission standards are slightl y higher for larger vehicles to account for potentially higher background emissions and i n some cases larger surface area components, but the baseline and anticipated control technologies follow a very similar path. These baseline and control technologies are described further in the rest of this section. Current evaporative canisters use high working
- capacit y activated carbon, usually with multiple compartments, to optimize vapor loading and purging behavior. These canisters sometimes employ carbons of different working capacities within each chamber. Testing indicates that the total canist er adsorption capacit y in grams of******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 172 of 842 gasoline vapor is generally dictated b y the requirements of the refueling emission test and standard rather than the evaporative emission test (either the 2 or 3
- day sequence). Manufacturers have identified the engine’s intake sy stem as another source of evaporative emissions. These result from crankcase vapors and from unburned fuel from injectors, or sometimes from an injection event that occurred shortly before engine shutdown. We estimate a ty pical emission rate of about 40 mg associated with each engine shutdown event; however, since the actual emission rates depend on timing of individual injection events and cylinder position at shutdown, baseline emission rates can vary significantl y. These vapors must follow a contorted path before reaching the ambient air, which would generall y cause these emissions to show up during the first day of the diurnal test rather than the hot soak test. One way to prevent these emissions is to add activated carbon to the air intake downstream of the air filter, typically in the form of reticulated foam coated with activated carbon. This device would have only a few grams of working capacity and would be designed to purge easil y to ensure that the vapor storage is available at engine shutdown. This carbon insert would almost completely eliminate any

vapor emissions from the air intake sy stem. Manufacturers wanting to avoid adding an y specialized emission control component to control evaporative emissions from the air intake could pur sue alternative approaches. First, it is possible to allow the engine to continue rotating for 2
- 3 revolutions after engine shutdown to sweep an y h ydrocarbon vapors from the intake sy stem into or through the cylinder. These vapors could be burned in the cylinder, oxidized at the cataly st, or stored until the engine starts again. This may still allow for a small amount of residual vapor release, but this should be a very small quantity . Vehicle owners would be unlikely to notice this amount of engine ope ration after shutdown. Second, to the extent that manufacturers use direct injection, there should be no fuel vapor coming from the intake sy stem. Any unburned fuel coming from the injectors would be preserved in the cylinder or released to the exhaust s ys tem and the catal ys t. A small amount of crankcase vapor might remain, but this would likely not be enough to justify adding carbon to the intake s ys tem. Fuel tanks are designed to limit permeation emissions. Fuel tanks are typically made of high
- densit y polyeth yl ene with an embedded barrier layer of eth ylvinyl alcohol (EvOH) representing about 1.8 percent of the average wall thickness. The EvOH layer is effective for reducing permeation emissions. Recent developments in production processes have led to improved barrier coverage around the ends of the tank where the molded plastic is pinch
- welded to form a closed vessel. We are expecting manufacturers to increase the EvOH barrier thickness to about 3 percent of the average wall thickness to provide a more uniform barrier layer, to provide better protection with ethanol
- based fuels, and to improve permeation resistance generally . These changes are expected to decrease emission rates over the diurnal test from about 40 mg per day to 15 mg per day from the fuel tank assembly or less
. Fuel lines are also already designed for low permeation rates. The biggest portion of fuel and vapor lines are made of metal, but that may still leave several feet of nonmetal******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 173 of 842 fuel line. There may

be development of new mate rials to further reduce permeation rates, but it is more likely

that manufacturers will adjust the mix of existing ty pes of plastic fuel lines to achieve the desired performance at the lowest possible price. The bigger area of expected development with re spect to fuel lines is to re
engineer fuel s ys tems to further reduce the number of connections between fuel
- sy stem components and other fuel
- line segments. Today these sy stems may

involve more than the optimum number of connections and segments due to ass embly and production considerations or other factors. Designing the fuel sy stem more carefull y to minimize connection points will limit possible paths for fuel vapors to escape. This would reduce emission rates and it should also improve sy stem durability b y eliminating potential failure points. A broader approach to addressing this source of emissions is to integrate designs and to move fuel
- sy stem components inside the fuel tank, which eliminates the concern for vapor emissions and permeation from thos e components and connections. A remaining area of potential evaporative emissions is the connection between the fill neck and the fuel tank. Manufacturers can reduce emissions by perhaps 10 mg per day by making this connection permeation
- resistant. The c hallenge is to design a low
cost solution that is easily assembled and works for the demanding performance needs related to stiffness/flexibility . The best approach is likely either to use mating parts made from low
- permeation materials, or to use convent ional materials but cover this joint with material that acts as a barrier layer. Purge rates are currently

designed to flow relatively large volumes of outside air through the canister when the purge solenoid is activated. This involves using available manifold vacuum to create purge flow, with limits in place to avoid drawing too much unmetered fuel vapor from the canister. Tightening the evaporative emission standard would lead manufacturers to address remaining emission sources from micro
- size leak poi nts, permeation, and diffusion, as noted above. Since the amount of additional vapor being captured b y the carbon canister is small and the test procedure is not changing, we do not expect the change in standards to drive changes in purge strategy , rates, or canister capacity . Nonetheless, vehicle s ys tem and engine changes to improve fuel econom y could impact future purge strategies. Thus, as part of this approach, manufacturers may incorporate designs to reduce vapor volume/mass directed to the canister and thus potentially

reduce the purge air volume requirements. In addition, canister designs can be optimized to increase the effectiveness of a given volume of purge air. This could involve selecting different combinations of carbon characteristics and canister architecture t ypes and b y adding features to add heat (or preserve heat) in the canister during a purge event. It is also possible that fuel economy strategies which impact purge volume may

push some manufacturers to add vacuum pumps to suppleme nt engine
- based purge on some vehicle models in the future. It is worth noting that there may be some models where manufacturers incorporate hardware or another control technique that may not be widel y used across b y all manufacturers or across all models. This is especiall y true for this set of proposed emission control requirements since we are considering such a wide array of basic******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 174 of 842 vehicle and engine designs. Also, future vehicle/engine sy stems such as hy brids may have more unique challenges in areas s uch as the diurnal fuel tank vapor load sent to the activated carbon canister and subsequent purging of those vapors. In response to this challenge, manufacturers may employ techniques to reduce fuel tank vapor generation and/or to enhance purge efficiency . Hardware such as a vapor blocking valve or other techniques to enhance purge efficiency from the canister through heating may be employed to a limited degree. The technologies discussed above are in use to varying degrees on many of the CARB PZEV zero evap vehicles mentioned above. Taken together, we believe these technologies provide manufacturers with effective tools for reducing emissions sufficiently

to meet the proposed evaporative emission standards. ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard More stringe nt evaporative emission standards have led to more careful measurements, which led manufacturers to discover that 80 mg or more of fuel vapor would diffuse from the canister vent as a result of the normal redistribution of vapors within the activated carbo n while the vehicle is at rest. The emission rate depends on the tank volume, its fill quantity , and the size and architecture of the canister and the characteristics of the carbon itself. While the biggest effect of this vapor distribution is a uniform concentration within the canister, it can also cause vapors to escape through the canister vent even without continued canister loading that would result from fuel tank heating. These are referred to as canister bleed emissions. These emissions occur to some degree during the 2
- and 3
- day evaporative emissions test, but a separate standard is needed if the goal of near zero fuel vapor emissions is to be achieved. The design to address this concern is a supplemental “scrubber” canister (or canister compar

tment) with a very

low working capacity

carbon. Adding 100 or 200 ml of this ty pe of carbon near the canister vent provides a margin of “reserve capacity” to capture diffusion losses from the canister. Since this extra carbon has low working capacity and it purges readily , it is ty picall y cleared of hydrocarbon vapors and ready to perform its function after any amount of engine operation or even with natural back purge which occurs when the fuel in the tank cools. This scrubber element is expected to elim inate all but 5
- 10 mg of emissions from the evaporative canister over the measurement procedure.

iii. Leak Emission Standard Vapor leaks in the vehicle fuel/evaporative s ys tem can arise from micro
- cracks or other flaws in various fuel/evaporative s ys tem compo nent structures or welds, problems with component installations, and more generall y from connections between components and fuel lines and vapor lines. Because these emissions from these areas would occur in the 2
- 3 day

evaporative emissions test if the p roblems were present, manufacturers have taken steps to address these potential problem areas as part of their overall evaporative emissions control strategy. Since the 2
- 3
- day hot soak plus diurnal standards are******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 175 of 842 proposed to become more stringent and leak emissions occur during the evaporative emissions test, we expect manufacturers to take the measures described above in Section IV .C.2.g.i . These include reducing connections, improving the quality of fuel and vapo r line connections, use of improved component materials and revised installation practices. Manufacturers could also review their OBD leak warranty data and related information from OBD queries to help inform their strategies. One of the key reasons for proposing a leak emission standard is to promote the continuing development of designs which will yi eld improved in
- use emissions performance. EPA believes this focus on in
- use durability is important because a vehicle with even a small leak, e.g., the si ze of the 0.020
- 0.040 inch orifice diameter monitored b y OBD s ys tems would likely emit above the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standard in use. 3. Heav y - Duty

Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements a. Overview of the Proposal for HDGVs As presented above, EPA is proposing to include HDGVs within the Tier 3 evaporative emissions program. The proposed hot soak plus diurnal and canister bleed test emission standards that would apply to these complete HDGVs are as presented in **Error! Reference source not found.** and the high altitude standard is presented in Table IV
- 24 . These vehicles would be included in the averaging calculation beginning in the 2018 MY and would be eligible for creating and using allowances and credits as discussed above. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed below, EPA is proposing that HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR be required to meet the refueling emi ssion standard by

the 2018 MY. b. Background on the HD GV Sector HDGVs are generall y gasoline
- powered vehicles with either a GVWR of greater than 8,500 lbs, or a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 lbs, or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet. 289 HDGVs are predominantly but not exclusive ly commercial vehicles, mostly trucks and other work ty pe vehicles built on truck chassis. EPA often discusses HDGVs in three basic categories for regulatory purposes according to their GVWR class. These include Class 2b (8,501
- 10,000 lbs GVWR), Class 3 ( 10,001
- 14,000 lbs GVWR), and Class 4 and above (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). These are further sub
- categorized into complete and incomplete vehicles. 290 Class 2b HDGVs are mostly produced b y the manufacturers as complete vehicles and are very similar to lower

289 MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but they are classified separately for evaporative and refueling emission purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803
- 01. 290 Vehicles may be complete or incomplete vehicles: A complete HDGV is one that has the primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment) attached, normally by the vehicle OEM. An incomplete vehicle is one that does not have the primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment) attached when i t is first sold. This may include vehicles sold to seco ndary vehicle manufacturers.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 176 of 842 GVWR LDTs of the same basic model sold b y the manufacturers. Class 3 HDGVs are also built from LDT chassis with fuel sy stem designs that are similar to their Class 2b and LDT counterparts, but these are on some occasions sent to secondary manufacturers as incomplete vehicles to attach a load carrying device or container. EPA estimates that more than 95 percent of Class 2b/3 vehicles are complete when they leave the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Class 4 and above HDGVs are built on a more traditio nal heav y - truck chassis and in most cases leave the OEM as an incomplete vehicle. For Class 2b/3 vehicles, it is common to certify the vehicle for emissions purposes (exhaust, evaporative, etc) as a full chassis, while for Class 4 and above the vehicle i s certified as a chassis for evaporative emissions while the engine is dy namometer ce rtified for exhaust emissions. For LDVs and LDTs, the current EPA evaporative and refueling emission test procedures are the same for all vehicle categories and the emissi on standards are of a similar but not alway s identical stringency , within the subclasses. However, this is not true for HDGVs. For HDGVs, the level of the evaporative emission standards and the test procedures vary

by category and the refueling emission control requirements are also different. There are several reasons for these differences, including variations in the size, design, and other properties of the basic fuel sy stem, the dimensions of the vehicles, and the potential for actions of secondary m anufacturers to impact the fuel sy stem. There are many fuel sy stem similarities between Class 2b/3 HDGVs and heav y LDTs, but fewer similarities between heavy LDTs and HDGVs in Class 4 and above. Over the past 15 to 20 ye ars, there have been several notab le changes in HDGV products and market that have influenced the application of evaporative and refueling emission control requirements and may impact potential new or revised requirements going forward. Most noteworth y among these are the increased use of diesel engines across all weight classes and the emergence of better defined market segments for primary OEMs and secondary

manufacturers. The increased use of diesel engines has reduced overall HDGV sales and brought about a consolidation of manufacturer HDGV product offerings. For Class 2b/3 HDGVs, these are now all derived from LDT chassis and have the same basic fuel sy stem and engine characteristics. This has led EPA to extend the light
- dut y evaporative and refueling test procedures and emission standards to the Class 2b/3 HDGVs, when applicable. In a rule promulgated in 2000, EPA required manufacturers to certify these HDGVs using light
- dut y test procedures. Also, in this same rule, EPA extended the vehicle refueling emission standards to complete Class 2b vehicles. These actions were technicall y appropriate because of the similarities between the LDT and Class 2b HDGVs and fuel s ys tems and the large fraction of complete Class 2b HDGVs produced b y the vehicle manufacturers. Today , fuel s ys tems for Class 3 HDGVs are comparable those for Class 2b HDGVs, so it is reasonable and technically feasible to extend the Class 2b refueling emission requirements to Class 3 HDGVs
. Class 4 and heavier HDGVs still play a small but important role in the traditional truck and heav y - dut y vehicle markets. These vehicles are sometimes distinctly different******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 177 of 842 from Class 2b/3 vehicles in terms of testing, c hassis designs, and fuel s ys tem characteristics; secondary manufacturers also play a larger role in the overall completion of the vehicle. For these vehicles, the engines are certified for emissions on an engine dy namometer while the evaporative emissions are certified separately on the vehicle chassis. Furthermore, these vehicles are larger dimensionally (which often means longer fuel and vapor lines) and have larger volume fuel tanks (sometimes two), which may be mounted on the underbody or side
- rail. It is common for a secondary manufacturer to complete the vehicle b y adding the cargo container or other working equipme nt box or package (e.g., small cargo truck or tow truck) and in some cases to reconfigure components. While the extrapolation of refueling emission control technology is conceptuall y straightforward, in some cases there may be unique technical issues related to implementing refueling emission controls for these heavier HDGVs relative to Class 2b/3 HDGVs and LDTs. Based on these considerations, EPA is proposing that the refueling emission standards in §86.1816
- 05 to apply to Class 3 HDGVs as well. This is appropriate because the fuel and evaporative control s ys tems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their slightly

lighter
- weight Class 2b counterparts, and in some cases Class 3 HDGVs are already designed to meet this proposed requirement. EPA is proposing that this requirement be met beginning in the 2018 MY. EPA is also proposing that manufacturers be permitted to comply as early as the 2015 MY to earn on a one
- to - one basis allowances which could be used to phase
- in the Class 3 refueling emissi on control requirement or as an allowance under the Tier 3 evaporative emission program. EPA believes this is appropriate since the expected daily average reduction in vehicle refueling emissions for this class of vehicles is large relative to the reducti on in evaporative emissions expected under Tier 3. An y certifications, including those done earl y, must use EPA Tier 3 test procedures and certification test fuels. c. Other Potential Program Elements for HDGVs EPA is seeking comments on several other programmatic elements related to the Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission control proposal. First , e ven if we do not revise the current evaporative emission standards for these vehicles and they

are not required to control refueling emissions, we are s eeking comment on requiring manufacturers to certify their evaporative emissions using Tier 3 certification test fuel. Tier 3 certification test fuel would provide equivalent or better emissions control as compared to current certification test fuel in terms of the fuel qualit y impact on emission control sy stem designs to meet the existing evaporative emission standards and would provide equivalent or better in
- use performance. Requiring this new certification test fuel has the potential to add efficiency to the certification process since manufacturers could certify one sy stem for EPA and CARB for each evaporative famil y. Since incomplete vehicles and those over 14,000 lbs GVWR often do not use the same test vehicle/engine for evaporative and exhaust emi ssion testing, we seek comment on whether a requirement for vehicle evaporative and/or refueling emission certification on******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 178 of 842 Tier 3 test fuel would technically necessitate engine exhaust emission certification on Tier 3 test fuel. Second, a s mentioned in Sec tion IV. B., EPA is also seeking comment on requiring the use of Tier 3 certification test fuel for HDGVs which are engine
dy namometer certified, not chassis
- certified, for exhaust emissions. This would potentially

include all engine familie s certified fo r use in HDGVs above 8,500 lbs. GVWR. We are seeking comment on this change because we believe it may be the best and most representative technical approach for the future in the context of the engine/emission control system/fuel s ys tem design and performance and fuel quality
. Overall, we believe this change to the certification test fuel for HDGVs would provide equivalent or better emissions control for the regulated pollutants as compared to current certification test fuel, in terms of the impact of fuel quality on emission control sy stem designs and in
- use performance, and may also simplify

manufacturers’ testing operations by providing for a single test fuel. We are also seeking comment on putting this requirement in place in the 2020
- 2022 MY time fram e. Consistent with the approach proposed in Section IV.D.4 for light
- and heav y - duty vehicles, we are committed to the principle of ensuring that any change in test fuel for heavy
- dut y engines would not affect the stringency

of either the fuel consumption or GHG emissions standards. As part of the separate rulemaking discussed in Section IV.D.4, we would expect to establish the appropriate test procedure adjustment for HD engine fuel consumption standards and to determine the need for any test procedure a djustment for GHG emissions standards based on the change in certification test fuels. Third, to simplify

the evaporative emission regulations for HDGVs and to bring them more in line with the current structure of the product offerings in this sector, we are proposing to permit evaporative emissions certification by engineering analy sis for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR (instead of just above 26,000 lbs GVWR as is permitted in the current regulations). These HDGVs would remain subject to the emission standards when tested using the specified procedures. This is the same cut point allowed b y CARB and allows for one certification method. Furthermore, for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR, w e request comment on taking an additional step to rely on design parameter s and engineering anal ys is as a design standard to fully replace the performance test. Under this approach, manufacturers would need to demonstrate that their purge strategy , canister capacity, and overall control system was designed to control emissions to the same degree as similar (or comparable) Class 2b or Class 3 vehicles that meet emission standards when tested over the established measurement procedures. This would take into account the limitations in managing any significant degree of testing with these over
- size vehicles. In particular, we request comment on the enforceability of taking the approach of a design standard. Fourth, we are also proposing a revised description of evaporative emission families that does not reference sealing methods f or carburetors or air cleaners as this is now basicall y obsolete.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 179 of 842 Fifth, we are also proposing to clarify how evaporative emission standards affect engine manufacturers and proposing more descriptive provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 lbs GVWR using engineering anal ys is. These improved descriptive provisions would apply to vehicles above 14,000 GVWR lbs if the proposed change in GVWR cut point for engineering anal ys is certification is finalized. Finally , EPA is asking comment on sever al other provisions related to the heavier HDGVs (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). First, if we do not include these heavier HDGVs in the Tier 3 final rule requirements, we are asking comment on whether manufacturers should be able to voluntarily certify an y HDGVs not covered b y the rule to the same requirements as being proposed for Class 2b/3 HDGVs, and through this action earn allowances and credits for use within the Tier 3 program as discussed above for other vehicles. This would include both evaporative and re fueling emissions standards. Second, EPA also asks comment on whether there should be a provision to permit HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR to be grouped with those between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR for purposes of complying with evaporative and refueling emi ssion control standards and related provisions. In these cases, we would expect these HDGVs to meet all the requirements applicable to the group in which they are being included (e.g., useful life, OBD, etc). 4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel a. Review and Update of Testing Requirements EPA adopted the current test requirements for controlling evaporative emissions in 1993. 291 Those changes included: (1) diurnal testing based on heating and cooling the ambient air in the SHED 292 instead of forcing f uel temperatures through a specified temperature excursion; (2) repeated 24
- hour diurnal measurements to capture both permeation and diurnal emissions; (3) high
- temperature hot soak testing; (4) high
temperature running
- loss measurements with a separate st andard, including controlled fuel temperatures according to a fuel
- temperature profile developed for the vehicle; and (5) canister preconditioning to ensure that vehicles could effectivel y create canister capacity to prepare for several day s of non
- driving
. These test procedures are generall y referred to as “enhanced evap” testing. EPA adopted these “enhanced evap” test procedures in coordination with CARB. The test requirements include two separate test sequences to demonstrate the effectiveness of evapo rative emission controls. The “two
- diurnal sequence” involves canister loading to two - gram breakthrough, followed b y driving for the exhaust test (about 31 minutes), a hot soak test, and two day s of cycled ambient temperatures. The “three
- day sequence” i nvolves canister loading with 50 percent more vapor than needed to reach breakthrough,

291 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993)
. 292 SHED is the Federal Register acronym for sealed housing for evaporative determination. The SHED is the enclosure in which the evaporativ e emissions are captured before measurement.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 180 of 842 followed b y driving for the exhaust test, driving for the running loss test (about 97 minutes total), a high
- temperature hot
- soak test, and three day s of cycled ambient temperature. The 2
- day

sequence was intended primaril y to insure a purge strategy which would create enough canister capacity to capture two day s of diurnal emissions after limited driving. The two
- day measurement period was effective for requiring contro l of permeation and other fugitive emissions. The 3
- day sequence was intended to establish a design benchmark for achieving adequate canister storage capacity to allow for several day s of parking on hot summer day s, in addition to requiring vehicle design s that prevent emissions during high
- temperature driving and shutdown conditions. After adopting these evaporative test procedures, we set new standards for refueling emissions control which called for onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR). 293 Manufacture rs have t ypicall y designed their ORVR systems to be integrated with their evaporative controls, using a single canister and purge strategy to manage all fuel vapors vented from the fuel tank. Due to the magnitude of the refueling emission load and the manner in which the load rates affect activated carbon capture efficiency , it has become clear that ORVR testing with these integrated s ys tems serves as the benchmark for achieving adequate canister storage capacity. In the nearly

20 years since adopting th ese test procedures, manufacturers have made great strides in developing designs and technologies to manage canister loading and purging and to reduce permeation emissions. Except as discussed below, we are not proposing to change the test procedures for demonstrating compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described above, we are proposing to adopt a new standard based on measured values over a “canister bleed test,” which is intended to measure onl y fuel vapors which diffuse from the e vaporative canister. CARB developed this procedure as a means of setting a standard that would not be affected b y nonfuel background emissions. This procedure is a variation of the established two
- day test sequence. The canister is preconditioned b y pur ging and loading to breakthrough, then attached to an appropriate test vehicle for driving over the duty c ycl e for the exhaust test. The canister is then attached to a fuel tank for measurement. After a stabilization period, the tank and canister undergo two days of temperature cycling. Canister emissions are measured using a flame ionization detector (FID), either using a conventional SHED approach or by collecting emissions in a bag and measuring the mass. Rather than repeating CARB’s regulations, we are proposing to incorporate those regulations by reference into the CFR. This will avoid the possibility of complications related to minor differences that may occur with separate test procedures.

293 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 181 of 842 CARB also adopted a fuel sy stem “rig test” as an optional approach to demonstrate control of evaporative emissions without the effects of the nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions that are seen in testing the whole vehicle in the SHED. We generall y expect manufacturers to compl y with the proposed EPA requirements which include the canister bleed test and emission standard instead of CARB Option 1 which includes the rig test and emission standard. However, since we are proposing to accept CARB Option 1 certifications for the 2017 through 2019 model years, we are also proposing to incorporate by reference CARB’s rig test into the CFR to accommodate those manufacturers that do in fact rel y on this approach. Also , as discussed further below, we are proposing to adopt a new leak test procedure which would be used to measure leak rates for the proposed leak emission standard. The leak test standard test procedure is contained in the proposed regulatory text. Further detail can be found in the document entitled, “Draft Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Fuel Vapor Em ission Leaks from Vehicle Fuel S ys tems.” This document is in the public docket. 294 Manufacturers have raised a pair of related concerns regarding the current test procedures. First, h ybrid vehicles and new engine designs for meeting fuel econom y standards and CO 2 emission standards increase the challenge of maintaining an adequate purge volume to prepare vehicles for the diurnal test. For hy brid vehicles this is related to the amount of time the engine is running. For other technologies this is related to the trend toward decreasing available vacuum in the intake manifold, which is the principal means of drawing purge air through the canister. Second, preconditioning the canister b y loading to breakthrough serves as a disincentive for some control strateg ies that might otherwise be effective at reducing emissions, such as designs involving greater canister capacity or better containment of fuel vapors inside the fuel tank. In addition, we have learned from studying in
- use emissions and in
- use driving behaviors and usage patterns that it is not uncommon for vehicles to go for an extended period with little or no oppo rtunity

to purge the canister. We request comment on an optional adjustment to the test procedure intended to address these three concerns. In this alternative, for designs involving pressurized tanks, manufacturers would determine an alternative vapor load to precondition the canister before the exhaust test. If, for example, a fuel sy stem is designed to stay sealed up to 1 psi and to vent vap ors to the canister if rising temperatures trigger a pressure
- relief valve, the manufacturer could quantify the actual vapor load to the canister during three consecutive day s of cycling through diurnal test temperatures. This three
- day vapor load would b e the amount of fuel vapor used to precondition the canister (loaded at the established rate of 15 grams per hour). This canister loading may also involve butane instead of fuel vapor, but we would likely require a greater mass of butane to account for

294 Smith, P. (March. 2012) Draft Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Fuel Vapor Emission Leaks from Vehicle Fuel Systems
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 182 of 842 th e fact that it is easier to remove the butane from the activated carbon in the canister. This approach would be flexible to accommodate any design target for pressurizing fuel tanks. Canister preconditioning for the ORVR test (for integrated and nonintegrated sy stems) would remain unchanged. b. Test Fuel EPA is proposing to change the certification test fuel specifications as described in Section IV.D. Here we discuss some implications for evaporative and refueling emissions testing. We are proposing to revise the certification test fuel specification (including durability

fuel) in conjunction with the proposed Tier 3 standards, principally to include ethanol and reduce sulfur such that the test fuel better aligns with the current and projected in
- use fue l. Any Tier 3 evaporative emission certification would have to use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test procedures. This could be done as earl y as the 2015 MY and would be required for all vehicle models by the 2020 MY. We are further proposing to ap pl y the new test fuel at the same time to ORVR testing. Therefore, beginning in the 2017 MY if manufacturers do any new testing to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, they would need to submit test data to demon strate compliance with the refueling emission standards using the new certification test fuel as well as the leak (when applicable), refueling, canister bleed, and high altitude testing requirements and emission standards. We are also proposing that an y family that is not yet captured within the Tier 3 phase
- in percentage may remain on current certification fuel or, as discussed below, California certification test fuel and test procedures through the 2019 MY. By the 2020 MY all evaporative and refueling emission certifications would have to be on EPA test procedures and certification fuels. It is useful to clarify that any confirmatory

or in
- use testing for these families would be done on the fuel on which they were originally

certified. However, by th e 2020 MY all vehicles must be certified with Tier 3 certification test fuel and that test fuel would have to be used in confirmatory and in
- use testing. Finally , we are proposing that any vehicle certified to the refueling spit back standard separatel y (m ostly incomplete HDGVs) may continue to do so using current certification fuel until the 2022 MY even if it’s evaporative and/or refueling emissions are certified on Tier 3 certification fuel. This is reasonable since the fill quality of the vehicle and el iminating spit back are not necessarily related to the ethanol or sulfur content of the gasoline. There are two main fuel properties that influence evaporative emissions: ethanol content and vapor pressure. Current requirements specify an emission t est fuel with no ethanol for emissions testing; however, the current regulation specifies that manufacturers must perform service accumulation (durability) using fuel with, at a minimum, the highest concentration of ethanol permissible under federal law fo r in
- use gasoline and that is commerciall y available in at least one state. In this case, this provision has the effect of insuring that manufacturers would design their fuel sy stems to account for the effect of ethanol on permeation emissions. Even with out ethanol in the test fuel, the extended operation with gasoline
- ethanol blends for service accumulation******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 183 of 842 would effectivel y force the manufacturers to design s ys tems which effectively control emissions from the blended fuel. By regulation manufacturers must use a 9 RVP 10 percent ethanol fuel in current evaporative emissions durability work. As a result, adding ethanol to the test fuel for Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission testing should pose no new or greater challenge for manufacturers. A secon d issue related to adding ethanol to the certification test fuel relates to the emission measurement in the SHED. Emissions are detected b y flame ionization detectors (FID), which are less responsive to ethanol than gasoline. This effect causes under
- rep orting from the ethanol portion of the fuel vapor . Fuel
- related emissions from the vehicle may be slightl y more weighted toward ethanol than gasoline, depending on how the different fuel constituents permeate through various fuel
- sy stem materials, how th ey evaporate from the bulk fuel in the tank at varying temperatures, and how they adsorb onto and desorb from the activated carbon in the canister. We are proposing to address this issue by the use of a prescribed scaling factor. Under this approach manu facturers would simply multiply their SHED measurement results by

a fixed value to adjust upward for the difference in the FID response to ethanol. Data available to EPA suggest that a scaling value of approximately 1.1 would be appropriate for E15. 295 Thi s means that the value measured in the SHED would be multiplied by

1.10 to account for a difference in the FID response. This was determined using data which indicates that from a near worst case perspective the term within the bracket { } below equals 1. 1. M HC adj = [ ( P B Vn/ T ) (.000297)(ppm Cfid)*{1+((1
- ra ) (reth ))/ 1+((reth )(ra ))}] This adjustment would apply to hot soak plus diurnal, refueling, canister bleed, and spitback emission standards testing. For higher ethanol blends (such as E85), the regulati on already specifies measurement and calculation procedures to adjust for this effect. We are not proposing an y changes to these procedures. c. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel Hydrocarbon Emissions for the Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards The propos ed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal, leak, and canister bleed emission standards taken together are expected to bring about the widespread use of technology which effectivel y eliminates fuel vapor emissions. The canister bleed and leak emission standards are not influenced by non fuel hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle. Nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle are measured as part of SHED emission testing, and are indistinguishable for fuel hydrocarbons when a FID is used to measure the concentratio n. The level of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions vary by vehicle and component design and material. These emissions arise from paint, adhesives, plastics, fuel/vapor lines, tires, and other rubber or pol ym er components and are generall y greater with larger size vehicles. These nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions are usually highest with newly manufactured vehicles and decrease relatively quickl y over time.

295 Moulis, C. ( 2012, January). SHED FID Responses for Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 184 of 842 Currently , manufacturers often conduct some preconditioning to reduce or eliminate the effects of thes e nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions on evaporative emissions measurements in the SHED. In the past, this practice has not been addressed through regulatory

provisions. However, given the stringent level of the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal evaporati ve emission standards, and that nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions are expected to be a significant portion of the hydrocarbon emissions measured in the SHED, EPA believes that some sort of preconditioning before certification testing is appropriate and that a regulatory provision addressing this practice may be warranted. Providing some recognition of and allowance for this practice would help to create the proper balance between necessary and proper preconditioning to address high nonfuel hydrocarbon emission s and excessive preconditioning which could undermine the intent of the proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standard (~ 50 mg or less of fuel evaporative emissions). EPA believes the goal of evaporative emissions preconditioning should be to get nonfu el hydrocarbon emissions to what we call vehicle background levels. A working definition of vehicle background level might be the level which would occur naturall y twelve months after production. A provision in the regulations which addresses precondition ing reduces ambiguity for the manufacturers and could reduce or eliminate any

uncertainty in the true meaning of certification test results. Manufacturer activity

with regard to preconditioning often involves two practices. First, manufacturers in some c ases “bake” their test vehicles at temperatures of 50 ° C or higher for periods of up to ten or more day s to accelerate the off
- gassing of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions before testing is conducted. While this practice is common, there is no standardi zed method or protocol for this preconditioning prior to new vehicle certification testing. For example, some manufacturers bake for a set period of time in a climate chamber while others bake in the climate chamber and periodicall y measure nonfuel background in a SHED until an acceptable or stable level of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions is achieved. Second, manufacturers often remove, modify , or clean certain components which are the largest source of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions. Preconditioning could also include measures to eliminate minor fuel drips, spills, or other fuel remnants which occur as a result of vehicle preparation for testing. We are not proposing to specify standardized preconditioning practices or protocols with regard to addressing no nfuel h ydrocarbon emissions before evaporative emission certification testing. However, we are proposing general provisions in four areas. First, we would specify in the regulations that preconditioning for the purpose of addressing nonfuel h ydrocarbon e missions is permitted. Second, we would specify that any preconditioning is voluntary . Third, we would specify that if preconditioning is conducted, the details must be specified to EPA before certification testing, (i.e., at the time of the pre
- certification planning meeting). The goal of this preconditioning should be to get nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions to what we would term vehicle background levels as discussed above. Th e specifics to be discussed with EPA could include details on vehicle baking prac tices such the temperature and time duration in the climate chamber and practices conducted as an alternative or complement to vehicle baking such as installing used tires (drive and spare) on certification vehicles, and allowing the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 185 of 842 windshield washer tank to be filled only with water. In seeking to understand this issue, we ask for comment on which components are the largest sources of these nonfuel hydrocarbons and of these which are practical to modify or remove for the evaporative emissions test. Fourth, as part of these considerations we would specificall y propose that no preconditioning be permitted for testing of an y vehicle aged more than twelve months from its date of manufacture. The onl y exception we would consider is the use of an aged spare tire in lieu of the spare tire on the test vehicle. For these vehicles, nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions would presumably be reduced to a stable level due to natural off gassing which begins after the vehicle is manufactured. Emissions from any replacement p arts or other vehicle maintenance would presumably be encompassed within the margin below the standard created by this natural off

- gassing. EPA asks comment on how to address testing of vehicles with relatively new drive tires and whether used drive tires should be allowed in these circumstances. Data available to EPA indicates that the background emission rate stabilizes to about two
- thirds of the level of the standard after about twelve months. These levels are adequatel y below the proposed Tier 3 eva porative emission standards so that nonfuel background would not unduly influence test pass/fail outcomes and are within the range of values EPA expects to be accommodated within the proposed evaporative emission standard. This proposed restriction for ve hicles older than 12 months would include certification, confirmatory and in
- use testing for any vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. We request manufacturer data related to the change in nonfuel hydrocarbon emission rates over time and on the best method to consider these emissions as part of preconditioning before evaporative emission testing. d. Reciprocit y with CARB Over the past 15 ye ars EPA’s “enhanced evap” test procedures have been based on testing with 9 pound per square inch (psi) RVP gasoline with test temperatures representing a summer day with peak temperatures of about 96 °F. CARB adopted the same basic procedures, but specified that testing should occur with 7 psi RVP gasoline at temperatures of up to 105 °F . EPA and CARB agreed that certification could be based on testing with either EPA or CARB conditions and that these provided equivalent stringency

for purposes of evaporative control s ys tem design. However, the provision allowing for this equivalence of test data preserved EPA’s ability to also test with either EPA or CARB temperature conditions. CARB alway s specified EPA test conditions for refueling as they

were deemed worst case. CARB recentl y moved to change their certification test fuel to a 7 RVP gasoline with 10 percent ethanol and as discussed in Section IV.D., we are now proposing to change the Federal certification test fuel specification to a 9 RVP gasoline with 15 percent ethanol. During the development of this proposal we carefully consid ered the practice of CARB/EPA reciprocity

with regard to certification test fuels, hot soak plus diurnal test procedures, and emission test results when it comes to evaporative emissions certification. With this notice we are proposing a revised approach to the CARB/EPA******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 186 of 842 reciprocity

with regard to evaporative and refueling emissions. A uniform national certification test fuel is important to the design of fuel/evaporative s ys tems which will operate effectivel y across the U.S. Consistent with our desire to have a national program with vehicles designed for E15 as discussed in Section IV.D, and consistent with our treatment of exhaust emission standards, we are proposing a 9 RVP test fuel with 15 percent ethanol for all evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal, ca nister bleed, and leak emission standards) and refueling emissions testing. Thus, after the evaporative emissions fuel phase
- in discussed above (ending after the 2019 MY), EPA will no longer accept test data on CARB test fuel and diurnal test temperatures . However, CARB has agreed to accept emission test data on EPA test fuel and temperature conditions for certification such that a uniform national program could still exist. This approach applies to all evaporative and refueling emission standards. Gener ally , any

vehicle family

counted in the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards phase
- in must be certified on Tier 3 certification test fuel using EPA test procedures. However, EPA recognizes that the California and federal evaporative emission standard pro grams would be starting from different bases and that the transition provisions are different in some way s. For example, the proposed EPA program starts in the 2017 MY but after that has the same basic program construct as CARB in 2018. However, prior t o the 2017 MY, CARB has a ZEV program provision which will continue to bring zero evap technology into the fleet before 2017. To capitalize on this technology

and to facilitate transition, we are proposing that any CARB evaporative emission test data from MYs 2015 and 2016 certification s could be used in federal certification for those evaporative/refueling families through the 2019 MY. Assuming these vehicle families meet Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and they are sold nationwide they

could be i ncluded in the percentage phase
- in calculations as Tier 3 vehicles. A good example of these would be vehicles meeting CARB Option 1 standards discussed above. If the vehicles do not meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements manufacturers could p otentiall y sell them nationwide, but they would not be included as compliant vehicles in the percentage phase
- in calculation. EPA would propose a similar provision for a manufacturer which elects to use the CARB test procedures and test fuels to meet the refueling emission standard. That is, if a manufacturer uses evaporative emission test data from 2015 or 2016 model year CARB certifications to meet the Federal requirements in 2017
- 2019 model years, it may also use CARB refueling emission test data from model year 2015 and 2016 certification s for federal certification for th e refueling requirements for those evaporative/refueling families through the 2019 MY. Any in
- use testing on vehicle families certified on this data would be conducted using the CARB temperature conditions and test fuel and the CARB ethanol SHED adjustment value of 1
. 08 for 10 percent ethanol. However, b y the 2020 MY all vehicles would have to be certified using EPA certification test fuel and test procedures. e. Evaporative and Refuel ing Emission Standards for Various Fuels The evaporative and refueling emission standards today apply in different way s to different fuels. In the case of gasoline, all the standards appl y and testing is required for******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 187 of 842 certifying all vehicles. Evaporative emission standards do not appl y for diesel
- fueled vehicles; the refueling standards appl y to diesel
- fueled vehicles, but manufacturers can get EPA approval to omit testing for certification. For other fuels, there is a mix of standards appl yi ng or not ap plying, and if standards apply , testing is either required or not required. The statutory

provisions in this regard are straightforward

— Clean Air Act section 202(k) specifies that gasoline
- fueled vehicles must be certified to evaporative emission standard s, and section 202(a)(6) specifies that all motor vehicles be certified to refueling emission standards. This raises two questions. First, we request comment on using this rulemaking as the proper context for applying the refueling standards to vehicles powered b y every kind of fuel. Where standards do not appl y today (natural gas, fuel cells, electric, etc.), we would expect to waive test requirements for certification, so this would not be any

substantial burden. Dedicated ethanol
- fueled vehicles wou ld face a new requirement, but we are not aware that there are an y such vehicles today. Second, we have the discretion to apply evaporative emission standards to vehicles powered b y fuels other than gasoline. The standards expressl y do not apply for die sel fuel. By

omission, the standards do not apply for dedicated ethanol
- fueled vehicles, fuel
- cell vehicles, and electric vehicles. The standards apply for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas even though these are sealed sy stems with no emission control sy stems for controlling evaporative emissions. We request comment on adjusting the regulations such that evaporative emission standards apply onl y to volatile liquid fuels, which is the approach we have taken for nonroad applications (see, for example , 40 CFR 1060.801). Under this approach, diesel fuel would continue to be excluded from standards because it is nonvolatile. This approach would also exclude natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas because they are not liquid fuels at atmospheric pressur e.
5. Improvements to In
- Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Sy stems a. Background on Data Related to In
- Use Performance As part of the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP 2000) in
- use verification program (IUVP) 296 the manufacturers began testing the eva porative emissions performance of small samples of in
- use vehicles owned and used b y the public. These regulations can be found at 40 CFR 86 1845
- 01, and 1845
- 04. In 2000, EPA extended this requirement to cover chassis
- certified HDVs, which for these purposes are basicall y all HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. 297 The in
- use testing for evaporative emissions started in 2004 for 2001 MY LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and in 2008 for 2007 MY chassis certified HDGVs. Current IUVP data for evaporative emissions covers about 1800 vehicle tests. This data shows that when evaluated in the laboratory using

296 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999). 297 65 FR 59922
- 59924 (October 6, 2000).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 188 of 842 certification test procedures, the vast majority (over 95 percent) of the vehicles pass the evaporative emission standards to which they were certified. While this informatio n is indicative of good in
- use performance, it has limitations. First, the test results are for small sample sizes. For the approximately 150 million LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and chassis
- certified HDGVs produced between 2001 (the start of the IUVP program) and 2010 (latest available data), only about 0.001 percent of vehicles were tested. Second, the IUVP regulations place limits on the age/mileage for vehicle testing. Each model ye ar is tested in two “batches,” nominall y at the one and four ye ar age points. One year old vehicles must have at least 10,000 miles and four year old vehicles must have at least 50,000 miles with at least one within the higher mileage group having an odometer reading of at least 75 percent of useful life (90,000 miles for most Tie r 2 vehicles). The useful life period for LDVs and LDT1s/LDT2s is 10 years/120,000 miles, for LDT3s/LDT4s/MDPVs and complete HDGVs it is 11 years/120,000 miles. Thus, few conclusions can be drawn about full useful life emissions performance. Recent evapor ative emission testing conducted b y EPA and others evaluated in
use LDVs and LDTs certified to meet the enhanced evaporative emission standards implemented for 1996 and later model years 298 as well as Tier 2 standards implemented for 2004 and later model year vehicles. Three Coordinating Research Council (CRC) programs (E
- 77
- 2/2b/2c), tested evaporative emission levels of vehicles with varying amounts of ethanol and levels of RVP in the gasoline test fuel. 299 These programs were unique in that a subset of the vehicle SHED tests were of vehicles with implanted leaks at the nominal minimal level of detection for OBD systems (0.020 inch) in three different locations in the fuel/evaporative control s ys tem. These tests showed hydrocarbon emission rates 2
- 10 times greater than for the same vehicles tested in the SHED without the leaks and showed an order of magnitude of difference depending on where the leak was introduced. Furthermore, the CRC E
- 77
- 2 evaporative emissions test programs which looked at permeation in aged vehicles meeting EPA’s enhanced evaporative emission control standards, introduced a new Static Test Procedure which pressurized the vapor space and activated the fuel pump during different portions of the SHED test, while the vent from the vehicle canister was routed to a trap canister outside of the SHED. By pressurizing the vapor space it was possible to determine if there was a vapor leak in the sy stem by looking for a slope change in the vapor concentration in the SHED over time relative to perme ation alone. Similarly , by activating the fuel pump it was possible to determine if there was a liquid leak in the sy stem by looking for a slope change in the vapor

298 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993). 299 CRC E
- 77 reports: Haskew, H ., Liberty, T
. (2008)
. Vehicle Evaporative Emission Mechanisms: A Pilot Study, CRC Pro

ject E
- 77 ; Haskew, H ., Liberty, T
. (2010)
. Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles (CRC E
- 77
- 2) ; Haske w, H ., Liberty, T
. (2010)
. Evaporative Emissions from In
- Use Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC E
- 77
- 2b) ; Haskew, H ., Liberty, T
. (2010)
. Study to Determi ne Evaporative Emission Breakdow

n, Including Permeation Effects and Diurnal Emissions Using E20 Fuels on Aging Enhanced Evaporative Emissions Certified Vehicles, CRC E
- 77
- 2c
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 189 of 842 concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation alone. Out of the 15 randomly recruited vehicles in the program, seven of them displayed vapor and/or liquid leaks on one or more fuel ethanol/RVP combination (4 of these 7 were Tier 2 vehicles). A closer look at the data indicates that over the course of the study , which covered a two to four year period depending on the vehicle, the magnitude of the leaks increased with time. These studies taken together were of concern to EPA with regard to the in
- use performance of evaporative emission control sy stems since they indicated that leaks could be a large portion of the evaporative emissions inventory if they occurred in even a relativel y small fraction of the in
- use fleet. The key missing piece of information was how often the leaks of 0.020 inches or larger occur in the fleet. To help us better understand this concern, EPA partnered with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and with CRC as an advisor for a pilot field study

in Denver in the summer of 2008 to assess the frequency of high evaporative emissions vehicles in the fleet. The project identified high evaporative emission emitters through an innovative screening tool known as a remote sensing device (RSD). The vehicles were identified at the entrance to the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) station as high evaporative emission emitters. The operators of these vehicles were asked to participate in further evaluation using a Portable Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination (PSHED) in addition to a modified California method test procedure to locate the source of the high emissions indicated by the PSHED level. 300 The CDPHE continued to collect the same ty pe of data in different locations in the Denver area for the next two summers. Of the 5830 vehicles which came through the Ken Caryl I/M station in 2 009, 601 were identified as potentially high evaporative emitters using the RSD tool. 301 Of these, 84 vehicle owners agreed to be included in the PSHED evaluation that summer. Furthermore, 110 additional vehicles were recruited which were potentially low to marginally

high evaporative emitters. 302 Since some of these proved to be actually higher evaporative emitters than expected and the study was structured so that more heavil y recruited vehicles were initially identified as high evaporative emitting vehic les, the data was adjusted to represent the actual fleet of on
- road vehicles. It was determined that 1 0 percent of the fleet had evaporative emissions which exceeded a cut point reflecting an

300 DeFries, T ., Lindner, J ., Kishan, S ., Palacios, C
. (2011)
. Investigation of Te chniques for High Evaporative Emissions Vehicle Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot Study at Lipan Street Station, Williamson, H
. (2008)
. Measures Useful for Identifying Vehicles with High Evaporative Emissions
. 301 Total of Bins 4 and above in Table 4
- 5 of DeFries, T; Palacios, C., Kishan, S. (2012), Estimated Summer Hot Soak Distributions for the Denver’s Ken Caryl IM Station Fleet. 302 A selection bin structure was used based on indicated evaporative emissions levels recruitment heavier at the higher emissi on end. Thus, there was a gradation even in the lower level bins where many of the vehicles would be considered marginal and not passing the evaporative emission standard even if they were not considered higher than the 1 g/15 minutes which our study found to be the lower range detectable from the 2010 Ken Caryl report cited above.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 190 of 842 in
- use evaporative emission rate of about 1 gram of total HC ov er 15 minutes. This value is approximately

the emission rate that would be expected from a leak of 0.020 inches or larger. 303 An examination of the test data reveals two additional significant points. First, the data indicates a greater frequency of leak s in older vehicles. This is not unexpected given the manner in which factors such as vibration, fuel quality , weather elements, corrosion, maintenance, and other operating conditions affect the durability of sy stem components, fittings, and connections ov er time. Second, there were relatively few newer model ye ar vehicles in the population surveyed. This is expected and almost unavoidable since the Colorado I/M program generally exempts vehicles which are four ye ars old or newer. While it is reasonable to expect there to be a lower prevalence of leaks in newer vehicles, the lack of data for newer vehicles does not necessarily indicate that no problems exist in newer model ye ar vehicles or that problems will not occur in the future with Tier 3 vehicles. S ince many

of the vehicles in the sample group met OBD requirements for evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring, it is useful to examine whether the OBD sy stem identified the leak. As mentioned above, approximately 1 0 percent of the vehicles in the “adjusted fl eet” had vapor leaks which were of the magnitude expected from a 0.020 inch or larger leak. Over the three ye ars of study, there were a total of 180 SHED tests (either PSHED or laboratory

SHED) on vehicles with OBD data collected in the I/M program. Of the se 180 vehicles, 171 had the evaporative OBD monitors ready . Of these, 171 vehicles, 2 0 were found to have emission rates of 1 g/15 min in the PSHED and of these 2 0 vehicles only

3 came into the I/M test with an OBD Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) or dia gnostic trouble code (DTC) set indicating an evaporative s ys tem problem. 304 , 305 A closer look at the 2 0 vehicles shows that some were not expected to diagnose the problem because it was outside of the OBD system capabilities. Of the vehicles which should have set an evap code, at least 50 percent and perhaps as much as 70 percent of codes were not set on high evap emissions vehicles. While one would have hoped the owners of the vehicles would have corrected the problem before I/M, it is noteworth y that they di d not. This suggests that the owner response to MILs could be

303 Com pare the first 15 minutes of hot soak data from implanted leaks in E
- 77
- 2 studies. 304 In the E
- 77
- 2 programs the location of the 0 .020 inch leak made a difference. When impl anted at the gas cap of an ORVR equipped vehicle the corresponding 15 min hot soak which correlates to the PSHED in field data, was in the 0.3 g/15 minutes range which is approximately the 2 g standard (20 percent of standard is 1 hour hot soak and 75 perc ent occurs in first 15 minutes). The 0 .02 inch leaks implanted near the top of the tank and at the canister connection were much larger and corresponded to approximately 1 g/15 minutes PSHED measurement. This is the lower end of the range of evaporative emissions which can be detected by the RSD. Since the OBD monitor is expected to detect a .020” leak w herever it is located, the MIL should illuminate. There were 29 vehicles (including 2 “not
- ready” evaporative emissions mo nitors) from all three studies that had a PSHED measurement of 0.3 g total HC/15 minutes or greater and only 4 of these vehicles had MILs for the evaporative DTC codes set. 305 Palacios, C ., Weatherby, M ., DeFries, T ., Lindner, J ., Kishan, S
. (2012)
. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of On
- Board Diagnostic (OBD) Systems in Identifying Fuel Vapor Losses from Light
- Duty Vehicles
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 191 of 842 less when not facing an I/M test or if there is no I/M at all. The lack of codes being set for these vehicles reflects allowances (known as enable criteria) in the OBD regulations regarding wh en the OBD evaporative emission leak monitoring sy stem is not required to operate or situations when the monitor is otherwise not ready for what may be allowable reasons. To better understand this issue EPA has examined evaporative emission sy stem MI L and monitor ready i nformation from I/M programs from five states: Colorado, Texas, Georgia, New Jersey , and California. 306 . Since the data was gathered by the states under different protocols and times periods, the content of the data sets are not identical. T o provide some degree of uniformity in our analy sis, we examined the data for five MY (2000
- 2004) but within each state we only looked at calendar years of data beginning after the initial state I/M exemption period (2
- 4 calendar ye ars depending on the state) had passed.. Examined together, the data generall y indicates the following:

 Depending on age, 0.3
- 3.8 percent of vehicles came into the I/M stations with evaporative related M IL or DTCs set

 The percent of vehicles with evaporative emission related MIL s set increased by a factor of 2
- 4 over about 5 years
 Evaporative emission monitors were not ready for 4
- 20 percent of vehicles when arriving at the I/M station.

 The percent of vehicles with monitors ready at the I/M station generally decreased b y 5 to 7 percentage points over about 5
- 6 ye ars; decrease was less for model year vehicles less than five ye ars old. There is no question of the value of OBD leak monitoring for evaporative sy stems, especiall y when owners complete needed repairs. Undoubtedly the se percentages and thus in
- use leak values would be higher without OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring. However, this data suggests that EPA OBD regulations in place for 2000
- 2004 MY vehicles would not alone be sufficient to address concerns regarding the emission effects of vapor leaks from the fuel and evaporative control s ystems. 307 In summary , information gathered from evaporative emissions testing conducted in the IUVP program indicates that relativel y low mileage/ newer vehicles perform well

306 Fulper, C. (2012, November). Preliminary Analysis of OBD Evaporative System Information from I/M Stations, Memorandum to the docket. 307 For further information see CARB reports “Technical Status and Proposed Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 1994 and Subsequent Model
- Year Passenger Cars, Light
- Duty Trucks, and Medium
- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)” October, 1994 and “Technical Status an d Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light
- Duty Trucks, and Medium
- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II) March 2002.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 192 of 842 when ev aluated under laboratory conditions. However, data gathered from in
- use testing conducted b y EPA, Colorado, and others indicates that as vehicles age some vehicles have a propensity

to develop leaks in the fuel/evaporative s ys tem and that these leaks incr ease in size as the vehicles age. OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitors did not reliably identify these leaks to the owners. Beyond this, a review of OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitor data from the I/M programs of five states revealed four important trend s: (1) even when the OBD s ys tem identifies leaks owners do not consistently respond b y getting the needed repair completed, (2) the fraction of vehicles with leaks identified by

OBD increases as vehicles age, (3) vehicles sometimes are operating in conditi ons in which the OBD leak monitor is not ready to identify a potential problem , and (4) 75 percent of trouble codes which are being reported are evaporative codes with the balance related to exhaust or other issues. EPA emission modeling indicates if on an y given day as few as five percent of Tier 3 vehicles had a leak(s) of 0.020 inches this would cause in
- use emissions equivalent to all of the projected emission reductions from the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards on that day
. 308 EPA is pro posing three measures to address this issue: (1) an emission standard focused on reducing fuel/evaporative s ys tem vapor leaks over the vehicle useful life, (2) an upgrade to OBD emissions monitoring requirements to improve their role in identifying problem s and improving in
- use emissions performance, and (3) additions to the IUVP program focused on testing a broader sample of fuel/evaporative sy stem leaks in IUVP than is done for evaporative emission standards alone. b. Proposed Leak Emission Standard The ev aporative emission standards in this proposal will help to promote widespread use of improved technology and materials which will reduce evaporative emissions in
- use. The proposed new requirement for a leak emission standard and procedure will help to ensure the durabilit y of Tier 3 evaporative emission control sy stems nationwide. Based on the information described above concerning evaporative emissions in
use, we believe a leak emission standard is necessary to meet our goal that vehicles meeting Tier 3 ev aporative emission requirements not have fuel/evaporative sy stem vapor leaks. Toward that end, we are proposing a leak emission standard that would have to be met both at new vehicle certification and in use. The leak emission standard would apply beginni ng in the 2018 MY to any vehicle certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. The emission standard would be applicable for the same useful life period as for the evaporative emission standards that appl y to the vehicle. The standard would

308 Five percent is a reasonable value since as mentioned above 0.3
- 3.8 percent of vehicles come in to I/M stations with evaporative system MILs or DTCs. Thus, it is reasonable to project that the fleet average is higher since vehicle repair just before I/M is common, evaporative emission monitors were not ready on 4
- 20 percent of vehicles, and 18 states do not have any form of I/M at all.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 193 of 842 apply to vehicles using volatile fuel (e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol fuel vehicles, but not diesel or CNG vehicles). To be compatible with CARB OBD requirements being met b y most manufa cturers and the OBD requirements included in this notice, we are proposing that the leak emission standard be expressed in the form of a cumulative equivalent orifice diameter. We are proposing a value of 0.02 inches. 309 The standard basicall y requires that the cumulative equivalent diameter of any orifices or “leaks” in the s ys tem not exceed 0.02 inches. This is consistent with California OBD requirements (and those being proposed in this rule as well) that the OBD system be capable of identifying leaks in the fuel/evaporative s ystem of a cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.020 inches EPA believes an emission standard at this level is feasible since earlier testing programs identified vehicles with essentially no leaks and it is essentially equivalent to that required for CARB OBD evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring. As discussed in the technological feasibility

section above, the actions manufacturers will have to take to meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards are expected to do more to a ddress potential leak points and thus in a broader sense to improve in
- use durability for evaporative control s ys tems compared to vehicles meeting earlier or current evaporative emission standards. The proposed leak emission standard would provide added assurance that as the manufacturers design for “zero evap” standards they also design the s ys tems to avoid leaks over the full useful life. We are proposing a leak emission standard of 0.02 inches which with rounding is a bit less stringent than the 0.020 inch OBD fuel/evaporative sy stem leak monitoring requirement. EPA believes this level of precision is sufficient to accomplish the air quality objective and yet provides some compliance margin between the emission standard and the monitor requirement whic h is reflected through multipliers for the exhaust emission standards monitored through OBD. EPA asks for comment and rationale on setting the standard at 0.02 inches equivalent diameter or the more stringent 0.020 inch equivalent diameter specified for O BD evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring. If finalized as proposed, the emission standard would be specified to one significant digit (e.g., 0.02 inches) but would have to be measured and reported to at least two significant digits. The proposed leak emissi on standard would appl y at the time of certification as well as during confirmatory and in
- use verification program testing. We do not expect that new vehicles being certified would have a leak problem, and since a vehicle with a leak would likely

fail th e evaporative emissions SHED test, there is little value in mandating a leak test at certification. Thus, EPA proposes to allow manufacturers to attest to compliance with the leak emission standard at certification.

309 Current OBD regulations specify that if the fuel tank volume exceeds 25 gallons then the manufacturer may seek a larger leak detection orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then that same numerical value becomes the leak emission standard value. We would not expect this value to exceed 0.040 inches.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 194 of 842 To implement the proposed leak emission standard within the current regulatory structure a few minor changes are needed. First, current EPA regulations such as those at §86.098
- 24, specify

criteria for evaporative/refueling emission families. EPA believes this basic structure is appropriate f or the leak emission standard, with the additional criteria that vehicles in the same evaporative/refueling famil y must use the same basic approach to OBD leak detection. Significantl y different volume fuel tanks would likely also be a family

determinant, but we believe this is already covered b y the evaporative/refueling family criteria. Second, since the leak emission standard is a pass/fail requirement and not an emission rate, there is no requirement for the application of a deterioration factor. Third , EPA proposes to require that the manufacturers recommend one or more leak entry test points for each family . This point should be outside of the gas cap/fillpipe area, since our experience indicates that testing could alway s be done through that point o f entry to the fuel/evaporative s ys tem. EPA asks for comment on the timing, form and level of the proposed emission standard. EPA believes that linking the timing of the proposed leak emission standard to the implementation of proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in 2018 provides adequate lead time and is consistent with the technical rationale supporting the feasibility of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standard. c. Proposed Leak Emission Standard Test Procedure Inorder to implement a new leak emission standard, a leak test procedure is required. The fundamental concepts underl yi ng fuel/evaporative s ys tem leak test are not new to the manufacturers. There is already a simple leak check in 40 CFR 86.608
- 98(a) (xii)(A) and in the past at leas t three states included a fuel/evaporative s ys tem pressure leak test in I/M programs. More importantly , all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and complete HDGVs manufactured today have the onboard capability to run a pressure or vacuum leak based check on the vehicle’s evaporative emission sy stem as part of OBD evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring. These s ys tems employ either positive or negative pressure leak detection pumps or operate based on natural vacuum for negative pressure leak detection. EPA is proposing a test based on a similar concept of placing the s ys tem under a slight positive pressure (but from an external source), measuring the flow needed to maintain that pressure in the fuel/evaporative control sy stem, and converting that flow rate to an equivalent orifice diameter. With regards to the test procedure we will first discuss where the leak test could occur in the FTP test sequence. We will then discuss how the test is proposed to be conducted. First with regard to when the test would be conducted withi n the current FTP sequence we are proposing that it be inserted immediately following the first two preconditioning steps within the FTP sequence (see Figure B96
- 10 in 40 CFR 86.130
- 96). Thus, the vehicle preconditioning steps for the leak test would be: (1) fill the vehicle fuel tank to 40 percent of capacity using the appropriate certification test fuel and then (2) let the vehicle soak for a minimum of a six hour period at a temperature in the range of 68
- 86 °F. EPA proposes that the test be conducted with 9 RVP E15 test fuel for both certification and IUVP. This is the same preconditioning that is called for today in 40******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 195 of 842 CFR 86 subpart B for exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions testing. After preconditioning is complete, the leak test would b e conducted and the test sequence could then proceed as prescribed in subpart B or testing terminated if the purpose was only to conduct leak testing. EPA believes this modest level of preconditioning is sufficient to create standard conditions which enab le repeatable and reliable measurement results. Preconditioning could not include an y prescreening for leaks nor would any tightening of fittings or connections be permitted. After preconditioning is complete, manufacturers would then run the leak test. Each complete test would involve running the test procedure at one entry point in the sy stem. Presumabl y this would be either near the back of the fuel s ys tem (perhaps near the gas cap) or near the front of the fuel s ys tem on the pressure side of the loc ations near where the s ys tem is sealed (perhaps at the canister vent). If the fuel/evaporative sy stem has an imbedded evaporative sy stem test port then that point could be used. Alternativel y, manufacturers could also develop a test rig such as a “fill p ipe extension” which would screw into the fill pipe opening using cap threads at one end and on the other end have threads to screw the fill pipe vehicle cap in place. Within this extension there would be an access port for the leak test equipment to be attached. Thus, the full sy stem could be tested without any direct intrusion or the need for a separate gas cap assessment. The manufacturer would have to specify the test point at the time of the pre
certification meeting. If the manufacturer selected an entry point which required the fuel cap to be removed, then the cap would have to undergo a separate test as is now done in many I/M stations. 310 Inthis case, tests from both points combined must pass the proposed emission standard. The procedure would be conducted as follows:

 Calibrate the testing apparatus and otherwise verify testing apparatus is ready and able to complete the procedure

 Seal fuel s ys tem so as to pressure test entire s ys tem (purge valve, cap, etc.)

 Attach test apparatus to vehicle’s f uel sy stem at selected test point

 Pressurize fuel sy stem with nitrogen or another inert gas to at least 2.4 kilopascals (kPa)

 Allow flow and pressure to stabilize in accordance with specification provided in the proposed regulatory text

310 For related information see “IM240 & Evap Technical Guidance”, EPA 420
- R
- 00
- 007, April, 2000.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 196 of 842  Calculate effect ive leak orifice diameter from measured output flow rate and temperature and pressure data or use apparatus with built in computer providing an equivalent digital readout. Calculate to the nearest 0.01 inch.

 Calculated effective orifice diameter must be less than or equal to the standard

 If leak test is conducted at the fuel cap then manufacturer must also show evidence that the vehicle’s fuel cap is performing properl y. 311

 EPA is seeking comment on requiring two separate test points one near the evaporat ive canister and the other near the fuel cap. Furthermore, we are specificall y proposing that in some cases two separate test points in the locations mentioned above would be required. This would especiall y be important if the fuel cap/fill neck area is i solated from the rest of the fuel/evaporative s ys tem as a result of the 40 percent fill or if dual tanks are not otherwise connected through vapor lines. Of course, dual tank, dual canister sy stems would have to be evaluated as separate sy stems. Tests coul d be void if the test apparatus fails, becomes disconnected, fails to maintain a stable flow rate or pressure, or the test was stopped before completion due to safety considerations or some other relevant vehicle issue. The test procedure presented abov e is based on current fuel s ys tem designs. In the future, it is reasonable to expect changes in designs of the fuel s ys tems such that the procedure above may

need adjustment. EPA would, of course, monitor these fuel s ys tem changes and modify

the test pro cedure provisions as needed. Furthermore, current EPA regulations (see §1065.10(c)) contain provisions which provide the opportunity for manufacturers to seek approval for special or alternate test procedures if from a practical perspective their s ys tems cannot be evaluated under EPA requirements or they have an approach deemed equivalent or better. EPA would make such provisions for the leak emission standard testing requirement. Any such special or alternative procedures would have to be reported under §86.004
- 21(b)(9). 312 d. Proposed Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) Sy stem Regulation Changes EPA has its own OBD regulations which are similar but not identical to CARB’s. EPA first adopted OBD requirements for 1994 and later model year LDVs and LDTs. While EPA has extended its requirements from LDVs and LDTs to larger and heavier

311 Such tests are done routinely in I/M stations using a commercially available apparatus. The gas cap leak rate may be determined by pressure loss measurement, direct flow measurement, or flow

com parison methods and shall be compar ed to a pass/fail flow rate standard of 60 cubic centimeters per minute of air at 30 inches of water column. The flow rate methods are referenced to standard conditions of 70 °F and 1 atm. 312 For example, MAHLE Powertrain has piece of equipment known as a Mahle Leak Tester which is now used in assembly plants and may be adaptable to this requirement.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 197 of 842 vehicles, 313 EPA’s last broad upgrade to its basic OBD regulation was in the 2005 timeframe. Since that time, CARB has adopted and the manufacturers have implemented a number of provisions t o enhance the effectiveness of their OBD programs. These provisions include new requirements for OBD evaporative s ys tem leak detection as well as provisions to help insure that s ys tems are built and operate as designed over their full useful life, give rel iable results (find and signal only true deficiencies), and operate frequentl y during in use operation. It is permitted in current EPA regulations and common practice for the industry to certify their OBD s ys tems with CARB and for EPA to accept CARB OBD c ertifications as satisfying EPA requirements. EPA is proposing to continue that practice but to upgrade our regulations to be consistent with the latest CARB regulations. EPA has reviewed the current CARB regulatory requirements related to OBD (see Califor nia Code of Regulations (CCR) §1968.2 dated May 18, 2010) and, as discussed below we are proposing to adopt most of these provisions with the Tier 3 program. We are proposing this for two basic reasons. First, this is consistent with the goal of a nation al program and one vehicle technology for all 50 states. Second, implementation of these requirements is now demonstrated technology and compliance with these requirements is common within the industry today. Thus, the added burden is minimal. Furthermore , OBD has the advantage of running frequently on in
- use vehicles to identify potential exhaust and evaporative s ys tem performance problems, so adopting these provisions would create the opportunity for OBD to serve a more prominent role in ensuring the pro posed Tier 3 emission standards are met in
- use. There is an important link between OBD provisions related to evaporative emission control sy stem leak monitoring and the proposed leak test emission standard. They each provide an important incentive to design fuel/evaporative s ys tems with fewer propensities to develop leaks in use but each addresses the issue from a different perspective. The distinction is that the proposed leak emission standards prohibits leaks of greater than 0.02 inches cumulative equivalent diameter, while the proposed OBD evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring provision would require that the OBD sy stem find leaks larger than 0.020 inches cumulative equivalent orifice diameter and notify the owner, but with no inherent obligation to repair the problem. Thus adopting a 0.020 inch cumulative equivalent orifice diameter would align these two programs and, as will be discussed below, creates the potential for an optional leak detection test procedure for in
use testing. To be more specific , we are proposing to update our OBD regulations to be consistent with current California OBD requirements add two new requirements and retain three minor exceptions. These changes would be fully effective in the 2017MY,

313 EPA’s OBD regulations for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, are found at 40 CFR 86.1806
- 05. EPA has also adopted OBD requirements for incompletes and heavier vehicles ( greater than 14,000 lbs GVWR) (see 74 FR 8324, February 24, 2009 and 40 CFR 86.010
- 18).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 198 of 842 but EPA asks comment on whether th e requirement should be linked to be effective with certification to any

of the Tier 3 emission standards (either exhaust or evaporative) or phased in for the 2017 model year for LDVs and LLDTs and the 2018 MY for the HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. 314 EPA would continue to accept certifications with CARB OBD requirements as satisfying EPA OBD requirements. We are proposing to incorporate by reference section 1968.2 of the California Code of Regulations as discussed below. This would include paragraphs (c) through (j) in their entirety. These paragraphs are entitled: (c) Definitions, (d) General requirements, (e) Monitoring requirements for gasoline/spark ignited engines, (f) Monitoring requirements for diesel/compression ignition engines, (g ) Standardization requirements, (h) Monitoring s ys tem demonstration requirements for certification, (i) Certification documentation, (j) Production vehicle evaluation testing. The substance of many of these provisions is already contained in current EPA OBD requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs less than 14,000 lbs GVWR. 315 The most noteworthy

changes we are proposing are summarized below. The CCR below is the California Code of Regulations cite for each pertinent provision.

 EPA propose s to add a 0.020 inches leak detection monitoring threshold upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR except for those with fuel tanks larger than 25 gallons capacity (see CCR 1968.2(e )). OBD leak monitoring sy stems would have to identify , store, and if required signal an y leak(s) equal to or greater than 0.020 inches cumulative equivalent diameter. This would thus include diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455 , P04 56 , and P0457
.  EPA proposes to incorporate b y reference the full array of rate based monitoring requirements (see CCR1968.2 (d)). Meeting the rate based monitoring requirements will help to insure that, even with enable criteria, the exhaust and evaporativ e sy stem monitors run frequently enough that on average a problem would be identified and signaled to the owner in operation within two weeks. This will help to improve the fraction of time monitors are ready to find a potential problem.

 EPA proposes to in corporate b y reference provisions regarding monitoring sy stem demonstration requirements for certification. We are proposing to incorporate b y reference CARB provisions in this area and to accept submissions to CARB for purposes of compliance demonstration (see CCR

314 We are not proposing to change the requirement for incompletes and vehicles with a GVWR above 14,000 lbs. 315 MDVs in the CARB regulations basically incorporate MD PVs and complete HDGV less than 14,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 199 of 842 1968.2(h)). Adopting current CARB monitoring sy stem demonstration requirements assures that monitoring sy stems operate as designed when installed on certification vehicles. We also propose that this certification include a requirement for manufa cturers to demonstrate the ability of the OBD leak monitoring s ys tem to detect a 0.020 inch leak. Current CARB protocols do not require that manufacturers demonstrate that the certification vehicle can find a vapor leak in the fuel/evaporative s ystem. We are proposing to add a requirement that manufacturers must demonstrate for certification that the OBD sy stem can find and report the implanted leak would help to ensure the OBD s ys tem’s capability to function as designed and for the OBD
- based leak based eva porative s ys tem leak to be used as an optional test procedure for in
- use testing for the proposed leak emission standard. We are proposing that this be added for the same vehicles now required for monitoring s ys tem demonstration requirements for certification under CARB OBD regulations. Since the CARB regulation requires onl y a relative few vehicle models each ye ar per manufacturer, we propose that manufacturers be given the option to either test the remainder for an implanted leak in the fuel/evaporative sy stem or certify by attestation that each of their remaining families meets the requirement based on development and other information.

 EPA proposes to incorporate b y reference the CARB production vehicle evaluation data program. This program requires m anufacturers to demonstrate that the OBD s ys tem functions as designed and certified when installed on production vehicles. (see CCR 1968.2(j))

 For the OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring requirement, EPA proposes a scan readable function (a new PID in Service $01 of SAE J1979) which could be used to indicate or ascertain the distance traveled since the OBD leak monitoring diagnostic was last completed successfully and if the s ys tem passed or failed (identified any leak above 0.020 inches) during that m onitoring event (unless it is otherwise already required in other OBD s ys tem modes). Updating this PID this would be based on SAE J1979 mode 6 ($06) test results: “Request On
- board Monitoring Test Results for Specific Monitored Sy stems.” With this propose d requirement, the PID distance would be initialized to maximum range of NV RAM initialization (such as battery disconnect or controller reprogramming) and code clear As a result, in the event that a vehicle had a memory clear event in the past, but has n ot had sufficient operation for the evaporative s ys tem to be evaluated, the scan readable mileage function would indicate that the sy stem had not completed a full leak detection of the evaporative control s ys tem within the last 750 miles (1200km). OBD sy st ems already maintain information for active, pending, historic and permanent codes. This would be a modest upgrade to this requirement which would enable the use of the OBD
- based evaporative******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 200 of 842 sy stem leak monitor with the IUVP program as discussed below. Se e CCR 1968.2 (g) for information related to code storage. EPA seeks comment on alternative equivalent approaches (e.g., a scan readable mileage stamp or flag traceable to mileage indicating when the full OBD leak monitoring protocol was last completed succ essfully and the result (p/f)) which accomplish the same objective and whether this capability should be optional for the 2017 MY since this requirement is designed to enable the use of OBD in leak emission standard testing and that standard is proposed to begin in the 2018 MY
.  The minor exceptions which are contained in EPA’s current OBD regulations are proposed to be continued. Compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection is not required. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) would not be adopted. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, would appl y only to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. For all model ye ars, the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of the current regulations appl y only to alternative fuel vehicle/engine manufacturers selecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance. If adopted, these proposed changes, taken together would improve the performance, reliability , general utility , and effectiveness of OBD s ys tems for Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission controls. Furthermore, if adopted, these changes create the opportunity

for OBD evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring sy stems to serve a more prominent role in ensuring compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA believes that they could be implemented for minimal cost since most manufacturers are meeting them today

and will have to for LEV III vehicles. However, EPA requests comment on applying the proposed new OBD requirements to small business vehicle manufacturers and independent commercial importers. Finally , it should be noted that as CARB updates its OBD regulations in the future EPA wo uld consider these changes and propose to adopt them or incorporate by reference, if appropriate. 316 Infact, we anticipate that CARB will make some changes to its OBD program in response to the LEV III program exhaust emission standards. We will consider i ncorporating these changes into our rules in the future, but we cannot do so without full notice and comment consideration . Nonetheless, we would generall y expect to continue the current practice allowed b y EPA regulations which is for EPA to accept

316 CARB has recently proposed some minor OBD program modifications in their recent LEVIII ISOR, and EPA asks for comment on including those provisions within the proposed EPA OBD program. S ee pages 61
- 72 of the CARB Staff Report at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf and pages A11
- A125 of the regulatory text at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappa.pdf.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 201 of 842 CARB OBD certifications as satisfying EPA requirements provided that they include at least all of the requirements covered b y the EPA regulations. e. In
- Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements for the Leak Emission Standard i. Introduction We believe it is important to identify leaks since vehicles with leaks would be expected to have dail y emission rates above the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards and the Colorado data suggests a propensity for the diameter of vehicle leak orifice to get larger over time and thus to have even higher emissions. This is also important because evaporative leak emissions occur virtually every day whether the vehicle is driven or not. Thus identifying potential leak problems will be important to capturing the emission benefits of the proposed evaporative emission requirements. Toward that end, EPA is proposing to include assessment of compliance with the leak emission standard within the IUVP program. We considered expanding the evaporative emission testing portion of the IUVP program as a means to assess leaks, but we decided to focus on the leak emission standard because it is less burdensome and is cost effective for accomplishing the objective. EPA believes adding a leak test requirement does not create an unreason able burden. The draft test procedure described above is simple to run, inexpensive to conduct in terms of equipment and labor, and can be completed relativel y quickly compared to an evaporative emissions test. However, we are retaining the evaporative em issions testing requirements currently in IUVP to monitor broader evaporative control sy stem effectiveness (e.g., purge, canister control efficiency , permeation).

ii. IUVP Test Requirements We are proposing that the leak emission test be conducted for each and every vehicle assessed in IUVP for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR 86.1845.04. This would begin for 2018 MY certifications for vehicle families meeting the proposed new leak emission standard. This would include the low and high mileage tests for any e xhaust vehicle evaluated for exhaust emissions plus a requirement that there be at least one representative of each evaporative/refueling/leak family evaluated at each year point. We are proposing this approach to implementing IUVP for the leak emission s tandard in lieu of creating a new set of requirements which would require yet another set of vehicles to be procured for testing. We are not proposing to include the leak test with any evaporative emissions test in IUVP, since a leak would be evident in th e results of the evaporative emissions test. The current IUVP regulations at §86.1845
- 04, Table S04
- 07, call for test sample sizes on a sliding scale based on annual vehicle sales by test group. This can vary from zero for very

small sales test groups to s ix vehicles for test groups with sales exceeding 250,000. There are more exhaust emission test groups than there are******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 202 of 842 evaporative/refueling/leak test families and exhaust emission test groups may cover one or more of the same evaporative/refueling/leak fam ilies, so we would expect to receive multiple leak emission test results for most evaporative/refueling/leak families. This will expand the amount of IUVP data we receive in this important area and improve our ability to assess the overall leak performanc e for a given evaporative/refueling/leak family and the fleet as a whole. As discussed above, EPA believes that the fuel and evaporative control s ystem leaks are heavil y influenced b y age as well as design and other factors. EPA would consider extending the age point for leak emission testing for IUVP beyond the four year point to better assess this effect. However, in the past, manufacturers have expressed concern about the implications of testing older vehicles and about finding vehicles still within th eir warrant y and recall liability periods. EPA asks comment on the viability of extending leak emission IUVP testing beyond the nominal four year point, (e.g., six to eight ye ars). We recognize that there are cost and vehicle procurement issues, but the C olorado data strongl y suggests a relationship between vehicle age and the propensity for the development of leaks.

iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission Standard Test Results The current regulations contain provisions addressing follow
- on testing requirements f

or exhaust emissions for vehicles which fail to meet various performance thresholds within IUVP (see 40 CFR 86.1846
- 01). As mentioned above, we expect that it will be common to get more than one leak emission test result over the course of each model year’ s mileage testing point for each evaporative/refueling/leak family as a result of the requirement to assess leaks with each exhaust IUVP test. However, the proposed leak emission standard is basically pass/fail at 0.02 inches and it is difficult to establi sh a threshold criteria for a pass/fail standard such as has been done for exhaust emissions where there is a multiplier applied to the level of the individual exhaust emission standard. Given the importance of the leak emission standard in assuring in
- use evaporative emissions control, we are proposing a set of criteria for assessing leak emission standard results from IUVP. These criteria can be summarized as follows for each low and high mileage test point for each model year tested:

 lf 50 percent or more of all vehicles evaluated in an evaporative/refueling/leak emission family

for any given model ye ar pass the leak emission standard, testing is complete. This applies to cumulative testing for that family throughout the model ye ar for that mileage group. This is consistent with the exhaust emission requirements for IUVP and EPA believes it is reasonable since vehicles are tested in the “as received” condition from consumers.

 If only

one representative of the evaporative/refueling/leak family is teste d in a mileage group for that model year’s vehicles and it passes the leak emission standard testing is complete. If that vehicle does not pass the leak emission******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 203 of 842 standard a manufacturer may test an additional vehicle to achieve the 50 percent rate.
 If an e vaporative/refueling/leak emission family fails to achieve the 50 percent rate, it is presumed that the family will enter into In
- Use Confirmatory Testing Program (IUCP). Before IUCP begins, the manufacturer may ask for engineering anal ys is discussions with EPA to evaluate and understand the technical reasons for the testing outcomes and the implications for the broader fleet. Technical information for these discussions could include but would not be limited to detailed sy stem design, calibration, and oper ating information, technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed the leak emission standard, and comparisons to other similar families from the same manufacturer. Relevant information from the manufacturer such as data or other inf ormation on owner complaints, technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs, warranty

repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other manufacturer specific programs or initiatives could help inform understandin g of implications for the broader fleet. As part of this process a manufacturer could elect to provide evaporative emissions SHED test data on the individual vehicle(s) that did not pass the leak emission standard during IUVP. With an adequate technical basis, the outcome of this engineering anal ys is discussion could result in an EPA decision not to require IUCP testing. We would propose to operate within the basic structure of the IUCP program in the current regulations. Prior to commencing IUCP testin g the manufacturer, after consultation with EPA submits a written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and testing procedures. This plan could include inclusion of a hot soak plus diurnal SHED test to supplement leak emissio n test results. We propose that EPA must approve this plan before testing begins. As prescribed now in the IUCP regulations for exhaust, if five vehicles were tested and all passed the leak emission standard then testing would be complete. If all five ve hicles did not pass, then five more would be tested. More vehicles could be tested at the manufacturer’s discretion but all testing would have to be completed within the time period specified in the regulations today . EPA and the manufacturer would then enter into discussions regarding interpretation, technical understanding, and compliance/enforcement implications of the test results, if any
.

iv. Proposed Optional Test Procedure Approach for IUVP/IUCP Assuming implementation of the OBD regulation changes proposed in Section IV .C.5.d, above, EPA is proposing an optional approach to a portion of the leak emission test procedure discussed in Section IV .C.5.c . This optional testing approach would be included in the pro posed IUVP/IUCP testing program for the leak emission standard, but would not be used for certification testing for the leak emission standard. It would be considered an approach which could be used b y the manufacturers to assess compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA could also use this procedure for conducting******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 204 of 842 assessments and asks for comment on using this procedure for compliance purposes with a 0.02 inch cumulative equivalent diameter orifice standard. Under this optional approach manufacture rs would be able to rel y upon the operation of their OBD evaporative s ys tem leak detection hardware and operating protocols in lieu of running the stand alone in
- use leak test to check for the presence of a 0.02 inch leak in the fuel/evaporative s ys tem. T his approach relies on the leak emission standard equivalent orifice diameter being established at the same level as proposed for OBD (0.020 inches). Thus, the IUVP/IUCP protocol would be modified and simplified to expedite completion of testing and reduce costs. Quite simply , if a vehicle is brought in for IUVP or IUCP testing and a scan tool query of the onboard computer indicates that the vehicle had successfull y completed a full OBD
- based evaporative sy stem leak monitoring check within the last 750 mile s and no evaporative s ys tem leak problems for any diameter above 0.020 inches was indicated (diagnostic trouble codes P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455 , P0456 , and P0457 ), the vehicle would be been deemed to have met and passed the leak emission standard test requirement. However, if the sy stem had not successfully completed a full OBD
- based evaporative s ys tem leak check within 750 miles with no problem indicated then the manufacturer would have the option to run its OBD
- based evaporative s ys tem leak check in the laboratory

after prescribed preconditioning. This OBD
- based approach is sometimes used in auto manufacturer dealerships and repair facilities to diagnose and fix evaporative s ys tem leaks found by the OBD s ys tem. I f the vehicle completes the full OBD
- base d leak test in the laboratory then the vehicle’s pass/fail results for the 0.02 inch cumulative equivalent diameter orifice would be based on the OBD test result. This optional protocol could apply to every leak emission standard test after certification unless not approved b y EPA for IUCP under 40 CFR 1846.01(i). Replicate tests would not be required or allowed but void tests could be repeated. Furthermore, EPA proposes to allow the manufacturer to run the stand alone EPA leak test in several situations . First, manufacturers could conduct the stand alone test to confirm that a problem identified by the OBD
- based evaporative s ys tem monitoring leak check was a leak and not a problem with the OBD leak monitor itself. Second, a manufacturer could run the st and alone EPA leak test to confirm that the leak value identified by

the OBD system was truly above the level of the proposed leak emission standard. Third, it could be used for vehicles which had not successfull y completed a full OBD
- based evaporative sy stem leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles. Fourth, it could be used to confirm that a DTC set within the last 750 miles actually indicated the presence of a leak(s) greater than the proposed standard. However, if a manufacturer elected to use o nl y OBD
- based evaporative s ys tem leak based monitoring in its IUVP testing; these results would be the basis for decisions regarding IUCP. As is required in the current IUVP regulations, all test data whether OBD based or based on EPA’s stand alone test p rocedure would have to be reported to EPA. There could be some advantages to this option since it employs a pressure/vacuum approach manufacturers understand and creates positive/negative******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 205 of 842 pressures manufacturers have accommodated within their fuel/evaporative sy stem. One potential downside is that under current designs vehicle engines would have to be operating to create the pressure or vacuum and because the engine is operating this would require the OBD
- based leak test to be stand alone after the preconditioning sequence is complete. This would be more challenging for natural vacuum leak detection sy stems unless extended driving was involved to create the fuel s ys tem heat needed for a natural vacuum event or this was done through a climate chamber or SHE D based diurnal heat build. Allowing for this approach raises at least two implementation questions. The first is related to the value of conducting the OBD
- based test for a vehicle with an active or pending leak DTC already set in the computer and/or an MIL indicated. In this case, EPA would permit the manufacturer to run the OBD
- based leak test and/or the stand alone EPA leak test or concede that the vehicle would not pass the leak emission standard and count the result. Second is the question of gas c aps. This is among the most common codes found in OBD records and is often related to operator error such as not tightening the gas cap properl y. Codes of this nature have no value in this leak emission assessment, so a manufacturer would be permitted to c orrect the problem before testing and clear this OBD code before testing or run the stand alone EPA leak test. 6. Other Initiatives This proposal includes consideration of several amendments or clarifications to existing requirements related to evaporative e missions. As part of this process, the following provisions warrant adjustment, clarification, or correction:

 Even though the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 appl y t o the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust emission stan dards, we require a separate certificate for complying with evaporative and refueling emission standards. An important related point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards alway s appl y to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission s tandards may apply to either the engine or the vehicle. Since we plan to appl y evaporative/refueling/leak emission standards and the recentl y adopted greenhouse gas standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it would be advantageous to have the regulations related to their certification requirements written together as much as possible to reduce burden and increase efficiency . We are therefore proposing to move the emission standards and certification requirements from 40 CFR part 86 to the new 40 CFR part 1037, which was originall y used for greenhouse gas standards for heav y - dut y highway vehicles. This is not intended to change the requirements that appl y t o these vehicles, except as noted in this section. We propose to make the provisions in part 1 037 effective with model year 2014.

 As described in Section VI.C.3, we are proposing to allow for certifying vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR based on an engineering anal ys is instead of new testing (as is currently allowed for vehicles at or above 26,000 lbs******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 206 of 842 GVWR). We are also proposing to clarify the provisions describing how the certification process plays out for these vehicles.

 Section 86.1810
- 01 contains specifications addressing whether diesel fuel vehicles can be waived from demonstrating compliance with the refueling emission standard through testing. In the current regulation the potential for a waiver from testing depends on the diesel fuel having an RVP equal to or less than 1psi and the fuel tank having a temperature which does not exceed 130°F. We have examined this provision and are proposing to withdraw the fuel temperature limit specification. Short of fuel spillage in the SHED, EPA sees no likelihood that a diesel fueled vehicle with RVP less than 1 psi could fail the refueling emission stand ard even at fuel tank temperatures above 130°F. This is due to the inherently low vapor pressure of diesel at these temperatures and the likelihood that vapor shrinkage conditions will occur in the fuel tank during refueling since the dispensed fuel will b e cooler than the tank fuel.

 When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change we did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying evaporative emission standards for methanol
- fueled compression
- ignition engines. The proposed regu lations correct this oversight.

 We are proposing provisions to address which standards appl y when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor vehicle, which is currentl y not directly

addressed in the highway regulation. The proposed approach wou ld require testing complete vehicles with any auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel
- sy stem components). Incomplete vehicles would be tested without the auxiliary

engines, but any

such engines and the corresponding fuel
- sy stem components would need to meet the standards that appl y under our nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR part 1060.

 We are proposing to remove the option for secondary vehicle manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is specified by the certifying manufacturer with out re - certifying the vehicle. Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank capacity would need to either work with the certifying manufacturer to include the larger tank, or go through the effort to re
- certify

the vehicle itself. Our unde rstanding is that this provision has not been used and would be better handled as part of certification rather than managing a separate process. We are proposing corresponding changes to the emission control information label.

 Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for gaseous
- fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design
- based certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240). We request comment on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous
- fuel vehicles to design
- based******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 207 of 842 certification. This would allow for a simpler assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards that appl y.
 With regard to OBD, we note also that under §86.1806
- 01(b)(4) OBD s ys tems must have the ability

to detect absence of purge a ir flow from a complete evaporative emission control sy stem. This is clearly important because the proper operation of an integrated evaporative/refueling emission control sy stem depends on purge. Similarly , evaporative/refueling s ys tem operation depends on the presence, proper adsorption/desorption performance, and sustained working capacity of the activated carbon canister. It is thus curious to observe that the current OBD provisions do not directly address the activated carbon canister in any way . Th e absence of the canister would likely be noted as a gross leak and/or a problem with purge. Nonetheless, we are seeking comment on a provision which would require the OBD s ys tem to sense for evidence of ongoing adsorption and desorption of hydrocarbon va pors. These could both be sensed b y changes in canister carbon bed temperature or perhaps for the presence of vapor in the fuel going to the intake manifold after a cold start or refueling event. In some cases, EPA believes these parameters could be moni tored by hardware and sensors now on most vehicles and thus this might be primarily an OBD software change. **D. Emissions Test Fuel**  1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel In
- use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA’s fuel specifications for e missions testing of light
- and heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzene have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly , gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol b y volume (E10) has replaced clear gasoline (E 0) across the country . This has had second
- order effects on other gasoline properties. In
use fuel is projected to continue to change with the implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the expansion of the number of retailers that offer E15) as well as t oday ’s proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. As a result, we are proposing to update our federal emission test fuel specifications not only to better match today ’s in
- use fuel but also to be forward looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content. 317 The revised test fuel

317 EPA’s motor vehicle emissions standards ty pically require a level of performance over a specified test procedure, with emissions measured while the engine or the vehicle is operated using the specified test fuel and operated in a specified manner. The test fuel specifications typically apply for all emissions testing used to determine compliance with the standard, including emissions testing to obtain a certificate of conformity, as well as compliance testing for newly produced or in
- use engines or vehicles. While this test fuel is commonly referred to as “certification fuel,” the test fuel specifications proposed today are not limited to certification related emissions testing, but also apply to compliance related emissions testing after the certificate of conformity has been issued. The certifi cation process also typically involves a process to ensure that the emissions controls system is durable over the regulatory useful life of the vehicle or engine. This can involve long
- term or accelerated aging of a vehicle or engine prior to emissions te sting. The fuel******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 208 of 842 specifications would apply for exhaust emissions testing, fuel econom y/ greenhouse gas testing, and emissions testing for non
- exhaust emissions (evaporative, refueling, and leak detection testing). The proposed gasoline specif ications, found at §1065.710, would apply to emissions testing of light
- dut y cars and trucks as well as heav y - duty gasoline vehicles certified on the chassis test, those subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. 318 We are not proposing changes to the exhaust or evaporative durability fuel requirements outlined in the provisions of §86.113
- 04(a)(3), except to remove the minimum sulfur content (15 ppm) currently specified at §86.113
- 04(a)(3)(i). Those provisions require that “Unless otherwise approved by the A dministrator, unleaded gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail outlets must be used in service accumulation.” We would expect that manufacturers would use service accumulation fuels which are generall y representative of the national average in
- use fuels (or worst case for durability) during the model year which is being certified, including, for example, the ethanol content (for exhaust emissions), sulfur level, and fuel additive package. For exhaust emission bench aging durability programs as allowed under the provisions of §86.1823
- 08(d) and (e), the bench aging program should be designed using good engineering judgment to account for the effects of in
- use fuels on exhaust emissions, including the ef fects of future in
- use fuels on catal yt ic converters, ox ygen sensors, fuel injectors, and other emission
- related components. For evaporative emissions, durability fuel requirements are the same as for exhaust emissions (as outlined above), plus an additi onal requirement in the provisions of §86.1824
- 08(f), that the service accumulation fuel “contains ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is commercially available in an y state in the United State s. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage accumulation.” Thus, as E15 in
- use fuel becomes progressively more available, we would expect that E15 service accumulation fuel would be used for whole vehicle evaporative durability programs. Similarly , evaporative bench aging durabi lity programs allowed under the provisions of
used for such aging is commonly referred to as service accumulation or durability fuel, and in many cases is specified as commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail outlets (§86.113
- 04(a)(3)), or in some cases may be specified as gasoline which contains ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is commercially available in any state in the United States, such as for durability aging of evaporative emissions sy stem (§86.1824
- 08(f)). EPA is not proposing changes to the specifications for fuel used during durability related aging that is part of the certification process. The proposed changes only apply to the test fuel used during emissions testing, both for purposes of certification and for later compliance related testing. 318 As discussed in Section IV.C, we are also seeking comment on requiring the proposed Tier 3 test fuel in conducting exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions testing of heavy
- duty gasoli ne engines certified on an engine dynamometer. These could include engines installed in incomplete Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles and engines used in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 209 of 842 §86.1824
- 08(d) and (e), should be designed using good engineering judgment to account for the durabilit y effects of in
- use fuels on evaporative emissions, bleed emissions, and leakage emissions. Where possibl e, we are proposing changes consistent with the CARB’s planned LEV III gasoline test fuel specifications. 319 Below is an overview of some of the key changes. A summary

of the proposed test fuel specifications is provided in Table IV
- 25
. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed test fuel property ranges and ASTM test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.

 Ethanol
- adding a 15 volume percent ethanol specification to be forward
looking with respect t o the maximum gasoline ethanol concentration Tier 3 vehicles could expect to encounter. EPA recently issued a waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the CAA permitting E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer light
- dut y motor vehicles. 320 While E15 is only commerciall y available at a limited number of fuel retailers , EPA believes it could become a major gasoline blend over the next 10
- 15 years given instability in crude oil pricing and growing RFS2 renewable fuel requirements. Whether wide spread E15 usage is realized in the near future or later, it is our intention that future vehicles are designed to be durable and capable of meeting emission standards on E15.

 Octane
- lowering gasoline octane to around 87 (R+M)/2 to be representative of in
- use fuel, i.e., regular
- grade gasoline. Manufacturers could continue to use high
- octane gasoline for testing of premium
- required 321 vehicles and engines as well as for testing unrelated to exhaust emissions. Historically , the high octane rating of te st fuel has not had an y real emissions implications. However, as manufacturers begin introducing new advanced vehicle technologies (e.g., turbocharged downsized), this may no longer be the case. For those vehicles where operation on high
- octane gasoline is required by the manufacturer, we would allow the manufacturer to test on a fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91 (R+M)/2 (in lieu of the proposed 87 (R+M)/2 general test fuel). According to the proposed regulations found at §1065.710(d), vehicles or engines are considered to require premium fuel if they are designed specifically for operation on high
- octane fuel, they will experience a significant change in performance or could suffer damage on regular fuel under normal operating conditions, and the m anufacturer adds the statement “premium required” at or near the fuel gauge, at or near the fuel cap, and in the owner’s manual. Cases where premium gasoline is not

319 The LEV III program as approved by the California Air Resources Board, January 2012 320 On Nov. 4 2010, EPA issued a partial waiver for MY2007 and newer light
- duty motor vehicles (75 FR 68094). On January 26, 2011, EPA extended the waiver to MY 2001
- 2006 light
- duty motor vehicles (76 FR 4662). 321 Premium
- required defined at §1065 .710(d).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 210 of 842 required but is recommended to improve performance would not qualify as a vehicle or engin e that requires the use of premium fuel. For qualifying vehicles and engines, all emission tests must use the specified high
- octane fuel. For vehicles and engines certified on high
- octane gasoline, all EPA confirmatory

and in
- use testing would also be co nducted on high
- octane gasoline. All other test fuel specifications would be the same as those proposed in Table IV
- 25 . We seek comment on the need for limiting the maximum octane of gasoline used in the certificatio n of premium
- required engines and vehicles.

 Distillation Temperatures
- adjusting gasoline distillation temperatures to better reflect today ’s in
- use gasoline/E10. This includes minor T10, T90 and FBP adjustments based on AAM in
- use fuel survey s and ref inery batch test data, with additional adjustments to reflect future E15 performance (significantly

lower T50 range). We seek comment on the appropriateness of the proposed distillation temperatures including the proposed 170
- 190 °F T50 range. For more i nformation on how we arrived at the proposed distillation temperatures in Table IV
- 25 , refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.

 Sulfur
- lowering the sulfur content of test fuel to 8
- 11 ppm to be consistent with our prop osed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards. The proposed 10
- ppm annual average sulfur standard is expected to result in two
- thirds less sulfur nationwide so it is appropriate to lower the gasoline test fuel specification in concert.
 Benzene
- setting a benzene test fuel specification of 0.6
- 0.8 volume percent to represent in
- use fuel under our new MSAT2 regulations. 322 The MSAT2 standards, which took effect January 1, 2011, limit the gasoline pool to 0.62 volume percent benzene on average. Beginning July 1, 201 2, no refinery

may produce gasoline above 1.3 volume percent benzene on average.

 Total Aromatics
- lowering the aromatics content of test fuel to better match today ’s in
- use gasoline/E10 and accommodate E15. According to AAM fuel survey s, the average aromatics content in gasoline has dropped 16 percent over the past decade due to ethanol blending. 323 Additional ethanol blending to produce E15 is expected to result in even greater aromatics reductions. Accordingl y, we believe the proposed 19.5
- 24.5 volume percent test fuel specification is appropriate.

 Distribution of Aromatics

– in addition to total aromatics and benzene, we are proposing regulations that would require a distribution of aromatics (i.e., a

322 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007). 323 For more information on current aromatics levels, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 211 of 842 certain amount of C7, C8, C9, and C10+ hydrocarb ons) to ensure that test fuel is more representative of in
- use gasoline. Heavier aromatics in gasoline are believed to contribute to vehicle PM emissions, so it is important that vehicles are designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 emission standards on fuel with a distribution of aromatic compounds representative of in
- use gasoline. We also seek comment on the need for a multi
- substituted alkyl aromatics (MSAA) specification, as has been proposed b y CARB. For more information on our proposed aromatics spec ifications, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.

 Olefins
- adjusting the olefins specification to better match today ’s in
- use gasoline/E10 according to AAM fuel survey s. Not only is the proposed 4.5
- 11.5 mass percent range (approximately 4
- 6 volume perc ent) more representative of in
- use fuel, the narrower test fuel range would result in more consistent vehicle test results.

 Other Specifications
- adding distillation residue, total content of oxygenates other than ethanol, copper corrosion, solvent
- was hed gum, and oxidation stability specifications to better control other performance properties of test fuel. These proposed specifications are consistent with ASTM’s D4814 gasoline specifications and CARB’s LEV III test fuel requirements.

 Updates to Gasoline Test Methods

– updating some of the gasoline test methods currentl y specified in §86.113 with more appropriate, easier to use, or more precise test methods for ethanol
- blended gasoline. Key changes include replacement of ASTM D323 with ASTM D5191 for measuring vapor pressure; replacement of ASTM D1319 with ASTM D5769 for measuring aromatics and benzene; and replacement of ASTM D1266 with three alternative ASTM test methods (D2622, D5453 or D7039) for measuring sulfur. We request comment on the use of three different test methods for the measurement of sulfur content.

 Consolidation of Test Fuels
- consolidation of all gasoline exhaust and evaporative emission test fuels into a single general test fuel. This would be used for all on
- highway

vehicle te sting with the exception of cold CO vehicle testing (which would use higher volatility test fuel) and high
- altitude testing (which would be permitted to use lower volatility fuel). As discussed above, commercial gasoline would continue to be used for serv ice accumulation (durability

fuel). This is consistent with CARB’s LEV III approach and should help limit the total number of test fuels that automakers need to manage.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 212 of 842 **Table IV**  **- 25**  **Proposed Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel** 
Property Unit SPECIFICATION AS TM Reference Procedure General Testing Low
Temperature Testing High Altitude

Testing Antiknock Index (R+M)/2 - 87.0
- 88.4 87.0 Minimum D2699
- 11 and D2700
- 11 Sensitivity (R
- M)
- 7.5 Minimum Dry Vapor Pressur e Equivalent (

DVPE) kPa (psi) 60.0
- 63.4 (8.7
- 9.2) 77.2
- 81.4

(11.2
- 11.8) 52.4
- 55.2

(7.6
- 8.0) D5191
- 10b Distillation 10% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 49
- 60 (120
- 140) 43
- 54

(110
- 130) 49
- 60

(120
- 140)
D86
- 10a 50% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 77
- 88 (170
- 190) 90% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 154
- 166 (310
- 330) Evaporated final boiling

point ° C ( ° F) 193
- 216 (380
- 420) Residue M illiliter 2.0 Maximum Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons vol. % 19.5
- 24.5

D5769
- 10 C6 Aromatics (benzene) vol. % 0.6
- 0.8 C7 Aromatics (toluene) vol. % 4.4
- 5.5 C8 Aromatics vol. % 5.5
- 6.9 C9 Aromatics vol. % 5.0
- 6.2 C10+ Aromatics vol. % 4.0
- 5.0 Olefins ma ss % 4.5
- 11.5 D6550
- 10 Ethanol vol. % 14.6
- 15.0 D5599
- 00 (Reapproved 2010) Total Content of Oxygenates Other than Ethanol vol. % 0.1 Maximum Sulfur mg/k g 8.0
- 11.0 D2622
- 10, D5453
- 09 or D7039
- 07 Lead g/liter 0.0026 Maximum D3237
- 06 Phosphorus g/liter 0.0013 Maximum D3231
- 11 Copper Corrosion
- No. 1 Maximum D130
- 10 Solvent
- Washed Gum Content mg/100 ml 3.0 Maximum D381
- 09 Oxidation Stability M inute 1,00 0 Minimum D525
- 05******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 213 of 842 EPA seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed forward
- looking E15 test fuel for light
- and heavy
- duty gasoline vehicles. While we believe we have discretion under the statute to transition from E0 to E15 test fuel, we ackno wledge that vehicle manufacturers will need to calibrate their vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards on fuel containing 15 percent ethanol by volume. Our anal ys is of the proposed Tier 3 standards (emission control technology , feasibility , cost, e tc.) assumes the use of the proposed E15 test fuel. We anticipate that vehicle electronic control s ystems will be fully capable of adjusting to maintain emission performance when operating on E10 (or any remaining E0), but if E15 were not to enter the gas oline pool in significant quantities, it may be more appropriate to require that vehicles be calibrated for and tested on E10. We are seeking comment on various alternative approaches, e.g., starting with E10 as the test fuel and transitioning to E15 as the market further transition s to E15 in use. This could include a market review in 2014 or 2015 followed b y regulatory action to implement the change from E10 to E15 test fuel, if warranted. Or, it could include the establishment of a “trigger point” (e .g., 30 percent of gasoline is E15) in the Tier 3 final rule to prompt an automatic move to E15 after a certain period of time, e.g., two or three ye ars. Or, we could simply set a future date (e.g., 2020) with sufficient time for transitioning to E15 test fuel. These transition approaches would give vehicle manufacturers additional lead time to prepare for higher ethanol concentrations in test fuel. We seek comment on the various transition approaches, their timing, and the appropriate specifications for an E10 test fuel to be used in the interim. While the volatility (i.e., RVP) of CARB’s E10 test fuel is 7.0 psi to be representative of in
- use gasoline in California during summer months, conventional E10 in the rest of the country is currentl y around 10 psi.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 214 of 842 As mentioned above, EPA issued a waiver allowing E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY 2001 and newer light
- duty motor vehicles. On July 25, 2011, EPA finalized regulations to mitigate the potential for misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered by the E15 waiver, i.e., MY 2000 and older light
- duty motor vehicles, all heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles and engines, motorcycles, and all gasoline
powered nonroad products (which includes boats). 324 Two of the required mitigation me asures are a label for fuel pumps that dispense E15 to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel and a prohibition on the use of E15 by consumers in vehicles not covered by the waiver, excluding flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). If, as di scussed in this proposed rule, an y class of new heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles or engines begin testing on E15 for certification, EPA would not need to issue a waiver under section 211(f)(4) to allow introduction of E15 into commerce for use in these vehicle s certified on E15 test fuel. However, EPA acknowledges that changes to the gasoline pump label and prohibitions finalized in the E15 Misfueling Mitigation Measures Rule would have to be made before E15 could lawfull y be sold for use in these heav y - dut y v ehicles. This would be addressed in a future action. As discussed above in Sections IV.A.7.c (tailpipe emission testing) and IV.C.4.b (evaporative emission testing), we are proposing to require certification of all Tier 3 light
- duty and chassis
- certifie d heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles on E15 test fuel. As described in those sections, we are proposing that EPA still accept testing for certification on CARB’s E10 test fuel during the phase
- in periods for the respective proposed Tier 3 vehicle tailpipe and e vaporative emissions standards and, if certified on CARB’s E10 test fuel, that EPA would not perform or require in
- use exhaust or evaporative testing on E15 test fuel. As mentioned earlier, we plan to continue to allow manufacturers to test vehicles on pre mium
- grade gasoline should the vehicles require it. Since we cannot predict all future changes in gasoline vehicle technologies and in
- use fuels, we are proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to specify an alternative test fuel under certain situations. Under this proposal, i f manufacturers were to design vehicles that required operation on a higher octane, higher ethanol content gasoline (e.g., dedicated E30 vehicles or FFVs optimized to run on E30 or higher ethanol blends), under 40 CFR 1065.701(c), they could petition the Administrator for approval of a higher octane, higher ethanol content test fuel if they could demonstrate that such a fuel would be used by the operator and would be readil y available nationwide, vehicles would not operate appropriat ely on other available fuels, and such a fuel would result in equivalent emissions performance. For vehicles certified on high
- octane, high
- ethanol gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in
- use testing would also be conducted on high
- octane, high
- ethanol gaso line. This could help manufacturers who wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency as a step toward compl yi ng with the 2017 and later light
- duty greenhouse gas and CAFE standards. This in turn could help provide a market incentive to increase ethanol use

324 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 215 of 842 beyond E10 and enhance the environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel by using it to enable more fuel efficient engines. We seek comment on the appropriateness of the alternative test fuel provisions at §1065.701(c) and the need to specify more precisel y the makeup of such a fuel (ethanol content, as well as other fuel parameters) in the regulations at this time. We are also seeking comment on whether there are other aspects of today ’s proposed standards that might need to be modified to provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the development of highly efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher level ethanol blends. 2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel While the Agency

has for some time had testing requirements for flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) on E85 fuel blends, EPA currently has no regulatory specifications for the test fuel itself. Historically , our laboratory practice has been to blend indolene (E0) with neat ethanol and normal butane to produ ce an FFV test fuel with 83 volume percent ethanol and an RVP from 6.0 to 6.5 psi. However, the lack of E85 test fuel specifications has caused confusion and inconsistency among FFV manufacturers in carrying out their certification requirements. Similar to the previous discussion regarding gasoline test fuels, we believe it is important that the fuel used to test FFVs reflect the composition of actual in
- use E85. This may become increasingl y important if E85 usage in FFVs increases to help satisfy the growing RFS2 renewable fuel requirements. The term “E85” has historically been used to describe an ethanol blend with a maximum ethanol content of 83 volume percent and specified minimum ethanol content for use in FFVs. In the recentl y updated ASTM Intern ational specification, the minimum ethanol concentration was reduced from 68 to 51 volume percent. 325 As part of the updated specification, ASTM retired the name E85 because it has caused confusion regarding the necessary

variability

in the ethanol content of the blend depending upon seasonal climactic conditions. The official name in the new ASTM specification is “ethanol fuel blends for flexible
- fuel automotive spark
- ignition engines”. For the sake of brevity , we shall refer to this fuel as E51
- 83. Co nsistent with our current policy regarding the formulation of FFV test fuel, we believe that the ethanol content should be at or near the maximum ethanol level on which the vehicles were designed to operate to ensure that the testing reflects the full rang e of in
- use formulations and emissions performance. To provide adequate flexibility for test fuel manufacturers, we are proposing that the ethanol content must be from 80 to 83 volume percent. Rather than specify ranges for the other fuel parameters as w e have done for gasoline test fuel in Table IV
- 25 , we are proposing that the FFV test fuel would

325 ASTM International D5798
- 11, “Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible
- F uel Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engines”.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 216 of 842 be defined based on the results from blending the proposed E15 standard gasoline test fuel with ethanol. We propose that denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that meets the proposed specifications would be used to increase the ethanol content to 80 to 83 volume percent. 326 It is important to ensure that the volatility of FFV test fuel meets minimum volatility specifications to pro vide adequate startability and for safet y reasons. The ASTM minimum RVP specification that conforms to the specified temperature at which FFV emission testing takes place (68 to 86 °F) is 5.5 psi. EPA conducted discussions with vehicle and test fuel manu facturers to arrive at the current guidance that the RVP of the finished test fuel should be between 6.0 and 6.5 psi. We propose to formalize the current guidance in the regulatory requirements for FFV test fuel. We propose that commercial grade normal b utane could be added to trim the RVP of the finished test fuel to meet the proposed specifications. 327 A 6.0 to 6.5 range in RVP has historically provided test fuel manufacturers adequate flexibility in formulating test fuels. L imiting the amount of butane that is added to formulate FFV test fuels is important because if excessive volumes of butane were used it could inappropriatel y reduce the stringency of emissions testing. As an alternative to the use of DFE to manufacture FFV test fuel, we propose that neat (undenatured) fuel grade ethanol could be used. We also propose that as an alternative to using a finished E15 standard gasoline test fuel in the manufacture of FFV test fuel, that the gasoline blendstock used to produce a compliant E15 test fuel co uld be used to manufacture the FFV test fuel. This would allow ethanol to be blended only once to produce FFV test fuel. The test fuel manufacturer would be required to test a sample of the subject gasoline blendstock after the addition of ethanol to pro duce a finished standard E15 gasoline test fuel and demonstrate that the blend meets all of the proposed requirements for standard gasoline test fuel described in Section IV.D.1
. We propose that the above FFV emissi ons test fuel specifications would become applicable on the same schedule as the proposed E15 standard gasoline test fuel specifications become applicable for light
- and heavy
- duty gasoline vehicles (described below in Section IV.D.3 ). We believe that the proposed requirements would ensure that FFV test fuel reflects the composition of in
- use ethanol fuel blends for flexible
- fuel automotive spark
- ignition engines while minimizing the burden on the industry with resp ect to test fuel formulation and the number of test fuel blend components that must be stored. Under the Tier 2 program, FFVs utilize a test fuel containing 10% ethanol with an RVP of approximately

10 psi for evaporative emission testing. The proposed E15 certification fuel for non
- FFVs is a 9 psi E15 fuel. We seek comment on whether the new

326 The proposed requirements for DFE are contained in Section V.C of today’s preamble. 327 The specifications for commercial grade butane are contained in 40 CFR 80.82.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 217 of 842 E15 evaporative emissions test fuel for FFVs should continue to have an RVP of 10 psi to maintain the level of performance established under the Tier 2 program . 3. P roposed Implementation Schedule As described earlier in Section IV.C, we are proposing Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards with today ’s notice. The proposed changes in the specifications for test fuel would apply to vehicles certified to th ese new standards. We are proposing to transition to the new test fuel during the first few ye ars that the Tier 3 standards are phasing in. As described in Sections IV.A and IV.B, testing with the new fuel would start with light
- duty vehicles certified t o Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 70, and heav y - duty

vehicles certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 250 (for Class 2b) and Bin 300 (for Class 3). Starting with model years 2020 for light
- dut y and 2022 for heav y - dut y, we would require that all manufacturers use the new test fuel for all exhaust emission testing (with the exception of Small Volume Manufacturers and small businesses, which could delay using the new test fuel until model year 2022). Manufacturers would also need to compl y wi th cold temperature CO and NMHC standards using the new test fuel for an y models that use E15 test fuel for meeting the light
- duty Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. These same tests would also provide the basis for meeting GHG requirements under 40 CFR p art 86 and fuel economy requirements under 40 CFR part 600, as described in the following section. We are proposing to require evaporative emission testing with the new test fuel for an y models that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. To the extent that these models are different than those used for exhaust emission testing with the new test fuel, manufacturers would need to do additional testing to demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. They may alternativel y use the new test fuel earlier than the regulations specify to avoid additional testing. We further propose to require that manufacturers submit certification data based on the new test fuel to demonstrate compliance with refueling emission standards for an y ve hicles that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel Economy L abels EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) recently finalized a joint greenhou se gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel econom y (CAFE) standards for MY 2017
- 2025 light
- dut y vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and medium
duty passenger vehicles. 328 These GHG and CAFE standards build upon the National Program that was first announced by the President in May

2009 and which allows manufacturers to build a single fleet of light vehicles that can satisfy all federal and state

328 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 218 of 842 requirements for GHG emissions and fuel economy . The first round of standards by EPA and NHTSA under the National Program cover MY 2012
- 2016. 329 The recent ly

finalized MY 2017
- 2025 GHG and CAFE standards affect essentially

the same vehicle classes over the same timeframe as this proposal for non
GHG emissions standards and gasoline fuel quality . Accordingl y, EPA bel ieves it is important for the two rulemakings to be coordinated so that manufacturers can develop future product development plans with a full understanding of the major regulatory requirements they

would be facing over the MY 2017
- 2025 time frame. The Age ncy

would like to highlight two important issues of overlap between these two rulemakings: Test fuel and useful life. As explained above, today ’s action proposes to update EPA’s test fuel to better match in
- use fuels, with the change in test fuel phased
- in from MY 2017
- 2020 for light
- duty exhaust emission compliance. The proposal involves several changes to the emissions test fuel specifications, including, notably , a 15 percent by

volume ethanol content. The current emissions test fuel contains zero ethanol. Regarding useful life, we are proposing a longer useful life for some vehicles, as described in Section IV.A.7.b, from the current 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles. a. Test Fuel The proposed change in test fuel, if finalized, could have implications for both the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs, as well as the fuel economy labeling program. EPA is committed to the principle of ensuring that any change in test fuel would not affect the stringency of either the CAFE or GHG emissions standards, and that the labeling calculations would be updated to reflect the change in test fuel. While NHTSA establishes the fuel econom y standards for the CAFE program , EPA is responsible for vehicle testing and compliance calculations . Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), limitations are placed on the test procedures used to measure fuel econom y for passenger cars. If EPA revises the test procedure, EPA also has to address the need for a test procedure adjustment to preserve the level of stringe ncy of the CAFE standards. 330 Because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, i.e., fewer British thermal units (Btus) or joules per gallon, 331 and fuel econom y is defined in terms of miles per gallon of fuel, it is almost certain that the same vehi cle tested on a test fuel with 15 percent ethanol content will yield a lower fuel econom y value relative to being tested on the current test fuel with zero ethanol content. Other changes being proposed for the test fuel may or may not impact fuel econom y test values. Accordingl y,

329 75 FR 25324 (M ay 7, 2010). 330 EPCA requires that CAFE tests for passenger cars be determined from the EPA test procedures in place as of 1975, or procedures that give comparable results. 49 U.S.C. 32904(c). 331 EPA estimates that, on average, E85 fuel contains 25
- 30 perce nt less energy per gallon than gasoline with zero ethanol.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 219 of 842 EPA expects to establish a CAFE test procedure adjustment to maintain equivalent stringency

with an y change in test fuel. EPA is also committed to retaining equivalent stringency for GHG emissions compliance beginning in MY2017. The technical questions here are not as clear, for example, the major change in energy content due to 15 percent ethanol by volume might not have an y impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile levels. The test fuel change may mean a greater volume of fuel i s consumed to travel the specified distanc e, but there may or may not be a change in the amount of CO 2 that is emitted over that distance. The other proposed test fuel changes might or might not have a measureable impact as well. All three different outc omes are plausible
- the collective change from the current test fuel to the proposed test fuel to be phased in from MY 2017
- 2020 might raise, lower, or have no effect on vehicle CO 2 emissions test values. EPA expects that there may be a potential impact o n manufacturer’s fuel economy and greenhouse gas testing burden during the Tier 3 phase
- in years. Currently , for example, manufacturers carryover a considerable amount of previous model year data in support of their Furl Economy L abeling and CAFE/Greenhou se Gas programs. We are proposing that Tier 3 compliant vehicles would be required to test on E15 test fuel, and thus, manufacturers would normally not be allowed to carryover previous model year data which was tested on E0 test fuel. EPA anticipates that such carryover requests could be handled during the Tier 3 phase
- in years with modifications to EPA’s current policy for the use of anal yt icall y derived data (see EPA’s fuel econom y testing regulations at 40 CFR 600.006
- 08(e) and EPA guidance letter CCD
- 04
- 06, March 11, 2004 332 ). EPA requests comments on whether there is a need for further reductions in fuel econom y/ greenhouse gas testing burden beyond that allowed by EPA guidance letter CCD
- 04
- 06, March 11, 2004. Any comments supporting the need to reduc e fuel econom y/ greenhouse gas testing burden (beyond that allowed by EPA’s policy

for the use of anal yt ically

derived data) should describe one or more specific methods of reducing such testing burden. Finally , EPA will need to update the fuel econom y la beling calculations in 40 CFR Part 600 to reflect the proposed E15 test fuel. The current methodology, which took effect with the 2008 model year, contains equations that, when applied to test results using current fuel (zero alcohol), adjust for an averag e national impact of ethanol in fuel on fuel econom y. These equations would need to be revised such that the adjustment remains consistent with the actual national use of ethanol in fuel. EPA expects to undertake a separate rulemaking to establish the appropriate test procedure adjustment for CAFE standards and to determine the need for any test

332 EPA Guidance Letter CCD
- 04
- 06 (Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later), March 11, 2004, is available through the EPA Transportation and Air Quality Document Index System at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 220 of 842 procedure adjustment for GHG emissions standards based on the change in emissions test fuels. Such a rulemaking would also likely propose revisions to the fuel economy labeling calculations. The testing and calculation requirements for all three of these programs (CAFE, GHG, and labeling) are inextricably intertwined in 40 CFR Part 600, thus it is both reasonable and logical to approach revisions to these three programs in a consolidated rulemaking. We expect to seek data from manufacturers and other stakeholders to inform this future rulemaking. EPA and NHTSA set GHG and fuel consumption standards for heav y - dut y vehicles and engines, including the Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles for which we are proposing Tier 3 emissions standards in this rule. 333 Just as in the light
- duty program, we are committed to the principle of ensuring that any change in test fuel for HDVs would not affect the stringency

of either the fuel consumption or GHG emissions standards. As part of the separate rulemaking discussed above, we expect to establish the appropriate test procedure adjustment for HD fuel consumption standards and to determine the need for an y test procedure adjustment for GHG emissions standards based on the change in emissions test fuels. b. Useful L ife for GHG Standards As stated above, EPA is committed to retaining equivalent stringency for GHG emissions compliance beginning in MY 2017. In contrast to the proposed Tier 3 test fuel, for which we are uncertain as to the effects on GHG emissions, we believe that certifying a vehicle to a longer useful life for an y emission constituent would have only a beneficial effect on emissions. To address potential concerns about chang es in the stringency of the GHG standards resulting from a longer useful life, we are not proposing to require a longer useful life for GHG emission standards. As this approach may result in additional testing burden, we are proposing that manufacturers c ould optionally certify GHG emissions to a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life. 5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy
- Duty Engine Emissions Test Fuel As described earlier in Section IV.D.1 ., we are proposin g new specifications for the gasoline emissions test fuel used for testing highway vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. In developing today ’s proposal, EPA also considered proposing the change in test fuel specifications for other categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel sy stem components that use gasoline. This would include a wide range of applications, including small nonroad engines used in lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles, recr eational marine applications, on - highway

motorcycles, and larger heav y - duty gasoline engines. While engines in some of these categories employ advanced technologies similar to light
- duty vehicles and

333 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 221 of 842 trucks, the vast majority of these engines employ much simpler designs, with many of the engines being carbureted with no electronic controls. Because of lower level of technology , emissions from these engines are potentially much more sensitive to changes in fuel quality
. EPA is not proposing to apply the ne w emissions test fuel specifications to these other categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel s ys tem components. In discussing the potential change in test fuel specifications with the large number of businesses potentially

impacted by

such a c hange, many

companies supported such a change. However, a number of manufacturers raised concerns about the level of ethanol in the new fuel, the cost of recertifying emission families on the new fuel, the impact on nationwide product offerings, and the c ost impact of complying with the existing standards on the new test fuel. EPA believes it is important that the emissions test fuel for these other categories reflect real
- world fuel qualities but has elected to defer moving forward now pending additional analy sis of the impacts of changing the test fuel specifications for the wide range of engines, vehicles, equipment and fuel sy stem components that could be impacted. These impacts include the impact on the emissions standards, as well as the other issue s raised b y the manufacturers. EPA plans to explore such a change in a separate future action. EPA requests comment on the implications of changing the test fuel for these other categories and whether a different test fuel would be more appropriate for these other categories. 6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel There are currently

no sulfur specifications for the test fuel used for certifying natural gas vehicles. There is also no sulfur specification in §86.113 for the test fuel used for ce rtifying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles. The corresponding LPG test fuel for heav y - dut y highway engines and for nonroad engines in §1065.720 includes an 80 ppm maximum sulfur specification
. . We request comment on the appropriateness of changing §86.113 to reference 40 CFR part 1065 for both natural gas and LPG test fuels. We further request comment on amending these specification s to better reflect in
- use fuel characteristics, and in particular on the appropriateness of aligning the sulfur speci fications with those that apply for gasoline test fuel. Changing the sulfur specifications would depend on establishing that the new specification is consistent with the range of properties expected from in
- use fuels. **E. Small**  **- Business Provisions**  As in previ ous vehicle rulemakings, our justification for including provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities generall y have a greater degree of difficulty in compl yi ng with the standards compared to other entities. In developing the proposed Tie r 3 vehicle program, we evaluated the environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of manufacturers and******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 222 of 842 others to meet the standards as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is feasible and necessary for the vast majority

of the program to be implemented in the established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as possible. Based on information available from small manufacturers and others, we believe that entities classified as small generall y face unique circumstances with regard to compliance with environmental programs, compared to larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are proposing several flexibility

provisions for small businesses in the vehicle industry to reduce the burden that this program could have on them. These proposed provisions are based on the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel described in Section XIII.C of today’s proposal and include a few additional provisions. Small entities generally

lack the resources that are available to larger companies to carry out necessary

research and development and to raise capital for investing in a new regulatory

program. Small entities are also likely to have more difficulty

in competing for an y needed engineering and cons truction resources and lower production volume over which to spread their compliance costs. Small entities also tend to have limited product lines , which limits their ability to take advantage of the phase
- in and ABT flexibility

provisions in the proposal . As such, we are proposing regulatory flexibility provisions that would provide additional lead time and reduced testing burden for small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. This proposed approach would allow the overall program to begin as earl y as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as soon as possible, while helping to ensure that small entities have adequate time to make an y necessary modifications to their product lines. We believe that small business regulato ry flexibilities could provide these entities with additional help and/or time to take advantage of technological developments by other parties and to accumulate capital internall y or to secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the avail ability of any needed engineering resources. We believe these provisions will also reduce their overall compliance burden and allow them to more easily transition to the new standards in a way that matches their business practices. The provisions describ ed below would be available to all small businesses subject to the Tier 3 emission standards. The types of companies subject to the Tier 3 emission standards include vehicle manufacturers, and two additional categories of businesses that are generally

ref erred to as independent commercial importers (ICIs) and alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, the proposed set of flexibilities would also be available to manufacturers in these three business categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicl es per ye ar that are subject to the Tier 3 emission standards. 1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards As noted above, small businesses have limited resources available for developing new designs to comply

with new emission standards. In addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rel y on vendor companies for technology . Moreover, percentage phase
- in requirements and declining fleet average standards pose a dilemma for a small manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g. , the manufacturer certifies vehicles in only one or two test groups). Thus, similar to the flexibility provisions implemented in******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 223 of 842 previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses the following flexibility

option for meeting th e proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. EPA is proposing that small businesses (and small volume manufacturers, as discussed below) be given additional lead time to comply with the proposed Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Specificall y, w e propose to allow small manufacturers to postpone compliance with the standards and other Tier 3 requirements, including use of the proposed new certification test fuel, until model year 2022. For model year 2022 and later, small manufacturers would be subject to the same Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative requirements as other manufacturers, including moving to the declining FTP fleet average NMOG+NO X curve and complying with the fully phased
- in standard of 30 mg/mi, as well as certifying on E15 test fuel. (This approach is similar to that in the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase
- in to compl y with the Tier 2 standards.) As described earlier in this section, the proposed Tier 3 rule has several different ph ase - in schedules; with the final dates varying from model year 2021 for the new light
- dut y exhaust PM standards to model year 2025 for the new light
- dut y exhaust gaseous pollutant standards. Requiring all small businesses to comply

with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the technology changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 standards. During the SBAR Panel process, one small entity representative (SER) recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust emission averaging program being proposed b y EPA would allow large manufacturers that have many engine families to certify their small, niche pro ducts at emission levels numerically higher than the standards. Small manufacturers that ty picall y do not have more than one or two emission families generally cannot use averaging to the same extent because of their limited product offerings. The SER wa s concerned that the high
- performance vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete against would be able to certify at numericall y higher levels at less cost than the SER would incur. The SER
- recommended relaxed NMOG+NO X standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 125 mg/mi in model year 2020 and 70 mg/mi in model year 2025. This is the same general approach that the CARB Board approved for small volume manufacturers in LEV III ( a relaxed standard NMOG+NO X of 125 mg/mi followed b y a full y phased
- in standard of 70 mg/mi in model year 2025 ), except that the CARB program introduces the relaxed standard and the change in test fuel in model year 2022. As described above, although we are proposing a delay in the Tier 3 requirements, EPA i s not proposing to relax the fully phased
- in standards for the small entities. We believe that these standards are technologicall y feasible and can be readil y achieved with the additional lead time we are proposing as the technology would have already

bee n demonstrated b y other manufacturers, in some cases on the very same engines used b y the small manufacturers. In addition, the compliance costs for many of these vehicles, even if higher on an absolute basis, may still be lower on a relative basis given the higher average cost of the vehicles. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 224 of 842 apply for hardship relief (discussed below) on a case
- by
- case basis. EPA requests comment on our proposed approach and whether there is an additional need fo r the final rule to allow small manufacturers to meet relaxed NMOG+NO X exhaust emission standards on the FTP over the long term, as suggested by the SER and as reflected in action by CARB
. In light of the CARB Board
- approved implementation schedule for s mall manufacturers described above, we also request comment on an option that would not provide a permanent relaxed standard for small manufacturers, but would provide a temporary

relaxed standard matching the California standard from model year 2022 throu gh 2024. This option would apply to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards starting in 2022, except that a relaxed NMOG+NO X standard of 125 mg/mi would apply in model ye ars 2020
- 2024 for FTP testing. For model years 2025 and later, the standard would be the same as for all other manufacturers, or 30 mg/mi. Under this option, small manufacturers would have to take some action to reduce emissions in 2022 and could postpone meeting fully

phased
- in Tier 3 standards until 2025. We also request comment on an option to fully

harmonize with the California FTP exhaust emission standards in MY 2025 and whether additional emission reductions to offset the less stringent California exhaust emission standards should be required from other emission reduction approach es (e.g.,reduced evaporative or SFTP emissions, etc.). 2. Assigned Deterioration Factors Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their vehicles comply with the emission standards throughout the “useful life” period. This is generally don e by testing vehicles at low
- mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission levels. The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission control sy stems and then testing the aged s ys tems again to determine how much deteriorat ion in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce the testing burden in previous rulemaking, EPA has allowed small manufacturers to use deterioration factor values assigned b y EPA instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would appl y the assigned deterioration factors to its low
- mileage emission level to demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards. With today ’s proposal, EPA proposes that small businesses be allowed the option to use EPA
- developed assigned deterioration factors in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned deterioration factors for small manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar procedure to determine the assigned deterioration factors for the Tier 3 standards once large manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 st andards in model year 2017, EPA should have a significant set of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned deterioration factors for small businesses within the first few ye ars of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned deterio ration factors need to be determined well in advance******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 225 of 842 of model year 2022 in order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or not to use the assigned deterioration factors for certification purposes. 3. Reduced Testing Burden Under EPA ’s regulations, manufacturers must perform in
- use testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in
- use vehicles comply with the emission standards. The current in
- use testing regulations provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, inc luding no testing in some cases. EPA is proposing to continue the reduced levels of testing for small businesses under the Tier 3 program. Under the reduced testing provisions, manufacturers that sell less than 5,000 units per year would not be required to do any testing under the in
- use program. Manufacturers that sell between 5,001 and 15,000 units per year would be required to test two vehicles per test group, but onl y under the high
- mileage conditions specified in the in
- use program. Under current re gulations, manufacturers may waive testing for PM emissions for light
- duty vehicles and trucks, except for diesel
- fueled vehicles. Manufacturers are still subject to the standards and must make a statement of compliance with the PM standards. As describe d in Section IV.A, EPA is proposing new PM standards and will require manufacturers to test for PM emissions for all fuels. Because PM testing requires additional test equipment and facilities, the costs incurred for PM testing can be substantial, especia lly

for a compan y selling small numbers of vehicles. Therefore, EPA is proposing to continue the waiver for PM testing in the Tier 3 timeframe for small businesses. Small businesses will not be required to measure PM emissions when they certify to the Ti er 3 emission standards. In lieu of testing, small businesses will be required to make a statement of compliance with the Tier 3 PM standards. We would retain the ability

to determine the PM emissions results in confirmatory or in
- use testing. As describ ed in Section IV.C, EPA is proposing new OBD requirements for vehicles certifying to the Tier 3 standards. The proposed OBD requirements are the same as CARB’s existing OBD requirements. The proposed OBD provisions require additional amounts of testing and information that can add significant cost for manufacturers if they

are not already meeting the CARB OBD requirements. Small business vehicle manufacturers tend to compl y with the CARB OBD requirements because they

want to sell in the California market . On the other hand, alternative
- fuel converters do not generally certify with CARB because of the significant cost burden of complying with the CARB OBD requirements. We are therefore proposing that small business alternative
- fuel converters may continu e to comply

with EPA’s existing OBD requirements (see 40 CFR 86.1806
- 05) when the Tier 3 standards become effective. Alternative
- fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs do not have SFTP emissions requirements under the current regulations. As described in Section IV.A, EPA is proposing to apply the Tier 3 SFTP standards to all vehicles, including alternative
- fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs. Because SFTP testing includes emission measurement over the SC03 test cycle, which requires additional test fa cilities beyond those needed to run the FTP, the costs incurred for SC03 testing can be******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 226 of 842 substantial, especiall y for companies like alternative fuel converters that sell very low numbers of converted vehicles. We are proposing that for the categories of vehicles newly subject to the SFTP standards, including alternative
- fueled vehicles, manufacturers have the option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions results for purposes of compliance when calculating the SFTP emissions. However, we would retain the ability

to determine the composite emissions using SC03 test results in confirmatory

or in
- use testing. Because the vehicles being converted to an alternative fuel will likely

have been tested for SFTP compliance, we expect the SFTP e missions should be similarly

low, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden is unnecessary
. During the SBAR process, one SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the evaporative emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief that some of the tests may

be duplicative. While EPA understands the reasons behind the SER’s suggestion, we believe it may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given the potential impact of the CO 2 emission standards on engine and fuel s ys tem development. Currentl y, it is generall y understood that the 2
- day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative control sy stems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the 3
- day test, drive the capacity

requirement of evapor ative canisters. Prospectively , due to expected changes in engine and fuel s ys tem designs in response to upcoming CO 2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the case. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative te st procedures. It can be noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 2
- day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829
- 01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform onl y the 2
- day

diurnal test as part of the in
- use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845
- 04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. In general, EPA is open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes like those suggested b y the SER in the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer. Therefore, EPA requests comment on streamlining the current test procedures for small businesses in ways that would still maint ain the overall effectiveness of the tests. 4. Hardship EPA is proposing hardship provisions for small businesses subject to the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to appl y for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase
in requirements for exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief would need to be made in writing and must be submitte d well before the earliest date of potential noncompliance. The request would need to identify how much time is being requested. It must also include evidence that the noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to comply , and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would be faced by the company

if the relief is not granted. The hardship provision should effectively provide the opportunity

for small businesses to obtain more time to comply

with the new Tier 3 standards. The existing hardship provisions limit the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 227 of 842 extra time that can be requested to 1 year, but we are proposing that such a limit is not needed as part of the Tier 3 hardship provisions. 5. Applicability

of Flexibilities Under EPA’s Tier 2 regulations, EPA provi des a number of flexibilities for small volume manufacturers. The criteria for determining if a company is a “small volume manufacturer” is based on the annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the compan y produces less than 15,000 vehi cles per ye ar. Unlike EPA’s current small volume manufacturer criteria, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defines which manufacturers are small businesses based on the number of emplo ye es for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for ICIs and al ternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines a small business vehicle manufacturer as those who have less than 1,000 employees. With today ’s notice, EPA proposes that all small businesses that are subject to the Tier 3 standards and that meet the S BA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities described above. Unless otherwise noted, the proposed flexibilities would be available to all small business vehicle manufacturers, ICIs, and alternative fuel converters subject to the Tier 3 standards. In ad dition, EPA is proposing that manufacturers subject to the Tier 3 standards which meet a specified sales
- based criteria be eligible for the flexibilities described above. It is relatively eas y for a manufacturer to project and ultimately determine sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employees is less straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light
- duty vehicle and truck CO 2 emission standards, EPA adopted provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 vehi cles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is used in the Tier 2 program. EPA proposes that the small volume manufacturer definition be based on the 5,000 vehicle per ye ar level for the Tier 3 program. For purposes of the Tier 3 rule , the 5,000 limit would be based on a running three
- ye ar average of the number of light
- duty vehicles, light
- duty

trucks, medium
- duty

passenger vehicles, and complete heav y - dut y trucks below 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA believes the 5,000 unit cut
- off for small v olume manufacturers would include all of the vehicle manufacturers, I CI s, and alternative fuel converters that currentl y meet the applicable SBA definition as well as a few additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses. **F. Compliance Pro**  **visions** 1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures We are proposing technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1066 as part of the effort to migrate test requirements from 40 CFR part 86 for light
- dut y vehicles and measurement of criteria pollutants. The proposed procedur es in part 1066 reference large portions of part 1065 to align test specifications that apply equall y to engine
- based and vehicle
- based testing, such as CVS and anal yz er specifications, calibrations, test fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms. The proposed part 1066, as amended, also incorporates some aspects of the part 86 procedures, especially the emission calculations.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 228 of 842 Current testing requirements related to chassis dynamometers rel y on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA guidance documents, and extensive learning from industry

experience that has led to a good understanding of best practices for operating a vehicle in the laboratory to measure emissions. This proposal attempts to capture this range of material, integrating and organizing these specifications and procedures to include a complete set of provisions to ensure that emission measurements are accurate and repeatable. We request comment on the range of proposed requirements related to these chassis test procedures. Propo sed revisions to part 1066, and adjustments from part 86, include the following:

 Clarification of regulatory requirements.

 Correction of t ypographical errors.

 Migration of mass
- based emission calculations from part 86 to part 1066.

 Introduction of a new N MOG calculation.

 Revision of 40 CFR 1066, subpart B, to increase the specificity with which part 1065 references are made as they pertain to testing equipment, test fluids, test gases, and calibration standards.

 Addition of coastdown procedures for light
- d ut y vehicles.

 Reordering of the test sequence with respect to vehicle preparation and running a test.

 Specifying part 1065 procedures for PM measurement, including certain deviations from part 1065 for chassis testing. We are proposing the use of part 106 5 for PM measurement with slight adjustments to the dilution air temperature, minimum dilution ratio, and background measurement requirements. By controlling the parameters that affect PM formation (dilution air temperature, minimum dilution ratio at the 99 th percentile of maximum exhaust flow, sample residence time, filter face temperature, and filter face velocity), the proposed procedures include improvements that will reduce lab
- to - lab and test
- to - test variability
. We are proposing to eliminate separat e sampling of Bag 2 of the FTP test cycle to allow for an increase in sampled PM mass. The proposed alternative approach is to sample Bags 1 and 2 of the FTP on a single filter, and sample Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a second filter. This will generall y involve simultaneous sampling of Phase 2 onto two separate filters. As an additional alternative, manufacturers may run cold and hot UDDSs without simultaneous sampling of the cold UDDS Phase 2. Manufacturers******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 229 of 842 choosing this option must still run a separate three
- bag test for evaporative emission testing. We are proposing to make this change directly in §86.145 to be effective with the final rule. We request comment on continuing to allow sampling under the traditional FTP methodology

of a bag or filter per test phase (3 phases in total) instead of these proposed new methods. We also request comment on the appropriate transition to using the new sampling and calculation methods. We are proposing to revise the chassis dynamometer specifications in part 10 66 by removing the maximum roll diameter for vehicles with GVWR at or below 14,000 lbs and by requiring speed and force measurements at a minimum frequency of 10 hertz ( Hz ) . Some manufacturers may be interested in testing with nonstandard dy namometer conf igurations, such as new flat
- track dy namometers or old twin
- roll dy namometers. We may approve the use of these and other nonstandard dy namometer configurations as alternative procedures under 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7). We are also proposing to include a m/s sp ecification of vehicle speeds in addition to the current mph specification. By specifying m/s vehicle speeds to the second decimal place, this allows for equivalent vehicle operation relative to the current mph specification. This aligns with the preferred use of SIunits in part 1066. The cycle validation criteria are based on a speed tolerance of ±1.0 m/s rather than ±2 mph. This is not a direct unit conversion, but is calculated based on the stated precision and rounding allowance to provide a comparable degree of variability in vehicle speeds over the course of the driving schedule. More broadl y, part 1066 relies extensively on calculations involving phy sical parameters to calculate emission rates and perform various calibrations and verifications. As reflected in the current version of part 1066, manufacturers have used a variety of units to perform these calculations. We would expect that dynamometers and other laboratory

equipment are all capable of operating in SIunits even if current practice in some laboratories is to use other units. Moving toward standardized units for calculations would allow us to more carefull y and appropriately specify precision values for various measured and calculated parameters. This would also simplify calculation s, facilitate review of results from different laboratories, and help with communications regarding any round
- robin testing that might occur. We request comment on completing the migration toward SIunits in part 1066. Note that we are not contemplating converting emission standards to SIunits. We also would intend to continue to reference non
- SI units in limited instances, such as mass in grams instead of kilograms, length in millimeters instead of meters, temperature in degrees Celsius instead of Kelv in, and rotational speed in revolutions per minute instead of radians per second. We are proposing to phase in the requirements to use part 1066 test procedures for certifying all sizes of chassis
- tested vehicles. For this phase
- in approach, all aspects o f part 1066 related to PM testing must be met at the start of MY 2017 for vehicles certifying to the PM standards. All other aspects of part 1066 must be met starting with the certification of all MY 2022 vehicles.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 230 of 842 As described in Section IV.D , we are proposing new test fuel specifications for E15 gasoline test fuel in 40 CFR part 1065. The test fuels specified for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, while not used for very many engine families, are currently following different specifications under 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. We request comment on further revising 40 CFR part 86 to refer to the test fuel specifications in part 1065 for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. The proposal also includes various technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1065. The proposed technical amendments have no effect on the stringency of the regulations. These revisions include several minor changes to clarify regulatory

requirements, align with chassis
- testing procedures where appropriate, and correct t ypographical errors. 2. Reduced Test Burden We are proposing to update the regulatory provisions that allow manufacturers to omit testing for certification, in
- use testing, and selective enforcement audits in certain circumstances. Sections IV.A.3, IV.B.6, and IV.E.3 describe how this applies for demonstrating that vehicles meet the Tier 3 PM standards. We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG emissions testing that goes be yond the testing needed for certifying vehicles to the Tier 3 standards. Requiring such measurement would add a significant burden with very limited additional assurance that vehicles adequatel y control PM. We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to ask us to omit PM and formaldehyde measurement for selective enforcement audits. If there is a concern that an y typ e of vehicle would not meet the Tier 3 PM or formaldeh yde standards, we would not approve a manufacturer’s request to omit measurement of these emissions during a selective enforcement audit. The regulations currentl y allow for waived formaldehyde testing for gasoline
- and diesel
- fueled vehicles. The Tier 3 NMOG+NO X emission standards are stringent enough that it is unlikely

that vehicles wo uld comply with the NMOG+NO X standards while exceeding the formaldehyde standards. We are therefore proposing to continue this waiver practice, such that manufacturers of Tier 3 vehicles do not need to submit formaldeh yde data for certification. We are al so requesting comment on rearranging the default testing specification for certifying vehicles to evaporative emission standards, as described in Section IV.C. This would involve requiring manufacturers to perform testing with the two
- day test sequence, while making the three
- day test sequence optional. 3. Miscellaneous Provisions The following additional certification and compliance provisions are included in the proposed rule:

 The certification practice for assigned deterioration factors which are available for both small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 231 of 842 has matured significantl y since it was first adopted. We are proposing to revise §86.1826 to more carefully reflect the current practice. For example, the regulations specify

that manufacturers with sales volumes between 300 and 15,000 units per year should propose their own deterioration factors based on engineering anal ys is of emission data from other families. We believe it is best for EPA to develop a set of assigned deterioration fact ors that can apply to all small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups.

 The regulations in 40 CFR part 86 rel y on rounding procedures specified in ASTM E29. This standard is revised periodically . The newer versions are not likely to change in a way that affects the regulation, but the updates make it difficult to maintain a coordinated reference to the current protocol. We are proposing to address this by specifying that the rounding protocol described in 40 CFR 1065.20(e) applies, unless spec ified otherwise. We are not proposing to change all the references in part 86; rather, we are proposing to define “round” in subparts A and S to have the meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065 so that all new regulatory text would rely on this new description. The rounding specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 are intended to be identical to those in the latest versions of ASTM E29 and NIST SP811. For example, this now includes procedures for nonstandard rounding, such as rounding to the nearest 25 units, or the nearest 0.05, where that is appropriate.

 Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are companies that import specialized vehicles into the U.S. and are subject to EPA requirements specified in Part 85, Subpart P. The standards which apply to the vehicles imported depend, in part, on the model year of the vehicle being imported. Therefore, vehicles imported by I CI s in the future could be subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards and the proposed regulations reflect the application of the Tier 3 standards to I CI s. Because all existing ICIs are small
- volume manufacturers, the Tier 3 standards would not apply until 2022 at the earliest. In addition, the certification practices for ICIs have matured significantl y since they were first adopted. EPA is proposing two changes to update the regulations affecting ICIs. First, the proposed provisions would require ICIs to use electric dyn amometers when running exhaust emission tests. Electric dy namometers have been required for man y ye ars for vehicle manufacturers an d EPA believes it is time to require such test equipment for I CI s in the future. In cases where an I CIcan demonstrate that they will incur a substantial increase in compliance costs, the proposed regulations include a provision that allows EPA to approve requests, on a case - by
- case basis, to allow testing on other typ es of dynamometers until the I CIis able to compl y with the proposed electric dy namometer requirements. Second, we are proposing to incorporate into regulation that ICIs be allowed to use a specific set of reduced testing requirements for up to 300 units each year that have been modified to a U.S.
- certified configuration. This has been allowed for IC Is since 1999 and was approved under EPA’s authority to establish******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 232 of 842 equivalent alternate test p rocedures. 334 In stead of running a full set of emission tests, the reduced testing requirements would allow I CI s to run an FTP for exhaust emissions, a highway fuel economy

test, and a shortened one
hour evaporative emission tests for hot
- soak and diurnal emissions that applied prior to the current enhanced evaporative emission test procedures. We do not believe the proposed changes should have an y significant cost impacts on I CI s. Most of the I CI s have electric dynamometers or can upgrade them for a relativel y small cost. The reduced testing burden provisions keep the cost of testing low, compared to the cost of running a full set of emission tests that otherwise could be required.

 We are proposing to adopt CARB’s onboard diagnostic requirements for all light
- duty vehicles, light
- duty

trucks, and heav y - duty

vehicles, as described in Section IV.C.5.d. We currentl y allow for this as an option, but almost all manufacturers do this already to avoid certifying multiple systems. Now that we are adopting evap orative provisions that depend on California’s regulatory specifications and we are making efforts to adopt a single, national regulatory program, we believe this is an appropriate step. This proposal includes heavy
duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, th ough these vehicles would not need to meet the new requirements related to leak testing. These changes would apply starting in model year 2017 for vehicles subject to Tier 3 standards. The changes appl y directly for heav y - duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, since all those vehicles are already certified based on CARB’s regulations. In the case of alternative fuel conversions, we are proposing to continue to apply the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1806
- 05. 4. Manufacturer In
- Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requ irements The fuel on which a vehicle will be operated in
- use and tested is considered an integral part of the vehicle emission control sy stem design. The Tier 2 program recognized that to achieve the desired emission reductions, vehicles must operate on t he same fuel that the emission control sy stem was originall y designed to encounter in
- use and during testing. In the Tier 2 program, we acknowledged that during the transition of the in
- use fuel from sulfur levels of 300 ppm to the required 30 ppm average level, vehicles designed for 30 ppm could encounter in
- use sulfur levels well above the level for which their emission control sy stems were designed. To address this issue, we allowed manufacturers , with agency approval, to perform specific preconditioni ng test procedures during the IUVP testing to ensure that potential exposure to high sulfur fuel in
- use would not impact the emission test results. These procedures included specific drive cycles or maneuvers not regularl y encountered during normal in
- use operation that would result in removal of sulfur contamination from the emission control sy stem.

334 See 40 CFR 86.106
- 96(a) and Enclosure 2 to EPA Guidance letter CCD
- 02
- 04, February 6, 2002.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 233 of 842 Consistent with the Tier 2 program, EPA continues to recognize the importance of the fuel to the emission control sy stem design, particularl y on Tier 3 vehi cles designed to meet the most stringent emission levels of the program (i.e., Bin 70 and cleaner). Under EPA’s proposal, in
- use fuel would transition from an average sulfur level of 30 ppm required b y Tier 2 to a new average level of 10 ppm under Tier 3. The proposed sulfur requirements would be average standards. Thus, even after the transition to the 10 pm average sulfur level, vehicles might still encounter sulfur levels during in
- use operation above 10 ppm and as high as the 95 ppm cap, which could a dversely impact the emission control sy stem. Tier 3 vehicles tested by manufacturers in IUVP that have been exposed to such sulfur levels could experience sulfur
- related impacts , which in turn could cause the vehicle to temporaril y exceed emission standards. To address the potential emission impact on Tier 3 vehicles from exposure to higher sulfur levels, we are proposing some modifications to the IUVP testing process based in part on what was allowed under the Tier 2 program. Tier 3 vehicles tested in the IU VP would be tested initially without allowing any

sulfur cleanout procedure, such as a US06 test run prior to the FTP or Highway Fuel Economy

(HFET) tests. If a vehicle failed the NMOG+NO X standard for the FTP or HFET cycle during the initial round of testing, manufacturers would be allowed to perform a sulfur cleanout procedure before repeating the FTP or HFET. For the sulfur cleanout, manufacture r s would be allowed to perform up to two US06 cycles. The measured US06 cycle and a preconditioning US 06 cycle, if performed as part of the initial measured tests would serve as the cleanout procedure and therefore no additional US06 cycles would be allowed. Alternative sulfur cleanout procedures would require approval b y EPA. Following the sulfur cleanout procedure, the manufacturer would prep and soak the vehicles and then repeat the FTP and HFET tests. If a manufacturer chose to perform the sulfur cleanout procedure, it would be required to submit evidence that the vehicle encountered high sulfur level s in the fuel just prior to emission testing. This would include an analy sis of a fuel sample from the vehicle fuel s ys tem as received from in
- use operation just prior to testing. If the fuel sample indicated that the vehicle was operating on fuel contai ning 15 ppm or higher sulfur levels in the recent past, only the emission results of the tests following the cleanout procedure would be used for purposes of determining emission compliance and whether to enter the in
- use compliance program (IUCP). The p roposed rule includes the changes to the IUVP testing described above for light
- duty vehicles and MDPVs. The changes to IUVP testing are not applicable to heav y - dut y vehicles tested in the IUVP program. Also, as described in Section IV.D, we are proposin g to incorporate leak testing into the IUVP test protocol. We are not proposing additional changes to the overall IUVP test program. 

## V. **Proposed Fuel Program** Under today ’s Tier 3 program, we are proposing reductions in gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. T hese standards would help prevent the significant impairment of the emission control sy stems expected to be used in Tier 3 technology , significantly improve******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 234 of 842 the efficiency

of emissions control sy stems currently in use, and continue prevention of the substantial adverse effects of sulfur levels on the performance of vehicle emissions control sy stems. Section V.A provides an overview of the fuel program and how we arrived at the proposed gasoline sulfur standards. Se ction B presents our assessment of the impacts the proposed fuel program would have on stationary source permitting and our conclusion that the proposed refinery lead time is adequate. Section V.C contains our proposed standards for denatured fuel ethanol. In Section V.D , we introduce and seek comment on possible options for regulating gasoline
- ethanol blends intended for flexible fue l vehicles. Section V.E presents the proposed program flexibilities including the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program as well as small refiner and small volume refinery

provisions. Section V.F lay s out the compliance provisions for the proposed Tier 3 gasoline program. Finally , Section V.G presents our statutory authorities for lowering gasoline sulfur. As a result of these proposals, we have to amend certain existing provisions in the current Tier 2 requirements at 40 CFR part 80. We are not reopening Tier 2 and our proposed amendments should not be construed as a reopener. **A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards**  1. Overview a. History

of Sulfur Control Sulfur is naturally

occurring in crude oil. Crude oil containing higher concentrations of sulf

ur (i.e., greater than 0.5 percent) is called “sour” and crude containing lower sulfur concentrations (e.g., West Texas Intermediate) is referred to as “sweet.” Regardless of the concentration, because sulfur is naturall y occurring in crude oil, it is als o naturally

occurring in gasoline. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, sulfur impairs the performance of today ’s vehicle emission control technologies (i.e., precious metal catal yt ic converters), reducing the emission benefits of current and advanced vehicles . As explained below, in 2000 EPA took action to reduce gasoline sulfur levels under what is known as the Tier 2 Program 335 and is proposing to take further action under the proposed Tier 3 Program. Tier 2 was a major, comprehensive program designed to redu ce emissions from passenger cars, light trucks, and large passenger vehicles (including sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pick
- up trucks) and the sulfur content of gasoline. Under this program, automakers were required to manufacture low
- emissio n vehicles when operated on low
- sulfur gasoline, and refiners were required to produce low
- sulfur gasoline nationwide. Required reductions in gasoline sulfur began in 2004 with refinery and importer caps of 300 ppm and a corporate average cap of 120 ppm . For most refiners and

335 67 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 235 of 842 importers, compliance with the final sulfur standards (30
- ppm annual average and 80
- ppm per gallon cap) was required beginning in 2006. Due to extensions provided for some refineries under the ultra
- low sulfur diesel program, fin al compliance for all U.S. refineries was January

1, 2011. The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program also had an ABT program that allowed companies to generate credits for implementing the required changes earlier than required and allowed ongoing flexibility to meet the 30
- ppm average sulfur standard. At full implementation, the Tier 2 program (treating vehicles and fuels as a sy stem) required passenger vehicles to be over 77 percent cleaner and gasoline sulfur to be reduced b y up to 90 percent from pre
- program levels. b. Need for Additional Gasoline Sulfur Control We are proposing to lower today ’s gasoline sulfur standards under Clean Air Act section 211(c)(1). This is because emission products of gasoline with current levels of sulfur cause or contribute to air p ollution which may reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and impair to a significant degree the emissions control device or s ys tems on the vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. For more on our legal authority to set g asoline sulfur standards, refer to Section V.G. As explained in Section IV.A.6, robust data from many sources shows that gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e., around 30 ppm on average) continues to degrade vehicle cataly

tic converter performance during normal operation. The most significant problem is for NO X . Today ’s proposed NMOG+NO X vehicle emission standards, an 80 percent reduction from current Tier 2 standards, would not be possible without the gasoline sulfur controls we are proposing today . Ti er 3 vehicles must achieve essentiall y zero warmed
- up NO X emissions to comply and maintain this performance for up to 150,000 miles. An increase in emissions of only a few milligrams per mile due to sulfur could make compliance impossible for some vehicle s. The standards are projected to be especiall y challenging for larger SUVs and pick
- up trucks. Reducing gasoline sulfur would also help reduce emissions of pollutants that endanger public health and welfare from vehicles already on the road today. For the Tier 2 rule, we had data that showed benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur, but little to no data existed for sulfur levels below 30 ppm that we could use to project continued emission reductions. Since then, we have tested a wide range of Tier 2 vehic les to better understand the impact that even lower gasoline sulfur could have on emissions. Our test data showed significant NO X and VOC reductions when vehicles were tested on ultra
- low sulfur gasoline. As explained in more detail in Section III.B, low ering average gasoline sulfur from 30 to 10 ppm would result in approximately 280,000 less tons of NO X and 40,000 less tons of VOC. The projected in
- use emission benefits would occur almost immediately

in 2017 when the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards tak e effect.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 236 of 842 c. Summary

of Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Program Under today ’s Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline and any ethanol
- gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an annual average basis beginning January

1, 2017. Similar to the Ti er 2 gasoline program, the proposed Tier 3 program would appl y to gasoline in the United States and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding California. The program, when finalized, would result in gasoline that contains an av erage of two
- thirds less sulfur than it does today . We are proposing a three
- year delay for small refiners and small volume refineries. Eligible small refining entities, described in more detail in Section V.E.2, would have until January 1, 2020 to compl y with the new sulfur standards. We are proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to optimize their investment strategies to enable reduction in capital and compliance costs. Refiners and importers overcompl yi ng with the 10
- ppm standard beginn ing January 1, 2017 could generate standard credits that could be used internally , banked, or traded to other companies. We are also proposing an early credit program that would allow refiners and importers to spread out their investments over time to all ow for an orderl y transition. Starting January

1, 2014, refiners and importers taking steps to reduce gasoline sulfur below the current 30
- ppm standard could generate earl y credits that could be used to postpone final investments for up to three ye ars. F or a more detailed discussion of the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. As a result of the earl y credit program and notwithstanding the proposed delay offered to small refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery

steps to get to 10 ppm occurring on or before January 1, 2020. We are proposing to either maintain the current 80
- ppm refinery gate per - gallon cap and 95
- ppm downstream per
- gallon cap or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, respectivel y. We also evaluated and are seeking comment on the potential of lowering these caps to 20 ppm and 25 ppm, respectivel y. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with the various sulfur cap options (explained in more detail in Section V.A.3 ), but under all the proposed options, we believe that the stringency of the 10
- ppm annual average standard would result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. A summary

of the p roposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards is presented below in Table V
- 1 . Domestic refiners and gasoline importers would be subject to both the 10
- ppm annual average sulfur standard and the refinery gate per - gallon ca

p, when finalized. Gasoline in the distribution sy stem (i.e., at terminals, retail stations, etc.) would be subject to the downstream per
- gallon cap. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed sulfur standards, refer to Sections V.A.2 and V.A.3
.

**Table V**  **- 1**  **Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards**

Cap Option 1 Cap Option 2 Limit Effective Limit Effective******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 237 of 842 Refinery annual average standard 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a Refinery gate per - gallon cap 80 ppm Already 50 ppm January 1, 2020 Downstream per
- gallon cap 95 ppm Already 65 ppm March 1, 2020

a Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refi ners and small volume refineries. d. Refinery

Feasibility While evaluating the merits of a national gasoline sulfur program to reduce emissions and enable future vehicle technologies, we also considered the refining industry ’s abilit y to reduce sulfur to 10 ppm on average b y J anuary 1, 2017 and the associated costs (for more on fuel costs, refer to Section VII.A). Based on information gathered from numerous stakeholder meetings, discussions with vendor companies that provide the gasoline desulfurization technologies, as well as the results from our refinery
by
- refinery

modeling, we believe it is technologically feasible at a reasonable cost for refiners to meet the proposed sulfur standards in the lead time provided. A summary of our feasibility

anal ys is is presented below. For more on our fuels feasibility assessment and refinery

modeling, refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of the draft RIA. Gasoline desulfurization technologies are well known and readily available. Many technologies were demonstrated under Tier 2 and have been further demonstrated by current fuel programs in California, Japan, and Europe. Under California’s Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline program (CaRFG3), gasoline sulfur is limited to 15 ppm on average with a 20
- ppm per - gallon cap. 336 California r educed their per
- gallon cap in phases from 60 ppm effective December 31, 2003, to 30 ppm effective December 31, 2005, to 20 ppm effective December 31, 2011. Actual in
- use gasoline sulfur levels, however, have been largely constrained by

the Predictive Mod el that California refiners are using to demonstrate compliance. As a result, gasoline sulfur levels are lower than the CaRFG3 limits. Based on the Predictive Model, California gasoline contained approximately

10 ppm sulfur on average in 2010 (9 ppm in the summer and 11 ppm in the winter). Japan currentl y has a 10
- ppm gasoline sulfur cap that took effect in January 2008. Europe also has a 10
- ppm sulfur cap that has been adopted by the 30 Member States that comprise the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well as Albania and Bosnia
- Herzegovina. 337 Beijing, China also recentl y introduce d a

336 California Air Resources Board. (2008, August 29). The California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations , Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250
- 2273.5. Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/082908CaRFG_regs.pdf. 337 Hart Energy Consulting. (2011). International Fuel Qual ity Center: 2011 Worldwide Fuel Specifications******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 238 of 842 10
- ppm sulfur limit for gasoline. 338 We note, however, that man y oil refineries outside of the United States operate differentl y from thei r U.S. counterparts. U.S. refiners have invested more heavily

in fluidized cataly

tic cracker (FCC) units than the rest of the world in order to maximize gasoline production. Because the FCC unit is responsible for nearly all the sulfur that ends up in ga soline, man y U.S. refineries face a bigger challenge in achieving 10
- ppm gasoline sulfur levels. Nevertheless, these international fuel programs (along with California) provide evidence that advanced gasoline desulfurization technologies have been deploye d and are readil y available to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. When considering the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refineries can be grouped into three general categories based on their current post
- Tier 2 refinery configurations: those wi thout an FCC unit, those hydrotreating the gasoline stream coming from their FCC unit (i.e., postreating) 339 , and those h ydrotreating their FCC feed (i.e., pretreating). Most refineries without FCC units would not need to do any thing to meet the proposed Ti er 3 sulfur standards. Refineries equipped with FCC units that invested in an FCC postreater under Tier 2 would likely just need to revamp (i.e., renovate) their existing unit for a modest cost. Refineries that onl y have an FCC pretreater would meet the Tier 3 sulfur standards b y either revamping their existing pretreaters (perhaps also cutting the heav y portion of FCC naphtha into the diesel or jet pools) or invest in a grassroots FCC postreater. Our refinery
- by
- refinery modeling suggests that 29 refine ries would not need to do any thing, 66 would need to revamp their existing FCC pre
- and postreaters, and 16 would need to add grassroots postreaters. 340 Refiners that need to install a new postreater would have to make the largest desulfurization investment s under Tier 3, t ypical of man y of the refinery

investments made under Tier 2. For more on our estimated sulfur control costs, refer to Section VII.B. We have built in a number of flexibilities that will reduce the compliance burden for refiners. In particular, coupling the proposed 10
- ppm annual average sulfur standard with refinery

gate and downstream per
- gallon caps should continue to allow for batch
- to batch variability, refinery upsets, and turnarounds while still maintaining the overall air quality benefits of the program. For more information on the applicable per
- gallon sulfur caps, refer to Section V.A.3
. We are also proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to spread out their investments ove r time and achieve compliance in the most cost
- effective manner. If some refineries either comply with the 10
- ppm standard earlier than required, or reduce sulfur partway

toward 10 ppm earl y, this would allow other refineries to delay compliance for a fin ite period through the use of earl y credits. The ABT program would also allow for ongoing company averaging. This would allow some refineries to stay

338 Article from China.org.cn enti tled “ Beijing to implement stricter fuel standards ”, May 19, 2012, retrieved from http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2012
- 05/19/content_25422404.htm 339 Some of them may also have an FCC pretreater. 340 Our in
- house refinery modeling considers 111 operational refineries producing non
- California gasoline.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 239 of 842 slightly above the standard at the expense of other refineries over complying, resulting in the most cos t - effective mechanism for meeting the 10
- ppm annual average standard. For more information on the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. Finally , our Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, when final, would allow three ye ars of additional lead time for s mall refiners and small volume refineries (i.e., refineries processing less than or equal to 75,000 net barrels per day of crude oil). As a group, we believe that these refineries are disproportionally impacted when it comes to their cost of compliance an d ability to rationalize investment costs in today ’s gasoline market. Giving these refineries additional lead time would allow them more time to invest in desulfurization technology , take advantage of advancements in technology , develop confidence in a Ti er 3 credit market as a means of compliance, and avoid competition for capital, engineering, and construction resources with the larger refineries. For more on the proposed provisions for small refiners and small volume refineries, refer to Section V.E.2. The proposed Tier 3 rulemaking should not adversely affect the suppl y of gasoline in the U.S. This judgment is based on a review of both gasoline and diesel fuel supply when the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur and ultra
- low sulfur highway and nonroad diesel ru les were phasing in between 2003 and 2011. At the end of this time period, the U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel markets were increasingly being supplied b y U.S. refiners, instead of b y imports, compared to the beginning of this time period. Most striking is that the more stringent ultra
- low sulfur diesel fuel standards showed the largest shift as U.S. refiners not onl y began to suppl y more of the U.S. diesel fuel market, but became net exporters of diesel fuel. For more on our fuel supply assessment, refer to Section 5.3 of the draft RIA. 2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard In the subsections that follow, we lay out our rationale for proposing a 10
- ppm average standard, our assessment of how the proposed ABT program would help with compliance, and our co nclusion that the proposed lead time is adequate. In the following section, we explain our rationale behind the proposed sulfur caps and seek comment on potential alternatives. a. Appropriateness of Proposed 10
- ppm Sulfur Standard As explained in Section IV.A.6, sulfur in fuel oxidizes in the exhaust and coats the sites where chemical reactions can take place on the precious metal cataly sts used in vehicles to reduce emissions of VOC, NO X , PM, CO, and toxics. Accordingl y, an y sulfur in gasoline causes ve hicle emissions to increase. Sulfur can be burned off the catal ys t during high
- temperature, rich operation of the vehicle (i.e., aggressive driving conditions), but as long as there is an y sulfur in the fuel, exhaust emissions will increase. Because an y amount of sulfur in the fuel can have this effect, the lower the sulfur the better.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 240 of 842 Refiners experience the same phenomenon with precious metal cataly sts used in the reformer and isomerization units at their refineries. 341 To protect the precious metal cata ly sts in these units, refiners reduce the sulfur in the feed to these units to 1 ppm or below. Thus, it is technically possible for refiners to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels to virtually zero. While refiners did not have reason to reduce the sulfur in FCC gasoline until Tier 2 required such reductions, some refiners have achieved reductions in this stream at some of their refineries for other reasons such as (1) protecting the FCC catal ys t from the contaminants in the gas oil feed, (2) reducing stac k emissions from the regenerator of the FCC unit, and most importantly (3) increasing gasoline yields from the FCC unit. For most refineries, FCC gasoline accounts for about one
- third of gasoline and before Tier 2 was the source of over 95 percent of the sulfur in gasoline. Under Tier 2, most refiners significantly desulfurized FCC gasoline to around 70 to 80 ppm, yet FCC gasoline continues to contribute the majority of sulfur in gasoline today
. While further reducing sulfur in gasoline will continue to reduce vehicle emissions, our emissions anal ys is shows that a 10
- ppm annual average is sufficient to enable vehicles to reach the proposed Tier 3 standards. Moreover, for the following reasons, reducing sulfur further below 10 ppm becomes increasingl y di fficult and costly
. First, FCC naphtha is very rich in high
- octane olefins. As the severit y of desulfurization increases, more olefins are saturated, further sacrificing the octane value of this stream and further increasing h ydrogen consumption. Making up for this lost octane represents a significant portion of the sulfur control costs. Second, as desulfurization severity increases, there is an increase in the amount of sulfur removed (in the form of hydrogen sulfide) which recombines with the olefins in the FCC naphtha, thus offsetting the principal desulfurization reactions. There are means to deal with the recombination reactions, but they

result in even greater capital investments. Third, while FCC gasoline contributes the majority

of sulfur to th e finished gasoline, as the sulfur level drops below 10 ppm, the sulfur level of the various other gasoline streams within the refinery also become important. An y necessary treatment of these additional streams increases both capital and operating costs. U.S. refineries are currently in different positions, both technicall y and financiall y. In general, they are configured to handle the different crude oils they process and turn it into a widely

varying product slate to match available markets. Those processing heavier, sour crudes would have a more challenging time reducing gasoline sulfur under the proposed Tier 3 program. As explained earlier, refineries have different sulfur levels in their non
- FCC streams based on their feedstocks and configuration s. Those with higher sulfur levels in other refinery streams would have a more difficult time desulfurizing gasoline. Perhaps most important, U.S. refineries vary greatl y in size (atmospheric crude capacities range from less than 5,000 to more than 500,0 00 barrels per day) and thus have different economies of scale for adding capital to their refineries.

341 Together, the streams from the reformer and isomerization units account for approximately one
- third of gasoline.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 241 of 842 As such, it can be less costly per gallon for some larger refineries to get down to 10 ppm than for smaller refineries, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. As a result, under a 10
- ppm average standard, the flexibility afforded by

the ABT program helps those refineries with very

high costs. They

have the option of staying above 10 ppm if they can acquire credits from other refineries that were able to lower their sulfur level below 10 ppm. However, if the gasoline sulfur standard were to be 5 ppm, this would essentially end the ability

of refiners to average sulfur reductions across their refineries. There simply would not be enough opportunit y to generate credits below 5 ppm. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA, to estimate the costs for a 10
- ppm annual average standard where some refineries stay above 10 ppm, we also estimated the costs for refineries to get down to 5 ppm. To do so, we estimated that sulfur control costs would increase b y at least 50 percent compared to the proposed 10
- ppm standard, which is over two times more costly

per ppm - gallon of gasoline sulfur reduced. This 5
- ppm cost assessment is reasonable for those refine ries that would likel y generate credits under a 10
- ppm average standard as these refineries are most likel y in the best position for achieving such low sulfur levels. However, were we to actually assess the costs of a 5
- ppm standard, at least some of thes e refineries would likely have additional costs for controlling the sulfur in other gasoline blendstocks, and we would likel y apply a higher overdesign factor to account for industry
- wide compliance at 5 ppm. More detailed refinery information may be need ed for such an analy sis but, for the more challenged refineries, a 5
- ppm standard could potentially

be cost prohibitive. A 5
- ppm standard would also introduce further costs to address the contribution to gasoline sulfur from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and contamination in the distribution sy stem. Therefore, a 10
- ppm annual average standard appears to be the point which properl y balances feasibility with costs. Also, for these reasons, EPA believes that a viable ABT program is impo rtant to the success of the proposed Tier 3 fuels program (explained in more detail in Section V.A.2.b ). Finally , as discussed in Section IV.A.6, reducing sulfur below 10 ppm would further reduce vehicle emissions and allow the proposed Tier 3 vehicle standards to be achieved more easily . However, we believe that a 10
- ppm average standard will be sufficient to allow vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards. The level of the Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10
- ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. If we were to consider lowering sulfur further, we would then also have to consider reducing the vehicle standards further. Given the challenges associated with sulfur reductions below 10 ppm as discus sed above, we do not believe this would be appropriate. b. How Would the Proposed ABT Program Assist with Compliance? As described more full y in Section V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT program that would reduce the average compliance burden for gasoline prod ucers and importers. This program would permit the generation of credits by refineries that reduce their annual average sulfur level below 10 ppm, and transfer of these credits to other refineries to reduce or eliminate their need to make capital investme nts to meet the 10
- ppm standard. The ABT program would thus provide refiners with multiple approaches to compliance, and each could choose the approach that minimizes their costs.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 242 of 842 We modeled an ABT program to estimate how it would affect compliance. As d escribed in more detail in Section VII.B.4, our modeling determined the lowest cost approach on a refinery
- by
- refinery basis under two scenarios: an idealized scenario in which every

refinery has the opportunity

to make credit transfers with every other re finery in the nation, and a more limited scenario in which credit transfers would only occur within companies that own more than one refinery . Today a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are transferred within companies, but there is still a con siderable amount of inter
- compan y trading occurring. 342 Thus, assuming no trading between companies is a conservative assumption and the real impact is likely to be somewhere in between the two scenarios. Table V
- 2 des cribes how compliance would be affected under these two scenarios.

**Table V**  **- 2**  **Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program on Compliance** ABT with nationwide credit transfers ABT with intra
compan y credit transfers Numbe r of refineries that generate credits 46 18 Number of refineries that consume credits 25 8 Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits 40 85 Total modeled refineries 111 111 Based on our ABT modeling, we believe that a significant number of refineries would take advantage of the opportunity to generate or use credits, thus lowering their compliance burden under the proposed 10
- ppm annual average standard. For a more complete discussion of our anal ys is of the proposed ABT program, ref er to Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. c. Adequacy

of Proposed Refinery

L ead Time Given the complexity

of gasoline refining, numerous planning and action steps would be required for refiners to complete the refinery changes needed to comply with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. The steps required to implement these changes include: the completion of scoping studies, financing, process design for new or revamped refinery

units or subunits, permitting, detailed engineering based upon the process design, field c onstruction of the gasoline sulfur reduction facilities, and start
- up and shakedown of the newly installed desulfurization equipment. We conducted a thorough lead time anal ys is in which we sequenced the estimated time to complete scoping studies, process d esign, permitting, detailed engineering, field

342 Based on Tier 2 sulfur compliance data, of the 26 companies that obtained sulfur credits in 2010, eight obtained credits only from their ow n company, and another five obtained credits both from their own company and from other companies. The remainder obtained credits only from other companies.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 243 of 842 construction, and start
- up and shakedown in advance of production based upon the methodology

used in our recent gasoline and diesel rules. For the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we estimated refinery lead times step - by
- step for the construction of new grassroots FCC postreaters and the revamp of existing pre and postreaters. For each refinery project ty

pe, we estimated lead times for scoping studies, process design, permitting, detailed engineering, field construction, and start - up and shakedown. Estimated required lead times for scoping studies are six months. Process design ranged from six months for desulfurization equipment revamping to nine months for a grassroots postreater. Based on discus sions with refiners, we conservatively estimated permitting for desulfurization equipment revamping and the construction of a grassroots postreater to take 9 months. However, we estimated the overall lead
- times for Tier
- 3
- related revamps to be considerab ly

shorter, as described below. The estimates for permitting time are consistent with those of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and our regional offices, both of which have engaged in extensive dialog with potentially affected parties. A discussion of the permitting implications of Tier 3 is contained in Section V.B of the preamble. Detailed engineering efforts were estimated to require six months for desulfurization equipment revamping and nine months for grassroots postreaters . Field construction was estimated to require six months for revamped pre
and postreaters and 12 months for grassroots postreaters. Start
- up and shakedown processes were estimated to require six months for revamped FCC treaters and 9 months for grassro ots postreaters. There is some degree of overlap among each of these steps as shown in Table V
- 3
. To allow refiners to complete all these different steps and compl y with the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, as suming the Tier 3 proposal were to be finalized by the end of 2013, we would be providing three years of lead time. In addition to the three ye ars of lead time, the proposed rulemaking also provides additional flexibility provided b y the ABT program, smal l refinery delay s, and hardship provisions. To support this timeline, we conducted several anal ys es of the expected refinery lead time requirements associated with the proposed Tier 3 standards and found that refinery operators would have more than adequate time to implement the required refinery charges. A justification for proposed timeline appears below.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 244 of 842 Complying with Tier 3 is expected to involve some grassroots FCC postreaters, but mostly

we believe that refiners will revamp existing FCC postreaters . Revamping of existing FCC postreaters can be accomplished in approximately 2 years, or less (See Table V
- 3 Anticipated Compliance **Timelines** ). Grassroots FCC postreaters are expected to require on average about three
- ye ars to install and start
- up (See Table V
- 3 Anticipated Compliance **Timelines** ). In comparision to FCC pretreaters, h ydrocrackers and distillate hydrotreaters, FCC postreaters are much less costly , low pressure units that take less time to scope out, require shorter lead times for ordering the equipment, and less time to install. Furthermore, the grassroots FCC postreaters to be installed for Tier 3 are expected to be in a moderate to light desulfurization se rvice because the refineries they will be installed in will already be complying with Tier 2 using an FCC pretreater. FCC naphtha from a refinery with an FCC pretreater is expected to only contain about 100 ppm sulfur. To comply with Tier 3, refiners ins talling these grassroots FCC postreaters would only need to desulfurize the FCC naphtha down to 25 ppm (about a 75% reduction). In comparison, a single
- stage FCC postreaters would have to desulfurze FCC naphtha from as high as 2400 ppm sulfur down to 25 p pm, a 99% sulfur reduction. The more moderate desulfurization service of the grassroots FCC postreaters needed to comply with Tier 3 would be expected to streamline the scoping and design work.

**Table V**  **- 3**  **A nticipated Compliance Timelines**  Months 0
- 3 3
- 6 6
- 9 9
- 12 12
- 15 15
- 18 18
- 21 21
- 24 24
- 27 27
- 30 30
- 33 33
- 36 36
- 39 39
- 42 42
- 45RevampPre-&Postreaters Scoping Studies Process Design Permitting Detailed Engineering Field Construction Start
- up / ShakedownGrassrootsPostreater Scoping Studies Process Design Permitting Detailed Engineering Field Construction Start
- up / Shakedown******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 245 of 842 It is useful to compare the proposed lead time for Tier 3 to what was provided for Tier 2. In the case of the Tier 2 standard, we provided a three
- ye ar lead time along with an ABT program and other flexibilities to ease compliance. Refiners, though, commented that the three year timeline that we provided was not enough time. For the Tier 2 anal ys is, we assumed that refiners would solely install low
- pressure FCC postreaters, which we believe could be scoped out, designed, installed and started up within a 3 year time period. However, many refiners complied with Tier 2 by installing high
- pressure FCC pretreaters which require long lead times for the procurement of the required equipme nt. Furthermore, those refiners that did not install high
- pressure FCC pretreaters instead installed grassroots FCC postreaters, many of which were designed for severe desulfurization service. An additional difference between Tier 3 and Tier 2 is that fo r Tier 3 we expect the installation of only 16 grassroots units, along with many revamps, but for Tier 2 virtually all refiners installed both grassroots FCC pretreaters and postreaters. The demands on the desulfurization vendors for scoping studies, and on the E & C industry

for design and construction, and on the refiners to train their operations staff and start up the new units, was a lot greater for Tier 2 than what we would expect for Tier 3. The total estimated investment cost for Tier 2 versus Tie r 3 also highlights the difference in investment demands The total investment for Tier
- 2 desulfurization processing units was estimated to be about $6.1 billion, while the total investment for Tier
- 3 desulfurization processing units is estimated to be abo ut $2.1 billion. This simple comparison helps to illustrate that the proposed Tier 3 would be easier for refineries to obtain necessary permits, secure engineering and construction (E&C) resources, install new desulfurization equipment and make all necess ary retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur standards. We assessed the permitting situation in more detail working in conjunction with the Office of Air Quality , Planning and Standards (OAQPS). On a refinery
- by
- refinery basis, we provided OAQPS estimates of the additional heating demands for the new and revamped units per the desulfurization vendor submissions. OAQPS was able to project which refineries would likely trigger NOx, particulate matter and greenhouse gas emission permitting limits, which would likely lengthen the permitting process as refiners would need to offset the projected emission increases. As it turns out, only 7 of the 16 refineries which are projected to install grassroots units were projected to exceed particular permitting limits, and these solely did so based on the most conservative assumption that each would produce all the additional hydrogen on site using h ydrogen plants (as opposed to using existing reforming capacity) and produce the electricity on site, to satisfy

the needs of the new desulfurization equipment. When we provided a second heat demand estimate to OAQPS which assumes that refiners purchase their hydrogen and electricity from third parties, none of the refineries which we projected would install grassroots units was projected to have emission increases which would require offsets. Thus, many of the grassroots units that we project would be installed may end up with a streamlined permitting process. The various flexibilities that the proposed Tier 3 rule provides to refiners provide refiners additional time for complying. These flexibilities include the ABT program, the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 246 of 842 small refiner delay

provisions and the hardship provisions. The ABT program allows a refiner, either within its own compan y or b y purchasing credits on the open market, to delay higher investment cost investments, such as the investments in grassroots FCC postreaters, which would provide additional lead time for installing these units. This would occur if refiners would reduce the sulfur levels of their gasoline through operational changes or revamps of their existing FCC pretreaters and postreaters when the ABT Program begins in 2014. Potentially every refinery with either an FCC pretreater or an FCC postreater may be capable of generating earl y credits. Furthermore, we project that 66 refineries would revamp their existing FCC postreaters to comply with Tier 3. Since revamps can be completed within two years or less, these refiners could potentially

begin generating earl y credits during 2016, o r before if refiners begin each of these revamps in earl y 2014. During the period between 2014 and 2017, these refineries which reduce their gasoline sulfur levels below that required b y Tier 2 would generate credits. R efinerie s with higher cost capital investments, such as the grassroots FCC postreaters, could then delay making those investments through the purchase of credits. We estimate that sufficient credits could be genereated earl y to allow many of these refinerie s to delay

compliance until as late as 2020. The quantitative early credit anal ys is that we conducted showed that if refiners with an existing pretreater or postreater would generate earl y credits by lowering their gasoline sulfur down to 20 ppm starting in 2014 and if revamps were start ed up in 2016, one year before the program start date, that almost 6 times more credits would be available to offset the earl y credit demand by the refiners installing grassroots postreater units, assuming that they start up those units in 2018. Even if a ll grassroots postreaters were assumed to not start up until 2020, there would be almost 4 times more early credits available to those refiners installing grassroots postreaters assuming that the same early credit generation scenario would occur. Additiona l flexibility is also provided by

the small refineries provisions which delays compliance by

the refineries that refiner less than a net of 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day until 2020. Three of the 16 FCC postreater grassroots units that we project wil l be installed would be by small refinerie s. However, small refinerie s could also decide to compl y earl y and generate credits starting as earl y as 2014. As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions to accommodate a refiner’s inabili ty to comply

with the proposed standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any

point during the program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and non
small, though relief w ould be granted on a case
- by
- case basis following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that an y hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a hard ship waiver would be short
- term relief that would allow a refiner facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to comply
. This hardship provision would allow a refiner to seek a delay in the case that there was insufficient time t o comply
. Finally , we believe that in reality , less leadtime than shown in******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 247 of 842 Table V
- 3 would actually be necessary . We held discussions with many refiners during 2011, and so they

have been well aware of Tier 3 and are familiar with the likely requirements. During our subsequent discussions with technology vendors and engineering firms, they

explained to us that many refiners have already initiated, and b y now, likely

completed their scoping studies. Thus, actual time needed for designing, installing and starting of new desulfurization equipment for Tier 3 times would even be less than what we projected because man y refineries may have already completed required scoping studies in anticipation of the Tier
- 3 standards. Moreover, lead times for those refineries that have yet to start the scoping process can also be expected to decrease, since fewer refineries will be competing for the services of the desulfurization vendors. As in prior rules, we also evaluated the capabilit y of E&C industries to design and build gasoline h ydrotreaters as well as performing routine maintenance. Two areas where it is important to consider the impact of the fuel proposed sulfur standards are: (1) refiners’ ability

to procure design an d construction services and (2) refiners’ ability to obtain the capital necessary for the construction of new equipment required to meet the new gasoline quality specification. We evaluated the requirement for engineering design and construction personnel in a manner consistent with the Tier 2 anal ys is, particularl y for three t yp es of workers needed to implement the refinery changes: front
- end designers, detailed designers, and construction workers. We developed estimates of the maximum number of each of these ty pes of workers needed throughout the design and construction process and compared those figures to the number of personnel currently employed in these areas. The number of job hours necessary to design and build individual pieces of refinery equipment and the job hours per piece of equipment were taken from Moncrief and Ragsdale. 343 Their paper summarizes anal ys es performed in support of a National Petroleum Council study

of gasoline desulfurization, as well as other potential fuel quality changes. The design and construction factors for desulfurization equipment are summarized in Table V
- 4
.

**Table V**  **- 4**  **Design and Construction Factors** Gasoline Refiners Number of N ew Pieces of Equipment per Refinery 60 Number of Revamped Pieces of Equipment per Refinery 15 Job Hours Per Piece of New Equipment a

343 Moncrief, Philip & Ragsdale, Ralph. (2000). Can the U.S. E&C Industry Meet the EPA’s Low Sulfur Timetable? Paper presented at NPRA Annual Meeting, March 26
- 28, 2000. Paper No. AM
- 00
- 57.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 248 of 842 Front End Design 300 Detailed Design 1,200 Direct and Indirect Construction 9,150

a Revamped equipment estimated to re quire half as many hours per piece of equipment Refinery projects will differ in complexity and scope. Even if all refiners desired to complete their project by the same date, their projects would inevitably begin over a range of months. Thus, two projec ts scheduled to start up at exactly the same time are not likely to proceed through each step of the design and construction process at the same time. Second, the design and construction industries will likely provide refiners with economic incentives to avoid temporary peaks in the demand for personnel. Applying the above factors, we projected the maximum number of personnel needed in an y given month for each ty pe of job. The results are shown in Table V
- 5 . In ad dition to total personnel required, the percentage of the U.S. workforce in these areas is also shown, assuming that half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast

**Table V**  **- 5**  **Maximum Monthly Demand for Personne l** 

Front
- End Design Detailed

Engineering Construction Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Program Number of Workers 202 809 6,012 Percentage of Current Workforce a 11% 9% 4%

a Based on current employment in the U.S. Gulf Coast assuming half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast To meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately 1,000 front
- end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction jobs. The number of estimated jobs required is small relative to overall number available in the U.S. job market. As such, we believe that three ye ars , plus the additional flexibilities provided, is adequate lead time for refineries to obtain necessary permits, secure E&C resources, insta ll new desulfurization equipment, and make all necessary retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur standards. For an in depth assessment of stationary source implications, refer to Section V.B . For more on our E&C ass essment, refer to Section 4.5 of the draft RIA. 3. Per
- Gallon Sulfur Caps In much of Europe and Japan, the gasoline sulfur level is capped at 10 ppm. We, however, are not considering a 10
- ppm cap for the U.S. The U.S. gasoline distribution sy stem poses contamination challenges that make it difficult to set and enforce such a tight downstream per
- gallon sulfur standard. In Europe, Japan, and California, finished petroleum products are generall y shipped short distances directly from the refinery to the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 249 of 842 t erminal with limited susceptibility to contamination. The U.S. has the longest and most complex gasoline distribution system in the world, making it harder to control sulfur contamination than in other countries. Petroleum products are shipped long dista nces through multi
- product pipelines. Further, gasoline goes through the same pipelines and terminals back
- to - back with jet fuel (containing up to 3,000 ppm sulfur). Products are often in the custody of a number of separate companies before reaching the terminal. This sy stem is very

effective at delivering petroleum products to the bulk of the country , but pipeline transport inevitably introduces the potential for sulfur contamination of the gasoline being shipped through pipelines. Additionally , gasoli ne additives needed to provide critical fuel performance characteristics (e.g., corrosion control, demulsifiers) also contain varying levels of sulfur which contribute to the overall sulfur content of gasoline. Therefore, we are proposing a 10
- ppm refinery average sulfur standard (discussed in Section V.A.2 ) with higher per gallon caps at both the refinery gate and at all points downstream, which is similar to what currentl y exists under the Tier 2 program. We beli eve this is the most prudent approach for lowering in
- use sulfur while maintaining flexibility

considering cost and other factors. These per
- gallon caps are important in the context of an average sulfur standard to provide an upper limit on the sulfur con centration that vehicles must be designed to tolerate. Since there are many opportunities for sulfur to be introduced into gasoline downstream of the refinery , these caps also limit downstream sulfur contamination and enable the enforcement of the gasolin e sulfur standard in
- use. We are proposing two options for the per
- gallon sulfur caps. Under the first option, we are proposing to maintain both the current 80
- ppm refinery gate sulfur cap and 95
- ppm downstream sulfur cap. 344 Because this represents no change from current requirements, we believe there would be no additional costs to refiners and downstream parties associated with satisfying these caps on gasoline sulfur content beyond those that were already incurred under the Tier 2 program. Compliance f or downstream parties could be even easier given that the average refinery gate level would be lower. However, the high level of the caps means that vehicles still have to be designed to operate on high sulfur fuel, and there will be less attention paid t o limiting contamination downstream of the refinery

gate. Under the second approach, we are proposing that the refinery gate cap would be reduced to 50 ppm and the downstream cap would be reduced to 65 ppm, in other words, a 30
- ppm reduction in the caps to go along with a 20
- ppm drop in the average standard. We are proposing that the 50
- ppm refinery gate cap would take effect on January 1, 2020 when the small refiner, small volume refinery , and earl y credit use provisions would expire. The reason for th e delay in the more stringent cap until 2020 is to avoid forcing additional refinery

investments during the earl y credit usage period. A more stringent per - gallon cap would also be very difficult to enforce prior to the small refiner and small volume refi nery

provisions t aking effect. Until that time, the current 80
- ppm refinery

344 This approach is reflected in the draft regulatory text.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 250 of 842 gate sulfur cap would apply . Additional time beyond when the 50
- ppm refinery gate sulfur cap is implemented would be allowed for gasoline produced to an 80
- ppm sulfur cap to clear the distribution sy stem before the 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would replace the current 95
- ppm downstream sulfur cap. Beginning February 1, 2020, a 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would appl y at all locations downstream of the refinery and importer gate with the exception of retail and wholesale
- purchaser
- consumer facilities. Beginning March 1, 2020, a 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply at all locations in the gasoline distribution sy stem downstream of the refinery and importer gate. We note that the additional time for parties to comply with a more stringent downstream sulfur cap mirrors the schedule for compliance under the Tier 2 program. As discussed previousl y in Sections III and IV of today’s preamble, the vehicle emissions benefits associate d with today ’s proposal are driven b y the proposed reduction in the average sulfur content of gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm. However, vehicle manufacturers have expressed concerns about the potential impacts on emissions performance if individual vehicles ar e exposed to gasoline above the proposed 10
- ppm refinery average. 345 As discussed in Section V.A.2.b , our anal ys is of the potential response to the proposed ABT provisions assessed three options for refineries: remai ning at their current sulfur levels and using credits, reducing sulfur levels to 10 ppm and neither generating or using credits, or reducing sulfur levels to 5 ppm and generating credits. We did not have available information that would enable us to asses s refineries that might stay

above 10 ppm and reduce their sulfur levels part way (e.g., reduce sulfur from 50 ppm today

to 20 ppm under Tier 3). Nevertheless, we anticipate that in most cases refineries would respond by making operational changes and/or minor investments in order to reduce their credit burden and reduce their compliance costs. This anticipation, along with the fact that a 10
- ppm average standard by definition limits the amount of gasoline that can remain at higher sulfur levels, means th at we anticipate most credit
- using refineries would still average less than 20 ppm in their phy sical gasoline production, and either all or virtually all gasoline would be expected to average at or below 30 ppm. Therefore, we believe that a 50
- ppm per - gal lon cap at the refinery gate would not impose any

additional cost or burden beyond the current 80
- ppm per - gallon cap. Our discussions with refiners indicate that a 50
- ppm sulfur cap would provide refiners with sufficient flexibility to produce gasoline during temporary upsets and turnarounds through the use of credits without necessitating the installation of additional desulfurization equipment. 346 However, it would provide some additional assurance of in
- use gasoline quality

and help to address vehicle manufacturer concerns. We also believe that implementing a 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would provide essentiall y the same flexibilities to downstream parties as the existing sulfur caps. We believe that maintaining a 15
- ppm differential between the propo sed refinery

345 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011, October 6). Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. 346 Refer to Section 4.2.4.1 of the draft RIA for a more detailed discussion of the impacts of lowering the refinery gate sulfur cap.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 251 of 842 gate sulfur cap of 50 ppm and the proposed 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would provide pipeline operators, transmix processors, and gasoline additive users the same flexibility as provided under the current 80/95 ppm sulfur caps. Pipeline op erators are currentl y allowed to blend limited volumes of transmix into gasoline in their s ys tems provided that the resulting gasoline meets all fuel quality specifications and the endpoint of the blended gasoline does not exceed 437 ° F. 347 This enables pip eline operators to avoid the installation of additional transmix storage and loading equipment at a number of remote locations to facilitate shipping small volumes of transmix to processing facilities by truck. We believe that a 65
- ppm sulfur cap would provide sufficient flexibility to allow pipeline operators to continue this practice. Currently transmix processors must produce gasoline sufficientl y below the 95
- ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate an y downstream sulfur increases from the use of gas oline additives and contamination from further distribution. The sulfur content of the gasoline produced by transmix processors is determined by the sulfur content of the transmix they

receive, which in turn is primarily a function of the sulfur content of gasoline and jet fuel components in the transmix. 348 Transmix processors do not handle sufficient volumes to support the installation of currentl y available desulfurization units. 349 Data provided b y the largest operator of transmix processing facilities indicates that relativel y few batches of the gasoline they currently produce approach 80 ppm sulfur. Most batches are approximately 10 ppm above the current 30
- ppm refinery sulfur average. Therefore, we believe that under a 10
- ppm refinery average standard and 50
- ppm refinery

sulfur cap, transmix processors would be able to produce gasoline sufficiently

under the proposed 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate the additional sulfur contribution from the use of additives and contamination during furth er distribution. Since the 65
- ppm downstream cap would not take effect until 2020, while the 10
- ppm average standard would take effect in 2017, we would have three years of experience with which to verify this and take corrective action if necessary. In addition to proposing refinery gate and downstream per gallon sulfur caps of either 80 ppm and 95 ppm or 50 ppm and 65 ppm, we are also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as 25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit the temporary exposure of vehicles in
- use to sulfur levels that would significantl y degrade their emission performance. This would serve to provide

347 The requirements for transmix blenders are contained in 40 CFR 80.84(d). 437 ° F is the maximum endpoint allowed for gasoline in ASTM D4814. 348 Transmix is a by
- product of the multi
- product pipeline distribution system. 40 CFR 80.84(a) defines transmix pipeline interface that does not meet the specifications for a fuel that can be used or sold, and that is composed solely of any combination of: previously certified gasoline (including previously certified gasoline blendstocks that become gasoline solely upon the addition of an oxygenate); distillate fuel; or gasoline blendstocks that are suitable for use as a blendstock without further processing. 349 Transmix processors produce ~0.1 percent of the gasoline consumed in the U.S.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 252 of 842 added assurance th at all parts of the country would receive the full emission benefits of gasoline sulfur control. However, we are onl y seeking comment on it and not proposing it due to the potential cost increases resulting from further constraints on refinery and distrib ution system operations. While a 50
- ppm refinery gate cap may

not impact refinery costs, in order to meet a 20
- ppm refinery gate cap and downstream standard of 25 ppm we expect that essentially all refineries would need to invest to meet the 10
- ppm annual average standard. Our modeling of a non
- ABT scenario, discussed in Section VII.B, shows that the sulfur control costs would increase b y almost 10 percent, with no net change in average in
- use sulfur levels. Similarly , while a 65
- ppm downstream cap may h ave little or no impact on downstream operations, a 25
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would likely

require changes in pipeline operations, treatment of gasoline transmix, and formulation and use of sulfur containing gasoline additives (e.g., corrosion inhibitor s, and demulsifiers) that could further increase the costs of the standard. The extent of such impacts and associated costs, however, are difficult to quantify . Consequently we seek comment on the appropriateness, impacts, and costs of lowering the per
- g allon caps to 20 ppm at the refinery

gate, and 25 ppm downstream. Further, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the downstream cap and prevent the potential dumping of high sulfur materials into gasoline under the guise of adding gasoline additives, w e are proposing additional requirements to clarify the treatment of gasoline additives. Parties that introduce additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume percent are required to satisfy

all of the obligations of a fuel manufacturer including demonstration that the finished blend meets the applicable sulfur specification. A party other than a fuel refiner or importer who adds a quantity of additive(s) amounting to less than 1.0 percent by

volume of the resultant additive(s)/fuel mixture is not considered a f uel manufacturer. 350 Thus, the addition of sulfur to finished gasoline from additives used at less than 1.0 volume percent is simply limited by

the current 95
- ppm downstream sulfur cap. We are proposing to limit the sulfur contribution from the use of a ga soline additive added downstream of the refinery at less than 1.0 volume percent to 3 ppm when added at the maximum recommended treatment rate. We believe that this limitation would not constrain the use of gasoline additives or result in significant addi tional costs to gasoline additive manufacturers. This is because information received from additive producers indicates that all current gasoline additives contribute less than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished fuel when used at the maximum reco mmended treatment rate. The maximum treatment rate is already stated on product transfer document or packaging for the additive. We are proposing a requirement that additive manufacturers maintain records of their additive production quality control acti vities, which demonstrate that the sulfur content of additive production batches complies with the proposed sulfur requirement, for five ye ars and to make these available to EPA upon request.

350 40 CFR 79.2(d)(1)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 253 of 842 **B. Refinery Air Permitting Interactions**  It is important to the suc cess of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program that refineries are able to obtain needed air permits in time to complete the modifications necessary to comply with the proposed gasoline sulfur program. Accordingl y, we have considered the implications of permitt ing requirements with respect to the implementation of the proposed gasoline sulfur program. This section provides information on this topic. In summary , we believe that only a small percentage of refineries would likely need to make modifications that w ill trigger a requirement to apply for air permits, and we anticipate that these permit applications would be processed quickly enough that air permitting will not be a significant obstacle to timely compliance with the gasoline sulfur program. In contras t to the Tier 2 program, where EPA expected the need for NAAQS
- related New Source Review (NSR) permits might be widespread among refineries, we believe that under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard only about 12 refineries would need air permits that address NAAQS pollutants. This number could be lower if those refineries appl y emission controls to reduce the emissions increases below the significance level or if they “net out” of NSR. If our final assessment of permitting prospects following analy sis of comments indicates it would be appropriate, we would form a special team to monitor for permitting delays and assist in resolving associated problems. We also anticipate that other new requirements applicable to refineries that are being proposed for implementation in approximately

the same period as the gasoline sulfur program would not interfere with the modifications needed to meet the new sulfur limits and would not create a competition for air permitting agency resources. We invite public co mment on air permitting issues, and on possible actions we might be able to take to help make sure refineries can obtain needed permits expeditiously. 1. Background on New Source Review Programs The New Source Review (NSR) program, as it applies to existing m ajor sources of air pollution, requires that a permit be issued before a source begins construction of any project to modify

the source that would result in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase of a pollutant regulated under this program. 351 The

351 Generally, a source is a major source if its “potential to emit” a regulated NSR pollut ant is greater than either 100 or 250 tons/year depending on the industrial type of the source and whether the area is designated nonattainment for the particular pollutant. All refineries in the U.S. are major sources for purposes of NSR. A major modifi cation is a physical change or a change in the method of operation that causes a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant regulated under the NSR program. (A net emissions increase differs from an emissions increase in that a net increase takes into account contemporaneous emissions changes from other projects at the source.) Significant emission rates vary depending on the pollutant and range from 0.6 to 100 tons/year for criteria (NAAQS) pollutants and th eir precursors. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). For GHGs, modifications of existing sources trigger NSR permitting requirements when there is an increase of GHG emissions of at least 75,000 tons/year of CO 2 equivalent, as well as any increase of GHG emissions on a mass basis. At the time******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 254 of 842 phy sical modifications and operational changes that we expect refineries would make to comply with the proposed gasoline sulfur standards (described in Section V.A.1.d) could result in emis sions increases in one or more pollutants that may trigger NSR requirements for preconstruction air permits. NSR permits specify what construction is allowed and what emission limits must be met. They may contain conditions to make sure that the modifications being made match parameters in the application that the permit
- issuing agency relied on in its analy sis. Permits contain emission limitations and also ty picall y specify some aspects of how the source must be constructed and operated. For example, the permit may

identify important design and operational parameters that are consistent with the established control technology determination(s) and help assure compliance with associated emission limitations. To assure that sources follow the permit requi rements, permits also contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. NSR permits are issued b y a state or local air pollution control agency if it has its own permit program that has been approved b y EPA in the State Implementation Plan (S IP ) or if it has been delegated the authority to issue federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits on behalf of EPA. An EPA Regional Office issues the permit in other cases. There are two separate sets of permit requirements that may app ly to modifications at a refinery depending on the attainment status of the area in which a refinery is located. Each set of requirements is applied on a pollutant
- specific basis, so that in some cases both permit programs may apply to the same modificati on project. The PSD permit program applies to any major modification at a source located in a designated attainment or unclassifiable area for a ny NAAQS pollutant. 352 PSD requires compliance with emission limitations achievable through installation of the B est Available Control Technology

(BACT), an air quality

anal ys is to show that the modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of an y NAAQS or applicable PSD increment, 353 an assessment of impact on visibility and other conditions in national parks and similar federal lands, an additional impacts anal ys is, and an opportunity for public involvement. The second set of requirements is known as the Nonattainment NSR program because it applies to major modifications at sources located in areas design ated as nonattainment for a specific NAAQS pollutant. 354 The Nonattainment NSR requirements include, among

refineries are required to comply with the proposed fuel sulfur program, the GHG threshold may be different, but will not be lower than 50,000 tons/year. 352 The PSD program stems from part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The i mp lementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. 353 A system of “increments” is the mechanism used in the PSD program to define significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. An increment is the maximum allowable increase in ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area relative to a specified baseline. Increases above that level are considered to significantly deteriorate air quality and cannot be allowed. 354 The Nonattainment NSR program stems from part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The implementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.165 and 50 CFR part 51 appendix S. Under Nonattainment NSR, a major source is generally any source with a potential to emit of 100 tons/year or more of the nonattainment pollutant, regardless of industrial type (lower thresholds apply for some pollutants/classifications). The******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 255 of 842 other things, that a proposed major modification meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) for each triggering nonattainment pollutant for which the source is major and for which there will be a significant emissions increase, obtain emission offsets for those nonattainment pollutants, and provide an opportunity for public involvement. LAER is generall y a more stringent emission limitation than BACT. LAER is derived from either the most stringent emission limitation contained in the implementation plan of any state for the same t ype of source or the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice. Emission offsets are emissions reductio ns, generally obtained from other existing stationary sources located in the vicinity of a proposed source. Such offsets must be equal to or larger than the emissions increase resulting from the modification to ensure that the growth being allowed to occur does not interfere with the ability of an area to continue making reasonable further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS. As described previousl y in Section V.A.1.d , there are several types of process changes refineries could make to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur levels. To different degrees, all these technologies involve process heat from fuel combustion and, thus, have the potential to increase emissions of pollutants associated with combustion that are regulated under NSR 355 , such as NO X , VOCs, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , CO, SO 2 , and GHGs. The addition of certain technologies could also result in equipment leaks of petroleum compounds, which could increase emissions of VOCs and other pollutants. It is also possible that the removal of more sulfur from the gasoline stream could require increased capacity or increased utilization of other refinery processes, such as hydrogen plants and sulfur recovery

units (SRUs), which are sources of air emissions. The emissions inc reases associated with a desulfurization project would vary from refinery to refinery , depending on a number of refinery
- specific factors, such as the refinery output volume, refinery configuration, feedstocks, choice of desulfurization technology , and ty p e of fuel used to operate affected process heaters. As described in more detail in Section V.B.4 , we anticipate that the types of changes that would occur at most refineries would not result in sufficient emissions increases to require major NSR permits as a prerequisite for completing the needed changes. The major NSR permitting requirements would not be triggered for several reasons: because the emissions increase or the net emissions increase is naturally less than the significant level, because the refinery installs control technologies to further limit the emissions increase, and/or because the refinery “nets out” all or part of the emissions increase. However, we anticipate that some refineries have the pote ntial to experience significant emissions increases and significant net emissions increases as a result of process changes necessary to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur standard and, therefore,
thresholds for a significant emissions increase under Nonattainment NSR are generally the same as under PSD but lower for certain pollutants/classifications. 355 Toxic air pollutants are excluded from the PSD program. 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(6); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(v).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 256 of 842 may trigger major NSR (Nonattainment NSR and/or PSD). These facilities would have to obtain a major NSR preconstruction permit prior to making these necessary process changes. For facilities subject to major NSR, the timing of permit issuance could vary depending on a number of factors, including the clarity and c ompleteness of the application, the complexity of process changes, the ty pe of permit required, air quality impact, control technology reviews, and the permitting agency ’s overall permit workload. The time spent preparing a permit application is under the control of the applicant. Once a permit application is complete, permitting authorities operating under approved SIPs should be able to issue a permit within 9 to 12 months if the permit applies to NAAQS pollutants. Because EPA
- issued permits and permi ts issued by states operating under a delegation from EPA are subject to additional analy sis and interagency consultation steps specified in federal law, it can take a few more months if, for example, there are endangered species or historical preservation issues. 356 For permits that apply onl y to GHGs, we anticipate that less time will be necessary both to prepare the application and for the permitting authority to approve the permit, although to date there is relatively little experience with these permits due to the newness of the GHG requirements. Refineries that are able to avoid major NSR may be required to obtain a state
- issued minor NSR permit. Generally , minor NSR permits involve less extensive and/or stringent requirements and have shorter process ing times than major NSR permits. 2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program Many of the modifications that refineries are projected to make in order to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program are similar in ty pe, although not necessarily in number or magnitude, to the changes that were needed to compl y with the Tier 2 fuel program finalized in 2000. Therefore, information on the Tier 2 experience may assist the public in understanding the permitting issues for the Tier 3 fuel program and in providing comment on possible actions we might undertake to help refineries expeditiously

obtain needed permits. The Tier 2 program was designed to reduce the average sulfur content of gasoline from about 300 ppm to 30 ppm, a reduction of about 90 p ercent. Anticipating that man y refineries would have to make modifications that might trigger the need for NSR permits, we addressed the permitting issue in the proposal for the Tier 2 program, in the final rule, and during implementation. At proposal, w e provided background information on the NSR program and its relationship to the ty pes of changes likely

to be required at refineries. We had not estimated the number of refineries that might trigger NSR, but we stated that the number could be substantial . We invited comment on a number of actions that EPA, states, and/or refineries could pursue in order to help refineries avoid the need

356 These processing time periods assume that the refinery can successfully show that the emission increases associated with the modifications will not c ause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS (under PSD) or can obtain needed emissions offsets for the emission increases (under Nonattainment NSR).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 257 of 842 for NSR permits or to obtain permits more expeditiously than might otherwise be the case. These actions included the f ollowing:

 Use of plantwide applicability limits, possibly

facilitated by

new EPA guidance or rules addressing issues specific to refineries.

 Issuance of new federal guidance on streamlining certain major NSR permitting requirements such as control technolo gy and compliance parameters.
 Use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicles operating on lower sulfur gasoline as offsets for refineries seeking Nonattainment NSR permits.

 Use of model permits and permit applications.

 EPA refinery

permitting teams. T he Tier 2 proposal also addressed issues related to the Title V permitting program 357 , and requested comments on possible approaches b y which refineries might satisfy some NSR and Title V requirements at the same time. We received comments on refinery permitting issues from the refining industry , the automobile manufacturing industry , state and local agencies that administer air permitting programs, and environmental and community groups. Based on these comments and statutory

constraints , we decided that it was not necessary or appropriate to exempt Tier 2 projects from the normall y applicable preconstruction review process. We also decided not to pursue the development of guidance on plantwide applicability limits for refineries based on comments suggesting this would be an unproductive effort because of the complexity of refineries. Nonetheless, we concluded that it was useful to add certainty

to the anticipated permitting actions and schedules, and to minimize the possibility

of delay . Accordingl y, EPA to ok two ty pes of actions to promote these objectives. First, we structured the final gasoline sulfur program to allow additional lead time for man y refiners (i.e., certain refineries would be able to make desulfurization changes later than the otherwise ap plicable compliance date to meet Tier 2 requirements). This approach was expected to help address the concerns over the availability of necessary new equipment and permitting backlogs caused b y man y refineries acting to obtain permits and order equipment within the same time period. Second, we stated our intention to take several actions during implementation of the Tier 2 rule to expedite and impart greater certainty

in obtaining necessary

major NSR permits (described in more detail below). We also stat ed our intention to assist States and refiners on a case
- by
- case

357 Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires all major sources and some minor sources of air pollutio n to obtain an operating permit. A Title V permit contains all air pollution requirements that apply to the source, including emissions limits and monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. It also requires that the source report its complianc e status to the permitting authority annually.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 258 of 842 basis in their efforts to address an y unique permitting problems that might arise and, thus, remedy potential problems that could cause unanticipated delays. We committed to work with refine rs and the state/local permitting agencies on a case
- by
- case basis, where a refinery had unique circumstances that necessitated unique treatment. We clarified that, in our efforts to provide greater certainty and to facilitate more expeditious permitting, we were in no way

shortcutting existing opportunities for public participation in making permitting decisions. We encouraged refineries to begin discussions with permitting authorities and to submit permit applications as early as possible. The final Ti er 2 rule identified three key actions that we intended to take (and subsequently

took) to provide assistance that would be useful toward helping states issue timely permits to refineries. The first such action was to organize a special EPA team, comprise d of Headquarters and Regional Office experts, to track the overall progress in permit issuance and to be available to assist state and local permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to resolve site
- specific permitting issues. The t eam made special efforts to be aware of state and local permitting actions that were underway during the time between the finalization of the Tier 2 program and the compliance time frame. Experience during this period suggested that state and local permitting agencies, as predicted in their comments on the proposed Tier 2 program, were able to process permit applications in a timely manner, without much need for special troubleshooting help from the EPA team. In man y cases, the modifications to allow comp liance with Tier 2 requirements were subject to only minor NSR permitting requirements rather than major NSR, or those modifications were rolled into another permitting action that was needed for other modifications or expansions due to other technical or market developments. We believe it is reasonable to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not needing major NSR permits) would result in connection with air permitting for the modifications refineries would need to make under the proposed Tier 3 gasoli ne sulfur program. The second action we took was to develop new guidance on emission control technology

requirements to meet BACT and LAER. We issued this guidance in 2001. It addressed the levels of control that could be reasonably anticipated to repres ent BACT or LAER under the major NSR requirements. Our general experience following the release of this BACT/LAER guidance was that it did not play a substantial role in the permitting of refinery

projects for Tier 2. That is, due to their own expertise and the need to consider refinery
- specific factors, state and local permitting authorities generall y did not find it necessary

to rel y on our guidance in their own permitting processes for refineries making changes to meet the Tier 2 requirements. In addi tion, many of the refinery projects were able to avoid major NSR, so BACT and LAER were not requirements that had to be met. Again, we believe it is reasonable to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not needing major NSR permits) would result in conn ection with air permitting for the modifications refineries would need to make to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur standard. The third action we took was a fast
- track effort to develop new guidance on the use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicle s operating on lower sulfur gasoline as******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 259 of 842 emission offsets for refineries seeking Nonattainment NSR permits. We invited comment on a draft version of this guidance five months after the final Tier 2 rule. The draft guidance discussed in depth how the use o f such offsets could be made consistent with seven criteria given in the Clean Air Act for such offsets. We received many comments from state and local air agencies and community groups opposing the proposed offset guidance on legal, fairness, and environmental justice grounds. One refiner recommended that EPA set aside a portion of the Tier 2 reductions in each state as offsets, rather than leaving this decision to each state. We did not finalize the draft guidance, and no state further pursued a s ys tem under which vehicle emissions reductions were made available to refineries as offsets for Nonattainment NSR permits. 3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program since Tier 2 Final Rule The Tier 2 fuel program was promulgated in earl y 2000, and most refiners were required to compl y with those requirements by 2006. During and since that period, there have been a number of changes to the major NSR programs. These changes are summarized here to facilitate public comment as to how these changes may affect whether r efinery

modifications undertaken as a result of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program would trigger NSR and/or the requirements that refiners and permitting authorities would have to meet. In 2002, we issued a final rule known as the NSR Reform Rule. 358 This ru le revised the EPA
- administered NSR programs and changed the minimum approvals required for SIP
- approved NSR programs for NSR applicability . Some of the provisions of the 2002 final rule have been vacated by the Court, subsequently

amended by

EPA, or are currentl y under reconsideration. Two key components of the NSR Reform Rule that remain in place are a new applicability test for projects involving existing emissions units (the “actual
- to - projected
- actual” applicability test) and provisions that allow fo r the establishment of plantwide applicability limits (PAL s). The change in the applicability test since the Tier 2 experience means that even fewer modifications may be found to have emissions increases that are above the significant emission levels, in which case fewer major NSR permits may need to be issued. The PALprovisions offer a voluntary alternative for determining major NSR applicability that can provide sources with significant flexibility

to manage facility
- wide air emissions without triggeri ng major NSR permitting. Refineries that have established PALs or will establish one or more PAL s prior to or as part of permitting associated with the Tier 3 fuel program will be far less likely to trigger major NSR permitting requirements. We have also taken a series of actions that have had the effect of making emissions of GHGs a factor in determining whether a PSD permit is required for a refinery modification. Under the applicable PSD provisions in the CAA, GHGs became regulated under the PSD program on January 2, 2011 after EPA adopted tailpipe

358 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 260 of 842 emissions standards for these pollutants under Title II of the CAA. Because the incorporation of GHGs into the PSD program had the potential to significantly expand the number of sources required to obtain P SD permits, EPA adopted the 2010 Tailoring Rule to phase in the PSD permitting requirements according to a series of steps based on different GHG emission thresholds. 359 At this time the Tailoring Rule requires that any modification at an existing refinery that increases GHG emissions by 75,000 tons per ye ar or more of CO 2 equivalent and also produces any mass increase in GHG emissions would trigger the need for a PSD permit that addresses GHG emissions. 360 Because there are no NAAQS for GHGs and, therefore no nonattainment areas, only PSD could potentially

appl y to a refinery

modification with respect to increases in GHG emissions. The anal ys is (described in Section V.B.4 ) indicates that increases in GHG emissions are likely to be the most frequent reason a major NSR permit would be required for refinery changes needed to meet the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards, but that, even so, only a small number of large refineries would be affected. For the sources that would need a PSD permit for GHGs, the main substantive requirement for obtaining the permit is to apply BACT for GHG emissions from the new or modified unit(s). Another development since 2000 has been the establishment of several new and revised NAAQS and the designation of nonattainment areas under some of these NAAQS. At the time of the final Tier 2 rule, the NAAQS of most relevance to Nonattainment NSR permitting for refineries were the 1
- hour ozone NAAQS, the PM 10 NAAQS, and the SO 2 NAAQS, because these N AAQS accounted for the vast majority of the existing nonattainment areas. The designation of new nonattainment areas under the 1997 NAAQS for 8
- hour ozone became effective in 2004. Designations under the 1997 NAAQS for PM 2.5 became effective in 2005. In 2008, we again revised the ozone NAAQS and designations under that standard became effective in July 2012. 361 In2006, we revised the 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and in 2009 (2011 for a few areas) we designated areas under the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. 362 InDecember 201 2 we revised the primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and designations associated with that revised standard are expected to become effective in 2015. 363 One effect of this evolution of the NAAQS and associated attainment status for areas is that it has become more c ommon over time for sources to be located in ozone or PM 2.5 nonattainment areas and thus subject to Nonattainment NSR rather than to PSD for their VOC, NO X , and PM 2.5 emissions increases. However, over the same time period, some areas currentl y designate d as nonattainment for ozone and/or PM 2.5 are expected to be redesignated to attainment. Therefore, we do not expect a dramatic shift on a national basis in one direction or the other.

359 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 360 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012) 361 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) 362 Listings of areas currently designated nonattainment for all the NAAQS are availabl e at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. 363 Final 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS rule (Court ordered promulgation date: December 14,2012)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 261 of 842 In 2008, we issued a final rule specifying in detail how NSR applies to PM 2.5 . 364 In addition, in 2010 we supplemented this rule with additional provisions for the PSD program specificall y. 365 The latest rule established PM 2.5 increments, and screening tools referred to as significant impact levels, and a significant monitori ng concentration. As of October 20, 2011, sources that trigger PSD for PM 2.5 are required to show compliance with the applicable increment, in addition to showing that they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any

of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. In 2010 , EPA finalized new NAAQS for 1
- hour NO 2 and 1
- hour SO 2 . 366 EPA has completed the initial round of mandatory designations for the 1
- hour NO 2 NAAQS and all areas have been designated unclassifiable/attainment. 367 The first round of designations for the 1
- hour SO 2 NAAQS will be made in June 2013, thus we do expect there to be nonattainment areas for the 1
- hour SO 2 NAAQS b y the time that refineries might need to seek NSR permits to make the required facility modifications for the Tier 3 program. However, we exp ect that no refinery would have increases in SO 2 emissions that are large enough to trigger major NSR, so any change in attainment status for the SO 2 NAAQS should have no effect on permitting issues. In areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 1
- hour NO 2 or 1
- hour SO 2 NAAQS, the air quality

impacts assessment required to obtain a PSD permit can present new challenges for permit applicants. This is because demonstrating that a modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of these 1
- hour standards may require more refined and data
- intensive air qualit y modeling approaches than has previously been required to make this demonstration with respect to the pre
- existing NAAQS for NO 2 and SO 2 . To assist permit applicants in performing the required anal ys is of 1
- hour NO 2 and SO 2 air quality

impacts, we have issued several guidance memos that describe available alternative approaches and flexibilities. 368 We also note that since the Tier 2 rule was issued, EPA has increased its focus on unde rstanding and addressing environmental justice issues in permitting processes, including the issue of effective participation of affected communities in permitting decisions. Also, EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board has issued two opinions that have

364 73 FR 28321 (May 18, 2008). 365 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). 366 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010) and 75 FR 35520 (June 22 , 2010). 367 The initial round of mandatory designations for the 1
- hour NO 2 NAAQS will be completed soon and will be based on monitors that have been in operation for at least three years. (Depending on publication dates, the test of this may need to change .) New NO 2 mo nitors are being deployed in some cities. After three years of data are collected, some of these may indicate additional areas of violation in which case revisions of designation status will be discretionary. (Depending on publication dates, the test of this may need to change.) 368 These memos are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_clarificationmemos.htm, http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwso2.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 262 of 842 addres sed environmental justice obligations under Executive Order 12898 when reviewing major source NSR permit applications. 369 4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting Implications EPA has performed a refinery
- by
- refinery assessment of the phy sical and operational changes that are likel y to be needed to allow each active refinery in the U.S. to produce gasoline that complies with the proposed Tier 3 fuel specifications. We have also assessed the likel y effects of those changes on refinery emissions. This assessment is described in more detail in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. Using this assessment, we were able to gain a reasonable understanding of the potential scope of NSR permitting challenges refiners might face under the proposed Tier 3 program. In general, our assessment indicates that only a small number of refineries will likel y need to make modifications of a ty

pe and size that would trigger the need for a PSD or Nonattainment NSR permit. The assessment and this conclusion take into account the changes in the NSR program and its context since 2000 described in Section V.B.3 , except that we did not account for the recently designated nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which might increase the number of Nonattainment NSR permits that are needed. A technical memorandum describing in detail our anal ys is and results is in the public docket for this proposal. 370 In our anal ys is, we started with the estimates we have made regarding the phy sical and operational changes that would be required at each refinery (described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA). The modifications at a given refinery could include revamps to existing FCC pre
- or post - treatment unit(s) or the installation a of new grassroots post - treatment unit for sulfur reduction. Based on the projected refinery
specific changes, we estimated the increased demand for energy (i.e., fuel to generate process heat, steam and electricity), hydrogen, and sulfur recovery associated with meeting th e proposed Tier 3 standards. We selected representative industry emission factors for NAAQS pollutants, their precursors, and GHGs for each emitting process and combined them with estimates of incremental activity to estimate the emissions changes at each equipment unit (or group of similar units) at each refinery
. To determine upper and lower bounds for emissions increases resulting from changes necessary

to meet the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur specification, we evaluated two scenarios, a no ABT scen ario (assuming no trading of sulfur credits) and the primary ABT scenario described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. We did not have sufficient detailed information to predict which refineries would find it most profitable to generate

369 T wo EAB decisions addressing environmental justice issues in PSD permitting are In re: Avenal Power Center, LLC, PSD Appeal Nos. 11
- 02 through 11
- 05 (August 18, 2011), and In re: Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., OCS Appeal Nos. 10
- 01 through 10
- 04 (December 30, 2010). These decisions, which cite relevant earlier decisions, are available at http://www.epa.gov/eab/. 370 Keller, P. (2012, January). New Source Review Permitting Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to the docket.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 263 of 842 additional electrical power, hydrogen and high octane blendstocks internally on site rather than purchasing these inputs from external suppliers. If a refinery generates these additional inputs internally on site, the additional emissions would count towards the significant emissions rates and could affect the need for a major NSR permit. To account for these variables, we evaluated a high and a low case for each identified scenario. Under the high case, we assumed 100 percent internal generation of the additional electrica l power, h ydrogen, and high octane blendstocks and under the low case, 100 percent external generation of the same. We expect refineries to actuall y be somewhere between these two extreme cases in the future. For the identified scenarios and cases, we co mpared the emissions increase for each pollutant at each refinery to the significant emissions increase threshold for that pollutant, taking into consideration the current attainment status for each pollutant where the refinery is located. We found that the no ABT scenario, low case had the lowest number of refineries estimated to trigger major NSR and the primary

ABT scenario, high case had the highest, although the overall numbers did not vary

greatly
. An important aspect of our anal ys is is that we assum ed that refineries would not install new emission controls on affected units for the purpose of staying below the significant emissions increase threshold and thereby not triggering major NSR. In particular, we did not assume that selective catal yt ic redu ction (SCR) to control NO X emissions would be applied to new or modified fuel combustion units. This is an important assumption that tends to result in overestimates of the number of major NSR permits needed for NAAQS
- related pollutants. In reality , appl yi ng new emission controls would be an option that refineries may employ to legall y avoid major NSR permitting. We also did not assume that refineries would “net out” of NSR by taking credit for an y emissions reductions occurring within a contemporaneous timeframe, including an y new emissions reduction projects initiated specificall y for the purpose of “netting out.” This anal ysis resulted in a prediction of whether a PSD and/or a Nonattainment NSR permit would be needed for each refinery and the pollutants that would have to be addressed in those permits, under each of the two scenarios. Only the results for the primary

ABT scenario, high case are presented here. The results for the no ABT scenario, which are not greatly different, are described in the previously referenced technical memo found in the docket for this rulemaking. We found that GHG emissions increases were the most common reason that PSD applicability

would be triggered b y the changes that are likel y to be needed to allow each active ref inery in the U.S. to produce gasoline that complies with the proposed Tier 3 fuel specifications, followed by NO X emissions increases. We found that under the primary ABT scenario, high case, 23 refineries appeared likely to have significant emissions incr eases for one or more pollutants and thus would trigger major NSR. 371 Of these 2 2

371 Because st ate requirements regarding minor NSR permitting vary and we do not expect minor NSR permitting programs to be a significant challenge for refinery modification projects, we did not attempt to estimate how many of the remaining refineries might need to obta in minor NSR permits.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 264 of 842 refineries, we predicted that only 9 refineries would need permits for NAAQS
- related pollutants and their precursors (PSD and/or Nonattainment NSR) and for GHGs (results for G HG are discussed below). Thus, compared to the Tier 2 program where EPA expected the need for NAAQS
- related NSR permits might be widespread among refineries, we believe that under the proposed Tier 3 program onl y about 9 refineries would need major NSR ai r permits t o address NAAQS pollutants. This number could be lower if those refineries apply pollution controls, such as SCR for NO X , to sufficientl y reduce the emissions increases to levels that are below the applicable pollutant significance level, or if the refineries can achieve emissions reductions elsewhere at the facility to “net out” of major NSR. For refineries that are required to obtain a major NSR permit for NAAQS pollutants, the permitting process is expected to normally take about 9 to 12 months once the permitting authority has received a complete application. All 9 refineries just described as needing NSR permits for NAAQS pollutants are also projected to need PSD permits for GHGs. In addition to these 9 refineries, we estimated that 13 oth er refineries may require a PSD permit addressing onl y GHG emissions. For these refineries, BACT must be applied for GHG emissions, which we expect in most cases would mean that new or modified fuel
- burning equipment would have to be designed for good ene rgy efficiency . For EPA
- issued permits and permits issued by state or local agencies under delegation, consultation with other federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act and consideration of environmental justice would also be required. Significantly , no air quality modeling of GHGs would be required, and thus there would be no need to obtain extensive input information on meteorology

and emissions from other nearby sources. Given these differences, we expect that the timeline for obtaining a perm it only for GHG emissions should be shorter by several months than the timeline for a permit that addresses NAAQS pollutants. We invite public comment on our anal ys is including way s in which we might improve the assessment between now and the final rule. 5. N ew Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries In addition to the proposed Tier 3 rulemaking, we are also conducting other rulemaking s to set new and revised limits for direct emissions from ref ineries of NAAQS
- related pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). This section provides summary information on th ese rulemaking effort s , so that comments on the proposed Tier 3 program can be more fully informed. We first regulated petroleum refi neries in 1974 when the agency issued the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to control NAAQS
- related air pollutants. The NSPS applies to refinery

process units that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973, but bef ore May 14, 2007. On June 24, 2008, we amended the NSPS and issued new standards for most process units constructed, reconstructed, or modified after May 14, 2007 and for flares which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 24, 2 008. We were petitioned to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 265 of 842 reconsider these final rules and on September 12 , 2012, EPA finalized amendments and technical corrections to address issues related to flares and process heaters. There are two existing MACT standards to control HAPs that apply specificall y to petroleum refineries. 372 These standards are referred to as MACT 1 and 2 and were issued in 1995 and 2002, respectivel y. EPA is required to perform risk and technology reviews (RTR) to assess residual risk for Maximum Achievable Control Te chnology (MACT) standards for HAPs within eight ye ars of the promulgation of the original MACT standards. In addition, EPA is required to perform a technology review of advancement in processes, practices and control requirements every eight years after p romulgation of the MACT. We proposed RTR amendments for MACT 1 in 2007. The Administrator signed the final RTR amendments for MACT 1 on January 16, 2009, but these amendments were not published in the Federal Register. On July 18, 2011 we published a fin al notice withdrawing these RTR amendments. Therefore, EPA is planning to issue a rulemaking that will address our HAP obligations and perform RTR analy ses for both MACT 1 and 2.

. Finally , EPA is also in the process of finalizing MACT standards for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, which will affect boilers and process heaters at refineries. Because an y changes that are made to meet new requirements of these rulemakings , once finalized, would likely reduce rather than increase refinery emissions, we do not expect these modifications to trigger NSR unless a refinery chooses to increase the capacity

of one or more of its units at the same time. 373 This means that we expect the final rules would not themselves increas e the major NSR workload for refinery environmental permitting staffs or for permitting agencies in the same period that these organizations need to prepare and process permit applications related to the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. (Minor NSR permitting workload may be affected.)

372 These are codified in 40 CFR 63, Subpart CC (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum refineries) and 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUU (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refi neries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units). 373 Some approaches for controlling NAAQS
- related pollutants do require additional electrical power or otherwise may increase GHG emissions. Conversely, some approaches to increasing energy efficiency (and thereby reducing GHG emissions) can increase emissions of NAAQS
- related pollutants if compensating changes are not made in downstream emission control devices, for example increases in NOx emissions from higher combust ion temperatures.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 266 of 842 6. Possible Steps for Addressing Permitting Roadblocks As we did for Tier 2, we could organize a Headquarters
- Regional response team to monitor and address any delays in permitting by

facilitating coordination among organization s where needed to resolve permitting issues. The mission of this team would also include tracking the overall progress in permit issuance and assisting state and local permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to resolve site
- specifi c permitting issues. The team would be comprised of EPA staff knowledgeable about permitting programs and refinery operations, so the team could provide expert assistance and troubleshoot permitting issues in a timel y fashion. We invite comment from refi neries, permitting authorities, and others regarding the usefulness of such a team. We will continue to maintain and refine the tools and resources that have proven useful to permit applicants and permitting authorities, such as the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, the Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, and our web
based resources on GHG permitting. These GHG permitting resources include various materials on the topic of BACT for GHG, including white papers and copies of our comments on recent draft permits proposed b y state and local permitting agencies. We believe the guidance we provided on BACT and LAER for NO X and VOC shortly after the final Tier 2 rule was not widely utilized by

either refineries or permitting authorities. Nevertheles s, we invite comment on whether additional guidance on BACT and LAER for these and other NAAQS
- related pollutants would be useful to support permitting for Tier 3
- related modifications as well as the appropriate scope and substance of such guidance. We anticipate that if we do develop any new BACT/LAER guidance, we would provide an opportunity for public comment on the draft guidance before finalizing it. For Tier 3
- related NSR permit applications submitted to EPA Regional Offices, we will assist members o f the local communities in understanding the applications and our proposed permits, in offering comment, and participating in our decisions. We also encourage similar assistance efforts b y the state and local permitting authorities, and we invite comment on the specific forms that our and their support should take. We invite comment on whether it would be useful to resume development of new guidance on the use of vehicle emissions reductions as emission offsets for Nonattainment NSR permits. We would like to hear from state air agencies about how interested they

are in developing or modifying SIPs that allocate some vehicle emissions reductions for this purpose, and from refineries about how critical the availability of such offsets may

be to their ability to obtain needed permits. In light of the expected schedules for nonattainment designations and attainment SIP submissions for the recentl y adopted and revised NAAQS, it is possible that a permit applicant will want to obtain emission offsets in a newly designated nonattainment area before the state has anal yz ed the causes of the nonattainment and developed a plan for demonstrating reasonable further progress and attainment. We invite comment on whether and exactly how allocation of some vehicle emission s reductions in such a situation should be constrained to ensure there is no interference with the attainment of the NAAQS. We suggest that******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 267 of 842 commenters on these issues review the draft guidance issued in July 2000 as well as the comments we received at that time (cited in Section V.B.2 ), both of which have been placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. We note that the issue of using vehicle emissions reductions as Nonattainment NSR offsets is relevant onl y f or NAAQS
- related pollutants. As described earlier in this preamble, there are no NAAQS for GHGs and thus no nonattainment areas, so offsets for GHG emissions are not required for NSR permits. EPA received comments during the Tier 2 rulemaking that vehicle emissions reductions should also be allowed to be used as part of “netting out” of NSR. This concept is now relevant to GHG emissions, in addition to the NAAQS
- related pollutants to which it was relevant at the time of the Tier 2 rulemaking. At that tim e we responded to the comments by

saying that the use of vehicle emissions reductions for netting purposes was not permitted by the NSR regulations, since the creditable emissions reductions used for netting purposes must result from reductions occurring at the modified source. We noted, for example, that the definition of net emissions increase in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(i) includes only increases and decreases occurring “at the source”. We believe this provision in the NSR rules is well founded in the Clean Air Act. Setting aside the issue of whether we have authority to change this provision, the potential consequences of changing it to allow the use of non
- source emissions reductions in “netting out” of NSR would be far reaching. We are not proposing such a change as part of this rulemaking, and we believe that any proposal for such a change should be based on a much better assessment of its possible implications than can be accomplished as part of this rulemaking. We also note that “netting out” of NSR c ould be a complex and often time
- consuming process because all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases within the refinery

must be properl y accounted for, so the ability to use vehicle emissions reductions in the netting anal ys is would not automatically make “netting out” a time
saving shortcut around the permitting process that would otherwise appl y. Nevertheless, we invite comment regarding how critical such a change may be to successful permitting of the modifications needed to comply with the proposed Tier 3 program, possible legal rationales for such a change, and the possible implications beyond the Tier 3 rule including way s to limit such implications by making the change specific to vehicle emissions reductions that are closely linked to ch anges in fuel properties that result from the refinery

modifications. Finally , we invite comment on issues related to state and local minor source NSR programs and how they

may relate to implementation of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. EPA rules give s tates wide latitude in the design and operation of their minor source programs, and we do not routinely require states to report their minor source permitting activity to us. Therefore, focused comments on this issue would be helpful.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 268 of 842 **C. Standards for Denat**  **ured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates** Current gasoline requirements include the prohibition on blending gasoline with denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that has sulfur content higher than 30 ppm. 374 This requirement reflects the current 30
- ppm refinery average sulfur requirement. Consistent with this requirement and our proposed introduction of a 10
- ppm refinery average sulfur standard, we propose that manufacturers of DFE for use by oxygenate blenders would be required to meet a 10
- ppm sulfur cap. California’s requirements for DFE, which became effective in December 2003, are as follows: maximum 10 ppm sulfur, maximum 0.06 volume percent benzene, maximum 0.5 volume percent olefins, and maximum 1.7 volume percent aromatics. 375 Denaturants used to manufacture DFE must also meet maximum benzene, olefins, and aromatics specifications that are based on the anticipated dilution ratio when blended with ethanol. 376 Additionally , in July 2002, the Renewable Fuel Association (RFA) recommended that all ethanol produced for u se in the U.S. should be manufactured in accordance with the California specifications primarily because of logistical difficulties in segregating ethanol destined for California from other destinations. 377 RFA recently indicated that all ethanol producers are adhering to this recommendation. Some DFE marketers have also adopted California’s DFE requirements as part of their specifications. 378 Consequently , we believe that the implementation of a 10
- ppm sulfur cap for DFE would not result in increased burden to ethanol producers. We are proposing it to reduce emissions from motor vehicles, the same reason we are proposing a more stringent sulfur standard for gasoline into which it is blended. Further, the ASTM International specification for DFE allows onl y natural gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and gasoline as denaturants. 379 Similar to the ASTM specifications, we are proposing to require that only natural gasoline, gasoline, and gasoline blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOB) be used as ethanol denaturant s. We believe that this limitation is needed to prevent the use of other denaturants that might adversel y impact vehicle emissions performance. We believe that the ASTM specifications are already in use by industry and, therefore, EPA’s adoption of the s ame

374 40 CFR 80.385(e). 375 California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2262.9, “Requirements Regarding Denatured Ethanol Intended For Use as a Blend Component in California Gasoline”. 376 The current California requirements which are bas ed on a maximum 5 percent denaturant level in DFE are as follows: maximum 1.1 volume percent benzene, maximum 10 volume percent olefins, and maximum 35 volume percent aromatics. ASTM International Standard D4806
- 11(a), “Standard Specification for Denature d Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel” requires that the maximum denaturant concentration in DFE is 5 volume percent. 377 RFA publication entitled “Fuel Ethanol, Industry Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures,” 2011. 378 For example, Aventine Renewable Energy Fuel
- Grade Ethanol specifications at http://www.aventinerei.com/pdfs/fuel_grade_spec.pdf 379 ASTM International D4806
- 11(a), “Standard Specification for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel”.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 269 of 842 specifications would not result in an increased burden to DFE producers. We further believe that limiting the type of gasoline blendstocks that can be used as denaturant to BOBs would not impose a new burden on DFE producers since other gasoline blend stocks would not typically be available to DFE producers. We request comment on whether there should be an allowance for other gasoline blendst ocks to be used as ethanol denaturants
. With regard to benzene, olefins, and aromatics, we believe that these proposed requirements along with Internal Revenue Service ethanol denaturant requirements would limit benzene, olefins, and aromatics content of DFE to very low levels. Therefore, we are not proposing an y limits on these parameters in DFE. Nevertheless, w e are requesting comments on whether we should adopt the State of California’s benzene, olefin, and aromatics specifications for DFE. We are also proposing to limit the maximum concentration of denaturant that can be used in DFE to 2 volume percent (effec tivel y less than 2.5 volume percent considering rounding)
. Under the RFS2 regulations, if the denaturant level is 2 volume percent or less (effectivel y l ess than 2.5 volume percent considering rounding) the entire volume of denatured fuel ethanol can be u sed for determining compliance with the RFS2 renewable fuel volume requirements
. 380 We also request comment on whether to require manufacturers of denaturants for use in DFE to register with EPA, and demonstrate compliance with the maximum sulfur, benzene, olefins, and aromatics specifications enforced in the State of California based on the anticipated dilution with ethanol. We believe that such additional requirements on the denaturants used to manufacture DFE would not be necessary given that DFE produce rs would be required to meet the proposed specifications and the proposed requirement that denaturant concentration in DFE be limited to a maximum of 2 volume percent. We propose that producers of DFE would be required to meet the proposed fuel quality requirements for their product and provide batch reports to EPA. This is similar to the requirements for gasoline refiners. This approach would provide an appropriate level of assurance on the quality of DFE which has become such a large component in the ga soline fuel pool. We believe that this approach would not result in additional burden to ethanol producers beyond the annual batch reports that they would need to submit to EPA and the information they

provide on product transfer documents (PTDs). Currently , under the fuel and fuel additives registration requirements at 40 CFR part 79, manufacturers of DFE are required to register their products with EPA prior to introducing DFE into commerce. Also, DFE producers currentl y test each batch of their produc t in order to provide assurance to blenders that it meets the current fuel quality requirements. This information is critical to ethanol blenders to avoid testing each batch of an ethanol blend that they manufacture. The proposed requirements would facil itate unfettered downstream ethanol blending.

380 See the definition of Renewable Fuel in 40 CFR 80.1401.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 270 of 842 We are also proposing that the proposed fuel quality specifications and requirements for DFE (except those related to the use of denaturants) would apply to other ox ygenates used in gasoline. We are proposi ng that the ox ygenate quality requirements would become effective for ox ygenate producers/importers on January 1, 2017. We are proposing that oxygenate producers and importers would be required to register b y December 1, 2016, or 30 day s prior to the date when they produce/import oxygenate (which ever date is later). Registration under the RFS program would be sufficient to fulfill this proposed requirement. We are proposing that ox ygenate blenders be required to begin using ox ygenates that comply with the proposed requirements beginning March 1, 2017. We also seek comment on the ability of these blenders to comply with the proposed requirements earlier, and appropriateness of such an earlier compliance date. **D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled V**  **ehicles** FFVs are vehicles that are capable of operating on both gasoline and gasoline blends containing up to 85 volume percent denatured ethanol. Whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or any level of ethanol in between, to maintain emis sion performance the vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality specifications, such as the 10
- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard proposed today . We anticipate that the volume of higher level ethanol blends used in FFVs may increase substantia lly

as the volume requirements of the RFS program increase. Significant public and private initiatives are also currentl y underway to expand the use of ethanol blender pumps that dispense a variety of ethanol blends for use in FFVs. 381 Therefore it is beco ming increasingl y i mportant that all fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A lack of clarity regarding the standards that appl y to fuels used in FFVs could act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels, which i s important to satisfying the requirements of the RFS program. For these reasons, we believe it is important that our gasoline quality standards for not just sulfur, but also benzene, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), detergency , and compliance with the interpre tive rule defining the phrase “substantially similar” in CAA section 211(f)(1) 382 (i.e., contain only carbon, h ydrogen, ox ygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) appl y to an y fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is not necessaril y cl ear how we should implement suc h standards within the context of our existing regulations. For this reason we are seeking comment on appropriate regulatory mechanisms for doing so. The following sections discuss potential approaches for gasoline
- ethanol blends both above and below 50 percent

381 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a program to assist in the funding for the installation of as many as 10,000 ethanol blender pump s over the next 15 years in rural areas. Growth Energy has a “Blend Your Own Ethanol” program to encourage the installation of ethanol blender pumps. 382 73 FR 22277, 22281 (April 25, 2008).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 271 of 842 ethanol. We have also developed a possible approach, along with draft regulations, that are included in the docket on which we specifically seek comment. 383 1. Standards for E51
- 83 Historically , “E85” has been used to describe fuel blends containin g gasoline and ethanol with a minimum and maximum ethanol content of 68 volume percent and 83 volume percent, respectively . The recent update to the ASTM International specification for “E85” included a reduction in the minimum ethanol concentration to 51 volume percent. 384 As part of the updated specification, ASTM retired the name “E85” in favor of “ethanol fuel blends for flexible
- fuel automotive spark
- ignition engines.” ASTM took this action because the term “E85” has caused confusion regarding the variability in the ethanol content depending upon seasonal climactic conditions and regional gasoline volatility specifications. For the purposes of this discussion, “E51
- 83” refers to the fuel which meets the new ASTM D5798
- 11 specifications. Currently , onl y reformulated gasoline blendstocks for ox ygenate blending (RBOBs) and gasoline that has previousl y been demonstrated to comply with applicable EPA specifications (reformulated gasoline (RFG) and conventional gasoline (CG)) are used to manufacture E51
- 83. 385 The Agency believes that the use of these blendstocks prevents inappropriate blending components (e.g., chemical wastes) from being used in the production of E51
- 83. Use of these blendstocks would also help ensure that E51
- 83 meets the necessary

sulfur levels we are proposing today . We note, however, that use of only these blendstocks is interfering with expansion of E51
- 83 into the marketplace b y preventing blends at the upper range of the allowed ethanol content. At higher ethanol concentrations, ble nders often cannot meet the minimum volatility specifications set by ASTM for cold start performance when using only BOBs and gasoline. Prior to the recent update of the ASTM specifications, it was frequentl y not possible to manufacture “E85” that met both the ASTM minimum volatility specification and the EPA requirements regarding the blendstocks that can be used. As a result, some marketers discontinued distributing “E85.” Although the ASTM update provided a compliance method for manufacturing E51
- 83, the result is that less ethanol can be used in FFVs, because the ethanol concentration is forced down from 83 percent toward the 51 percent minimum. To address this situation, we believe that we need to prescribe requirements for E51
- 83 that would enable the continued expansion into the marketplace. We believe that such requirements could focus more on the product and less on how it is made. We also

383 Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible
- Fuel Automotive Spark
- Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), Memorandum to the docket 384 ASTM International D5798
- 11, “Standard Specification for Flexible
- Fuel Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engines”. 385 Letter to Robert Sydney, Division o f Energy Resources, Boston, MA, from James Caldw ell, U.S. EPA, February 15, 2006.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 272 of 842 believe that E51
- 83 should meet the same sulfur, RVP, and benzene standards otherwise applicable to gasolin e as well as the “substantiall y similar” requirements. We are therefore seeking comments on whether we could extend these requirements to E51
- 83. We note that establishing such requirements could allow the use of butane and natural gasoline liquids (NGL) to manufacture E51
- 83 with sufficient volatility to meet the ASTM specifications. Butane is commonly blended into gasoline and NGL is the denaturant specified b y ASTM for the manufacture of DFE. 386 Additionally , because NGL and butane are less expensive than gasoline or BOBs, we anticipate that such a change could help to reduce the price of E51
- 83 relative to finished gasoline. 387 Further, we note that requiring E51
- 83 to meet the same standards as gasoline would subject E51
- 83 manufacturers to all the samp ling, testing, and reporting obligations of refiners. While this would provide maximum blending flexibility , it could also limit the parties that might choose to blend E51
- 83. Currentl y ox ygenate blenders are exempt from much of this regulatory burden. For this reason, we are also seeking comments on whether we could establish requirements that would allow producers of E51
- 83 to avoid the compliance burdens of a refiner . We are seeking comments on one such approach that would require the use of onl y bl endstocks that meet certain specifications to produce E51
- 83. We believe that use of only blendstocks (including butane and NGL) that meet these specifications would ensure the final blend would alway s meet the standards. These approaches are discussed i n greater detail in the docket for this rulemaking. 388 We seek comment on these approaches, and an y other approaches that could be used to remove hurdles for blending of E51
- 83 while still ensuring the product meets the fuel quality requirements needed to m aintain vehicle emission performance. 2. Standards for Mid
- Level Ethanol Blends (E16
- 50) As discussed earlier, whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or any level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission performance these vehicles still ne ed the fuel to meet certain quality specifications. For this reason, we believe it is important that higher ethanol blends also meet the same standards that apply to gasoline. Our various standards for gasoline already appl y t o any fuel sold for use in m otor vehicles, which is commonly or commerciall y known or sold as gasoline. In the fuel and fuel additive registration program, the gasoline family includes fuels composed of at least 50 percent clear gasoline by volume. 389 As a result, our gasoline standards already appl y to E16
- 50 ethanol blends. And yet, such fuels currently can onl y be used in FFVs.

386 ASTM International D4806
- 11(a), “Standard Specification for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel”. 387 In August of 2011 the retail price of E85 was approximately 60 cents per gallon more than gasoline on an energy content adjusted basis. 388 Possible Approach to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible
- Fuel Automotive Spark
- Ignition Vehicles (FFVs). 389 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 273 of 842 Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on the need to have E16
- 50 blends comply with the gasoline sulfur, benzene, and RVP standards, we also seek comm ent on the means of doing so. For example, can and should the Agency simpl y treat E16
- 50 as gasoline under our regulations and clarify that gasoline means any

fuel that contains 50 percent or more gasoline? Alternatively , should the Agency treat E16
- 50 a s an alternative fuel used in FFVs ? In which case we seek comment on whether we should take the same approach for E16
- 50 as discussed above for E51
- 83 with respect to sulfur, benzene, RVP standards, and substantially similar requirements under section 21 1(f). In the context of considering whether and how to apply gasoline standards and requirements to E16
- 50 we also seek comment on whether it might be an appropriate reading of our regulatory and statutory authority to allow E16 to E50 blends to have hi gher RVP levels than otherwise required b y our regulations for gasoline. As the ethanol level increases, the volatility increase caused by

blending ethanol with gasoline begins to decline, such that at E30 there is onl y about a 0.5
- psi RVP increase. Whil e still an increase compared to the standards that appl y to gasoline other than E9
- 10, it is considerabl y less than the full 1
- psi RVP increase that results at E10. The evaporative emission increase caused by E30 would then be less than for E10. Thus, we seek comment on whether it would be an appropriate reading of our regulatory and statutory authority to allow higher RVP levels for such blends, at least in some limited situations and time frames (e.g., using existing regulatory research exemptions for d emonstration programs) where new efforts are being made to introduce such blends into the market. We further seek comment on data that might help quantify both the evaporative and exhaust emission impacts necessary to support an y such action. **E. Proposed Pro**  **gram Flexibilities** 1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program As mentioned in Section V.A.2.b, we are proposing an ABT program which reduces the cost and promotes the feasibility of the program b y allowing refiners and importers to choose the most economical compliance strategy (investment in technology , credits, or both) to meet the proposed Tier 3 average gasoline sulfur standard. The program allows refiners and importers to generate standard credits for overcompliance with the 10
- ppm sulfur standard begi nning in 2017. These credits could be generated indefinitely

and banked or transferred to others for compliance with the average sulfur standard. The proposed program also permits refiners and importers to generate earl y credits for overcompliance with t oday ’s 30
- ppm average sulfur standard from 2014 to 2016. Earl y credits may be used towards compliance with the 10
- ppm standard beginning in 2017, banked for use through 2019, and/or transferred to other refiners or importers subject to the sulfur standard
. a. Eligibility Under the ABT program, we are proposing that U.S. refiners who produce gasoline b y processing crude oil and/or intermediate feedstocks through refinery******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 274 of 842 processing units are eligible to generate both early credits (2014
- 2016) and standard cr edits (2017 and later). As proposed, importers are also eligible to generate both earl y and standard sulfur credits on gasoline imported into the United States. We are proposing that sulfur credits may onl y be generated for gasoline that is subject to the proposed sulfur requirements as described at §80.1603. This excludes gasoline designated for export. It also excludes California gasoline (gasoline produced or imported for use in California) but includes gasoline produced b y C alifornia refineries for use outside the state. Although California gasoline is not covered b y our proposed sulfur program, we seek comment on whether to include California gasoline in the ongoing ABT program under Tier 3 (not the earl y credit program). The result would be a national 10
- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard. This approach could provide some additional compliance flexibility

to refiners, but it would also require reporting of batch data to EPA for California gasoline. We have received inquiries whether fuel ethan ol producers or blenders should be eligible to generate credits under the proposed gasoline sulfur program. Denatured fuel ethanol currently

contains around 9 ppm sulfur on average, ranging any where from 2 to almost 30 ppm. 390 While certain batches of ethan ol could theoreticall y be low enough in sulfur to generate credits, it is our desire to limit credit generation to companies required to comply

with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, i.e., refiners and importers. Experience in the unleaded gasoline program suggests widespread abuse and fraud when credits have been allowed to be generated or sold by non - obligated parties. Thus, in order to allow ethanol producers (or blenders) to generate sulfur credits under Tier 3, they would need to be treated as re finers and subject to our batch testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for the finished gasoline they produce. 391 Currently , downstream blenders are exempt from these regulations because the certification and compliance burden is being borne b y the upstream refiners. 392 Furthermore, since man y refiners currently

comply with our standards taking into consideration the fuel propert y changes expected as a result of downstream ethanol blending, providing ethanol blenders with sulfur credit would resul t in double counting the effects of ethanol. To avoid this, we would need to restructure our gasoline regulations to shift the point of compliance to the many terminals and bulk plants where ethanol is blended and finished gasoline is produced instead of the refinery gate. While possible, this would significantly expand the amount of sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting required to demonstrate compliance with our gasoline standards. It would also considerabl y expand the amount of sampling, tes ting, recordkeeping, and reporting required of ethanol blenders. As discussed in Section V.C, we are proposing a cap of 10 ppm on the sulfur content of

390 Report on Ethanol Producers Survey, Presented at the California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulation Workshop, June 15, 2000, Carl Reeder, Archer Daniels Midland 391 40 CFR 80.330, 80.335, 80.365, and 80.370. 392 Under the prop osed Tier 3 program, as explained in Section V.C, we are requiring fuel ethanol producers to comply with the 10
- ppm standard. However, for the reasons discussed above, we still do not believe it is appropriate to allow them to generate sulfur credits unde r the proposed ABT program.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 275 of 842 denatured fuel ethanol (DFE). Over compliance with the per
- gallon cap would not be a valid basis for c redit generation, as you would expect that in all cases the DFE would be below the cap. To allow credit generation, we would need to propose an additional annual average sulfur standard for DFE at some level below 10 ppm, and allow credits to be generated for over compliance with that standard. Accordingl y, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow ethanol producers or blenders to generate sulfur credits under the proposed gasoline sulfur program. b. Standard Credit Generation Under the Tier 3 ABT program , we are proposing standard credit generation provisions similar to those offered under Tier 2 as well as the MSAT2 gasoline benzene program. We are proposing an ongoing sulfur credit program that would allow refiners and importers to average within and a cross companies to meet the new 10
- ppm average sulfur standard in the most cost
- effective manner possible. Refiners and importers could generate standard credits for overcomplying with the 10
- ppm standard on a volume
weighted annual average basis beginnin g January 1, 2017. Standard credit generation periods would be 12 months long and s ynchronized with compliance demonstration periods. We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries could generate standard credits beginning with the start of their program on January 1, 2020. Eligible small refining entities could also generate standard credits for over compliance with the 10
- ppm standard from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 by voluntarily

opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program d uring a time period when it would otherwise not apply
. Regardless of whether they were generated earl y or not, all standard credits generated by small refiners and small volume refineries would be subject to the credit life provisions described in Section V.E.1.d . For a summary of the small refiner and small volume refinery ABT provisions, refer to Section V.E.1.f
. c. Earl y Credit Generation To encourage earl y gasoline desulfurization and give the refining industry flexibility to stagger their investments over time, we are proposing that refiners and importers could also generate earl y credits for overcomplying with today ’s 30
- ppm gasoline sulfur standard on a volume
- wei ghted annual average basis from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Under the ABT program, we are proposing that refiners and importers would not need to establish a gasoline sulfur baseline or meet a trigger point in order to generate earl y credit s. They would simply

need to demonstrate that their average U.S. gasoline sulfur levels are below today ’s 30
- ppm Tier 2 standard during the earl y credit generation period. We believe this simple earl y credit approach is possible because U.S. gasoline is currentl y averaging around 30 ppm today based on compliance data. Since during the proposed early credit generation period refiners and importers would need to continue to comply with the existing Tier 2 sulfur standards, absent Tier 3, they

would need to maintain this level of performance on an industry******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 276 of 842 average basis. Accordingl y, an y additional gasoline sulfur reductions beyond 30 ppm could thus be attributed to the proposed Tier 3 program. Refiners and importers supplying gasoline containing less than 30 ppm sulfur from January

1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 could choose from generating either standard credits under the existing Tier 2 program or earl y credits under the proposed Tier 3 program, but not both (at least not for the same volume of gasoli ne). Sulfur credits would be generated on an annual average basis. Refiners and importers could make the decision at the end of the year whether credits generated in 2014, 2015 or 2016 would be more valuable used/traded to comply with the Tier 2 program or banked for the Tier 3 program. Some year - end credits could be designated as Tier 2 and some designated as Tier 3 provided the same volume of gasoline was only used to generate one ty

pe of credit. We believe that the proposed earl y credit program struc ture is the simplest approach to giving refiners and importers incentive for doing more sulfur control earlier than required and providing additional lead time to meet the Tier 3 annual average standard. We seek comments on alternative ways to structure t he earl y credit program to help ease the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3. Under past fuel programs (e.g., MSAT2), we precluded importers from generating earl y credits under the premise that they did not need additional lead time to comply with our fuel st andards because, most likely , they would not be investing in new refining technologies. We also thought it would be difficult for them to establish representative baselines from which early credits could be generated. Since we are not proposing earl y cre dit baselines under Tier 3, as discussed above, we are proposing to allow importers to generate earl y credits for sending over
- compliant gasoline to the United States prior to the start of the program, but seek comment on the appropriateness of doing so. d. Credit L ife Provisions Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposing that earl y credits must be used towards compliance within three years from the start of the program; otherwise they would expire and become invalid. In other words, earl y credits must b e applied towards the 2017, 2018 or 2019 compliance years. After February 29, 2020, all early credits would expire and become invalid. The proposed three
- ye ar early credit life provision would offer considerable flexibility to refiners phasing in Tier 3 gasoline sulfur controls while still placing a 2020 end date at which point the intended sulfur program is fully implemented and enforceable. We are proposing that standard credits must be used within five years from the ye ar they were generated (regardles s of when/if they are traded); otherwise they would expire and become invalid. For example, standard credits generated in 2017 could be applied towards 2018
- 2022 compliance, as well as 2017 compliance. After February 28, 2023, standard credits generated in 2017 would expire and become invalid. Similarly , standard credits generated in 2018 could be applied towards 2019
- 2023 compliance, as well as 2018 compliance. After February 29, 2024, standard credits generated in 2018 would expire, and so on and so f orth.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 277 of 842 We believe the five
- ye ar standard credit life provision, when final, would give refiners and importers sufficient time to use credits generated in previous years while still placing limitations on credit life that would help with enforcement. Five years is consistent with the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements (described in more detail in Section V.F.1 ) as well as the current Tier 2 and MSAT2 standard credit life provisions. e. Credit Trading Provi sions It is possible that sulfur credits could be generated by one part y, subsequently transferred or used in good faith by another, and later found to have been calculated or created improperl y or otherwise determined to be invalid. If this occurs, as in past fuel programs, we are proposing that both the seller and purchaser would have to adjust their sulfur calculations to reflect the proper credits and either party (or both) could be determined to be in violation of the standards and other requirements if the adjusted calculations demonstrate noncompliance with the 10
- ppm standard. Under the proposed Tier 3 ABT program, sulfur credits must be transferred directly from the refiner or importer generating them to the part y using them for compliance purposes . This ensures that the parties purchasing them are better able to assess the likelihood that the credits are valid. An exception exists where a credit generator transfers credits to a refiner or importer who inadvertentl y cannot use all the credits. In this case, the credits could be transferred a second time to another refiner or importer. After the second trade, the credits must be used or they would be terminated. Allowing a maximum of two trades is consistent with other recent fuel programs and we believe it is sufficiently

flexible while still preserving adequate means for enforcement. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the need for allowing more than two trades for sulfur credits under the proposed Tier 3 program. There are currently

no prohibition s against brokers facilitating the transfer of credits from one part y to another. An y person can act as a credit broker, regardless of whether such person is a refiner or importer, as long as the title to the credits is transferred directl y from the gener ating refiner or importer to the using refiner or importer. This prohibition on outside parties taking ownership of credits was promulgated in response to problems encountered during the unleaded gasoline program and has since appeared in subsequent fuels rulemakings. Maintaining this prohibition would allow for maximum program enforceability and consistency with all of our other ABT programs for mobile sources and their fuels. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the need for this restriction under the propo sed Tier 3 program. f. Summary

of ABT Provisions for Small Refiners and Small Volume Refineries We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries would have an additional three ye ars to comply with the 10
- ppm annual average standard, or until J anuary 1, 2020. This is the primary form of relief offered to small refining entities under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. The proposed credit provisions are similar******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 278 of 842 to those offered to non
- small refiners. Eligible small refiners and small volume refineries would be able to generate earl y credits for overcomplying with the 30
- ppm Tier 2 standard from January

1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. L ike non
- small refiners, they would need to make the decision whether these credits would be more valuable under the Tier 2 program or the proposed Tier 3 program. While earl y credits could help postpone investments by

up to three years, they

could not be used by

small refiner s or small refineries to postpone sulfur investments beyond their January 1, 2020 start date. However, early

credits generated by

small entities from 2014
- 2016 could be traded/sold to non - small refiners subject to the January 1, 2017 standard and the credit revenues could be used to help offset their Tier 3 investments. As explai ned above, small refiners and small volume refineries could generate standard credits relative to the 10
- ppm standard beginning with the start of their program on January

1, 2020. Eligible small refining entities could also generate standard credits for o ver compliance with the 10
- ppm standard from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 by

voluntaril y opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program earlier than required. Regulatory

flexibility

provisions offered to small refiners and small volume refineries are described in more detail below. 2. Regulatory

Flexibility

Provisions a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility

Provisions As in previous fuel rulemakings, our justification for including provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities generally have a greater degree of difficulty in complying with the standards compared to other entities. In developing the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we evaluated the environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of refiners and othe rs in the fuel industry

to meet the sulfur standards as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is feasible and necessary

for the vast majorit y of the program to be implemented in the established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as possible. Based on information available from small refiners and others, we believe that entities classified as small generall y face unique circumstances with regard to compliance with environmental programs, compared to larger entities. Thus, as discuss ed below, we are proposing several regulatory

flexibility

provisions for small entities in the fuels industry to reduce the burden that our proposed program could have on them. Small entities generally

lack the resources that are available to larger compan ies, including those large companies that own small
- capacity refineries, to raise capital for investing in a new regulatory program, such as shifting of internal funds, securing of financing, or selling of assets. Small entities are also likely to have mo re difficulty

in competing for an y needed engineering and construction resources. As such, we are proposing provisions that would provide assistance for small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. This proposed approach would allow the overa ll program to begin as early

as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as soon as******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 279 of 842 possible, while helping to ensure that small entities have adequate time to raise capital for new fuel desulfurization equipment or to make any other nee ded changes. We believe that small business regulatory flexibilities could provide these entities with additional help and/or time to accumulate capital internall y or to secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the availability of any n eeded engineering and construction resources. i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners As explained in Sections V.A.1.c and V.E.1.f , we are proposing an option that would allow small refiners to postpone compliance with the Tier 3 program for up to three ye ars. This delayed compliance schedule for small refiners is not intended as an opportunity

for those refiners to greatl y expand their production of >10 ppm sulfur gasoline, but rather would help small refiners with co mpliance with the program. Since the compliance costs for their competitors would rise during these three years and since their gasoline would be sold into the same fungible market, this delay would not only provide them more lead time, but also financial support towards later compliance. Small refiners choosing this option would have from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Complianc e with the 10
- ppm sulfur standard would begin on January

1, 2020. Any

small refiner choosing this option would be allowed to continue using Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through December 31, 2019 to meet their refinery average 30
- ppm sulfur standard (how ever, these credits may not be used for compliance with the proposed Tier 3 10
- ppm average sulfur standard).

ii. Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps During the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel process, small refiners raised the c oncern that a refinery gate cap of 20 ppm could cause problems during a refinery turnaround or an upset because a cap of this level could result in a refiner not being able to produce saleable gasoline. The Panel likewise had concerns that a downstream ca p of 25 ppm may

cause problems for small downstream entities such as transmix processors because, as they noted in their comments during the Panel process, transmix processors may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level. Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, respectivel y, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid s ys tem upsets for the entire refining and distribution sy ste m. Further, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Panel members recommended that EPA propose retaining the 80
- ppm and 95
- ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that, if EPA were to propose caps lower than 80 and 95 ppm, the Agency request comment on additional refinery

gate and downstream caps that are above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. As discussed in Section XI.C, we are proposing to either maintain the current 80/95 ppm caps or to lower them to 50/65 ppm. Sh ould we lower the caps to 50/65 ppm,******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 280 of 842 given the stringency

of the 10
- ppm average standard, we anticipate that they would provide the same level of flexibility for refiners, pipelines, terminals, transmix processors, and gasoline additive manufacturers as th e current 80/95 ppm caps. Should we lower the caps to 50/65, we are proposing to allow the current Tier 2 80
- ppm refinery gate cap to remain in place through December 31, 2019. Compliance with the 50
- ppm refinery gate cap would begin on January 1, 2020, when the 10
- ppm average sulfur standard is required for all refiners. Similarly , we are proposing to allow the Tier 2 95
- ppm downstream cap to remain in effect through February 29, 2020. Compliance with the 65
- ppm downstream cap would begin on March 1, 2 020. For more information on the proposed cap provisions, refer to Section V.A.3.

iii. Credit
- related Flexibilities As described above in Section V.E.1 , we are proposing an ABT program. Refiners and importers would be able to generate earl y sulfur credits from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 relative to the current 30
- ppm Tier 2 average sulfur standard (i.e., credits may be generated for an y reductions below 30 ppm prior to the start of the general Tier 3 program). Beginning January 1, 2017 standard credits may be generated for overcompliance with the proposed 10
- ppm Tier 3 sulfur standard. In addition, small refiners and small volume refineries would be able to generate standard credits from January

1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 for reductions below 10 ppm prior to their proposed program start date of January 1, 2020. During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative (SER) commented that importers should be allowed to participate in the cre dit program. In previous EPA fuel programs, importers have generally been treated as refiners, except for the purposes of earl y credit generation. Refiners have historicall y been required to establish a baseline in order to generate earl y credits. Importers generally do not have a specific baseline or amount of fuel that they import in a given year, so participation in the earl y credit market would not have been feasible under those programs. However, under the proposed Tier 3 sulfur program, refiners and importers are not required to establish baselines; the existing 30
- ppm Tier 2 standard serves as the “baseline.” Therefore, as discussed above in Section V.E.1.c , we are proposing to allow importers to participate in the earl y credit program as well as the ongoing standard credit program.

iv. Gasoline Additive Manufacturers During the SBREFA Panel process, some gasoline additive manufacturing SERs raised the concern that they would have difficulty

meeting a 25
- ppm pe r - gallon sulfur cap, and the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on whether or not gasoline additives should be allowed to remain at levels above 25 ppm sulfur, and on potential methods for ensuring that bulk additives do not increase the sulfur lev el of the resultant fuel blend. However, as discussed above and in Section V.A.3, we are proposing to either retain the current 80/95 ppm caps or only go to 50/65 ppm. Both of these options would have the same 15
- ppm differential between the refinery gat e and downstream caps,******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 281 of 842 thus we are not proposing an y additional provisions for gasoline additives beyond what already exists under the current Tier 2 program. b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions During the development of this proposal and throughout the SBRE FA process, it became evident that some refineries may experience higher compliance costs on a per
gallon basis than other refineries, and in some cases considerabl y higher. It also became apparent that in man y of these cases it was not necessarily a refi nery owned by

a refiner/compan y that would meet the SBA definition of a small business (however, these refineries tend to be small volume refineries). In an oversupplied gasoline market, these refineries may

have difficulty

justifying capital investments to comply with the proposed sulfur standard. In recognition of this concern under the RFS program, Congress granted all small refineries with a crude oil throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 barrels per calendar day

(bpcd) additional time to comply
. As such, we are also proposing delayed Tier 3 sulfur standards for approved small volume refineries. Overall, we believe that these small refineries are disproportionally impacted when it comes to their cost of compliance and ability

to rationalize the investment costs in today ’s gasoline market. Giving these refineries additional lead time would allow them more time to invest in desulfurization technology, take advantage of advancements in technology , develop confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as a m eans of compliance, and avoid competition for capital, engineering, and construction resources with the larger refineries. We are proposing that approved small volume refineries would receive a three
- ye ar delay (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019) in meeting the 10
- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, similar to the small refiner delay . Credit generation opportunities for approved small volume refineries would be identical to those proposed for small refiners as described in Section V.E.1.f
. A refiner would need to apply and be approved for small volume refinery status. We are proposing a small volume refinery net crude throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 bpcd, and we request comment on whether or not a different crude throughput would be more appropriate. To determine compliance with this threshold, we propose to base the crude throughput on the highest crude throughput for either the 2010 or 2011 calendar years. 3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions to accommodate a refiner’s inability to comply

with the proposed standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with unforeseen circumstances that may occur at an y point during the program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and non
small, though relief would be granted on a case
- by
- case basis following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that an y hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a hardship waiver would be short
- term relief that would allow a refiner facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to comply
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 282 of 842 EPA would determine appropriate hardship relief based on the nature and degree of the hardship, as presented b y the refiner in their hardship application, and on our assessment of the credit market. In addition to the unforeseen circumstances and extreme hardship circumstances waivers being proposed today and discussed in more detail below, the Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on the concept of long
- term cap relief should we lower the sulfur caps below the current 80/95
- ppm level if the circumstances both warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. Such a provision may require segregation of their fuel through to the retail station in order for it not to preclude enforcement on the gasoline supplied by other refiners s erving the area. Therefore, in providing comment on such a hardship provision, please also comment on potential compliance and enforcement mechanisms to account for such longer
- term relief, e.g., fuel segregation, tracking, reporting and recordkeeping, et c. a. Temporary

Waivers Based on Unforeseen Circumstances We are proposing a provision which, at our discretion, would permit any refiner to seek a temporary

waiver from the Tier 3 sulfur standards under certain rare circumstances. This waiver provision is s imilar to provisions in existing fuel regulations. It is intended to provide refiners relief in unanticipated circumstances

— such as a refinery fire or a natural disaster (i.e., force majeure )

—that cannot be reasonabl y foreseen now or in the near future. Under this provision, a refiner could seek a hardship waiver for relief if it could demonstrate that the magnitude of the impact was so severe as to require such an extension. We are proposing that the refiner would be required to show that: (1) the waive r would be in the public interest; (2) the nonconformity was unavoidable; (3) it would meet the proposed Tier 3 standards as expeditiously as possible; (4) it would make up the air quality

detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where practic able; and (5) it would pay to the U.S. Treasury

an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity less the amount expended to make up the air quality detriment. These conditions are similar to those in previous fuels regulations, and are necess ary and appropriate to ensure that any waivers granted would be limited in scope. As discussed, such a request would be based on the refiner’s inability to produce compliant gasoline at the affected facility due to extreme and unusual circumstances outside the refiner’s control that could not have been avoided through the exercise of due diligence. The hardship request would also need to show that other avenues for mitigating the problem, such as the purchase of credits toward compliance under the proposed credit provisions, had been pursued and yet were insufficient or unavailable. In light of the proposed flexibilities including the ABT program, we expect that the need for such requests would be rare. b. Temporary

Waivers Based on Extreme Hardship Circumstan ces In addition to the provision for short
- term relief in extreme unforeseen circumstances, we are also proposing a hardship provision where a refiner could receive a******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 283 of 842 hardship waiver based on severe economic or ph ys ical lead time limitations of the refinery to comply

with the Tier 3 standards at the start of the program. A refiner seeking such hardship relief under this proposed rule would have to demonstrate that these criteria were met. In addition to showing that unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship in meeting the proposed standards, the refiner would have to show that: (1) it has made best efforts to comply , including through the purchase of credits; (2) the relief granted under this provision would be in the public interest; (3) th e environmental impact would be acceptable; and (4) it has active plans to meet the requirements as expeditiously

as possible. We expect that hardship relief requests under this provision would mostly

be applicable at the beginning of the Tier 3 program, when refiners are making their investments to comply . If hardship relief under these circumstances was approved, we would expect to impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the refiner was making best efforts to achieve compliance offsetting any loss of emission control from the program. We believe that providing short
- term relief to those refiners that need additional time due to hardship circumstances would help to facilitate the adoption of the overall Tier 3 program for the majority of the industry. However, we do not intend for hardship waiver provisions to encourage refiners to delay planning and investments they would otherwise make. Again, because of the flexibilities of the proposed overall program, we expect that the need for additional rel ief would be rare. **F. Compliance Provisions**  For the most part, the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards simply reflect a lowering of the current Tier 2 sulfur standards. Thus, we are proposing to retain most of the same compliance provisions as the current Tier 2 program, with exceptions as noted. However, we are also proposing and seeking comment on several fuel program regulatory streamlining measures, including a broader program redesign to streamline the reformulated gasoline and anti
- dumping regulations. 393 Some of these streamlining measures, if adopted, may also impact the Tier 3 sulfur compliance provisions proposed below. 1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements Registration, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to track compliance with the Tier 3 standards and the ABT program. This section describes the proposed compliance provisions of today ’s program. a. Registration Requirements We are proposing that refiners, importers, and an yone acting as a refiner (e.g., a terminal with blendin g or other refining operations) who expects to produce or import gasoline would be required to register each of its facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or

393 For more information on Part 80 regulatory streamlining options, refer to Section VI.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 284 of 842 six months prior to producing gasoline meeting the Tier 3 standards and/or participating in the cred it program. After the program begins on January 1, 2017, an y non - registered parties must register at least three months prior to producing gasoline or participating in the credit market under the Tier 3 program. Most refiners, importers, and ethanol prod ucers are currently

registered with EPA under other 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs. We are proposing that those who are already registered would not have to register again. For registration, we are proposing to use the same basic forms that previous fuels programs have used. These forms are well known in the regulated community and are simple to fill out. Upon receipt of a completed registration form, EPA would issue a unique 4
- digit compan y i dentification number and a unique 5
- digit facility identificati on number. As with existing fuels programs, these numbers would be required for all reports sent to EPA and for PTDs. Registrations would not expire and would not have to be renewed; however, we are proposing that registered parties would be responsible f or notifying us of any

change to their compan y or facility information. An entity ’s registration must include a corporate name and address (including the name, telephone number, and e
- mail address of a corporate contact); and, for each facility operated b y the entity :
 Ty pe of facility

(e.g., refinery , import facility, pipeline, terminal, transmix facility , etc.)

 Facilit y name
 Phy sical location

 Contact name, telephone number, and e
- mail address b. Reporting Requirements We are proposing to require refiners and importers to submit annual reports demonstrating their compliance with the Tier 3 standards and on the generation, use, and transfer of sulfur credits at each of its refineries or import facilities. Similar to our other sulfur programs, we are also propos ing to require refiners and importers to submit data on individual batches of gasoline (including batch volume and sulfur content). Based on our experience with existing gasoline and sulfur
- based programs, we believe that requiring annual reports and indi vidual sulfur batch data would provide an effective means of monitoring compliance with the standards and the credit program. We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates would be required to submit an annual report that includes the t otal volume of DFE/oxygenate produced and an attestation that all batches met the proposed fuel quality requirements:******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 285 of 842 sulfur content, composition (i.e., composed onl y of carbon, h ydrogen, nitrogen, ox ygen, and sulfur), and denaturant concentration as appli cable. We are proposing that reports would be due annually on the last day

of February
. c. Recordkeeping Requirements Similar to current EPA fuels programs, we are proposing that refiners and importers would be required to retain all records that demonstrat e compliance with the Tier 3 program, including ABT program information. We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates would be required to keep records on individual batches of DFE/ox ygenate (including batch volume, sulfur content, and denaturant concentration as applicable). All parties in the gasoline production and distribution sy stem subject to today ’s proposed rule would also be required to keep records of all PTDs and records of any quality assurance programs. Records would nee d to be retained for five ye ars. For credit transactions, records would need to be retained for five years from the usage date. Records would need to be made available to EPA on request. We are also proposing that if electronic records are kept, hard co pies should be made available upon request. We are proposing to allow parties to claim information submitted to EPA as confidential business information (CBI). Parties making such a claim would be required to follow all reporting guidance and clearly mark the information being claimed as proprietary . EPA would treat information covered by such a claim in accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and other Agency procedures for handling proprietary information. 2. Sampling and Testing Requirements Unde r the Tier 2 program, a sulfur concentration must be determined for every batch of gasoline. We are proposing to retain that requirement under Tier 3. As with the Tier 2 program, this every batch testing requirement would be required to occur prior to th e batch leaving the refinery . We are proposing to retain the current sampling, testing, and sample retention requirements. However, as discussed below in Section VI.A.3, we are proposing performance based measurement standards that would allow refiners t o use alternate test methods for measuring sulfur. We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE would be required to test each individual batch of DFE for its sulfur content. We request comment on these elements related to sampling and testing, as well as the sampling and testing requirements in the proposed regulations.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 286 of 842 3. Small Refiner Compliance To qualify

for small refiner status under the Tier 3 program, we are proposing that a refiner must appl y b y July 1, 2013. As with our other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to continue using the Small Business Administration definition of a small refiner

— 1,500 employees (company
- wide). To qualify for small refiner status under Tier 3, we are also proposing that a small refiner must meet the following additional criteria:

 The refiner must have produced gasoline from crude oil during the 2011 calendar year.
 The refiner must have owned and operated the refinery during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. New owners that purchased a refinery a fter that date would do so with full knowledge of the proposed regulations, and should have planned to comply along with their purchase decisions. As with existing fuel programs, we are proposing that a refiner that restarts a refinery

in the future may

b e eligible for small refiner status. Thus, a refiner restarting a refinery that was shut down or non
- operational during calendar year 2011 could apply for small refiner status. In such cases, we would judge eligibility

under the employ

ment and crude oil capacit y criteria based on the most recent 12 consecutive months prior to the application, unless we conclude from data provided b y the refiner that another period of time is more appropriate. However, we propose to limit this to a company that owned the refinery

at the time that it was shut down. New purchasers would not be eligible for small refiner status for the same reasons described above.

 The refiner must have had 1,500 employees or less based on the average number of emplo ye es for all pay periods from January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 for all subsidiaries, parent companies (i.e., any company or companies with controlling interest), and joint ventures.

 The refiner must have had a crude oil capacity less than or equal to 155,000 bpcd during the 2011 calendar ye ar. A refiner appl yi ng for status as a small refiner would be required to apply and provide EPA with several ty pes of information, as specified in the regulations, by July 1, 2013. All refiners seeking small refiner status under this pr ogram would need to apply for small refiner status, regardless of whether or not the refiner had been approved for small refiner status under another fuel program. As with applications for relief under other rules, applications for small refiner status un der this proposed rule that are later found to contain false or inaccurate information would be void ab initio
. Requirements for small refiner status applications:******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 287 of 842  The total crude oil capacity as reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the most recent 12 months of operation. This would include the capacity of all refineries controlled b y a refiner and b y all subsidiaries and parent companies and joint ventures. We would presume that the information submitted to EIA is correct. (In cases where a compan y disagreed with this information, the compan y could petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the compan y submitted its application for small refiner status. EPA could accept such alternate data at its discretion.)

 The name and address of each location where employees worked during the 2011 calendar year ; and the number of employees at each location during this time period. This would include the emplo yees of the refiner and all subsidiaries and parent companies and joint ventures.

 In the case of a refiner who reactivates a refinery that was either shutdown or non - operational from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, the name and address of each location where emplo ye es worked since the refiner reactivated the refinery

and the average number of employees at each location for each calendar ye ar since the refiner reactivated the refinery
.  The ty

pe of business activities carried out at each location.

 Contact information for a corp orate contact person, including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, e
- mail address.

 A letter signed b y the president, chief operating officer, or chief executive officer of the compan y (or a designee) stating that the information contained in th e application was true to the best of his/her knowledge and that the compan y owned the refinery as of January 1, 2011. We are proposing that an approved small refiner that exceeds the emplo ye e count or crude capacity criteria due to merger with, acquisitio n by , or the acquisition of another entity will lose its small refiner status. In situations where a small refiner loses its small refiner status due to merger with a non
- small refiner, acquisition of another refiner, or acquisition by

another refiner, we are proposing provisions which are similar to those in our existing fuels programs to allow an additional 30 months of lead time to comply with the Tier 3 program after the disqualifying event. 394 The proposed 30 months of additional lead time would only appl y to refineries that had previousl y been subject to small refiner relief, as we believe there would be no adverse environmental impact because of the pre
- existing relief provisions that applied to the small refiner. We are also proposing that a refin er would lose its small refiner status if it ceases to process crude oil.

394 See, for example, 69 FR 39051 (June 29, 2004).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 288 of 842 Our intent has been, and continues to be, limiting the small refiner relief provisions to a small subset of refiners that are challenged, as discussed above. However, it is also our intent to avoid stifling normal business growth. Therefore, we are proposing that an approved small refiner who exceeds the employee count or crude oil capacity criteria through normal business practices, may retain its small refiner status. Further, in the sole case of a merger between two approved small refiners we are proposing to allow such refiners to retain their small refiner status. Additional financial resources would not ty picall y be provided in the case of a merger between two small refiners. Small refiner status for the two entities of the merger would not be affected; hence the original compliance plans of the two refiners should not be impacted. Moreover, no environmental detriment would result from the two small refiners maintaining their small refiner status within the merged entity as they would have likely maintained their small refiner status had the merger not occurred. We request comment on whether or not these provisions remain appropriate. 4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance In the case of small volume refineries, the application process for qualification is similar to that of a small refiner. A refiner that is both a small refiner and owns a small volume refinery

need not apply

for small volume refinery status; the small refiner a pplication is all that is needed. We are proposing a net crude throughput threshold of no more than 75,000 bpcd based on the highest throughput in calendar ye ars 2010 or 2011 as the basis for receiving small volume refinery status. We request comment on whether or not another threshold would be more appropriate. We are proposing that refiners would need to include the following in their applications:

 Proof that the refiner produced gasoline from crude oil during the 2011 calendar year.
 Proof that the refi ner owned and operated the refinery during the period from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

 The refinery ’s total crude throughput as reported to EIA for each of calendar ye ars 2010 and 2011. Again, we would presume that the information submitted to EIA is correct. In cases where a refiner disagrees with this information, the refiner could petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the refiner submits its application for small volume refinery status. EPA could accept such alte rnate data at its discretion.

 Contact information for a corporate contact person, including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, e
- mail address.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 289 of 842  A letter signed b y the president, chief operating officer, or chief executive officer of the compan y (or a designee) stating that the information contained in the application was true to the best of his/her knowledge and that the compan y owned the refinery as of January 1, 2011. 5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties We are proposing to retain the Tier 2 requirements for attest engagements for generation of both earl y and standard credits, use of credits, and compliance with the proposed program, using the procedures used in other EPA fuels programs for attest engagements. The violation and penalty provisions applicable to today ’s proposed program would be very

similar to the provisions currentl y in effect in other gasoline programs as well. We request comment on the need for additional attest engagement, violation, penalty , or any other compliance and enforcement related provisions specific to the proposed Tier 3 program. 6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions The following paragraphs discuss several provisions and exemptions for gasoline that we are proposing would apply in special circumstances. a. Gasoline Used in Military Applications In our diesel fuel program, we provided an exemption for diesel fuel used in tactical military

vehicles and nonroad engines and equipment with a national security exemption (NSE) from the vehicle and engine emissions standards. Due to national securit y considerations, some of EPA’s existing regulations allow the military to request and receive NSEs for vehicles, engines, and equipment from emissions regulations if the operational requirements for such vehicles, engine s, or equipment warrant such an exemption. Fuel used in these applications would also be exempt if it is used in tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not covered b y an NSE but, for national securit y reasons (such as the need to be re ady for immediate deploy ment overseas), these applications need to be fueled on the same fuel as those with an NSE. We are proposing this exemption, however we request comment on whether or not the exemption would be needed under the proposed Tier 3 gas oline program. b. Gasoline Used in Research, Development, and Testing Similar to other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to allow requests for an exemption from the Tier 3 standards for gasoline used for research, development, and testing purposes (“R & D exemption”). We recognize that there may be legitimate research programs that require the use of gasoline with sulfur levels greater than those allowed under the proposed Tier 3 program. Thus, we are proposing provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibition against persons producing, distributing, transporting, storing, selling, or dispensing gasoline that does not meet the Tier 3 gasoline******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 290 of 842 sulfur standards, where such fuel is necessary to conduct a research, development, or testing program. Parties seeking an R & D exemption would be required to submit an application for exemption to EPA that describes the purpose and scope of the program, and the reasons wh y the noncompliant gasoline is necessary . Upon presentation of the required information, an exemption could be granted at the discretion of EPA, with the condition that EPA could withdraw the exemption in the event the Agency determines the exemption is not justified. In addition, an exemption based on false or inaccurate information would b e considered void ab initio . Gasoline subject to an exemption would be exempt from certain provisions of this rule, including the sulfur standards, provided certain requirements are met. These requirements include the segregation of the exempt gasoline f rom non - exempt gasoline, identification of the exempt gasoline on PTDs, and pump labeling. c. Gasoline for Export Gasoline produced for export, and that is actuall y exported for use in a foreign country , would be considered exempt from the fuel content standards and other requirements of this proposed rule. Such gasoline would be considered as intended for use in the U.S. and subject to the proposed standards unless it is designated by the refiner and the PTD states that the gasoline is for “export only”. Ga soline intended for export would be required to be segregated from all gasoline intended for use in the U.S. Distributing or dispensing such fuel for domestic use would be illegal. d. Other Special Provisions and Potential Exemptions We are proposing provisi ons for Alaska that would allow the refinery gate and downstream caps to remain at the current Tier 2 80
- ppm and 95
- ppm levels, respectivel y, should the caps be lowered to 50 and 65 ppm (per Section V.A.3). Additionally , in previous fuels programs we have included exemptions for racing fuel and for fuel used in the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. We request comment on whether or not such exemptions would be needed for this program. **G. Statutory Authority for Propose**  **d Tier 3 Fuel Controls** We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls under our authority in section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This section gives us the authority to “control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale” of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle (1) whose emission products, in the judgment of the Administrator, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare [section 211(c)(1)(A)] or (2) whose emission products will impair to a significant degree the performance of an y emission control device or sy stem which is in******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 291 of 842 general use, or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it would be in general use were the fuel control or prohibition adopted [section 211(c)(1)(B)]. We are proposing controls on gasoline sulfur levels based on both of the Clean Air Act criteria, as described in more detail below. 1. Section 211(c)(1)(A) Under the first criterion, we believe that emission products of gasoline with current levels of sulfur contribute to ambient levels of ozone, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and carbon monoxide (CO), which are all pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to inc reased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency

department visits, and premature mortality . Approximately 159 million people currently

live in counties exceeding a NAAQS. 395 Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune sy stem damage, and neurological, reproductive, developmental, respiratory , and other health problems. 396 A mo re detailed discussion of the health and environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B. As discussed in this section, emissions of these pollutants cause or contribute to ambient levels of air pollution that are reasonabl y anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. Control of gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will lead to significant, cost
- effective reductions in emissions of these pollutants, with the benefits to public health and welfare significantl y outweighing the costs. EPA has evaluated the technical feasibility of achieving these sulfur levels, including the cost of the reductions and the impact on fuel supply . As discussed in Section V.A, we have concluded that these reductions are feasible in the lead time provided and should not have an adverse impact on the adequacy of gasoline fuel suppl y to meet demand. For more on the feasibility of the proposed fuel program, refer to Chapter 4 of the draft RIA. As discussed in Section III, EPA also evaluated the emissions reductio ns from pre - Tier 3 vehicles that would be achieved by controlling gasoline sulfur levels. These reductions are significant and contribute to the total monetized health benefits. EPA also evaluated the cost per ton of emissions reduced for the proposed program, of which the 10
- ppm sulfur standard is a part. As can be seen in Section VII.D, the program is very cost - effective in 2030. Even in 2017, when the emission reductions are almost entirely

395 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 20 11
- 0 135. 396 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National
- Scale Assessment. www.e pa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 292 of 842 due to the sulfur standards (and the costs are attributed to both the fuel and vehicle standards), the cost
- effectiveness of the program is reasonable. In sum, EPA concludes that the entire body of evidence strongl y supports the view that controlling gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm is quite reasonable in light of the em issions reductions and benefits achieved, taking costs into consideration. For more detail on the costs and benefits of the proposed standards, refer to Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. The control of gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm provides significant reduc tions in harmful emissions. The fuel program is cost
- effective and produces benefits to public health and welfare whose value significantl y outweighs the costs. These reductions can be achieved in a manner that is technologically feasible, and will not d isrupt fuel supply
. Section 211(c)(2)(A) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel control based on a finding that the fuel’s emission products contribute to air pollution that can reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, EPA must cons ider “all relevant medical and scientific evidence available, including consideration of other technologically or economicall y feasible means of achieving emission standards under [section 202 of the Act].” EPA’s anal ys is of the medical and scientific evi dence relating to the emissions impact from motor vehicle engines, which are impacted b y gasoline sulfur, is described in more detail in Chapter 6 of the draft RIA. EPA has also satisfied the statutory requirement to consider “other technologicall y or eco nomicall y feasible means of achieving emission standards under section [202 of the Act].” This provision has been interpreted as requiring consideration of establishing emission standards under section 202 prior to establishing controls or prohibitions on fuels or fuel additives under section 211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA , 541 F.2d. 1, 31
- 32 (D.C. Cir. 1976). In Ethyl , the court stated that section 211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith consideration of the evidence and options, not for mandatory defer ence to regulation under section 202 compared to fuel controls. Id . at 32, n.66. EPA is also proposing Tier 3 emissions standards for motor vehicles under section 202. In order to meet these more stringent standards, the program requires a reduction in the sulfur content of gasoline to the 10
- ppm annual average. 2. Section 211(c)(1)(B) Under the second criterion, we believe that sulfur in gasoline will significantly impair the emission
- control sy stems expected to be in general use in motor vehicle engines designed to meet the Tier 3 emission standards proposed in this rule. EPA is proposing to restrict gasoline sulfur content to an annual average of 10 ppm beginning in 2017, to enable compliance with new emission standards based on the use of advanced emis sion control technology that will be available to Tier 3 engines and California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program. Section IV describes the substantial adverse effect of high gasoline sulfur levels on the emission
- control devices or s ys tems for Ti er 3 vehicles and engines meeting the proposed emission standards. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, modern three
- way catal yt ic exhaust sy stems utilize platinum group metals (PGM), metal oxides, and other active materials to selectively oxidize organic comp ounds and carbon monoxide in the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 293 of 842 exhaust gases. These s ys tems simultaneously reduce nitrogen oxides when air
- to - fuel ratio control operates in a condition of relativel y low amplitude/high frequency oscillation about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well
- known catal ys t poison. There is a large body of work demonstrating sulfur inhibition of the emissions control performance of PGM three
- way exhaust catal ys t sy stems. The nature of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catal ytic material s and catal ys t substrates is complex and varies with catal ys t composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and temperature means that the operational history of a vehicle is an important factor; continuous light
- load operation, throttle tip
- in events and enrichment under high
- load conditions can all impact sulfur interactions with the catal ys t. Operating the catal ys t at a sufficientl y high temperature under net reducing conditions (e.g., air
- to - fuel equivalence that is net fuel
- rich of stoichiometry) can effectivel y release the sulfur oxides from the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently

high temperatures at rich air
- to - fuel ratios can minimize the effects of fuel sulfur levels on cataly st active materials and cataly st efficiency . However, it cannot completely

eliminate the effects of sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in
- use fleet recently completed b y EPA shows that emission lev els immediately following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur level, suggesting that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission benefits unachievable b y catal ys t regeneration procedures alone. Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air
- to fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal degradation of the catal ys t over time via thermal sintering of active materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate in reactions. Additionally , it is not alway s possible to maintain these catal ys t temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light load operation) and the rich air
- to - fuel ratios ne cessary can result in increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels has been the primary regulatory

mechanism to minimize sulfur contamination of the cataly st and ensure optimum emissions performance over the useful life of a vehi cle. The impact of gasoline sulfur has become even more important as vehicle emission standards have become more stringent. Some studies have suggested an increase in catal ys t sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent conversion efficiency) when standards increase in stringency and emissions levels decrease. Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the impact of sulfur was considered negligible. The Tier 2 program recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunction with the new emission standards. At that time, very

little work had been done to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel sulfur

– especially

on in
- use vehicles that may have some degree of catal yst deterioration due to real
- world operation. In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties, benzene, and volatility on emissions******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 294 of 842 from a fleet of nine Tier 2 compliant vehicles. Subsequently , EPA conducted a much more extensive study

of the effects of sulfur on emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. These studies demonstrate that emissions from Tier 2 vehicles continue to be very sensitive to gasoline sulfur levels below the current 30
- ppm average standard. For more on the estimated emission impacts, refer to Section III.B. Furthermore, vehicles already capable of meeting the proposed Tier 3 standard s have been found to be extremely sensitive to the effects of sulfur. A Chevy Malibu was tested and found to be able to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards on low
- sulfur gasoline, but following operation on higher
- sulfur gasoline, its emission levels excee ded the standard. As explained in Section IV.A, following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel, NO X emissions alone were more than double the proposed Tier 3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X standard. Overall, the Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet average NMOG+NO X emissions by over 80 percent. The feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X fleet average standard depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust catal ys t systems that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely control strategies would involve using exhaust cataly st technologies and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducing cold
- start emissions of NMOG and on both cold
- start and warmed
- up (running) emissions of NO X . An important part of this strategy , particularl y for larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving cold
- start NMOG emissions control, will be to reduce NO X emissions to near
- zero levels. This would allow sufficient NMOG compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the combined NMOG+NO X emissions standards for the full useful life. Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to ensure high catal ys t efficiency . The impact of sulfur on ox ygen storag e components in the catalyst makes this a challenge even at relatively low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels. The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on NO X , NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs across all vehicle categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur on NO X emissions control of cataly sts in the fully
- warmed
- up condition is particularly of concern for larger vehicles. Manufacturers face the most significant challenges in reducing cold
start NMOG emissions for these vehicles. Because of the nee d to reach near
- zero NO X levels, an y significant degradation in NO X emissions control over the useful life of the vehicle would likel y prevent some if not most larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NO X low enough to comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet
- average standard. These vehicles represent a sufficiently large segment of light
- dut y vehicle sales now and in the foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset (and thus the fleet
- average standard achieved) b y certifying vehicles to bins bel ow the fleet average. Any degradation in catal ys t performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin necessary

to ensure in
- use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles vs. the current 120,000 miles******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 295 of 842 would further add to manufacturers’ compliance challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (Refer to Section IV.7.b for more on the useful life requirements.) The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust cataly st performance and the relative stringency

of the Tier 3 standards, particularly for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10
- ppm st andard for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm would help ensure in
- use vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that a gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance with a national fleet average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . The level of the Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10
- ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. Not onl y shou ld a 10
- ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to certify their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but based on the results of testing both Tier 2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, reducing gasoli ne sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their emission performance in
- use over their full useful life. Section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel control based on a significant impairment to vehicle emission
- control s ys tems, EPA consider available scientific and economic data, including a cost benefit anal ys is comparing emission
control devices or s ys tems which are or will be in general use that require the proposed fuel control with such devices or s ys tems which are o r will be in general use that do not require the proposed fuel control. As described below, we conclude that the emissions control technology

expected to be used to meet Tier 3 standards would be significantl y impaired by

operation on gasoline with annual average sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm. Our anal ys is of the available scientific and economic data can be found elsewhere in this document. The draft RIA includes a detailed analy sis of the environmental benefits of the emission standards (Chapters 6 and 8), an analy sis of the technological feasibility and cost of controlling sulfur to the levels established in the final rule (Chapters 4 and 5), and a cost - effectiveness analy sis of the sulfur control and motor vehicle and engine emission standards (Ch apter 9). Under section 211(c)(2)(B), as just noted, EPA is also required to compare the costs and benefits of achieving emission standards through emission
- control sy stems that would not be sulfur
- sensitive, if an y such sy stems are or will be in general use. We have determined that there are not (and will not be in the foreseeable future) emission control devices available for general use in motor vehicles that can meet the emission standards and would not be significantly impaired by

gasoline with curre nt gasoline sulfur levels. Emissions cannot be reduced anywhere near the magnitude contemplated b y the proposed emission standards without the application of the kind of emissions control technology discussed in this proposal. Section 211(c)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that prior to prohibiting a fuel or fuel additive, EPA establish that such prohibition will not cause the use of another fuel or fuel additive “which will produce emissions which endanger the public health or welfare to the same or greater degree” than the prohibited fuel or additive. This finding******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 296 of 842 is required b y the Act only prior to prohibiting a fuel or additive, not prior to controlling a fuel or additive. Since EPA is not prohibiting use of gasoline sulfur, but rather is control ling the level of sulfur in these fuels, this finding is not required for this rulemaking. However, EPA does not believe that the proposed gasoline sulfur controls will result in the use of any other fuel or additive that will produce emissions that will endanger public health or welfare to the same or greater degree as the emissions produced by gasoline with current sulfur levels. Unlike the case of unleaded gasoline in the past, where lead performed a primary function b y providing the necessary octane f or the vehicles to function properly , sulfur does not serve any useful function in gasoline. It is not added to gasoline, but occurs naturally in the crude oil into which gasoline is processed. Were it not for the expense of sulfur removal, it would like ly have been removed from gasoline years ago in order to improve the maintenance and durability characteristics of motor vehicle engines. We are also adopting the various controls for DFE, other ox ygenates, butane blended into gasoline, and gasoline addi tives, under our authority in section 211(c)(1). As explained above, these controls are necessary to prevent emissions products that may endanger the public health or welfare or impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or s ys tem. The proposal basicall y extends various controls on gasoline to DFE, other ox ygenates, butane, and gasoline additives. The reasons for adopting the controls for gasoline apply as well to adopt the controls for DFE, other oxygenates, butane, an d gasoline additives. 

## VI. **Te chnical**  **Amendments and Regulatory S trea**  **mlining** In addition to proposing new Tier 3 vehicle standards and new gasoline sulfur standards, we are also proposing and seeking comment on a number of technical amendments and regulatory streamlining actions as part of the Regulatory Review initiative. Some of these may have some bearing on implementation of the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards, while others deal with other aspects of EPA’s existing vehicle and fuel regulations. **A. A**  **mendments to 40 CFR Part 80** The following sections discuss our proposed changes to regulations in 40 CFR part 80. Some of these changes are technical amendments to correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the regulations; others are to address areas in the regulations that could benefit from clarification and/or streamlining. As a result, we are proposing a number of amendments to the regulations in 40 CFR part 80. With regard to regulatory streamlining, the majority of these items involve clarifying v ague or inconsistent language, removal or updating of outdated provisions, and decreasing the frequency and/or volume of reporting burden where data is either no longer needed or is redundant in light of other EPA fuels programs. In general, we believe th at these changes would reduce burden on industry with no expected environmental impact. We believe that the regulatory streamlining items that we are******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 297 of 842 proposing are changes that are straightforward and that should be made quickly . There are also additiona l items that would need further consideration and discussion, such as a new fuels program compliance structure, as discussed below in Section VI.A.1.b. 1. Regulatory

Streamlining a. Summary

of Proposed Amendments Below is a table listing the provisions that we a re proposing to amend in today ’s action. We have provided additional explanation for those amendments that warrant additional explanation below. **Table VI**  **- 1**  **Summary of Proposed Regulatory Streamlining and Tech nical**  **Am endments**  Section Description Varied Various sections amended to update references to test methods (see Section VI .A.1. a.iii ). 80.8 Amended to update sampling test methods, and to state to which fuels § 80.8 applies. 80.10 Added to allow for de minimis changes in compliance reports that would not require a resubmission of compliance reports when a minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. 80.65 Amended to reduce complex model test parameters and reporting. 80.65(f)(5) Added to allow for designation of an alternative lab. 80.75 Amended to reduce RFG quarterl y submissions to annual reporting. 80.82 Amended to appl y to entire p art 80 and to revise RVP test method. 80.105 Amended to require identi fication of test methods used. 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ) Amended to allow an alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 3 ) Added to allow an alternative detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(2) Amended to address the subm ission of gasoline detergent samples under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(3)(ii)(C) Amended to reflect that documentation of the fuel injector deposit demonstration test would be required under the alternative detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(3)(v) Amended to state that the results of the intake valve and fuel injector deposit demonstration test must be submitted to EPA as part of the certification letter under the alternative detergent certification option. 8 0.161(b)(3)(viii) Amended to change “PFID test” to “fuel injector test”. 80.161(d)(1) Amended to reflect the availability of the alternative gasoline******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 298 of 842 detergent certification option. 80.163(a)(1)(iii) Amended to allow use of the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.164(a) Amended to reference the test fuel requirements under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.165 Amended the introductory paragraph to accommodate the alternative deposit control test procedures a nd standards under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.167(a) Amended the introductory paragraph to specify how confirmatory

testing would be conducted for additives certified under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.176 Added to specify the certification test procedures and standards under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.177 Added to specify the certification test fuels under the alternative gasoline detergent certification opt ion. 80.1235(a)(6), Amended to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock into previously certified gasoline ( PCG) an alternative to directly

test the blendstock for benzene. 80.1235(a)(5) Amended to clarify that refiners and importers may use either approach for blendstocks that are blended into either conventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline. 80.1235(b)(2) Amended to clarify EPA’s intent (per §80.1238(b)) to allow refiners and importers to include ox ygenate blended downstream of a refinery or import facility in their annual average benzene calculation, and to make the section consistent with §80.1238(b). 80.1240 Amended to clarify the list of products that are not to be included in a refinery ’s or importer’s compliance determinatio n. 80.1347(a)(5) Amended to require that a negative annual average must be reported as zero, and that a refiner must comply with §80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and §80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline. 80.1347(a)(6) Added to allow ref iners and importers who are blending blendstock into previously certified gasoline ( PCG) an alternative to directly

test the blendstock for benzene. 80.1349 Added to allow importers who import gasoline into the U.S. by truck to use the sampling and testin g requirements in 40 CFR part 80 subpart E as an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in subpart L. 80.1451(a)(1) Amended to change RFS2 report and attest engagement date from February

28 to March 31.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 299 of 842 i. Amendments Related to Reduction of T esting for Complex Model Fuel Parameters In §§80.65 and 80.75, we are proposing to streamline and reduce the RFG and CG testing and reporting burden of gasoline refiners and importers by reducing the testing and reporting requirements of certain fuel param eters associated with the complex model. Currently , for RFG, every parameter listed in §80.65 must be tested for every batch and each parameter must be reported for every batch. No monthly

compositing of batch samples is allowed for any parameter. For c onventional gasoline, monthly compositing and batch reporting based on those monthly composit e s is allowed for all parameters except sulfur an d benzene. However, with the phasing out of complex model standards, reduced testing and reporting is appropriate , particularly for RFG. In cases where a refiner is subject to only

benzene, RVP, and sulfur standards, certain parameters no longer need to be tested and reported on an every
- batch basis. However, the full slate of complex model parameters will still b e needed in some cases. Specificall y, refiners producing RFG during the summer VOC control season will still need to use the complex model to determine VOC performance, and thus must still measure and report the relevant complex model fuel parameters. In addition, small refiners that are subject to the delayed compliance option for the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard will have to use the complex model until 2015 for CG MSAT1 compliance. 397 Currently , there are 17 complex model parameters on the RFG/ant i
- dumping batch report. We are proposing to eliminate reporting for American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity . In addition, oxygenates need not be reported unless the refiner’s gasoline includes ox yg enates or the refiner is including downstream added ox ygenate in its compliance calculations. Apart from being necessary

for use in the complex model, these parameters have little use for program compliance. In addition, we are proposing to reduce testing and reporting as follows: For both RFG and conventional gasoline we propose to eliminate the requirement to test and report APIgravit y for batch certification purposes. For winter RFG, we propose to eliminate the requirement to test and report the following parameters on an every

batch basis and instea d allow testing and reporting of monthly composites: aromatics, distillations and olefins. Winter sulfur and benzene would continue to be tested and reported on an every batch basis. All summer complex model parameters would still be required to be test ed and reported on an every batch basis. For conventional gasoline, since the regulations already allow for testing and reporting most parameters on a monthly

composite basis, the only significant change would be to eliminate the batch certification testi ng and reporting for API gravity. Only benzene, sulfur, and an y ox ygenates that are actuall y included in the gasoline batch must be tested and reported on an every
- batch basis (except for refiners that are still subject to a complex model toxics standard ; they must test all parameters but may use monthly composite testing and reporting except for sulfur and benzene, and ox ygenate, where applicable). The values for aromatics, olefins, and distillation terms may continue to be determined from monthly compos ites. These changes would substantially reduce the

397 61 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 300 of 842 testing and reporting associated with each batch. We request comment on this reduced testing scheme
.

ii. Amendments Related to Reduced RFG Reporting We are also proposing to reduce RFG report submissions fro m quarterl y to annual reporting in §80.75. This would not eliminate batch reporting for refiners, rather individual batch reports would be submitted on an annual, rather than quarterl y, basis. However, we would expect that the batch reports would be stre amlined due to the proposed reduction in required fuel parameters, as detailed above in Section VI .A.1.a.i
.

iii. Amendments to Update Test Methods Refiners, importers and ox ygen ate blenders producing gasoline and die sel motor vehicle fuel are required to test RFG, CG and diesel fuel for various fuel parameters including aromatics, benzene, distillation, olefins, oxygenate content, RVP, and sulfur. A number of relevant regulatory provisions currently

have references t o test methods that have since been revised and updated. We are proposing to update those test methods to reflect current test methods in order to ensure that all test methods are readily available to the regulated community. ASTM International (ASTM) te st method D2622 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring sulfur (§§80.46(a)(1), 80.580(b)(2)), in gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard. ASTM test methods D5453, D6920, D3120 and D7039 are currentl y alternative test methods for measuring sulfur (§§80.46(a)(3)(i), 80.46(a)(3)(ii), 80.46(a)(3)(iii), 80.46(a)(3)(iv)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5453 is also alternative test method for measuring sulfur (§80.580(c)(2)) in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard, as well as ASTM test method D4294. ASTM test method D6667 is currently the designated test method for measuring sulfur (§80.46 (a)(2)) in butane. ASTM test methods D4468 and D3246 are currently alternative test methods for measuring the sulfur (§80.46(a)(4)(i), 80. 46(a)(4)(ii)) content in butane. ASTM D1319 is currently the designated test method for measuring olefins (§80.46(b)) in gasoline and aromatics (§80.2(z)) in diesel fuel and is also allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics (§80.46(f)( 3)) in gasoline. ASTM D6550 is currentl y an alternative test method for measuring olefins (§80.46(b)(2)(i)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5599 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring oxygenates (§80.46(g)(1)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D4815 is currently an alternative test method for measuring ox ygenates (§80.46(g)(2)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5769 is currently the designated test method for measuring aromatics (§80.46(f)(1)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D3606 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring benzene (§80.46(e)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D86 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring the distillation (§80.46(d)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D5191 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring the RVP (§80.46(c)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D976 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring the Cetane Index (§80.2(w)) of diesel fuel. ASTM standard practice D4057 is currentl y the manual sampling standard practice for petrol eum and petroleum products (§80.8(a)). ASTM standard practice D4177 is currently the automatic sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (§80.8(b)).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 301 of 842 ASTM standard practice D5842 is currentl y the RVP sampling standard practice for fu els (§80.8(c)). ASTM standard practice D5854 is currently the composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (§80.8(a)). Table VI
- 2 lists the designated anal yt ical test methods and alter native anal ytical test methods for RFG, CG and diesel fuel that we are proposing to update in today ’s action. The Agency

has reviewed these updated ASTM test methods and believes that the revisions contained in them will result in improvements in the util ization of these test methods for the regulated industry . We also believe that our proposal to revise these test methods would not result in significant changes that would cause a user of an older version of the same method to incur increased compliance c osts. Moreover, all of the revisions were deemed necessary by ASTM International so that improvements in the test method’s procedures would ensure better operation for the user of the test method. Thus, EPA is proposing today

to update the regulations fo r the following ASTM test methods: (1) ASTM D2622
- 10, the designated test method for measuring sulfur in RFG, CG, and alternative test method for diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (2) ASTM D3120
- 08, alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline, ASTM D4294
- 10, alternative test method for sulfur in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (3) ASTM D5453
- 09, alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (4) ASTM D6667
- 10, designated test method fo r sulfur in butane; (5) ASTM D4468
- 85(2006), alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (6) ASTM D3246
- 11, alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (7) ASTM D1319
- 10, designated test method for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics in diesel fuel, as well as the alternative test method for measuring aromatics in gasoline; (8) ASTM D6550
- 10, alternative test method for measuring olefin content in gasoline; (9) ASTM D4815
- 09, alternative test method for measuring oxygenate content in gasoline; ( 10) ASTM D5599
- 00(2010), the designated test method for measuring ox ygen content in gasoline; (11) ASTM D5769
- 10, the designated test method for measuring aromatics in gasoline; (12) ASTM D3606
- 10, the designated test method for measuring benzene in gasoli ne; (13) ASTM D86
- 11a, the designated test method for measuring distillation properties of gasoline; (14) ASTM D5191
- 10b, the designated test method for measuring the RVP of gasoline; (15) ASTM D976
- 06(2011), the designated test method for measuring the Ce tane Index of diesel fuel; (16) ASTM D4057
- 06(2011), the manual sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products; (17) ASTM D4177
- 95(2010), the automatic sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products; (18) ASTM D5842
- 04(200 9), the sampling standard practice for RVP of fuels; and (19) ASTM D5854
- 96(2010), the composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products. **Table VI**  **- 2**  **Proposed Designated & Alternative AS TM International Analytical Test**  **Methods Under RFG, CG & Diesel Motor Vehicle Fuel Programs** Fuel Parameter ASTM Analy tical Test Method Sulfur (gasoline) ASTM D2622
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersiv e X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry” Sulfur (500 ppm diesel) ASTM D2622
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Sulfur******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 302 of 842 in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry” Sulfur (gasoline) ASTM D5453
- 09, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in L ight Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence” Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel) ASTM D5453
- 09, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in L ight Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence” Sulfur (gasoline) ASTM D3120
- 08, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in L ight Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry” Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel) ASTM D4294
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive Xray Fluorescence Spectrometry” Sulfur (butane) ASTM D6667
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Gases b y Ultraviolet Fluorescence” Sulfur (butane) ASTM D4468
- 85(2006), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels b y H ydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry” Sulfur (butane) ASTM D3246
- 11, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by

Oxidative Microcoulometry” Ox ygen content (gasoline) ASTM D5599
- 00(2010), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Ox yge nat es in Gasoline b y Gas Chromatograph y and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection” Ox ygen content (gasoline) ASTM D4815
- 09, entitled “Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary
- Am yl Alcohol and C 1 to C 4 Alcohols in Gasol ine by Gas Chromatograph y” Olefins (gasoline) ASTM D1319
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty

pes in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption” Olefins (gasoline) ASTM D6550
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for the Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical
- Fluid Chromatograph y” Aromatics (gasoline and diesel) ASTM D1319
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty

pes in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption,” for diesel fuel, this method is the designated test method; for gasoline, this method is an alternative test method and if used as an alternative method, its results must be correlated to ASTM D5769 **.********* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 303 of 842 Aromatics (gasoline) ASTM D5769
- 10, entitled, “ Standard Tes t Method for Determination of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines b y Gas Chromatograph y/Mass Spectrometry” Benzene (gasoline) ASTM D3606
- 10 , entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by

Gas Chromatography” Distillation (gasoline) ASTM D86
- 11a, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure” Reid Vapor Pressure (gasoline) ASTM D5191
- 10b, entitled, “Standard Test Me thod for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini
- Method)” Cetane Index (diesel) ASTM D976
- 06(2011), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels” Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products ASTM D4057
- 06(Reap proved 2011), entitled, “Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products” Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products ASTM D4177
- 95(Reapproved 2010), entitled, “Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products” RVP Sampling for Fuels ASTM D5842
- 04(Reapproved 2009), entitled, “Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement” Composite Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products ASTM D5854
- 96(Reapproved 2010), entitled, “Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of L iquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products”

iv. Amendments Related to Downstream Blending Today ’s proposed rule also clarifies the list of products that are not to be included in a refinery ’s or importer’s compliance determination under §80.1240. Refiners and importers are currently

required under §80.1235(b)(2) to exclude oxygenate added to finished gasoline, RBOB or CBOB downstream of either the refinery that produced the gasoline or the imp ort facility where the gasoline was imported. This conflicts with EPA’s intended approach in §80.1238(b), which allows refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of a refinery or import facility

in their annual average benzene calculat ion, provided the refiner or importer meets certain requirements. We are proposing changes that would allow refiners and importers to include ox yg enate blended downstream of their facility and that would make these related sections consistent. v. Amendments for Previously Certified Gasoline For benzene, we would also provide flexibility for refiners and importers by providing an alternative allowing them to directly sample and test each batch of******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 304 of 842 blendstock, and treat the blendstock as the produced batch for b lendstock that is blended into previously

certified gasoline (PCG). We are proposing to add §80.1347(a)(6) to reflect this alternative. This practice is already allowed under the Tier 2 sulfur program (at §80.340(a)(2)). Refiners and importers are curr ently required to test the PCG for benzene before addition of blendstock, test the combined blend of PCG and blendstock for benzene, and calculate the properties of the blendstock by treating the PCG as a negative volume batch and treating the blended prod uct as a positive batch. Due to variability

in the benzene test method, the PCG approach can sometimes result in calculated blendstock benzene concentrations that are negative, which is physicall y impossible. We are proposing to amend the regulations at §80.1235(a)(6) (and add §80.1347(a)(6), as mentioned) to allow refiners and importers that blend blendstock into PCG an alternative to directly test the blendstock for benzene. We expect that this would ensure a positive benzene test result. Also, today’ s proposal would clarify that regardless of the approach used, a negative sulfur or benzene result cannot be reported; rather, any negative result must be rounded to zero. Similarly , no negative annual average result can be reported. We are also proposin g to amend the regulations at §80.1235(a)(5) to clarify that refiners and importers may use either approach for blendstocks that are blended into either conventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline. Lastl y, we are proposing to allow importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck to use the sampling and testing requirements in subpart E for truck importers as an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in subpart L. EPA provided these alternative requirements in subpart E to eli minate the need to test every truckload of imported conventional gasoline for all complex model parameters, including benzene. 398 Since Subpart L also requires importers to test every truckload of imported gasoline for benzene, EPA believes it is appropriat e to allow truck importers of gasoline to use the sampling and testing requirements in subpart E as an alternative. Today ’s rule proposes to amend the regulations to provide this alternative b y adding a new §80.1349.

vi. Amendments Related to Designation of a n Alternative Lab Refiners have indicated to EPA that significant problems are created when a facility ’s designated lab is nonoperational and testing cannot be performed at the lab during that time period. We are thus proposing (at §80.65(f)(5)) that a fa cility have the ability to designate a back
- up or alternative lab for testing during such times. In no case could this alternative lab be used to select the best test result, rather it could only be used on those occasions where operational necessity caus es a need for it (e.g., the normal lab is closed, the apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent lab personnel are not available).

398 70 FR 74561 (December 15, 2005).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 305 of 842 vii. Amendments Related to De Minimis Reporting Changes We are proposing for the correction of batch volume repor ts to allow for de minimis changes in reporting compliance that would not require a complete resubmission of compliance reports when a minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. This allowance for the correction of batch volume reports would apply t o reporting for: RFG, anti
- dumping, gasoline and diesel sulfur, MSAT2 and the RFS renewable volume obligation (RVO) (for RFS, this would only apply to the volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a RVO for obligated parties). We are proposing a new section 80.10 to define de minimis, for the purpose of this allowance, as no more than 500 gallons or b y no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume in gallons, whichever value is less. We request comment on whether or not a different amount woul d be more appropriate.

viii. Amendments Related to RFS2 Annual Report and Attest Engagement Date Currently , the RFS2 final reporting date (last day of February) coincides with the RFG and Anti
- dumping compliance deadline, which creates a staffing problem for regulated entities because the regulatory requirements are often handled b y the same personnel. It was also reported to EPA that this also creates an issue when small discrepancies in gasoline production or import volumes are realized, and can potentially trigger an increased RFS RVO and an ensuing scramble to obtain the necessary Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) in real time. Delaying the RFS reporting date until after volumetric auditing would address this situation and would have no impact on emiss ions, air quality

or compliance with the standard. As such, we are proposing to change the RFS2 reporting and attest engagements requirements date in §80.1451 to March 31. ix. Acceptance of Alternate Test Data Under the Gasoline Deposit Control

Program The “T op Tier” deposit control gasoline standards developed by four major automakers are based on the premise that a more robust level of the control of vehicle engine and fuel sy stems beyond that provided by the EPA deposit control requirements is desirable. 399 Several major gasoline marketers have adopted Top Tier for their gasoline. It is widel y accepted that conformance with the Top Tier intake valve deposit (IVD) and fuel injector deposit (FID) control testing requirements is more challenging than complying with the EPA IVD and FID testing requirements. Yet additive packages must still be certified to EPA’s less stringent standards on older test procedures. We believe that EPA could accept IVD/FID test data that complies with the Top Tier requirements in pl ace of IVD/FID data that complies with the current EPA testing requirements without

399 The industry established “Top Tier” deposit control standards can be found at http://www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html. EPA’s deposit control requirements are contained in §§80.140 through 80.174.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 306 of 842 jeopardizing the emissions benefits from EPA’s deposit control program. We are proposing that test data that complies with the Top Tier IVD performance standards at sectio n 1.3.1 could be used to satisfy EPA’s IVD control requirements. We are also proposing that test data that complies with the Top Tier FID performance testing standards at section 1.3.3 could be used to satisfy EPA’s FID control requirements. We believe that this allowance would provide significant saving to industry from reduced deposit control testing while maintaining the emissions benefits of EPA’s gasoline deposit control program. These changes are being proposed in the regulations at §§80.161(b), 80 .163(a)(1)(iii), 80.164(a), 80.165, 80.167(a), 80.176, and 80.177. b. Broader Regulatory

Streamlining Through Program Restructuring The current set of fuel regulations is the result of programs that have been established over the ye ars to reduce emissions fro m mobile sources. These programs include gasoline volatility (RVP), reformulated gasoline and anti
- dumping, sulfur control (which the Tier 3 program proposed today would revise), mobile source air toxics (MSAT1), benzene control (MSAT2), and the renewable fuel standards (RFS). Most of these regulations have been amended numerous times. The RFG and anti
- dumping regulations in particular contain some of the more burdensome requirements on sampling, testing, and reporting. They also have some of the more stringent restrictions on gasoline use (e.g., restricting where fuel produced can be sold, what it may

be commingled with, etc.). EPA used the RFG and anti
- dumping rules as the foundation for many aspects of subsequently developed fuel regulatory programs. However, the subsequent rules, considered as a whole, have supplanted most of the RFG and anti
- dumping standards. For this reason, we are proposing to streamline the regulations in several places as described above. Initial discussions with fuel industry representatives have indicated that a comprehensive review of the complete set of fuel regulations contained in Parts 79 and 80 (“Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives” and “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives”, respectively) of the Code of Federal Regulations could lead to further streamlining of the regulations beyond the streamlining provisions proposed today
. EPA expects that streamlining would result in more efficient and less costl y compliance determinations for affected parties while maint aining the environmental benefits of the programs. Since such changes could require not just the removal or streamlining of existing provisions but also the replacement of several provisions with new, less onerous ones, we are not proposing such changes to day . However, EPA requests comments on potential areas in the fuel regulations that may benefit from such a more comprehensive streamlining effort. For example, it may be possible for the RFG VOC standard to be met if a sufficientl y stringent RVP level i s attained. Under this scenario, sampling and testing requirements at the refinery would be reduced. Another potential scenario could involve consolidation of some RFG and anti
- dumping rules; for example, a single set of rules governing the treatment of downstream ethanol blending and in
- use survey s could provide greater efficiency and flexibility

regarding fuel distribution.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 307 of 842 2. Subpart ITechnical Amendments
**Table VI**  **- 3**  **40 CFR Part 80 Subpart I (Diesel Fuel) Te chnical Amendments**  Section Description 80.572(a) Amended to remove the requirement for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel pump labels beginning November 30, 2013, and to amend the title to reflect that the section includes labeling requirements for dispensers of motor vehicle diesel fuel. 80.584(b)(3)(i) Amended to correct t ypographical error (“notc” to “not”). We are proposing to remove the requirement for diesel fuel pump labels for 15 ppm highway

diesel fuel. Beginning December 1, 2010, all highway diesel fu el was required to be 15 ppm or less; thus, highway diesel fuel labels are no longer needed to distinguish it from 500 ppm highway diesel fuel. However, we do recognize that it may confuse consumers who are accustomed to seeing the highway diesel fuel pump labels if those labels were to disappear, so we are also requesting comment on the removal of this labeling requirement. Note that if highway diesel fuel pump labels are no longer required by the regulations, retail and wholesale purchaser
- consumer faci lities would be free to continue labeling to eliminate confusion if they so choose. 3. Performance
- Based Measurement Sy stems (PBMS)

**Table VI**  **- 4**  **PBMS -**  **Related Technical Amendments** Section Description 80.46 Amended to allow for performance
- based approaches for measuring gasoline parameters. 80.47 Added to extend the performance
- based approach to other parameters besides diesel sulfur. 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A), (i)(3)(i)(C), (i)(3)(ii)(C) Amended to allow for performance
- based approaches for measuring gasoline parameters. 80.330(c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2) Amended to allow for performance
- based approaches for sampling and testing. 80.370(a)(7)(iv) Amended to require identification of the test method used to measure the sulfur content of a batch. 80.585(a) and (d)(4) Amended to state the process for approval of test methods prior to and after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs. 80.1348 Amended to state the sample retention requirements prior to and after adoption of PBMS f or all fuel programs. 80.1354(b)(2) Amended to require identification of the test method used to measure the benzene concentration of a batch.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 308 of 842 Consistent with EPA’s performance
- based measurement s ys tem (PBMS) initiative (as discussed below), today we ar e proposing a PBMS for those chemical and phy sical properties of motor vehicle fuels regulated by EPA’s motor vehicle fuel programs. Specifically , these are gasoline properties at §80.46, gasoline sulfur at § § 80.195 and 80.1603 , and diesel fuel properties at §80.2(z). This PBMS sets forth procedures and criteria by which laboratories making measurements to demonstrate compliance with fuels regulations may qualify alternative anal yt ical test methods to those required in the regulations . It also sets minimum statistical quality control (SQC) requirements, following standard industry practices, by

which laboratories must maintain and document the precision and accuracy of anal ytical methods used in the context of these programs. EPA envisions that the propo sed PBMS would provide additional flexibility to the regulated industry in choosing test methods and foster innovation and improvement in the precision and accuracy of the measurement of motor fuel properties while not making an y reductions in the emission benefits that result from motor fuel programs. It should also provide cost savings to the regulated industry by providing rapid access to newl y - developed test methods with speed and ease of anal ysis. Some of these newer methods use smaller quantities of consumables and less
- expensive instrumentation that are easier to automate, thus reducing both operating costs and environmental impact. a. Background Refiners, importers and ox ygen ate blenders producing RFG, conventional gasoline and diesel fuel are require d to test these fuels to determine the levels of various specified parameters. A designated test method is associated with each parameter to be tested (except for sulfur concentration in ultra
- low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet performance
- based requ irements 400 ) in 40 CFR part 80. Table VI
- 5 lists the parameters/fuels and their corresponding designated test methods that we are proposing to update. **Table VI**  **- 5**  **Design ated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel**  Fuel Parameter Designated Analy tical Method Sulfur in gasoline ASTM D 2622
- 10 Sulfur in butane ASTM D 6667
- 10 500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel ASTM D 2622
- 10 Olefins in gasoline ASTM 1319
- 10 Reid vap or pressure (RVP) in gasoline ASTM D 5191
- 10b, with the following correlation equation: RVP psi = (0.956 * X)
- 0.347 RVP kPa = (0.956 * X)
- 2.39 where:

400 See §§80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 309 of 842 X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa. Distillation in gasoline ASTM D86
- 11a Benzene in ga soline ASTM D 3606
- 10, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and methanol peaks. Aromatics in gasoline ASTM D 5769
- 10, except that sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard are optional. Ox ygen and ox ygenate content in gasoline ASTM D 5599
- 00(2010) Aromatics in diesel fuel ASTM D1319
- 10 In addition to the designated anal yt ic methods for the parameters mentioned above, EPA has specified alternative test methods for some par ameters. These alternative test methods may

be used in lieu of the corresponding designated test methods, provided that all test results are correlated to the appropriate designated test methods. Alternative test methods have not been established for all regulated motor vehicle fuel parameters, however. Specificall y, alternative test methods have been established for measuring the gasoline properties of aromatic content, 401 oxygenate content, 402 olefin content, 403 and sulfur content 404 as well as sulfur in butan e 405 . Currently , if a regulated part y wishes to use an alternative test method that is not already approved, it must petition the Agency, and EPA must approve the use of this alternative method through a rulemaking process that on average, may

take more than a ye ar to complete. Approving new methods through rulemaking has been identified as a barrier to the use of innovative analy tical test methods. In order to address these concerns and similar ones in other media areas, the Agency ’s Environmental Monitori ng Management Council established a workgroup of scientists representing EPA’s Headquarters and Regional offices to consider establishing a performance
- based approach to specifying anal yt ical testing requirements. On the recommendations of the workgroup, the Agency decided to incorporate the PBMS approach into its programs, to the extent feasible. EPA’s practice, in recent rulemaking activities, of aligning its prescribed methods with those published by

Voluntary

Consensus
- based Standards Bodies (VCSBs) 406 i s almost consistent with the PBMS policy and with the National Technology Transfer and

401 ASTM D 1319
- 03 ε1 (see §80.46(f)(3)). 402 ASTM D 4815
- 04 (see §80.46(g)(2)). 403 ASTM D 6550
- 05 (see §80.46(b)(2)(i)). 404 ASTM methods D 5453
- 08a, D 6920
- 07, D 3 120
- 06 ε1 , and D 7039
- 07 (see §§80.46(a)(3)(i) through 80.46(a)(3)(iv)). 405 ASTM D 4468
- 85 (reapproved 2000) and ASTM D 3246
- 96 (see §§80.46(a)(4)(i) and 80.46(a)(4)(ii)). 406 ASTM International (ASTM) is one such organization.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 310 of 842 Advancement Act (NTTAA). 407 For example, in the nonroad diesel rulemaking, which controlled the sulfur content of diesel fuel, 408 EPA required only that laboratories demons trate their test methods’ ability to meet a set performance criteria rather than prescribing that a single specific method be used. Today ’s proposal extends the diesel sulfur qualification approach to the chemical/phy sical properties measured in other mot or vehicle fuel programs, with modifications appropriate to accommodate the differences among the fuel parameters. b. Overview of Proposed Program Requirements In a June 29, 2004 rulemaking, EPA specified a performance
- based approach to measuring diesel sulfur at 15 ppm and 500 ppm and removed the previous requirement of particular designated and alternative methods for 15 ppm diesel sulfur. 409 We decided, in that rulemaking, to offer users two approaches to selecting test methods for diesel sulfur at the 500 p pm level. The first of these was to use either the designated test method or specific alternative test methods. 410 The second option was to meet performance based requirements similar to those adopted for 15 ppm diesel sulfur. 411 We are proposing today to e xtend the performance
- based approach to method selection and qualification to other parameters besides diesel sulfur, with modifications appropriate to accommodate the differences among the fuel parameters. Specificall y, we are proposing requirements that laboratories would be required to demonstrate the precision412 and accuracy413 of chosen fuel parameter measurement methods. Once implemented, this proposal would: (1) require individual laboratories to demonstrate adequate measurement quality, (2) allow labo ratories to choose methods that meet their own needs, provided they can meet prescribed criteria rather than specific methods, 414 and (3) require all laboratories making regulatory measurements to establish and maintain a statistical quality control program. EPA intends that the measurement sy stem resulting from this proposal would make no compromises on precision or accuracy relative to the sy stem that exists under current regulations. We intend to

407 Public Law 104
- 113, 104 th Con gress, March 7, 1996, H.R. 2196. 408 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004 **.** This rulemaking used standard materials with known chemical composition to evaluate the accuracy of candidate test methods. 409 See §§80.584 and 80.545. 410 See §80.580(c)(2). 411 See §§80.584(a)(2) , 80.584(b)(2)(i) through 80.584(b)(2)(iii), and 80.585. 412 Precision

– the amount of consistency in a set of measurements performed on the same material. ASTM repeatability and reproducibility are examples of measures of precision. ASTM Repeatability (“r”)

– the difference between successive test results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating conditions on identical test material. ASTM Reproducibility (“R”)

– the difference between two single and independent test r esults obtained by different operators working in different laboratories on identical test material using the same method. 413 Accuracy

– the closeness of a single measurement to its true value of what is being measured. 414 For some parameters the criteria will be based on the laboratory’s chosen method’s ability to closely predict the measurements made by EPA’s chosen or “designated” method. This approach is made necessary by the “method
- dependent” definition of some of the parameters to be measured.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 311 of 842 incorporate the standards and practices of Voluntary Conse nsus Standards Body ( VCSB) organizations wherever feasible. Today ’s PBMS approach applies to the qualification of anal yt ical test instrumentation and methods used to measure various characteristics of individual fuel samples. It does not apply to sampling methods or in
- line blending methods. While in
line blending certainl y includes the use of anal yt ical measurements, it is broader in scope than this proposal. Including in
- line blending methodologies in this proposed rulemaking would raise issues that co uld not be adequatel y addressed in the context of this proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, in
- line blending already has a certification process, as specified in regulations at §80.65(f), that sets forth qualification criteria that take into account the uniq

ue combinations of sampling, control, and anal ys is that are involved with in
- line blending. However, we seek comment on potentially expanding our PBMS to include sampling or in
- line blending methods. c. How Can We Establish the Accuracy of the Measurement Sy stem (All Qualified Methods/Installations) For Each Parameter? We are proposing to group the gasoline and diesel fuel parameters that must be measured (e.g., aromatics, sulfur, etc.), into two categories. These categories depend on whether it is feasible to construct and use gravimetric standards 415 for defining the parameter and thus determining the accuracy of a measurement method. For some parameters it is difficult or perhaps impossible to make gravimetric standards. This is particularl y true where the parameter is actually a class of chemical compounds (themselves containing multiple chemical compounds) that may have a very

large number of members (e.g. , aromatics in gasoline). Use of gravimetric standards for establishing accuracy

may also be hindere d if many of the potential measurement methods are sensitive to the chemical composition of the material that the analy te is added (often called the “matrix”) and are thus prone to being “confused” into giving inaccurate answers. Where these two problems are not present, the use of gravimetric standards is the ideal way to establish the accuracy of the anal yt ical test method. We will describe these as “absolute” parameters. The accuracy qualification test for a method measuring such parameters should center upon its being able to get the “right” answer for one or more gravimetric standards. To establish the accuracy of methods measuring each parameter where gravimetric standards hindered, we are proposing to retain an EPA
- prescribed reference method or “d esignated method” that would, in effect, define the parameter as “parameter X is, for federal regulatory purposes, whatever method Z measures.” Parameters that

415 Grav imetric standards are test materials made by adding a carefully weighed (hence “gravimetric”) quantity of the analyte of interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain any of the analyte. The result is a solution with a very acc urately known concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of gravimetric standard reference materials can be closely controlled and is not dependent on an analytical test method.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 312 of 842 require such treatment will be described as “method
- defined” parameters. Establishing the accuracy

of a method intended to measure such a parameter would be accomplished by relating its measurements on a particular set of test fuels to measurements made on the same fuels b y a laboratory operating the designated method. This approach is often refer red to as correlating the new method with the designated method. In other words, measurements from the new method (the “candidate” for qualification) would be used to predict the measurements that the designated method would get on the same fuels (with, p erhaps, some offset or adjustment equation applied) and then these predictions would be compared with the actual measurements made from those fuels by the designated method. If the predictions are consistently close to the designated method measurements and evenl y distributed above and below these reference values, then the laboratory and the method it proposes to use would have a good case for qualification with regard to accuracy . Such a correlative approach to qualification is dependent for its workabi lity upon the test fuels used to establish the correlation. Such fuels must be sufficientl y varied along all important dimensions so that day
- to - day production laboratory

operations are very unlikel y to turn up some unusual fuels (or a new class of fuels produced, say , by some new refining process) for which the correlation equation derived earlier is not accurate and where the predictions of the designated method’s results are quite erratic and inaccurate. In addition to the dependence of the method
- def ined approach upon the choice of fuels for establishing the correlation to the designated method, this approach also greatl y elevates the importance of the designated method that is used. An increasingl y obsolete designated method might need to be changed for practical reasons, but adoption of a new designated method could bring about a de facto change in the standard for the parameter in the absence of a prescribed correction equation designed to align the new designated method with the old. While the gr avimetric approach to measurement has its own problems, it is free of the difficulties associated with any particular method. Our classification of parameters into the absolute or method
- defined categories is not entirely

straightforward. Of the parameter s subject to this proposal, only those with sulfur as the analy

te fall into the absolute category. Sulfur is a single element rather than a compound (or, worse, a class of compounds with numerous members) and thus lends itself to the construction of gravi metric standards. The methods that are currently used to measure sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel have been subject to intensive recent development work and are largel y free of matrix effects. Sulfur in butane is even more amenable to the absolute approach, since butane is a single compound rather than a constantly

varying mixture of man y compounds. We also note, as mentioned before, that the diesel sulfur rule used the absolute approach. For these reasons we are proposing to treat gasoline sulfur and sulfur in butane as absolute parameters. Be yond these two sulfur parameters, classification becomes more difficult. Where the anal yt e is a class of compounds, like aromatics, the construction of a gravimetric standard would have to be done b y use of an agreed
- upon conventional recipe that includes some group of the compounds in the class in proportions that approximate to what is found in the actual fuels that a method will measure. If the class******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 313 of 842 has relativel y few compounds and they are all available i n reasonably pure form, then they could all be included in the standard, leaving only the issues of their respective concentrations (likely

to vary among real fuels) and the question of “matrix effects” as discussed above. Where the class of compounds has many members and not all could be included in an artificiall y constructed standard, we are left with the question of which ones can be omitted on grounds that they are likely to occur onl y in very s mall concentrations and/or are not particularl y important in emission formation. The result of these exclusions, for certain parameters, would likely be a directional bias toward underestimating the prevalence of the target class of compounds. The likely size of the bias will vary

among parameters and among fu els on which measurements are made. Use of a complex recipe for such standards, where possible, may minimize the bias, but may add to the costs and difficulty of formulating a standard representative of all fuels. The distillation parameters (T50 and T90) seem to be largel y resistant to a gravimetric approach that relies on pure compounds instead of the smooth curve that results from simple distillation of complex mixtures like gasoline and diesel fuel
. S uch gravimetric standards, incorporating onl y a very limited number of compounds out of practical necessity, would be likely to yi eld a kind of stair
- step curve. Given these logical and practical difficulties with using a gravimetric approach to qualifying methods for parameters other than sulfur, EPA is to day proposing that the method
- defined or correlative approach be used for all parameters other than sulfur. We are especiall y interested in receiving comment on our categorization of fuel parameters as either absolute or method defined. d. How Would Analy

tic Methods be Evaluated for Qualification? i. General Provisions: To Which Methods and Which Parties do the Proposed Requirements Apply? As discussed above, EPA believes that the interests of measurement quality are best served b y evaluating most method insta llations for qualification at the level of individual laboratories instead of individual instruments. This approach was used in regulating diesel sulfur. We are proposing to require laboratories to qualify all methods that will be used to make measurements for regulatory purposes. EPA does not believe that a relativel y simple qualification test will ensure continued measurement quality , but rather that this will greatly reduce the likelihood of a laboratory undertaking important measurements without some assurance that the instrument is in working order, that at least one operator416 in the laboratory understands the method for its use, and that it can

416 The intent behind the qualification process is to demonstrate the facility’s capability with the method. Accordingly we are not proposing that each instrument used to implement a particular method be required to qualify (some labs may have several instruments implementing a single method) or that each operator be so required. We recommend, but are not proposing to require, that a laboratory rotate operators during the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 314 of 842 be made to perform to meet acceptable criteria. We seek comment on requiring laboratories to qualify

all methods used to take measurements for regulatory purposes. ii. How W

ould Laboratories Demonstrate the Precision and Accuracy of Methods for Measuring “Absolute” Parameters and Thus Qualify the Methods for Use? We are proposing to require a separate qualificati on for test methods used to measure gasoline sulfur. As mentioned previously, the Agency has successfully implemented performance based requirements for sulfur in diesel fuel. The test methods ty picall y used for gasoline sulfur (one of the two parameters we are proposing to consider absolute, as discussed above) are also frequentl y used for diesel sulfur and the ASTM test method designations for both are the same. However, examination of test method descriptions points toward substantial differences in h ow the test methods are used in the different matrices. One example is a requirement for recalibration when matrices shift. While we considered the possibility of allowing the diesel sulfur qualifications to be used also for gasoline sulfur, we believe the differences between a diesel fuel matrix and gasoline fuel matrix may

be too great to permit such a sweeping exemption from qualification requirements. The process of reworking the test methods to measure gasoline sulfur will, in many cases, generate m ost of the data needed for qualification, and thus will not represent a major additional effort. So, despite the fact that ASTM test methods are the same for gasoline and diesel , we are proposing to require separate qualification for test methods used in measuring gasoline sulfur. Operational Description. We are proposing to require applications for qualification to include a complete operational description of the test method in question. A VCSB publication would satisfy this requirement for methods published by such organizations as ASTM. The description must include the scope of the test method, a summary , discussion of any interferences that are expected, apparatus needed, reagents, sampling and specimen preparation, calibration, test method procedu re, calculations, and any test method
- specific quality control. Precision Qualification. We are proposing requirements for precision qualification that are similar to requirements set forth in the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. That rule imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation417 of a series of at least 20 measurements over at least 20 day s on a single fuel under site precision conditions. Specificall y, the diesel rule used 1.5 times the repeatability standard deviation (ASTM “r”/2.77) of what w as the least precise of the then
- allowed methods. The factor of 1.5, expands the allowable variability from that of back
- to - back tests (as in ASTM’s definition of repeatability) to account for the sources of greater variability that find their
testing required for qualification, thereby both improving and testing the skills of all operators for a given method and strengthening its quality program. 417 Wh ere the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of the population (formula uses “N
- 1” in the denominator).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 315 of 842 way into a longer series of tests on the same material. In the qualification process for ultra
- low sulfur diesel testing, the factor of 1.5 proved to be neither so tight that most laboratories were unable to meet it, nor so loose as to not be challenging at all. Thus we consider it to be reasonable on its face, as well as having proven to be workable in practice, and we have therefore retained it in this proposal. We request comments on the selection of a test method’s repeatability to use as the basis of the quali fication. Gasoline Sulfur Criterion. We are proposing to use the ASTM repeatability standard deviation factor as discussed above from ASTM D7039
- 07 to set the precision criteria for gasoline sulfur. We note that there is a designated test method and f our alternative test methods for gasoline sulfur. The larger repeatability among the test methods currentl y allowed for sulfur in gasoline is for ASTM D6920
- 07. This was obtained only

when the substantially

more variable of the two instrument models included in a small inter
- laboratory study was included. Since the most variable instrument model had a repeatability of nearl y twice that of the other test methods and over four times that of the other instrument model for the same method, we believe that AS TM D6920
- 07 should be represented, for this purpose, b y the instrument model yi elding the better performance of the two. Given that decision, ASTM D7039
- 07 is left with the largest repeatability of these test methods. And we are proposing to use its repe atability

(1.76 ppm at 10 ppm) to set the precision criterion for this parameter. Thus the maximum allowable standard deviation of the twenty test results on a 10 ppm gasoline would be 0.95 ppm 418 . Since we do not propose to prescribe the parameter level f or the fuel used for these precision tests, this maximum limit will vary depending upon the repeatability

number that the ASTM D7039
- 07 test method’s repeatability formula yi elds, given the parameter value of the test fuel chosen. If a laboratory selected a 5 ppm fuel to test instead of a 10 ppm fuel, the maximum limit for the standard deviation would be 0.67 ppm. Sulfur in Butane Precision Criteria. There are three test methods currently allowed for measuring the sulfur content of butane for blending int o gasoline. A new designated test method was adopted for this parameter (ASTM D6667
- 10) 419 because the previous primary

test method, D3246
- 11, had become somewhat obsolete. Given that D3246
- 11 is no longer widely available, 420 though still an allowed alternative test method, and that the range of D4468
- 85 (reapproved 2006) extends only to 20 ppm, we are proposing a precision criterion based on the repeatability of D6667
- 10. This test method’s repeatability

at the 10 ppm level is 1.15 ppm, so the calculations used above with gasoline sulfur yi eld an upper limit for the standard deviation of the 20 tests for sulfur in butane of 0.62 ppm.

418 This number was determined by using the repeatability equation for “r” from ASTM D7039
- 07 for a 10 ppm sulfur gasoline to get 1.76 ppm, divid ing the “r” in ppm by 2.77 to obtain the underlying standard deviation of 1.39 ppm, and multiplying the result by 1.5 (criterion used in diesel sulfur rule) to get 0.95 ppm . 419 71 FR 16492(April 3, 2006). 420 See EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0048
- 0002.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 316 of 842 Temporal Distribution of Precision Tests. With regard to spacing of the 20 precision tests, we are proposing 7 or fewer tes ts per week and 2 or fewer tests per day
. We believe this would prevent weekend testing while also precluding practices such as conducting one test on the first day and 19 tests on the 20 th day . We believe that adequate spacing of testing is necessary if we are to have a meaningful standard for the longer
- term stability

of a particular test method in a particular laboratory installation. We are also taking comments on the following two options: (1) a requirement that 23 or more hours must elapse betwee n tests (this option requires either testing on weekends or an extension of the 20 day s); and (2) tests arranged into no fewer than five batches of five or fewer tests each, with only one such batch allowed per day
. . Accuracy Qualification. We are propo sing accuracy criteria for absolute fuel parameters that are similar to the criteria for sulfur in diesel fuel. Applicants for qualification would be required to select two commerciall y available gravimetric standard reference materials and then to show that their laboratory and method are capable of getting an average of ten consecutive results that are very close to the Accepted Reference Value or ARV for each. How close to the ARV these averages must be is the stringency

part, and we propose to use 0.7 5 times the precision criterion described above, which is the same value as the diesel rules. In the case of gasoline sulfur, for a gravimetric standard with ARV = 10 ppm, this would be 0.75 times 0.95 ppm or 0.71 ppm. The corresponding numbers for sulfur in butane at the 10 ppm level would be 0.75 times 1.15 or 0.47 ppm. We are proposing that for other parameter that might come to fall into the absolute category , the precision and accuracy criteria would be determined as a function of the ASTM repeatabi lity of one of the methods (selected by EPA) available for measuring that parameter. 421

iii. How W

ould Laboratories Demonstrate The Precision and Accuracy of Methods for Measuring “Method
-Defined” Parameters and Qualify the Methods for Use? Operational Descriptio n. For method
- defined parameters we are proposing the same operational description as that for absolute parameters. The operational description of a proposed test method must be very complete. We consider publication of a test method by

a VCSB organizat ion such as ASTM to meet this criterion. For non
- VCSB test methods this description must meet very high standards for completeness and clarit y. Since non
- VCSB test methods have not been full y vetted by a VCSB, a non
- VCSB test method would require additio nal information. In particular, the underl yi ng scientific

421 It is important t o understand that the numerical examples presented in the text are entirely hypothetical, since use of precision testing material or gravimetric standards at levels other than those used in the examples would change all of the numbers. Use of a gasoline s ulfur gravimetric standard at 5 ppm (instead of the 10 ppm used in the example) would require computing the repeatability of the method at 5 ppm using the equation given in the method description, dividing it by 2.77, multiplying the result by 1.5, and the n multiplying that result by 0.75. As a short
- cut, the accuracy criterion could be determined by multiplying the ASTM repeatability of the method at the level in question by 0.4061.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 317 of 842 measurement principles must be thoroughl y explained and the apparatus described well enough that a trained outsider could successfully implement the non
- VCSB test method and replicate the applicant ’s results. Precision Qualification Specifics. We are proposing the same precision qualification criteria as absolute parameters. For those method
- defined parameters with alternative test methods that have been identified by regulations, preference will b e given to the least precise of the allowed test methods. For reference installations we propose the additional requirements that the instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided for in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 (and the SQC procedures to be discussed below); and that the applicant must submit control charts showing a record of in
- control operation for at least five months. While these requirements would likely result in a delay

between instrument setup and the ability to qualify

it as a refer ence installation, we believe that the delay is necessary

to demonstrate the stability of these critically

important installations. Considering the number of long
- established installations of these designated test methods, EPA expects no lack of laboratories capable of meeting these standards and able to provide this service commerciall y to an y party interested in qualifying a new installation of an alternative test method for a method
- defined parameter. Table VI
- 6 sets out our proposed precision criteria for the various method
- defined fuel parameters with no alternative test method. Olefins in Gasoline Criterion. The designated method for this parameter, ASTM D 1319
- 10, is also the less precise of the two meth ods currentl y allowed. As such, its repeatability

statistics are proposed as the basis for precision qualification. Thus for a test fuel with olefins at, say , 9 volume percent, the repeatability is 0.972, and the underlying standard deviation is 0.972/2 .77=0.351, and the precision criterion is 1.5 times that, or 0.53 volume percent. A laboratory ’s standard deviation for the 20 tests could not exceed that value and still qualify for precision. Aromatics in Gasoline Criterion. We are proposing to use the repeatability standard deviation for D1319
- 10 to set the precision criteria for aromatics in gasoline. (e.g., 1.3 volume percent for a fuel with 32 volume percent aromatics). The cut off point for the 20
- test standard deviation using the test fuel would then be 0.70 volume percent. We note that D5769
- 10 is the current designated test method but that D1319
- 10 is still widely used. We also note that while not as precise as D5769
- 10, D1319
- 10 is the designated method for olefins, and has precision sufficie ntl y close to that of the more modern designated method to make it still viable. Ox ygen and Ox ygenates in Gasoline Criterion. The two test methods allowed for oxygen are very

close together in precision, at least for total oxygen content. The designate d method, D5599
- 00(2010) is slightl y less precise, leading us to propose that its repeatability

be used to determine the criterion. So for a test gasoline with 3 mass percent total ox ygen, the repeatability would be 0.083 mass percent and the criterion fo r precision in this example comes out to 0.045 mass percent.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 318 of 842 **Table VI**  **- 6**  **Method -**  **Defined Precision Criterion for Fuel Parameters with no**

**Alternatives to the Designated Test Method** Fuel Parameter Example of fuel parameter level for demonstrating precision Proposed Precision Criterion422 RVP in gasoline RVP sample of gasoline equals 6.8 psi 0.11 psi Distillation in gasoline Gasoline sample with initial boiling point (IBP) of 20 ° C and 90 percent evaporated (E90) t emperature of 110 ° C IBP = 1.54 ° C E10 = 0.72 ° C E50 = 0.40 ° C E90 = 0.97 ° C FBP = 1.80 ° C Benzene in gasoline Gasoline sample containing 1 volume percent benzene 0.02 volume percent benzene Aromatics in diesel fuel Diesel sample containing 35 volume percent aromatics 0.70 volume percent
Accuracy Qualification. Test methods used to measure method
- defined parameters can be grouped into three ty pes : reference installations of designated methods intended for use in qualifying alternative methods; designat ed method installations intended for ordinary

production measurements; and non
- designated methods. Since these reference installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other test methods and to evaluate whether the need for the establishment of a correlation equation. We are proposing that such reference instruments must be shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the industry monthly inter
- laboratory

crosscheck program for at least five months prior to application. 423 We are proposing th at laboratories would specificall y compute the difference between either the instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards or to the average value for the fuel type in the complex model and the robust mean for that fuel o btained by all of the non
- outlier labs in the program. We are proposing that the differences would then be standardized by expressing it in robust standard deviation units. This standardized Inter - laboratory cross check (ILCC) differences would be put into a moving average with a span of, for example, five months. We are also proposing to set the standard such that the instrument's moving average would be within the central 50 percent of the distribution of participating designated method labs. Because a robust standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this percentage will have to be approximate. Such lab
- specific

422 Where maximum allowable standard deviation (SD) of 20 tests is less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability (r) of the designated test method divided by 2.77 (SD of 20 tests ≤ 1.5 X (r/2.77)). 423 An alternative to this measure can be to use the D6299
- 10 e1 calculations. This would require statistical quality control (SQC) so that the instrument would have an acceptable quality of performance. This could reduce the burden of calculations and align this requirement better with the NTTAA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 319 of 842 qualification would be outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making regulatory measurements for certifying fuel and would pe rtain only to use of the instrument in certifying other methods. EPA requests comment on the nature and stringency of this proposed requirement. Specificall y, we request comment as to whether this is a reasonable requirement that is likely to be met b y i nstruments in the best qualified laboratories. Could the “middle 50 percent” requirement be further tightened without severel y restricting the supply of potential reference installations? Are there computationally

simpler way s to accomplish the general p urpose of this requirement? (1) Role of Voluntary Consensus Bodies in Qualifying Alternative Analytical Test Methods In February

1996, Section 12(d) of Public Law 104
- 113, Congress passed the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995” (NTTAA), i n order to establish the policies of the existing OMB Circular A
- 119 in law. 424 The purposes of Section 12(d) of Public Law 104
- 113 are: (1) To direct “federal agencies to focus upon increasing their use of [voluntary consensus] standards 425 whenever possible ,” thus reducing federal procurement and operating costs; and (2) to authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) as the “federal coordinator for government entities responsible for the development of technical standards and conformi ty assessment activities,” thus eliminating “unnecessary duplication of conformity assessment activities.” 426 Section 21(d) of Public Law 104
- 113 also gives agencies the discretion to use other standards in lieu of voluntary consensus standards where use of the latter would be “inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.” However, in such cases, the head of an agency or department must send to OMB, through NI ST, “an explanation of the reasons for using such standards.” The final revision of C ircular A
- 119 defines Voluntary Consensus Standards as “standards developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus bodies, both domestic and international”, and defines VCSB as “domestic or international organizations which plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus standards using agreed
- upon procedures and which possess the attributes of openness, balance of interest, due process, an appeals process, and consensus.” Finall y, Circular A
- 119 indicates that consensus means “general agreement, but not necessaril y unanimity , and includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fairl y considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and

424 See 142 Cong. Rec. H1264
- 1267 (daily ed. February 27, 1996) (statement Rep. Morella); 142 Cong. Rec. S1078
- 1082 (daily ed. February 7, 1996)(statement Cong. Rockefeller); 141 Cong. Rec. H14333
- 34 (daily ed. December 12, 1995)(statements of Reps. Brow n and Morella). 425 This use of the word “standards” refers to test methods, calibration mater ials, etc. 426 See Cong. Rec. H1262 (daily ed. February 27, 1996)(statements of Rep. Morella).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 320 of 842 the reasons wh y, and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments.” 427 The Agency

believes that VCSBs can play a valuable role in developing statistical tools for anal yt ical test methodology description and evaluatio n, developing and describing new anal yt ical test methodologies and organizing test programs to evaluate methodologies and assist laboratories to maintain quality measurement s ys tems. EPA has frequently

selected VCSB
- developed methods as its designated meth ods for fuels programs. However, it has onl y adopted a particular version of each such method by

incorporating it by

reference in the Federal Register. In each case the Agency was endorsing and adopting test methods that were completely known and availab le for examination, rather than the unknown result of some future VCSB action. To simply say that any method approved by

a VCSB is acceptable for all purposes, including compliance demonstrations would seem to invite such difficulties as: (1) multiple me thods for a parameter, developed b y different VCSB’s and not correlated adequatel y with each other, or (2) methods that change over time (by publication of new versions, for example) in such a way that the definition of what is being measured changes and no longer corresponds to what was used in setting compliance to the environmental standard(s).

(2) Use of Reference Materials in Qualifying and Maintaining Alternative Analytical Techniques Depending on the qualification process chosen b y the Agency , discussed in more detail below, the protocol proposed here for the qualification and maintenance of alternative test methods stops short of automatic acceptance of VCSB decisions and methods, but goes as far in that direction as we believe is consistent with the Ag ency ’s mission of ensuring compliance with motor vehicle fuel programs. It gives some preference to VCSB
- approved methods because of our greater confidence that such methods have been positively evaluated b y a broad user community rather than by

a narrowe r array

of users. We are propos ing e today to also make substantial use of VCSB
- developed statistical protocols for comparing methods and for use by particular laboratories in keeping analy tic methods under adequate statistical quality control. We conside r Reference materials to be samples of the ty pe of material to be tested (gasoline or diesel fuel in this case) that are known or thought to have a particular concentration of the substance to be measured. Laboratories may use these materials to calibrate and evaluate the performance of measurement sy stems. EPA is proposing the following three t ypes of reference materials that would be used in establishing and maintaining the accuracy of both designated and alternative anal yt ical test methods: (1)

427 63 FR 8546 (February 19, 1998).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 321 of 842 gravime tric standards, (2) consensus
- named fuels (gasoline or diesel fuel), and (3) locally
- named standards. Additionally , some combinations of parameters and test methods limit the availability

of some kinds of reference materials. This complicates the task of developing a methodology

for qualifyingalternative test methods. EPA recognizes the technical complexity

and the likelihood that new anal yt ical testing methods may emerge. Therefore, the Agency

is also proposing to offer substantial flexibility in the c hoice of standard reference materials and the manner of their use, so long as they ensure accuracy and preserve the integrity of applicable fuel standards. Gravimetric Reference Standards. Gravimetric standards are test materials made by adding a carefull y measured quantity of the analyte of interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain an y of the anal yt e. The result is a solution with a very

accuratel y known concentration of the anal yt e. The accuracy of gravimetric standard r eference materials can be closel y controlled and is not dependent on an anal yt ical test method. They do present certain practical problems in use. First, gravimetric reference materials cannot be made for all of the parameters under the RFG, CG and diesel fuel programs (e.g., distillation points and olefins). Second, there are “matrix effects.” As earlier explained, matrix effects are where components in real
- world gasoline or diesel fuel other than the anal yt e of interest confuse the instrument and caus e it to measure the analy

te differentl y than it would when measuring the same concentration of the analyte in a gravimetric standard built in a matrix where the instrument is not sensitive. Matrix effects are problematic for certain analytical methods, wh ose underl yi ng scientific operating principles make the analy tical method unable to utilize gravimetric standards for calibration when other ty pes of materials (gasoline or diesel fuel) will have to be measured accurately . The approach taken in this propo sal, where the gravimetric standard reference materials would be used in establishing the accuracy of a reference implementation of the designated method, is an approach that should minimize matrix effect problems. This is because the designated methods w ere selected, among other criteria, for their relative freedom from matrix effects. Thus, EPA believes that such materials, offer the best tools for establishing the accuracy of anal yt ical test methods. When feasible, EPA believes that gravimetric refere nce standard materials should form the basis for establishing accuracy through correlation with designated anal yt ical test methods calibrated with gravimetric standards. Consensus
- named Fuels. These are homogeneous quantities of fuel that have been analyz ed b y a number of different laboratories (by sending around small samples). The average concentration of some parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the “consensus name” for that material. There are certain paramete rs that the Agency does not believe that gravimetric standard reference materials can be prepared. Aromatics are a class of numerous compounds that are produced b y refinery processes in a mixture that is most likely impossible to duplicate in the laborato ry with an y consistency

for all fuel because not all refiners have the same configuration. For such parameters, it is therefore necessary to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 322 of 842 use consensus - named gasolines to control accuracy because they

are the only

reliable ty pe of standard reference material that is available. The use of consensus
- named gasolines may

minimize matrix
- related effects where they are used to establish the accuracy of different designated method implementations, though they may be less useful in evaluating alternative metho ds that have been adapted to measure a certain fuel matrix, but not sensitive enough to measure all fuel matrices the test method may encounter in use, otherwise known as “adaptive learning” technologies. The nominal concentrations in consensus
- named gaso lines can only be as accurate as the designated analy tical test method used in the VCSB round robin study that named them. Consensus
- named gasolines will also be costly and time
- consuming to produce and will need to be periodicall y replaced (i.e., when th e suppl y is exhausted or the shelf life expires) through either a new round robin study or some approach using overlapped testing of the old standard reference material with a new batch (which will not, of course, have exactly the same concentration of analy tes). Locally Named Reference Materials. These materials are also sometimes referred to as quality

control samples (e.g., octane testing reference fuel). These are gasoline or diesel fuels that usuall y come from the regular production of the facility. These reference materials are used in laboratory qualit y control efforts and have been anal yzed using the designated method (either by the facility ’s lab or by

a referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration. The fuels are then stored carefu lly by the lab to slow their deterioration. The advantage to these is that since a refinery may already have such fuels on site for octane or cetane testing purposes, these materials may be relatively inexpensive. Another advantage is that, since a refin er would produce these fuels at the same site where the alternative method will be qualified, their use should minimize any difficulties associated with matrix effects. These locally named reference fuels are not as accurate as the VCSB round robin proces s and are not assured by gravimetric standard reference material construction. Thus, a refiner could only use them for relating an alternative method to a carefull y calibrated installation of the designated method whose accuracy has been established and c ontrolled b y other means. We request comment on the appropriateness of using the three types of standard reference materials for accuracy that have been discussed and on their applicability in the qualification process and statistical quality control proce ss of anal yt ical test methods. (3) Qualification Criteria of Alternative Analytical Test Methods We are also proposing two options for refiners that wish to qualify an alternative test method as discussed in further detail in Sections VI .A.3.g.i and VI .A.3.g.ii of this proposal. For both of the proposed options the candidate test method must have precision at least equal to that of the designated anal yt ical test method (though n ot defined in precisel y the same way). And the alternative test method must be capable of correlation with the designated test method for the parameter such that the refiner may use the alternative test method results to produce predicted designated test method results that it can subsequentl y use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel composition or performance standards.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 323 of 842 (4) Statistical Quality Control Program An important element of today ’s proposed approach for the qualification of altern ative anal yt ical test methods is the description of a statistical quality control (SQC) program that may

be applied to any

anal yt ical test method used in the regulatory programs covered b y this proposal. We are proposing to require a SQC program as described below. EPA’s objective with statistical quality control is not to impose a complete new s ys tem of quality control measures, but rather to adopt a subset of SQC procedures that are already widel y in use. We anticipate that the measures we have selecte d would not require the generation of much additional data by the laboratories that elect to emplo y them and that the SQC program would improve the quality of measurement among those labs that adopt such measures. e. Qualification Criteria for Designated Meth od Installations Used to Qualify Method
- Defined Parameter Instruments. Designated test method installations that will be used to qualify method
- defined parameter instruments are reference installations. Since reference installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations, EPA believes that these reference installations should be held to higher standards. First, we are proposing that reference instruments meet precision qualification re quirements that are similar to the criteria set forth in the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. As explained earlier, that rule imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation428 of a series of at least 20 measurements over at least 20 day s on a single fuel und er site precision conditions. Specificall y, the diesel rule used 1.5 times the repeatability standard deviation (ASTM “r”/2.77) of what was the least precise of the then
- allowed methods. For those “method
- defined” parameters from Table VI
- 1 above that do not currentl y have alternatives test methods the precision criteria is based on the fuel parameter’s designated test method. In each case the precision criterion is determined b y (“r”/2.77) X 1.5 where “r” is the AST M repeatability determined for the particular fuel that is being used for the purpose of demonstrating the test method’s precision. Second, we are proposing that such reference instruments must be shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the indu stry monthly inter
- laboratory

crosscheck (IL CC) program for at least the five months prior to application. 429 We are also proposing that laboratories would specifically compute the difference between the instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards (or to the

428 Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of the population (formula uses “N
- 1” in the denominator). 429 An alternative to this measure can be to use the ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 calculations. This would require SQC so that the instrument would have an acceptable quality of performance. This could reduce the burden of calculations and align this requirement better with the NTT AA******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 324 of 842 average value for the fuel ty pe in the complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by

all of the non
- outlier labs in the program. And then standardize this difference b y expressing it in robust standard deviation units. These standardized inter
laboratory

cross check differences would be put into a moving average with a span of, for example, five months. We are proposing to set the standard such that the instrument's moving average would be within the central 50 percent of the distribution of participating designated method labs. Because a robust standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this percentage will have to be approximate. Such lab
- specific qualification would be outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making regulatory measurements for certifying fuel and would pertain only to use of the instrument in certifying other methods. In essence, these designated method installations will serve as surrogates for the gravimetric standards that cannot be used in qualifying alternative methods for method
- defined parameters. Finally , for reference installations we propose that the reference instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided for in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 (and the SQC procedures to be discussed below); and that the applicant must maintain control charts showing a record of in
- control operation for at least five months. While these requirements would likely impose a delay

between instrument setup and the ability to qualify it as a reference installation, we believe that the delay is necessary

to demonstrate the stability

of these critically

important installations. Considering the number of long
established installations of these designated methods, EPA expects n o lack of facilities capable of meeting these standards and able to provide this service commercially to an y party interested in qualifyinga new installation for a method
- defined parameter. f. Qualification Criteria for Designated Test Method Installations that are “Method
- Defined” Parameters Instruments and Not Used to Qualify Other “Method
- Defined” Methods Refiners, importers and ox ygen ate blenders producing gasoline and diesel fuel are required to test these fuels to determine the levels of various speci fied parameters. A designated test method is associated with each parameter to be tested (except for sulfur concentration in ultra
- low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet performance
- based requirements 430 ) in 40 CFR Part 80. Table VI
- 5 of this preamble lists the fuel parameters and their corresponding designated test methods. We are proposing today

that installations of designated methods must maintain records they

meet statistical quality

control requirements as detail ed below in this preamble. Requiring all installations of all methods, including existing designated method installations, to implement statistical quality control, as we are proposing today , would likely

suffice to homogenize and improve measurement qual ity in these already stable and standardized methods.

430 See §§80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 325 of 842 g. Qualification Criteria for Method Defined Parameter Instruments Other Than Designated Test Methods As discussed above, the Agency is also proposing to have two options for refiners to qualify an altern ative test method that is a method
- defined fuel parameter. The first option would allow for qualifying methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB, such as ASTM (the VCSB approach). The second way involves qualification for a laboratory

that has developed its own anal yt ical test method but has decided not to offer it for evaluation and establishment through a VCSB
- based organizational process (the non - VCSB approach). Both options require the candidate method to have precision at least equal to that of the designated anal yt ical test method (though not defined in precisel y the same way). The alternative method must also be capable of close correlation with the designated method for the parameter such that the refiner may use the alternative me thod results to produce predicted designated method results that it can subsequently

use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel composition or performance standards. The proposed criteria for both the VCSB and non
- VCSB approaches to qualify method
- defined instruments are discussed in further detail below.

i. Qualification Criteria for VCSB Method
-Defined Parameter Test Methods The first of these approaches to qualifying alternative methods applies only to methods that have been sponsored and pub lished by a VCSB, such as ASTM. We are proposing that the VCSB must have fully described the anal yt ical test method, so that it is replicable in different laboratories and understood by an y t echnician. We would consider publication of a method by a VCSB organization such as ASTM to meet this criterion. The VCSB must have tested the candidate method in a round robin program against the designated method, must have published a determination that the method meets the criteria specified in the discussion bel ow, and must have published the information necessary to correlate the alternative method to the designated method. 431 We are also proposing that an alternative anal yt ical test method need not be qualified separatel y in each laboratory that adopts it. This is because b y the time such a test method has been through the extensive development process typicall y required b y a VCSB, the method’s procedures would have been exhaustively described. At this point there will be little uncertainty about how the analy

ti cal test method is to be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety of different laboratories and used on a variety of different t ypes of fuels. Therefore the VCSB
- based process gives EPA some confidence that the anal yt ical test method is lik ely to be stable in use and can be implemented with very little ambiguity regarding instrumentation, materials, and procedures. Moreover, VCSB method evaluation protocols have been established; including a protocol for

431 This first approach assumes that a single such equation can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches that follows this introdu ction explores this problem.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 326 of 842 comparing methods provide means for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method’s precision parity with the designated method for the parameter and for determining whether the alternative method can be adequatel y correlated with the designated method. 432 EPA is also proposing that VCSB me thod
- defined test methods utilize ASTM D6708 to determine if a correlation equation is necessary
.

ii. Qualification Criteria for non
- VCSB Method
-Defined Parameter Test Methods The second way

a candidate alternative method may qualify does not involve the proce ss by

which a VCSB evaluates and officially establish methods through publication. EPA is proposing that a candidate method that follows the non
- VCSB
- based route for qualification must be qualified independentl y b y each analytical laboratory that wishes t o adopt the method. This is because such a method has not been shown to be capable of accuratel y measuring the parameter in different laboratories and across a variety of fuel matrices. The following is a discussion of the qualification criteria for non
- VCSB method
defined parameter test methods. First, the Agency proposes to require a complete operational description of the non
- VCSB test method, as described above in Section VI .A.3.d.ii and VI .A.3.d.iii of this preamble. The operational description must be thorough enough that a person lacking expertise in the operation of the test instrument would be able to replicate its results. Second, the Agency

proposes that the candi date non
- VCSB test method be tested on a range of fuels 433 and by a qualified reference installation of the applicable designated test method. Third, the Agency

proposes that the specific laboratory using the candidate non
VCSB test method must statisticall y establish through application of ASTM D6708
- 08 that the candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as the applicable designated test method. Fourth, the Agency

is proposing to disqualify non - VCSB test methods with important sample
- specific bias es (matrix effects) that cannot be considered as random as determined b y ASTM D6708
- 08. It is possible a situation may arise where a non
- VCSB test method suspected b y the applicant of being highl y matrix
- sensitive may be qualified on a narrowly

circumscribed range of fuels (which must meet the D6708
- 08 statistical variability

criteria). In this situation, the ty pes of fuels on which qualification was

432 ASTM D 6708
- 08, entitled, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between T wo Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material. 433 Fuels, either consensus named fu els or locally named reference materials, used must be typical of those to be analyzed by the facility in practice and must meet the data requirements (variability, etc.) of ASTM D6708
- 08.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 327 of 842 achieved and for which the method is to be approved must be specified in the method description. Fuels outside of this scope would have to be anal yz ed for regulatory purposes b y some other method that was not this limited. The Agency believes that any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the method is to be qualified must be accompanied b y a discussio n of how the applicant plans to screen samples for conformity to the scope. Fifth, the Agency

proposes that precision qualification be conducted in the form of cross
- method reproducibility 434 of the candidate and applicable designated test method, where the cross - method reproducibility must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method. The Agency

believes, that when ASTM D6708
- 08 is used in this manner (without joint round robin data) the cross
- method reproducibility (Rcm) output by

the program is not really a reproducibility

in the usual sense, but rather indicates the expected value with uncertaint y of the differences between the designated method and qualification candidate method. We believe that when used this way , Rcm from ASTM D6708
- 08 is more analogous to a site precision than to an inter
- laboratory reproducibility
. As described, this measure can reasonabl y be expected to fall between the published reproducibility (R) and repeatability (r) of the designated test method. Because qualified alternative test methods should be able to generall y do as well as the designated test method Rcm be less than or equal to “R”. Since “R” is typicall y established when the test method is first developed, and laboratory experience with it is limited, the real reproducibility

for a method long in service is likely to be smaller than “R.” Moreover, as mentioned above, Rcm is more like a site precision number, for a well
- run installation, that must be smalle r than “R” since the s ys tematic component of the differences between the instruments has been adjusted out and the “within
- method
- interlaboratory” component of variance is not present. On the other end of the space between “r” and “R,” the published repeatability has far fewer sources of variability than any other measure of its kind, suggesting that the cut
- point should be closer to “R” than to “r”. The proposed 70 percent fraction of published reproducibility was selected because there is some evidence to suggest that site precisions for various methods/parameters tend to average around that fraction of the same method’s published reproducibility. We are also requesting comment on the appropriate percentage of “R” that the “cross
- method reproducibility” should be equal to or less than. Sixth, the Agency

proposes that the applicant demonstrate, through the use of ASTM D6708
- 08, whether a correlation to the designated test method is necessary
.

434 Cross
- method reproducibility is a quantitative expression of the random error associated with the difference between two results obtained by different operators using different apparatus and applying the two methods X and Y, respectively, each obtaining a single result on a identical test sample, when the methods have b een assessed and an appropriate bias
- correction has been applied. It is defined as the 95 percent confidence limit for the difference between two such single and independent results.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 328 of 842 ASTM D6708
- 08 can also be used to determine whether the candid ate method ’ s results are null compared to the designated test method and thus needs no adjustment or correlation, or whether some correction or correlation equation is required so the candidate method may

predict designated method results. We are proposin g the use of ASTM 6708
- 08 for corrections, if it is determined through the use of ASTM D6708
- 08 that the candidate method requires such a correction to predict designated test method results. The Agency

proposes that the correction would be applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurements results for regulatory purposes. Finally , we are proposing to require that applicants for non
- VCSB test method s secure an independent third party oversight and audit review of the data generated and used to qualify

non - VCSB test methods. We are proposing that the independent third party would provide an overall assessment of the analy tical technique and methodology and discuss an y limitations in the scope of the method, as well as attest that all the requirements for non
- VCSB test method qualification have been satisfied. The Agency believes this requirement would provide additional assurance that a non
- VCSB test method is found to be adequate in use for compliance. We seek comments on all aspects of tod ay ’s proposal. Additionally , the Agency is particularl y interested in comments on the appropriateness of the qualification criteria for candidate method
- defined parameter non
- VCSB test methods. h. Statistical Quality

Control: How Can We Ensure that Test Metho ds Continue to Deliver Qualit y Measurement in Practice? As discussed previousl y, an important element of today’s proposal is a statistical quality control program that may be applied to any

analy tical test method used in the regulatory

programs covered b y this proposal. Today , the Agency is proposing that every laboratory

using test instruments to measure fuel parameters must implement and maintain a basic SQC program in order to satisfy EPA’s reporting or recordkeeping requirements. We are proposing that every laboratory

have a separate SQC program for each instrument used to make measurements for reporting or recordkeeping purposes. 435 This is unlike the qualification criteria requirements, where onl y one of a set of essentially

identical instruments impl ementing the same method in a laboratory must qualify
.We are proposing that implementation of a SQC program b y a laboratory would be a defense in an y subsequent enforcement actions where the measurements are in use.

435 Such SQC programs are already an established part of VCSB protocols fo r analytical laboratory operation (as indicated by such practices as ASTM’s D6299
- 10 e1 ) and are likely to be part of most laboratories ”standard operating procedures.” Thus, such a requirement very likely adds little or nothing in the way of burden for mo st laboratories. Laboratories that lack such programs and would have to expend significant effort to create them are those most at risk for poor measurements and for which the effort is mo st easily justified.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 329 of 842 We are proposing to adopt a subset of SQC procedures that are already widely in use from ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 . We anticipate that the measures we are proposing would not require the generation of much additional data b y the laboratory that employs them and that the SQC program would improve the qu ality of measurement among those labs that adopt such measures. These SQC procedures used by laboratories would ensure that the test methods they

have qualified and the instruments on which the methods are run are yi elding results with appropriate accurac y and precision, e.g., that the results from a particular instrument does not “drift” over time to yield unacceptable values. The proposed minimum specific SQC requirements for laboratories that measures absolute parameters, and both VCSB and non
- VCSB methods used to measure method
- defined parameters, are discussed in further detail below.

i. Statistical Quality Control for Absolute Parameters We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for each instrument used to measure absolute parameters in the laboratory . We are proposing that every instrument would test a quality control (“QC”) material 436 either of: once per 20 production tests or once per week and maintain both an “I” chart437 and an “MR” chart 438

. We are proposing that any violations of the c ontrol limit(s) would be investigated by laboratory

personnel, corrective action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period of 5 ye ars. We are also proposing to follow the procedures of ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 for making transition from one b atch of QC material to another. We are a also proposing the use of Annex A1.9, entitled “Q
- Procedure”, of ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 for validating new QC material. We are proposing that when QC material is soon
- to - be
depleted, that a new batch of QC material is prepared and its value compared to the old QC material on a chart. The new batch of QC material would be tested concurrentl y with the soon
- to - be
- depleted old QC material. And the results would be plotted from the “old” and “new” QC materials on its respect ive chart, and if no special
- cause signals are noted, then the result for the new material would be considered valid. 439 We are proposing to require that every instrument tests a commerciall y available gravimetric standard reference material (SRM) (“check st andard” as defined in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 ) on a quarterly basis. The absolute difference between the mean of multiple back
- to - back tests of the SRM and ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigate d by laboratory

personnel, appropriate action taken, and records kept of the incident and investigation. We are

436 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , paragraph 3.2.3 for a d efinition and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, storage and use of reference material samples. 437 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon corrective ac tion. 438 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section A1.5.2 for chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should be investigated. 439 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Annex A1.9 Q
- Procedure. Procedures differ depending whether an I
- chart, MR chart, EWMA chart, Q
- chart or a combination of these charts are utilized by the laboratory.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 330 of 842 proposing that records of the SRM measurements and investigations into any exceedances of these proposed criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. Additionally , we are proposing to require laboratories to pre
- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions, 440 construct “MR” and “I” charts 441 with control lines, and maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting the underlying causes of any

control limit violations as discussed in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 . We are proposing that records of such incidents and the underl yi ng control charts must be kept by the facilit y for a period of 5 ye ars. ii. S tatistical Quality Control for VCSB
- Approved Methods Used to Measure Method
-Defined Parameters We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for every instrument used in VCSB
- approved methods to measure method
- defined parameters in the laborato ry . With regard to precision, we are proposing the same SQC for instruments used for absolute parameters. We are proposing that every instrument test a quality control QC material 442 once every 20 production tests or once per week whichever is more frequent . We are also proposing the maintenance of an “I” chart 443 and a “MR” chart 444 . We are proposing that violations of the control limit(s) in these charts would be investigated , corrective action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period of 5 ye ars. We are also proposing that laboratories follow the procedures of ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 for making the transition from one batch of QC material to the next. With regard to accuracy

we are proposing that each laboratory perform a check standard 445 for each instrument as defined in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 for each instrument on a quarterl y basis. We propose that check standards for “method
- defined” parameters must be ordinary

fuels with levels of the parameter of interest close to either regulatory standards or to the average level of use. We also propose that ARVs of such standards must be determined through consensus methods 446 on designated method instruments. The absolute difference between the mean of multiple back
- to - back tests of the SRM and

440 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a single check standard is used for multiple testing occasio ns or multiple check standards must be used. 441 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections for chart construction and guidance. 442 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, storage and use of reference material samples. 443 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 444 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section A1.5.2 for chart construc tion and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should be investigated. 445 As defined in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 3,2,3, and further discussed in Section 6.2. Optimum use of materials that are consensus
- named by a number of laboratories may be possibl e only if these materials are distributed in sufficient quantity that they may be used as check standards after their consensus
- determined ARV is known by all laboratories. As mentioned in the text, only measurements made on the designated method for the parameter in question may be used in determining the ARV for this purpose. 446 Following the guidelines of ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 6.2.2.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 331 of 842 ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated, appropriate action taken b y l aboratory personnel, and records kept of the incident and investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM measurements an d investigations into any exceedance of the criteria must be kept for a period of 5 ye ars. Additionally , we are proposing that laboratories must pre
- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions 447 , construct “ MR” and “I” charts 448 with control lines, and maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting the underlying causes of any control limit violations as discussed in ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 . We are proposing that records of such incidents and the unde rlying control charts must be kept by the laboratory

for a period of 5 years. iii. Statistical Quality Control for Non
- VCSB Methods Used To Measure Method
-Defined Parameters We are also proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for instrument s used in n on - VCSB methods to measure method
- defined parameters in the laboratory
. We are proposing precision requirements for instruments used in these ty pes of test method s that are the same as th ose proposed for absolute parameters. We are proposing that every i nstrument be tested on a qualit y control “QC” material 449 once per 20 production tests or once per week , whichever is more frequent . We are also proposing the maintenance of an “I” chart 450 and a “MR” chart451 . We are proposing that violations of the control l imit(s) in these charts should be investigated, corrective action taken as required, and that records of the incident must be kept for a period of 5 years. We are propos ing that laboratories follow the procedures of ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 for transitioning from one batch of QC material to the next. The proposed accuracy

requirement depends on whether the method
- defined parameter test method has minimal matrix interferences or whether the method
- defined parameter test method is highl y sensitive to matrix compositi on. The Agency believes that non
- VCSB test methods are expected to vary considerabl y to the extent that their results are sensitive to fuel characteristics other than the level of the anal yt e of interest. For methods judged b y their operators to be relat ively insensitive to such matrix effects, EPA believes that the same SQC accuracy approach used with VCSB
- approved methods measuring “method
- defined” parameters is appropriate. Where this is the case, a statement to this effect must be included in the app lication for qualification. Any

447 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon wheth er a single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or multiple check standards must be used. 448 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections for chart construction and guidance. 449 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition and Section 6.1 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, storage and use of quality control samples. 450 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon corrective ac tion. 451 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section A1.5.2 for chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should be investigated.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 332 of 842 decision to abandon this approach to SQC accuracy must be reported to EPA along with the data and reasoning that led to the conclusion. For non
- VCSB methods used to measure method
- defined parameters that are highl y sensiti ve to matrix composition, we are proposing the same accuracy requirements that must be maintained as for other methods for method
- defined parameters, except that the check standards will consist of production fuels, representative of those production fuels routinely

anal yz ed by

the laboratory , that have been submitted to a reference installation of the designated test method. We are proposing that the designated test method measurements should be replicated and the average of these results used as the ARV for the check standard. Additionally , we are proposing that the laboratory operating the alternative method is responsible for the qualification status and current stability of the reference method installation (for example, documentation on the identity of the reference installation and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the laboratory

that is using the alternative test method). Also for non
- VCSB methods, the Agency is proposing external checks on the accuracy of matrix
- sensitive methods. Laboratories that have qualified such a method would be required to send a sample of each 20 th production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA’s Ann Arbor laboratory , along with the lab’s measurement results using the alternative method (the resu lt used to certify the batch). The EPA lab may return such a sample on a blind basis for a required reanal ys is by the originating laboratory at any time up to two months from EPA’s receipt of the sample. This external control is an additional check on bo th the site precision of the alternative method and its accuracy . We request comments on all aspects of our proposal. i. Agency

Approval Options We are proposing to require qualification of onl y non - VCSB test methods for fuel parameters. We are also seekin g comment on whether we should require qualification of all test methods for fuel parameters. We are also proposing a requirement for regulated parties to identify

the test method used for each compliance measurement as part of the applicable record keepi ng and reporting. The following section contains a discussion of our proposal We believe that the proposed approach to performance
- based qualification of test methods goes considerably beyond the minimum requirements of the NTTAA in providing flexibility of method choice, and accomplish performance
- based qualification without compromising measurement quality . We also believe that the primary tools for achieving the latter objective are lab
- specific qualification of method installations and a requirement for across
- the
- board SQC. While EPA would benefit from finalizing today ’s proposal by

no longer having to evaluate new alternative measurement methodologies, this benefit is not likely

to offset the substantial and unpredictable resource costs involved in administering a qualification process and providing infrastructural support for laboratories’ SQC programs.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 333 of 842 i. Agency Approval of Only Non
- VCSB Methods We are proposing that only non - VCSB test methods for fuel parameters would need to be qualified. We are proposing to exclude designated test methods that have been in operation 6 months prior to finalizing this rule, as discussed below, as well as test methods that are developed by VCSBs, like ASTM International or the International Organization for Standar ds (I SO). A laboratory that has developed a test method but has decided not to offer it for evaluation and establishment through a VCSB
- based organizational process would be required to qualify the test methods using the process discussed earlier. 452 We ar e proposing that such test methods must be qualified independentl y b y each analytical laboratory that wishes to adopt the test method. This is because such a test method has not been shown to be capable of accuratel y measuring the parameter in different l aboratories and across a variety of fuel matrices. The precision for the candidate anal yt ical test method must be established by a medium
- term series of measurements on production fuels, the workability of the test method must be verified b y at least one o ther laboratory , and its accuracy must be demonstrated by direct correlation to the designated anal yt ical test method for the particular fuel parameter. We are proposing the following requirements for test methods that have been sponsored and published b y a VCSB such as ASTM or I SO. The test method must be fully described so that it is replicable in man y different laboratories and so that its operation may

be understood by

a technician. The VCSB must have tested the candidate test method in a round robi n program against the designated test method, must have published a determination that the test method meets the performance criteria as discussed, and must have published the information necessary to correlate the alternative test method to the designated test method. 453 We are proposing a s ys tem of self
- qualification for VCSB
- based alternative test methods. Thus, we are also proposing that a VCSB
- based candidate alternative test method need not be qualified separatel y in each laboratory that adopts it. Th is is because by the time a VCSB
- based candidate alternative test method has been through the extensive development process typicall y required by a VCSB, the test method’s procedures will have been exhaustively described. At this point there will be littl e uncertaint y about how the anal yt ical test method is to be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety of different laboratories and used on a variety of different ty

pes of fuels. Therefore, the VCSB
- based process gives EPA some confidence th at the

452 Reasons for not submitting a local method for VCSB evaluation may include the proprietary nature of software or app aratus or the fact that the method is highly matrix
- sensitive and not likely to perform consistently when used to analyze fuels with widely varying properties. EPA recognizes that matrix sensitivities may be subtle and methods with such characteristics may have been sponsored and published by VCSB’s. 453 This first approach assumes that a single such equation can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches that follows th is introduction explores this problem.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 334 of 842 anal yt ical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be implemented with very little ambiguit y regarding instrumentation, materials, and procedures. VCSB method evaluation protocols have been established, including a recently developed pro tocol for comparing methods, which provide means for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method’s precision parity with the designated method for the parameter454 and for determining whether the alternative test method can be adequatel y correlated with the designated test method. 455 We also recognize that imposing this qualification requirement on existing test methods developed b y a VCSB without adequate lead time may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give methods published and in operation when this proposal is published a grace period of one year from the effective date of a final rule before they meet these proposed requirements. We are also proposing to exempt existing (i.e., in use for six months prior to publication of this proposal) insta llations of designated test methods that are method
defined parameters from the qualification requirement. We presume these to be stable and capable methods in relatively experienced hands. Because they are already

being used to certify

fuels, requiring their qualification could be disruptive and burdensome to both their operators and to whoever manages the qualification process. Such installations would not benefit tangibly from this rule (as b y obtaining access to a desired new method), but would nevertheless bear a newly
- imposed burden. We are also proposing to require record keeping and retention requirements for both VCSB alternative and non
- VCSB test methods. Parties would need to maintain qualification records for demonstrating compliance for a period of 5 ye ars after they cease use of the particular test method. Parties must also maintain a complete description of the test method and data with statistical analy sis that supports its qualification. We are also seeking comment on whether the Age ncy should require qualification of all anal yt ical test methods for the fuel parameters at 40 CFR 80. This would include each designated test method, all alternative test methods currentl y allowed by our regulations, as well as any other anal yt ical test m ethod regardless of whether the test method was developed by a voluntary consensus standards based organization, like ASTM, or if it is a proprietary analy tical test method, that is, non
- VCSB test method. We recognize that imposing the qualification requir ement on existing and operational installations of all methods without adequate lead time may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give such laboratories (i.e., those in operation when this

454 ASTM D 6708
- 08, entitled, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between T wo Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material. 455 ASTM D 6708
- 08, entitl ed, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between T wo Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 335 of 842 proposal is published) a grace period of one year from the ef fective date of the final rule before they

must have qualified if they wish to continue in operation. We believe that a ye ar should be enough time to determine whether an existing test method is likely to qualify or to adopt and qualify

a replacement tes t method if it should fall short. New installations of previously accepted methods, including alternatives, would be required to qualify their laboratory

before being put into service just like all other installations of new test methods in a laboratory
. **B. Engine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs**  We are proposing several technical amendments to existing regulatory requirements for motor vehicles and other ty pes of vehicles and engines. These changes are intended to align with the Tier 3 standards proposed in this rule and to make various adjustments and corrections to the regulations. We are also proposing to remove large portions of obsolete regulatory text and update cross references accordingl y. We request comment on all these amendments. However, we are not requesting comment on the underlying regulatory

requirements except as specifically described in this section. 1. Fuel Econom y Labeling EPA adopted updated fuel econom y labeling requirements in 40 CFR part 600 on July 6, 2011. 456 The label display s a sm og rating based on relative emission rates for certified vehicles. With new Tier 3 standards, this rating scale becomes less useful, since the Tier 3 standards would disallow certification to half of the existing smog ratings. We are therefore proposing a new smog rating scale starting in model ye ar 2018. M anufacturers choosing to transition to the Tier 3 NMOG+ NO X standards based on a percentage phase
- in could continue to meet Tier 2 standards for the “phase
- out” fraction of the fleet through model year 2020 , but would use a new smog rating scale that lines up, to the extent possible, the Tier 2 standards with the new Tier 3 scale . We believe it is appropriate to shift to the new scale in model ye ar 2018 to reflect the start of Tier 3 program for the ma

jority of vehicles. The smog rating scale ranges from 1 to 10 . T he Federal Tier 3 program comprises seven different NMOG+NO X emission certification levels. In addition, the California ZEV program for 2018 and later model years includes a unique TZEV category , which falls between a ZEV (Bin 0) and a SULEV20 (Bin 20), resulting in a total of eight emission standards. 457 We propose to omit rankings 2 and 4, r anking the eight emission levels in order over the remaining ratings. Omitting ratings 2 and 4 help s convey the larger absolute differences in the g/mile standards between Bins 70 and 125 and Bins 125 and 160.

456 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011). 457 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/fro2rev.pdf******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 336 of 842 We also propose to adjust the scale again in model year 2025 so that, consistent with the fuel econom y and greenhouse gas rating, the middle of the scale (a smog rating of 5 or 6) is equivalent to the fleet average standard of 0.030 g/mile for NMOG + NOx. Using this approach, we would apply a smog rating of 8 for TZEVs and omit 9 from the smog ratings . We request comment on applying smog ratings to TZEV vehicles; in particular, we request comment on any appropriate differentiation of TZEV vehicles, such as assigning different smog ratings based on the particular SULEV exhaust emission standards or the allowance value for different all
- electric range values. We request comment on these and other alternative approach es to revising the specifications for the smog rating on the fuel economy label. We also request comment on whether one or more transition rating scales would be appropriate to graduall y adjust the smog rating scale as the fleet average standards become more stringent. 2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text EPA regulations for highway and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment in many cases apply

for a range of model years before being replaced by a new set of standards, requirements, and other provisions for implementing a program that changes to reflect technological innovation, changing environmental needs, new business dy namics, and other factors. We are proposing to take steps in thi s rulemaking to remove substantial portions of regulatory

text that no longer have any regulatory

significance, generall y because they have been superseded b y newer provisions. In many cases, this simply

involves removing paragraphs or sections related to certifying products that no longer apply to 2004 or newer model years. In other cases, we can remove whole subparts that apply only to engines and vehicles that have reached the end of their useful lives for the purpose of regulation. For example, the i n - use regulations from 40 CFR part 86, subpart H, applied only

for 1993 through 2003 model year light
- duty vehicles, light
- duty

trucks, and medium
- duty

passenger vehicles. Also, the National LEV standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart R (and in Appendix XIII through XVIII of part 86), applied only for 1999 through 2003 model ye ars. These subparts, and references to that content, can be removed from the CFR. Similarly , the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, applied to light
- duty vehicles only

through mo del year 2000 for light
- duty vehicles and model year 2004 for light
- duty trucks and chassis
- certified heav y - dut y vehicles. Much of that subpart continues to apply

for heavy
- duty

engines, so the obsolete portions must be removed more selectivel y. The prop osal includes removal of substantial portions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, to omit text that applies only for light
- dut y vehicles or light
- duty trucks, and additional portions that do not apply for any 2004 or newer model years. There are also instances where we are proposing to streamline the organization of regulatory

sections in 40 CFR part 86. For those places where there is a new section for a given model ye ar where all the old provisions continue to apply , and the new section******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 337 of 842 introduces a narrow a dditional provision, we are proposing to cop y the new paragraph into the section for the older model
- ye ar provisions, with descriptive language in place to say when the new provision applies. This consolidation would allow us to take out numerous sections that can lead to confusion for the reader. The following sections describe additional changes to remove material. a. Certification Short Test and I/M Provisions Inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs have been implemented by state and local governments f

or many years. These programs have been effective at identifying vehicles that need some kind of repair to restore vehicles’ emission control sy stems. In that context, they

have also provided useful information to facilitate warranty coverage where defec tive components or sy stems were still covered b y the manufacturer’s warranty , as required by

section 207 of the Clean Air Act. In 1993, EPA adopted a requirement for the certification short test (“CST” or “cert short test”). 458 The purpose of the cert short test was to correlate the vehicle manufacturer’s certification and I/M testing. Under this approach, the vehicle manufacturer certifies that a properly maintained and operated vehicle will pass I/M testing. When such a vehicle fails I/M during the warrant y period, the manufacturer is responsible for the cost of repairs necessary to correct the problem so the vehicle can pass the I/M test. EPA adopted requirements in 1993 for manufacturers to design and build their vehicles with OBD, which provide s perfo rmance feedback for evaluating whether emission control sy stems are functioning properl y. This rule, combined with fleet turnover, has resulted in vehicles subject to I/M being equipped with OBD. The standard protocol for I/M programs now depends on the O BD s ys tem instead of tailpipe tests to determine which vehicles need maintenance. Since vehicle manufacturers have to certify the performance of OBD sy stems as part of the certification process, the use of OBD for I/M testing also provides a basis for det ermining that emission repairs are covered b y the manufacturer’s warranty, when necessary . For many years, manufacturers have submitted a compliance statement for certification instead of submitting data to demonstrate that they

meet the standards associated with the cert short test. Since emission measurements are no longer part of an y s tandardized I/M testing, it has become clear that OBD s ys tems have completel y replaced the cert short test as the means of making warranty

determinations for I/M testing. We are therefore proposing in this rule to entirely

remove the cert short test standards and test procedures from 40 CFR part 86, subparts O and S, and to similarly remove the emission measurement procedures from 40 CFR part 85, subpart W. The remaining regulatory text in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W, relates onl y to the role of OBD testing in the determination of manufacturers’ warranty obligations resulting

458 58 FR 58382 ( November 1, 1993)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 338 of 842 from I/M testing. In addition to removing material that no longer applies based on model ye ars, we are proposing to update this remaining text in two way s. First, we are expanding the scope to include medium
- duty personal vehicles since these vehicles are now subject to both OBD certification requirements and I/M testing. Second, we are replacing all citations to SAE reference procedures with a cross
- reference to 40 CFR 86.1806, where we already specify all the relevant OBD reference procedures. This avoids the possibility

of changing the certification procedures in a way that departs from the I/M and warrant y provisions. Since these programs are paired, there would never be a need to specify

different reference procedures for the two programs. b. Testing for Heav y - Dut y Highway Engines We recentl y completed the migration of test procedures for heav y - dut y highway engines from 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, to 40 CFR part 1065. Now that these manufacturers are all relying the new test procedures, we are proposing to eliminate the regulatory

provisions that no longer apply . This involves large portions of text in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, that have been superseded b y analogous material in 40 CFR part 1065, such as anal yz er specification s , calibration procedures, calculation methods, and fuel specifications. The obsolete text also included several references t o 40 CFR part 86, subpart D, which we are also proposing to no longer print in the CFR. We are keeping regulatory provisions in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, that serve as the “standard
- setting part” for matters related to testing, such as the duty c ycles and not to - exceed test procedures. These provisions are unique to heav y - dut y highway engines and are therefore not suitable for the general test specifications in 40 CFR part 1065. In the case of testing in
- use engines that were originally certified using the procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, we are including a regulatory provision that would allow EPA and manufacturers to continue to use the original certification procedures as a pre
- approved alternate procedure. c. Testing for Heav y - Dut y Highway Vehic les The regulations at 40 CFR part 85, subpart M, describe how to test heav y - duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to demonstrate compliance with evaporative emission standards. Most of these provisions are identical to those that apply under 40 CFR part 86 , subpart B. This can better be accomplished with appropriate references to the procedures in subpart B instead of repeating text. Relying on references to subpart B would eliminate many

pages of unnecessary

printing, but it would also make it easier for us to maintain a consistent set of requirements. Changing a provision in subpart B would automatically

apply for evaporative testing of heavy
- dut y vehicles without making that duplicate change in subpart M. In addition, as noted in Section IV.C, we are proposing to allow manufacturers of these vehicles to rel y on an engineering anal ys is instead of performing new tests. This would further reduce the need to have separate requirements spelled out for these vehicles. The revised regulations preserve provi sions that are specific to heav y - dut y vehicle testing. In particular, the heav y - duty procedure involves******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 339 of 842 testing with a different driving schedule and wider speed tolerances, testing does not involve ethanol
- blended test fuel, and exhaust emissions are not measured during the drive preceding the two - day diurnal emission test. In some cases, the current regulations in subparts B and M include differences in test provisions that we are not preserving. Some of these differences arose from changes to subpart B that were inadvertentl y not carried over to subpart M. In other cases, there may have been an intentional distinction that no longer applies (such as provisions related to slippage on twin
- roll dy namometers. Perhaps the most important of these include procedures for determining road load settings and for operating manual or automatic transmissions. Additional differences we are not preserving include gas divider specifications, SHED and dy namometer calibration procedures, and some provisions for alter native canister loading and vehicle preconditioning. We are also restoring paragraphs §86.1235(b) through (i) related to dynamometer operating procedures, which were inadvertentl y removed in an earlier rulemaking. This leaner approach for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR is also consistent with our proposed change to waive evaporative testing requirements for certifying these vehicles. d. Service Information Requirements for Light
- Dut y Vehicles The service information regulations were originally adopted for li ght
- dut y motor vehicles 40 CFR 86.038
- 96. These requirements applied for 1996 and later model year vehicles. Starting with the 2001 model year, these same requirements were copied into §86.1808
- 01. These two sets of requirements are identical except for the model year applicability

and a variety

of very minor st yl istic differences. We are proposing to revise the service information regulations in §86.1808
- 01 to apply also to 1996 through 2000 model year vehicles, and to correct several ty pographical and formatting errors. These changes should have no practical significance, since the requirements are the same in both regulatory

sections. 3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules The CFR includes two separate driving schedules for motorcycles. The first , for motorcycles at or above 170 cubic centimeters (cc) , is identical to that used for light
- dut y vehicles except that the speeds are converted to kilometers per hour. The second driving schedule, for smaller motorcycles , is also identical except for a period of about three minutes of reduced
- speed operation. To simplify this arrangement, and to make room for the new LA
- 92 driving schedule described in Section IV.B for heav y - dut y vehicles, and also to allow for reference to m/s values as described above for light
- dut y vehicles, we are proposing to eliminate the identical portions of these drive schedules. This revised approach involves referencing the driving schedule for light
- duty vehicles with instructions to convert to kilometers per hour and round the resulting speeds to the nearest 0.1 kilomete r s per hour, instead of repeating the driving schedule just to publish the same speed trace in different units. The unique portion of the driving schedule is laid out, with reference to the light
- duty driving schedule for the portions that are unchanged.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 340 of 842 This is not intended to cause an y change in the current requirements or practices for certifying motorcycles. 4. Updating Reference Procedures The regulations in 40 CFR part 1065 depend on a large number of reference procedures and technical standards from ASTM, SAE International, and ISO, among others. These reference procedures and technical standards are updated periodically to keep them current with ongoing developments in the field. Many times these changes include onl y minor corrections or clarifications. In other cases the updates incorporate new test methods, accommodate changing engine technologies, or other more substantive changes. Whether the updated reference documents involve major changes or not, it is important for the regulations to rely on documents that are readil y available. Toward that end, we plan to update §1065.1010 with the latest versions of all the reference procedures and technical standards that we identify
. In areas of the regulations other than part 1065, we intend to rel y on the latest reference documents where we are changing or adding a provision that depends on one of these reference documents, but we do not plan in this rulemaking to make broad or universal changes to these references. One particular area of interest relates to rounding. As described in Section IV .F.3, w e are proposing to define “round” for 40 CFR part 86 to have the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065 .20 , which spells out a detailed rounding protocol that is consistent with ASTM E29 and NI ST SP811. The proposed definition of “round” will defer to existing references in part 86 so that the part 1065 protocol will apply onl y where we do not specificall y refer to ASTM E29. This is not intended to change the policy for calculating or reporting numerical quantities, but rather to clarify the protocol and avoid the administrative complication of referencing multiple versions of the ASTM document. 

## VII. **What ar e the Cost Impacts of the Pr**  **oposed Rule?** We have estimated the costs for bo th the proposed vehicle standards described in Section IV and the proposed fuel standards described in Section V. This section summarizes these costs, while further information on the methodology we used to develop these costs can be found in Chapters 2 a nd 5 of the draft RIA. Section VII.C provides a summary of total costs for the proposed vehicle and fuel programs together. We have also compared the proposed program costs to the projected emission reductions in Section VII.D and compared these cost
- effe ctiveness estimates to those for other programs. For a comparison of the program costs to the monetized health and welfare benefits, see Section VIII.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 341 of 842 **A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle Standards**  To determine the cost for vehicles, we first determined which t echnologies were most likely

to be applied by

vehicle manufacturers to meet the proposed standards assuming gasoline sulfur levels were reduced to a 10 ppm average. These technologies were then combined into technology packages which reflected vehicle des ign attributes that directly

contribute to a vehicle’s emissions performance. The attributes considered included vehicle type (car or truck), number of cylinders, engine displacement, and the ty pe of fuel used (gasoline or diesel). We also created separate packages for light
- dut y and heav y - dut y trucks and vans. In estimating both cost and technology application, we have relied on publicl y available information (such as that developed b y C alifornia), confidential information supplied by individual manufac turers and suppliers, and the results of our own in
- house testing. The technology packages that we developed represent what we consider to be the most likely average emissions control solution for each vehicle t ype. In general, we expect that the majority of vehicles would be able to compl y with the Tier 3 standards which we are proposing through refinements of current emissions control components and sy stems. Some vehicles may require additional emission controls, such as large trucks with large displace ment engines (in particular, LDT3s and LDT4s). Overall, smaller, lighter
- weight vehicles will require less extensive improvements than larger vehicles and trucks. Specificall y, we anticipate a combination of technology

upgrades including:

 Cataly st Platinum Group Metal (PGM) Loading. Increased catal ys t application of precious metals.

 Optimized Close
- coupled catal ys t: Improvements to the catal ys t sy stem design, structure, and packaging to reduce light
- off time.

 Optimized Thermal Management: Overall therm al management of the emissions control sy stem to improve to shorten the time it takes for the catal ys t to light
- off.

 Secondary

Air Injection: Increased application of secondary air injection for some 6
- cylinder and larger engines.

 Engine Calibration: Eng ine control and calibration modifications to improve air and fuel mixtures, particularly at cold start and/or to control secondary air and hydrocarbon adsorbers.

 Hydrocarbon Adsorber: Limited application of hydrocarbon adsorbers to trap hydrocarbons durin g cold start and release the h ydrocarbons after the catalyst lights off.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 342 of 842  Evaporative Emissions Controls: Improved evaporative emissions sy stems, including canister scrubbers, more permeation
- resistant materials, and improved sy stem integration.

 As stated above, we have developed our costs with respect to a given vehicle ty pe and the t ype of engine with which it is equipped. Although the cost of achieving the proposed Tier 3 standards will increase with the size of the vehicle and the displacement of the e ngine, we have concluded that the cost for each engine typ e is independent of the typ e of vehicle in which it is equipped. For example, we estimate that the cost of catal ys t loading for an in
line 4
- cylinder (I4) engine will be the same whether the engine is in a car or a truck. The final cost per vehicle is the result of not only the cost per technology , but also the application rate of that technology for each vehicle ty pe. For example, while the $199 (2010$) cost of secondary air injection is the same for both a 6
- cylinder (V6) and 8
- cylinder (V8) application, we anticipate that only

25 percent of the V6 applications will require this technology , while 75 percent of the V8 applications will require it. Table VII
- 1 below shows our estimate of the cost of each of the emission control technologies for the gasoline vehicles affected by this proposed rule. Table VII
- 2 provides the anticipated application rate of the technol ogy by vehicle ty pe. Note that all of the costs shown in this section are in 2010 dollars, are applicable for the 2017 MY and are marked
- up by an Indirect Cost Multiplier (I CM) so they

include both direct and indirect costs. (For details of regarding ICM s and their application refer to Chapter 2 of the draft RIA.) **Table VII**  **- 1**  **2017MY Technology Costs by Gasoline Engine Type (2010$)** Technology Gasoline Engine Ty pe a I4 V6 V8 HD c V8 Cataly st Loading $72 $ 95 $119 $60 Optimized Close
- coupled Cataly st $24 $48 $72 $72 Optimized Thermal Management $36 $36 $36 $36 Secondary

Air Injection N/R b $119 $119 N/R Engine Calibration $2 $2 $2 $2 Hydrocarbon Adsorber N/R N/R $201 N/R Evaporative Emissions Controls $ 20 $20 $20 $20

a I4

– In
- line 4
- cylinder, V6: 6
- cylinder, V8: 8
- cylinder b N/R

– Not Required c Heavy
- duty******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 343 of 842 **Table VII**  **- 2**  **Technology Application Rates for Gasoline Vehicles** Technology **Technology Application Rat e by Vehicle Type** 

I4 LDV V6 LDV V8 LDV I4 LDT V6 LDT V8 LDT HD V8 Cataly st Loading 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Optimized Close
coupled Cataly st 50% 60% 75% 50% 60% 75% 0% Optimized Thermal Management 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Secondary Air Injection N/R 25% 75% 0% 25% 75% N/R Engine Calibration 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Hydrocarbon Adsorber N/R N/R 15% 0% 0% 15% N/R Evaporative Emissions Controls 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Medium Duty

Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) were included in the light
- dut y fleet as part of Tier 2. Given their current certification requirements for criteria pollutants, we have included the costs for MDPVs to meet the Tier 3 standards with the LDT4 cost estimates. We do not expect that the technologies required to meet the Tier 3 standards for MDPVs will be different from those applied to LDT4s, as in many cases identical powertrains and chassis exist between the LDT4 and MDPV platforms. We also expect that manufacturers will continue to build and sell light
- duty diesel vehicles and certify

those vehicles to Tier 3. All light
- dut y diesel vehicles currentl y being sold in the federal fleet are equipped with some means of controlling NO X emissions, either a Lean NO X Trap (LNT) or SCR sy stem. As these s ys t ems are already very effective in controlling NO X emissions, we expect that they will remain the primary emissions control sy stems to meet Tier 3. Similar to gasoline engines, diesel powertrains may be required to improve the effectiveness of their emiss ion control sy stems during cold start. Therefore, we have developed our costs for diesels with the expectation that the incremental costs will be realized to improve LNT and SCR sy stems during cold start. The improvements have been categorized as general SCR optimization, which include packaging changes to the SCR system to allow faster light off; Optimized Thermal Management, to reduce the thermal mass of the s ystem and allow more of the combustion heat to reach the SCR system sooner; and the calibration work associated with both of these changes. Table VI I
- 3 below describes both the cost of the technologies as well as their anticipated application rates.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 344 of 842 **Table VII**  **- 3**  **2017MY Technology Costs and Application Rates for Diesel Engines (2010$)**  Technology Diesel Engine Costs (all ty pes) Li ght
- dut y and

Heav y - dut y Application Rate Optimized Thermal Management $36 25% Engine Calibration $2 100% SCR Optimization $60 100% Costs have also been estimated for HDVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. Vehicles in this range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,5001
- 10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001
- 14,000 lbs) vehicles and are typicall y full
- size pickup truck and work vans. We ap plied the same process to the heav y - dut y vehicles as we did to the light
- duty vehicles. Heav y - dut y costs and application rates may be found in Table VII
- 1 , Table VII
- 2 , an d Table VII
- 3 above. We have also considered the impacts of manufacturer learning on the technology cost estimates. We reflect the phenomenon of volume
- based learning curve cost reductions in our modeling using two algorithms, depending on where in the learning cycle (i.e., on what portion of the learning curve) we consider a technology to be: the “steep” portion of the curve for newer technologies and “flat” portion of the curve for more mature technologies. T he observed phenomenon in the economic literature which supports manufacturer learning cost reductions are based on reductions in costs as production volumes increase with the highest absolute cost reduction occurring with the first doubling of production. For additional information on technology learning refer to Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. Learning impacts have been considered on all of the technologies expected to be used with the assumption that all technologies are on the flat portion of the learnin g curve. We did not consider any of the technologies to be on the steep portion of the learning curve because none are being used for the first time in the 2017
- 2025 timeframe. Finally , we have prepared our cost estimates for meeting the Tier 3 standard s using a baseline of Tier 2 Bin 5 technologies for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs. The baseline fleet used for these cost estimates is the MY 2016 light
- dut y fleet predicted b y the 2012
- 2016 GHG Rule. The 2012 GHG Rule provides us with the clearest picture o f what the light
- dut y fleet may look like in MY 2017. Additional details on how the 2017 MY fleet (i.e., the reference case fleet for this proposal) was developed can be found in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. In short, the 2012
- 2016 GHG final rule is exp ected to result in considerable downsize of engines along with turbocharging to maintain performance. Since engines are expected to be downsized, the estimated Tier 3 costs are impacted since smaller engines are expected to incur lower costs as shown in Table VII
- 1
. Since GHG standards for the 2017
- 2025 fleet have just recentl y been finalized, we were not able to reflect their potential impacts on the baseline fleet in this proposal.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 345 of 842 We do not expect the MYs 2017
- 2025 GHG standards will change the technologies that we project will be used to comply with the proposed Tier 3 standards. However, some of the changes to the vehicle fleet expected to result from the MYs 2017
- 2025 GHG standards, such as a greater penetration of downsized engines, could lower the cost of complying with Tier 3 standards. The final Tier 3 rule will include the changes to the fleet associated with the GHG standards and the resulting impacts on cost. The evaporative emissions standards that we are proposing for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs are feasible with relativel y s mall cost impacts. We estimate the cost of sy stem improvements, including indirect cost markups, to be about $20 (2010$) per vehicle, for all car classes. This incremental cost r eflects the cost of moving to low permeability

materials, reduced number of fuel
- sy stem connections, longer contiguous lengths of plumbing, and low
- permeation connectors. We believe that learning is also appropriate for evaporative emissions control sy ste ms as described above and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. We request comment on this detailed anal ys is. In particular, we request comment on the completeness of the list of emission control components needed for meeting the Tier 3 evaporati ve emission standards, especiall y regarding purge and purge
- assist technologies. We have used the individual technology costs discussed briefl y here and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA to estimate package costs for each of the different gasoli ne and diesel engine ty pes in the fleet (i.e., I4 passenger car, V6 passenger car, etc.). We have then multiplied these package costs by the project sales estimates for the ye ars 2017 and later. The projected sales estimates used, as noted earlier, repre sent the reference case fleet mix rather than today ’s fleet mix. That fleet mix is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. With these total annual costs, we then determined the sales weighted average cost increase for all passenger cars, l ight trucks and heav y duty vehicles. Table VI I
- 4 below provides our estimates of the incremental cost per vehicle (both light
- duty

and class 2b and 3 vehicles) by model year for both tailpipe and evaporative emiss ions standards. These values reflect the total direct and indirect manufacturing costs as well as the appropriate learning rates. As stated above, a large portion of the cost is incurred in the initial model years due to the adoption of the LEV III decli ning fleet average. Costs then continue to rise as the percentage of vehicles complying with the proposed standards increases through the 2025 MY. We have estimated costs consistent with the fact that manufacturers would be required to start the phase
- i n of Tier 3 standards in MY 2017 for vehicles under 6000 lbs GVWR and MY 2018 for vehicles greater than 6000 lbs GVWR. Based on the declining fleet averages for cars and trucks, we have apportioned our estimates for full compliance across the phase
- in years as a percentage of the final standard. Manufacturers would be required to move from a Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in the 2017 MY (for vehicles <6000 lbs GVW). This results in a significant step in stringency . As a result, a large portion of the costs are expected to be incurred in the initial model years. It is also important to note that while we are aligned with CARB on the individual cost of each technology and their application rates, our costs are different from California’s LEV III costs due to the fact that the California fleet is currently meeting slightly

more stringent standards than******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 346 of 842 the federal fleet. Thus, the incremental cost for California is less. Finally, manufacturers would have the opportunity in 2015 and 2016 MY to earn Tier 3 credi ts by producing a fleet that is cleaner than the current Tier 2 requirements. While we expect that most manufacturers would earn credits, either b y s elling California vehicles as 50 state vehicles or b y certifying existing vehicles to lower Tier 2 bins, w e have not reflected these credits in our cost analy sis. In that way , we believe that our cost estimates are conservative. **Table VII**  **- 4**  **Per Vehicle Costs by Model Year Model Year**  **2017 2018**  **2019 2020**  **2021 2022**  **2023 2024**  **2025** $/car $78 $87 $92 $99 $103 $112 $111 $115 $118 $/truck $0 $105 $114 $127 $136 $150 $151 $159 $165 Li ght
- dut y Combined $50 $94 $100 $109 $115 $125 $124 $130 $134 $/2b (Truck or Van) $0 $43 $50 $58 $64 $73 $69 $68 $66 $/3 (Truck or Van) $ 0 $38 $46 $55 $63 $73 $69 $68 $66 Total annual costs are shown below in Table VI I
- 5 . This table includes all costs associated with the proposed T ier 3 vehicle standards, i.e., both exhaust and evaporative emissi on standards, for both light
- duty vehicles and 2b and 3 heav y - duty pickup trucks and vans. Also included are facility related costs associated with the proposed requirements to conduct more PM testing on gasoline vehicles. (Additional detail regarding the PM facility costs are described below.) We show the facility costs in the ye ar 2016 even though the program does not begin until 2017. These costs represent the construction cost that would have to be done in advance of the first ye ar of the standards in preparation for the testing efforts that would be required. The annual costs shown for each cost element are undiscounted annual costs for the years 2016 through 2025, then 2030, 2040 and 2050. The present values shown are for the y ears 2012
- 2050 at both the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. We have shown present values in 2012 for comparison to EPA’s 2012
- 2016 GHG final rule and the recent MYs 2017
- 2025 GHG rule and to more closely

estimate the costs of the program today
. **Table VII**  **- 5**  **Undiscounted Annual Costs & Costs of the Vehicle Program Discounted back to 2012 at 3% and 7% Discount Rates (Millions of 2010 Dollars)** 

Exhaust Evap Facilities******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 347 of 842 Year Li ght
- dut y 2b/3 All Li ght
- dut y 2b/3 All All Total 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22.5 $22.5 2017 $634 $0 $634 $71.4 $0 $71.4 $3.75 $709 2018 $1,150 $23.1 $1,170 $167 $3.86 $171 $3.75 $1,340 2019 $1,240 $28.6 $1,270 $159 $3.76 $162 $3.75 $1,440 2020 $1,350 $34.2 $1,380 $216 $5.22 $221 $3.75 $1,600 2021 $1,47 0 $40.0 $1,510 $208 $5.09 $213 $3.75 $1,730 2022 $1,580 $46.5 $1,630 $264 $6.52 $271 $3.75 $1,900 2023 $1,610 $44.8 $1,660 $253 $6.27 $259 $3.75 $1,920 2024 $1,720 $44.8 $1,770 $257 $6.38 $263 $3.75 $2,040 2025 $1,830 $44.9 $1,870 $246 $6.12 $253 $3.75 $2,130 2030 $1,750 $46.5 $1,790 $246 $6.74 $253 $3.75 $2,050 2040 $1,750 $51.9 $1,800 $246 $7.52 $254 $3.75 $2,060 2050 $1,750 $58.6 $1,810 $246 $8.49 $255 $3.75 $2,070 NPV, 3% $29,900 $814 $30,700 $4,250 $116 $4,360 $89.1 $35,100 NPV, 7% $14,700 $38 4 $15,100 $2,090 $55.0 $2,150 $52.2 $17,300 In addition to considering the costs associated with improving the emission control sy stems on vehicles, we also expect that manufacturers may need to improve their capability to measure PM at the levels we are proposing. For additional information on the test procedure changes we are proposing, reference Chapter IV.F. We have used two sources of information to determine the appropriate costs for upgrading test facilities for PM measurement. The first was EPA’s own cost to upgrade its PM measurement equipment; the second was information provided b y vehicle manufacturers. The cost estimates ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 per PM test site. We recognize that the number of sites that a manufacturer would require is dependent on the number of vehicle models it expects to develop and certify in a given model year. As stated in Section IV.A, we have limited the number of certifications required per model ye ar to 25 percent of the represented durability groups, the reb y potentially

reducing the number of test sites that require upgrade. We believe that manufacturers with annual sales of one million units or less would require two facility upgrades at an average cost of $375,000. For manufacturers with greater than one million units per year annual sales we believe that four facility upgrades may

be required to meet the Tier 3 requirements. In addition to facility upgrades some manufacturers may require an additional employee for PM weigh room operation and/or PM data management. Therefore we have added the cost of 1 additional full time employee for all manufacturers. Our estimated costs for each manufacturer are show below in Table VII
- 6
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 348 of 842 **Table VII**  **- 6**  **PM Facility Costs (2010 dollars)** Annual Volume # of PM Sites

to be upgraded Cost per site Total Facility Cost (one
- time, upfront cost) Additional FTE

(annual, ongoing cost) ≤1 million 2 $375,000 $750,000 1 @ $150,000 per year > 1 million 4 $1,500,000 Total $22,500,000 $3,750,000 a FTE

– Full Time Employee **B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program**  1. Overview The sulfur control program we are proposing today is expected to resul t in many refiners further investing in sulfur control hardware and changing the operations in their refineries to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels. The proposed sulfur control program requires refiners and importers to reduce their gasoline sulfur lev els on average down to 10ppm. The ABT provisions being proposed along with the 10
- ppm average sulfur control standard would allow refiners that reduce their gasoline sulfur levels below 10 ppm to earn credits and transfer those credits to other refiners who would find it more expensive to reduce their sulfur levels down to the average standard. The ABT program would allow refiners to optimize their investments, which we believe would result in achieving the average sulfur control standard nationwide at lo wer costs. We are also proposing to either maintain the current 80
- ppm sulfur cap at the refinery gate, or to lower it only

as far as 50 ppm. We have modeled the impacts of the 80
- ppm cap, but believe that the results for a 50
- ppm cap would be comparable due to the limits on credits resulting from the 10
- ppm average. We estimate that the national average refinery costs incurred to compl y with the fully phased
- in Tier 3 sulfur control program with ABT program would be 0.89 cents per gallon, averaged over all gasoline. This estimate includes the capital costs, which are amortized over the volume of gasoline produced. In this section we summarize the methodology used to estimate the costs of Tier 3 sulfur control and our estimated costs for the program. A detailed discussion of all of these anal ys es is found in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. 2. Methodology a. Overview of the Sulfur Program Cost Methodology The basic methodology

we used to estimate the cost of sulfur control for the proposed rule is similar to that for other rulemakings. Using a refinery
- by
- refinery cost model that we developed for this rulemaking, we projected the sulfur control technology expected to be used b y each refinery, and the cost of each refinery’s sulfur control step, to estimate compli ance with the proposed sulfur control program. We aggregated the individual refinery

costs to develop a national average cost estimate for the proposed******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 349 of 842 sulfur control program. Based on the flexibilities offered b y the ABT program, refiners are expected t o come very close to achieving the 10
- ppm sulfur standard on average. Linear Programming Cost Model We considered performing our cost assessments using a linear programming (LP) cost model. LP cost models are based on a set of complex mathematical repre sentations of refineries which, for national anal ys es, are usually conducted on a regional basis. This ty pe of refining cost model has been used by the government and the refining industry for many years for estimating the cost and other implications of c hanges to fuel quality
. The design of LP models lends itself to modeling situations where every refinery in a region is expected to use the same control strategy and/or has the same process capabilities. As we began to develop a gasoline sulfur control p rogram with an ABT program, it became clear that LP modeling was not well suited for evaluating such a program. Because refineries have different equipment, process different crude oils and produce different products, refiners will choose different techno logies and run those technologies differentl y for controlling gasoline sulfur. In addition, because of the flexibility afforded by

the nationwide ABT program, we initiated development of a more appropriate refinery
- by
- refinery cost model, as described bel ow. However, the LP model remained important for providing man y of the inputs into the refinery
- by
- refinery cost model developed for this rulemaking. b. Refinery
- by
- Refinery

Cost Model In contrast to LP models, refinery
- by
- refinery cost models are useful wh en individual refineries are expected to respond to program requirements in different way s and/or have significantly

different process capabilities. Furthermore, as is the case with sulfur control, such approaches are possible when the refinery changes re quired are primarily “add on” not impacting the fundamental operation at the refinery. Thus, in the case of modeling potential gasoline sulfur control programs, we needed a model that could accuratel y simulate the variety of decisions refiners will make at different refineries, especially

in the context of a nationwide ABT program. For this and other related reasons, we developed a refinery
- by
- refinery cost model, built off the model developed for the MSAT2 rulemaking b y M athpro, specificall y to evaluate the costs and other impacts of the proposed sulfur control program. Our refinery
- by
- refinery

sulfur cost model incorporates the capacities of all the major units in each refinery in the country , as reported by the Energy

Information Administration and in the Oil and Gas Journal. Regarding operational information, we know less about how specific refineries use the various units to produce gasoline and about such factors as octane and h ydrogen costs for individual refineries. We used previous LP modeling wo rk as the basis for estimating these factors on a regional basis, and we applied the average regional result to each refinery in that region (Petroleum Administration for Defense District; PADD). We compared the gasoline volumes estimated by

the model for each individual refinery to the 2009 gasoline volumes from******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 350 of 842 the RFG data base, which was the most recent year for which data was available, and we were satisfied with the model’s volumetric estimates. 459 Refinery
- by
- refinery

cost models have been used in the past by both EPA and the oil industry

for such programs as the MSAT2 gasoline benzene control, highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards, and they are a proven means for estimating the cost of compliance for fuel control programs. While they will never precisel y m odel and predict individual refinery operations and impacts, they provide both a better assessment of the overall market impacts than the LP model and of the variation of impacts across the refineries. For this refinery
- by
- refinery sulfur cost model, we conducted a peer review process, and have received some comments on the design of our model. These comments are contained in the peer review reports placed in the docket. We intend on addressing the peer review comments, as well as any public comments that we receive on our cost anal ys is for the proposal, when we conduct the cost anal ys is for the final rule. 460 The oil industry

has also conducted a similar analy sis using a refinery
- by
- refinery cost model, and we discuss the results of the ir anal ys is at the end of this chapter. The refinery

unit responsible for the greatest contribution of sulfur to gasoline is the fluidized cataly

tic cracker unit (FCC). The FCC processes a very heavy feedstock which contains high levels of sulfur. 461 Wh en the FCC cracks this heav y, sour feedstock, a portion of the sulfur in the feed to the FCC ends up in the FCC naphtha, an important gasoline blendstock stream. 462 Before the Tier 2 sulfur control program was implemented, FCC naphtha contributed over 95 pe rcent of the sulfur to a refinery ’s gasoline, and now that Tier 2 has been full y implemented it still contributes roughl y 80 to 90 percent for those refineries with FCC units. To comply with the Tier 2 sulfur control program, most refiners installed FCC n aphtha h ydrotreaters (FCC postreaters) and some refiners installed FCC feed hydrotreaters (FCC pretreater) to reduce that unit’s sulfur

459 Our refinery
- by
- refinery analysis is better able to model the impacts of gasoline sulfur control than the refinery LP, yet, it is still limited by the lack of specific information on each refinery. Despite our commitme nt to accurately model the baseline operations of each refinery, we recognize that without detailed refinery
- specific operations information at our disposal, actual individual refinery changes will vary from our predictions. Particular refineries may choo se a different sulfur control path than that estimated by our analysis for a number of reasons, including differences in the baseline and our lack of knowledge for investment and ABT program use preferences for each refiner. We believe, though, that overa ll our refinery cost model captures the strategies and costs for complying with the sulfur control program. 460 Our review of most of the suggested changes recommended by the peer reviewers suggested that there wo uld be little to no change in our desulfurization cost estimate (some of the changes would increase the estimated costs, while others would reduce the estimated costs). Also, we anticipate making other im provements to the cost analysis conducted for the final rule, which would necessitate a second r ound of peer review
. 461 A hydrocarbon stream which contains large amounts of sulfur is also referred to as being sour. In general, the heavier the hydrocarbon portion of crude oil, the higher the natural sulfur content. 462 On average, the fluidized cataly tic cracker supplies about 35 percent of a refiner’s gasoline output.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 351 of 842 contribution to their gasoline pool. The technologies installed include Axxens Prime G+, E xx on - Mobil Scanfining, CDTech ’s CDHydro and CDHDS, Phillips S
- Zo rb and UOP’s ISAL (UOP now offers a postreating technology named Selectfining). Despite the much lower sulfur contribution to the gasoline pool b y the FCC after compl yi ng with Tier 2, the vendors which supplied sulfur co ntrol technology for compl yi ng with Tier 2 sulfur control program have informed us that to comply with a more stringent sulfur standard refiners are expected to further reduce the sulfur in the FCC naphtha. We contacted each of those technology

vendors an d some of them provided information that we used to estimate the cost of lowering the sulfur in the FCC naphtha to allow each refinery to reduce the sulfur in its gasoline to 10 ppm. We also reviewed literature that is available on the Web to further educ ate ourselves of what would be involved to achieve a 10
- ppm sulfur standard using postreating. Gasoline desulfurization vendors were pessimistic that the operations of FCC pretreaters could be adjusted to enable those refineries who relied on those units to comply with the Tier 2 sulfur standard to meet a 10
- ppm sulfur standard. For the refineries solely

rel yi ng on FCC pretreaters to comply with Tier 2, desulfurization vendors project that most refineries in this situation will put in grassroots FCC postreaters to allow those refineries to comply with a 10
- ppm gasoline sulfur standard. However, since adding grassroots FCC postreaters is expensive for the amount of sulfur reduction obtained, the ABT anal ys is we conducted avoided many of these t ypes of inv estments. Instead refineries with both pre
- and postreaters today are quite able to achieve further gasoline sulfur reductions less than 10 ppm at a relatively low incremental cost and selling the credits to those refineries who would otherwise be faced with grassroots FCC postreater investments. In addition to addressing the sulfur in the FCC naphtha, we believe that some refineries may

need to reduce the sulfur in at least a couple of other gasoline blendstocks to ensure that it would be able to comply with a 10
- ppm sulfur standard. One such gasoline blendstock is light straight run (LSR) naphtha. Most refiners h ydrotreat the LSR before sending that stream to an isomerization unit and therefore that stream is very low in sulfur. However, some refineri es don’t have isomerization units and probably do not hydrotreat the LSR. If LSR is not hydrotreated, we estimate that L SR could contain any where between 25 to 500 ppm sulfur. We believe that refiners that do not currentl y desulfurize their L SR could do so by either feeding it to their FCC postreater or their naphtha h ydrotreater (the hydrotreater which desulfurizes the feed to the isomerization and reformer units). Because this stream does not contain any olefins, it is an eas y stream to hydrotreat and actually improves the hydrotreating conditions within the FCC naphtha hydrotreater. The second stream that may have to be hydrotreated is butane. Butane is removed from the incoming crude oil and FCC naphtha and some of it is blended back into gasoline i n the summertime to bring the gasoline pool up to the RVP limit. However, much of the butane is transported to storage for subsequent blending into the wintertime gasoline pool. We estimate that butane can range from 1 ppm to 140 ppm sulfur, but the ty

pi cal sulfur level for butane is likely around 10 ppm. Because butane can be high in sulfur, we project that some refiners may add relativel y inexpensive******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 352 of 842 caustic extraction processes which can remove the ty pes of sulfur present in the butane pool. However, addressing butane sulfur may only be necessary

for those refineries that are reducing their gasoline sulfur levels down to 5 ppm to generate credits for sale to refiners seeking to purchase credits. The nationwide ABT program is intended to optimize sul fur reduction by allowing each refinery

to individually

choose the most cost
- effective means of complying with the program. To model this phenomenon, we first establish an estimated cost for each refinery

for reducing its gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm an d to 5 ppm. Next we ranked the sulfur control strategies for all the refineries in order from lowest to highest sulfur control cost per gallon of gasoline and estimated the impact of their projected sulfur control strategies on refinery sulfur levels. Th e model then follows this ranking, starting with the lowest
- cost refineries, and adds refineries and their associated control technologies one
- by
- one until the projected national average gasoline sulfur level reaches 10 ppm. This modeling strategy project s the sulfur control technology that will be used by each refinery , as well as identifies those refineries that are expected to generate credits and those that are expected to use credits in lieu of investing in sulfur control. The sum of the costs of the refineries expected to invest in further sulfur control provides the projected overall cost of the program. 3. Summary

of Costs without ABT Program a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed Sulfur Control Program We used a refinery
- by
- refinery cost model to estimate the costs of the sulfur control program being proposed today . In general, the cost model indicates that further desulfurizing the FCC naphtha will be the most cost
- effective means for achieving sulfur control. We accounted for additional costs to refi ners for desulfurizing their light straight run naphtha, in the case where we estimate that the light straight run naphtha is not being desulfurized today
. Based on the results of our cost anal ys is, we estimate that for each refinery to get to a 10
- ppm average level, (without the benefit of trading) the proposed sulfur control program would cost 0.97 cents per gallon when it is fully phased
- in, assuming that capital investments are amortized at a seven percent return on investment before taxes and express ed in 2010 dollars. Refiners would be expected to make $2,527 million in capital investments to achieve this sulfur reduction. We also estimated annual aggregate costs, including the amortized capital costs, associated with the new fuel standard. Whe n the 10
- ppm gasoline sulfur standard would take effect in 2017, we estimate that the sulfur standard would cost $580 million per year. b. Distribution of Refinery Costs The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated costs vary significantl y refinery
- by
- refinery
. Figure VII
- 1 summarizes the estimated per
- gallon******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 353 of 842 costs for compl yi ng with the sulfur control standard if no ABT program were implemented.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 354 of 842 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 50 3. 00 3. 50 4. 00 4. 50 5. 00 5. 50 6. 00 6. 50**N u** **m b** **e r** **o f** **r e** **f i** **n e** **r i** **e s** 

**cents/gallon Figure**  **VII -**  **1 Projected Refinery**  **- by**  **- Refinery Sulfur Control Costs for the Proposed** 

**Sulfur Control Program Assuming No ABT Program********* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 355 of 842 Figure VI I
- 1 shows that the sulfur control costs would vary from no cost to almost 6.5 cents per gallon. Some refineries have no FCC unit and thus, their gasoline is naturally low in sulfur and these refineries will not reduce their gasoline sulfur levels and not incur a sulfur control cost. 4. Summary

of Costs with ABT Program The estimate d costs described in Section VII.B.3 above assume that every individual refinery

must achieve the proposed 10
- ppm sulfur standard on an annual average basis. However, as described in Section V.A.4, we are also proposing an ABT program that is designed to ease the overall burden on the industry while still achieving the 10
- ppm annual average sulfur standard for the nation as a whole. Under the proposed ABT program, refineries that can reduce sulfur below 10 ppm at a relativel y low cost can generate credits which can then be obtained b y refiners for whom the cost of attaining the 10
- ppm sulfur standard would be relativel y high. The net effect of this credit trading would be to reduce the overall cost of the program. To estimate the impact that the ABT program could have on nationwide average fuel costs, we began with the refinery
- by
- refinery costs described in Section VII.B.2.b for sulfur reductions down to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm. We then determined the lowest cost option among three alternatives for each r efinery : 1. The refinery

reduces its sulfur to 10 ppm. 2. The refinery

reduces its sulfur to 5 ppm and generates credits for the increment between 10 ppm and 5 ppm. 3. The refinery

does not lower sulfur, but instead relies on the purchase of credits to comply

with the 10
- ppm standard. A fourth category

applied to refineries whose average gasoline sulfur levels are already below 10 ppm (there refineries don’t have FCC units). All such refineries were assumed to generate credits for the increment between 10 ppm and their current sulfur level. To simplify

the modeling of how an ABT program might operate, we focused on the circumstances that refineries would face in the longer term, specificall y after 2020. This approach meant that the ABT program modeling did not consider the impact on gasoline sulfur levels of delayed compliance for small refiners and small volume refineries, nor did it consider the generation and use of an y earl y sulfur credits. Moreover, our ABT modeling considered onl y gasoline sold fo r use outside of California, and only gasoline produced by

domestic refineries (not importers). To optimize the nationwide average costs under an ABT program, we determined the credit price at which the total number of credits generated was equal to the to tal number of credits consumed. For an idealized scenario in which every refinery has the******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 356 of 842 opportunity

to make credit trades with every other refinery

in the nation, we determined that more than 60 percent of refineries would be involved in either generati ng or consuming credits. The nationwide average cost of compliance with the 10
- ppm sulfur standard would be reduced from 0.97 cents per gallon to 0.79 cents per gallon. Such perfect nationwide trading, however, is not realistic. Under Tier 2 today , a s ignificant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are bought and sold within companies, but there is still a considerable amount of inter
- company trading occurring. Under Tier 3, it would be more difficult to generate credits, and also more difficult to make up for deficits, consequentl y, we also investigated how more limited credit trading might affect the average cost of compliance with the 10
- ppm sulfur standard. For instance, to address unplanned equipment downtime or other circumstances that could make future compliance more difficult, individual companies might decide to bank credits for their own use, declining to make credits that they generate at one of their facilities available to other companies. To evaluate such a scenario, we modeled a situation wherein credit trading would only

occur within companies that own more than one refinery . Of the 21 refining companies in this position, we estimated that credit generation and use would reduce compliance costs at six of them, with 18 refineries generatin g credits and 8 consuming credits. Under this scenario, total capital costs would be $2,203 million and the nationwide average cost of compliance with the 10
- ppm sulfur standard would be 0.89 cents per gallon. We have chosen to utilize the costs from thi s intra
- company trading anal ys is for the proposal. However, in reality , we expect that some inter
compan y credit transfers would still occur due to the financial incentive the highest cost refineries would provide. To the extent that some inter
- compan y c redit transfers do occur, our cost estimates can be viewed as somewhat conservative. A summary

of the ABT results assuming nationwide credit transfers and intra
compan y credit transfers (costs used in the proposal) is shown in Table VII
- 7
.

**Table VII**  **- 7**  **Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program**

No ABT ABT with intra
compan y credit transfers (proposed rule costs) ABT with

nationwide credit transfers Average fuel cost (¢/gal) 0.97 0.89 0.79 Total capital cost ($million) 2,527 2,203 1,760 Number of refineries that generate credits 0 18 46 Number of refineries that consume credits 0 8 25 Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits 111 85 40******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 357 of 842 The cost infor

mation available for this NPRM was limited to the costs of reducing sulfur to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm, and thus we were not able to estimate refinery
- specific costs of reducing sulfur to other levels. As a result, our ABT modeling could not account for sce narios in which a refinery makes some capital investments to lower sulfur to some interim level, such as 20 ppm, and then purchases credits in order to demonstrate compliance with the 10
- ppm standard. Our ABT analy sis also could not account for credit gen eration at sulfur levels other than 5 ppm. Our ABT anal ys is, then, most likely underestimates the cost savings that could occur due to ABT since the greatest efficiencies are achieved when every refinery has the option of using an y combination of capital investments and credits generation or use. For the final rule, we may investigate methods for expanding our ABT anal ys is to examine these ty pes of scenarios. a. Distribution of Refinery Costs The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated c osts vary significantl y refinery
- by
- refinery
. F igure VII
- 2 summarizes the estimated per
- gallon costs for compl yi ng with the sulfur control standard under an ABT program with intra
compan y credit transfers.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 358 of 842 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

- 0. 5 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 4 4. 5 5 5. 5 6 6. 5**N u** **m b** **e r** **o f** **r e** **f i** **n e** **r i** **e s** 

**ce nt**  **s/ gal**  **lo n**  **F igure**  **VII -**  **2 Projected Refinery**  **- by**  **- Refinery Sulfur Control Costs for the Proposed**  **Sulfur Control Program with ABT and Intra -**  **Company Credit Transfers********* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 359 of 842 While the distribution of costs shifts slightly under an A BT program with intra
compan y trading in comparison to no ABT program, F igure VII
- 2 shows that the sulfur control costs would continue to vary from no cost to nearl y 6.5 cents per gallon. b. Distribution of Refine ry Sulfur L evels We estimate that 85 out of 111 refineries would meet the 10
- ppm sulfur standard without the use of credits under the intra
- compan y trading scenario. As a result, only about 5 percent of gasoline would continue to have an annual average su lfur level above 10 ppm. These refineries tend to be smaller than average. The distribution of sulfur levels under this scenario is shown in Figure VII
- 3
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 360 of 842 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 10 12. 5 15 17. 5 20 22. 5 25 27. 5 30 32. 5 35 37. 5 40 42. 5**N u** **m b** **e r** **o f** **r e** **f i** **n e** **r i** **e s** 

**Sul fur**  **(ppm) Figure**  **VII -**  **3 Projected Refinery**  **- by**  **- Refinery Sulfur Levels for the Proposed Sulfur**  **Control Program with ABT and Intra -**  **Company Credit Transfers********* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 361 of 842 5. Other Cost Estimates Three other cost studies were recently conducted to estimate the cost of additional reduction in gasoline sulfur. All of these studies show average costs of less than 2 cents per gallon. One of these studies was conducted in October 2011 by the International Council for Clean Transportation (I CCT). 463 IC CT retained Mathpro for this anal ys is. I C CT had Mathpro anal yz e a 10
- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard in PADDs 1

– 4 (generally speaking, PADDs 1

– 4 represents the part of the U.S. east of, and including, the Rocky Mountain states). The cost presented b y ICCT is that complying with a 10
- ppm average sulfur standard would cost refiners on average 0.8 cents per gallon. This cost was calculated based on a before
- tax 7 percent return on investment, the same capital amortization basis that we use for our cost analy sis. The cost of a 10
- ppm avera ge gasoline sulfur control standard estimated b y IC CT is very close to our cost estimate. APIretained Baker and O’Brien to study the cost of additional sulfur control using a refinery
- by
- refinery cost approach with Baker and O’Brien’s Prism model. 464 API studied a 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, however, API included a very stringent 20 ppm cap standard which did not allow for an ABT program to optimize refinery investments and minimize overall costs. APImade a series of conclusions based on th e study . Perhaps the most important conclusion is that no refinery would shut down as a result of the proposed 10 ppm gasoline sulfur control standard, even though API did not study the flexibilities of an ABT program and used excessively high capital cos ts for a grassroots FCC postreater (see below). API did not report average costs, but reported the marginal costs for the cost study . Marginal costs reflect the cost of the program to the refinery or refineries which would incur the highest costs, assumi ng that the highest cost refineries would set the price (or in this case, the price increase) of gasoline. The report concluded that marginal costs after the imposition of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur program would increase the price of gasoline b y 6 to 9 cents per gallon in most markets. APIdid not define how its statement “in most markets” would appl y to the US gasoline suppl y. API also did not provide an y justification why it assumed that the refineries that would experience the

463 Mathpro (October 2011). Refining Economics of a National Low Sulfur, Low RVP Gasoline Standard, Performed for The International Council for Clean Transportation, Available at: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT04_Tier3_Report_Final_v4_All.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2011. 464 Baker and O’Brien , Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline; prepared for The American Petroleum Institute. March 2012. Available at: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/110715_LowerSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 362 of 842 highest desulfurization c ost under Tier 3 would also be the same refineries which sets the gasoline price in the gasoline market today
. Although API did not provide an average gasoline desulfurization cost in its report, we could calculate an average cost based on the gasoline vo lume and total annual costs provided. The total cost reported in the report for the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard is $2390MM/y r and the non
- California gasoline volume is 7343 thousand barrels per day . This results in an average per
- gallon desul furization cost of $0.89/bbl or 2.12 c/gal. The difference between the average cost and marginal cost (price increase) that APIis projecting is profit. Thus, API ’s anal ysis would suggest that the oil industry would profit from 10 ppm low sulfur standard by roughl y 4 to 7 cents per gallon , or roughl y $4 to $8 billion dollars per year as a result of gasoline sulfur control
. The average cost of the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard described above was calculated using API’s methodology for amortizi ng capital investments. To assess the costs consistent with OMB’s guidance for our rulemakings and to allow a direct comparison between the APIcost study and our cost study , we adjusted the API costs to be on a similar basis as our costs. We adjusted th e API costs to reflect a before
- tax 7 percent return on investment (ROI) for capital invested for the h ydrotreaters and hydrogen plants instead of the after
- tax 15 percent ROIused b y API . This lowered the APIestimated costs from 2.12 c/gal to 1.58 c/gal . API ’s 1.58 cents per gallon cost is still higher than our 0.89 c/gal cost with an ABT program that assumes intercompany trading of credits, and higher than our 0.97 c/gal for the case which assumes no ABT program. T he remaining difference between our e stimated costs and those by API are driven b y API ’s assumptions for the capital costs that would be incurred for adding grassroots FCC postreaters, or revamping existing ones
. While little detail is provided by API about what hardware comprises their des ulfurization units, the inside battery limits (I SBL) and total capital costs for the FCC postreaters and FCC pretreaters are provided in API ’s report. API’s FCC pretreaters capital costs are consistent with the capital costs that we have used for this uni t. However, the FCC postreater costs used b y AP I are much higher than what we used and have been used in the past by others. API’s capital cost for a grassroots FCC postreater is $228 million for a 35,000 bbl/day unit, or $6540 per/bbl per day . API’s ca pital cost includes the outside battery limit (OSBL) costs. In contrast, the ISBL capital cost that we used for a grassroots FCC postreater is $1500/bbl
- day for a 30,000 bbl/day grassroots unit, which increases to $1875/bbl/day when the offsite costs are added on. Thus, the APIcapital costs are about 3 1⁄2 times higher than the capital costs that we are using for a grassroots FCC postreater. To check our capital costs, we found other capital cost estimates to which we could compare our costs, including th e capital costs used by the National Petroleum Council when it studied the cost of gasoline desulfurization prior to Tier 2. Compared to the average of the rest of the capital cost estimates, the APIcapital cost for FCC postreater is about four times higher. Compared to the next highest cost******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 363 of 842 estimate, which is the FCC postreater capital cost from the Jacobs data base in the Haverl y refinery

cost model that we use, 465 the APIcapital costs are almost two times higher. An important distinction must be made with respect to the severity of desulfurization for the capital cost comparison made for compl yi ng with Tier 2 versus Tier 3. For complying with the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standard (Jacobs and NPC costs), a ty pical refinery

would have installed an FCC po streater to desulfurize the FCC naphtha from about 800 ppm down to about 75 ppm, a 725 ppm, or a 91 percent sulfur reduction. In the case of a grassroots postreater that would be installed for Tier 3, the postreater would treat FCC naphtha already low in sulfur due to the pretreater installed before the FCC unit (these refineries are currentl y compl yi ng with Tier 2 using an FCC pretreater). Thus, the new grassroots FCC postreater would only have to reduce the FCC naphtha from 100 ppm to 25 ppm, a much smal ler 75 ppm or 75 percent sulfur reduction. A grassroots FCC postreater installed for Tier 2 would ty picall y remove 10 times more sulfur than one installed for Tier 3. This is important because a significant portion of the FCC postreater capital cost is d evoted to avoiding the recombination reactions which occur when h ydrogen sulfide concentrations are high and react with the olefins contained in the FCC naphtha. Thus, a grassroots FCC postreater installed for Tier 3 would be expected to be significantly lower in capital cost compared to a Tier 2 FCC postreater
. When APIpresented the costs , they stated that their grassroots capital costs were based on an actual installation for the Tier 2 program. This could be one reason why the capital costs used by

A PIfor its cost study

of the Tier 3 program are so high. Another way to assess the API capital cost for the FCC postreaters is to compare it to the FCC pretreater cost that APIis using. FCC pretreaters are much higher pressure units and use more expensi ve metallurgy

than FCC postreaters and, for these two reasons, are much more expensive than FCC postreaters on a per
- barrel basis. However, API’s FCC postreater capital costs are about 50 percent more expensive than its own FCC pretreater capital costs, which is inconsistent with the design requirements of the units. API ’s estimated range of capital cost for revamping an FCC postreater is also higher than our range of capital cost for revamping an FCC postreater, when assessing the revamped costs as a pe rcentage of the capital cost for a grassroots unit. APIestimates that revamping an FCC postreater would cost 30 to 70 percent of the capital cost for a grassroots FCC unit. Our capital cost estimate for revamping an FCC naphtha postreaters from 17 to 50 percent of the capital cost for a grassroots FCC postreater, however, most of the revamps are estimated to cost at the lower end of that range. Were we to adjust the APIstudy

capital costs, the projected costs would fall right in line with the other stu dies.

465 The installed capital cost for an FCC postreater from the Jacobs data base was adjusted to current year dollars. This estimated installed capital cost is several years old and may not represent Jacobs current cost estimate for a FCC postreater.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 364 of 842 Our assessment of the the API study is supported by

work performed by The Emissions Control Technology Association (ECTA) which retained personnel within Navigant Economics . That study assessed the costs of a 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard and also evaluated the ICCT and API cost studies. 466 The authors made a number of conclusions. After reviewing both the ICCT and API studies, the authors found that a primary

difference in estimated costs between the two studies was the capital costs. Th e authors contacted vendor companies that license FCC postreater technologies and surveyed the companies to find out what the capital costs are for a FCC postreater. As a result of the survey , the report authors concluded that API’s capital costs were too high, and those used in the I CCT study were about right. The authors found that Baker and O’Brien has a history of exaggerating the economic impacts of EPA rules, citing the costs and other impacts of its analy sis of the 2007 on
- highway heavy
- dut y propos ed rulemaking. The authors concluded that the impact of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard on the average refining cost would likely be closer to the 1 cent per gallon estimate by the ICCT study. Furthermore, the report’s authors also pointed out that the marginal cost anal ys is conducted by

APIdid not consider the proposed averaging banking and trading (ABT) program that we were expected to propose, which would reduce the marginal costs of the Tier 3 proposed rule. **C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs**  While the estimated costs for the separate proposed vehicle and proposed fuel programs are presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B , respectivel y, it is useful to present the combined cost estimates representing our full proposal. Such combined costs are also necessary in calculating the cost
- effectiveness of the standards in today's proposal as described more full y in Section VII.D below. We have chosen to use an annual, nationwide cost format to represent the combined vehicle and program costs because this approach provides the most straightforward means for comparing vehicle costs to fuel costs, and for demonstrating the total cost impact of o ur proposed program. This approach to combined costs also provides a basis for comparing the program costs to the projected benefits as described more fully

in Section VIII. Table VII
- 8 below shows our estimated p rogram costs by year. Complete details of this analy sis can be found in the draft RIA.

**Table VII**  **- 8**  **Total Annual Vehicle and Control Costs, 2010$** Year Vehicle Exhaust Emission Control Costs Vehicle Evaporative

Emission Control Costs Facilit y Costs

($Million) Fuel Sulfur

Control Costs ($Million) Total

Proposed Program Costs

466 Schink, George R., Singer, Hal J., Economic Analysis of the Implications of Implementing EPA’s Tier 3 Rules, prepared for the Emissions Control Tec hnology Association, June 14, 2012.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 365 of 842 ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) 2016 $
- $0 $ 22.5 $ 322 $ 345 2017 $ 634 $71 $ 3.75 $ 1,289 $ 1,999 2018 $ 1,170 $171 $ 3.75 $ 1,288 $ 2,633 2019 $ 1,270 $162 $ 3.75 $ 1,285 $ 2,721 2020 $ 1,380 $221 $ 3.75 $ 1,284 $ 2 ,889 2021 $ 1,510 $213 $ 3.75 $ 1,287 $ 3,013 2022 $ 1,630 $271 $ 3.75 $ 1,289 $ 3,194 2023 $ 1,660 $259 $ 3.75 $ 1,288 $ 3,211 2024 $ 1,770 $263 $ 3.75 $ 1,289 $ 3,326 2025 $ 1,870 $253 $ 3.75 $ 1,291 $ 3,418 2026 $ 1,860 $253 $ 3.75 $ 1,295 $ 3,411 2027 $ 1,840 $253 $ 3.75 $ 1,299 $ 3,396 2 028 $ 1,830 $253 $ 3.75 $ 1,306 $ 3,393 2029 $ 1,800 $253 $ 3.75 $ 1,311 $ 3,368 2030 $ 1,790 $253 $ 3.75 $ 1,320 $ 3,367
**D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced**  This s ection summarizes the cost
- effectiveness analy sis conducted by EPA and its results. The emission reductions used to calculate the cost
- effectiveness reported here are consistent with those reductions presented as part of our inventory impacts anal ys is as described in Section III. B. The costs used to calculate the cost
- effectiveness are consistent with the vehicle and fuel control costs presented in Sections VII. A and VII.B , respectivel y. We have calculated the aggregate cost
- effectiveness which uses the costs and emission reductions for calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030, consistent with the years that we evaluated for air quality analy sis. For more information on how the cost
- ef fectiveness was calculated please refer to Section 8.2 of the draft RIA. Note that, even though we are setting new standards for PM, we believe that those standards would be met in complying with the NMOG+NO X standards with additional care being given to p roper engineering/calibration, so there is no cost associated with the new PM standard and therefore no separate cost
- effectiveness anal ys is for PM. L ikewise, as described more full y i n Sections IV.A and IV.B, while we are also proposing new standards for CO and formaldehyde, we are not attributing any of the control costs to these pollutants since the technologies employed to meet the NO X +NMOG standards would also allow the CO and formaldeh yd e standards to be met. The total program costs, the NO X+VOC redu ctions, and results of our cost
effectiveness anal ys is are provided in Table VII
- 9 . The costs of the proposed program would be higher immediately after it is implemented than they would be after several ye ars, sin ce both vehicle manufacturers and refiners can take advantage of decreasing******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 366 of 842 capital and operating costs over time. In addition, the reductions in NO X and VOC emissions would become greater as a larger percentage of the fleet contains the technologies requ ired to meet the proposed standards.

**Table VII**  **- 9**  **Cost -**  **Effectiveness in 2017 and 2030** Total Proposed Program Cost ($Million, 2010$) Total NO X + VOC Reductions (tons) Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) 2017 $1,999 32 9,162 $6,072 2030 $3,367 750,818 $4,484 

## VIII. **What ar e the Estimated Benefits of the Pr**  **oposed Rule?** This section presents EPA’s anal ys is of the criteria pollutant
- related health and environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed Tier 3 sta ndards. The vehicles and fuels subject to the proposed standards are significant sources of mobile source air pollution such as direct PM, NO X , SO X , VOCs and air toxics. The standards would affect exhaust and evaporative emissions of these pollutants fro m vehicles. Emissions of NO X (a precursor to ozone formation and secondarily
- formed PM 2.5 ), SO X (a precursor to secondarily
- formed PM 2.5 ), VOCs (a precursor to ozone formation and, to a lesser degree, secondarily
- formed PM 2.5 ) and directly
- emitted PM 2.5 c ontribute to ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 and ozone. Exposure to ozone, PM 2.5 , and air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature deaths as well as other important public health and environmental effects. For the proposal, we have estimated the health and environmental impacts in 2030, representing impacts associated with a ye ar when the program is fully implemented and when most of the fleet is turned over . Overall, we estimate that the proposed standards would lead to a net dec rease in PM 2.5 - and ozone
- related health impacts. The decrease in population
- weighted national average PM 2.5 exposure results in a net decrease in adverse PM
- related human health impacts (the decrease in national population
weighted annual average PM 2.5 i s 0.05 μg/m 3 in 2030). The decrease in population
weighted national average ozone exposure results in a net decrease in ozone
- related health impacts (population
- weighted maximum 8
- hour average ozone decreases b y 0.52 ppb in 2030). 467

467 Note that the national, population
- weighted PM 2.5 and ozone air quality metrics presented in this Section represent an average for the entire, gridded U.S. CMAQ domain. These are different than the population
weighted PM 2.5 and ozone design value metrics presented in Chapter 7, which represent the average for areas with a current air quality monitor.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 367 of 842 Using the most conserv ative premature mortality estimates (Pope et al., 2002 for PM 2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 for ozone), 468 , 469 we estimate that by 2030, implementation of the proposed standards would reduce approximately 970 premature mortalities annually and yield approximately

$ 9.5 billion in total annual benefits. The upper end of the range of avoided premature mortality estimates associated with the proposed standards (based on L aden et al., 2006 for PM 2.5 and Lev y et al., 2005 for ozone) 470 , 471 results in approximately

2,800 prem ature mortalities avoided in 2030 and yields approximately $27 billion in total benefits. Thus, even taking the most conservative premature mortality assumptions, the health impacts of the proposed standards presented in this rule would clearl y be substantial. **A. Overview**  We base our analy sis of the program’s impact on human health on peer
- reviewed studies of air quality

and human health effects. 472 , 473 These methods are described in more detail in the draft RIA that accompanies this action. Our benefits method s are also consistent with rulemaking anal ys es such as the final 2012
- 2016 MY Light
- Duty Vehicle Rule, 474 the final Portland Cement National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA, 475 the final 2014
- 2018 MY Heav y - Duty Vehicle Rule , 476 and

468 Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. (2002). Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long
- term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 1132
- 1141. 469 Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short
- term mortality in 95 US urban communities, 1987
- 2000. Journal of t

he American Medical Association , 292(19) , 2372
- 2378. 470 Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. (2006). Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
. 173 , 667
- 672. 471 Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, and J.A. Sarnat. (2005). Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric bayes metaregression analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4) , 458
- 68. 472 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html 473 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone NAAQS Regulat ory Impact Analysis
. Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html 474 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Final Rulemaking to Establish Light
-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis , Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA
- 420
- R
- 10
- 009, April 2010. Available on the int ernet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf 475 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010). Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on the Internet at < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf >. EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0472
- 0241 476 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium
- and Heavy
-Duty Engines and Vehicles: Regulatory Impact Analysis , Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quali ty , EPA
- 420
- R
- 11
- 901, August, 2011. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420r11901.pdf.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 368 of 842 the final 2017
- 2025 MY Light
- Dut y Vehicle Rule. 477 To model the ozone and PM air quality impacts of the proposed standards, we used the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model (see Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA that accompanies this preamble). The m odeled ambient air quality data serves as an input to the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analy sis Program version 4.0 (BenMAP). 478 BenMAP is a computer program developed by the U.S. EPA that integrates a number of the modeling elements used in previous analy ses (e.g., interpolation functions, population projections, health impact functions, valuation functions, analy sis and pooling methods) to translate modeled air concentration estimates into health effects incidence estimates and monetized benefits est imates. The range of total monetized ozone
- and PM
- related health impacts in 2030 is presented in Table VIII
- 1 . We present total benefits based on the PM
- and ozone
- related premature mortality

function used. The benefits ranges therefore reflect the addition of each estimate of ozone
- related premature mortality (each with its own row in Table VIII
- 1 ) to estimates of PM
- related premature mortality . These estimates represent EPA’s preferred approach to characterizing a best estimate of benefits. **Table VIII**  **- 1**  **Estimated 2030 Monetized PM -**  **and Ozone -**  **Related Health Benefits a**  2030 Total Ozone and PM Benefits

– PM Mortality Derived f rom American Cancer Society Analysis and Six
- Cities Analysis a Premature Ozone Mortality Function Reference Total Benefits (Billions, 2010$, 3% Discount Rate) b,c Total Benefits (Billions, 2010$, 7% Discount Rate) b,c Multi
- city analyses Bell et al., 2004 Total: $9.5
- $21 PM: $7.7
- $19 Ozone: $1.8 Total: $8.7
- $19 PM: $7.0
- $17 Ozone: $1.8 Huang et al., 2005 Total: $10
- $21 PM: $7.7
- $19 Ozone: $2.6 Total: $9.5
- $20 PM: $7.0
- $17 Ozone: $2.6 Schwartz, 2005 Total: $10
- $22 PM: $7.7
- $19 Ozone: $2.7 Total: $9.6
- $20 PM: $7.0
- $17 Ozone: $2.7 Meta
- analyses Bell et al., 2005 Total: $13
- $24 PM: $7.7
- $19 Ozone: $5.5 Total: $12
- $23 PM: $7.0
- $17 Ozone: $5.5 Ito et al., 2005 Total: $15
- $26 PM: $7.7
- $19 Ozone: $7.5 Total: $15
- $25 PM: $ 7.0
- $17 Ozone: $7.5 Levy et al., 2005 Total: $15
- $27 PM: $7.7
- $19 Total: $15
- $25 PM: $7.0
- $17

477 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012 ). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017
- 2025 Li ght
-Duty Vehicle Greenh ouse Gas E mission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards , Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportati on and Air Quality, EPA
- 420
- R
- 12
- 016, August 2012 . Available on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r 12016.pdf 478 Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the software, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ benmodels.html.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 369 of 842

Ozone: $7.7 Ozone: $7.7 a Total includes premature mortality
- related and morbidity
- related ozone and PM 2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of PM 2.5 - related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) or the Six
- Cities study (Laden et al., 2006). b Note that total benefits presented here do no t include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII
- 2. c Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA’s Guidelines for Pr eparing Economic Analyses and OMB Circular A
- 4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. Totals may not sum due to rounding. The benefits in Table VIII
- 1 include all of the human health impacts we are able to quantify

and monetize at this time. However, the full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM and ozone remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods and/or available data. We have not quantified a number of known or suspected health effects linked with ozone and PM for which appropriate health impact functions are not available or which do not provide easil y interpretable outcomes (e.g., changes in heart rate variability). Additionally, we are unable to quantify a number of known welfare effects, including reduced acid and particulate deposition damage to cultural monuments and other materials, and environmental benefits due to reductions of impacts of eutrophication in coastal areas. These are listed in Table VIII
- 2 . As a result, the health benefits quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the total benefits attributable to the proposed standards.

**Table VIII**  **- 2**  **Unquantified and Non -**  **Monetized Potential Effects** Pollutant/Effects Effects Not Included in Analysis
- Changes in: Ozone Health a Chronic respiratory damage b

Premature aging of the lungs b Non
- asthma respiratory emergency room visits Exposure to UVb (+/
- ) e Ozone Welfare Yields for

- commercial forests

- some fruits and vegetables

- non - commercial crops Damage to urban ornamental plants Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics Ecosystem functio ns Exposure to UVb (+/
- ) e PM Health c Premature mortality
- short term exposures d

Low birth weight Pulmonary function Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis Non
- asthma respiratory emergency room visits Exposure to UVb (+/
- ) e PM Welfare Residential and recreational visibility in non
- Class I areas

Soiling and materials damage Damage to ecosystem functions Exposure to UVb (+/
- ) e******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 370 of 842 Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition

Commer cial freshwater fishing due to acidic deposition Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition Recreation in estu arine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition Ecosystem functions Passive fertilization CO Health Behavioral effects HC/Toxics Health f Cancer (benzene, 1,3
-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde)

Anemia (benzene) Disruption of production of blood components (benzene) Reduction in the number of blood platelets (benzene) Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene) Depression of lymphocyte counts (benzene) Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3
-butadiene) Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes (formaldehyde) Respiratory irritation (formaldehyde) Asthma attacks in asthmatics (formaldehyde) Asthma
- like symptoms in non
- asthmatics (formaldehyde) Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde) Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (a crolein) HC/Toxics Welfare Direct toxic effects to animals

Bioaccumulation in the food chain Damage to ecosystem function Odor a The public health impact of biological responses such as increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung , acute inflammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our quantified endpoints. b The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage and premature agi ng of the lungs may be partially represented by quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature mortality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as doctor visits and decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified. c In addit ion to primary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints. d While some of the effects of short
- term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to short
- term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in this analysis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the expert elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of short term exposures. e May result in benefits or disbenefits. f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA. While there would be impacts associated with air toxic pollutant emission changes that result from the proposed standards, we do not attempt to monetize those impacts (Section III presents the estimated emission reductions associated with the proposal). This is primarily because currentl y available tools and methods to assess air toxics risk from mobile sources at the national scale are not adequate for extrapolation to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 371 of 842 incidence estimations or benefits assessment. The best suite of tools and methods currentl y available for assessment at the national scale are those used in the National
Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). The EPA Science Advisory Board specificall y commented in their review of the 1996 NATA that these tools were not yet ready for use in a national
- scale benefits analy sis, because they did not consider the full distribution of exposure and risk, or address sub
- chronic health effects. 479 While EPA has since improved these tools, there remai n critical limitations for estimating incidence and assessing benefits of reducing mobile source air toxics. As part of the second prospective anal ys is of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act, 480 EPA conducted a case study anal ys is of the health eff ects associated with reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act. While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analy sis concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvement as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of exposure
- response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimate s to low doses and the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods.” 481 EPA continues to work to address these limitations; however, we did not have the methods and tools available for national
- scale ap plication in time for the anal ys is of the proposed standards. 482 **B. Quantified Human Health Impacts**  Table VIII
- 3 and Table VIII
- 4 present the annual PM 2.5 and ozone health imp acts, respectivel y, in the 48 contiguous U.S. states associated with the proposed standards for 2030. For each endpoint presented in Table VIII
- 3 and Table VI II
- 4 , we prov ide both the mean estimate and the 90 percent confidence interval.

479 Science Advisory Board. (2001). NATA

– Evaluating the National
- Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996

– an SAB Advisory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html. 480 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2011). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 . Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on the Internet at <http: //www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf>. 481 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA
- SAB). (2008). Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990

–2020 . EPA
- COUNCIL
- 08
- 001. July. Available at <http://yosemite.epa .gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A548525748600728A83/$File/EPA
COUNCIL
- 08
- 001
- unsigned.pdf>. 482 In April, 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on estimating the benefits or reducing hazardous air pollutants. This workshop built upon the work accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory Board/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, which generated thoughtful discussion on approaches to estimating human health benefits from reductions in air toxics exposure, but no con sensus was reached on methods that could be implemented in the near term for a broad selection of air toxics. Please visit http://epa.gov/air/toxicair/2009workshop.html for more information about the workshop and its associated materials.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 372 of 842 Using EPA’s preferred estimates, based on the American Cancer Society (ACS) and Six
- Cities studies and no threshold assumption in the model of mortality , we estimate that the proposed s tandards would result in between 800 and 2,100 cases of avoided PM 2.5 - related premature mortalities annually in 2030. As a sensitivity analy sis, when the range of expert opinion is used, we estimate between 270 and 2,700 fewer premature mortalities in 203 0 (see Table 8.8 in the RIA that accompanies this action). For ozone
related premature mortality in 2030, we estimate a range of between 170 to 770 fewer premature mortalities.

**Table VIII**  **- 3**  **Estimated PM 2.5**  **- R**  **elated Health Impacts a**  Health Effect 2030 Annual Reduction in Incidence (5 th %
- 95 th %ile) Premature Mortality

– Derived from epidemiology literature b Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) Adult, age 25+, Six
- Cities Study (Laden et al., 2006) Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et al., 1997) 800 (310

– 1,300) 2,100 (1,100

– 3,000) 3 (0

– 8) Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) 560 (100

– 1,000) Non
- fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) 980 (360

– 1,600) Hospital a dmissions
- respiratory (all ages) c 160 (77

– 230) Hospital admissions
- cardiovascular (adults, age >18) d 380 (270

– 440) Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) 600 (350

– 850) Ac ute bronchitis, (children, age 8
- 12) 1,300 (0

– 2, 500) Lo wer respiratory symptoms (children, age 7
- 14) 16,000 (7,700

– 24,000) Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9
- 18) 12,000 (3,800

– 20,000) Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6
- 18) 27,000 (3,000

– 74,000) Work loss days 100 ,000 (88,000

– 110,000) Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18
- 65) 600,000 (500,000

– 690,000)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 373 of 842 a Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous United States. b PM
- related adult mortality ba sed upon the American Cancer Society (ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six
- Cities Study (Laden et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult mortality and should not be summed. PM
- related infant mo rtality based upon a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997). 483 c Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma. d Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and heart failure.
**Table VIII**  **- 4**  **Estimated Ozone -**  **Related Health Impacts a**  Health Effect 2030 Annual Reduction in Incidence (5th%
- 95th%ile) Premature Mortality, All ages b Multi
- City Analyses Bell et al. (2004)

– Non
- accidental Huang et al. (2005)

– Cardiopulmonary Schwartz (2005)

– Non
- accidental Meta
- analyses: Bell et al. (2005)

– All cause Ito et al. (2005)

– Non
- accidental Levy et al. (2005)

– All cause 170 (73

– 260) 250 (120

– 380) 260 (110

– 410) 540 (300

– 780) 750 (500

– 1,000) 770 (560

– 970) Hospital admissions
- respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) c 1,200 (160

– 2,200) Hospital admissions
- respiratory causes (ch ildren, under 2) 550 (290

– 810) Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) 580 (0

– 1,500) Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18
- 65) 970,000 (490,000

– 1,500,000) School absence days 350,000 (150,000

– 490,000) a Incidence is rounded to two s ignificant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S. b Estimates of ozone
- related premature mortality are based upon incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz

483 Woodruff, T.J. , J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. (1997). The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 105(6):608
- 612.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 374 of 842 (2005) ; Bell et al. (2005); Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone
related premature mortality should therefore not be summed. c Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all respiratory causes and subcategor ies for COPD and pneumonia. **C. Monetized Benefits**  Table VIII
- 5 presents the estimated monetary value of changes in the incidence of ozone and PM 2.5 - related health effects. All monetized estimates are stated in 2010$
. These estimates account for growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the present and 2030. Our estimate of total monetized benefits in 2030 for the program, using the ACS and Six
- Cities PM mortality studies and the range of ozone mortality assumptions, is $9.5 and $27 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $8.7 and $25 billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. This represents the health benefits of the Tier 3 program anticipated to occur annually when the progr am is fully implemented and most of the fleet turned over. **Table VIII**  **- 5**  **Estimated Monetary Value of Changes in Incidence of Health and**

**Welfare Effects in 2030 (Millions of 2010$) a,b**  **HEALTH ENDPOINTS 2030**  **(5 TH**  **AND 95 TH**  **PERCENTILE) PM**  **2.5 -**  **Related Health Effects** Premature Mortality

– Derived from Epidemiology Studies c,d, Adult, age 30+
- ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) 3% discount rate 7% discount rate $7,200 ($920

– $18,000) $6,500 ($830
- $17,000) Adult, age 25+
- Six
- Cities study (Laden et al., 2006) 3% discount rate 7% discount rate $18,000 ($2,600
- $45,000) $17,000 ($2,300
- $41,000) Infant Mortality, <1 year

– (Woodruff et al. 1997) $27 ($0
- $100) Chron ic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) $310 ($25
- $1,000) Non
- fatal acute myocardial infarctions 3% discount rate 7% discount rate $110 ($24
- $260) $90 ($19
- $210) Hospital admissions for respiratory causes $2.5 ($1.2

– $3.6) Hos pital admissions for cardiovascular causes $5.5 ($1.2
- $10) Emergency room visits for asthma $0.24 ($0.13
- $0.36) Ac ute bronchitis (children, age 8

– 12) $0.61******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 375 of 842 ($0.00
- $1.5) Lo wer respiratory symptoms (children, 7

– 14) $0.34 ($0.13
- $0.63) Upper respi ratory symptoms (asthma, 9

– 11) $0.40 ($0.12
- $0.89) Asthma exacerbations $1.6 ($0.17
- $4.4) Work loss days $16 ($14
- $19) Minor restricted
- activity days (MRADs) $41 ($24
- $59) **Ozone -**  **Related Health Effects** Premature Mortality, All ages

– Derived f rom Multi
- city analyses Bell et al., 2004 $1,700 ($220
- $4,200) Huang et al., 2005 $2,500 ($340
- $6,200) Schwartz, 2005 $2,600 ($330
- $6,500) Premature Mortality, All ages

– Derived from Meta
- analyses Bell et al., 2005 $5,400 ($760
- $13,000) It o et al., 2005 $7,400 ($1,100
- $18,000) Levy et al., 2005 $7,600 ($1,100
- $18,000) Hospital admissions
- respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) $32 ($4.2
- $56) Hospital admissions
- respiratory causes (children, under 2) $6.0 ($3.1
- $8.9) Emergenc y room visit for asthma (all ages) $0.23 ($0.0
- $0.57) Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18
- 65) $67 ($31
- $110) School absence days $34 ($15
- $48)
**D. What are the Limitations of the Benefits Analysis?**  Every benefit
- cost analy sis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underl yi ng scientific and economic studies used to con figure the benefit and cost models. Limitations of the scientific literature often result in the inability to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects, such as potential decreases in premature mortality associated with decreased e xposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. These general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics literature, which can lead to valuations that are higher or lower, are discussed in detail in the draft RIA and its supporting references.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 376 of 842 Key uncertainties that have a bearing on the results of the benefit
- cost analy sis of the proposed stan dards include the following:

 The exclusion of potentially significant and unquantified benefit categories (such as health, odor, and ecological benefits of reduction in air toxics, ozone, and PM);

 Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as population growth;

 Uncertainties in the estimation of future ye ar emissions inventories and air quality (including future year climate uncertainty);

 Uncertaint y in the estimated relationships of health and welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrat ions including the shape of the concentration
response function, the size of the effect estimates, and the relative toxicity of the many components of the PM mixture;

 Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and

 Uncertainties associated with the effect of po tential future actions to limit emissions. As Table VIII
- 5 indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by the reduction in premature mortalities each year. Some key assumptions underlying the premature mortality estimates include the following, which may also contribute to uncertainty:
 Inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with premature death at concentrations near those experienced b y most Americans on a daily basis. Although biological mechanis ms for this effect have not yet been completely established, the weight of the available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence supports an assumption of causality. The impacts of including a probabilistic representation of causality were explored in the expert elicitation
- based results of the PM NAAQS RIA. 484

 All fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equall y potent in causing premature mortality . This is an important assumption, because PM produced via transport ed precursors emitted from vehicle engines may differ significantl y from PM precursors released from electric generating units and other industrial sources. However, no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects estimates b y partic le ty pe.

484 U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy. (2006). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 377 of 842  The C
- R function for fine particles is approximately linear within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM, includ ing both regions that may be in attainment with PM 2.5 standards and those that are at risk of not meeting the standards.

 There is uncertainty in the magnitude of the association between ozone and premature mortality . The range of ozone benefits associated with the coordinated strategy

is estimated based on the risk of several sources of ozone - related mortality effect estimates. In a report on the estimation of ozone - related premature mortality published by

the National Research Council, a panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short
- term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that ozone
related mortality should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure. 485 EPA has requested advice from the National Academ y of Sciences on how best to quantify uncertainty in the relationship between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the context of quantifying benefits. Despite the uncertainties described above, we believe this anal ys is provides a conservative estimate of the estimated criteria pollutant
- related health and environmental benefits of the standards in future years because of the exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories that are not quantifiable at this time. Acknowled ging benefits omissions and uncertainties, we present a best estimate of the total benefits based on our interpretation of the best available scientific literature and methods supported by EPA’s technical peer review panel, the Science Advisory Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB
- HES). The National Academies of Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed EPA’s methodology

for anal yz ing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air pollution. EPA addressed man y of these comments in the analy sis of the final PM NAAQS. 486 , 487 This analy sis incorporates this work to the extent possible. **E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized Impacts Associated with the Proposal in 2017**  For illustrative purposes, this section presents the total estimated monetized benefits asso ciated with the proposed standards in 2017. As presented in Section III.B, the emissions impacts of the proposed standards in 2017 are primarily due to the effects of sulfur on the existing (pre
- Tier 3) fleet. For reasons explained in Chapter 7.1.3.2.2 o f

485 National Res earch Council (NRC), (2008). Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 486 National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Estimating the Public Health Benefits o f Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 487 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . P repared by: Office of Air and Radiation. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 378 of 842 the draft RIA, our anal ys is of the air quality impacts in 2017 reflects an increase in direct PM emissions from vehicles (along with reductions in NO X , VOCs and other pollutants). This emissions increase results from a series of conservative assumptions and uncertainties related to fuel parameters in 2017, and is not expected to occur in reality. Because our air qualit y modeling assumes this increase, as well as increased direct PM emissions due to an emissions processing error (see Chapter 7.2.1.1.2 of the draft RIA), our illustrative benefits analy sis in 2017 overestimates ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 and underestimates the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 standards. Table VIII
- 6 p resents total aggregate mo netized benefits of the program in 2017, which includes the modeled direct PM increase described above. Monetized estimates are presented in 2010$. Our estimate of total monetized benefits associated with the proposed standards in 2017, using the ACS and Six
- Cities PM mortality studies and the range of ozone mortality assumptions, is between $1.0 and $3.4 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $1.0 and $3.3 billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Had our ambient air quality modeling of PM 2.5 not included the increase in direct PM emissions, we estimate that benefits would increase b y a range of $400 to $970 million (assuming a 3 percent discount rate) or increase b y a range of $360 to $880 million (assuming a 7 percent discount rate) , using current EPA benefit
- per - ton estimates for direct PM. 488 For a more detailed presentation of the quantified and monetized impacts of the proposal in 2017, please refer to Chapter 8 of the RIA that accompanies this preamble. **Table VIII**  **- 6**  **Total Monetized Ozone and PM -**  **related Benefits Associated**

**with the Proposed Program in 2017**

488 The PM 2.5 - related benefit
- per - ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of directly emitted PM 2.5 . The benefit per - ton technique has been used in previous analyses, including the 2012
- 2016 Light
- Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (U.S. EPA, 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Rulemaking to Establish Light
- Duty Vehicle Gre enhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf. EPA
- 420
- R
- 10
- 009). The benefits
- per - ton values are avai lable at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/benmap/bpt.html . Note that the values on the website are presented in year 2006$; the values underlying the estimates here have been adjusted to 2010$ using the CPI
- U “all” index.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 379 of 842 **Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)**

**– PM Mortality Derived from**  **the ACS and Six -**  **Cities Studies 3% Discount Rate**  **7% Disco unt Rate**  Ozone Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Ozone

Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Multi
- city Bell et al.,

2004 $1.0
- $1.8 Multi
- city Bell et al., 2004 $0.96
- $1.7 Huang et al., 2005 $1.2
- $1.9 Huang et al., 2005 $1.2
- $1.9 Schwartz, 2005 $1.3
- $2.0 Schwartz, 2005 $1.2
- $1.9 Meta
- analysis Bell et al.,

2005 $2.1
- $2.8 Meta
- analysis Bell et al., 2005 $2.0
- $2.7 Ito et al., 2005 $2.6
- $3.4 Ito et al., 2005 $2.6
- $3.3 Levy et al., 2005 $2.7
- $3.4 L evy et al., 2005 $2.6
- $3.3 **Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)**

**– PM Mortality Derived from**  **Expert Elicitation (Lowest and Highest Estimate) 3% Discount Rate**  **7% Discount Rate** Ozone Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Ozone

Morta lity Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Multi
- city Bell et al.,

2004 $0.68
- $3.8 Multi
- city Bell et al., 2004 $0.67
- $2.0 Huang et al., 2005 $0.89
- $2.4 Huang et al., 2005 $0.87
- $2.2 Schwartz, 2005 $0.93
- $2.4 Schwartz, 2005 $0.91
- $2.3 Meta
- analysis Bell et al.,

2005 $1.7
- $3.2 Meta
- analysis Bell et al., 2005 $1.7
- $3.1 Ito et al., 2005 $2.3
- $3.8 Ito et al., 2005 $2.3
- $3.6 Levy et al., 2005 $2.3
- $3.8 Levy et al., 2005 $2.3
- $3.7



## IX. **Alternatives Analysis**  As described thro ughout this preamble, we have considered a number of regulatory

alternatives in the development of this proposal, including alternatives related to timing and stringency

of the proposed standards, as well as program design (e.g., averaging, banking, and tr ading). This section summarizes the alternatives considered for both vehicle emission and fuel standards.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 380 of 842 **A. Vehicle Emission Standards**  The federal vehicle emission standards we are proposing are the most stringent feasible considering anticipated developments in motor vehicle emissions control technology . As we considered options for these vehicle standards, one of the important factors we considered was harmonization with the CARB LEV III program. As a result, consideration of alternatives focused less o n the level of the per
- vehicle standards themselves and more on the phase
- in schedule for the standards, which can have an important influence on the cost of the standards. Phase
- in schedules directly impact costs depending on how they

are aligned with other light
- duty rules and product design cycles. In addition, phase
- in schedules can impact the cost of available resources, specificall y design, development and testing resources within vehicle manufacturers and emission control suppliers. 1. Shorter NMOG+NO X Standard Phase
- in We originall y considered requiring full implementation of the final NMOG+NO X final fleet average standard by MY 2022. However, we determined that this would have disrupted the manufacturer’s normal product design cycles, 489 and it woul d not have allowed manufacturers to use a consistent product design cycle for both the Tier 3 standards and the 2017 LD GHG standards, which reach full implementation in MY 2025. We are proposing to extend the phase
- in schedule to MY 2025 in order to all ow vehicle manufacturers to better integrate the compliance with Tier 3 into their product design cycles, as well as take advantage of additional learning to reduce costs. We believe this implementation schedule for the Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards would all ow us to achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost and burden on the industry
. 2. Longer NMOG+NO X Standards Phase
- in Due to Early Credits In an effort to facilitate the step
- down in fleet average stringency in the initial model ye ars of the Tier 3 program, we considered allowing manufacturers to earn credits against the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average and use earned earl y credits without any limits for the first five years of the Tier 3 program. CARB, along with some vehicle manufacturers, noted that if a manufacturer were to substantially over comply

with the Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average, these earl y credits might not only delay achievement of the Tier 3 emission levels, but also delay harmonization between the Tier 3 and LEV III programs for man y years. To address this potential misalignment, we are proposing that the application of the early credits be capped starting in MY 2018 at a manufacturer’s LEV III credits adjusted by the ratio of California and Section 177 state sales to federal sales. (See Section IV.A.7.a for more details.) This proposed approach would balance

489 A light
- duty

vehicle product design cycle is the number of years between major redesigns of a vehicle. Ty pically, major redesigns are completed every 5 to 6 years.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 381 of 842 the need for some transition flexibility to avoid unnecessary

costs, while still ensuring expeditious harmonization with LEV III and achievement of the enviro nmental benefits of the Tier 3 standards. 3. Shorter PM Standards Phase
- in As we considered potential PM phase
- in schedules, we gave strong consideration to manufacturers’ PM testing capabilities and product design cycles. We considered requiring manufacture rs to certify 25 percent of their fleet to the Tier 3 PM standards in MY 2017, ramping up to 100 percent b y MY 2020. We initially believed that this schedule would allow manufacturers to focus engineering resources on ensuring their new products meet the proposed Tier 3 standards while other product lines, which we expect would be phased out due to the 2017 LD GHG standards, expire. However, based on further discussions with the vehicle manufacturers, we recognized that they need time to improve and expan d their facilities to measure PM, not only for compliance determination but also for product development work prior to production. As a result, we are proposing a phase
- in schedule for meeting the proposed Tier 3 PM standards that starts with 20 percent o f the vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR in MY 2017 and ramps up to 100 percent of the light
- dut y fleet in MY 2021. As with the NMOG+ NO X phase
- in discussed above, we believe this proposed phase
- in schedule for the Tier 3 PM standards would allow us to ac hieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost and burden on the industry
. 4. NMOG+NO X Standards We believe that the fleet
- average NMOG+NO X standards that we are proposing reflect the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable cons idering cost and technology , assuming that gasoline sulfur levels are reduced to the proposed 10
- ppm average. We also believe the proposed implementation schedule for the NMOG+ NO X standards is as short as practicable, as explained above. As a result, we believe more stringent standards would not be justified based on the information currently available to EPA. Therefore, given our goal to harmonize our program with CARB’s at the 30 mg/mi level, we did not conduct an y detailed analysis of a less stringe nt fleet average standard. Based on the work done to quantify the impacts of the 30 mg/mi standard, however, we can say

that a fleet
- average standard of 50 mg/mi of NMOG+NO X would result in NMOG+NO X emissions in 2030 that are about 100,000 tons higher than the standards we are proposing. While costs would be lower because the emissions controls discussed in Section VII.A would be applied at a lower rate, such a standard would also not be harmonized with CARB LEV III standards. 5. PM Standards The PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of this proposal. Although CARB has proposed a 1 mg/mi standard which will begin phasing in with MY 2025, they acknowledge that there is a need for continuing PM measurement method development******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 382 of 842 prior to implementing this standard. 490 The EPA believes that in order to propose a federal PM standard at this level, there should be established methods to reliably and consistently

measure PM at level s at and below that standard that would be needed for ensuring compliance. **B. Fuel Sulfur Standards**  As explained in Section V.A.2., we believe that a 10
- ppm annual average standard is sufficient to enable the vehicle fleet to meet the proposed Tier 3 standa rds and appropriatel y balances feasibility with costs. Other countries and California have also reduced the sulfur content of their gasoline; California’s gasoline is already meeting our proposed 10
- ppm average sulfur level, and Europe and Japan have a ca p on the sulfur content of gasoline at 10 ppm. Because vehicle emission performance improves as sulfur is reduced, we considered imposing a 10
- ppm cap (i.e., no averaging, banking and trading), as well as lowering gasoline sulfur content below the 10
- ppm average (see Section V.A.6). We considered expressing the standard as a cap similar to the standard in Europe and Japan. However, b y allowing averaging to meet 10 ppm, we believe that the most challenged refiners would be able to avoid what could be cos t - prohibitive investments, while still meeting 10 ppm across the fuel pool. As discussed in Section VII.B., we estimate that allowing averaging would reduce nationwide control costs by nearl y 10 percent, and would still be sufficient to enable vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards. We also considered an even lower sulfur standard of 5 ppm. Based upon the results of our test programs and associated modeling, a sulfur standard of 5 ppm could reduce VOC+NO X emissions from the existing fleet by an ad ditional 80,000 tons in 2017. However, we believe a 5 ppm standard would significantly increase both capital and operating costs. Such a standard would require: (1) more severe treatment of FCC gasoline; (2) more overcapacity and storage for reprocessing of off
- specification product; (3) treatment of additional (non
- FCC) gasoline blendstocks; (4) essentiall y all refineries to reduce sulfur to 5 ppm, thereb y eliminating much of the benefit of the ABT provisions, and (5) controlling the contribution to gaso line sulfur from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and contamination in the distribution sy stem. In our anal ys is of the 10
- ppm average standard and refineries that might reduce sulfur to 5 ppm in order to generate credits, we estimated that the sulfur control costs to achieve 5 ppm would be more than 50 percent greater than for our proposed 10
- ppm standard. This is more than twice as high on a cost per ppm
- gallon basis. Additionally , as explained earlier, a 5 ppm standard would likely resu lt in the elimination of the ability for

490 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of Reaso ns, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, December 7, 2011******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 383 of 842 refineries to trade credits. Without a viable trading program it could become prohibitively

expensive for the more challenged refineries to compl y, creating a financial hardship situation. Because the costs and oth er economic impacts rise dramatically as sulfur is reduced below 10 ppm, we believe that a 10
- ppm sulfur standard is the most stringent feasible standard considering technology and cost. In addition to lower average sulfur standards, we are also considerin g lower per
gallon cap standards, which are currently set under the Tier 2 program at 80 ppm sulfur at the refinery

gate and 95 ppm sulfur downstream. As discussed in Section V.A.3., in addition to proposing that these cap standards be maintained, we are co - proposing lowering them to 50 ppm and 65 ppm respectively. Given the stringency of the 10
- ppm average standard, we do not anticipate that this would have a meaningful impact on either program costs or emission reductions. However, it would provide add ed assurance that individual vehicles would not be exposed to higher sulfur levels and the resulting impacts on emissions. Vehicle manufacturers have expressed concern that such exposure could impact not only

individual vehicle emissions, but also vehicle operation, due to interference with sensors and feedback controls. To further address concerns of vehicle manufacturers, we are also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as 25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit the temporary exposure of vehicles in
- use to sulfur levels that would significantl y degrade their emission performance. 

## X. **Econom ic Impact**  **Analysis A.**  **Introduction** The prop osed rule would affect two sectors directly : vehicle manufacturing and petroleum refining. For these two regulated sectors, the economic impact analy sis discusses the market impacts from the proposed rule, the changes in price and quantity sold. In addit ion, although anal ys is of employ ment impacts is not part of a benefit
- cost anal ys is (except to the extent that labor costs contribute to costs), employ ment impacts of federal rules are of particular concern in the current economic climate of sizeable unemp loy ment. The recently

issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory

Review” (January

18, 2011), states, “ Our regulatory s ys tem must protect public health, welfare, safety , and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovatio n, competitiveness, and job creation ” (emphasis added). For this reason, we are examining the effects of this proposal on employ ment in the regulated sectors. **B. Vehicle Sales Impacts**  This rule takes effect from MY 2017
- 2025. In the intervening ye ars, it is possible that the assumptions underlying a quantitative analy sis, as well as market conditions, might change. For this reason, we present a qualitative discussion of the effects on vehicle sales of the proposed standards at the aggregate market level. V ehicle manufacturers are expected to comply with the proposed standards primarily through******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 384 of 842 technological changes to vehicles. These changes to vehicle design and manufacturing are expected to increase manufacturers’ costs of vehicle production. Section V II.A estimates the increase in vehicle costs due to the proposed standards. These costs differ across ye ars and range from $7 1 to $1 02 for cars, $ 93 to $15 0 for trucks and $3 6 to $ 59 for Class 2b/3 vehicles (see Section VII.A). These costs are small relative to the cost of a vehicle. In a fully competitive industry , these costs would be entirel y passed through to consumers. However in an oligopolistic industry such as the automotive sector, these increases in cost may not full y pass through to the purch ase price, and the consumers may face an increase in price that is less than the increased manufacturers’ costs of vehicle production. 491 We do not quantify the expected level of cost pass
- through or the ultimate vehicle price increase consumers are expecte d to face, apart from noting that prices are expected to increase b y an amount up to the increased manufacturers’ costs. This increase in price is expected to lower the quantity of vehicles sold. Given that we expect that vehicle prices will not change by more than the cost increase, we expect that the decrease in vehicle sales will be negligible. The effect of this rule on the use and scrappage of older vehicles would be related to its effects on new vehicle prices and the total sales of new vehicles. Th e increase in price is likely

to cause the “turnover” of the vehicle fleet (i.e., the retirement of used vehicles and their replacement by new models) to slow slightly , thus reducing the anticipated effect of the rule on fleet
- wide emissions. Because we d o not estimate the effect of the rule on new vehicle price changes nor do we have a good estimate of the effect of new vehicle price changes on vehicle turnover, we have not attempted to estimate explicitly

the effects of the rule on scrappage of older veh icles and the turnover of the vehicle fleet. **C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production**  The key change for refiners from the proposed standards would be more stringent sulfur requirements. This change to fuels is expected to increase manufacturers’ costs of gasoline production b y about 0.9 cents per gallon (see Section VII.B). In a perfectl y competitive industry , this cost would be passed along completely to consumers. In an imperfectly competitive industry , as noted above, full cost pass
through i s not necessary : firms may choose to reduce impacts on sales b y not passing

491 See, for instance, Gron, A., and Swenson, D. (2000). Cost Pass
- Through in the U.S. Automobile Market. Review of Economics and Statistics 82, 316
- 324 () who found significantly less than full
- cost pass through using data from 1984
- 1994. Using full
- cost pass - through overstates costs and thus contributes to lower vehicle sales than using a lower estimate. To the extent that the auto industry has become more competitive over time, full
- cost pass - thro ugh may be more appropriate than a result based on this older study.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 385 of 842 along full costs. In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission reported that “concentration for most levels of the petroleum industry has remained low to moderate.” 492 Thus the assumptio n of competitive markets has some foundation in this industry . We do not estimate the price increase that consumers are likely to face, though we note that it should be positive and up to the increase in manufacturers’ costs of gasoline production. The effect of higher gasoline prices on gasoline sales is expected to be different over the short and long term. In the long run, in response to the increase in fuel costs, consumers can more easily change their driving habits, including where they live or what vehicles they

use. Because of this, we expect that gasoline sales will decrease more in the long run compared to the short run as a result of the price increase due to the proposed rule. However, because manufacturers’ costs are expected to increase less than one cent per gallon, we expect that the decrease in gasoline sales will be negligible over all time horizons. **D. Employment Impacts**  This section discusses changes in employ ment due to the proposed rule. We focus on the auto manufacturing sector and the refinery sector because they are directl y regulated, and because they are likel y to bear a substantial share of changes in employ ment due to this proposed rule. We partially quantify impacts in the auto sector, providing a mix of qualitative and qu antitative discussion, following the methods used in the Final Rulemaking for 2017

–2025 Model Year Light
- Dut y Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Econom y Standards. 493 For the refinery sector we provide a qualitative anal ys is. We al so include discussion of effects on the motor vehicle parts manufacturing sector because the auto manufacturing sector can either produce parts internall y or buy them from an external supplier, and we do not have estimates of the likely

breakdown of effort between the two sectors. For the same reasons, we discuss effects on producers of equipment that refiners would use to comply with the proposed standards. When the econom y is at full employment, an environmental regulation is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employment; instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another. These shifts in employ ment impose an opportunity cost on society , approximated by the wages of the employees, as regulation diverts workers from other ac tivities in the economy . In this situation, any effects on net employ ment are likel y to be transitory as workers change jobs (e.g., some workers may need to be retrained or require time to search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions c ould bid up wages to attract workers).

492 Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics. (2004). The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust Enforcement . Retrieved August 16, 2011from Federal Trade Commi ssion website: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/040813mergersinpetrolberpt.pdf . 493 7 7 FR 62623 ( October 1 5 , 201 2 )
.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 386 of 842 On the other hand, if a regulation comes into effect during a period of high unemploy ment, a change in labor demand due to regulation may affect net overall U.S. employ ment because the labor market is not in equilib rium. Schmalansee and Stavins point out that net positive employ ment effects are possible in the near term when the econom y is at less than full employ ment due to the potential hiring of idle labor resources by the regulated sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to install new equipment) and new economic activity

in sectors related to the regulated sector. 494 Inthe longer run, the net effect on emplo ym ent is more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in which the related industries respond to the regulatory requirements. As Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is possible that the magnitude of the effect on emplo ym ent could vary over time, region, and sector, and positive effects on employ ment in some regions or sectors could be offset b y negative eff ects in other regions or sectors. For this reason, they urge caution in reporting partial employ ment effects since it can “paint an inaccurate picture of net employ

ment impacts if not placed in the broader economic context.” We follow the theoretical stru cture proposed in a study by Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) 495 of the impacts of regulation in employ ment in the regulated sectors. In particular, Morgenstern et al. (2002) identify three separate way s that employ ment levels may

change in the regulated industry in response to a new or more stringent regulation.

 Demand effect: higher production costs due to the regulation will lead to higher market prices; higher prices in turn reduce demand for the good, reducing the demand for labor to make that good . In the authors’ words, the “extent of this effect depends on the cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand elasticity of industry

output.”

 Cost effect: as costs go up, plants add more capital and labor (holding other factors constant), with potentially positive effects on employ ment; in the authors’ words, as “production costs rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce the same amount of output.”

 Factor
- shift effect: post
- regulation production technologies may be more or less labor
- intensive (i.e., more/less labor is required per dollar of output). In the authors’ words, “environmental activities may be more labor intensive than conventional production,” meaning that “the amount of labor per dollar of output will rise,” though it is also possible that “cleaner operations could involve automation and less employ ment, for example.”

494 Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2011). A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis of EPA’s Transport Rule ” White paper commissioned by Excelon Corporation (). 495 Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., & Shih, J. (2002). Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry
- Level Perspective. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 412
- 436.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 387 of 842 The authors note that the demand effect is expected to have a negative effect on employ ment, the cost effect to have a positive effect on employ m ent, and the factor
- shift effect to have an ambiguous effect on employ ment. Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated the effects on employ ment of spending on pollution abatement for four highl y polluting/regulated industries (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining) using data for six years between 1979 and 1991. They concluded that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in employ ment in those sectors. More specificall y, their results showed that, on av erage across the industries studied, each additional $1 million (1987$) spent on pollution abatement resulted in a (statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.5 jobs. In the petroleum refining industry in particular, they

found statistically

significant and positive cost and factor shift effects and an insignificant demand effect, for a net (statistically

significant) increase of 2.17 jobs per $1 million (1987$). 1. Employ

ment Impacts in the Auto Sector Following the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework, w e consider three effects for the auto sector: the demand effect, the cost effect, and the factor shift effect. a. The Demand Effect The demand effect depends on the effects of this proposal on vehicle sales. If vehicle sales decrease, employ ment associated with these activities would decrease. As discussed in Section X.B, we do not make a quantitative estimate on the effect of the proposed rule on vehicle sales but we note that the decrease in vehicle sales is expected to be negligible. Thus we expect any decrease in employ ment in the auto sector through the demand effect to be small as well. b. The Cost Effect The demand effect, above, measures the effect due to new vehicle sales only . The cost effect measures the impacts due to the changes in technologies f or vehicles that would have been sold in the absence of the rule. We estimate the cost effect by multiplying the ratio of workers to each $1 million of expenditures in the auto sector by the cost estimates for complying with the rule. Some of the costs of this proposal would be spent directly in the auto manufacturing sector, but it is also likely that some of the costs would be spent in the auto parts manufacturing sector. We separatel y present the ratios for both the auto manufacturing sector and the auto parts manufacturing sector. There are several public sources for estimates of employ ment per $1 million expenditures. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides its Employ ment******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 388 of 842 Requirements Matrix (ERM), 496 which provides direct estimates of the employ ment per $1 million in sales of goods in 202 sectors. The values considered here are for Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (NAI CS 3361) and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 3363). The Census Bureau provides both the Annual Survey of Manufactures 497 (ASM) and the Economic Census. The ASM is a subset of the Economic Census, based on a sample of establishments; though the Census itself is more complete, it is conducted only every 5 years, while the ASM is annual. Both include more sectoral detail th an the BLS ERM: for instance, while the ERM includes the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing sector, the ASM and Economic Census have detail at the 6
- digit NAICS code level (e.g., light truck and utility

vehicle manufacturing). While the ERM provides direct esti mates of employees/$1 million in expenditures, the ASM and Economic Census separatel y provide number of emplo ye es and value of shipments; the direct emplo ym ent estimates here are the ratio of those values. The values reported are for Motor Vehicle Manufac turing (NAICS 3361), Automobile and L ight Dut y Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (NAI CS 33611), and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAI CS 3363). For the cost effect, we use estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau of the number of w orkers per $1 million of expenditures in the sectors. The use of these ratios has both advantages and limitations. It is often possible to estimate these ratios for quite specific sectors of the econom y: for instance, it is possible to estimate the aver age number of workers in the light
- dut y vehicle manufacturing sector per $1 million spent in the sector, rather than use the ratio from another, more aggregated sector, such as motor vehicle manufacturing. As a result, it is not necessary to extrapolate e mploy

ment ratios from possibly unrelated sectors. On the other hand, these estimates are averages for the sectors, covering all the activities in those sectors; they may not be representative of the labor required when expenditures are required on specifi c activities, as the factor
- shift effect indicates. For instance, the ratio for the motor vehicle manufacturing sector represents the ratio for all vehicle manufacturing, not just for emissions reductions. In addition, these estimates do not include chan ges in sectors that supply

these sectors, such as steel or electronics producers. They thus may best be viewed as the effects on employ ment in the specific sectors due to the changes in expenditures in those sectors, rather than as an assessment of all employ ment changes due to these changes in expenditures.

496 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Requirements Matrix. http ://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm 497 U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufactures. http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 389 of 842 The values used here are adjusted to remove the employ ment effects of imports through use of a ratio of domestic production to domestic sales of 0.667. 498 As discussed in the draft RIA, trends in the BL S ERM are used to estimate productivity improvements over time that are used to adjust these ratios over time. Table X
- 1 provides estimates of the cost effect of this rule on employ ment. Chapter 2.1 of the draft R IAdiscusses the vehicle cost estimates developed for this rule, discussed in Section VII.A, presented in the second column. The maximum value for employ ment impacts per $1 million (before adjustments for changes in productivity , after accounting for the share of domestic production) is 1
. 8 09 if all the additional costs are in the parts sector; the minimum value is 0.402, if all the additional costs are in the light
duty vehicle manufacturing sector. Increased costs of vehicles and parts would, by itsel f, be expected to increase emplo ym ent between 2017 and 2025 by somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand jobs. While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job
- ye ars, beginning with program implementation, some of these emplo ym ent gains may oc cur earlier as auto manufacturers and parts suppliers hire staff in anticipation of compliance with the standard. A job
- ye ar is a way to calculate the amount of work needed to complete a specific task. For example, a job
- year is one ye ar of work for one person. **Table X**  **- 1**  **Employment Effects due to Increased Costs of Vehicles and Parts , in job**  **** **years** Year Costs

(Millions of 2010$) Maximum Employ ment Effect (if all expenditures are in the Parts Sector) Minimum E mploy ment Effect (if all expenditures are in the L ight Duty Vehicle Mfg Sector) 2016 $ 23 0 0 2017 $ 709 + 900 + 200 2018 $ 1,340 + 1,700 + 400 2019 $ 1,440 + 1,800 + 400 2020 $ 1,600 + 1,900 + 400 2021 $ 1,730 + 2,000 + 400 2022 $ 1,900 + 2,100 + 400 2023 $ 1,920 + 2,000 + 400 2024 $ 2,040 + 2,100 + 400 2025 $ 2,130 + 2,100 + 400

498 To estimate the proportion of domestic production affected by the change in sales, we use data from Ward’s Automotive Group for total car and truck production in the U.S. compared to total car and truck sales in the U.S. For the period 2001
- 2010, the proportion is 66.7 percent.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 390 of 842 c. The Factor Shift Effect The factor shift effect looks at the changes in labor intensity associated with a regulation. As noted above, the estimates of the cost effect assume constant labor per $1 million in expenditures, though the new technologies may be either more or less labor
intensive than the existing ones. We have no evidenc e on the factor shift effect for the compliance technologies and therefore do not quantify it. An estimate of the factor shift effect would either increase or decrease the estimate used for the cost effect
. d. Summary

of Employ

ment Effects in the Auto Sector The overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employ ment depends on the relative magnitude of the cost effect, the demand effect and the factor shift effect. Because we do not have quantitative estimates of the demand and factor shift effects we cannot reach a quantitative estimate of the overall employ ment effects of the proposed rule on auto sector employment or even whether the total effect would be positive or negative. However, given that the expected increase in production costs to the aut o manufacturers is relatively small, we expect that the magnitudes of all these effects will be small as well. Additionally , the cost and demand effects are expected to work in opposite directions. Thus while we do not have an estimate of the direction of the overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employment, we expect it will be imperceptible. Additionally , the proposed rule is not expected to provide incentives for manufacturers to shift employ ment between domestic and foreign production. Thi s is because the increased standards of the proposed rule would apply to vehicles sold in the U.S. regardless of where they are produced. If foreign manufacturers already have increased expertise in satisfying the requirements of the proposal, there may be some initial incentive for foreign production, but the opportunity for the U.S. to sell in other markets might increase. To the extent that the requirements of this proposal might lead to installation and use of technologies that other countries may seek now or in the future, developing this capacity for domestic production now may provide some additional ability to serve those markets. This potential benefit would not apply if other countries are not likel y to have similar standards. 2. Refinery

Employ ment Impacts The Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework of demand effects, cost effects and factor shift effects can also be applied to the impact of the proposed rule on employ ment in the refinery

sector. Here we use a full y qualitative approach. A qualitative discussion allows for a wider incorporation of additional considerations, such as timing of impacts and the effects of the rule on imports and exports. Because the discussion is qualitative, we do not sum the net effects on employment. The demand effect on refining sector employ ment is expected to be negative. The discussion in Section X.C above suggested that the proposed rule would cause a small decrease in the quantity of gasoline demanded due to higher production costs being passed through to consumers. This slightly reduced level of sales would likely have a negative impact on employ ment in the refining sector.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 391 of 842 While we do not quantify the level of job losses that could be expected here, recall that the quantity

of gasoline sold as a result of the standards proposed here is expected to decrease b y onl y a very small amount over an y time horizon. The cost effect of the proposed rule on emplo ym ent in the refining sector is expected to be positive as usual in the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework. In order to satisfy the requirements of the proposed rule, firms in the refining industry are expected to need to perform additional work that will require hiring more emplo ye es, especiall y perhaps in the short run. Section V.A.2.c discusses the expected employ ment needed to reduce the sulfur content of fuels; as noted there, to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximatel y 1,000 front
- end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction jobs. As the petroleum sector employed approximately 65,000 workers in 2009, this temporary increase in employ

ment would be comparable to an increase of over 10 percent when compared to 2009 levels. As with our anal ys is of the vehicle manufacturing sector, we do not have information on the direction the factor shift effect might take. It is unclear whether the refining industry

would become more or less capital intensive as a result of the proposed rule. Thus the direction of the factor shift effect is ambiguous. This rule is not expected to provide incentives to shift employ ment between domestic and foreign production. First, the proposed standards would apply to gasoline sold in the U.S. regardless of where it has been produced. U.S. gasoline demand is projected to continue to decline for the foreseeable future in response to higher gasoline prices, more stringent vehicle and engine greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards as well a s increased use of renewable fuels. As a result, this analy sis of incentives to shift employ ment between domestic and foreign production focuses on investments for existing capacity instead of expanding capacity. 499 In this case, what is relevant is whethe r the necessary

modifications to comply with Tier 3 would be significantly cheaper overseas than in the U.S. The main impacts on capital and operating costs to comply with Tier 3 associated with adding h ydrotreating capacity are likel y to be similar over seas as in the U.S. This is particularl y true when analyzing likel y sources of U.S. imports. The majority of gasoline imported to the U.S. today comes into the East Coast and is sourced out of either Europe or refineries in Canada or the Caribbean that e xist almost solely to supply the U.S. market. These Canadian and Caribbean refineries, by virtue of their focus on the U.S. market, are very

similar to U.S. based refineries and would be expected to have to incur similar capital and operating costs as the ir U.S. based competitors meeting the 10 ppm standard. Furthermore, the European refineries are already producing gasoline to a 10

499 While refinery capacity has been increasing around the world in recent ye ars, it has been designed primarily to supply foreign markets other than the U.S. (e.g., increasing demand in China and India).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 392 of 842 ppm sulfur cap for Europe. To the extent they have refinery

streams that are more difficult to hydrotreat, the U.S. market currentl y s erves as an outlet for their higher sulfur gasoline streams. As a result, they may incur capital and operating costs on a per gallon basis at least as high as for their U.S. based competitors for these remaining higher sulfur gasoline streams. Alternatively , they may instead choose to find markets outside the U.S., opening the way

for increased U.S. based refinery demand. Finally , despite refining industry projections that previously imposed diesel rules would lead to greater U.S. reliance o n imports through major negative impacts on domestic refining, the reverse has actuall y occurred. Over the last 8 years, imports of gasoline and diesel fuel have continued to be the marginal supply , and have even dropped precipitously

so that the U.S. is now a net exporter of diesel fuel and is importing half the gasoline that it did at its peak in 2006. With the projected decline in future gasoline demand in the U.S. as vehicle fuel efficiency improves, gasoline imports are expected to continue to declin e. Thus it is expected that for the refining sector, the demand effect would lower employ ment, the cost effect would raise employ ment, and the factor shift effect would have an ambiguous effect on employ ment. As a whole then, it is not evident whether the proposed rule would increase or decrease employment in the refining sector. However, given the small anticipated reduction in quantity s old, it appears that the rule would not have major emplo ym ent consequences for this sector. The petroleum industry

i s one of the four industries studied by Morgenstern et al. (2002) when they

look at the effect of environmental expenditures on employ ment. They found a small but statistically significant increase in employ ment in this sector (2.17 jobs per million dollars of expenditures, using 1987$). Using this factor (adjusted to 2010$), the estimated sulfur fuel control costs in 2017 of $1,289 million would imply an increase of approximately

1,600 jobs in the refinery sector. We note that the regulations that this estimate is derived from are not directly comparable to the current proposed rule; it is based on the costs of reductions in refinery emissions instead of changing fuel properties, and therefore may

not be applicable for the standards proposed here. Secti on VII.B.5 contains some historical discussion regarding the impact on refineries and refining capacity of earlier rules which resulted in higher costs for refiners. Over the period 2003
- 2011, when a number of rules were being implemented, EIA data show a net of two net refinery closures on its website. Meanwhile, over this same period the average size of U.S. refineries increased from 113,000 barrels per day to 123,000 barrels per day , and total U.S. refining capacit y increased b y six percent. Thus, his torically

during a time when rules with much larger expected impacts were being implemented (the 2003 ultra
- low sulfur nonroad diesel proposal alone was expected to have a cost impact on refineries more than five times greater than the current proposed rul e), U.S. refining capacity increased even as the number of U.S. refineries slightly fell. While closing refineries has a negative effect on industry employ ment, it is likely

that the increased refining capacity at man y of the remaining plants had a positiv e effect on industry employ ment.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 393 of 842 The proposed rule is also likely to have a positive impact on employ ment among producers of equipment that refiners will use to comply with the standards. Section V.A.2.c notes that some refiners are expected to need to re vamp their current treatment units, and others will need to add additional treatment units. Producers of this equipment would be expected to hire additional labor to meet this increased demand. We also note that the employ

ment effects may

be different in the immediate implementation phase than in the ongoing compliance phase. It is expected that the employ ment increases through the cost effect from revamping old equipment and installing additional equipment should occur in the near term, when current unemploy ment levels are high, and the opportunity cost of workers is relatively low. Meanwhile, the employ ment decreases in the refining sector from the demand effect would not start until 2017, when compliance would be required, and when unemploy ment is expe cted to be reduced; in a time of full employ ment, an y changes in employ ment levels in the regulated sector are mostly expected to be offset b y changes in emplo ym ent in other sectors. 

## XI **. Public Participation**  We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how yo u can participate in this process. **A. How Do I Submit Comments?**  We are opening a formal comment period b y publishing this document. We will accept comments during the period indicated under DATES in the first part of this proposa l. If you have an interest in the proposed program described in this document, we encourage you to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking. We also request comment on specific topics identified throughout this proposal. Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, and anal ys is. Commenters are especiall y encouraged to provide specific suggestions for an y changes to any aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified or improved. Yo u should send all comments, except those containing proprietary

information, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first part of this proposal) before the end of the comment period. You may submit comments electronicall y, b y mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt b y EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments receive d after the close of the comment period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit Confidential Business In formation (CBI) or information that is otherwise protected b y statute, please follow the i nstructions in Section XI.B.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 394 of 842 **B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?**  Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronicall y through the electronic public docket, www.regulations.gov, or by e - mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI onl y to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, Attention Docket ID EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135. You may

claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by mar king an y part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD

–ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD

–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically

within the disk or CD

– ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked wil l not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comments that include any information claimed as CBI, a cop y of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit the cop y that does not contain CBI on disk or CD

–ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD

–ROM clearl y that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER IN FORMAT ION CONTACT section. **C. Will There Be a Public Hearing?**  We will hold a public hearing in [ **insert city/cities** ] on [ **insert hearing date/dates**  ] at the location noted below. The hearing will start at [ **insert time** ] local time and continue until everyone has had a chance to speak. [ **insert name of hearing location(s), complete address, phone numb er**  ] If you would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we ask that yo u notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the first part of this proposal at least 8 day s before the hearing. You should estimate the time yo u will need for your presentation and identify any needed audio/visual equipment. We suggest that you bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA panel and the audience. It would also be helpful if you send us a cop y of your statement or other materials before the hearing. We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based on the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the morning of the hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyon e else in the audience who wants to give testimon y. We will conduct the hearing informall y, and technical rules of evidence will not apply . We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 395 of 842 of the hearing open for 30 day s to allow you to submit supplementary information. You may make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter. **D. Comment Period**  The comment period for this rule will end on [ **insert date 30 days after last hearing**  ]. **E. What Should I**  **Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?** You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
 Explain your views as clearl y as possible.

 Describe an y assumptions that you used.

 Provide an y technical information and/or data you use d that support your views.

 If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

 Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
 Offer alternatives.

 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

 To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify

the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation related to your c omments. 

## XII. **St atutory and Executive Order Reviews**  **A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order**  **13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review** Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this a ction is an “economically significant regulatory

action” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingl y, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive O rders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and an y changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 396 of 842 In addition, EPA prepared an anal ys is of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This analy sis is contained in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. A copy of the anal ys is is available in the docket for this action. **B. Paperwork Reduction Act**  The information collection requirements in this pro posed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The Information Collection Request (I CR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA I CR number 2459.01. This proposed rule contains provisions for qualification of laboratories on test methods. We have proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would apply to fuel testing laboratories. The collected data will permit EPA to: (1) Qualify laborat ories to use test methods based upon accuracy and precision criteria supported by industry ; and (2) Ensure that various fuels meet the standards required under the regulations at 40 CFR part 80 and that the associated benefits to human health and the environment are realized. We estimate that 750 laboratories may be subject to the proposed information collection. This estimate is based upon our experience with qualification of laboratories under the existing diesel sulfur program. We estimate an annual r eporting burden of 95 hours per respondent and an annual recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, yi elding a total of 199 hours. For those laboratories that elect to be reference installations, the annual reporting burden would be 95 hours and the annual recordkeeping burden would be 128 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency ’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a publ ic docket for this rule, which includes this I CR, under Docket ID number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135. See the ‘ **ADDRESSES** ’ section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulat ory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the I CR between 30 and 60 day s after [ **Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL RE GISTER**  ], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ **Insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER**  ]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 397 of 842 **C. Regulatory Flexibility Act**  1. Overview The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act (RFA) generall y requires an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility

analy sis of any

rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Adm inistrative Procedure Act or an y other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governm ental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today 's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 (see table below); (2) a sm all governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city , count y, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not - for
- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially

affected by

this regulation: **Industry NAICS**  **a Code (2007)**  **Defined as small entity by SBA**

**if less than or equal to:** Gasoline fuel refiners and importers 324110 1,500 employees Ethanol producers 325193 1,000 employees Gasoline additive manufacturers 325199, 325998, 424690 1,000 employees

500 employees 100 employees Transmix processors Varied 1,500 employees Petroleum bulk stations and terminals 424710 100 employees Other warehousing and storage
bulk petroleum storage 493190 $25.5 million (annual receipts) Li ght
- dut y vehicle and light
- dut y truck manufacturers 336111, 336112 1,000 employees Independent commercial importers 811111, 811112, 811198 $7 million (annual receipts) Alternative fuel converters 335312, 336312, 336322, 336399, 811198 1,000 employees

750 employees ” ” $7 million (annual receipts)******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 398 of 842 On
- highway

heavy
- dut y engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) manufac turers 333618, 336120, 336211, 336312 1,000 employees

” ” 750 employees Note: a North American Industrial Classification System 2. Background EPA’s Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, which was finalized in February 2000, took a s ystems - based approac h to motor vehicle pollution by setting standards for both passenger vehicles and their fuel (gasoline). The program set stricter tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards for criteria pollutants from vehicles beginning with model ye ar (MY) 2004 and ph asing in through 2009. The program also lowered the sulfur content of gasoline, to a 30
- ppm refinery average, 80
- ppm per - gallon cap, and 95
- ppm downstream cap; beginning in 2004 and phasing in through 2008. The potential to extend the phase
- in for small refiners and approved Gasoline Phase
- In Area (GPA) refiners through the end of 2010 was provided in the Highway Diesel Rule 500 in exchange for earl y compliance with the diesel program. Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the Tier 3 rule being proposed today is a co mprehensive, sy stems - based approach to address the impact of light
- dut y vehicles and certain heav y - duty vehicles on air quality

and health. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility anal ys is (IRFA) that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory

alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the rulemaking docket (in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA) and is summarized below. As required b y s ection 609 (b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially

would be subject to the r ule’s requirements. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small
- entity comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A cop y of the Panel Report is included in the docket for this proposed rule, and a summary of the Panel process, and subsequent Panel recommendations, is summarized below.

500 66 FR 5136 (January 18, 2001).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 399 of 842 3. Reason for Today ’s Proposed Rule This rule proposes to establish more stringent vehicle emissions standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning i n 2017, as part of a sy stems approach in addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control sy stems more effective and enable more stringent vehicle emissi ons standards, and the proposed vehicle standards would reduce vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions. This would result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics. For a more detailed discussion of the reasoning for today ’s proposed rule, please see Sections II and III of this preamble. The proposed vehicle and fuel programs are further discussed in Sections IV and V, respectively
. 4. Legal Basis for Agency Action The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution. The authority for the prop osed vehicle emission standards comes from CAA section 202(a), S ection 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from gasoline
- fueled motor vehicles, and section 206(d) authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements. The authority for the proposed fuel standards comes from section 211(c). For more detailed information on our legal authority for today ’s proposal, please see Sections II.A and V.G of this preamble. 5. Summary

of Potentiall y Affected Small Entities The table above lists industries/sectors potentially affected b y the proposed rule. For businesses potentially impacted by the Tier 3 vehicle standards, this includes vehicle manufacturers, alternative fuel converters, and independent commercial importers. For businesses potentially

impacted by

the Tier 3 fuel standards, this includes gasoline refiners and importers, distributors, fuel additive manufacturers, transmix producers, and ethanol producers. EPA used a variety

of sources to identify

which entities are appropriatel y considered “small.” EPA used the criteria for small entities developed b y the Small Business Administr ation under the North American Industry Classification Sy stem (NAICS) as a guide. Information about these entities comes from sources including the Energy Information Administration (EIA) within the U.S. Department of Energy , oil industry literature, EPA’ s certification data, and previous rulemakings that have affected these industries. EPA then found emplo ym ent information for these companies using the business information database Hoover’s Online (a subsidiary of Dun and Bradstreet). These entities fal l under the categories listed in the table.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 400 of 842 To gauge the impact of the proposed standards on small businesses, EPA employed a cost
- to - sales ratio test to estimate the number of small businesses that would be impacted b y less than one percent, between one and three percent, and above three percent. Overall, EPA projects that 13 small businesses will be impacted b y less than one percent, 13 small businesses will be impacted b y one to three percent, and 5 small businesses will be impacted by more than three p ercent. A more detailed description of the inputs used for each affected industry sector and the methodology used to develop the estimated impact on small businesses in each industry sector is included in the IRFA as presented in Chapter 10 of the draft R IAfor this rulemaking. 6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Compliance For an y emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated products will meet the standards. The program that EPA is considering for manufacturers subject to thi s proposal will include testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements for manufacturers of vehicles covered b y the proposed Tier 3 regulations. Testing requirements for these manufacturers could include certification emission (including deterioratio n factor) testing, in
- use testing, and production line testing. Reporting requirements would likely include emission test data and technical data on the vehicles. Manufacturers would have to keep records of this information. For an y fuel control program, EPA must have assurance that fuel produced, distributed, sold and used meets the applicable standard. EPA expects that the recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of the proposed rule would be fairl y consistent with those in place today for o ther fuel programs. Further, we expect to use existing registration and reporting s ys tems that parties in the fuel production and distribution industry

are already familiar with. 7. Related Federal Rules The primary

federal rules that are related to the prop osed Tier 3 rule under consideration are: the Tier 2 Vehicle/Gasoline Sulfur rulemaking (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the 2017 Li ght
- duty Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule (77 FR 62623) , and the Petroleum Refinery

Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Sourc e Performance Standards rule (RTR/NSPS ; 77 FR 41051 ). The 2017 LD GHG rule is a coordinated effort by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, though re duced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on
- road vehicles and engines. The rules to address Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review (RTR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) focus on developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for multiple pollutants, including GHGs. The rules are based on results of the RTR analy ses for both Maximum Achievable Control Technology

standards (MACT 1 and 2). The technology review would be******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 401 of 842 conducted to identify

an y new pra ctices, processes, or control technologies for the industry and cost
- effective emission control options. EPA is developing uniform standards for some emission sources in the petroleum refining sector that may serve as the basis for these technology review s. The rules also review the standards and rule provisions to determine whether other changes may be needed during periods of start
- up, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure the standards are consistent with recent court opinions and other CAA programs. Wi th regard to NSPS, the rules address remaining NSPS issues under reconsideration from the promulgation of existing NSPS and other NSPS rules affecting the refining sector, and include the regulation of GHGs and the development of emission guidelines for ex isting sources. 8. Summary

of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach a. Significant Panel Findings The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) considered regulatory

options and flexibilities to help mitigate potential adverse effects on small businesses as a result of this rule. During the SBREFA Panel process, the Panel sought out and received comments on the regulatory options and flexibilities that were presented to SERs and Panel members. The recommendations of the Panel are describ ed below and are also located in Section 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel Report, which is available in the public docket. b. Panel Process As required b y s ection 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule’s requirements. On August 4, 2011, EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened a Panel under Section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Division Director of the Assessment and Standards Division of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Qualit y, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Adminis trator of the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with representatives of small businesses that would potentially

be affected b y the proposed rule making. We met with these Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries. We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these material s included background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory

approaches, and possible rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met with SERs from the industries that would be directly affected by

the Tier 3 rule on August 18, 2011 to discuss the outreach materi als and receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet (the Panel also met with SERs on June 28, 2011 for an initial outreach meeting). The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting in respons e to discussions had at the meeting and the questions posed to the SERs by the Agency . The SERs were specifically asked to******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 402 of 842 provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the rule’s impact on small businesses. The Panel’s findings and discussions were based on the information that was available during the term of the Panel and issues that were raised b y the SERs during the outreach meetings and in their comments. It was agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised b y the SERs and discussions had by the Panel itself, and that EPA should consider comments on flexibility alternatives that would help to mitigate negative impacts on small businesses to the extent legall y allowable by the Clean Air Act. Alternatives discussed through out the Panel process included those offered in previous or current EPA rulemakings, as well as alternatives suggested b y SERs and Panel members. A summary

of these recommendations is detailed below, and a full discussion of the regulatory

alternatives an d hardship provisions discussed and recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report. A complete discussion of the provisions for which we are requesting comment and/or proposing in this action can be found in Sections IV.E and V.D o f this preamble. Also, the Panel Report includes all comments received from SERs (Appendix B of the Report) and summaries of the two outreach meetings that were held with the SERs. In accordance with the RFA/ SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the aforementioned materials and SER comments on issues related to the IRFA. The Panel’s recommendations from the Final Panel Report are discussed below. It should be noted that during the Panel process, two additional issues were discussed with SERs that wer e under consideration by the Agency

for the Tier 3 proposal. As noted in Section IV.D.5, EPA was considering extending the new certification fuel specifications to all regulatory categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel s ys tem components that use gasoline. This would have included a wide range of additional applications, including small nonroad engines used in lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on
- highway motorcyc les, and heavy
- dut y gasoline engines. In addition, EPA considered new volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) standards for in
use gasoline. Neither of these issues is being proposed in today ’s notice. Therefore, the following discussion of the Panel recommendations does not address these issues. The reader is directed to the Panel Report, located in the rulemaking docket, for more information on both of these issues. c. Panel Recommendations i. Tier 3 Fuels The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility alternatives with SERs for small businesses in the gasoline production and distribution, fuel additive manufacturing, and ethanol production industries subject to the proposed fuel requirements. Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed bel ow.

(1) Lead Time

—Sulfur******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 403 of 842 The Panel recommended that EPA propose a delay option, similar to previous fuels rulemakings, in the Tier 3 proposed rule. The Panel recommended that EPA allow small refiners to postpone their compliance with the Tier 3 program for up to three years. Small refiners choosing this flexibility option would have from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Compliance with the 10
- ppm sulfur standard would begin on January 1, 2020. An y s mall refiner choosing this proposed option would be allowed to continue use of their Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through December 31, 2019 to meet the refiner average 30
- ppm sulfur standard. The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on case
- by
- case hardship provisions that would provide additional relief for any refiner experiencing extreme difficulty

in compliance with the Tier 3 requirements, as discussed below in Section XII.C .6.c.i.(6).

(2) Provisions for Additive Manufacturers The Panel recommended that EPA provide flexibilities for gasoline additive manufacturers. Following discussion with EPA, the Panel suggested that EPA propose the following flexibilities:

 For additives used downstream of the refiner: Differentiating bulk additives based on whether they

meet a 20
- or 25
- ppm sulfur standard.

 For aftermarket consumer additives: Allow for aftermarket additives to meet either a 20
- ppm or 25
- ppm sulfur cap.

 For additives not meeti ng a 10
- , 20
- , or 25
- ppm sulfur limit: Allow for the use of volume accounting reconciliation (VAR) records for additives that would not be able to meet a 25
- ppm sulfur cap to show that use of the additive would not cause the sulfur level of the finished fu el to exceed 10 ppm (similar to the Nonroad Diesel Rulemaking, 69 FR 39088, June 29, 2004), and require product labeling for aftermarket additives. (3) Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps With regard to the 20
- ppm refinery gate cap discussed in Section 3 of the Panel Report, the Panel had concerns that such a standard could cause operational problems for small refiners during a refinery turnaround or an upset, because a cap of this level could result in a refiner not being able to produce gasoline (as noted in th eir comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report). The Panel likewise had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm could cause problems for small downstream entities, such as transmix processors, because they

may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline do wn to this level (also noted in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report).******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 404 of 842 Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, respectively , to help prov ide maximum flexibility and avoid s ys tem upsets for the entire refining and distribution system. Thus, the SBA and OMB Panel members recommend that EPA propose retaining the 80
- ppm and 95
- ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on additional refinery gate and downstream caps above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. Additionally , the Panel recommended that EPA allow the current Tier 2 80
- ppm sulfur refinery gate cap and 95
- ppm sulfur downstream cap in Alaska to remain at these levels inde finitely
.

(4) Hardship Provisions During the Panel process, EPA stated its intent to propose hardship provisions (for all gasoline refiners and importers) similar to those in prior EPA fuels programs: (a) the extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship provision , and (b) the extreme hardship provision. A hardship based on extreme unforeseen circumstances is intended to provide short term relief due to unanticipated circumstances beyond the control of the refiner, such as a natural disaster or a refinery fire. An extreme hardship is intended to provide short
- term relief based on extreme circumstances (e.g., extreme financial problems, extreme operational or technical problems, etc.) that impose extreme hardship and thus significantl y affect a refiner's ability to compl y with the program requirements by the applicable dates. In the context of the proposal, the Panel agrees that such relief could consider long
- term relief on the sulfur cap (similar to that for Alaska) if the circumstances both warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. The Panel agrees with the proposal of such provisions and recommended that EPA include them in the Tier 3 proposed rulemaking.

ii. Tier 3 Vehicles As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel Report, in addition to vehicle manuf acturers, two distinct categories of businesses relating to highway light
- duty vehicles and heav y - dut y trucks would be covered by the new vehicle standards: independent commercial importers (ICIs), and alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed bel ow, EPA’s expectation at the time of the Panel process was to propose a set of flexibilities that would be available to all small entities in these three business categories as well as an y businesses in these categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicles p er year. The Panel identified a number of entities covered b y the vehicle standards that qualify as small businesses under the SBA definition. Six of these companies participated as SERs. The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility

alternatives wi th SERs for small businesses that certify

vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described in Appendix A (and similar to provisions in the Tier 2 rule), EPA sought comment from the SERs on allowing small entities to simply compl y w ith the proposed emission standards with 100 percent of their vehicles during the last year of the phase
- in******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 405 of 842 period. In addition, EPA sought comment on the following flexibilities: (1) a hardship provision that would allow these businesses to apply for ad ditional time to meet any of the 100 percent phase
- in requirements, (2) use of assigned deterioration factors for certification purposes, and (3) reduction in the number of tests required in the manufacturer in
- use verification testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845
- 04). SERs were generall y supportive of these flexibility provisions. However, one SER requested that EPA consider providing relaxed standards for exhaust emissions in addition to the delay and another SER requested that we consider eliminating som e of the evaporative emission testing requirements. Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below. (1) Exhaust Emission Standards and Lead time In the t yp es of businesses subject to the potential Tier 3 standards, small businesses have limited resources available for developing new designs to comply with new emission standards. In addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rel y on vendor companies for technology . Moreover, percentage phase
- in requirements pose a dilemma for a smal l manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g., the manufacturer certifies vehicles in only

one or two test groups). Thus, similar to the flexibility provisions implemented in previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small busine sses the following flexibility options for meeting the potential Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards. The Panel recommended that small businesses be given additional lead time to comply with the potential Tier 3 exhaust standards and allow small businesses to comply with the standards with 100 percent of their vehicles starting in model ye ar 2022. (This is similar to the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase
- in to compl y with the Tier 2 standards.) During the Panel process, the proposed Tier 3 rule was expected to have several different phase
- in schedules; with the final dates varying from model year 2021 for the new exhaust PM standards and use of the new E15 certification fuel, to model year 2022 for the new evaporative emission standards, to model year 2025 for the new exhaust gaseous pollutant standards. The Panel noted that requiring all small businesses to comply with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model ye ar 2022 should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the technology changes needed to compl y with the Tier 3 standards. One of the SERs recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust emission avera ging program being proposed b y EPA would allow large manufacturers that have man y engine families to certify their small, niche products at levels numerically higher than the standards. Small manufacturers that typically do not have more than one or two e mission families generall y cannot use averaging to the same extent because of their limited product offerings. The SER’s concern was that the high
- performance vehicles produced by large manufacturers which they compete against would be able to certify at numerically

higher******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 406 of 842 levels at less cost than the SER would incur. While EPA was planning to propose the same standards for all manufacturers, the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on allowing small manufacturers to meet relaxed exhaust emission st andards. This could also be included as part of the hardship provision discussed below. The Panel recommended that EPA request comment on the relaxed standards recommended b y the SER. The SER
- recommended relaxed NMOG+NO X standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 0.125 grams/mile in model year 2020 and 0.070 grams/mile in model year 2025. In addition, the Supplemental FTP standards would be the standards for the corresponding bins which the manufacturer selected for compl yi ng with the FTP stand ards. For example, if the manufacturer certified to the proposed Tier 3 Bin 125 standards over the FTP, the manufacturer would have to compl y with the corresponding Tier 3 Bin 125 standards for the Supplemental FTP.

(2) Evaporative Emission Standards and Lead time The Panel recommended that small businesses comply with the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, including the leak standard, with 100 percent of their vehicles starting in model ye ar 2022. For evaporative emissions, where the Tier 3 standards could begin as early

as 2017 and phase
- in through 2022, this provision would allow small businesses and SVMs to wait until the last year of the Tier 3 phase
- in period for evaporative emission standards for all of their vehicles. This start date is consistent with the start date described above for the Tier 3 exhaust emission requirements being recommended b y the Panel for small businesses.

(3) Assigned Deterioration Factors Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their vehicles comply with th e emission standards throughout the “useful life” period. This is generally done by testing vehicles at low
- mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission levels. The deterioration factors are determined by aging new emission control sy stems and then testing the aged s ys tems again to determine how much deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce the testing burden on small manufacturers, EPA suggested that small manufacturers could use deterioration factor values assigned by EPA instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would apply the assigned deterioration factors to its low
- mileage emission level to demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards. EPA currentl y allows this flexib ility for small manufacturers. The Panel recommended that EPA propose that small businesses be allowed the option to use EPA
- developed assigned deterioration factors in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned DFs for small manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar procedure to determine the assigned DFs for the Tier 3 standards once large manufac turers start certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in model year 2017, EPA should have a significant set of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned DFs for smal l businesses within the first few ye ars of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned DFs need******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 407 of 842 to be determined well in advance of model ye ar 2022 in order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or not to use the assigned DFs for certification purposes. (4) Reduced Testing Burden Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must perform in
- use testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in
- use vehicles comply with the emission standards. The current in
- use testing regulations provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, including no testing in some cases. EPA suggested that these provisions should continue for small manufacturers with the Tier 3 program. The Panel recommended that EPA propose that small busine sses be allowed to have reduced burden under the in
- use testing program for Tier 3 vehicles. One SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the evaporative emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief that some of the tests may be d uplicative. While EPA noted (during the Panel process) that it understood the reasons behind the manufacturer’s suggestion, EPA believed it may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given the impact of the CO 2 emission standards on en gine and fuel sy stem development. Currentl y, it is generall y understood that the 2
- day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative control s ys tems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the 3
- day test, drive the capacit y requir ement of evaporative canisters. Prospectivel y, due to expected changes in engine and fuel system designs in response to upcoming CO 2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the case. Therefore, at the time of the Panel process, EPA noted its bel ief that it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test procedures. Itcan be noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 2
- day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829
- 01(b)(2)(iii)) and perf orm onl y the 2
- day diurnal test as part of the in
- use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845
- 04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. In general, EPA noted that it is open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes like those suggested by the SER in the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer. EPA also stated that it intends to request comment in the Tier 3 proposal on streamlining the current test procedures for small businesses in way s that would still maintain the overall stringency of the tests. (5) Hardship Provisions The Panel recommended that hardship provisions be provided to small businesse s for the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to apply for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase
- in requirements for exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship r equests would be subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief would be required to be made in writing and submitted well before the earliest date of noncompliance. The request should identify how much time is being requested. It must******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 408 of 842 also include evidence that the noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to compl y, and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would be faced b y the compan y if the relief is not granted. The above provision should effectively provide the opportunity

for small businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 standards. (The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that can be requested to 1 ye ar, but such a limit may or may not be included in the proposed Tier 3 hardship provisions.)

(6) Applicability Under EPA’s current Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of flexibilities for small volume manufacturers. The criteria for determining if a company is a small volume manufacturer is based on the annual production level of vehicles and is based on whether the compan y produces less than 15,000 vehicles per ye ar. Unlike EPA’s small volume manufacturer criteria noted above, SBA defines which manufacturers are small businesses (and therefore should be considered under the SBAR Panel process) based on the number of emplo ye es for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for I CI s and alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines small business vehicle manufacturers as those who have less than 1, 000 employees. Similarl y, SBA defines small business I CI s as those who have annual revenues of less than $8 million per year. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow all small businesses that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities described above. In addition, in the Panel Report, EPA stated that it is expecting to propose that manufacturers that meet a specified sales
- based criterion to be eligible for the flexibilities described above. It is relativel y eas y for a manufacturer t o project and ultimatel y determine sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of emplo ye es is less straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light
- duty vehicle and truck CO 2 emission standards, EPA adopted provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 vehicles per year as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is used in the Tier 2 program. In the Panel Report, EPA noted that it expects to propose a small volume manufacturer definition based on the 5,000 ve hicle per year level for the Tier 3 program. EPA believes the 5,000 unit cut
- off for small volume manufacturers would include all of the small business vehicle manufacturers, ICI s, and alternative fuel converters that meet the applicable SBA definition as well as some additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses. Lastly , EPA noted in the Panel Report that it expects to propose the flexibilities described above to be available to any manufacturer that meets either the SBA small busin ess criteria or the sales
- based criteria. EPA invites comment on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities. **D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act**  Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531
- 1538, requires Federal a gencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 409 of 842 of their regulatory

actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generall y must prepare a written statement, including a cost
- benefit anal ys is, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal m andates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one ye ar. Accordingl y, EPA has prepared a statement of the cost
- benefit analy sis as required b y s ection 202 of the UMRA; this statement can be found in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generall y requires EPA to id entify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly , most cost - effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they

are inconsist ent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly , most cost - effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was n ot adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may

significantl y or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must pr ovide for notifying potentiall y affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informi ng, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives. These alternatives are described above in Section s IV, V, and IX of this preamble. This rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantly or uniquel y affect small governments. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on an y State, local or tribal governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly

or uniquely

affect small governments. EPA has determined that this proposal contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private sector in any one year, however EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly , and most cost
- effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rule. The costs and benefits ass ociated with the proposal are discussed above in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA, as required by

section 202 of the UMRA.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 410 of 842 **E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism**  This proposed action does not have federalism implications . It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local governments in developing this rule. EPA has also cons ulted with representatives from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, representing state and local air pollution officials), Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean Air Association of the Northeast States), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC, a multi
- state organization created under the CAA responsible for advising EPA on transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions to the ground
- level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid
- Atl antic regions). In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. **F. Executiv**  **e Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments**  This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would be implemented at the Federal level and would impose compliance costs only on those in the gasoline production, distribution, and additive industry and in the highway

and nonroad engine, vehicle, and equipment industries. Tribal governments would be affected only to the extent they

purchase and use regulated fuels, vehicles, and equipment. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 does not appl y t o this action, EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal of ficials. **G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health**  **Risks and Safety Risks** This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an economicall y significant regulatory action as defined by EO 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingl y, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety

effects of air pollutants affected by the proposed standards on children. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section II.B and associated references.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 411 of 842 Children are more susceptible than adults to many air pollutants because of differences in ph ys iology, higher per body weight breathing rates and consumption, rapid development of the brain and bodily s ys tems, and behaviors that increase chances for exposure. Even before birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through the mother that affect development and permanently harm the indiv idual. In fants and children breathe at much higher rates per body weight than adults, with infants under one ye ar of age having a breathing rate up to five times that of adults. 501 Inaddition, children breathe through their mouths more than adults and thei r nasal passages are less effective at removing pollutants, which leads to a higher deposition fraction in their lungs. 502 Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children as well. For example, mutagenic carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3
- butadiene have a larger impact during young life stages, given the rapid development of the corporal s ys tems. 503 Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead to a higher risk of developing cancer later in life. The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe for children, particularl y the youngest age groups, than adults. The Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria Documents for a number of pollutants affected b y this rule, including those for NO 2 , PM, ozone and CO, describe children as a group with greater susceptibility
. Section II.B.5 discusses a number of childhood health outcomes associated with proximity to roadways, including evidence for exacerbation of asthma s ymptoms and suggestive evidence for new onset asthma. In general, these studies do not identify the specific contaminants associated with adverse effects, instead addressing the near
roadway environment as one containing numerous exposures potentially associated with adverse health effects. In addition to th eir underlying biological susceptibility , as discussed in Section II.B.1, children may

be more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution because of their high levels of outdoor activity . As discussed in that section, greater impacts of ozone have been reported among children who are more active outdoors. Section III.C describes the ambient air quality changes resulting from the proposed standards, which represent levels to which the general population is exposed.

501 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ( 2009 ) . Metabolically
- derived ventilation rates: a rev ised approach based upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R

– 06/129F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543. 502 Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.; Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2008) Focusing on children’s inhalation dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: an introduction. J Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149

– 165. 503 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ( 2005 ) . Supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibili ty from early
- life exposure to carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/ R
- 03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 412 of 842 Children are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than the general population. However, because of their greater susceptibility to air pollution and their increased time spent outdoors, it is likely that the proposed standards would have particular benefits for children’s health. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer - reviewed studies and data that assess effects of earl y life exposure to the air pollutants affected b y the proposed standards. **H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regu**  **lations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use**  Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001 ) ), requires EPA to prepare and submit a S tatement of Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as “significant energy actions.” Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy actions” as “any

action by an agency

(normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry , advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the suppl y, distribution, or use of energy ; or (2) that is designated b y the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.” Given the flexibilities being proposed for entities in the gasoline production and distribution system, we believe that these mitigate any potent ial adverse effects on gasoline suppl y and distribution. Although EPA does not expect this rule to have significant adverse effects on the supply or distribution of gasoline, we have prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action as follows. This proposal’s potential effects on energy supply , distribution, or use have been anal yz ed and are further discussed above in:

 Section V

— fuel provisions of the proposed rule and flexibilities, including hardship provisions.

 Section V.2.c

—discussion on proposed refinery lead time.

 Section X

—

proposed economic impacts (specifically , Section X.C for fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D on emplo ym ent impacts).

 Section VII.B

— estimated costs of the proposed fuel program. Given the estimated costs and impacts of the proposed rule, as discussed in these areas of this preamble, we do not expect this rule to have any adverse effect on the supply or distribution of gasoline. Further, we do not believe that there are any reasonable******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 413 of 842 alternatives to the control of sulfur in gasoline which would provide the level of reduction of emissions, considering cost
- benefit anal ys es, given by the reduction in sulfur being proposed in this rule. **I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act**  Section 12(d) of the National Technology Tr ansfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104
- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA is proposing to update a number of regulations which already contain voluntary co nsensus standards to more recent versions of these standards. EPA is proposing to use the ASTM International (ASTM) standards listed in Table XII
- 1 below. The standards may be obtained through the ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or b y calling ASTM at (610) 832

– 9585. This proposed rulemaking also involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency ’s Performance Based Measurement Sy stem (“PBMS”), EPA proposes not to require the use of specific, prescribed analy tic methods. Rather, the Agency

plans to allow the use of an y method that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost
effective for the regulated community ; it is also intended to encourage innovation in anal yt ical technology

and improved data quality. EPA is not precluding the use of an y method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified. **Table XII**  **- 1**  **Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel** Fuel Parameter Designated Analy tical Method Sulfur in gasoline ASTM D 2622
- 05 Sulfur in butane ASTM D 6667
- 01 500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel ASTM D 2622
- 05 Olefins in gasoline ASTM 1319
- 03 ε1 Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline ASTM D 5191
- 07, with the following correlation equation: RVP psi = (0.956 * X)
- 0.347 RVP kPa = (0.956 * X)
- 2.39 where: X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa. Distillation in gasoline ASTM D86
- 07b******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 414 of 842 Be nzene in gasoline ASTM D 3606
- 07, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and methanol peaks. Aromatics in gasoline ASTM D 5769
- 04, except that sample chilling requirements in section 8 of thi s standard are optional. Ox ygen and ox ygenate content in gasoline ASTM D 5599
- 00(2005) Aromatics in diesel fuel ASTM D1319
- 03 ε1 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specificall y, invites the public to identify potentially
- applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. **J. Executive Order**  **12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low**  **- Income Populations**  Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy

on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted b y law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority

populations and low
- income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low
- income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having an y disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minorit y or low
- inc ome population. This proposed rule would reduce emissions from all vehicles across the nation, both new vehicles (beginning in model year 2017, when the vehicle standards start to apply) and existing vehicles (as soon as the lower
- sulfur gasoline becomes available in 2017 or earlier). As such, this proposal would increase the level of environmental protection for all populations. As discussed in Section III.B.7, there is evidence that minority populations and low
- income populations live disproportionately near high
traffic roadways, where concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated. We expect this proposed rule to increase the level of environmental protection for these populations. Thus, this proposed rule would not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low
- income populations.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 415 of 842 

## XIII. **St atutory Pr**  **ovisions and Legal Authority**  Statutory authorit y for this action comes from sections 202, 203
- 209, 211, 213, 216, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sectio ns 7521, 7522
- 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545, 7547, 7550, and 7601. Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of this proposal, including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, comes from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Cle an Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7414, 7542, and 7601(a). **List of Subjects** 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Import s, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 85 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confi dential Business Information, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 600 Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel economy , In corporation b y reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Incorporation b y reference, Labeling, Mot or vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.******* **Interagency Working Comments on draft rule under E.O. 12866 Revie**  **w . Subject**  **to further policy review.**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 416 of 842***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 417 of 842 For th e reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: **Part 80 -**  **REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES** 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C., 7414, 7521(l), 7545, and 7601(a). 2. Section 80.2 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (d). b. Revising paragraph (w). c. Revising paragraph (z). d. Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), and (aaaa). **§ 80.2 Definitions.** 
* * * * * (d) Previously

certified gasoline , or PCG , means gasoline, RBOB or CBOB that previously

has been included in a batch of gasoline for purposes of compl ying with the standards of 40 CFR p art 80 that apply to refiners and importers.
* * * * * (w) Cetane Inde x or “Calculated cetane index” is a number representing the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils from APIgravity and mid
- boiling point, as determined b y ASTM International standard method D976
- 06(2011), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Calculated Ce tane Index of Distillate Fuels”, approved October 1, 2011. ASTM International test method D976
- 06(2011) is incorporated b y reference. This incorporation b y reference was approved b y the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may

be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., or at the Nati onal Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202
- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.arch ives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
. * * * * * (z) Aromatic content is the aromatic hydrocarbon content in volume percent as determined b y ASTM International standard test method D1319
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty pes in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption”, approved May 1, 2010. ASTM International test method D1319
- 10 is incorporated by reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the F ederal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Cons titution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 418 of 842 information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202
- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
. * * * * * (vvv) Denatured Fuel Ethanol (DFE) means an alcohol of the chemical formula C 2 H 6 O which contains a denaturant to make i t unfit for human consumption that is used as an additive in gasoline. (www) Ox ygenate manufacturer means an y person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an ox ygenate production facility
. (xxx) Ox ygen ate Production F acility means any facil ity where ox ygenate is produced. (yyy) CBOB means gasoline blendstock that becomes conventional gasoline solely upon the addition of ox ygenate. (zzz) Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) means the components of natural gas (primarily propane, butane, pentane, hexan e, and heptane ) that are separated from the gas state in the form of liquids in a natural gas production facility, in a gas processing plant, or in a natural gas pipeline. NGL is sometimes also referred to as “ natural gasoline ”
. (aaaa) Natural Gas means a mixture of hydrocarbon gases that occurs with petroleum deposits, principally

methane together with varying quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and other gases. 3. Section 80.8 is revised to read as follows: **§80.8 Sampling methods for gasoline, die**  **sel fuel, fuel additives, and renewable fuels.** The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to collect samples of gasoline, diesel, fuel additives and renewable fuels for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this par t. (a) Manual sampling. Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4057 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this section). (b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4177 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this sectio n). (c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement. Samples to be anal yz ed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be collected and handled according to the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5842 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this section).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 419 of 842 (d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5854 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this section). (e) Materials incorporated by refe rence. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation b y reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Inform ation Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202
- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//feder al_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purchase copies of these material s from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959, or b y contacting ASTM International customer service at 10
- 832
- 9585, or b y contacting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard practice D4057
- 06 (Reapproved 2011) (“ASTM International D4057”), Standard practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Produ cts, approved June 1, 2011. (ii) ASTM International standard practice D4177
- 95 (Reapproved 2010) (“ASTM International D4177”), Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May

1, 2010. (iii) ASTM International st andard practice D5842
- 04 (Reapproved 2009) (“ASTM International D5842”), Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement, approved June 1, 2009. (iv) ASTM International standard practice D5854
- 96 (Reapproved 2010) (“ASTM International D5854”), Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2010. 4. A new section 80.10 is added to subpart A to read as follows: **§ 80.10 Correction of batch volume reports.**  For purposes of compliance with the reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, parties required to submit batch reports are not required to correct unintentional errors in reporting batch volume on previously

submitted batch reports where all of the following circumstances apply :***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 420 of 842 (a) The reporting violation pertains solely to the volume of the batch. (b) The volume of the batch is incorrect b y no more than 500 gallons or b y no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume, in gallons, whichever value (in gallo ns) is less. (c) Reporting the true volumes of all the batches for the reporting period would not result in a higher annual average sulfur or benzene value than reported using the incorrect values after rounding to the applicable digit for reporting. (d) Reporting the true value for an y batch would not result in a reduced number of gallons for a violation of any per - gallon standard or a violation of an y other requirement of the Clean Air Act. (e) The reporting part y certifies that the conditions in para graphs (a) through (d) of this section have been met. (f) For 40 CFR part 80 subpart M, this section only applies to the volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a renewable volume obligation under subpart M for obligated parties. 5. Section 80.46 is amended by : a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4). b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i). c. Revising paragraph (c). d. Revising paragraph (d). e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), and adding a new paragraph (e)(3). f. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i). g. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i). f. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraph (h)(1). **§80.46 Measurement of reformulated gasoline**  **and conventional gasoline fuel parameters.**  (a) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2013, the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined b y ASTM International standard method D2622 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by

one of the alternative test methods specified in paragraph ( a)(3) of this section. Beginning November 30, 2013, the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined by a test method approved under §80.47. (2) Through November 29, 2013, the sulfur content of butane must be determined by ASTM International standard me thod D6667 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by

one of the alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 421 of 842 (3) Through November 29, 2013 , any refiner or importer may

use an y of the following method s for determining the sulfur content of gasoline provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section : (i) ASTM International standard test method D5453 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (ii) ASTM International standard test method D6920 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (iii) ASTM International standard test method D3120 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this se ction). (iv) ASTM International standard test method D7039 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (4) Beginning November 30, 2013, the sulfur content of butane must be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. Through N ovember 29, 2013, an y refiner or importer may determine the sulfur content of butane using an y one of the following methods; provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section:(i) ASTM International standard method D4468 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (ii) ASTM International standard method D3246 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (b) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2013, o lefin content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 30, 2013, the olefin content of gasoline may be determined b y a test method approved under § 80.47. (2)(i) Through November 29, 2013, an y refiner or importer may determine olefin content using ASTM International standard method ASTM D6550 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeting an y testing requirements involving olefin content, provided that: (ii) * * * (c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Through November 29, 2013, Reid Vapor Pressure must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5191 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the following correction equation must be used:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 422 of 842 RVP psi = (0.956 * X)

– 0.347 RVP kPa = 0.956 * X)

– 2.39 Where: X = Total measured vapor pressure, in psi or kPa. Beginning November 30, 2013, RVP may be determined by

a test method approved under §80.47. (d) Distillation. Through November 29, 2013, distillation parameters must be determined using ASTM International standard method D86 ((incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 30, 2013, the distillation parameters may be determined by a test method approved under §80.47. (e) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2013, benzene content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D3606 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except that: (2) Instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol and methanol may cause interference with ASTM International D3606 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) when present. (3) Beginning November 30, 2013, the benzene content may be determined by

a test method approved under §80.47. (f)(1) Through November 29, 2013, aromatic content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5769 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard method are optional. Beginning November 30, 2013, the aromatic content may be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. (2) * * * (3) (i) Through November 29, 2013 any refiner or importer may

determine aromatics content using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for the purpo ses of meeting any test requirement involving aromatic content; provided that: (ii) * * * (g) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2013, oxygen and ox ygenate content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5599 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 423 of 842 of this section). Beginning November 30, 2013, oxygen and ox ygenate content may be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. (2)(i) Through November 29, 2013, when oxygenates present are limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tert iary
- am ylalcohol and C1 to C4 alcohols, any refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender may

determine oxygen and oxygen content using ASTM International standard method D4815 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeti ng an y testing requirement; provided that: (ii) * * * (h) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation b y reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 73 4
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purchase copies of these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959, or b y contacting ASTM International customer service at 10
- 832
- 9585, or b y cont acting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard method D3606
- 10 (“ASTM International D3606”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by

Gas Chromatography , approved October 1, 2010. (ii) ASTM International standard method D1319
- 10 (“ASTM International D1319”), “Standard Test Method f

or Hydrocarbon Ty

pes in L iquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption”, approved May 1, 2010. (iii) ASTM International standard method D6550
- 10 (“ASTM International D6550”), “Standard Test Method for the Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical
Fluid Chromatograph y”, approved October 1, 2010. (iv) ASTM International standard method D4815
- 09 (“ASTM International D4815”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary
- Am yl Alcohol and C 1 to C 4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography”, approved October 1, 2009.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 424 of 842 (v) ASTM International standard method D2622
- 10 (“ASTM International D2622”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (vi) ASTM International standard method D2622
- 10 (“ASTM International D2622”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 20 10. (vii) ASTM International standard method D3246
- 11 (“ASTM International D3246”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry”, approved June 1, 2011. (viii) ASTM International standard method D5599
- 00(2010) (“ASTM International D5599”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Ox ygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatograph y and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection”, approved October 1, 2010. (ix) ASTM International standard method D5769
- 10 (“ASTM International D5769”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Ox ygenates in Gasoline b y Gas Chromatograph y and Ox ygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection”, approved October 1, 2010. (x) ASTM International standard method D86
- 11a (“ASTM International D86”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure”, approved July

1, 2011. (xi) ASTM International standard method D5453
- 09 (“ASTM International D5453”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in L ight Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence”, approved June 15, 2009. (xii) ASTM International standard method D6920

– 07 (“ASTM D6920”), Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Naphthas, Distillates, R eformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and Motor Fuels b y Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, approved December 1, 2007. (xiii) ASTM International standard method D3120
- 08 (“ASTM International D3120”), “Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in L ight Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry”, approved December 15, 2008. (xiv) ASTM International standard method D7039

– 07 (“ASTM D7039”), Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel b y Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X
- ray Fluorescence Spectrometry , approved May 1, 2007. (xv) ASTM International standard method D6667
- 10 (“ASTM International D6667”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquef ied Petroleum Gases by

Ultraviolet Fluorescence”, approved October 1, 2010.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 425 of 842 (xvi) ASTM International standard method D4468
- 85(2006) (“ASTM International D4468”), “Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenol ys is and Rateometric Col orimetry”, approved June 1, 2006.
* * * * * l6. Section 80.47 is revised to read as follows: **§ 80.47**  **Performance -**  **Based Analytical Test Method Approach**  **.** All sample handling, testing procedures and tests must be conducted using good laboratory

practices. (a) Definitions
. As used in this subpart: ( 1 ) Performance
- based Analy tical Test Method Approach means a measurement sy stem based upon established performance criteria for accuracy and precision with use of anal yt ical test methods. As used in this s ubpart, a measurement sy stem used b y laboratories to demonstrate that a particular anal yt ical test method is acceptable for demonstrating compliance. ( 2 ) Accuracy means the closeness of agreement between an observed value from a single test measurement an d an accepted reference value. ( 3 ) Precision means the degree of agreement in a set of measurements performed on the same propert y of identical test material. (4) Absolute fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which a gravimetric standard is pract ical to construct and use. Sulfur content of gasoline, butane, or diesel fuel are examples of an absolute fuel parameter. (5) Gravimetric standard means a test material made by adding a carefully

weighed quantity of the anal yt e to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain any of the anal yt e, resulting in a solution with an accurately known concentrate of the anal yt e. (6) Consensus named fuels are homogeneous quantities of fuel that have been anal yz ed by a number of different laboratories (b y s ending around small samples). The average concentration of some parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the “consensus name” for that material. (7) Locall y - named reference materials are gasoline or diese l fuels that are usually from the regular production of the facility where they

are used in laboratory

quality control efforts and have been anal yz ed using the designated method (either by the facility ’s lab or by

a referee lab) to obtain an estimate of th eir concentration. (8) Method
- defined fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which an EPA
- prescribed primary test method or designated method defines the regulatory standard. Examples of method
-***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 426 of 842 defined fuel parameters include olefin content in gasolin e, Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline, distillation parameters of gasoline, benzene content of gasoline, aromatic content of gasoline and diesel fuel, and ox ygen/ox ygenates content of gasoline. (9) Reference Installations are designated test method installations that are used to qualify the accuracy

of other method
- defined parameter instruments. Reference installations of the designated test method will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other method
- defined alternative test methods and to establi sh correlation equations if necessary
. (10) Correlation equation is a correction equation as determined b y the use of ASTM International standard practice D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). This standard practice determ ines whether the comparison between the alternative test method and the designated test method is a null result. I f the comparison is not null, then the standard practice provides for a correlation equation that predicts designated test method results fro m the applicable method
- defined alternative test method. (11) Statistical quality

control (SQC) means a planned sy stem of activities whose purpose is to provide a level of quality that meets the needs of compliance with the standards of Part 80. This subpart prescribes specific SQC requirements for both absolute and method driven fuel parameters for both VCSB and non
- VCSB regulated parties. (12) Voluntary

consensus - based standards body (VCSB) means a domestic or international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed
- upon procedures and which possesses the attributes of openness, balance of interest, due process, and consensus, as explained in OMB Circular A
- 119 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, P.L . 104
- 113, sec. 12(d). (13) Non
- Voluntary

consensus - based standards body (non
- VCSB) means a domestic or international regulated party who has developed a proprietary anal yt ical test method that has not been adopte d by

a VCSB organization. (b) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval for the absolute fuel parameter of gasoline sulfur. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sul fur standard at §80. 195 and §80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D7039
- 07 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline sample: maximum allowable stan dard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.75ppm/2.77)=0.95 ppm). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 427 of 842 (2) Accuracy
. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gas oline sulfur standard at § § 80. 195 and 80.1603: (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory

practices on a commerciall y available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1
- 10 ppm shall not diff

er from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.71 ppm sulfur; (ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory

practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur stand ard in the range of 10
- 20 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur; and (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) of this section, individual test results shall be c ompensated for an y known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices. (3) The test method specified at §80.46(a)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. (c) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval of the absolute fuel parameter of sulfur in butane. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2013, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §§80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b), and 80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available butane must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability

“r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D6667
- 10 (Example: A 10 ppm sulfur butane sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77)=0.62 ppm). The 20 resul ts must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only

if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regard ing the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) Accuracy
. Beginning November 30, 2013, for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §§80.82 and 80.1603: (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tes ts performed using good laboratory

practices on a commerciall y available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1
- 10 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.47 ppm sulfur; (ii) The arithmetic averag e of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory

practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 428 of 842 10
- 20 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard by more than 0.94 ppm sulfur; and (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for an y known chemical interferences using good laboratory practices. (3) The test method specified at § 80.46(a)(2) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. (d) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of olefins in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of A STM D1319
- 10 (Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol% olefins: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.972Vol%/2.77)=0.53Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory faci lity may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at § 80.46(b)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in gasoline
. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 20 13, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319
- 10 (Example: A gasoline containing 32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(f)( 1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 429 of 842 (f) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of oxygen and ox ygenate content in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of A STM 5599
- 00(2010) (Example: A gasoline containing 3Mass% total oxygen: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77)=0.045Mass%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analy sis and no emissions. A l aboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory

practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The t est method specified at §80.46(g )(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph ( f )(1) of this section. (g) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline. (1) Precisi on. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80 and the volatility standards at §80.27 , the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” di vided b y 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability

of ASTM 5191
- 10b (Example: A gasoline having a RVP of 6.8psi: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.21psi/2.77)=0.11psi). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory

practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason f or excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46( c )(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph ( g )(1) of this section. (h) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of gasoline di stillation. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 430 of 842 times the repeatability “r” divided by 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D86
- 11a for the initial boiling point, E10, E50, E90 and final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline having an initial boiling point of 20 0 C and a final boiling point of 110 0 C: maximum allowable standard deviat ion of 20 tests for initial boiling point≤1.5*(2.84 0 C/2.77)=1.54 0 C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E10 ≤1.5*(1.33 0 C/2.77)=0.72 0 C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E50 ≤1.5*(0.74 0 C/2.77)=0.40 0 C, maximum allowable stan dard deviation of 20 tests for E90t≤1.5*(1.79 0 C/2.77)=0.97 0 C, and maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for final boiling point≤1.5*(3.33 0 C/2.77)=1.80 0 C ). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emi ssions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only

if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(d)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section. (i) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of benzene in gasoline. (1) Precision. B eginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of Part 80 and the MSAT2 standards at § §80. 41, 80. 101, and 80. 1230, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatab ility “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D3606
- 10 (Example: A gasoline having a 1Vol% benzene: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77)=0.02Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only

if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results an d the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(e)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section. (j) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in diesel. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2013, for motor vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives subject to the motor vehicle diesel standards at §80. 520, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “ r” divided b y 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319
- 10 (Example: A diesel fuel containing 35Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a series***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 431 of 842 of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results an d the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(j)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this section. (k) Criteria for designated test method reference installations used to q ualify the accuracy of other method
- defined parameter instruments. (1) Beginning November 30, 2013, the reference installation of the method
- defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must have precision equal to 1.5 times the repeatability

“r” of the method
- defined fuel parameter’s designated test method, where “r” is the repeatability

of the designated test method. (i) Olefins in gasoline see §80.47(d)(1). (ii) Aromatics in gasoline see §80.47(e)(1). (iii) Ox ygen and Ox ygenate c ontent of gasoline see §80.47(f)(1). (iv) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline see §80.47(g)(1). (v) Gasoline Distillation see §80.47(h)(1). (vi) Benzene in Gasoline see §80.47(i)(1) (vii) Aromatics in Diesel see §80.47(j)(1). (2) The reference insta llation of the method
- defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be near the middle distribution of an industry monthl y inter
- laboratory

crosscheck program for at least a period of five months using good laboratory pr actices. Specificall y, compute the difference between the instrument’s average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable fuel standard (or to the average value for the fuel parameter in the complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non
- outlier labs in the monthly

inter
- laboratory

crosscheck program. Standardize this difference by expressing it in robust standard deviation units. These standardized inter
- laboratory crosscheck differences should be placed in a moving average with a minimum span of five months. The instrument’s moving average in robust standard deviation units cannot be outside the central 50% of the distribution of all laboratories that participated in the inter
- laboratory crosscheck program. (3) The reference installation of the method
- defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be in statistical quality control as specified in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) for a minimum period of five months using good laboratory practices.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 432 of 842 (l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method
Defined Parameter Test Methods. (1) Beginning November 30, 2013, include full test method documentation by the Voluntary

Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description of the technology

and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional. (2) Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information for the method
- defined fuel parameter as described in this section. (3) Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) and whether the comparison is a “null” result or whether a correlation equation needs to be applied that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method
defined alternative test method. ( 4) The test meth ods specified at §§80.46(a)(1), 80.46(a)(2), 80.46(b)(1), 80.46(c)(1), 80.46(d)(1), 80.46(e)(1), 80.46(f)(1), 80.46(g)(1) and 80.2(w) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this section. (m) Qualification criteria for Non
- Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (non
- VCSB) Method
- Defined Parameter Test Methods
. For a non
- VCSB method to be approved , the following information must be submitted to the Administrator by each test facil ity

for each method that it wishes to have approved. (1) Beginning November 30, 2013, full and thorough test method documentation, including a description of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking experi ence with the test instrument would be able to replicate its results. (2) Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information using good laboratory practices for the method
- defined fuel parameter as described in this section. (3) Both the candidate method
- defined Non
- VCSB test method and its respective designated test method must be tested on a range of consensus named fuels or locally
- named reference materials that are ty pical of those anal yz ed by the facility

in practice using good laboratory

practices and must meet the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). (4) The facility

using the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method must statistically

establish through application of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) that the candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as applicable to its respecti ve designated test method using good laboratory practices.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 433 of 842 (5) If the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method has sample
- specific biases due to matrix effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqualified. I f however, it is determined that the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels while still meeting the data requirements for variability

as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) (see paragraph (m)(3) of this section), then the ty pes of fuels on which the qualification was achieved and for which the method is to b e approved must be specified in the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method description. If there is any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method is to be qualified, the applicant must include a discussion of how the facility plans to screen sample for conformity to the scope. If the candidate method
- defined test method is found to have minimal matrix effects, a statement to this effect must be included by the applicant in its application. (6) Th e candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method precision qualification must be conducted in the form of “cross
- method reproducibility” (Rcm) of the candidate method and applicable designated test method as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporate d by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section), where the Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method using good laboratory

practices. (7) The applicant of the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method must demonstrate through the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) whether a correlation to applicable designated test method is necessary . If it is determined through the use of thi s practice that the candidate method
- defined non
- VCSB test method requires a correlation equation in order to predict designated test method results, then this correlation equation must be applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurement r esults for regulatory purposes using good laboratory practices. (8) An y additional information requested b y the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method. (9) Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 day s. (10) EPA approval. Within 90 day s of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(9) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section. (11) If the Administrator denies approval of the test method, within 90 day s of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)( 9 ) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the method. If the Administrator does not notify the applicant within 90 day s of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 434 of 842 (12) The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under this section for c ause, including, but not limited to, a determination by the Administrator that the approved test method has proved to be inadequate in practice. (13) An independent third
- part y scientific review and written report and verification of the information provi ded pursuant to paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(9) of this section. The report and verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant documents and shall separately identify each item required by

paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(9) of this se ction, describe how the independent third
- part y evaluated the accuracy of the information provided, state whether the independent third
- part y agrees with the information provided, and identify an y exceptions between the independent third
- part y’s findings and the information provided. (i) The information required under this section to be provided by an independent third party must be conducted by

both a professional chemist and professional statistician as specified in paragraphs (m)(13)(i)(A) of this sect ion. The verifying chemist and statistician must be: (A) For a refiner, importer, ox ygenate producer, and ox ygen ate blender, a chemist and statistician who has received at least a bachelor’s degree in science from an accredited college in the United States, with professional work experience in the petroleum or oxygenate field. (B) [Reserved] (ii) To be considered an independent third
- part y under this paragraph (m)(13): (A) The third
- part y shall not be employed b y the refiner, importer, ox ygenate producer, or ox ygenate blender, or any subsidiary or emplo yee of the refiner, import facility , oxygenate producing facility , or ox ygenate blender. (B) The third part y shall be free from an y interest in the refiner’s, importer’s, ox ygen ate producer’s, or ox ygenate blender’s business. (C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, or oxygenate blender shall be free from any interest in the third
- party ’s business. (D) Use of a third
- part y that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment pursuant to the Government
- wide Debarment and Suspension regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR, part 9, subpart 9.4, shall be deemed in noncompliance with the requirements o f this section. (iii) The independent third
- part y shall retain all records pertaining to the verification required under this section for a period of five ye ars from the date of creation and shall deliver such records to the Administrator upon request. (iv) The third
- part y must provide to EPA documentation of his or her qualifications as part of the scientific review, including proof of appropriate college degree.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 435 of 842 (14) If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provided false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio
. (n) Accuracy

and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Absolute Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2013, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument used to make measurements: (1) Accuracy

SQC. Every

facility shall conduct tests on every instr ument with a commerciall y available gravimetric reference material, or check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterl y basis using good labor atory practices. The facility must pre treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back
- to - back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated by the facility . Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any

exceedance of th ese criteria must be kept for a period of 5 ye ars. (2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see para graph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must construct and maintain an “I” chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a “MR” chart as described in section A1.5.2. An y violations of control limit(s) should be investigated b y personnel of the facility and records kept for a period of 5 years. (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to th e next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the “Q
- Procedure” in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q
- Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows no special
- cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the facilit y for a period of 5 ye ars. (o) Accuracy

and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Voluntary

Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method
- Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2013, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control proc edures are performed separatel y for each instrument used to make measurements:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 436 of 842 (1) Accuracy

SQC. Every

facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a commerciall y available check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D62 99 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterly basis using good laboratory

practices. The check standard must be an ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to either the applicable regul atory standard or the average level of use for the facility . The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard must be determined by the respective designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard prac tice D6299. The facility must pre - treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as de scribed in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back
- to - back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the stan dard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y the facility. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any

exceedance of these c riteria must be kept for a period of 5 ye ars. (2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must construct and maintain an “I” chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a “MR” chart as described in section A1.5 .2. Any

violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility

and records kept for a period of 5 years. (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the nex t batch of QC material, the facility will follow the “Q
- Procedure” in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q
- Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows no special
- cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the facilit y for a period of 5 ye ars. (p) Accuracy

and Precision Statistical Quali ty Control (SQC) Requirements for the Non
Voluntary

Consensus Standard Based (Non
- VCSB) Method
- Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2013, a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control p rocedures are performed separatel y for each instrument used to make measurements: (1) Accuracy

SQC for Non
- VCSB Method
- Defined test methods with minimal matrix effects. Every

facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a commerciall y available check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterl y basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an ordinary fuel with leve ls of the fuel parameter of interest close to either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use for the facility . The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard must be determined by the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 437 of 842 respective designated test method for the fu el parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299. The facility must pre
- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back
- to - back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y the facility. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as any investigations into any

exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. (2)(i) Accuracy

SQC for Non
- VCSB Method
- Defined test methods with high sensitivity to matrix effects. Every

facility shall conduct te sts on every instrument with a production fuel on at least a quarterl y basis using good laboratory practices. The production fuel must be representative of the production fuels that are routinely analyzed by

the facility . The Accepted Reference Value of the production fuel must be determined by the respective reference installation of the designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of thi s section). The facility must pre
- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as de scribed in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back
- to - back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the stan dard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y the facility . Documentation on the identity

of the reference installation and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the method
- defined alternative test method. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as an y investigations into any exceedances of this criterion must be kept for a period of 5 years. (ii) Each facility

is required to send eve ry 20 th production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA’s laboratory , along with the facility ’s measurement result used to certify the batch using the respective method
- defined non
- VCSB test method. The EPA retains the right to return such sample on a blind basis for a required reanal ys is on the respective method
- defined non
- VCSB test method within 180 day s upon receipt of such sample. (3) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must construct and maintain an “I” chart a s described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a “MR” chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any

violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility

and records kept for a period of 5 years. (ii) Validation of New QC Materi al. When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the “Q
- Procedure”***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 438 of 842 in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) using good laboratory practices. In following the Q
- Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows no special
cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by

the facility

for a period of 5 years. (q) Record retention requirements for the test methods approved under this subpart. (1) Each individual test facility must retain records related to the establishment of accurac y and precision values, all test method documentation, and any statistical quality control testing and anal ys is under this section using good laboratory practices for a period for five years. (2) [Reserved] (r) Materials incorporated by reference. The D irector of the Federal Register approved the incorporation b y reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566
- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202
- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_o f_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purchase copies of these materials from the ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959, or by contacting ASTM International customer service at 10
- 832
- 9585, or b y contacting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard practice D6708
- 08 (“ASTM International D6708”), “Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Tes t Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Propert y of a Material”, approved December 15, 2008. (ii) ASTM International standard practice D6299
- 10 ε1 (“ASTM International D6708”), “Standard Practice for Applying Statistical Quality Assurance and Control Ch arting Techniques to Evaluate Anal yt ical Measurement Sy stem Performance”, approved March 1, 2010. (2) [Reserved] 7
. Section 80. 65 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (d)(1). b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iv).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 439 of 842 c. Removing and reserving para graph (d)(2)(v)(E). d. Revising paragraph (d)(3). e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2) introductory text. f. Adding paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4). h. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(3)(iii)(A). i. Adding a new paragra ph (f)(5). j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii). k. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) introductory text and (i)(4)(ii)(A). l. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(i). **§80. 6**  **5 General requirements for refiners and importers.** 
* * * * * (d) * * * (1) All g asoline produced or imported shall be properly designated as reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB. (2) * * * (iv) [Reserved] (v) * * * (E) [Reserved]
* * * * * (3) Every batch of reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline , RBOB , or CBOB produced or imported at each refinery or import facility

shall be assigned a number (the “batch number”), consisting of the EPA
- assigned refiner or importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the last two digits of the year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar year and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the next sequential number ( e.g. , 4321

– 54321

– 95

– 000001, 4321

– 543321

– 95

– 000002, etc.)
. (e) * * * (1) Except as provided in paragraph s (e) (3) and (e) ( 4 ) of this section, each refiner or importer shall , for each batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported , deter mine the volume and the value of each of the properties specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, except that the value for RVP must be determined onl y in the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is VOC
- controlled. These determinations shall:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 440 of 842 (i) Be based on a representative sample of the reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is anal yz ed using the methodologies specified in §80.46 through November 29, 2013, or, beginning November 30, 2013, in §80.47 ; * * * * * (2) In the event that the value of an y of these properties is determined b y the refiner or importer and b y an independent laboratory in conformance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section:
* * * * * (3) Beginning January

1, 2013, APIGravit y is not required to be measure d or reported for the purpose of batch certification. (4) For the purposes of meeting the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section for any winter fuel parameter except benzene, ox ygenate, RVP and sulfur, an y refiner or importer may, prior to anal ys i s, combine samples of gasoline collected from more than one batch of gasoline or blendstock (“composite sample”), and treat such composite sample as one batch of gasoline or blendstock provided that the refiner or importer meets all of the following requir ements : (i) Samples must be from a single reporting ye ar, must be limited to non
- VOC gasoline, and must be of a single grade of gasoline or of a single type of batch
- produced blendstock. (ii) Combines samples of gasoline that are produced or imported ov er a period no longer than one month. Blendstock samples of a single blendstock ty pe obtained from continuous processes over a calendar month may be mixed together to form one blendstock sample and the sample subsequently

analyzed for the required fuel parameters. (iii)(A) Samples shall have been collected and stored using good laboratory practices in order to prevent change in product composition with regard to baseline properties and to minimize loss of volatile fractions of the sample. (B) Properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss of butane b y comparing the RVP measured immediately after blending with the RVP determined at the time that the supplemental properties are measured. (C) The volume of each batch or shipment sampled , to the nearest gallon, shall have been noted and the sum of the volumes , in gallons, calculated
. (iv) For each batch or shipment sampled, the ratio of its volume to the total volume determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(C) of this section shall be determined to three (3) decimal places. This shall be the volumetric fraction of the shipment in the mixture. (v) The total minimum volume required to perform duplicate anal ys es to obtain values of all of the required fuel parameters shall be determined.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 441 of 842 (vi) The volumetric fraction determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section for each batch or shipment shall be multiplied by the value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section. (vii) The resulting value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of this section for each batch or shipment shall be the volume of each batch or shipment's sample to be added to the mixture. This volume shall be determined to the nearest milliliter. (viii) The appropriate volumes of each shipment's sample shall be thoroughly mixed an d the solution analy

zed per the methods required under §§80.46 or 80.47, as applicable. (ix) Uses the total of the volumes of the batches of gasoline that comprise the composite sample, and the results of the anal ys es of the composite sample, for purpose s of compliance calculations under paragraph (e) of this section
. (f) * * * (1) * * * (i) Option 1. The refiner or importer shall, for each batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is produced or imported, have the value for each property specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section determined b y an independent laboratory that collects and anal yz es a representative sample from the batch using the methodologies specified in §80.46 through November 29, 2013, and the methodologies specified in §80.4 7 beginning November 30, 2013.
* * * * * (3) * * * (iii) * * * (A) A report for the period January through March shall be submitted by May 31; a report for the period April through June shall be submitted by August 31; a report for the period July thro ugh September shall be submitted by November 30; and a report for the period October through December shall be submitted by February 28. Beginning, January

1, 2013, a single annual report for calendar year January through December may

be submitted by

the following February 28.
* * * * * (5) A refiner or importer may designate one alternate independent laboratory , to be used only when the designated independent laboratory per paragraph (f)(2) of this section is unavailable and cannot perform testing requi red for compliance.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 442 of 842 (i) The alternate independent laboratory must meet all provisions of this section for designated independent laboratories. (ii) An alternate independent laboratory may not be used to select a preferred test result. The alternate labo ratory

may onl y be used on those occasions where operational necessity causes a need for it (e.g., the primary designated lab oratory is closed, the apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent lab oratory personnel are not available).
* * * * * (i) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline. An y refiner who uses previously certified reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB must exclude the previously certified gasoline for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards under §80.41. This exclusion must be accomplished by the refiner as follows: (1) * * * (ii) Inthe case of previously certified reformulated gasoline or RBOB determine the emissions performances for toxics and NO X , except as provided in §80.41(e) and (f), and VOC for VOC
- controlled gasoline, and the designations for VOC control. (iii) Inthe case of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB, determine the exhaust toxics and NO X emissions performan ces, except as provided in § 80.101(c)(3) and (c)(4).
* * * * * (4) * * * (ii) Where a refiner uses previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB: (A) The refiner must include the volume and properties of any batch of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB as a negative batch in the refiner's anti
- dumping compliance calculations under §80.101(g) for the refinery , or where applicable, the refiner's aggregation under §80.101(h); and
* * * * * (6)( i) An y refiner may

use the procedures specified in this paragraph (i) to combine previously

certified conventional gasoline or CBOB with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, to reclassify conventional gasoline or CBOB into reformulated gasoline or RBOB, or to c hange the designations of reformulated gasoline or RBOB with regard to VOC control.
* * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 443 of 842 **Subpart D --**  **[Am ended]**  8. Section 80.75 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text. b. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B). c. Revising paragrap h (a)(2)(viii)(D). d. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(F). e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b). f. Revising paragraph (c)(1). g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text. h. Revising paragraph (d)(1). i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii). j. Revising paragra

ph (e) introductory

text. k. Revising paragraph (e)(1). l. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text. m. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text. n. Revising paragraph (i). o. Removing and reserving paragraph (k). **§ 80.75**  **Reporting Requirements**
* * * * * (a) Annual and quarterl y reports for reformulated gasoline
. For an y compliance period that ends prior to January 1, 2013, any refiner or importer that produces or imports any reformulated gasoline or RBOB shall submit quarterly reports to the Administrator for each refinery at which such reformulated gasoline or RBOB was produced and for all such reformulated gasoline or RBOB imported b y each importer. Beginning January 1 , 2013, the information required in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section sh all be submitted only in an annual report.
* * * * * (2) * * * (v) * * * (B) The properties, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties, pursuant to §§80.65 and 80.66;
* * * * * (viii) * * * (D) The volume, proper

ties (along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties), and designation of the batch.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 444 of 842 (ix) * * * (F) The properties of the butane batch, along with the identification of the test method used to measure those properties, spec ified by the butane supplier, or the properties specified in §80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate;
* * * * * (b) [Reserved] (c) * * * (1) An y refiner or importer that produced or imported any reformulated gasoline or RBOB under the complex model that was t o meet the VOC emissions performance standards on average (“averaged reformulated gasoline”) shall submit to the Administrator, with the third quarterl y report, a report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline produced or impo rted during the previous VOC averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2013, the information required by this paragraph (c) shall be submitted with the annual report. This information shall be reported separatel y for the following categories:
* * * * * (d) Benzene content averaging reports. Pursuant to §80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to the applicable standards at §80.41(f)(1), the report required by this paragraph (d) is not required beginning January 1, 2013 , or beginning January 1, 2015 for all other refiners
. (1) An y refiner or importer that produced or imported any reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the benzene content standards on average (“averaged reformulated gasoline”) shall submit to the Administrator , with the fourth quarterl y report, a report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2013, the information required b y this paragraph (d) shall be submitted with the annual report. (2) * * * (iii) The actual total content of benzene, along with identification of the test methods used to measure the content of benzene;
* * * * * (e) Toxics emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to §80.41(f)(3), for an y refiner, refinery

or importer not subject to the applicable standards at §80.41(f)(1), the report required b y this paragraph ( e ) is not required beginning January 1, 2013 , or beginning January 1, 2015 for all other refine rs .***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 445 of 842 (1) An y refiner or importer that produced or imported any reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the toxics emissions performance standards on average (“averaged reformulated gasoline”) shall submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterl y report, a report for each refinery

or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2013, the information required b y this paragraph ( e ) shall be submitt ed with the annual report.
* * * * * ( g) NO X emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to §80.41(f)(2), for an y refiner, refinery

or importer not subject to the applicable standards at §80.41(f)(1), the report required b y this paragraph (g) is n ot required beginning January 1, 201 2
. * * * * * (h) Credit transfer reports. As an additional part of the fourth quarterl y report required b y this section, any

refiner or importer shall, for each refinery or importer, supply

the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section for an y benzene credits that are transferred from or to another refinery or importer. Beginning January 1, 2013, the information required b y this paragraph (h) shall be submitted with the annual report. (i) Covered areas of gasoline use report. An y refiner that produced an y reformulated gasoline that was to meet any reformulated gasoline standard on average (“averaged reformulated gasoline”) shall, for each refinery at which such averaged reformulated gas oline was produced, submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterl y report, a report that contains the identity

of each covered area that was supplied with any averaged reformulated gasoline produced at each refinery during the previous year. Beginning January 1, 2013, th e information required b y this paragraph (i) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * * (k) [Reserved]
* * * * * 9
. Section 80. 82 is amended by : a. Revising the introductory text. b. Revising paragraphs (a) through (e). c. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). **§80.82 Butane blending.** A refiner for an y refinery that produces gasoline by blending butane with previously certified gasoline may

meet the sampling and testing requirements for this part as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 446 of 842 (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section, any refinery that blends butane for which the refinery has documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (c) of this section, may demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the properties specified in paragraph (c) of this section, or the properties specified b y the butane supplier. (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section, any refiner that blends butane for which the refiner has documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is non
- commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, may demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the p roperties specified in paragraph (d) of this section, or the properties specified b y the butane supplier, provided that the refinery : (i) Conducts a quality

assurance program of sampling and testing the butane obtained from each separate butane supplier which demonstrates that the butane has the properties specified in paragraph (d) of this section; and (ii) The frequency

of sampling and testing for the butane received from each butane supplier must be one sample for every 500,000 gallons of butane receiv ed, or one sample every three months, whichever is more frequent. (2) Where test results indicate the butane does not meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the refiner may : (i) Blend the butane with conventional gasoline, or reformul ated gasoline that has been downgraded to conventional gasoline, provided that any applicable equivalent emissions performance standards of the butane batch, as determined using the provisions in §80.101(g)(3), meets the refinery 's standards under §80.101 and the refiner meets all of the standards and requirements applicable to refiners of conventional gasoline under this part; (ii) Blend the butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, provided that the final batch of butane blended with reformulated gasoli ne or RBOB meets the per
- gallon standards in §80.41, as determined using the test methods in §80.46. (c) Commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test results demonstrate that the butane is 95% pure and has all of the following properties: (1) Olefins ≤1.0 vol%. (2) Aromatics ≤2.0 vol%. (3) Benzene ≤0.03 vol%. (4) Sulfur ≤30 ppm from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; ≤10 ppm beginning January

1, 2017 and thereafter.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 447 of 842 (d) Non
- commercial grade butane is defined as butane for whic h test results demonstrate the butane has all of the following properties: (1) Olefins ≤10.0 vol%. (2) Aromatics ≤2.0 vol%. (3) Benzene ≤0.03 vol%. (4) Sulfur ≤30 ppm beginning January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; ≤10 ppm beginning January

1 , 2017 and thereafter. (e)(1) When butane is blended with conventional gasoline under this section during the period May

1 through September 15, the refiner shall demonstrate through sampling and testing, using the test method for Reid vapor pressure in § 80.47, that each batch of conventional gasoline blended with butane meets the volatility standards specified in §80.27.
* * * * * (i) A refiner who onl y blends commercial grade or non
- commercial grade butane into PCG may meet the sampling and testing req uirements of subpart O b y meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (f) and (h)(3) of this section and all of the following additional requirements: (1) The per
- gallon sulfur content of every batch of butane must not exceed 10 ppm. (2) The refin er obtains test results from the butane supplier that demonstrate that the sulfur content of each load does not exceed the applicable per
- gallon sulfur standard under paragraph (i)(1) of this section through test results of samples of butane contained in the storage tank from which the butane blender is supplied. (i) Sampling and testing for the sulfur content of the butane b y the supplier must be subsequent to each receipt of butane into the supplier’s storage tank or the sampling and testing must be imme diately

before transfer of butane to the butane blender. (ii) The testing must be performed in accord with the provisions of §80.47. (iii) The butane blender must obtain a copy of the butane supplier’s test results at the time of each transfer of butane to the butane blender. (3) The sulfur content and volume of each batch of gasoline produced is that of the butane that the refiner blends into PCG for the purposes of calculating compliance with the 10 ppm per - gallon sulfur standard. (4) The requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(3) of this section apply regardless of whether the butane is commercial grade or noncommercial grade.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 448 of 842 (5) The qualit y assurance testing requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies regardless of whether the but ane is commercial grade or noncommercial grade. (6) If an y of the requirements of this paragraph (i) are not met, in whole or in part for any butane blended into gasoline, that butane is deemed in violation of the gasoline standards in §80.1603(a). (j) T he PCG procedures of §80.1640 may be used to meet the sampling and testing requirements of 40 CFR part 80 subpart O. 10. Section 80.101 is amended by :

a. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A). b. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C). c. Revising paragraph (i)(3 )(ii)(C). **§80.101 Standards applicable to refiners and importers.**
* * * * * (i) * * * (1) * * * (i)(A) Through November 29, 2013, determine the value of each of the properties required for determining compliance with the standards that are applicabl e to the refiner or importer, by

collecting and anal yz ing a representative sample of gasoline or blendstock from the batch, using methodologies specified in §80.46; beginning November 30, 2013, determine the value of each of the properties required for det ermining compliance with the standards that are applicable to the refiner or importer, b y collecting and anal yz ing a representative sample of gasoline or blendstock from the batch, using methodologies specified in §80.4 7; except that
* * * * * (3) * * * (i) * * * (C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified under §80.65(e)(2)(i), using either of the following: ( 1 ) T he test methods specified under §80.46 , through November 29, 2013. ( 2 ) The test methods specified under §80.4 7, beginni ng November 30, 2013
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 449 of 842 (ii) * * * (C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified under §80.65(e)(2)(i), using the test methods specified under §80.46 through November 29, 2013, or under §80.4 7 beginning November 30, 2013
. * * * * * **Subp art E**  **-- [Amended]**  11. Section 80.105 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(v). b. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(vi)(D). c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(F) and (a)(5)(vii)(G). d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iii). **§ 80.105 Reporting Requirements .**  (a) * * * (5) * * * (v) The properties, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties, pursuant to §80.101(i); (vi) * * * (D) The volume, properties, along with identification of the test method used to measure those propert ies, and designation of the batch; (vii) * * * (F) The properties of the butane batch specified b y the butane supplier, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties of the butane, or the properties specified in §80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate. (G) Where butane is blended with conventional gasoline during the period May 1 through September 15, the Reid vapor pressure, along with identification of the test method used to measure Reid vapor pressure using the appropriate te st method at §80.46 until November 30, 2013 **,** and at §80.47 beginning November 30, 2013; and
* * * * * (7) * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 450 of 842 (iii) A statement that the gasoline produced using butane meets all applicable downstream standards that appl y to conventional gasoline under Subpart E, along with the test methods used to determine compliance with the downstream standards that appl y to conventional gasoline under Subpart E; and
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 12. Section 80.161 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ) and adding par agraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)( 3 ). b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text. c. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(C), (b)(3)(v), and (b)(3)(viii). d. Revising paragraph (d)(1). **§ 80.161 Detergent additive certification program.** 
* * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) * * * (A) * * * ( 2 ) In the case of the alternative national generic certification option pursuant to §80.163(a)(1)(iii), the minimum recommended concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed into the associated test fuel speci fied in §80.177, which was shown to satisfy the fuel injector deposit control and intake valve deposit control performance tests and standards specified in §80.176. ( 3 ) In the case of an y other detergent certification option, the minimum recommended conc entration must equal or exceed the amount mixed into the associated test fuel specified in §80.164, which was shown to satisfy the fuel injector deposit control and intake valve deposit control performance tests and standards specified in §80.165.
* * * * * (2) The detergent additive manufacturer (or other certifying part y) must submit to EPA a sample of the actual detergent additive package which was used in the certification test fuels specified in §80.164 or §80.177 or, if such sample is not available, then a sample which has the same composition as the package used in certification testing.
* * * * * (3) * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 451 of 842 (ii) * * * (C) Complete documentation of the test fuel formulation, IVD demonstration procedures, fuel injector deposit demonstration procedure if applicable, detergent performance test procedures, and test results are available for EPA's inspection upon request.
* * * * * (v) In the case of a national or PADD certification (pursuant to §80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii) or §80.163(b)) for which the test fuel was specially formulated from refinery blend stocks, the results of the IVD demonstration test, pursuant to §80.164(b)(3). In the case of an alternative national generic certification (pursuant to §80.163(a)(1)(iii)), the results of the IVD demonstration test and fuel injector deposit demonstration test (pursuant to §80.177).
* * * * * (viii) The test concentration(s) of the subject detergent additive in each test fuel, and the corresponding test results (percent flow restriction demonstrated in the fuel injector test and milligrams of deposit per valve demonstrated in the IVD test).
* * * * * (d) * * * (1) If a detergent blender possesses deposit control performance test results as specified in §80.165, §80.166, or §80.176 which show that the minimum treat rate recommended b y the manufacturer of a detergent additive product exceeds the amount of that detergent actually required for effective deposit control, then, upon informing EPA in writing of these circumstanc es, the detergent blender may use the detergent at the lower concentration substantiated by

these test results.
* * * * * 13. Section 80.163 is amended b y adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows: **§ 80.163 Detergent certification options .**  * * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (iii ) Alternative national generic certification option. To be certified under this option, a candidate detergent must meet the deposit control performance test requirements and standards***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 452 of 842 speci fied in §80.176 using test fuels that conform to th e requirements in §80.177. A detergent certified under this option is eligible to be used at a conforming LAC in any grade of gasoline, with or without an oxygenate component.
* * * * * 14. Section 80.164 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.164 Certification test fuels.** (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for the test fuels required in conjunction with the certification options described in § § 80.163 (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1 )(ii), and 80.163(b) through (d) . For each such certification option, the associated test fuel must meet or exceed the levels of four basic fuel parameters (aromatics, fuel sulfur, olefins, and T

– 90) prescribed here and may

also contain specified oxygenate compounds. In addition, pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, some fuels must undergo an IVD demonstration test before they are eligible to be used as test fuels under this certification program. Test fuel characteristics must be reported to EPA i n the detergent certification letter required pursuant to §80.161(b)(3). The specifications for the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national generic certification option in §80.163 (a)(1)(iii) are contained in §80.177
. * * * * * 1 5. Section 80.165 is amended b y revising the introductory paragraph and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows: **§ 80.165 Certification test procedures and standards.**  This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and performance st andards which must be met in order to certify detergent additives for use in unleaded gasoline, pursuant to §80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 3 ). These standards must be met in the context of the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this se ction, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. The testing must be conducted and the performance standards met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel meeting all relevant requirements of §80.164, including the deposit
- forming tendency demonstration specified in §80.164(b)(3), if applicable. Complete test documentation must be submitted by the certifying party within 30 day s of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records. The certification test procedures and s tandards associated with the alternative national generic certification option in §80.163 (a)(1)(iii) are contained in §80.176
. (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. (1) The required test fuel must produce no more than 5% flow restriction in any one injector when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5598

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,” 1994, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. At the option of the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 453 of 842 certifier, fuel injector flow may be measured at intervals during the 10,000 mile test cycle described in ASTM D 5598

– 94, in addition to the flow measurements required at the completion of the test cycle, but not more than every 1,000 miles. (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel must produce the accumulation of less than 100 mg of intake valve deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5500

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,” 1994, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. (c) If conducted using test fuels meeting all relevant requirements of §80.164, and completed prior to September 3, 1996, then the PFID and IVD control test procedures required for detergent certification in California (specified in section 2257 of Title 13, California Code of Regulations) will also be considered acceptable. California Air Resources Board, “Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines”, March 1, 1991, and California Air Resources Board, “BMW

— 10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test Procedure”, March 1, 1991, are incorporated by reference pursuant to §80.178. 16. Section 80.167 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.167 Confirmatory testing.**
* * * * * (a) Confirmatory

testing conducted to evaluate the validity of detergent certifications under the national, PADD, or fuel
- specific options under § §80.163 (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and 80.163(b) through (d) will generall y entail a single vehicle test using the procedures detailed in §80.165. The test fuel(s) used in conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in §80.164, and will otherwise conform to the applicable certification test fuel specifications therein. Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of detergent certifications under the alternative national generic certification option in § 80.163 (a)(1)(iii) will generall y entail a single test using the procedures detailed in §80.177. The test fuel(s) used in conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the specified fuel param eters at or below the minimum levels specified in §80.177, and will otherwise conform to the applicable certification test fuel specifications therein.
* * * * * 17. A new section 80.175 is added to subpart G and reserved as follows: **§ 80.175 [Reserved**  **]** 18. A new section 80.176 is added to subpart G to read as follows: **§ 80.176 Alternative certification test procedures and standards.** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 454 of 842 This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and performance standards which must be met in order to c ertify detergent additives for use in unleaded gasoline pursuant to §80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ). These standards must be met in the context of the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs ( a) and (b) of this section. T esting must be conducted and the performance standards met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel s meeting all relevant requirements of §80.177
. Complete test documentation must be submitted by the certifying part y within 30 days of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records. (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel must produce no more than one inoperative injector when tested in accordance with the fuel injector deposit test procedure specified in paragraph (c) of this section
. (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel must produce the accumulation of less than 50 mg of intake valve deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D6201
- 04(2009) , “ Standard Test Method for Dy namometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation ”, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178
. (1) Tests conducted for the intake valve deposit demonstration test pursuant to §80.177 (b)(1)(iv ) and to demonstrate compl iance with the intake valve deposit control standards in this section must be conducted using the same engine block and cylinder head. (2) All results must be derived from operationall y valid tests in accordance with the test validation criteria of ASTM D 6201
- 04(2009). (3) Test results shall be reported for individual intake valves and as an average of all intake valves. (c) Fuel injector deposit test procedure. (1) Summary

of Test Procedure
. After flushing the vehicle fuel s ys tem with the fuel to b e tested and installing new injectors, an automatic starter control system starts the vehicle and lets it idle for five minutes. The engine is then shut off and allowed to soak for 25 minutes. This cycle is repeated for a total of 192 cycles (96 hours). During this time, the engine is kept at operating temperature with block heaters. After the 96 hours of start/soak cycles, the engine is allowed to hot
- soak for 48 hours, during which time the engine is not started but is maintained at operating temperat

ure. At the end of the 48
- hour hot soak, the block heaters are turned off and the engine is allowed to cool naturally to room temperature. At the end of this 48
- hour ambient temperature soak, an injector balance test is conducted to determine whether any poppet nozzles are stuck closed. (2) Facilities and Equipment
. (i) Lo cation. A temperature
- controlled garage or large room is needed. A dy namometer is not needed, since this test is an idle test. The room temperature shall be maintained in the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 455 of 842 range of 68
- 75°F. The room shall be equipped with an exhaust sy stem that connects to the vehicle tail pipe to remove the exhaust gases from the building. It is recommended that an interlock be provided so that if the building exhaust sy stem fails, the vehicle test will shut down. (ii) Electrical Power. Two 110
- volt, 15
- amp circuits are needed (20
- amp circuits are recommended) to operate the four block heaters and a battery charger. (iii) Fuel Drain Facility
. A facility is required to drain the fuel from the vehicle between tests. The fuel is drained from the service port on the fuel rail, near the back of the engine. A commercial cart equipped with a tank and a suction pump is recommended for this operation. (iv) Vehicle. A Chevrolet Astro or GMC Safari van, model year 1998
- 2001, shall be used for the test. Either two
- wheel drive or all
- wheel drive is satisfactory , although the former allows easier installation of the block heaters. (v) Injectors. New injectors, General Motors part number 17091432, s hall be used for each test. (vi) Block Heaters. Four block heaters, General Motors part number 12371293, are needed for each vehicle. Two heaters shall be installed on each side of the engine, in the freeze plug locations. (vii) Battery

Charger. Becau se of the large number of starts and the very short engine running time, a battery

charger is needed. Itis recommended that the charger be installed permanentl y on the vehicle and remain plugged in while the test is in progress. (viii) Starter Controlle r. A sy stem is needed to start the engine automatically and then shut it off after exactl y five minutes of running. A commercial after
- market remote starting sy stem connected to a timer or computer can be used, or a one
- of
- a - kind sy stem can be designed and built. (ix) Tech 2 Anal yz er. A General Motors Tech 2 analyzer, part number GM3000094, available from Kent
- Moore, shall be used to conduct the injector balance test. (x) Fuel Pressure Gauge. A fuel pressure gauge capable of measuring fuel sy stem pres sure to the nearest 1 psi over the range of 45 to 65 psi, shall be used with the Tech 2 analyzer when conducting the injector balance test. A pressure transducer shall not be used. (xi) Gaskets. The upper intake manifold gasket and injector body gasket will need to be replaced from time to time as they crack, tear, or wear out from frequent handling during injector replacement. (3) Initial Vehicle Preparation
. (i) Diagnostics. To help determine whether a vehicle is satisfactory for use in this inject or test procedure, a thorough inspection and engine diagnostic test shall be conducted as***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 456 of 842 described in the service manual. Check the cooling s ys tem to be sure the coolant looks clean and there are no signs of rust. (ii) Block Heaters. Install four electric block heaters, General Motors part number 12371293, in the coolant passages of the engine block, two on each side of the block. The heaters will be plugged into a heater control unit. Two of the heaters will remain on at all times during the first 14 4 hours of the injector fouling test, while the other two heaters will be turned on and off b y the controller as needed to maintain an engine temperature of about 100
- 102°C during the soak periods of the test. (The temperature will drop while the engine i s running, as the coolant from the radiator circulates through the engine. The temperature should recover to 100
- 102 ° C within about 20 minutes after the engine shuts off.) (iii) Thermocouples. Install a 1/16
- inch Ty pe K thermocouple in a threaded bolt h ole on the rear of the right cylinder head. This thermocouple provides the feedback signal to the controller to turn two block heaters on and off. Install another thermocouple in the other hole near the first thermocouple. This second thermocouple provi des a signal to an over
- temperature safet y shut
- off on the heater controller. If the engine temperature reaches the set point (110°C recommended), the heater controller will signal the starter controller to shut down the test. (iv) Fuel S ys tem Flush. Dr ain the fuel from the fuel sy stem through the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. Refuel with a non
- detergent gasoline containing between 5 and 10 percent ethanol. Drive the vehicle for approximately 100 miles to thoroughl y expose al l parts of the fuel sy stem to the fuel. The fuel pump and fuel filters should not be replaced unless there is a problem with them or if the vehicle history suggests that replacement would be prudent. If replacement is necessary , the new parts should firs t be conditioned by recirculating a 10% ethanol
- gasoline blend (without deposit control additive) through them for one week. (v) Oil Change. Change the engine oil and oil filter, using oil that meets the manufacturer’s recommended service classification and viscosity grade. (vi) Battery

Charger. Install a battery charger in the vehicle so that it can be plugged in during the test and keep the battery at full charge. (vii) Radiator. Install cardboard or other suitable material on the front of the radiator to block the flow of air through the radiator while the engine is running. This will help minimize the drop in coolant temperature. (viii) Starter Controller. Make the necessary changes to the vehicle electrical sy stem so that the engine can be star ted and stopped automatically on a programmed schedule. Install a starter controller or computer and program it to do the following: (A) Start the engine and let it run for 5 minutes, and then shut it off and let it hot
- soak for 25 minutes. (B) Repeat the 5/25 cycle for a total of 192 cycles.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 457 of 842 (C) Allow a 48
- hr hot soak during which the engine is not run but the engine temperature is maintained at 100
- 102°C. (D) Turn off the heaters for 48 hours. (E) Continuously

count and display

the number of cycles that have been completed throughout the test. (4) Test Procedure. The steps described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) though (c)(3)(vi) of this section must be performed that action described in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section so that the new injectors ar e exposed only to the new test fuel. (i) Drain the fuel from the vehicle. (ii) Add approximately

2 gallons of the fuel to be tested. (iii) Drive the vehicle for approximately 20 miles at speeds up to approximately 50
- 60 mph. Approximately

every 5 miles , stop the vehicle and moderately accelerate. If the radiator covering is still in place, watch the temperature gauge during the driving and avoid overheating the engine. This step not only flushes the fuel s ys tem but also helps remove carbon (if any) from the spark plugs and water from the exhaust sy stem. (iv) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 1 to 2 gallons of the fuel to be tested. (v) Drive the vehicle for approximately 5 miles. Watch the temperature gauge and avoid overheating the engine. (vi) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 10 gallons of the fuel to be tested. (The test consumes about 7.5 gallons of fuel.) (vii) Remove the fuel injectors and install new injectors. Run the engine for a few minutes to be sure it runs properl y. (viii) Park the vehicle in the location where the test will be run. (ix) Connect the vehicle tail pipe to the building exhaust system. (x) Depending on the design of the starter control sy stem, remove fuses and relay s as necessary and connect the wires from the controller to the vehicle fuse box. Close the hood. (xi) Turn on the vehicle ignition switch and the security by pass switch if so equipped. (xii) Turn on the heater controller and be sure that it is working. (xiii) Tur n on the starter controller and the vehicle should start.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 458 of 842 (xiv) Monitor the engine temperature for the first few cycles to be sure it is increasing. (xv) At the end of the 192
- hour (8
- day) test, turn off the ignition switch, starter controller, and heate r controller. Return the fuses, relay s, and wires to their standard configuration for normal operation of the vehicle. (xvi) Connect the Tech 2 anal yz er to the ALDL connector under the instrument panel, and connect the fuel pressure gauge to the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. (xvii) Conduct the injector balance test b y following the instructions on the Tech 2. The injector balance test checks each injector individually to determine whether the poppet nozzle is stuck closed. Fi rst, the Tech 2 turns on the fuel pump momentarily to pressurize the fuel sy stem. Then it pulses the injector for a preset interval. If the injector and poppet nozzle are working properl y, the fuel system pressure will decrease gradually and smoothly b y about 8 to 10 psi during the pulsing. If the pressure does not decrease, or decreases very suddenly but then stops decreasing before the pulsing is done, the poppet is stuck closed. This procedure, beginning with pressurizing the fuel sy stem, is carried out for each injector. 19. A new section 80.177 is added to read as follows: **§ 80.177 Certification test fuels for use with the alternative test procedures and standards.** (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national generic certification option described in §80.163(a)(1)(iii). (1) The test fuel characteristics detailed in this section must be reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant to §80.161(b)(3). (2) The levels of the basic fuel parameters specified in this section (ethanol, olefins, aromatics, sulfur, and 90% evaporation distillation temperature) must be measured in accordance with applicable procedures in §80.46. (3) No de tergent - active substance other than the detergent additive package undergoing testing may

be added to a certification test fuel. Typical nondetergent additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, and metal deactivators, may be present in the test fuel at the discretion of the additive certifier. In addition, an y nondetergent additives (other than ox ygenate compounds) which are commonly blended into gasoline and which are known or suspected to affect IVD or PFID formation, or to reduce the ability o f the detergent in question to control such deposits, should be added to the test fuel for certification testing. (4) Certification test requirements may be satisfied for a detergent additive using more than one batch of test fuel, provided that each batc h satisfies all applicable test fuel requirements under this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 459 of 842 (5) Unless otherwise required by this section, finished test fuels must conform to the requirements for commercial gasoline described in ASTM D 4814

– 11, “Standard Specification for Auto motive Spark
- Ig nition Engine Fuel”, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. (b) Test fuel for intake valve deposit testing: This paragraph provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test procedure specified in §80. 176(b). (1) The test fuel must contain levels of the specified parameters consistent with the requirements of this section. (i) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent and no more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. Commercial fuel gr ade denatured fuel ethanol must be used that conforms to the requirement of §80.1610 and ASTM D4806
- 11a “ Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel ”, which is incorporate d by reference pursuant to §80.178. (ii) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent olefins. At least 75 percent of the olefins must be derived from fluid cataly tic cracker unit (FCC) gasoline. Such FCC gasoline can be full
- range FCC ga soline or a mixture of light and heavy FCC gasolines. Such FCC gasoline must be produced b y a commercial gasoline refiner and meet the following criteria:(A) The FCC gasoline must be designated b y the commercial refiner as full range FCC gasoline or whol e FCC gasoline, and must have a T90 distillation temperature greater than 300°F. (B) If a mixture of light and heav y FCC gasoline is used, heav y FCC gasoline must contribute at least 50 percent of the sulfur in the mixture. Heav y FCC gasoline must meet the following criteria: ( 1 ) The heav y FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial refiner as heavy FCC gasoline. ( 2 ) The heav y FCC gasoline must have an API gravity less than 45 and a T90 distillation temperature greater than 325°F. (iii) The test fuel must contain no less than 28 volume percent aromatics. (iv) The test fuel must contain no less than 240 ppm sulfur. At least 60 percent of the sulfur must be derived from FCC gasoline that meets the specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this sec tion. (iv) The test fuel must have a T90 distillation temperature of no less than 290°F.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 460 of 842 (iv) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must produce no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves when subjected to the intake valve deposit test specified in §80.176(b). (v) All gasoline blendstocks used to formulate the test fuel must be representative of normal refinery

operations and shall be derived from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes may be used for v apor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical grade streams is prohibited. (2) [Reserved] (c) Test fuel for fuel injector deposit testing: This paragraph provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test procedure specified in §80 .176(c). The test fuel must conform to the specifications in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. The same base test fuel must be used for deposit demonstration testing and for demonstrating compliance with the fuel injector deposit control standards in §80.176(a). (1) Option 1 regarding the specifications for the test fuel used for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel must be a commercial full boiling range h ydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending component, without oxygen ates. (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must produce at least 5 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the fuel injector deposit test specified in §80.176(c). (2) Option 2 regarding the specifications for the formulation o f the test fuel used for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel must meet the requirements for federal emissions test gasoline specified in §§80.113 and 80.112 into which 4
- methylbenzenethiol has been blended as a concentration of 56 mg/L. ( ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must produce at least 4 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the fuel injector deposit test specified in §80.176(c). 20. A new section 80.178 is added to read as follows: **§ 80.178**  **Incorpo ration by reference.**  (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 461 of 842 public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

– 741

– 6030 or go to: http://www/archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. This material is also available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

– 2005

– 0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington DC. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

– 1742. Also, this material is available from the source listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
. (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C

– 700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1

– 800

–262

– 1373, www.astm.org ). (1) ASTM D 5598

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,” 1994; IBR approved for §80.165. (2) ASTM D 5500

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,” 1994; IBR approved for §80.165. (3) ASTM D6201
- 04(2009) (“ASTM D 6201”), Standard Test Method for Dy namometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation; IBR approved for §80.176. (4) ASTM D 4814

– 11, “Standard Specification for Automotive Spark
- Ignit ion Engine Fuel”, IBR approved for §80.177. (5) ASTM D4806
- 11a “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark
- Ignition Engine Fuel”, IBR approved for §80.177. (c) California Air Resources Board, 1001 "I" Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812 (800) 242
- 4450, http://www.arb.ca.gov ). (1) California Air Resources Board, “Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines”, M arch 1, 1991; IBR approved for §80.165. (2) California Air Resources Board, “BMW

— 10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test Procedure”, March 1, 1991; IBR approved for §80.165. **Subpart H**
**— [Amended]**  21
. Section 80.330 is amended b y revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1) , and (d)(2) to read as follows: **§ 80.330 What are the sampling and testing requirements for refiners and importers?******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 462 of 842 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (c) * * * (1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall use the method provided in §80.46(a)(1) or one of the alternative test methods listed in §80.46(a)(3) to measure the sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import through November 29, 2013 **.** Beginning November 30, 2013 **,** for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importe rs shall use a method approved in §80.47.
* * * * * (d) * * * (1) Refiners and importers shall use the method provided in §80.46(a)(2) to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane constitutes a batch of gasoline through November 29, 2013 **.** Be ginning November 30, 2013, refiners and importers shall use a method approved in §80.47 to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane constitutes a batch of gasoline. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, any ASTM sulfur test method for gaseous fuels may

be used for quality assurance testing under §§80.340(b)(4) and 80.400, if the protocols of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative test method is correlated to the method provided in §80.46(a)(2) through November 29, 2013 **.** Beginning November 30, 2013, except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, refiners and importers shall use a method approved in §80.47 to measure the sulfur content of butane.
* * * * * 22. Section 80.370 is amended b y revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv) to read as follows: **§ 80.370 What are the sulfur reporting requirements?**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (a) * * * (7) * * * (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, along with identification of the test method used to measure the sulfur content of the bat ch, as determined under §80.330; and
* * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 463 of 842 **Subpart I** 
**— [Amended]**  23
. Section 80.511 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(10) to read as follows: **§ 80.511 What are the per**  **- gallon and marker requirements that apply to NRLM diesel**  **fuel, E CA marine fuel, and heating oil downstream of the refiner or importer?** 
* * * * * (b) * * * (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this section, the per
- gallon sulfur standard of §80.510(c) shall appl y to all NRLM diesel fuel beginnin g August 1, 2014 for all downstream locations other than retail outlets or wholesale purchaser
- consumer facilities, shall apply

to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1, 2014 for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser
- consumer facilities, and shall appl y to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning December 1, 2014 for all locations. This paragraph (b)(4) does not apply to LM diesel fuel produced from transmix or interface fuel that is sold or intended for sale in areas other than those listed in §80.510(g)(1) or (g)(2), as provided by §80.513(f).
* * * * * (10) For the purposes of this subpart , on an y occasion where a distributor directl y dispenses fuel into vehicles or equipment from a mobile facility such as a tanker tr

uck, the distributor shall be treated as a retailer, and the mobile facility shall be treated as a retail outlet
. 24
. Section 80.572 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.572 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and wholesale purchaser**  **- consumers**  **of Motor Vehicle**  **, NR** **, LM and NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2010?** 
* * * * * (a) From June 1, 2010 through Nov ember 30 , 201 3 , any retailer or wholesale purchaser
consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fue l subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of §80.520(a)(1), must affix the following conspicuous and legible label, in block letters of no less than 24
- point bold ty pe, and printed in a color contrasting with the background, to each pump stand: UL TRA
- LOW SUL FUR HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL(15 ppm Sulfur Maximum) Required for use in all highway diesel vehicles and engines. Recommended for use in all diesel vehicles and engines.
* * * * * 25
. Section 80.573 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 464 of 842 **§ 80.573**  **What labeling requirements apply to retailers and wholesale purchaser -**  **consumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2012?** 
* * * * * (a) From June 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014, for pumps dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of §80.510(c): UL TRA
- LOW SULFUR NON
- HI GHWAY DIESELFUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum) Required for use in all model year 2011 and later nonroad diesel engines. Recommended for use in all other non
- highway diesel engines. WARNI NG Fed eral law prohibits use in highway vehicles or engines.
* * * * * 26
. Section 80.574 is revised to read as follows: **§ 80.574 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and wholesale purchaser**  **- consumers**  **of ECA marine fuel beginning June 1, 2014?** (a) An y retailer or wholesale purchaser
- consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing ECA marine fuel must prominently and conspicuousl y display in the immediate area of each pump stand from which ECA marine fuel is offered for sale or dispe nsing, one of the following legible labels, as applicable, in block letters of no less than 24
- point bold ty pe, printed in a color contrasting with the background: (1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for pumps dispensing ECA marine fuel subject to the 1,00 0 ppm sulfur standard of §80.510(k): 1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum). For use in Category

3 (C3) marine vessels only
. WARNI NG Federal law prohibits use in any engine that is not installed on a C3 marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur content greater than 1,000 ppm in an ECA is prohibited except as allowed b y 40 CFR Part 1043
. (2) The labels required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be placed on the vertical surface of each pump housing and on each side that has g allon and price meters. The labels shall be on the upper two
- thirds of the pump, in a location where they are clearl y visible. (b) Alternative labels to those specified in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as approved b y EPA. (1) For US Mail: U.S . EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 465 of 842 (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative L abel Request, 6406J, 1310 LStreet, NW, 6th floor, Washingt on, DC 20005. (202) 343
- 9038. 27
. Section 80.580 is amended b y revising paragraph (e) introductory text, paragraph (e)(1) introductory

text, and paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv) to read as follows: **§ 80.580 What are the sampling and testing met**  **hods for sulfur?**
* * * * * (e) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation b y reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. Anyone may inspect c opies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administrati on (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 566
- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202
- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency at 734
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purchase copies of these materials from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr ., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959, or by contacting ASTM International customer service at 610
- 832
- 9585, or b y contacting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard method D2622
- 10 (“ASTM International D2622”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (ii) [Reserved] (iii) ASTM Int ernational standard method D4294
- 10 (“ASTM International D4294”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (iv) ASTM International standard method D5453
- 09 (“ ASTM International D5453”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved June 15, 2009.
* * * * * 28
. Section 80.584 is amended b y revising paragraph (b)(3) (i) to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 466 of 842 **§ 80.584 What are the precision and accuracy criteria for approval of test methods for**  **determining the sulfur content of motor vehicle diesel fuel, NRLM diesel fuel, and ECA ma**  **rine fuel?**
* * * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * (i) The arithmetic average of a c ontinuous series of at least 10 tests performed on a commerciall y available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 300

–400 ppm sulfur shall not differ from the ARV of that standard b y more than 13.55 ppm sulfur;
* * * * * 29
. Section 80.5 85 is amen ded b y revising paragraph s ( a) and (d)(4) to read as follows: **§80.585 What is the process for approval of a test method for determining the sulfur**  **content of diesel or ECA marine fuel?** (a) Approval of test methods approved by voluntary

consensus - based st andards bodies. (1) Until September 1, 2013, for such a method to be approved, the following information must be submitted to the Administrator by each test facility

for each test method that it wishes to have approved: An y test method approved b y a voluntary consensus standards body , such as ASTM International (ASTM) or International Standards Organization (I SO), shall be approved as a test method for determining the sulfur content of diesel fuel if its meets the applicable accuracy and precision criteri on under §80.584. The approval of a test facility that performed the testing for accuracy

and precision results for each method, including the information on the date and time of each test measurement used to demonstrate precision, following procedures es tablished by

the Administrator. (2) Beginning September 1, 2013, for such a method to be approved, the following information must be maintained by each test facility

for each test method that it wishes to have approved: An y test method approved b y a voluntary consensus standards body , such as ASTM International (ASTM) or International Standards Organization (I SO), shall be approved as a test method for determining the sulfur content of diesel fuel if its meets the applicable accuracy and precision criteri on under §80.584. The approval of a test facility that performed the testing for accuracy and precision results for each method, including the information on the date and time of each test measurement used to demonstrate precision, following procedures es tablished by the Administrator.
* * * * * (d) * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 467 of 842 (4) The approval of an y test method under paragraph (b) of this section shall be valid for five years from the date of approval by the Administrator. After the five year period has ceased, in order fo r the test method approval to remain valid, the test method must be resubmitted for approval with applicable precision and accuracy information contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 80.584. If, however, the test method is later approved b y a voluntary consensus - based standards body, the approval shall remain valid as long as the conditions of paragraph (a) of this section are met.
* * * * * 30
. Section 80.1235 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(2) to read as follows: **§ 80.123 5**  **Wh at gasoline is subject to the benzene requirements of this subpart**  **?** ( a) * * * ( 6 ) Blendstock that is combined with PCG to produce gasoline must be sampled and tested in accordance with the provisions at §80.1347(a)(5) or §80.1347(a)(6).
* * * * * (b ) * * * (2 ) Ox ygenate added to PCG downstream of the refinery that produced the PCG, or downstream of the import facility where the PCG was imported , shall not be included in a refiner’s or importer’s compliance calculations unless the refiner or importer th at produced or imported the PCG complies with the requirements of §80.1238(b). On an y occasion where an y person downstream of the refinery or importer that produced or imported PCG adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not include the volume and benzen e content of the oxygenate in an y compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart.
* * * * * 31. Section 80.1238 is amended b y revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: **§80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s average benzene**  **concentration determined?**
* * * * * (b) * * * (1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB , the refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of §80.101(d)(4)(ii) and the benzene content must be measured b y sampling the ethanol actu ally added to the conventional gasoline or CBOB and testing it for benzene content
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 468 of 842 * * * * * 32
. Section 80.1347 is amended to read as follows: 1. By

revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(5). 2. By

adding a new paragraph (a)(6). **§ 80.1347 What ar**  **e the sampling and testing requirements for refiners and importers?** ( a) * * * (3)(i) Each sample shall be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at §80.46(e) until November 30, 2013, to determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Beginning November 30, 2013, each sample shall be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at §80.46(e) or §80.47 to determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Any negative test result must be reported as zero.
* * * * * (5) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline (PCG)
. (i) An y refiner who uses PCG to produce gasoline at a refinery , must exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene standards at §80.1230. (ii) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume and benzene content of gasoline produced at the refinery , and use the compliance calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and (a)(5)(iv) of this section. (iii) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the refiner must include the volume and benzene content of the PCG as a negative volume and a positive benzene content in the refiner’s compliance c alculations in accordance with the requirements at §80.1238. (iv ) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG and blendstock , the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content of the combined product and include each batch for purposes of benzene compliance in the refinery ’s compliance calculations at §80.1240 without regard to the p resence of previously certified gasoline in the batch. (v) The refiner mu st use any PCG that it includes as a negative batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to §80.1240 as a component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner’s compliance c alculations. (vi) An y negative annual average value must be reported as zero.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 469 of 842 (vii) The refiner must also comply with §80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and §80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline. ( 6 ) As an alternative to the sampling and t esting requirements in § 80.1347(a)(5), a refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into PCG may sample and test each batch of blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene standards in §80.1230, and for benzene reporting.
* * * * * 33
. Section 80.1348 is revised to read as follows: **§80.1348 What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to**  **refiners and importers?** (a) Through November 29, 2013 , the gasoline sample retention requirements specified in subpart H for the gasoline sulfur provisions appl y for the purpose of complyingwith the requirements of this subpart L , except that in additio n to including the sulfur test result as provided b y §80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene as conducted pursuant to §80.46(e). (b) Beginning November 30, 2013 , pursuant to §80.47, the gasoline sample retention requirements specified in subpart O for the gasoline sulfur provisions appl y for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this subpart L , except that in addition to including the sulfur test result as provided b y §80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene as conducted pursuant to §80.46(e). 34
. A new § 80.1349 is added to subpart L to read as fo llows: **§ 80.1349 Alternative sampling and testing requirements for importers who import gasoline into the United States by truck.**  Importers who import conventional gasoline into the United States by truck may

comply with the sampling and testing requirem ents in § 80.101(i)(3) instead of the requirements to sample and test every

batch of gasoline und er §80. 134 7. An importer that uses this approach must meet the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard on a per
- gallon basis. 35. Section 80.1354 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows: **§80.1354 What are the reporting requirements for the gasoline benzene program?**
* * * * * (b) * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 470 of 842 (2) * * * (i) The annual average benzene concentration, along with identification o f the test method(s) used to measure the annual average benzene concentration, per §80.1238. (ii) The maximum average benzene concentration, along with identification of the test method(s) used to measure the maximum average benzene concentration, per §80 .1240(b).
* * * * * 36
. Section 80. 1451 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows: **§ 80.1451**  **What are the reporting requirements under the RFS program?** (a) * * * (1) Annual compliance reports for the previous compliance period shall be submitted by March 31 of each ye ar and shall include all of the following information:
* * * * * 37. A new Subpart O is added to part 80 to read as follows: **Subpart O**
**— Gasoline Sulfur**  §80.1600 Definitions for subpart O. §80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart. §80.1602 Implementation dates for refiners and importers. §80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers. §80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties downstream of refiners and

importers. § 80.1605 Deficit carry
- forward for refiners and importers. §80.1606 [Reserved] §80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix processors and transmix

blenders. §80.1608 [Reserved] §80.1609 Blender requirements. §80.1610 Standards and requi rements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol and other

oxygenates for use b y gasoline ox ygen ate blenders. §80.1611

— 80.1612 [Reserved] §80.1613 Standards and other requirements for g asoline additive manufacturer s and

blenders
. §80.1614 [Reserved] §80.161 5 Credit generation. §80.1616 Credit use and transfer.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 471 of 842 §80.1617

— 80.1619 [Reserved] §80.1620 Small refiner definition. §80.1621 Small volume refinery definition. §80.1622 Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery status. §80.1623

— 80.1624 [Reserve d] §80.1625 Hardship provisions. §80.1626

— 80.1629 [Reserved] §80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements. §80.1631 Sample retention requirements. §80.1632

— 80.1639 [Reserved] §80.1640 Standards and requirements that apply to refiners producing gasoline by bl ending blendstocks into previously certified gasoline (PCG). §80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply to importers who transport gasoline b y truck. §80.1642

— 80.1649 [Reserved] §80.1650 Registration. §80.1651 Product transfer docume nt requirements. §80.1652 Reporting requirements. §80.1653 Recordkeeping. §80.1654 California gasoline requirements. §80.1655 National securit y exemptions. §80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, or testing purposes. §80.1657 [Rese rved] §80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. §80.1659 [Reserved] §80.1660 Prohibited acts. § 80.16 61 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for violations of this subpart? § 80.16 62 Liability

for violations under subpart O
. §80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under subpart O. §80.1664 [Reserved] §80.1665 Penalties. §80.1666 Additio nal requirements for foreign small refiners and foreign small volume

refineries. §80.1667 Attest engagement requirements. §80.1668

— 80.1674 [Reserved] §80.1675 In corporation by reference. **§80. 16**  **00 Additional d**  **efinitions for subpart O**  **.** The definitions of §80.2 and the following additional definitions apply to this subpart O : California gasoline means any gasoline designated by

a refiner or importer for use in California.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 472 of 842 Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(5). Foreign refiner i s a person who meets the definition of refiner under §80.2(i) for a foreign refinery
. Foreign refinery means a refinery that is located outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwea lth of the Northern Mariana Islands (collectively referred to in this subpart as “the United States”). Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(6). Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(4). Sulfur
- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(3)
. Transmix has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(2). Transmix gasoline product (TGP) has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(3). Transmix processing facility has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(4). Transmix processor has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(5). Transmix blender has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(7). **§80. 16**  **01 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.**  (a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are subject to the standards and requirements of this sub part: (1) Reformulated and conventional gasoline and RBOB, and CBOB (collectively called “gasoline” unless otherwise specified). (2) An y blendstock (not including ox ygenates) blended with PCG, as defined in §80.2(d), subject to the provisions of §80.164 0. (3) Ox ygenates blended with gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB. (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart: (1) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or racing boats that are used onl y in sanctioned racing events, provided that:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 473 of 842 (i) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and an y pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for us e in aircraft, or as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events; (ii) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline throughout production, distribution and sa le to the ultimate consumer; and (iii) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor vehicles used only in sanctioned racing events. (2) California gasoline as defined in §8 0.1600 subject to the provisions of §80.1654. (3) Gasoline that is exported for sale and use outside the U.S. (4) Exempt fuels under §§80.1655 (national security exemptions), 80.1656 (gasoline used for research, development, or testing purposes), and 80. 1658 (gasoline used in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). **§80. 16**  **02 Implementation dates**  **for refiners and importers .**  (a) The standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under this subpart O (at §80.1603) shall apply

to gasoline pr oduced or imported b y any refiner or importer beginning January 1, 2017, except as provided by the credit provisions of §§80.1615 and 80.1616, and the provisions applicable to small refiners and small volume refineries. (b) T he standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under s ubpart H of this p art 80 shall continue to apply

until the gasoline produced or imported by any refiner or importer is required to compl y with the standards and requirements under this subpart O. **§80. 16**  **03 Gasoline sulfur standa**  **rds for refiners and importers.** (a) S ulfur s tandards. (1) Annual average standard
. (i) The refinery

or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is 10.00 parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section. (ii) The averaging period is a calendar ye ar (January 1 through December 31). (iii) The refinery

or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is the maximum average sulfur level allowed for gasoline produced at a refin ery or imported by an importer during each calendar ye ar beginning January 1, 2017, except as provided by the following:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 474 of 842 (A) The credit use provisions of §80.1616. (B) Beginning January

1, 2020, for small refiners and small volume refineries approved pur suant to the provisions of §80.1622. Small refiners and small volume refineries will continue to be subject to the provisions of subpart H through December 31, 2019 (or until compliance with this subpart O begins). (C) Fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart O as specified in §80.1601(b). (iv) The annual average sulfur level is calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Per
- gallon cap standard
. (i) T he refinery

or importer per
- gallon cap standard is 80 ppm, on a per - gallon basis except a s otherwise provided by this section. (ii) The per
- gallon cap of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is the maximum sulfur level allowed for an y batch of gasoline produced at a refinery or imported b y an importer beginni ng January 1, 2017, except for fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart O as specified in §80.1601(b). (3) The refinery

or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard may be met using credits as provided under §80.1616. Cr edits cannot be used to meet the applicable per
- gallon standard. (b) [Reserved] (c) Calculation of the annual average sulfur level
. (1) The annual refinery

or importer average gasoline sulfur level is calculated as follows:

Where: S a = The refinery or importer annual average sulfur level, in ppm (mg/kg). V i = The volume of gasoline produced or imported in batch i, in gallons. S i = The sulfur content of batch i determined under §80.1630, in ppm (mg/kg). n = The number of batches of gasoline produced o r imported during the averaging period. i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 475 of 842 (2) The annual average sulfur level calculation in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be conducted to two decimal places using the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (d) A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import facility

when calculating the sulfur content, provided the following requirements are met: (1) For ox ygenate added to c onventional gasoline or CBOB, the refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii) , except that the sulfur content and volume of the ox ygenate shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. (2) For ox yge nate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of §80.69(a), except that the sulfur content and volume of the oxygenate shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. (3) Where ox ygenate added downs tream from the refinery or import facility

is included in calculating the sulfur content under this paragraph (d): (i) The refiner or importer must separatel y test an y RBOB or CBOB for sulfur content and use that test result in calculating the sulfur cont ent of the RFG or conventional gasoline and calculate the effect of downstream added ethanol by using the assumptions in paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The reported volume of the batch is the combined volume of the RBOB or CBOB and the d ownstream added oxygenate. (ii) For RBOB, the sulfur test result obtained from testing a hand blend under the terms of §80.69(a) shall not be used for sulfur reporting purposes. (iii) The refiner or importer must use an assumed sulfur content of 10.00 pp m for the oxygenate added downstream. (iv) For ethanol added downstream, the refiner or importer calculations shall assume that 10.00 volume percent ethanol is added to the RBOB unless some lesser amount of ethanol is actuall y blended
. (v) RBOB, CBOB, an d conventional gasoline must meet the per
- gallon sulfur standard of §80.1603(a)(2) prior to calculating an y dilution from the ox ygen ate added downstream. (4) On an y occasion where an y person downstream of the refinery or importer that produced or imported previously certified gasoline, CBOB or RBOB adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not include the volume and sulfur content of the ox ygenate in an y compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart O. (e) Refiners and importers must exclude from compliance calculations all of the following: (1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery or imported by

the importer.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 476 of 842 (2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. (3) Blendstocks transferred to others, except RBOB and CBOB as provided in this subpart O. (4) PCG. (5) Gasoline exempted from standards under §80.1601(b). (f) Compliance calculation for the annual average sulfur standard
. (1) Compliance b y a refinery or importer with the gasol ine sulfur annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is achieved if , for calendar ye ar y, C S V y≤ ( V y × 10 ) , as determined b y the following equation: CSVy = (V y x S a) + D (y
- 1) – OC Where: CSVy = Compliance sulfur value for year y , in ppm - gallons
. V y = Total g asoline volume produced or imported in year y , in gallons
. S a = Annual average sulfur level calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section , in ppm (mg/kg). D (y
- 1) = Sulfur deficit from the previous reporting period, per §80.1605 , in ppm
- gallons
. OC = Sulfur credits obtained by the refinery

or importer , in ppm
- gallons
. ( 2 ) Sulfur cr edits used in the calculation specified in paragraph ( f )(1) of this section must be used in accordance with the requirements at §80. 1616
. ( 3 ) C ompliance with the gasoline sulfur annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not achieved , and a deficit is created per §80. 1605, if for calendar ye ar y, C S V y> ( V y × 10) . The deficit value to be included in the following year's compliance calculation per paragraph ( f

) of this section is calculated as follows: D y = CSV y – (V y x 10 y) Where: D y = Su lfur deficit created in compliance period y , in ppm
- gallons
. **§80. 16**  **04 Gasoline s**  **ulfur standards and requirements for parties**  **downstream of refiners and importers.**  (a) The sulfur standard for gasoline at an y downstream location shall be determined in acco rdance with the provisions of this section. A downstream location is any point in the gasoline distribution sy stem downstream from refineries and import facilities, including, but not limited to, facilities of any of the following parties: (1) Distributo rs.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 477 of 842 (2) Carriers. (3) Ox ygenate blenders. (4) Retailers. (5) Wholesale purchaser
- consumers. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart O, the sulfur content of gasoline at any downstream location shall not exceed 95 ppm, on a per
- gallon basis, beginning January 1, 2017. **§80. 1605 Deficit carry**  **- forward**  **for refiners and importers.** (a) Deficit carry
- forward. (1) A refiner or importer may exceed the annual average sulfur standard for a given calendar year, creating a compliance deficit, provided that the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section are met. (2) When a compliance deficit is created per paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in the calendar year following the year the standard is not met, the refinery or importer must: (i) Achieve compliance with the annual average sulfur standard in §80.1603(a)(1); and (ii) Use additional sulfur credits sufficient to offset the compliance deficit of the previous ye ar. (b) The compliance deficit value shall be calculated in accordance with §80.16 03(f)(3). **§80.1606 [Reserved]**  **§80. 16**  **07 Gasoline**  **sulfur standards and requirements for t**  **ransmix processor s**  **and transmix blender**  **s .**  Transmix processors and transmix blenders may comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements and standards otherwise applicable to a refiner under this subpart O. (a) An y transmix processor who recovers transmix gasoline product (TGP) from transmix through transmix processing under §80.84(c) must show through sampling and testing (using the methods in §80. 16 30 ) that the TGP meets the applicable sulfur standards under §80.1604(b), prior to the TGP leaving the transmix processing facility
. (b) The sampling and testing required under paragraph (a) of this section shall be conducted following each occasion TGP is produced.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 478 of 842 (c) An y transmix processor who produces gasoline by adding blendstock to TGP must, for such blendstock, comply with all requirements and standards that appl y to a refiner under this subpart O, and must meet the applicable downstream sulfur s tandards under §80.1604 for the gasoline produced b y blending blendstock and TGP, prior to the gasoline leaving the transmix processing facility
. (d) An y transmix processor who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into TGP must meet the sampling and t esting requirements of this subpart O through either of the methods provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or through the alternative method provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (1)(i) Sample and test the blendstock when received at the tra nsmix processing facility , using the methods specified in §80.1630 , to determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each volume of blendstock that is blended into a volume of TGP as a separate batch for purposes of calculating and reporting complianc e with the applicable annual average and per
- gallon cap sulfur standards in §80.1603. (ii) Use sulfur test results of the blendstock supplier provided that all the following requirements are met: (A) Sampling and testing by the blendstock supplier is per formed using the methods specified in §80.1630
. (B) Testing for the sulfur content of the blendstock in the supplier’s storage tank must be conducted following the last receipt of blendstock into the supplier's storage tank that supplies the transmix proc essor. (C) The transmix processor must obtain a copy of the blendstock supplier’s test results, reflecting the sulfur content of each load of blendstock supplied to the transmix processor, at the time of each transfer of blendstock to the transmix process or. (D) The transmix processor must conduct a quality assurance program of sampling and testing for each blendstock supplier. The frequency of blendstock sampling and testing must be one sample for every

500,000 gallons of blendstock received or one sampl e every 3 months, whichever results in more frequent sampling. (iii) If an y of the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section are not met, in whole or in part, for an y blendstock blended into TGP, that blendstock is deemed in violation of the ga soline sulfur standards of this subpart O. (2) As an alternative to the sampling and testing procedures described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the following procedures may be used: (i) Sample and test each batch of TGP and determine the volume o f the TGP.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 479 of 842 (ii) Sample and test the gasoline produced b y blending blendstock into TGP, and determine its volume. (iii) Calculate the sulfur content and the volume of the batch b y subtracting the volume and sulfur content of the TGP from the volume and su lfur content of the gasoline after blendstock blending. For purposes of compliance and reporting, the sulfur content shall be the calculated volume and sulfur content of the blendstock, and the applicable standards shall be the average and cap standards i n §80.1603. The applicable cap standard of the gasoline blend shall be the cap standard under §80.1604. (iv) Tests shall be performed using the methods specified in §80.1630, to determine the sulfur content of the batch. (v) The sulfur content of each batch of gasoline produced by blending blendstock into TGP must be no greater than the downstream sulfur standard under §80.1604 applicable to the designation of the TGP. (e) An y transmix blender who produces gasoline by blending transmix, or mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel described in §80.84(e), into previously certified gasoline under §80.84(d) must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under §80.1604 for the gasoline produced b y blending transmix and previously certified gasoline an d the endpoint standard specified in §80.84. (f) An y transmix processor or transmix blender who adds any feedstock to its transmix other than gasoline, distillate fuel, or gasoline blendstocks from pipeline interface must meet all requirements and standar ds that apply to a refiner under this subpart O for all gasoline it produces during a compliance period. **§80.1608 [Reserved]**  **§80. 16**  **09 Oxygenate blender requirements.**  (a) O xygenate blenders who blend only oxygenate that complies with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section into gasoline downstream of the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility

where the gasoline was imported are not subject to the refiner or importer requirements of this subpart for such gasoline
. Such oxygen ate blenders are subject to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements and prohibitions applicable to downstream parties , the requirements of §80.1603(d)(4), and the prohibition specified in §80. 1660(e). (b) Beginning March 1, 201 7, the DFE or other oxygenate used must comply with the requirements of §80.1610. Prior to March 1, 2017, DFE is subject to the sulfur requirements of §80.385(e). **§80. 16**  **10 S**  **tanda rds and requirements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol and other**  **oxy genates for use by gasoline oxygenate blenders**  **.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 480 of 842 Beginning January

1, 2017, producers of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) or other oxygenates for use by oxygenate blenders under § 80.1609 must comply with the following requirements: (a) Standards. (1) The sul fur content must not be greater than 10 ppm as determined in accordance with the test requirements of §80.1630. (2) The DFE or other oxygenate must be composed solely of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur. (3) In the case of DFE, only gasoline , RBOB, CBOB, or natural gas liquids may be used as denaturants. (4) The concentration of all denaturants used in DFE is limited to a maximum of 2.5 volume percent. (b) Registration . Unless registered under § 80.1450, the producer of DFE or other oxyge nate must register with EPA pursuant to the requirements of § 80.1650. ( c ) PTDs
. The producer of DFE or other oxygenate must initiate a PTD for each batch of DFE or other ox ygenate that it ships from its facility which contains the statement in either p aragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, as applicable. (1) For DFE, “Meets EPA standards for denatured fuel ethanol for use in gasoline”; or (2) For ox ygenates other than DFE, “Meets EPA standards for motor fuel ox ygen ates for use in gasoline” (3) PTDs that are complaint with the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section must be transferred from each party transferring oxygenate to each party that receives ox ygenate through to the ox ygenate blender. (d) Every batch of oxygenate produ ced or imp orted at oxygenate production or import facility shall be assigned a number (the “batch number”), consis ting of the EPA
- assigned oxygenate producer or importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the last two digits of the year in wh ich the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar ye ar and each subsequent batch during the calendar ye ar being assigned the next sequential number ( e.g. , 4 321

– 54321

– 95

– 000001, 4321

– 543321

– 95

– 000002, etc.) **§§80.1611**
**— 80.1612**  **[Reserved] §**  **80.1613 Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive manufacturers and blenders.** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 481 of 842 Gasoline additive manufacturers and blenders must meet the following requirements: (a) Gasoline additive manufacturers, as defined in §79.2(f), must meet the following requirements: (1)(i) Except as otherwise provided, this section applies to any additive, as defined in §79.2(e), manufactured for use in gasoline that is not an ox yg enate compound, and that is sold for use at a concentration of less than 1.0% b y volume. (ii) Ox ygenate compound additives subject to the 10 ppm per
- gallon sulfur standard and the requirements of §80.1610 are not subject to the provisions of this section except for the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (2) The additive must contribute no more than 3 ppm on a per gallon basis to the sulfur content of gasoline when used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. (3) The additive manufacture r must maintain records of its additive production quality control activities which demonstrates that the sulfur content of additive production batches complies with the sulfur requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and make these records availabl e upon request. (4) The maximum treatment rate on the product transfer document for the additive must state all the following: (i) The maximum registered concentration. (ii) The maximum allowed treatment rate which corresponds to the maximum registered concentration. The maximum allowed concentration must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (b)T he following provisions apply to parties who are downstream of the gasoline refiner or importer and who blend additives to gasol ine, RBOB or CBOB and who are not refiners. (1) On an y occasion where the additive blender is solely acting as an oxygenate blender, as defined in §80.2(mm), it is subject to the prohibition in §80.1660(e) and the downstream gasoline sulfur standard of §8 0.1604(b). (2) On an y occasion where an additive blender blends an additive (subject to the requirements of §80.1613(a)) at a concentration of less than 1.0% b y volume, it is subject to the prohibition in §80.1660(f) and the downstream gasoline sulfur standard of §80.1604(b). (3) On an y occasion where an additive blender blends an additive at a concentration of 1.0% by volume or greater, it is a fuel manufacturer as defined in §79.2(d), and is subject to all the provisions that apply

to refiners under thi s subpart O.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 482 of 842 **§80.1614 [Reserved]**  **§ 80.16**  **15 Credit generation.**  (a) Who may

generate credits? Credits may be generated under this subpart O, as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, by the following entities: (1) U.S. refiners, including small refiners under §80.1620, and refiners owning small volume refineries under §80.1621. Foreign refiners may not generate credits. (2) Importers. (b) Earl y credit generation

—January

1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. (1) Earl y credits may

be ge nerated for gasoline produced or imported from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, by a refiner, including small refiners and owners of small volume refineries approved pursuant to §80.1622, and importers. (2) A refiner or importer may generate early

credits for gasoline it produces at a refinery or imports during an annual averaging period when its annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the provisions of 80.1603(c), is less than 30 ppm. (3)(i) The number of early credits generated shall be calculated annuall y for each applicable averaging period according to the following equation: EC a = [V a x (30
- S a )]
- CR a Where: EC a = Early

credits generated during the annual averaging period, in ppm
- gallons, for use pursuant to §80.1616
. S a = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the provisions of 80.1603(c), in ppm. V a = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period , in gallons. CR a = Credits generated during the annual averaging period per §80.310, in ppm
- gallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. (ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of EC a is positive. (iii) The value of EC a shall be rounded to the nearest ppm
- gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (4) A refiner or importer may include any

downstream added ox ygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under the provisions of §§80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectivel y, for the purpose of generating credits.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 483 of 842 (5) All, some, or no c redits generated during the time period specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be designated as subject to the requirements of subpart H. Any remaining credits must be designated as subject to the requirements of this subpart O. (c) Standard credit generation

— beginning January 1, 2017. (1) Refiners, including small refiners and owners of small volume refineries approved pursuant to §80.1622, and importers may generate standard credits for the gasoline produced at a refinery or imported during an annual averaging period when the annual average sulfur level of the refiner, refinery

or importer, as applicable, and as calculated in accordance with the provisions of §80.1603(c), is less than 10 ppm. (2)i) The number of standard credits generated s hall be calculated annuall y for each applicable averaging period according to the following equation: SC a = [V a x (10
- S a )]
- CR a Where: SC a = Standard credits generated during the annual averaging period, in ppm
- gallons, for use pursuant to §80.1616. S a = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the provisions of §80.1603(c), in ppm. V a = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period , in gallons. CRa = Credits generated during the annual averaging perio d per §80.310, in ppm
- gallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. This term is applicable only to small refiners and small volume refineries per paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and only prior to January

1, 2020. Beginning January 1, 2020, the value of this term is zero. (ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of SC a is positive. (iii) The value of SC a shall be rounded to the nearest ppm
- gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (3) A refiner or importer may include an y downstream added ox ygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under the provisions of §§80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectivel y, for the purpose of generating credits. (4) Prior to January

1, 2020, credits generated under this paragrap h (c) by small refiners and owners of small volume refineries per paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be designated as subject to the requirements of subpart H. An y remaining credits must be designated as subject to the requirements of this subpart O.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 484 of 842 **§ 80.16**  **16 Credit use and transfer.**  (a) Credit use. (1) Credits may

be used to meet the applicable annual average sulfur standards of §80.1603(a)(1). (2) Credits must have been generated pursuant to the requirements of §80.1615. (3) Onl y obligated par

ties under this subpart O may generate, use, transfer or own credits generated under this subpart O. (4) Credit life
- Earl y Credits
. (i) Earl y credits generated under §80.1615(b) are valid for use for the 2017 through 2019 compliance ye ars. All early credits will expire and become invalid after February 29, 2020, when the 2019 annual compliance report is due. (ii) Earl y credits may

be used for compliance with the annual average sulfur standard of §80.1603(a)(1) b y refiners and importers. (5) Credit l ife

– Standard Credits. (i) Standard credits generated under §80.1615(c) are valid for use for five (5) years from the year in which they

are generated. For example, standard credits generated in 2017 may be used for compliance through the 2022 complianc e period (they would expire and become invalid after February

28, 2023, the 2022 annual compliance report due date). (ii) Standard credits may

be used for compliance with the annual average sulfur standard of §80.1603(a)(1) b y refiners and importers. (6) A refiner or importer possessing credits must use all credits prior to falling into a compliance deficit. (7) In no case may

a credit be transferred more than twice before being used or terminated. (b) Credit transfers. (1) Credits obtained from other obligated parties may be used to meet the annual average standards of this subpart O, if all of the following conditions are met: (i) The credits are generated and reported according to the requirements of this subpart O. (ii) The credits are used in compliance with the limitations regarding the appropriate periods for credit use pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 485 of 842 (iii) Any credit transfer takes place no later than February 28 following the calendar year averaging period when the credits are used
. (iv) The credit has not been transferred more than twice. The first transfer by the refiner or importer who generated the credit may onl y be made to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit; if the transferee cannot use the credit, it may make the second, and final, transfer only to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit. (v) The credit transferor must apply an y credits necessary to meet the transferor's applicable average standard before transferring credits to any other refine r or importer. (vi) The credit transferor does not create a negative credit balance as a result of the credit transfer. (vii) Each transferor must supply to the transferee records indicating all of the following: (A) The ye ars the credits were generate d. (B) The identity

of the refiner or importer who generated the credits. (C) The identity

of the transferring part y (if it is not the same party that generated the credits). (2) In the case of credits that have been calculated or created improperly , or are otherwise determined to be invalid, all of the following provisions apply : (i) Invalid credits cannot be used to achieve compliance with the transferee's averaging standard, regardless of the transferee's good faith belief that the credits were valid
. (ii) The refiner or importer who used the credits, and any transferor of the credits, must adjust their credit records and reports and sulfur calculations as necessary to reflect the proper credits. (iii) Any

properl y created credits existing in the transferor's credit balance after correcting the credit balance, and after the transferor applies credits as needed to meet the average standard at the end of the compliance ye ar, must first be applied to correct the invalid transfers before the transferor trades or banks the credits. **§ 80.16**  **20 Small refiner definition.**  (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small refiner is defined as any refiner who meets all of the following criteria and has been approved b y EPA as a small refiner per §80.1622 :***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 486 of 842 (1) Produces gasoline at its refineries b y processing crude oil through refinery processing units. (2) Employed an average of no more than 1,500 people, based on the average number of employees for all pay

periods for calendar ye ar 2011 for all subsidi ary companies, all parent companies, all subsidiaries of the parent companies, and all joint venture partners. (3) Had a corporate
- average crude oil capacit y less than or equal to 155,000 barrels per calendar day

(bpcd) for 2011. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “refiner” shall include foreign refiners. (c) The number of employees and crude oil capacity under paragraph (a) of this section shall be determined as follows: (1) The refiner shall include the emplo yees and crude oil capacity of an y s ubsidiary companies, an y parent company and subsidiaries of the parent compan y in which the parent has 50 percent or greater ownership, and an y joint venture partners. (2) For an y refiner owned by a governmental entity, the number of emplo yees and to tal crude oil capacity as specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall include all employees and crude oil production of the government to which the governmental entity is a part. (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of this section, a refiner that acquires or reactivates a refinery that was shut down or non
- operational during calendar year 2011, may

apply for small refiner status under this subpart O. (e) The following are ineligible for small refiner provisions under this subpart: (1) Refiners with refineries built or started up on or after January 1, 2011. (2) Persons who exceed the employee or crude oil capacity criteria under this section on January 1, 2011, but who meet these criteria after that date, regardless of wh ether the reduction in employees or crude oil capacity is due to operational changes at the refinery or a compan y sale or reorganization. (3) Importers. (4) Refiners who produce gasoline other than b y processing crude oil through refinery processing unit s. (f)(1) A refiner approved as a small refiner under §80.1622 who subsequently ceases production of gasoline from processing crude oil through refinery processing units, employ s more than 1,500 people, or exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil capacity limit after January

1 , 2011 as a result of merger with or acquisition of or by another entity , is disqualified as a small refiner, except as provided for under paragraph (f)(4) of this section. If such disqualification***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 487 of 842 occurs, the refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 day s following the disqualifying event. (2) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, any refiner whose status changes under this paragraph shall meet the applicable standards of §80.1603 within a period of up to 3 0 months from the disqualifying event for any of its refineries that were previously subject to the small refiner standards of §80.1623. (3) A refiner may

appl y to EPA for up to an additional six months to comply with the standards of §80.1603 if more than 30 months would be required for the necessary engineering, permitting, construction, and start
- up work to be completed. Such applications must include detailed technical information supporting the need for additional time. EPA will base a decision to a pprove additional time on information provided by the refiner and on other relevant information. (4) Disqualification under this paragraph (f) of this section shall not apply in the case of a merger between two previously approved small refiners. (5) If a refiner receives a delay per paragraphs (f)(2) and/or (f)(3) of this section, the refiner may

not generate gasoline sulfur credits under this subpart O during that 30 or 36 month period. (6) All written notifications to EPA should be submitted to the ad dresses listed in §80.1622. **§80.1621 Small**  **volume refiner** **y definition.**  (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small volume refinery is defined as any refinery that meets all of the following criteria, and has been approved by EPA as a small v olume refinery per §80.1622: (1) Produces gasoline b y processing crude oil through refinery processing units. (2) T he average aggregate daily crude oil throu ghput, including feedstocks derived from crude oil, for the calendar year 2011 (as determined by dividing the aggregate throughput for the calendar year b y the number of days in the calendar year) does not exceed 75,000 barrels
. Throughput means the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less volumes injected into the crude oil suppl y afte r refinery processing. (b) The following are ineligible for the small volume refinery provisions under this subpart: (1) Refineries built or started up on or after January 1, 2012.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 488 of 842 (2) Persons who exceed the crude oil throughput under this section for c alendar year 2011 but who meet these criteria after that date, regardless of whether the reduction in crude oil capacity is due to operational changes at the refinery or a company

sale or reorganization. (3) Importers. (4) Refineries that produce gasolin e other than by processing crude oil through refinery processing units. **§80.1622 A pproval**  **for small refiner a**  **nd small volume refinery**  **status.** (a) Applications for small refiner or small volume refinery status under this subpart must be submitted to EPA b y March 31, 2013
. (b) To qualify

for small refiner status under this subpart a refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the following information for the refiner and for all subsidiary

companies, all parent companies, all subsidiaries o f the parent companies, and all joint venture partners: (1)(i) A listing of the name and address of all company locations for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. (ii) The average number of employees at each location, based on the number of employees for each pay

period for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. (iii) The ty

pe of business activities carried out at each location. (iv) For joint ventures, the total number of emplo yees includes the combined employee count of all corporate entities in the venture. (v) For government
- owned refiners, the total employee count includes all government employees. (2)(i) The total corporate crude oil capacity of each refinery as reported to the Energy In formation Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be correct. In cases where a compan y disagrees with this information, the company may petition EPA with a

ppropriate data to correct the record when the company submits its application. (ii) Foreign small refiners applying for approval under this section must send the total corporate crude oil capacity of each refinery

for the period January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section. (3) The application must be signed b y the president, chief operating or chief executive officer of the compan y, or his/her designee, stating that the information is true t o the best of his/her knowledge, and that the compan y owned the refinery as of December 31, 2011.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 489 of 842 (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and e
- mail address of a corporate contact person. (c) To qualify

for small volume refinery status under this subpart, a refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the following information for the refinery , or refineries, for which the refiner is applying for small volume refinery status: (1) A listing of the name and address of each small v olume refinery owned by

the compan y. (2)(i) The total crude throughput of each small volume refinery , defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery processing, as report ed to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be correct. In cases where a company disagrees with this i nformation, the compan y may petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the compan y submits its application. (ii) Foreign refiners applyingfor small volume refinery approval under this section must send the total crude throughput of eac h small volume refinery , defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery processing of each refinery for the period January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section. (3) The application must be signed b y the president, chief operating or chief executive officer of the compan y, or his/her designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her knowledge, and that the compan y owned the refinery as of December 31, 2011. (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and e
- mail address of a corporate contact person. (d) For foreign refiners, the small refiner or small volume refinery status applicatio n must contain all of the elements required in paragraph (b) or (c), as applicable, of this section, must demonstrate compliance with §80.1620, and must be submitted by March 31, 2013 to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section. (e) A refiner who qualifies as a small refiner or small volume refinery under this subpart and subsequentl y fails to meet all of the qualifying criteria as set out in §§80.1620 and 80.1621 will be disqualified pursuant to §80.1620(f) or §80.1621(d). (1) In the event such disqualification occurs, the refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 day s following the disqualifying event. (2) Disqualification under this paragraph (e) shall not apply in the case of a merger between two approved small refiners.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 490 of 842 (3) An y refiner that acquires a refinery from another refiner with approved small refiner or small volume refinery

status under this subpart shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 day s following the acquisition. (f) If EPA finds that a refiner pro vided false or inaccurate information in its small refiner status or small volume refinery status application under this subpart, the refiner's small refiner or small volume refinery

status will be void as of the effective date of this subpart. (g) Small refiner and small volume refinery status applications, and any other correspondence required by this section, §80.1620, and/or §80.1621 shall be sent to one of the following addresses: (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA

— Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1310 L Street, NW, 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. **§§80.162 3** 
**— 80.1624**  **[Reserved] §80.1625**  **Hardship provisions.** EPA may , at its discretion, grant a refiner of gasoline that processes crude oil through refinery processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the provisions of this subpart. (a) Extreme hardship circumstances
. (1) EPA may , at its discretion, grant a refiner of gasoline that processes crude oil through refinery processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the prov isions of this subpart. EPA may grant such relief provided that the refiner demonstrates all of the following: (i) Unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship and significantly affect the refiner's ability

to comply

by the applicable date. (ii) It has made best efforts to comply with the requirements of this subpart. (2) The application must specify the factors that demonstrate a significant economic hardship and must provide a detailed discussion regarding the inability of the refinery

to produce gasoline meeting the requirements of §80.1603. Such an application must include, at a minimum, all of the following information: (i) Documentation of efforts made to obtain necessary financing, including all the following:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 491 of 842 (A) Copies of loan appl ications for the necessary financing of the construction of appropriate sulfur reduction technology and other equipment procurements or improvements. (B) If financing has been disapproved or is otherwise unsuccessful, documents supporting the basis for th at disapproval and evidence of efforts to pursue other means of financing. (ii) A detailed anal ys is of the reasons the refinery is unable to produce gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart O in 2017, including costs, specification of equipment stil l needed, potential equipment suppliers, and efforts already completed to obtain the necessary equipment. (iii) If unavailability

of equipment is part of the reason for the inability to comply , a discussion of other options considered, and the reasons the se other options are not feasible. (iv) If relevant, a demonstration that a needed or lower cost technology is immediately unavailable, but will be available in the near future, and full information regarding when and from what sources it will be availabl e. (v) Schematic drawings of the refinery configuration as of January 1, 2011, and as of the date of the hardship extension application, and any planned future additions or changes. (vi) If relevant, a demonstration that a temporary unavailability

exists of engineering or construction resources necessary for design or installation of the needed equipment. (vii) A detailed anal ys is of the reasons the refinery is unable to use credits to meet the gasoline standards of this subpart O, including all avenues pursued to generate and/or procure credits, their cost, and ability to finance them. (viii) A discussion of an y sulfur reductions that can be achieved from current levels. (ix) The date the refiner anticipates compliance with the standards in §80.1603 c an be achieved at its refinery (x) An analy sis of the economic impact of compliance on the refiner's business (including financial statements from the last 5 years, or for any time period up to 10 years, at EPA's request). (xi) Any other information regarding other strategies considered, including strategies or components of strategies that do not involve installation of equipment, and why meeting the standards in §80.1603 beginning in 2017 (or 2020 for approved small refiners and small volume refineries) is infeasible. (3) Hardship applications under this paragraph (a) must be submitted to EPA by March 31, 2013 to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (d) of this section. (b) Extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 492 of 842 (1) In appropriate extreme, unu sual, and unforeseen circumstances (for example, natural disaster or refinery

fire) which are clearl y outside the control of the refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may permit a refiner or importer, for a brief period, to distribute gasoline which does not meet the requirements of this subpart for all of the following reasons: (i) It is in the public interest to do so (e.g., distribution of the nonconforming gasoline is necessary to meet projected shortfalls which cannot otherwise be compensated for). (ii) The refiner or importer exercised prudent planning and was not able to avoid the violation and has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the extent of the nonconformity
. (i ii) The refiner or importer can show how the requirements for making compliant gasoline, and/or purchasing credits to partiall y or completely offset the nonconformity, will be expeditiously

achieved. (iv) The refiner or importer agrees to make up any air quality detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where practicable. (v) The refiner or importer pay s to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity minus the amount expended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in making up the air quality detriment. (2) The hardship application must meet all other applicable requirements of this section, except paragraph (a) of this section. (c) The hardship extension application must contain a letter signed by the president or the chief operating or chief executive officer of the company , or his/her designee, stating that the information contained in the application is true to the best of his/her knowledge. (d) Hardship applications under this section must b e submitted in writing to one of the following addresses: (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA

— Attn: Tier 3 Program (Hardship Application), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 P rogram (Hardship Application), 6406J, 1310 LStreet, NW, 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. **§ 80.16**  **30 Sampling and testing requirements**  **for refiners and importers .**  (a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline. (1) Refiners and importers shall collect a repr esentative sample from each batch of gasoline produced or imported and test each sample to determine its sulfur content for***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 493 of 842 compliance with requirements under this subpart prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility , using the sampling an d testing methods provided in this section or §§80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing)
. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the requirements of this section apply beginning January

1, 20 17. ( 3 )(i) Beginning January

1, 20 17 , any

refin er who produces gasoline using computer
controlled in
- line blending equipment is exempt from the requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section to obtain the test results required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section prior to the gasoline leaving the re finery , provided that the refiner obtains an exemption from this requirement from EPA. To obtain such exemption, the refiner must: (A) Have been granted an in
- line blending exemption under §80.65(f)(4); or (B) If the refiner has not been granted an exemption under §80.65(f)(4), submit to EPA all of the information required under §80.65(f)(4)(i)(A). A letter signed by the president, chief operating or chief executive officer of the company , or his/her designee, stating that the information contained in the submission is true to the best of his/her belief must accompan y an y submission under this paragraph (a)( 3 )(i)(B). (ii) Refiners who seek an exemption under paragraph (a)( 3 )(i) of this section must comply with an y request by

EPA for additional informati on or an y other requirements that EPA includes as part of the exemption. (iii) Within 60 days of EPA ’ s receipt of a submission under paragraph (a)( 3 )(i)(B) of this section, EPA will notify

the refiner if the exemption is not approved or of any deficiencie s in the refiner's submission, or if any additional information is required or other requirements are included in the exemption pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. In the absence of such notification from EPA, the effective date of an exempti on under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for refiners who do not hold an exemption under §80.65(f)(4) is 60 day s from EPA ’ s receipt of the refiner's submission under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section. (iv) EPA reserves the right to modify the requirements of an exemption under paragraph (a)( 3 )(i) of this section, in whole or in part, at any time, if EPA determines that the refiner ’ s operation does not effectively or adequatel y control, monitor or document the sulfur content of the refinery 's gasol ine production, or if EPA determines that any other circumstances exist which merit modification of the requirements of an exemption, such as advancements in the state of the art for in
- line blending measurement which allow for additional control or more a ccurate monitoring or documentation of sulfur content. If EPA finds that a refiner provided false or inaccurate information in any submission required for an exemption under this section, upon notification from EPA, the refiner ’ s exemption will be void ab initio
. (b) Sampling methods. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall sample each batch of gasoline b y using one of the methods specified in 40 CFR 80.8.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 494 of 842 (c) Test method for measuring sulfur content of gasoline. ( 1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall use the method provided in §80.47, as applicable, to measure the sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import
. (2) Sulfur content shall be reported to the nearest ppm. **§ 80.16**  **31 Sample retention requirements.**  (a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2017, or January

1 of the first ye ar credits are generated under §80.1615, whichever is earlier, any refiner or importer shall do all of the following: (1) C ollect a representative portion of each sample anal yz ed under §80.1630, of at least 330 milliliters in volume. (2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day period, whicheve r is greater, not to exceed 90 day s for any given sample. (3) Comply

with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures under §80.1630 for each sample portion retained. (4) Comply

with an y request by

EPA to: (i) Provide a retained sample portion t o the Administrator's authorized representative; and (ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within 2 working day s of the date of the request, b y an overnight shipping service or comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified b y E PA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample determined under §80.1630. (b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent analysis requirements. (1) An y refiner or importer who meets the independent anal ys is requirements under §80.65(f) for an y batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the gasoline batch; except th at the retained RBOB sample for purposes of this subpart O must be a sample of the RBOB prior to hand blending with oxygenate.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 495 of 842 (2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under this paragraph (b), the test results required to be submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results determined under §80.65(e). (c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer shall include with each annual report filed under §80.1652, the following statement, which must accuratel y reflect the facts and must be signed and dated b y the same person who signs the annual report: I certify that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give me knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline samples, and Ifurther certify that the procedures meet the requirements of the ASTM procedures required under 40 CFR 80.1630. (d) Prior to January

1, 2017, for purposes of complying with the requirements of this section, refiners who analy ze composited samples under §80.1630 must retain portions of the composited samples. Portions of samples of each batch comprising the composited samples are not required to be retained. (e) For purposes of complying with the requirements of this section for RBOB, a sample of each RBOB batch produced mus t be retained. **§ 80.16**  **40 S**  **tandards and requirements that**  **apply to refiners producing gasoline by blending blendstocks into PCG**  **.** (a) An y refiner who produces gasoline b y blending blendstock into PCG, as defined at §80.2(d), must meet the requirements of §80.1630 to sample and test every batch of gasoline as follows: (1) Exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O. ( 2 ) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the re finer must determine the volume and sulfur content of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume of and sulfur content of the gasoline produced at the refinery , and use the compliance calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(1 )(iii) and (a)( 1 )(iv) of this section. ( 3 ) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the refiner must include the volume and sulfur content of the PCG as a negative volume and a positive sulfur content in the refiner’s compliance c alculations in accord with the requireme nts at §80. 1603
. ( 4) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG and blendstock , the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur content of the combined product and include each batch of combined product for purposes of sulfur complianc e in the refinery ’s compliance calculations at §80. 1603 without regard to the p resence of previousl y certified gasoline in the batch. ( 5 ) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to §80. 160 3 as a component in gasoline production during the annual***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 496 of 842 averaging period in which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner’s compliance calculations. (6) The refiner must also comply with §80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and §80.101(g )(9) when producing conventional gasoline or CBOB. (7) An y negative annual average sulfur value shall be reported as zero and not as a negative result. (b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of blendstock when received at the re finery

to determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average sulfur standard and for reporting. This alternative applies only if every batch of blen dstock used at a refinery during an averaging period has a sulfur content that is equal to, or less than, the applicable per
- gallon cap standard under §80.1603. (c) Refiners who blend only butane into PCG may meet the sampling and testing requirements of this subpart O for sulfur by using sulfur test results of the butane supplier, provided that the requirements of §80.82 are met. **§ 80.16**  **41 A**  **lternative sulfur standards and requirements that**  **apply to importers who transport gasoline by truck**  **.** Importers wh o import gasoline into the United States by truck may

compl y with the following requirements instead of the requirements to sample and test every batch of gasoline under §80.1630, and the annual sulfur average and per
- gallon cap standards otherwise applica ble to importers under §80.1603: (a) Alternative standards. The imported gasoline must comply with the standard in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section as follows: (1) The annual average standard of 10 ppm and the per
- gallon standard of 80 ppm as provided b y §80.1603; or (2) A per
- gallon standard of 10 ppm. (b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for sulfur content testing conducted b y the terminal operator, for gasoline contained in the storage tank from which trucks used to transport gasoline into the United States are loaded, for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph (a) of this section, provided all the following conditions are met: (1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each re ceipt of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer of gasoline to the importer's truck.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 497 of 842 (2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods specified in §§80.8 and 80.47, respectivel y. (3) At the time of each trans fer of gasoline to the importer's truck for import to the U.S., the importer must obtain a cop y of the terminal test result that indicates the sulfur content of the truck load (or each compartment if fuel was loaded from different storage tanks). (c) Qual ity

assurance program. The importer must conduct a quality assurance program, as specified in this paragraph, for each truck loading terminal. (1) Qualit y assurance samples must be obtained from the truck
- loading terminal and tested by the importer, or by an independent laboratory , and the terminal operator must not know in advance when samples are to be collected. (2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods specified in §§80.8 and 80.47, respectivel y. (3) The qualit y assurance test results for sulfur must differ from the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM International (ASTM) reproducibility of the terminal's test results, as determined b y the following equation:

R = 105 × ((S +2)/10 4 ) 0.4 Where: R = ASTM reproducibil ity
. S = Sulfur content based on the terminal's test result. (4) The frequency

of the quality

assurance sampling and testing must be at least one sample for each fifty of an importer's trucks that are loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whiche ver is more frequent. (d) Part y required to conduct quality assurance testing. The qualit y assurance program under paragraph (c) of this section shall be conducted by the importer. In the alternative, this testing may

be conducted by

an independent labor atory that meets the criteria under §80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than 21 day s after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests conducted. (e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each truck load of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of assigning batch numbers and maintaining records under §80.1653, and reporting under §80.1652. (f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and auditors conducting attest engagements un der §80.1667, must be given full and immediate access to the truck
- loading terminal and an y laboratory at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are anal yz ed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records, collect gasoline samples , and perform audits. These inspections or audits may be either announced or unannounced.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 498 of 842 (g) Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. This section does not apply to Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. (h) Reporting requirements. Any importer who elects to comply with the alternat ive standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the following requirements: (1) All importer recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§80.1653 and 80.1652, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. (2) An importer wh o elects to comply with the alternative standards in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must certify

in the annual report whether it is in compliance with the applicable per
gallon batch standard set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, in lieu of prov iding the information required b y §80.1652 regardi ng annual average sulfur content and compliance with the average standard under §80.1603. (i) Effect of noncompliance. If an y of the requirements of this section are not met, all gasoline imported b y the truck importer during the time any requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the gasoline sulfur average and per
- gallon cap standards in §80.1603. Additionally , if an y requirement is not met, EPA may notify the importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled within 10 day s of notification, the truck importer may not in the future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu of the provisions in §80.1630. **§ §**  **80.1642 -**  **§ 80.1649 [Reserved]**  **§ 80.16**  **50 Registration.**  The following registration requirements appl y under this subpart: (a) Registration with the Administrator of EPA is required for any : (1) Gasoline refiner or importer having an y refinery or import facility

subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O. (2) Ox ygenate producer or importer having an y ox ygen ate production facility or import facility subject to the oxygenate sulfur standards under §80.1610 unless already registered under §80.1450. (3) Ox ygenate blender who has an y ox ygenate blending facility that blends oxygenate into RBOB where the resulting gasoline is subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O. (b) Registration dates. (1) An y gasoline refiner or importer required to register shall do so by March 31, 2013, or at least thirty

day s in advance of the first date that such person will produce or import reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB, whichever is later.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 499 of 842 (2) An y ox ygenate producer or importer required to register shall do so b y December 1, 2017, or at least thirty

day s in advance of the first date that such person will produce or import oxygenate, whichever is later. (3) An y ox ygenate blender required to register shall do so by March 31, 2013, or at least thirty day s in advance of the first date that such person will blend oxygenate into RBOB, whichever is later. (c) Refiner registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number of the refiner. (ii) For each separate refinery , the facility name, phy sical location, contact name, e
- mail address, telephone number, and type of facility
. (iii) For each separate refinery : ( A) Whether records are kept on
- site or off
- site of the refinery
. (B) If records are kept off
- site, the primary

off
- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number. (iv) For each separate refinery that pro duces reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number of the independent laboratory

used to meet the independent anal ys is requirements of §80.65(f). (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each refiner, and a facility registration number for each refinery that is identified. These registration numbers shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. (i) An y refiner shall submit updated registration inform ation to the Administrator within thirty day s of any

occasion when the registration information previousl y supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate; except that (ii) EPA must be notified in writing of an y change in designated independent laboratory under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section at least thirty day s in advance of such change. (d) Gasoline importer registration.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 500 of 842 (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number of the importer. (ii) For each importer’s operations in a single PADD: (A) Whether records are kept on
- site at the registered address or off
- site. (B) If records are kept off
- site, the primary

off
- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number. (C) For importers that import reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name and telephone number of the independent laboratory used to meet the independent anal ys is requirements of §80.65(f). (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each importer. This registration number shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. (i) An y i mporter shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty

day s of an y occasion when the registration information previously supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate; except that (ii) EPA must be notified in writing of an y c hange in designated independent laboratory under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C) of this section at least thirty day s in advance of such change. (e) Ox ygenate producer registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall in clude all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number of the ox ygenate producer. (ii) For each separate ox ygenate production facility, the facility name, phys ical location, contact name, t elephone number, and t ype of facility
. (iii) For each separate oxygenate production facility : (A) Whether records are kept on
- site or off
- site of the refinery
. (B) If records are kept off
- site, the primary

off
- site storage facility

name, phy sical locati on, contact name, and telephone number.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 501 of 842 (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each oxygenate producer, and a facility registration number for each ox ygenate production facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those provid ed under §80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty day s of any

occasion when the registration informati on previously

supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate. (f) Ox ygenate importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, and e
- mail address, telephone number of the importer. (ii) For each importer’s operations in a single PADD: (A) Whether records are kept on
- site at the registered address or off
- site. (B) If records are kept off
- site, the primary

off
- site storage fa cility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number. (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each importer. This registration number shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (g) Ox ygenate blender reg istration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, and e
- mail address, telephone number of the ox ygenate blender. (ii) For each separate ox ygenate blending facility, the facility name, ph ys ical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of facility
. (iii) For each separate oxygenate blending facility : (A) Whether records are kept on
- site or off
- site of the refinery
. (B) If records are kept off
- site, the primary

off
- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e
- mail address, and telephone number.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 502 of 842 (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each oxygenate blender, and a facility registration number for each ox ygenate blending facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those provided under §80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty day s of any

occasion when the registration information previously

supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate. **§ 80.16**  **51 Product transfer document requirements.**  (a) On each occasion that any person transfers c ustody

or title to any

gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or ox ygenate other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser
- consumer facility , the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which in clude all the following information: (1) The name and address of the transferor. (2) The name and address of the transferee. (3) The volume of gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate which is being transferred. (4) The location of the gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate at the time of the transfer. (5) The date of the transfer. (b) On each occasion when an y person transfers custody or title to an y gasoline for export or with an exemption under §§80.1654, 80.1655, 80.1656, and/or 80.1658 , any of the followin g statements must be included on the product transfer document: (1) For gasoline with a national security exemption under §80.1655, “This gasoline is for use in vehicles , engines, or equipment under an EPA
- approved national security exemption only .”
. (2) For gasoline with a research, development, or testing exemption under §80.1656, “This gasoline is for research, development, or testing purposes onl y.”
. (3) For gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is land s under §80.1658, “This is gasoline for use onl y in Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.”. (4) For gasoline for export purposes, “ This gasoline is for export only .”. (5) For gasoline for racing purposes, “This gasoline is for racing pur poses only .”. (6) For California gasoline, pursuant to §80.1654, “California gasoline.”.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 503 of 842 (c) On each occasion when any person transfers custody

or title to any

gasoline additive intended to be used at less than 1 volume percent, other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser
- consumer facility , the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which include information on the maximum recommended treatment level. **§ 80.16**  **52 Reporting**  **requirements.** Beginning with the 2017 averaging period or the first year credits are generated under §80.1615 (whichever is earlier), and continuing for each averaging period thereafter, any refiner or importer, and an y ox yge nate producer or importer, sh all submit to EPA annual reports that contain the information required in this section, and any other information as EPA may require. (a) Refiner and importer annual reports. An y refiner, for each of its refineries, and an y importer for the gasoline it imports, shall submit a report for each calendar year averaging period that includes all the following information: (1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration numbers. (2) The average standard under §80.1603, reported to two (2) decimal places. (3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported, reported to the nearest whole number. (4) The annual average sulfur level of the gasoline produced or imported, reported to two (2) decimal places. (5) The annual average sulfur leve l after inclusion of any credits, reported to two (2) decimal places. (6) Separatel y provided information for credits, and separately b y ye ar of creation, as follows: (i) The number of credits at the beginning of the averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number. (ii) The number of credits generated, reported to the nearest whole number. (iii) The number of credits used, reported to the nearest whole number. (iv) If an y credits were obtained from or transferred to other parties; and for each o ther party , its name and EPA refiner or importer registration number, and the number of credits obtained from or transferred to the other party.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 504 of 842 (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging period, reported to the nearest whole numbe r. (vi) The number of credits that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number. (7) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period, all of the following: (i) The batch number as signed under §80.65(d)(3); except that if composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple batches produced subsequent to December 31, 2003, are tested under §80.101(i)(2) for anti
- dumping compliance purposes, for purposes of this subpart a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch using the batch numbering procedures under §80.65(d)(3). (ii) The date the batch was produced. (iii) The volume of the batch, reported to the nearest whole number. (iv) The sulfur content of the batc h, reported to two (2) decimal places, along with identification of the test method used to determine the sulfur content of the batch, as determined under §80.1630. (8) All values measured or calculated pursuant to the requirements of this paragraph (a) s hall be in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (9) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, an y importer shall exclude Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. (b) Additional reporting require ments for importers. From January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, importers shall report all of the following information for Sulfur
- FRGAS imported during an annual averaging period: (1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each foreign refiner and refinery where the Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS was produced. (2) The total gallons of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS and Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery , reported to one (1) decimal place. (c) Ox ygenate produce r reports. On an annual basis, the producer of DFE or other oxygenate must submit a summary report to EPA which includes all of the following: (1) The facility

identification information provided pursuant to §80.1650. (2) The total volume of all batches of DFE and other ox ygenate produced.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 505 of 842 (3) An attestation that all of the batches of DFE and other oxygenate produced during the compliance period were in compliance with the requirements of this subpart. (d) Report submission. Any annual report required under this section shall be: (1) Signed and certified as meeting all of the applicable requirements of this subpart by the owner or a responsible corporate officer of the refiner or importer; and (2) Submitted to EPA no later than the last day of February

for the prior calendar year averaging period. (e) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest engagements required under §80.1667 shall be submitted to the Administrator b y March 31, 2013 of each ye ar for the prior calendar ye ar ave raging period. **§ 80.16**  **53 Recordkeeping.**  (a) Records that must be kept. Beginning January 1, 2017 or January 1 of the first year that credits are generated, any person who produces, imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses, distributes, supplies, offer s for suppl y, stores, or transports gasoline, shall keep records that contain all of the following information: (1) The product transfer document information required under §80.1651. (2) All of the following information for an y s ampling and testing for s ulfur content required under this subpart O: (i) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck identification for each sample collected. (ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and the person who performed the test. (iii) Th e results of the test as originall y printed b y the testing apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as originally recorded by

the person who performed the test. (iv) An y record that contains a test result for the sample that is not i dentical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. (v) The test methodology used. (b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep. Beginning January 1, 2014, or January

1 of the first year credits are generated und er §80.1615, whichever is earlier, an y refiner for each of its refineries and an y importer for the gasoline it imports, shall keep records that include all of the following information:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 506 of 842 (1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported: (i) The batch v olume. (ii) The batch number assigned under §80.65(d)(3) and the appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section; except that for composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple batches , that are tested under §80.101(i )(2) for purposes of this subpart, a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch using the batch numbering procedures under §80.65(d)(3). (iii) The date of production or importation. (iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as Californi a gasoline under §80.1654, exempt gasoline for national security purposes under §80.1655, exempt gasoline for research and development under §80.1656, or for export outside the United States. (v) The test methodology used. (2) Information regarding credi ts, separatel y kept according to the ye ar of creation; and for credit generation or use starting in 2014. Information shall be kept separatel y for different ty pes of credits generated under §80.1615: (i) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer 's possession at the beginning of the averaging period. (ii) The number of credits generated. (iii) The number of credits used. (iv) If an y credits were obtained from or transferred to other parties, all the following for each other part y: (A) The part y’s name. (B) The part y’ s EPA refiner or importer registration number. (C) The number of credits obtained from, or transferred to, the party. (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging period. (vi) The number of credits in the r efiner's or importer's possession that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period. (vii) Contracts or other commercial documents that establish each transfer of credits from the transferor to the transferee.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 507 of 842 (3) The calculations used to determin e compliance with the applicable sulfur average standards of §80.1603, or §80.1604. (4) The calculations used to determine the number of credits generated under §80.1615. (5) A cop y of all reports submitted to EPA under §80.1652. (6) In the case of part ies who process transmix, records of an y s ampling and testing required under §80.1607. (c) Additional records importers must keep. An y i mporter shall keep records that identify and verify

the source of each batch of certified Sulfur
- FRGAS and non
- certifi ed Sulfur
- FRGAS imported and demonstrate compliance with the requirements for importers under §80.1666. (d) Records that producers of denatured fuel ethanol and other oxygenates must keep
. (1) The date each batch was produced. (2) The batch volume and an identification of the test methodology used. (3) The test results on the sulfur content of each batch and the test methodology used. (4) The volume percent denaturant used in each batch if the oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol. (5) The t ype and source of the denaturant used in each batch if the oxygenate if denatured fuel ethanol. (e) Records that parties that take custody of ox yg enates must keep. All parties that take custody of ox ygenate from the ox ygen ate producer through to the ox ygenate b lender must keep a copy of the product transfer document for each batch of oxygenate. (f) Length of time records must be kept. The records required under this subpart O shall be kept for five years from the date they were created; except in the following cases: (1) Transfers of credits. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, records relating to credit transfers shall be kept by the transferor for 5 years from the date the credits are transferred; and shall be kept by the transferee for 5 years from the date the credits were transferred, used, or terminated, whichever is later. (2) Earl y credits. (i) Where the party generating the credits does not transfer the credits, records must be kept for 5 ye ars from the date of creation, use, or termination, whichever is later.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 508 of 842 (ii) Where earl y credits are transferred, records relating to such credits shall be kept b y the transferor for 5 years from the date the credits are transferred; and shall be kept b y the transferee for 5 ye ars from the dat e the credits were transferred, used, or terminated, whichever is later. (g) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA the records required in this section shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized representative. For records that are e lectronically

generated or maintained, the equipment and software necessary to read the records shall be made available; or, if requested by EPA, electronic records shall be converted to paper documents which shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized representative. **§80.1654 California gasoline requirements**  **.** (a) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that complies with all the requirements of this section is exempt from all other provisions of this subpart O. (b) Requirements for C alifornia gasoline. (1) Each batch of California gasoline must be designated as such b y its refiner or importer. (2) Designated California gasoline must be kept segregated from gasoline that is not California gasoline, at all points in the distribution sy s tem. (3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the State of California and not used elsewhere. (4) For California gasoline produced outside the State of California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product transfer document requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (5) (i) Any

refiner that operates a refinery located outside the State of California at which California gasoline (as defined in §80.1600) is produced must provide to any person to whom custody

or ti tle of such gasoline has transferred, and each transferee must provide to any subsequent transferee, documents which include all the following information: (A) The name and address of the transferor. (B) The name and address of the transferee. (C) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred. (D) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer. (E) The date and time of the transfer. (F) The identification of the gasoline as California gasoline. (ii) Each refiner and transferee of California ga soline must maintain copies of the product transfer documents required to be provided b y paragraph (b)(5)(i) o f this section for a period of five years from the date of creation and shall deliver such documents to the Administrator or to the Administrator' s authorized representative upon request. (6) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any

part of the United States outside of the State of California must comply

with the standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of any designation as California gasoline. (d) Use of California test methods and offsite sampling procedures. In the case of an y gasoline that is not California gasoline and that is either produced at a refinery located in the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 509 of 842 State of California or is imported from outside the United States into the State of California, the refiner or importer may , with regard to such gasoline: (1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing methods required under § 80.1630; and (2) Determine the sulfur content of gasoline at offsite tankage (which would otherwise be prohibited under §80.65(e)(1)). (i) Note that the requirements of §80.65(e)(1), regarding when the properties of a batch of reformulated gasoline must be determined, specify that the properties of a batch of gasoline be determined prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facilit y; however, under this section, a refiner of California gasoline may determine the properties of gasoline as specified under §80.65(e)(1) at offsite tankage provided that: (A) The samples are properl y collected under the terms of a current and valid protocol agreement between the refiner and the California Air Resources Board with regard to sampling at the offsite tankage and consistent with the requirements prescribed in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003); and (B) The refiner provides a copy of the protocol agreement to EPA upon request. **§ 80.16**  **55 National security exemptions.**  (a) The standards of §80.1603 do not apply to gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for suppl y, stored, dispensed, or transported for use in any of the following: (1) Tactical military

vehicles, engines, or equipment having an EPA national security exemption from the gasoline emission standards under 40 CFR part 86. (2) Tactical military

vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not subject to a national security exemption from vehicle or engine emissions standards as d escribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section but, for national security purposes (for purposes of readiness for deployment oversees), need to be fueled on the same gasoline as the vehicles, engines, or equipment for which EPA has granted such a national se curit y exemption. (b) The exempt fuel must meet all the following conditions: (1) It must be accompanied by product transfer documents as required under §80.1651. (2) It must be segregated from non
- exempt gasoline at all points in the distribution system. (3) It must be dispensed from a fuel pump stand, fueling truck, or tank that is labeled with the appropriate designation of the fuel. (4) It may

not be used in any vehicles, engines, or equipment other than those referred to in paragraph (a) of this secti on. **§ 80.16**  **56 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, or testing purposes.**  (a) Written request for a research and development exemption. Any person may

receive an exemption from the provisions of this subpart for gasoline used for researc h, development, or testing (“R&D”) purposes by submitting the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section to EPA. Applications for R&D exemptions must be submitted to one of the addresses in paragraph (h) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 510 of 842 (b) Criteria for a research and development exemption. For a research and development exemption to be granted, the person requesting an exemption must do all of the following: (1) Demonstrate a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for exemption. (2) Demonstrate that an exemption is necessary
. (3) Design a research and development program that is reasonable in scope. (4) Have a degree of control consistent with the purpose of the program and EPA's monitoring requirements. (c) In formation required to be submitted. To de monstrate each of the elements in paragraph (b) of this section, the person requesting an exemption must include all of the following information: (1) A concise statement of the purpose of the program demonstrating that the program has an appropriate research and development purpose. (2) An explanation of why the stated purpose of the program cannot be achieved in a practicable manner without performing one or more of the prohibited acts under this subpart O. (3) All of the following, to demonstrate the rea sonableness of the scope of the program: (i) An estimate of the program’s beginning and ending dates. (ii) An estimate of the maximum number of vehicles or engines involved in the program and the number of miles and engine hours that will be accumulated on each. (iii) The sulfur content of the gasoline expected to be used in the program. (iv) The quantity

of gasoline which does not comply with the requirements of §80.1603. (v) The manner in which the information on vehicles and engines used in the program w ill be recorded and made available to the Administrator upon request. (4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the program affords EPA a monitoring capability , including all the following: (i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the program. (ii) The site(s) of the program (including facility name, street address, city, county, State, and zip code). (iii) The manner in which information on the fuel used in the program (including quantity, fuel properties, name, address, telepho ne number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from the supplier), will be recorded and made available to the Administrator upon request. (iv) The manner in which the party will ensure that the research and development fuel will be segregated from gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart and how fuel pumps will be labeled to ensure proper use of the research and development fuel. (v) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further information on the application may be obtained. (vi) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is responsible for recording and making available the informati on specified in this paragraph (c), and the location where such information will be maintained. (d) Additional requirements. (1) The product transfer documents associated with research and development gasoline must comply with requirements of §80.1651(c). (2) The research and development gasoline must be designated b y the refiner or supplier, as applicable, as exempt research and development gasoline.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 511 of 842 (3) The research and development gasoline must be kept segregated from non
- exempt gasoline at all points i n the distribution system. (4) The research and development gasoline must not be sold, distributed, offered for sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply , transported to or from, or stored by a fuel retail outlet, or b y a wholesale purc haser
- consumer facility, unless the wholesale purchaser
consumer facility

is associated with the research and development program that uses the gasoline. (5) At the completion of the program, an y emission control sy stems or elements of design which are dam aged or rendered inoperative shall be replaced on vehicles remaining in service, or the responsible person will be liable for a violation of the Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7522 (a)(3)) unless sufficient evidence is supplied that the emissio n controls or elements of design were not damaged. (e) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a me morandum of exemption signed b y the applicant and the Administrator (or delegate), which may include such terms and conditions as the Administrator determines necessary

to monitor the exemption and to carry out the purposes of this section, including resto ration of emission control systems. (1) The volume of fuel subject to the approval shall not exceed the estimated amount under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, unless EPA grants a greater amount in writing. (2) Any

exemption granted under this section wil l expire at the completion of the test program or three ye ars from the date of approval, whichever occurs first, and may onl y be extended upon re
- application consistent will all requirements of this section. (3) EPA may

elect at an y time to review the info rmation contained in the request, and where appropriate may

notify the responsible person of disapproval of the exemption. (4) In granting an exemption the Administrator may include terms and conditions, including replacement of emission control devices or elements of design, that the Administrator determines are necessary

for monitoring the exemption and for assuring that the purposes of this subpart are met. (5) Any

violation of a term or condition of the exemption, or of any requirement of this section, will cause the exemption to be void ab initio. (6) If an y information required under paragraph (c) of this section should change after approval of the exemption, the responsible person must notify EPA in writing immediatel y. Failure to do so may

result in disapproval of the exemption or may make it void ab initio, and may make the party

liable for a violation of this subpart O. (f) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that is subject to a research and development exemption under this section is exempt from oth er provisions of this subpart O provided that the fuel is used in a manner that complies with the purpose of the program under paragraph (c) of this section and all other requirements of this section. (g) Notification of completion. The part y shall notif y EPA in writing within 30 day s after completion of the research and development program.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 512 of 842 (h) Requests for research and development exemptions shall be sent to one of the following addresses: (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA

— Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1310 LStreet, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. **§80.1657 [R**  **e served]**  **§ 80.16**  **5 8**  **Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.**  The gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O do not apply to gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for supply , stored, dispensed, or transported for use in the Territories of Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, provided that such gasoline meets all of the following requirements: (a) The gasoline is designated by the refiner or importer as high sulfur gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (b) The gasoline is used onl y in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is lands. (c) Th e gasoline is accompanied by documentation that complies with the product transfer document requirements of §80.1651(c)(3). (d) The gasoline is segregated from non
- exempt high sulfur gasoline at all points in the distribution system from the point the fue l is designated as gasoline onl y for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, while the fuel is in the United States but outside these Territories. **§80. 16**  **60 Prohibited acts.**  No person shall: (a) Averaging violati on. Produce or import gasoline that does not comply with the applicable sulfur average standard under §80.1603. (b) Cap standard violation. Produce, import, sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply , offer for supply , store or transport gasoline or oxygen ate (including any denaturant) that does not comply with the applicable sulfur cap standards under §80.1603, §80.1604, or §80.1610. (c) Caus ing an averaging or cap standard violation. Cause another person to commit an act in violation of paragraph (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 513 of 842 (d) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem. Cause gasoline to be in the distribution system which does not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard under §80.1603, §80.1604, or §80 .1610. (e) Ox ygenate violation. Starting March 1, 2017, blend into gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB any oxygenate, including but not limited to denatured ethanol, that has a sulfur content higher than 10 ppm. (f) Additive blender violation. Unless acting in th e capacit y of a gasoline refiner or importer under §80.1613, introduce an additive other than an oxygenate compound into gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB which contributes more than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB. (g) Additive manufacturer violation . Cause or contribute to the introduction into commerce of a gasoline additive intended to be used at less than 1 volume percent which does not comply with the requirements of §80.1613. (h) Credit violation. Generate, transfer, or use invalid credits or improperl y transfer or use credits. (i) Failure to meet a requirement
. No person shall fail to meet a requirement that applies to that person under this subpart. **§ 80.16**  **61 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the**  **prohibitions and requirements of this subpart and liability for violations of this subpart?**  (a) Compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O shall be determined based on the sulfur level, measured using the methodologies specified in §§80.1630 a nd 80.47. Any

evidence or information, including the exclusive use of such evidence or information, may be used to establish the sulfur level of gasoline if the evidence or information is relevant to whether the sulfur level would have been in compliance with the standards if the appropriate sampling and testing methodology

had been correctly

performed. Such evidence may be obtained from an y source or location and may include, but is not limited to, test results using methods other than those specified in §§80.1630 and 80.47, business records, and commercial documents. (b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this subpart other than the sulfur standards, and determinations of liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on in formation obtained from any source or location. Such information may include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial documents. **§ 80.16**  **62 Liability for violations under subpart**  **O .**  The following persons are liable for violations under this subpart: (a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 514 of 842 (1) Averaging violation. Any refiner or importer who violates §80.1660(a) is liable for the violation. (2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser
- consumer, or ox yge nate blender who causes another party to violate §80.1660(a), is liable for a violation of §80.1660(c). (3) Cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, whole sale purchaser
- consumer, oxygenate producer, ox ygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facility where a violation of §80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of §80.1660(b). (4 ) Causing a cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser
- consumer, ox ygenate producer, ox ygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender who produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply , stored, transported, or caused the transportation or storage of gasoline that violates §80.1660(b), is deemed in violation of §80.1660(c). (5) Branded refiner/importer liability
. An y refiner or importer whose corporate, trade, or brand name, or whose marketing subsidiary ’s corporate, trade, or brand name appeared at a facility where a violation of §80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of §80.1660(b). (6) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem. An y refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, ox ygenate producer, ox ygen ate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facility from which gasoline was released into the distribution system which does not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard or a sulfur averaging standard is deemed in violation of §80.1660(d). (7) Carrier causation. In order for a carrier to be liable under paragraph (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, EPA must demonstrate, by reasonabl y specific showing b y direct or circumstantial evidence, that the carrier caused the violation. (8) Ox ygenate blender violation. Any oxygenate blender who violates §80.1660(e) is liable for the vio lation. (9) Additive manufacturer violation. Any additive manufacturer who violates §80.1660(g) is deemed liable for the violation. (10) Additive blender violation . Any additive blender who violates §80.1660(f) is deemed liable for the violation. (1 1) Credit violation. Any refiner or importer who violates §80.1660(h) is liable for the violation. (12) Parent corporation liability
. An y parent corporation is liable for an y violations of this subpart that are committed by an y of its wholly
- owned subsidiaries. (13) Joint venture and joint owner liability
. Each partner to a joint venture, or each owner of a facility owned by

two or more owners, is jointly and severall y liable for any violation of this subpart that occurs at the joint venture facility or facility owned by

the joint owners, or is committed by

the joint venture operation or an y of the joint owners of the facility. (b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this subpart. Any person who: (1) Fails to comply

with a provisi on of this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section is liable for a violation of that provision. (2) Caused another person to fail to meet a requirement of this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section, is liable for causing a v iolation of that provision.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 515 of 842 **§ 80.16**  **63 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under subpart**  **O .**  (a) Any

person deemed liable for a violation of a prohibition under §80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10), will not be deemed in violation if the person demonstrates all the following: (1) The violation was not caused by the person or the person's employee or agent. (2) In cases where product transfer document requirements under this subpart apply , the product transfer documents account for the fuel found to be in violation and indicate that the violating product was in compliance with the applicable requirements while in that person’s control; and (3) The person conducted a quality assurance sampling and testing program, as described in paragraph (d) of this sectio n. A carrier may rel y on the quality

assurance program carried out by another party , including the part y who owns the gasoline in question, provided that the quality assurance program is carried out properl y. Retailers and wholesale purchaser
- consumers are not required to conduct sampling and testing of gasoline as part of their quality assurance programs. (b) In the case of a violation found at a facility operating under the corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner or importer, or a refiner's or impo rter's marketing subsidiary , the refiner or importer must show, in addition to the defense elements required under paragraphs (a)(1)through (a)3) of this section, that the violation was caused by an y of the following: (1) An act in violation of law (other than the Clean Air Act or this part 80), or an act of sabotage or vandalism. (2) The action of an y refiner, importer, retailer, distributor, reseller, ox ygenate blender, carrier, retailer or wholesale purchaser
- consumer in violation of a contractual agreem ent between the branded refiner or importer and the person designed to prevent such action, and despite periodic sampling and testing b y the branded refiner or importer to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation. (3) The action of an y carrier or other distributor not subject to a contract with the refiner or importer, but engaged for transportation of gasoline, despite specifications or inspections of procedures and equipment which are reasonably calculated to prevent such action. (c) Under para graph (a) of this section, for an y person to show that a violation was not caused b y that person, or under paragraph (b) of this section to show that a violation was caused by an y of the specified actions, the person must demonstrate b y reasonabl y specific showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the violation was caused or must have been caused b y 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 and testing program under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a person must present evidence of all of the following: (1) A periodic sampling and testing program to ensure the gasoline the person sold, dis pensed, supplied, stored, or transported, meets the applicable sulfur standard. (2) On each occasion when gasoline is found not in compliance with the applicable sulfur standard: (i) The person immediatel y ceases selling, offering for sale, dispensing, sup plying , offering for supply , storing or transporting the non
- complyingproduct; and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 516 of 842 (ii) The person promptl y remedies the violation and the factors that caused the violation (for example, by

removing the non
- compl yi ng product from the distribution sy stem until the applicable standard is achieved and taking steps to prevent future violations of a similar nature from occurring). (3) For an y carrier who transports gasoline in a tank truck, the quality assurance program required under this paragraph (d) need no t include periodic sampling and testing of gasoline in the tank truck, but in lieu of such tank truck sampling and testing, the carrier shall demonstrate evidence of an oversight program for monitoring compliance with the requirements of this subpart relat ing to the transport or storage of gasoline by tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to drivers regarding compliance with the applicable sulfur standard and product transfer document requirements, and the periodic review of records received in the ordin ary course of business concerning gasoline quality and delivery
. **§ 80.16**  **64 [Reserved]**  **§ 80.16**  **65 Penalties.**  (a) Any

person liable for a violation under §80.1662 is subject to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air Act for every day of each such violation and the amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation. (b) Any

person liable under §80.1662(a)(1) or (2) for a violation of the applicable sulfur averaging standard or causing another party to violate that standard during any averaging period, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period. Any person liable under §80.1662(a)(11) or §80.1662(b) for a failure to fulfill any requirement for credit generation, transfer, use, banking, or deficit correction, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period in which invalid credits are generated or used. (c) (1) Any

person liable under §80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10) for a violation of an applicable sulfur per gallon cap standard under this subpart O or of causing another party to violate a cap standard, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day the non
complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution system. (2) Any

person liable under §80.1662(a)(6) for causing gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem which does not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard, or a sulfur averaging standard, is subject to a separate day of violation for eac h and every day that the non
- compl yi ng gasoline remains an y place in the gasoline distribution system. (3) For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, the length of time the gasoline in question remained in the gasoline distribution system is deemed to be twent y - five day s, unless a person subject to liability

or EPA demonstrates by reasonably

specific showings, by

direct or circumstantial evidence, that the non
- complying gasoline remained in the gasoline distribution sy stem for fewer than or more than tw ent y - five day s. (d) Any

person liable under §80.1662(b) for failure to meet, or causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for a separate day of violation for each and every day such provision remains unfulfilled.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 517 of 842 **§ 80.16**  **66 Addition**  **al requirements for foreign small refiners and foreign small volume refineries.**  The provisions of this section apply to certain foreign refiners and importers during the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. After December 31, 2019, foreign r efiners are not subject to compliance requirements under subparts O or H of this part 80; instead, the importer of an y foreign
- produced gasoline shall be responsible for compliance with the standards and requirements of subpart O that relate to importers. (a) Definitions. (1) Foreign small refiner is a foreign refiner that meets the definition of a small refiner under §80.1620. (2) Foreign small volume refinery is a foreign refinery that meets the definition of a small volume refinery

under §80.1621. (3) Sulfur
- FRGAS , for this subpart, means gasoline produced from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 at a foreign refinery of a refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or a small volume refinery

under §80.1622, and that is imported into the Un ited States. (4) Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign refinery that has not been approved as a small refiner refinery or small volume refinery under §80.1622, gasoline produced at a foreign refinery of an approved small refiner or at an approved small volume refinery under §80.1622 that is not imported into the United States, and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery

that is approved during a ye ar when the foreign refiner has opted to not participate in the Sulfur
- FRGAS program un der paragraph (c)(3) of this section. (5) Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS means Sulfur
- FRGAS the foreign refiner intends to include in the foreign refinery 's sulfur compliance calculations under §§80.195 and 80.205 and does include in these compliance calculations when reported to EPA. (6) Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS means Sulfur
- FRGAS that is not Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. (b) Petition for approval of small refiner or small volume refinery status. To be approved for small refiner status or small volume refinery status a foreign refiner must submit a petition for approval as provided under §80.1622 and th is section. I f small refiner status or small volume refinery status is approved, the foreign refiner may produce gasoline for export to the United States, during the period starting January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2019, that is subject to the sulfur content standards of 40 CFR part 80, subpart H at §80.195 that were applicable to refiners from 2006 through 2016. A foreign refiner is not eligible to generate s ulfur credits under subpart H or subpart O, as this occurs through the importer. (c) General requirements for foreign refiners approved as small refiners or small volume refinery status. A foreign refiner of a refinery that has been approved as a smal l refiner refinery or a small volume refinery must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign refinery that is exported to the United States as either Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur
FRGAS, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of th is section. (1) In the case of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, the foreign refiner must meet the sulfur standards of subpart H as described in paragraph (b) of this section and the requirements of this section. (2) In the case of Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, the foreign refiner shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner shall substitute the name Non
- Certified Sulfur
-***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 518 of 842 FRGAS for the names “reformulated gasoline” or “RBOB” wherever they appear in the following provisions: (i) The designation r equirements in this section. (ii) The recordkeeping requirements under §80.1653. (iii) The reporting requirements in §80.1652 and this section §80.1666. (iv) The product transfer document requirements in this section and §80.1651. (v) The prohibitions in this section and §80.1660. (vi) The independent audit requirements under § 80.415, paragraph (h) of this section, and the attest engagement provisions of §§80.125 through 80.127, §80.128(a), (b), (c), (g) through (i), and §80.130. (3)(i) Any

foreign refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or whose refinery has been approved as a small volume refinery under this subpart O may elect to classify

no gasoline imported into the United States as Sulfur
- FRGAS, provided the foreign refiner notifies EPA of the election no later than November 1 of the prior calendar year . (ii) An election under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall meet all of the following requirements: (A) Apply

to an entire calendar year averaging period, and appl y to all gasoline prod uced during the calendar ye ar at the foreign refinery that is used in the United States. (B) Remain in effect for each succeeding calendar ye ar averaging period, unless and until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of a termination of the election. The change in election shall take effect at the beginning of the next calendar ye ar. (d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner certification. (1) Any approved foreign small refiner or any foreign refiner having an approved small volume refine ry

under this subpart O must designate each batch of Sulfur
- FRGAS as such at the time the gasoline is produced, unless the refinery has elected to classify

no gasoline exported to the United States as Sulfur
- FRGAS under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section
. (2) On each occasion when any person transfers custody

or title to any

Sulfur
- FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States , it must include all the following information as part of the product transfer document information in this section: (i) Id entification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur
FRGAS
. (ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery where the Sulfur
- FRGAS was produced
. (3) On each occasion when Sulfur
- FRGAS is loaded onto a vess el or other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the Sulfur
- FRGAS that meets all of the following requirements: (i) The certification shall include the report of the ind ependent third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and all of the following additional information: (A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that produced the Sulfur
- FRGAS. (B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur
- F RGAS or Non
- Certified Sulfur
FRGAS. (C) The volume of Sulfur
- FRGAS being transported, in gallons. (D) In the case of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS: ( 1 ) The sulfur content as determined under paragraph (f) of this section; and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 519 of 842 ( 2 ) A declaration that the Sulfur
- FRGAS is being included in the compliance calculations under § 80.205 for the refinery that produced the Sulfur
- FRGAS. (ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer documents for the Sulfur
FRGAS. (e) Transfers of Sulfur
- FRGAS to non
- Unite d States markets. The foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified as Sulfur
- FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner may remove the Sulfur
- FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not be imported into the United States, but only if: (1) (i) The foreign refiner excludes the volume and sulfur content of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under §80.205. (ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall be on the basis of the su lfur content and volumes determined under paragraph (f) of this section; and (2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United States. (f) Load port independent sampling, te sting and refinery identification
. (1) On each occasion Sulfur
- FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an independent third party do all of the following: (i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and det ermine the volume of an y tank bottoms. (ii) Determine the volume of Sulfur
- FRGAS loaded onto the vessel (exclusive of an y tank bottoms present before vessel loading). (iii) Obtain the EPA
- assigned registration number of the foreign refinery
. (iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel used to transport the Sulfur
FRGAS to the United States. (v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving the foreign refinery
. (2) On each occasion Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS is loaded ont o a vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an independent third party: (i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign refinery
. (ii) Prepare a volume
- weighted vessel composite sample from the compartment samples, and determine the value for sulfur in accordance with the methodology and requirements specified in §80.1630, by either of the following: (A) The third part y analyzing the sample. (B) The third part y observing the foreign refiner anal yzing the sample. (iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage of the certified Sulfur
FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and from this review determine all of the following: (A) The refinery

at which the Sulfur
- FRGAS was produced. (B) That the Sulfur
- FRGAS remained segregated from all of the following: ( 1 ) Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS and Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. ( 2 ) Other Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS produced at a different refinery
. (3) The independent third party shall submit a report: (i) To the foreign refiner containing the information required under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, to accompany the product transfer documents for the vessel; and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 520 of 842 (ii) To the Administrator containing the information required under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, within thirty day s following the date of the independent third party ’s inspection. This report shall inclu de a description of the method used to determine the identity of the refinery at which the gasoline was produced, assurance that the gasoline remained segregated as specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this section, and a description of the gasoline's movement and storage between production at the source refinery and vessel loading. (4) The independent third party must do all of the following: (i) Be approved in advance by EPA, based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f). (ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in §80.65(f)(2)(iii). (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (f). (g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1) (i) Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any foreign refiner and any United States importer of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS shall co mpare the results from the load port testing under paragraph (f) of this section, with the port of entry testing as reported under paragraph (o) of this section, for the volume of gasoline and the sulfur value. (ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Su lfur
- FRGAS off loads this gasoline at more than one United States port of entry , and the conditions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met at the first United States port of entry , the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this section do not apply at subsequent ports of entry if the United States importer obtains a certification from the vessel owner, that meets the requirements of paragraph (r) of this section, that the vessel has not loaded an y gasoline or blendstock between the first United States port of entry and the subsequent port of entry
. (2) (i) The requirements of this paragraph (g)(2) appl y if: (A) The temperature
- corrected volumes determined at the port of entry and at the load port differ b y more than one percent; or (B) The sulfur value determined at the port of entry is higher than the sulfur value determined at the load port, and the amount of this difference is greater than the reproducibility amount specified for the port of entry test result by

ASTM International (ASTM). (ii) T he United States importer and the foreign refiner shall treat the gasoline as Non
Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline sulfur compliance calculations under §80.205. (h) Attest r equirements. All of the following additional procedures shall be carried out by any foreign refiner of Sulfur
- FRGAS as part of the applicable attest engagement for each foreign refinery under §80.415: (1) The inventory

reconciliation analy sis under the attest engagement provisions of §80.128(b) and the tender anal ys is under §80.128(c) shall include Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS in addition to the gasoline ty pes listed in §80.128(b) and (c). (2) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, and of N on - Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation analy sis in the attest engagement provisions of §80.128(b), and to the volumes determined b y the third party under paragraph (f)(1) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 521 of 842 (3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of Sulfur
- FRGAS loaded onto each vessel. (4 ) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guidelines in §80.127, and for each vessel selected perform all of the following: ( i) Obtain the report of the independent third party , under paragraph (f) of this section, and of the United States importer under paragraph (n) of this section. (A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel identification, gasoline volum es and test results. (B) Id entify , and report as a finding, each occasion the load port and port of entry parameter and volume results differ by more than the amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether the foreign refiner adjus ted its refinery calculations as required in paragraph (g) of this section. (ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third part y to determine transportation and storage of the Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, under paragr aph (f) of this section. Obtain tank activity records for an y storage tank where the Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for any

pipeline used to transport the Certified Sulfur
FRGAS, prior to being loaded onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether the Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS was produced at the refinery that is the subject of the attest engagement, and whether the Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS was mixed with any Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS, or any Certifi ed Sulfur
- FRGAS produced at a different refinery
. (5) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport certified and Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guidelines of §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 ten ders of Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS, and perform all of the following: (i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation analy sis in §80.128(b). (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under paragraph (h)(6) of thi s section where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel. Select a sample from this listing in accordance with the guidelines in §80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that includ es the port and date of departure and the ports and dates where the gasoline was off loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and report as a finding the country where the gasoline was off loaded for each vessel selected. (7) In order to complete the req uirements of this paragraph (h) an auditor must: (i) Be independent of the foreign refiner. (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United States and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance b y EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 522 of 842 the procedures required in the attest engagement provisions of §§80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h). (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in paragraph (h) of this section with regard to act ivities and documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of the attest engagement provisions of §§80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h). (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit to and comply with the pro visions contained in this paragraph (i) as a condition to being approved for small refiner status or small volume refinery status . (1) Any

United States Environmental Protection Agency inspector or auditor will be given full, complete and immediate access to conduct inspections and audits of the foreign refinery
. (i) Inspections and audits may be either announced in advance by EPA, or unannounced. (ii) Access will be provided to any location where: (A) Gasoline is produced; (B) Documents related to refinery operations are kept; (C) Gasoline or blendstock samples are tested or stored; and (D) Sulfur
- FRGAS is stored or transported between the foreign refinery and the United States, including storage tanks, vessels and pipelines. (iii) Inspections and audits may be b y EPA emplo yees or contractors to EPA. (iv) Any

documents requested that are related to matters covered by inspections and audits will be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor on request. (v) Inspections and audits b y EPA may include review and cop yi ng of any documents related to all of the following: (A) Approval of the refiner as a small refiner or approval of the refinery as a small volume refinery
. (B) The volume and sulfur content of Sulfur
- FRGAS. (C) The proper classification of gasoline as be ing Sulfur
- FRGAS or as not being Sulfur
FRGAS, or as Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS. (D) Transfers of title or custody to Sulfur
- FRGAS. (E) Sampling and testing of Sulfur
- FRGAS. (F) Work performed and reports prepared b y independent third parties and b y independent auditors under the requirements of this section and §80.415, including work papers. (G) Reports prepared for submission to EPA, and any work papers related to such reports. (vi) Inspections and audits b y EPA may include t aking samples of gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing employees. (vii) Any

employee of the foreign refiner must be made available for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a reasonable time period. (viii) English language transl ations of any documents must be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working day s. (ix) English language interpreters must be provided to accompany EPA inspectors and auditors, on request. (2) An agent for service of process locat ed in the District of Columbia will be named, and service on this agent constitutes service on the foreign refiner or an y employee of the foreign refiner for an y action b y EPA or otherwise b y the United States related to the requirements of this subpart O.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 523 of 842 (3) The forum for an y 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 b y 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 an y civil or criminal enforcement action against the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner related to the provisions of this section. (5 ) Submitting a petition for approval as a small refiner or for small volume refinery status, producing and exporting gasoline under such approval, and all other actions to comply with the requirements of this subpart O constitute actions or activities that satisfy the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 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 appl icable to the foreign refiner under this subpart O, including conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2)
. (6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or emplo ye es, must not seek to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA inspectors or auditors, whether EPA employees or EPA contractors, for actions performed within the scope of EPA employ ment related to the provisions of this section. (7) The commitment required by this paragraph (i) must be signed b y the owner or president of the foreign refiner business. (8) In an y case where FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery is stored or transported by another compan y between the refinery and the vessel that transports the Sulfur
- FRGAS to the United States, the fo reign refiner shall obtain from each such other company a commitment that meets the requirements specified in paragraphs ( i )(1) through ( 7) of this section. (j) Sovereign immunity
. By submitting a petition for approval as a small refiner or approval of a small volume refinery under this subpart O and this section, or by producing and exporting gasoline to the United States under such an approval under this section, the foreign refiner, its agents and emplo ye es, without exception, become subject to the ful l 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 o ther tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart O, including conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2). (k) Bond posting. An y f oreign refiner must meet the requirements of this paragraph (k) as a condition to being approved for small refiner or small volume refinery status. (l) The foreign refiner shall post a bond of the amount calculated using the following equation: Bond=G× $ 0. 01 Where: Bond = Amount of the bond in U. S. dollars. G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery and exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single calendar year among the most recent of the following calendar years , up to a maximum of three calendar years : the calendar year immediately***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 524 of 842 preceding the date the approval petition is submitted, the calendar ye ar the approval petition is submitted, and each succeeding calendar ye ar . (2) Bonds shall be posted b y performing an y of the following: (i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United States. (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party suret y agent that is payable to satisfy United States administrative or judicial judgments against the foreign refiner, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the third party and the nature of the surety agreement. (iii) An alternative commitment that results in assets of an appropriate liquidity and value being readil y available to the United States, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the alternative commitment. (3) If the bond amount for a foreign refinery increases, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the shortfall within 90 days of the date the bond amount changes. If the bond amount decreases, the foreign refiner may reduce the amount of the bond beginning 90 day s after the date the bond amount changes. (4) Bonds posted under this paragraph (k) shall: (i) Be used to satisfy any judicial judgment that results from an administrative or judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation of this subpart O, including where such conduct violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2); (ii) Be provided b y 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 and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies” (Available from the U.S. Department of the Treasury , Financial Management Service, Surety Bond Branc h, 3700 East
- West Highway , Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD, 20782. Also available on the internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html ); and (iii) In clude a commitment that the bond will remain in effect for at least five (5) years following the end of l atest averaging period that the foreign refiner produces gasoline pursuant to the requirements of this Subpart O. (5) On an y occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy an y judgment, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the amount us ed within 90 day s of the date the bond is used. (l) English language reports. Any report or other document submitted to EPA by an y foreign refiner must be in English, or must include an English language translation. (m) Prohibitions. (1) No person may

c ombine Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS with any Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS or Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS, and no person may combine Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS with any Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS produced at a different refinery , until the importer has met all the requirements of par agraph (n) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section. (2) No foreign refiner or other person may cause another person to commit an action prohibited in paragraph (m)(1) of this section, or that otherwise violates the requirements of this section. (n) United States importer requirements. An y United States importer shall meet the following requirements:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 525 of 842 (1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the importer as being Sulfur
FRGAS or as Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS, and each batch classified as Sulfur
- FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS or as Non
- certified Sulfur
- FRGAS
. (2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur
FRGAS according to the designation b y the foreign r efiner if this designation is supported by product transfer documents prepared b y the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section
. (3) For each gasoline batch classified as Sulfur
- FRGAS, any United States importer shall perform the following procedures : (i) In the case of both Certified and Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, have an independent third party : (A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel. (B) Use the foreign refiner’s Sulfur
- FRGAS certification to determine the name and EPA
assigned registration number of the foreign refinery that produced the Sulfur
- FRGAS. (C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel used to transport the Sulfur
FRGAS to the United States. (D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the United States port of entry
. (ii) In the case of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, have an independent third party : (A) Collect a representative sample from ea ch vessel compartment subsequent to the vessel’s arrival at the United States port of entry and prior to off loading any gasoline from the vessel. (B) Prepare a volume
- weighted vessel composite sample from the compartment samples. (C) Determine the sulfur value using the methodologies specified in §80.1630, by : ( 1 ) The third part y analyzing the sample; or ( 2 ) The third part y observing the importer anal yz ing the sample. (4) Any

importer shall submit reports within thirty day s following the date any vessel tr ansporting Sulfur
- FRGAS arrives at the United States port of entry : (i) To the Administrator containing the information determined under paragraph (n)(3) of this section; and (ii) To the foreign refiner containing the information determined under paragraph (n)(3) of this section. (5) Any

United States importer shall meet the applicable requirements of subpart O, including sulfur content standards specified in §80.1603, for any imported gasoline that is not classified as Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS under paragrap h (n)(2) of this section. (o) Truck imports of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS produced by a foreign small refiner or foreign small volume refinery
. (1) Any

refiner whose Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck may petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet all of the following requirements: (i) Certification under paragraph ( d)(5) of this section. (ii) Load port and port of entry sampling and testing under paragraphs ( f ) and ( g ) of this section. (iii) Attest under paragraph ( h ) of this section. (iv) Importer testing under paragraph (n )(3) of this section. (2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS remains segregated from Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS and from Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS until it is imported into the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 526 of 842 United States. The petition will be evaluated based on whether it adequatel y addresses all of the following: (i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline shipments, if applicable, from the refinery, that ensure segregation of Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS from that ref inery from all other gasoline. (ii) Contracts with any terminals and/or pipelines that receive and/or transport Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling of such Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS with any of the following: (A) Other Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS from other refineries
. (B) All Non
- Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS
. (C) All Non
- Sulfur
- FRGAS (iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records and United States import documents for Certified Sulfur
- FRGAS to ensure that such gasoline is only load ed into trucks making deliveries to the United States. (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annuall y b y an independent third party that review loading records and import documents based on volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Cer

tified Sulfur
- FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution system and is only

loaded into trucks for import into the United States
. (3) The petition required b y this section must be submitted to EPA along with the application for small refiner status or small volume refinery status under §80.1622 and this section. (p) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery ’ s small refiner or small volume refinery status approval
. EPA may withdraw or suspend approval where any of the following occur: (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet an y requirement of this section. (2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim, sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this subpart O. (4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph (k) of this section. (q) [Reserved] (r) Additional requirements for petitions, reports and certificates. An y petition for approval, any alternative procedures under paragraph (o) of this section, and any certification under paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be: (1) Submitted in accordance with procedures speci fied by the Administrator, including use of any forms that may

be specified b y the Administrator; and (2) Be signed b y the president or owner of the foreign refiner company, or b y that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the following declaratio n: I hereb y certify : (1) that I have actual authorit y to sign on behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to all statements contained herein; (2) that Iam aware that the information contained herein is being certified, or submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency , under the applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, subparts H and O, and that the information is material for determining compliance under these regulations; and (3) that I have read and understan d the information being certified or submitted,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 527 of 842 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 un derstand the provisions of 40 CFR Part 80, subpart O, including 40 CFR 80.1666 [insert name of foreign refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and Title 18, United States Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing false, incomplete or mislea ding information in this certification or submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to five ye ars. **§ 80.16**  **67 Attest engagement requirements.**  In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply to refiners and importe rs under §§80.125 through 80.130, and 80.1666, the attest engagements for importers and refiners must include the following procedures and requirements each ye ar. (a) Refiners subject to national standards and Small refiner and Small Volume Refinery Statu s . (1) If the refiner asserts small refinery status or small volume refinery status for the refinery , obtain the EPA approval letter for the refinery to determine the refinery ’s applicable annual average standard and credit generation status. (2) Determi ne whether the refinery applied the correct annual average sulfur standard and whether it was eligible to generate credits and report the finding. (3) If the annual average sulfur standard is incorrect or credit generation was inappropriate, recalculate compliance using the appropriate sulfur standard and using appropriate credits and report as a finding. (b) EPA reports. (1) Obtain and read a cop y of the refinery 's or importer's annual sulfur reports filed with EPA for the ye ar. (2) Agree the ye arl y volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the sulfur reports with the inventory reconciliation anal ys is under the attest engagement provisions of §80.128. (3) Calculate the annual average sulfur level for all gasoline and agree that value with the value repo rted to EPA. (4) Obtain and read a cop y of the refinery 's or importer's sulfur credit report. (5) Agree the information in the refinery's or importer's batch reports filed with EPA under §§80.75 and 80.105, and any laboratory

test results, with the information contained in the annual sulfur report required under §80.1652. (c) Credit generation before 2017
. Inthe case of a refinery that generates credits during 2014 through 2016: (1) Obtain a written representation from the company representative stating the refinery produces gasoline from crude oil. (2) Obtain the annual average sulfur level from paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur credits generated, and agree this value with the value reporte d to EPA.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 528 of 842 (d) Credit generation in 20 17 and thereafter. The following procedures shall be completed for a refinery

or importer that generates credits in 2017 and thereafter: (1) Obtain the annual average sulfur level for gasoline from paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (2) If the sulfur value under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is less than 10 ppm, compute and report as a finding the difference between the sulfur level under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 10 ppm. (3) Compute and report as a findin g the total number of sulfur credits generated, and agree this number with the number reported to EPA. (e) Credit purchases and sales. The following attest procedures shall be completed for a refinery or importer that is a transferor or transferee of cre dits during an averaging period: (1) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits transferred to another refinery or importer during the year being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the number and ye ar of creation of credits represented in these documents as being transferred away ; and agree with the report to EPA. (2) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits received during the ye ar being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the number and ye ar of creation of credits represented in these documents as being received; and agree with the report to EPA. (f) Credit expiration. A refinery or importer that possesses credits during an averaging period must obtain a list of all credits in the refiner's or importer's possession at any time during the year being reviewed, identified by the ye ar of creation of the credits. (g) Credit reconciliation. The following attest procedures shall be completed each year credits were in the refiner's or importer's possession at any time during the ye ar: (1) Obtain the credits remaining or the credit deficit from the previous year from the refiner's or importer's report to EPA for the previous year. (2) Compute and report as a finding the net credits remaining at the conclusion of the year being rev iewed by

totaling: (i) Credits remaining from the previous ye ar; plus (ii) Credits generated under in an averaging period; plus (iii) Credits purchased; minus (iv) Credits sold; minus (v) Credits used; minus (vi) Credits expiring; minus (vii) Credit defici t from the previous year. (3) Agree the credits remaining or the credit deficit at the conclusion of the year being reviewed with the report to EPA. (4) If the refinery

or importer had a credit deficit for both the previous year and the year being reviewed , report this fact as a finding. **§ 80.1675**  **Incorporation by reference.** (a) Certain material is incorporated b y reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edit ion other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 529 of 842 must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the Natio nal Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

– 741

– 6030 or go to: http://www/archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. This material is also availa

ble for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

– 2005

– 0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

– 1742. Also, this material is available from the source listed in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C

– 700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1

– 800

–262

– 1373, www.astm.org ). (1) ASTM D 4814

– 11 (“ASTM D 4814”), Standard Specification for Automotive Sp ark
Ignition Engine Fuel, Approved 2011; IBR approved for §80.177. (2) ASTM D 4057

– 95 (“ASTM D 4507”), Approved 1995; IBR approved for §80.1630. (3) ASTM D 4177

– 95 (“ASTM D 4177”), Approved 1995; IBR approved for §80.1630. (4) ASTM D 5842

– 95 (“ASTM D 5842” ), Approved 1995; IBR approved for §80.1630.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 530 of 842 **PART 85**
**— CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES** 
1. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart F**
**— [Amended]** 
2. Section 85.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows: **§ 85.510**  **Exemption provisions for new**  **and relatively new vehicles/engines.** * * * * * (b) * * * (9) OBD requirements . (i) The OBD s ys tem must properl y detect and identify malfunctions in all monitored emiss ion
- related powertrain s ys tems or components including an y new monitoring capability necessary

to identify

potential emission problems associated with the new fuel. (ii) Conduct all OBD testing necessary to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 86.007
- 17, 86. 010
- 18, and 86.1806
- 05, as applicable. (iii) Submit the applicable OBD reporting requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S, and submit the following statement of compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD
- equipped: Th e test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD sy stems and therefore meets the OBD requirements specified in 40 CFR 86 when operating on the alternative fuel. * * * * *
3. Section 85.515 is amended by revising paragrap h (b)(9)(iii) to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 531 of 842 **§ 85.515 Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/engines.** * * * * * (b) * * * (9) * * * (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this paragraph (b)(9), you must submit to EPA the following statement of compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD
- equipped: The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD sy stems and therefore meets the OBD requirements specified in 40 CFR 86 when operatin g on the alternative fuel. * * * * *
4. Section 85.520 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read as follows: **§ 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/engines.** * * * * * (b) * * * (4) * * * (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this paragraph (b)(4), you must submit to EPA the following statement of compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD
- equipped: The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD sy stems and therefore meets the OBD requirements specified in 40 CFR 86 when operating on the alternative fuel. * * * * * **Subpart P**
**— [Amended]** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 532 of 842 **§ 85.1515**  **Emission standards and test procedures applicable to imported nonconforming mo**  **tor vehicles and m otor vehicle engines.**  (a) Notwithstanding an y other requirements of this subpart, an y motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conditionally

imported pursuant to §85.1505 or §85.1509 and required to be emission tested shall be tested using the FCT at 40 CFR p art 86 applicable to current model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines at the time of testing or reduced testing requirements as follows: (1) ICIs are eligible for reduced testing subject to the following provisions: (i) The OEM must have a vali d certificate of conformity covering the vehicle. (ii) All emission
- related components (including the ECM, calibration of the PROM, all emission and evaporative/refueling control devices, and OBD software and hardware including all sensors and actuators) must be the correct OEM parts for the vehicle and must be properl y installed and fully functional. (iii) The vehicle modified as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must fully comply with all applicable emission standards and requirements. (iv ) Vehicles must have the proper OBD sy stems installed and operating. The I CImust test and verify

the s ys tem’s ability

to find faults (such as disconnected components), set codes, and illuminate the light for each vehicle. The I CImust also verify that a fter sufficient prep driving, the OBD readiness codes are set and the OBD sy stem does not indicate a malfunction. (v) The ICI may

not modify

more than 300 vehicles in any given model year using reduced testing provisions in this paragraph (a). (vi) The I CImust state in the application for certification that it will meet all the conditions in this paragraph (a)(1). (2) The following provisions allow for ICIs to certify vehicles with reduced testing: (i) In addition to the test waivers specified in 40 CFR 86.1829, you may provide a statement in the application for certification, supported by engineering analy sis, that vehicles compl y with any of the following standards that apply instead of submitting test data:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 533 of 842 (A) Cold temperature CO and NMHC emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811. (B) SFTP emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816 for all pollutants. (C) For an ything other than diesel
- fueled vehicles, PM emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816. (D An y running lo ss, refueling, spitback, bleed emissions, and leak standards specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S. (ii) You must perform testing and submit test data as follows to demonstrate compliance with emission standards: (A) Exhaust and fuel economy tests . You must measure emissions over the FTP driving cycle and the highway fuel econom y driving cycle as specified in 40 CFR 600.109 to meet the fuel econom y requirements in 40 CFR part 600 and demonstrate compliance with the exhaust emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 (other than PM). Measure exhaust emissions and fuel economy with the same test procedures used by the original manufacturer to test the vehicle for certification. However, you must use an electric dynamometer meeting the requirements of §86. 108 or 40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, unless we approve a different dy namometer based on excessive compliance costs. If you certify based on testing with a different dy namometer, you must state in the application for certification that all vehicles in the emission family will comply

with emission standards if tested on an electric dyn amometer. (B) Evaporative emission test . You may measure evaporative emissions as specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to demonstrate compliance with the evaporative emis sion standards in 40 CFR part 86 instead of the otherwise specified procedures. Use measurement equipment for evaporative measurements specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, except that the SHED does not need to accommodate varying ambient temperatures. The evaporative measurement procedure is integral to the procedure for measuring exhaust emissions over the FTP driving cycle as described in paragraph (a)(ii)(2)(A) of this section. Perform canister preconditioning using the same procedure used b y the o riginal manufacturer to certify the vehicle; perform this canister loading before the initial preconditioning drive. Perform a diurnal emission test at the end of the stabilization period before the exhaust emission test by heating the fuel from 60 to 84° F, either b y exposing the vehicle to increasing ambient temperatures or b y appl ying heat directl y to the fuel tank. Measure hot soak emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.138
- 96(k). We may approve alternative measurement procedures that are equivalent to o r more stringent than the specified***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 534 of 842 procedures if the specified procedures are impractical for particular vehicle models or measurement facilities. The sum of the measured diurnal and hot soak values must meet the appropriate emission standard as specifie d in this section. (b) The emission standards applicable to nonconforming light
- duty vehicles and light
- dut y trucks imported pursuant to this subpart are outlined in tables 1 and 2 of this section, respectivel y. The useful life as specified in tables 1 and 2 of this section is applicable to imported light
- dut y vehicles and light
- dut y trucks, respectively. (c)(1) Nonconforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines of 1994 OP model y ear and later conditionally

imported pursuant to §85.1505 or §85.1509 sha ll meet all of the emission standards specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle or motor vehicle engine. The useful life specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine is applicable where useful li fe is not designated in this subpart. (2)(i) Nonconforming light
- duty vehicles and light light
- duty trucks (LDV/LLDTs) originall y manufactured in OP years 2004, 2005 or 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 9 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 and the evaporative emission standards for light
- dut y vehicles and light light
- duty trucks specified in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 01(e)(5). (ii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium
- duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally

manufacture d in OP years 2004 through 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 and the applicable evaporative emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e)(5). For 2004 OP ye ar HLDTs and MDPVs where modifications commence on the first vehicle of a test group before December 21, 2003, this requirement does not apply to the 2004 OP year. ICIs opting to bring all of their 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs into compliance with the exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04, may use the optional higher NMOG values for their 2004

–2006 OP ye ar LDT2s and 2004

–2008 LDT4s. (iii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium
- dut y passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally

manufactured in OP years 2007 and 2008 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 8 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 and the applicable evaporative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e)(5). (iv) Nonconforming LDV/LDTs originally manufactured in OP years 2007 through 2021 and nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP year 2009 through 2021 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 5 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04, and the evaporative stan dards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811(e)(1) through (e)(4).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 535 of 842 (v) ICIs are exempt from the Tier 2 and the interim non
- Tier2 phase
- in intermediate percentage requirements for exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions described in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04. (vi) In ca ses where multiple standards exist in a given model year in 40 CFR part 86 due to phase
- in requirements of new standards, the applicable standards for motor vehicle engines required to be certified to engine
- based standards are the least stringent standard s applicable to the engine type for the OP ye ar. (vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 2009 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e). However, LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP years 2009 and 2010 and imported by

I CI s who qualify

as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838

– 01 are exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative emission standards in Table S04

– 3 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e). (viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP years 2010 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e). However , HLDTs and MDPVs originall y manufactured in OP years 2010 and 2011 and imported by I CI s, who qualify

as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838

– 01, are exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative emission standards in Table S04

– 3 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e). (ix) Nonconforming LDV, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR originall y manufactured in OP years 2022 and later must meet the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811 through 86.1816. (3)(i) As an option to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, independent commercial importers may elect to meet lower bins in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860

– 04 and 40 CFR 86.1861

– 04. An I CImay not meet higher bins in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section unless it demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it has obtained appropriate and sufficient NOx credits from another manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the current model ye ar and not transferred them to another manufacturer or used them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860

– 04 and 40 CFR 86.1861

– 04. (ii) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity using a bin high er than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, but does not have sufficient credits to cover***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 536 of 842 vehicles produced under such certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the I CIhas also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicle s certified using a bin lower than that required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The I CImay then produce vehicles to the higher bin only to the extent that it has generated sufficient credits from vehicles certified to the lower bin during the sam e model year. (4) [Reserved] (5) Except for the situation where an ICI desires to bank, sell or use NOx credits as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 related to fleet average NOx standards and requirements to comply with such standards do not apply to vehicles modified under this subpart. (6) ICIs using bins higher than those specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must monitor their production so that they do not produce more vehicles certified to the standards of such bins than their available credits can cover. ICIs must not have a credit deficit at the end of a model ye ar and are not permitted to use the deficit carryforward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1860

– 04(e). (7) The Administrator may cond ition the certificates of conformity issued to I CI s as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject to paragraph (c) of this section comply with the appropriate average NOx standard for each model year. (8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured i n OP years 2010 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission standards in Table S10

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10(g). (ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP years 2012 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission stan dards in Table S10

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10(g). (iii) I CI s, which qualify

as small volume manufacturers, are exempt from the cold temperature NMHC phase
- in intermediate percentage requirements described in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10(g)(3). See 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(k)(5) (vi) and (vii). (iv) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, IC Is may elect to meet a cold temperature NMHC family emission level below the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standards specified in Table S10

– 1 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10 and bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864

– 10. An I CImay not meet a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than the fleet average standards in Table S10

– 1 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10 as specified in paragraphs (c) (8)(i) and (ii) of this section, unless it demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 537 of 842 that it has obtained appropriate and sufficient NMHC credits from another manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model ye ar or in the curre nt model year and not traded them to another manufacturer or used them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864

– 10. (v) Where an IC I desires to obtain a certificate of conformity using a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level th an specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, but does not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles imported under such certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the ICI has also obtained a certificate of conformity

for vehicles certified using a cold temperature NMHC family emission level lower than that required under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. The I CImay

then import vehicles to the higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level only to the ext ent that it has generated sufficient credits from vehicles certified to a family emission level lower than the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard during the same model year. (vi) I CI s using cold temperature NMHC famil y emission levels higher than the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standards specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section must monitor their imports so that they do not import more vehicles certified to such family

emission levels than their available credits can cove r. IC Is must not have a credit deficit at the end of a model year and are not permitted to use the deficit carryf orward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1864

– 10. (vii) The Administrator may condition the certificates of conformit y issued to I CI s as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject to this paragraph (c)(8) comply with the applicable cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard for each model year. (d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, I CI 's must not participate in emission
relate d programs for emissions averaging, banking and trading, or nonconformance penalties. Table 1 to §85.1515

—Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light
- Duty Motor Vehicles 1,2,3

OP Year Hydrocarbon Carbon mo noxide Oxides of

nitrogen Particulate Diesel

hydrocarbon Evaporative (years/miles) Useful life***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 538 of 842 1968

– 76 1.5 gpm 15 gpm 3.1 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000
1977

– 79 1.5 gpm 15 gpm 2.0 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000
1980 0.41 gpm 7.0 gpm 2.0 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000
1981 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50 ,000
1982

– 86 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 0.60 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000
1987

– 93 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 0.20 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000
1994 and later ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 )

1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light
- duty vehicles. E vaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non
- diesel fueled light
- duty vehicles. For alternative fueled light
- duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent grams carbon per test, as appli cable. 2No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non
- diesel fueled light
- duty vehicle. 3 All light
- duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high
- altitudes according to the procedures s pecified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing. 4 Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
Table 2

—Emission Standards Applicable to Imported L ight
- Duty Trucks 1,2,3,4,5
OP year Hydrocarbon Carbon mo noxide Oxides of

nitrogen Particulate Diesel hydrocarbon Evaporative

(years/miles) Useful

life
1968

– 78 2.0 gpm 20 gpm 3.1 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 539 of 842 1979

– 80 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000
1981 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000
1982

– 83 1.7 gpm

(2.0) 18 gpm

(26) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.60 gpm

(0.60) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 5/50,000

1984 0.80 gpm

(1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.60 gpm

(0.60) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 5/50,000

1985

– 86 0.80 gpm

(1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.60 gpm

(0.60) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000

1987 0.80 gpm

(1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.26 gpm

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000

1988

– 89 0.80 gpm

(1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.2 gpm6

(1.2) 0.26 gpm7

(2.0) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.7 gpm6

(1.7) 0.45 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm6

(2.3) 0.45 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000

1990

– 93 0.80 gpm

(1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.2 gpm 8

(1.2) 0.26 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.7 gpm 8

(1.7) 0.45 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 540 of 842 1994 and later ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 )

1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light
- duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarb on standards apply only to non
- diesel fueled light
- duty trucks. For alternative fueled light
- duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable. 2No crankcase emi ssions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non
- diesel fueled light
- duty truck. 3 A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later model year light
- duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at other than a designated high
- altitude location. This requirement is effective for light
- duty trucks sold to, or owned by an importer for principal use at a designated high
- altitude location beginning with the 1988 model year. 4 All 1982 OP year and later light
- duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high
- altitude location shall meet high
- altitude emission standards according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light
- duty trucks at the time of testing. 5 Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high
- altitude location. These standards must be met at high
- altitude according to the proc edures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing. 6 The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light
- duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and at or below

6,000 pounds GVWR. The 1.7 gpm standard applies to light
- duty trucks above 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; the 2.3 gpm standard applies to light
- duty trucks above 6,000 pounds GVWR. 7 The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies to light - duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard applies to light
- duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight. 8 The NOx standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light
- duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle wei ght; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to light
- duty trucks above 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight. 9 Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section.

**Subpart W**
**— [Amended]** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 541 of 842 5. Subpart W, consisting of § § 85.2201, 85.2207, 85.2222, 85.2223, and 85.2231, is revised to read as follows: Sec. 85.2201 Applicability
. 85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards. 85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures. 85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report. 85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements. **§ 85.2201 Applicability.** (a) This subpart describes the test provisions to be employed in conjunction with the Emissions Performance Warranty

in subpart V of this part. These provisions generally rely on a vehicle’s onboard diagnostic s ys tem (OBD) to indicate whether a vehicle passes or fails the test. (b) The provisions of this subpart may be used to establish warranty eligibility for light
- dut y vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and medium
- duty passenger vehi cles when tested during the useful life as prescribed in subpart V of this part.

**§ 85.2207**  **Onboard diagnostic test standards.** (a) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if it is a 1996 or newer vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing, has been tampered with, or is otherwise inoperable. (b) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the malfunction indicator light (MIL) is commanded to be illuminated and it is not visually illuminated according to visual inspection. (c) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the MIL is commanded to be illuminated for one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as described in 40 CFR 86.1806.

i. § 85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures. The test sequence for the OBD inspection shall consist of the following steps: (a) The OB D inspection shall be conducted with the key
- on/engine running, with the exception of inspecting for MIL illumination as required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, during which the inspection shall be conducted with the key
- on/engine off.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 542 of 842 (b) The inspec tor shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the test sy stem into the connector. (c) The test sy stem shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the OBD evaluation status. The test system shall determine what mo nitors are supported by

the OBD s ystem, and perform the readiness evaluation for applicable monitors in accordance with the requirements and specifications in 40 CFR 86.1806. (1) Coincident with the beginning of mandatory testing, repair, and retesting bas ed upon the OBD test, if the readiness evaluation indicates that any onboard tests are not complete, the customer shall be instructed to return after the vehicle has been run under conditions that allow completion of all applicable onboard tests. If the re adiness evaluation again indicates that any onboard test is not complete, the vehicle shall be failed. (2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of this section is allowed for MY 1996 to MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two or fewer unset readiness monitors, and for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more than one unset readiness monitor. Vehicles from those model years which would otherwise pass the OBD inspection, but for the unset readiness code in question, may

be issued a passing certificate without being required to operate the vehicle in such a way

as to activate those particular monitors. Vehicles from those model years with an unset readiness code that also have a DTC stored resulting in an illuminated MIL must be failed, though setting the unset readin ess flag in question shall not be a prerequisite for passing the retest. (d) The test s ys tem shall evaluate the M IL status bit and record status information in the vehicle test record. (1) If the M IL status bit indicates that the MIL has been commanded to be illuminated, the test sy stem shall send a Mode $03 request in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the stored DTCs. The s ys tem shall repeat this cycle until the number of codes reported equals the number expected based on the Mode $01 response. A ll DTCs resulting in MIL illumination shall be recorded in the vehicle test record and the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection. (2) If the M IL bit is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle shall pass the OBD inspection, even if DTCs are present. (3) If the M IL bit is commanded to be illuminated, the inspector shall visually inspect the MI L to determine if it is illuminated. I f the MIL is commanded to be illuminated but is not, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection. (4) If the M IL does not illumin ate at all when the vehicle is in the key
- on/engine
- off condition, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection, even if no DTCs are present and the MI L has not been commanded on. **§ 85.2223**  **Onboard diagnostic test report.** (a) Motorists whose vehicles fail the OBD test described in §85.2222 shall be provided with the OBD test results, including the codes retrieved, the name of the component or sy stem associated with each fault code, the status of the MIL illumination command, and the customer alert statement as stated in paragraph (b) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 543 of 842 (b) In addition to an y codes that were retrieved, the test report shall include the following language: Your vehicle's computerized self
- diagnostic system (OBD) registered the faults listed below. The faults are probably an indication of a malfunction of an emission component. However, multiple and/or seemingly unrelated faults may be an indication of an emission
- related problem that occurred previously, but upon further evaluation by the OBD system was determine d to be only temporary. Therefore, proper diagnosis by a qualified technician is required to positively identify the source of any emission
- related problem. ii. § 85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements. (a) The test sy stem interface to the v ehicle shall include a plug that conforms to the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806. (b) The test s ys tem shall be capable of communicating with the standard data link connector of vehicles with certified OBD s ys tems. (c) The test sy stem sh all be capable of checking for OBD monitors and the evaluation status of supported monitors (test complete/test not complete) in Mode $01 PID $01, as well as be able to request the DTCs, consistent with the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806
.

**Part 86**
**— Control of Emissions from New and In**  **- use Highway Vehicles and Engines**  6. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q.
7. Section 86.004
- 25 is amended b y revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: **§ 86.1 Reference materials.** * * * * * (b) * * * (4) California regulatory requirements. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the California Air Resources Board b y calling 916
- 322
- 2884, or at http://www.arb.ca.gov
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 544 of 842 (i) California Requir ements Applicable to the LEV III Program, Title 13, §1961.2 and §1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of Regulations, approved on March 22, 2012, IBR approved for §86.1803
- 01. (ii) California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission V ehicle Program, October 1996, IBR approved for §§ 86.113
- 04 and 86.612
- 97. (iii) California Regulatory Requirements known as On
- board Diagnostics II (OBD
- II), Approved on April 21, 2003, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic Sy stem Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model
- Year Passenger Cars, Light
- Duty Trucks, and Medium
- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD
- II), IBR approved for § 86.1806
- 05. (iv) California Regulatory Requirements known as On
- board Diagnostics II (OBD
- II), Approved on November 9, 2007, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic Sy stem Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model
- Year Passenger Cars, Light
- Duty Trucks, and Medium
- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OB D
- II), IBR approved for §§ 86.007
- 17, 86.1806
- 05. (v) California Regulatory Requirements known as On
- board Diagnostics II (OBD
- II), Approved on June 17, 2010, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic Sy stem Requi rements for 2004 and Subsequent Model
- Year Passenger Cars, Light
- Duty Trucks, and Medium
- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD
- II), IBR approved for § 86.1806
- 17. * * * * * **Subpart A**
**— [Amended]**  **§§86.000 -**  **8, 86.000 -**  **9, 86.000 -**  **16, 86.000 -**  **26, 86.000 -**  **28, 86.001 -**  **9, 86.0 01**  **- 22, 86.001**  **- 25,**  **86.001 -**  **26, 86.001 -**  **28, 86.001 -**  **30, 86.004 -**  **9, 86.007 -**  **38, 86.079**  **- 36, 86.085**  **- 20, 86.087**  **- 2, 86.094**  **- 13, 86.094**  **- 16, 86.094**  **- 26, 86.094**  **- 28, 86.095**  **- 23, 86.095**  **- 26, 86.095**  **- 30, 86.096**  **- 7, 86.096**  **- 8,**  **86.096 -**  **21, 86.096 -**  **26, 86.096 -**  **30, 86.096 -**  **35, 86.096 -**  **38, 86.097**  **- 9, 86.098**  **- 24, 86.098**  **- 25,**  **86.098 -**  **26, 86.098 -**  **28, 86.098 -**  **30, 86.098 -**  **35, 86.099 -**  **8, 86.099 -**  **9, 86.099 -**  **17**

**– [Removed]**  8. Subpart A is amended by removing the following sections: §§86.000
- 8, 86.000
- 9, 86.000
- 16, 86.000
- 26, 86.000
- 28, 86.001
- 9, 86.001
- 22, 86 .001
- 25, 86.001
- 26, 86.001
- 28, 86.001
- 30, 86.004
- 9 , 86.007
- 38, 86.079
- 36, 86.085
- 20, 86.087
- 2, 86.094
- 13, 86.094
- 16, 86.094
- 26, 86.094
- 28, 86.095
- 23, 86.095
- 26, 86.095
- 30, 86.096
- 7, 86.096
- 8, 86.096
- 21, 86.096
- 26, 86.096
- 30, 86.096
- 35, 86.096
- 38, 86.097
- 9, 86.098
- 24, 86.098
- 25, 86.098
- 26,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 545 of 842 86.098
- 28, 86.098
- 30, 86.098
- 35, 86.099
- 8, 86.099
- 9, 86.099
- 17. 9. Section 86.000
- 7 is amended as follows: a. By revising the introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1). c. By revising paragraph (h) (6). d. By removing paragraph (h)(7). **§ 86.000 -**  **7 Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right of entry.** Section 86.000

– 7 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.091

– 7 or §86.094

– 7. Where a paragraph in §86.091

– 7 or §86.0 94

– 7 is identical and applicable to §86.000

– 7, this may

be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.091

– 7.” or “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.094

– 7.” * * * * * (h) * * * (6) EPA may

void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or refueling test procedure and accompan yi ng evaporative and/or refueling standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in §86.098

– 10 for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon request. * * * * * **§86.000 -**  **24**
**— [Amended]**  10. Section 86.000
- 24 is amended as follows: a. By removing the introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraph (a). c. By removing paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1) introductory text. d. By removing paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (b)(1)(xii). e. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2). f. By removing paragraph (b)(3 ). g. By removing paragraphs (c) through (f). h. By removing paragraph (g) introductory text. i. By removing and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2). j. By removing paragraph (h). 11. Section 86.001
- 23 is amended b y revising the introductory text and paragraph (c) introductory

text and removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(1), (f), and (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.001 -**  **23 Required data.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 546 of 842 Section 86.001

–23 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.098

–23. Where a paragraph in §86.098

–2 3 is identical and applicable to §86.001

–23, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.098

–23.”
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (c) Emission data

— * * * * *
12. Section 86.004
- 21 is amended as follows: a. By revising the introductory text b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i). c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(v). d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l). **§ 86.004 -**  **21 Application for certification.** Section 86.004

–21 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.094

–21. Where a paragraph in §86.094

–21 is identical and applicable to §86.004

–21, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.094

–21.” * * * * * **§86.004 -**  **25**
**— [Amended]**  13. Section 86.004
- 25 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(4)(iv).
14. Section 86.004
- 26 is amended as follows: a. By removing the introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b). c. By revising paragraph (d). **§86.004 -**  **26 Mileage and service accumulation; emission measurements.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 547 of 842 * * * * * (d)(1) This paragraph (d) applies for heav y - dut y engines. (2)(i) The results of all emission testing shall be supplied to the Administrator. The manufacturer shall furnish to the Administrator explanation for voiding any test. The Administrator will determine if voiding the test was appropriate based upon the explanation given b y the manufacturer for the voided test. Tests between test points may be conducted as required by the Administrator. Data from all tests (including voided tests) may

be submitted weekl y to the Administrator, but shall be delivered to the Administrator within 7 day s after completion of the test. In addition, all test data shall be compiled and provided to the Administrator in accordance with §86.007

–23. Where the Administrator conducts a test on a durability data vehicle at a prescribed test point, the results of that test will be used in the calculation of the deterioration fact or. (ii) The results of all emission tests shall be recorded and reported to the Administrator. These test results shall be rounded as specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to the number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure. (3) Whenever a manufacturer intends to operate and test a vehicle (or engine) that may be used for emission data, the manufacturer shall retain in its records all information concerning all emission tests and maintenance, including vehicle (or engine) alterations to represent other vehicle (or engine) selections. This information shall be submitted, including the vehicle (or engine) description and specification information required by the Administrator, to the Administrat or following the emission data test. (4) Emission testing of any t ype with respect to any certification vehicle or engine other than that specified in this subpart is not allowed except as such testing may be specificall y authorized by

the Administrator. **§86.004 -**  **28**
**— [Amended]**  15. Section 86.004
- 28 is amended b y removing the introductory text and by

removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), (f), and (g). **§86.004 -**  **30**
**— [Amended]**  16. Section 86.004
- 30 is amended as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 548 of 842 a. By revising the introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(10)(i), and (a)(11)(i) and (a)(12) through (a)(16). c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21). d. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii). e. By removing paragraph (b)(1 )(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(ii) (D). f. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4). **§ 86.004 -**  **30 Certification.** Section 86.004

– 30 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.094

– 30. Where a paragraph in §86.094

– 30is identical and applicable to §86.004

– 30, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.094

– 30.”
17. Section 86.004
- 38 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (g) and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: **§8 6.004**  **- 38 Maintenance instructions.**  * * * * * (i) For each new diesel
- fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed in §86.007

– 11, as applicable, the manufacturer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser a statement that “This e ngine must be operated only with ultra low
- sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).”
18. Section 86.005
- 10 is amended b y revising the introductory text and paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§86. 005**  **- 10 Emission standards for 2005 and later model year Otto**  **- cycle heavy**  **- duty**  **engines and vehicles.** Section 86.005

– 10 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.099

– 10. Where a paragraph in §86.099

– 10 is identical and applicable to §8 6.005

– 10, this may be indicated by specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.099

– 10.” * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 549 of 842 (c) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any new 1998 or later model ye ar Otto
- cycle heavy
- dut y engine. * * * * *
19. Section 86.007
- 17 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.007**  **- 17**  **On -**  **board diagnostics for engines used in applications less than or equal to 14,000 pounds GVWR.**  Heav y - dut y engines intended to be installed in heavy dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to standards under this subpart must meet the on
- board diagnostic requirements of §86.1806
- 17(a), (d), and (e). **§86.007 -**  **21**
**— [Amended]**  20. Section 86.007
- 21 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i). b. By removing paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l). 21. Section 86.007
- 23 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(2), (f), (g), and (l) and revising the introductory t ext and paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§ 86.007 -**  **23 Required data.** Section 86.007

–23 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.098

–23 or §86.001

–23. Where a paragraph in §86.098

–23 or §86.001

–23 is identical and applicable to §8 6.007

–23, this may

be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.098

–23.” or “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.001

–23.”. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) [Reserved] * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 550 of 842 (c) Emission data from c ertif ication vehicles and engines. The manufacturer shall submit emission data for each applicable emission standard from vehicles and engines tested in accordance with applicable test procedures and in such numbers as specified. These data shall include zero
- m ile or zero
- hour data, if generated, and emission data generated for certification as required under §86.004
- 26. However, manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the following standards instead o f submitting test data, provided that the statement is supported by previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment: (1) Idle CO, smoke, or particulate matter emissions from methanol
- fueled or gas eous - fueled diesel
- cycle certification engines. (2) Particulate matter emissions from Otto
- cycle certification engines or gaseous
- fueled certification engines. (3) CO emissions from diesel
- cycle certification engines. (4) Formaldeh yde emissions from petrol eum - fueled engines. (5) Particulate matter and formaldeh yde emissions when conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing of Otto
- cycle engines. (6) Smoke from methanol
- fueled or petroleum
- fueled diesel
- cycle certification engines. (7) Smoke when conducti ng Selective Enforcement Audit testing of diesel
- cycle engines. (8) Evaporative emissions from vehicles fueled b y natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen. * * * * * (f) through (g) [Reserved] * * * * * (l) [Reserved] * * * * * **§86.007 -**  **30**
**— [Amend**  **ed]** 22. Section 86.007
- 30 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(10)(i), (a)(11)(i), and (a)(12) through (a)(16). b. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(4). d. By removing paragraph (f).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 551 of 842 23. Section 86.007
- 35 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraph (a) introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) c. By revising paragraph (c). d. By removi ng and reserving paragraphs (d), (f), and (i). **§86.007 -**  **35 Labeling.** (a) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) subject to the applicable emission standards (and family emission limits, as appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the time of manufacture, affix a permanent legible label, of the type and in the manner described below, containing the information hereinafter provided, to all production models of such vehicles (or engines) available for sale to the public and covered b y a Certificate of Conformity under §86.007

– 30(a). * * * * * (c) Vehicles powered b y model year 2007through 2013 diesel
- fueled engines must include permanent, readily visible labels on the dashboard (or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state “Us e Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only”; or “Ultra L ow Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only”. * * * * *

24. Section 86.008
- 10 is amended b y removing the introductory text and revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (e) to read as follows: **§86.008 -**  **10 Emission stand ards for 2008 and later model year Otto**  **- cycle heavy**  **- duty**  **engines and vehicles.** * * * * * (b) This paragraph (b) applies through model ye ar 2013. See 40 CFR 1037.103 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years. Evaporative emissions from heavy
- dut y vehicles shall not exceed the following standards when measured using the test procedures specified in 40 CFR 1037.501. The standards apply equall y to certification and in
- use vehicles. The spitback standard also applies to newl y assembled vehicles. For certification vehicles onl y, 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 b y the Administrator.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 552 of 842 * * * * * (e) The standards described in this section do not apply to Otto
- cycle medium
- duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) that are subject to regulation under subpart S of this part, except as specified in subpart S of this part. The standards described in this section also do not apply to Otto
- cycle engines used in such MDPVs, except as specified in subpart S of this part. The term “medium
duty passenger vehicle” is defined in §86.1803. * * * * *
25. Section 86.010
- 38 is amended b y revising paragraphs (g) and (i) to read as follows: **§ 86.010 -**  **38 Maintenance instructions.** * * * * * (g) Em ission control diagnostic service information . Manufacturers are subject to the requirements of §86.1808
- 01(f) beginning in the 2005 model year for manufacturers of heavy
duty vehicles and heavy
- duty

engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW ) and less that are subject to the OBD requirements of this part. * * * * * (i) Through model ye ar 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser the following statement for each new diesel
- fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed in §86.007

– 11, as applicable: “This engine must be operated onl y with ultra low
- sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).” * * * * *
26. Section 86.016
- 1 is amended by re vising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.016 -**  **1 General applicability.** (a) Applicability . The provisions of this subpart apply for certain ty

pes of new heavy
- dut y engines and vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Note that this subpart does not appl y for light
- duty vehicles, light
- duty

trucks, or medium
- duty

passenger vehicles (see subpart S of this***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 553 of 842 part for requirements that apply for those vehicles). In some cases, manufacturers of heavy
- duty engines and vehicles can choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or the requirements of subpart S of this part; those provisions are therefore considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers compl y with the other set of requirements. Incases where a provision applies only

for a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, engine t ype, or other distinguishing characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate section. The provisions o f this subpart apply for certain heavy
- duty

engines and vehicles as follows: (1) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards apply for diesel
- cycle and Otto
- cycle heav y - duty engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. (2) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards apply as follows for engines that will be installed in incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR: (i) These provisions apply for diesel
- cycle engines. (ii) These provisions are optional for Otto
- cycle engines. (3) Diesel
- cycle and Otto
- cycle complete heavy
- duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the corresponding engines are not subject to the provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards, except that these provisions are optional for diesel
- cycle engines installed in such vehicles through model year 2018. (4) The provisions of this subpart related to evaporative emission standards apply for diesel
cycle and Otto
- cycle heavy
- dut y vehicles as follow s: (i) These provisions do not apply for complete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. (ii) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and all sizes of incomplete heavy
- dut y vehicles must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in §86.008
- 10 through mo del year 2017, and as specified in 40 CFR part 1037 in later model years. (iii) Note that diesel
- fueled vehicles are not subject to evaporative emissions under this part. (5) The provisions of this subpart related to onboard diagnostics appl y for diesel
- cycle and Otto
- cycle heavy
- dut y engines and vehicles as follows: (i) Engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.010
- 18.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 554 of 842 (ii) Engines installed in vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may optionally comply with the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.007
- 17, in which case those vehicles are not subject to separate onboard diagnostic requirements under this part. (b) Relationship to subpart S of this part . Unless specifi ed otherwise, if engines are not subject to provisions of this subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, those engines must be installed in vehicles meeting the corresp onding requirements under subpart S of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine comply

with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart S of this part, the vehicle must be certified under subpart S of this part, and the engine does not need to be certified separately
. (c) Greenhouse gas emission standards . See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 for greenhouse gas emission standards that apply for heav y - duty

engines and vehicles. * * * * * (g) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions o f this subpart also apply for clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this section. (h) Turbine engines are deemed to be compression
- ignition.
27. Section 86.082
- 2 is amended by adding the definition of “Round” in alphabetical order to read as follows. **§ 86.082 -**  **2 Definitions.** * * * * * Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless otherwise specified. * * * * * **§86.085 -**  **37**
**— [Amended]**  28. Section 86.085
- 37 is amended b y removing p aragraph (b) and the Effective Date Note and the end of the section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 555 of 842 **§86.091 -**  **29**
**— [Amended]**  29. Section 86.091
- 29 is amended b y removing paragraph (a). 30. Section 86.094
- 7 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1). b. By revising paragraph (h)(6). c. By removing paragraph (h)(7). **§ 86.094 -**  **7 Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right of entry.** * * * * * (h) * * * (6) EPA may

void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or refueling test procedure and accompan yi ng evaporative and/or refueling standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in §86.098

– 10 for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section or to prov ide such information to the Administrator upon request. * * * * * **§86.094 -**  **14**
**— [Amended]**  31. Section 86.094
- 14 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(7)(i)(A)( 1 ). **§86.094 -**  **21**
**— [Amended]**  32. Section 86.094
- 21 is amended b y removing paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) and b y removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(iii)(B), (b)(8), (d), and (g). **§86.094 -**  **25**
**— [Amended]**  33. Section 86.094
- 25 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(3)(ii).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 556 of 842 b. By removin g paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (b)(3)(vii). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6), (d), and (g). **§86.094 -**  **30**
**— [Amended]**  34. Section 86.094
- 30 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(7). b. By removing paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(14). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(4). d. By removing and reserving paragraph (d).
35. Section 86.095
- 35 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). b. By revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text. c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (e), and (f). d. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text. **§86.095 -**  **35 Labeling.** (a) * * * (1)

– (2) [Reserved] * * * * * (4) Heavy - dut y vehicles employing a fuel or fuels covered b y evaporative emission standards
. This paragraph (a)(4) applies through model ye ar 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years. * * * * * (d)

– (f) [Reserved] (g ) Incomplete vehicle fuel tank capacity . This paragraph (g) applies through model year 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years. * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 557 of 842 **§86.096 -**  **24**
**— [Amended]**  36. Section 86.096
- 24 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(11) b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(14)(ii), (a)(14)(iii), and (a)(14)(vii). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d). d. By removing paragraphs (g) and (h). **§ 86.098**  **- 23** 
**— [Amended]**  37. Section 86.098
- 23 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (e)(2), and (e)(3). **Subpart B**
**— [Amended]** 
38. Section 86.102 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.102 Definitions.** The definitions in §86.1803 apply to this subpart. **§§ 86.108 -**  **79, 86.118 -**  **78, 86.127 -**  **96, 86.131 -**  **00, 86.162 -**  **00**

**– [Removed]**  39. Subpart B is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 86.108
- 79, 86.118
- 78, 86.127
- 96, 86.131
- 00, 86.162
- 00. 40. Section 86.101 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.101 General applicability.**  (a) General provisions . This subpart describes test procedures for measuring exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions from motor vehicles subject to emission standards under subpart S of this part. This generall y includes light
- duty vehicles, light
- duty

trucks, and complete heav y - duty

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. The following provisions apply for all testing under this subpart:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 558 of 842 (1) Provisions of this subpart appl y to tests performed by both the Administrator and motor vehicle manufacturers. (2) References in this subpart to engine families and emission control sy stems are deemed to apply to durability

groups and test groups as applicable for manufacturers certifying vehicles under subpart S of this part. (3) Excep t as noted, heavy
- dut y vehicles are subject to all the same provisions of this subpart that apply to light
- duty

trucks. (4) The procedures in this subpart appl y for testing vehicles powered b y any fuel, except as specified in subpart S of this part. (5) Al l emission control sy stems designed for production vehicles must be functioning during testing. Maintenance to correct component malfunction or failure must be authorized in accordance with §86.1834. (b) Migration to 40 CFR part 1066 . This subpart transi tions to rely on the further test procedure specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as follows: (1) Through model ye ar 2021, manufacturers may use the test procedures specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section. For an y EPA testing before model ye ar 2022, EPA will use the manufacturer's selected procedures for determining road load parameters and applying cycle
- validation criteria. For an y other parameters, EPA may conduct testing using either of the specified procedures. As allowed under this part, manufacturers may use carryover data from previous model years to demonstrate compliance with emission standards, without regard to the provisions of this section. (2) Manufacturers must use the following procedures before model ye ar 2022: (i) For ve hicles certified to any of the Tier 3 emission standards specified in subpart S of this part, validate overall driver accuracy based on driven cycle energy and report information as described in 40 CFR 1066.430(j). (ii) The equipment specifications and mea surement procedures related to PM emissions from 40 CFR part 1066 apply for any vehicles certified to the Tier 3 PM emission standards specified in subpart S of this part. (3) For model years 2022 and later, manufacturers must use the test procedures speci fied in paragraph (d) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 559 of 842 (c) Interim procedures . Test vehicles as described in this subpart for the appropriate model year, through model ye ar 2021, as follows: (1) Sections 86.106 through 86.115 set forth general testing specifications and e quipment requirements. Sections 86.116 through 86.126 discuss calibration methods and frequency
. Sections 86.127 through 86.145 describe procedures for measuring exhaust and evaporative emissions. Sections 86.146 through 86.157 lay out refueling test procedures. Sections 86.158 through 86.166 cover procedures related to the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure and testing related to air conditioning sy stems. Section 86.167 presents the test procedure for measuring fuel s ys tem leaks. (2) Alternate equipm ent, procedures, and calculation methods may be used if shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved in advance b y the Administrator. (d) Long
- term procedures . Test vehicles as described in this subpart and in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 a s follows: (1) Use fuel for testing and service accumulation as specified in §86.113. (2) Operate vehicles over specified driving schedules for preconditioning and exhaust measurement as described in §86.115. (3) For exhaust emission testing, measure emiss ions for all pollutants with an applicable emission standard. Calculate emission results as described in §86.144
- 17, and 40 CFR part 1066, subpart G. (4) Perform exhaust emission tests over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) as described in §§86.115 and 86. 130. The test sequence includes steps to precondition vehicles for evaporative emission measurements; these steps are required for exhaust testing whether or not testing includes evaporative emission measurements. (5) Perform exhaust emission tests over the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) as described in §§86.130 through 86.132. This includes references to procedures specified in §§86.158 through 86.164. (6) Perform evaporative emission tests as follows: (i) Use evaporative testing equipment me eting the specifications in §86.107. This equipment must meet calibration requirements as specified in §86.117. (ii) Generate fuel test temperature profiles as described in §86.129
- 94(d).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 560 of 842 (iii) Follow the driving schedules described in §86.115 and the gen eral provisions described in §86.130. Evaporative testing consists of vehicle preparation and preconditioning as described in §§86.131 and 86.132, diurnal measurement as described in §86.133, running loss testing as described in §86.134, and hot soak testing as described in §86.138. (iv) Calculate emission results as described in §86.143. (v) Measure FTP exhaust emissions as part of evaporative emission testing. (7) Keep records as described in §86.142 (8) Perform refueling emission tests, calculate em ission results, and keep associated records as described in §86.146 through 86.157. (9) Comply

with additional provisions related to air conditioning s ys tems as described in §§86.165 and 86.166. (10) Test fuel s ys tems for leaks as described in §86.167. **§8 6.106**  **- 96** 
**— [Amended]**  41. Section 86.106
- 96 is amended b y removing paragraph (a)(3). **§86.107 -**  **96**
**— [Amended]**  42. Section 86.107
- 96 is amended b y removing paragraph (e). **§86.110 -**  **90**
**— [Amended]**  43. Section 86.110
- 90 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (a) through (c). **§86.113 -**  **94**
**— [Amended]**  44. Section 86.113
- 94 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (a). **45.** Section 86.113
- 04 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i) to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 561 of 842 **§ 86.113 -**  **04 Fuel specifications.** * * * * * (a) * * * (2) Manufacturers may

use California test fuels, as follows: (i) For model year 2014 and earlier vehicles certified for 50
- state sale, manufacturers may perform exhaust emission tests using California Phase 2 gasoline as specified in Chapter 4 of the C alifornia Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, October 1996 (incorporated b y reference in §86.1). However, the Administrator may use or require the use of test fuel meeting the specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for certification confirmatory testing, selective enforcement auditing and in
- use testing. (ii) For model ye ar 2015 and later, manufacturers may certify 50
- state vehicles based on testing used to meet California’s LEV III standards, includ ing the use of California Phase 3 gasoline (E10), subject to the following provisions: (A) T he Administrator will also use this E10 fuel for any testing to confirm that vehicles meet the LEV III standards. Note that all evaporative testing with the E10 fu el must be conducted with temperatures meeting the specifications adopted by the California Air Resources Board. (B) The manufacturer must also use this E10 fuel for fuel econom y measurements, with any appropriate corrections related to ethanol content in the fuel. (C) The vehicle must meet the Tier 2 Bin 5 standards using the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for testing at high
- altitude conditions. (D) The vehicle must meet the applicable cold
- temperature standards using the fuel specifie d in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (E) Such vehicles are considered to be Tier 2 vehicles for EPA certification; however, manufacturers must exclude them from the fleet
- average NOx calculation in subpart S of this part. (3) * * * (i) Unless otherwise a

pproved by

the Administrator, unleaded gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generall y available through retail outlets must be used in service accumulation. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, where the vehicle is to be u sed for evaporative emission durability demonstration, such fuel must contain ethanol as required b y §86.1824

– 08(f)(1) . Leaded gasoline must not be used in service accumulation. * * * * * 46. Section 86.113
- 07 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§86.113 -**  **07 Fuel specifications.** Section 86.113

– 07 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.113

– 94. Where a paragraph in §86.113

– 94 is identical and applicable to §86.113

– 07, this may be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 562 of 842 indicated b y specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.113

– 94.” (a) Gasoline fuel . This paragraph (a) describes how to transition to an ethanol
- blend test fuel for vehicles certified under subpart S of this part. You may use the test fuels specified in §86.113
- 04(a) for vehicles that are not yet subject to testing with the new fuel. You may use the specified ethanol
- blend test fuel any time earlier than we specify . Manufacturers must certify using service accumulation fuel and E15 test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065, subpart H, on the following schedule: (1) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards as specified in §86.1813. Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate co mpliance with the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards as specified in §86.1811 and 86.1816. Where testing with E15 test fuel is required, this applies for all testing for demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission standards and fuel economy requirements . For vehicles certified for 50
- state sale through model year 2019, you may instead use California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) as adopted in California’s LEV III program for exhaust and evaporative emission testing at low
altitude conditions; the Administrator will also use this E10 fuel for an y low
- altitude testing with such vehicles. In the case of evaporative emission tests with California Phase 3 gasoline, perform tests based on the temperatures specified b y the California Air Resources Board
. (2) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the evaporative emission standards specified in §86.1811
- 10 starting in model year 2020. You may not certify

these vehicles using carryover data based on measurements with E0 test fuel. (3) Use the E15 test fue l to demonstrate compliance with the refueling emission standards for any vehicles that must be certified to meet the diurnal plus hot soak standards with E15 test fuel under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (4) For an y vehicles that require testing to demonstrate compliance with the refueling spitback standard, use the E15 test fuel starting in model year 2022. (5) If a vehicle uses E15 test fuel for evaporative emission testing and E0 or E10 is the applicable test fuel for exhaust emission testing, or vice versa, exhaust measurement and reporting requirements apply over the course of the evaporative emission test, but the vehicle need not meet the exhaust emission standards during the evaporative emission test run. (6) Use service accumulation fuel as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, with the additional provisions specified in §86.113
- 04(a)(3). * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 563 of 842 **§86.115 -**  **78**
**— [Amended]**  47. Section 86.115
- 78 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory

text. 48. Section 86.115
- 0 0 is amended b y removing paragraph (c) and revising paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory

text to read as follows: **§ 86.115**  **- 00**  **EPA dynamometer driving schedules.** (a) Perform emission tests over certain driving schedules as follows: (1) The FTP driving sch edule consists of one Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) as specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix Iof this part, followed by a 10
- minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. The UDDS represents ab out 7.5 miles of driving in an urban area. FTP measurements consists of a cold
- start test and a hot
- start test. Engine startup (with all accessories turned off), operation over the initial UDDS, and engine shutdown make a complete cold
- start test. The h ot - start test consists of the first 505 seconds of driving following the 10
- minute soak and a hot
running portion of the UDDS after the first 505 seconds. The hot
- running portion is generall y measured during the cold
- start test; however, in certain cases, the hot
- start test may involve a second full UDDS following the 10
- minute soak. (2) Evaporative testing consists of a preconditioning drive with the UDDS and the FTP driving schedule (including exhaust measurement). The running loss test consists of a U DDS, then two New York City Cycles as specified in paragraph (f) of Appendix I of this part, followed b y another UDDS. The New York City C ycl e represents about 1.7 miles of driving in a city center. (3) Refueling emission tests consist of preconditioning and purge drives using UDDS and FTP cycles as described in §§86.146 through 86.154. (4) SFTP testing consists of additional driving over the US06 driving schedule and the SC03 driving schedule specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of Appendix Iof this part, respectivel y. See §§86.158 through 86.160. The US06 cycle represents about 8.0 miles of relativel y aggressive driving. The SC03 cycle represents about 3.6 miles of urban driving with the air conditioner operating. (b) Starting in model ye ar 2022, speed tolerances and cycle
- validation criteria appl y as specified in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart F; however, for an y driving that does not involve measuring***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 564 of 842 exhaust emissions, the upper and lower speed tolerances are ±2.0 m/s (±4 mph), and up to three additional occurrences of speed variations greater than the tolerance are acceptable, provided they occur for less than 15 seconds on any occasion, and are clearl y documented as to the time and speed at that point of the driving schedule. For model years before 2022 , the driver should attempt to follow the target schedule as closel y as possible, subject to the following speed tolerances: * * * * * **§86.128 -**  **79**
**— [Amended]**  49. Section 86.128
- 79 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (d). **§86.129 -**  **80**
**— [Amended]**  50. Se ction 86.129
- 80 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (a). **§86.130 -**  **96**
**— [Amended]**  51. Section 86.130
- 96 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (e).
52. Section 86.131
- 96 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.131 -**  **96 Vehicle preparation.** (a) For gasoline
- and methanol
- fueled vehicles prepare the fuel tank(s) for recording the temperature of the prescribed test fuel, as described in §86.107

– 98(e). (b) Provide additional fittings and adapters, as required, to accommodate a fuel drain at the lowest point possible in the tank(s) as installed on the vehicle. (c) For preconditioning that involves loading the evaporative emission canister(s) with butane, provide valving or other means as necessary to allow purging and loading of the canister(s). (d) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions, prepare the fuel tank(s) for measuring and recording the temperature and pressure of the fuel tank as specified in §86.107

– 98(e) and (f). Measurement of vapor temperature is optional during the running loss test. If vapor temperature is not measured, fuel tank pressure need not be measured.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 565 of 842 (e) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions, prepare the exhaust sy stem by sealing or plugging all detectable sources of exhaust gas leaks. The exhaust sy ste m shall be tested or inspected to ensure that detectable exhaust hydrocarbons are not emitted into the running loss enclosure during the running loss test. (f) For vehicles to be tested for aggressive driving emissions (US06), provide a throttle position s ensing signal that is compatible with the test dynamometer. This signal provides the input information that controls dy namometer dy

namic inertia weight adjustments (see §§86.108

– 00(b)(2)(ii) and 86.129

– 00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer chooses not to implement dy namic inertia adjustments for a portion or all of their product line, this requirement is not applicable. (g) The following provisions apply for preconditioning steps to reduce nonfuel emissions to normal vehicle background levels for vehicles subject to Tier 3 evaporative emission standards under §86.1813: (1) Manufacturers must notify EPA in advance if they

plan to perform such preconditioning. This notice must include a detailed description of the intended procedures and any measurements or thresholds for determining when stabilization is complete. Manufacturers need not repeat this notification for additional vehicle testing in the same or later model years as long as the preconditioning practice conforms to these procedures. (2) Manufacturers may

pr econdition a vehicle as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section only within 12 months after the vehicle’s original date of manufacture, except they may remove the spare tire for any testing. **§86.132 -**  **96**
**— [Amended]**  53. Section 86.132
- 96 is amended b y re moving and reserving paragraph (k).
54. Section 86.134
- 96 is amended by adding paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows: **§ 86.134 -**  **96 Running loss test.** * * * * * (g) * * * (4) High
- altitude testing . For testing under high
- altitude conditions, decrease the targe t ambient and fuel temperatures b y 5°F. For example, the fuel temperature profile should be adjusted***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 566 of 842 downward based on a nominal starting temperature of 90°F, and the nominal temperature in the enclosure should be 90°F. * * * * * **§86.135 -**  **90**
**— [Amended]**  55. S ection 86.135
- 90 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (a) and (d). **§86.135 -**  **94**
**— [Amended]**  56. Section 86.135
- 94 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (b) and by removing paragraphs (c) through (i). **§86.137 -**  **90**
**— [Amended]**  57. Section 86.137
- 9 0 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraph (a). b. By removing paragraph (b) introductory text. c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(15). d. By removing paragraph (b)(24). **§86.137 -**  **94**
**— [Amended]**  58. Section 86.137
- 94 is amended b y removing paragraphs (b)(16) through (b)(24).

59. Section § 86.142
- 90 is amended b y revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§ 86.142 -**  **90 Records required.** * * * * * (d) Test results. Also include a comparison of drive cycle energy and targ et cycle energy

relative to both inertia and road load forces as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 567 of 842 * * * * *
60. Section § 86.143
- 96 is amended b y revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§ 86.143 -**  **96 Calcula tions; evaporative emissions.**  * * * * * (c) If the test fuel contains at least 25 % oxygenated compounds by volume, use the following equation to calculate a h ydrocarbon equivalent mass for comparing to the standard using the following equation:

THCE HC i

14.3 i n M m MW

   

## 

Where: M THCE = the C 1 - equivalent sum of the concentration of carbon mass contributions of non
oxygenated h ydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldeh yd es. m HC = the mass contribution from nonoxygenated hydro carbons. n i = the number of carbon atoms in the molecular representation of the ox ygenated emission component i . For example, for methanol (CH 3 OH), n = 1 and for ethanol (C 2 H 5 OH), n = 2. MW i = the molecular weight of the ox ygenated emission component i , a s described in 40 CFR 1065.1005. * * * * *

61. A new § 86.144
- 17 is added to subpart B to read as follows: **§ 86.144 -**  **17 Calculations; exhaust emissions.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 568 of 842 (a) Determine the mass of exhaust emissions of each pollutant for each phase of testing as described in 40 CFR part 1066.610. (b) Calculate the final reported test results as a mass
- weighted value, e comp , in grams/mile as follows:
1, 2 2 ,3 comp ct s s ht 0.43 0.57 m m e D D D D

   
              Where: m 1,2 = Mass emissions determined from the test phase consisting of the cold start UDDS (general ly known as bags 1 and 2), in grams per test phase. m 2,3 = Mass emissions determined from the test phase consisting of a full hot start UDDS in grams per test phase. This may involve the hot stabilized portion from either the first or second UDDS, if appli cable (bag 2 or bag 4) in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3). D ct = The measured driving distance from the transient portion of the cold start test (bag 1), in miles. D s = The measured driving distance from the stabilized portion of the cold start or hot start test (bag 2 or bag 4), as applicable, in miles. D ht = The measured driving distance from the transient portion of the hot start test (bag 3), in miles. (c) For gaseous pollutants, mass emissions for the cold start UDDS may alternativel y be collected separatel y for the cold start transient portion and the stabilized portion, then added together for a single cold start mass, m 1,2 . Similarly, mass emissions for the hot start UDDS may alternativel y be collected separately for the hot start tran sient portion and the stabilized portion, then added together for a single hot start mass, m 2,3 .
62. A new §86.167
- 18 is added to subpart B to read as follows: **§86.167 -**  **18 Leak test procedure.** (a) Scope . Verify

that there are no significant leaks in your fu el storage s ystem using the leak test described in this section. Perform this check as required in the standard
- setting part.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 569 of 842 (b) Measurement principles . A leak may be detected by

measuring pressure, temperature, and flow to calculate an equivalent orifi ce diameter for the sy stem. Use good engineering judgment to develop and implement leak test equipment. Your leak test equipment must meet the following requirements: (1) Pressure, temperature, and flow sensors must be calibrated with NIST
- traceable stan dards. (2) Correct flow measurements to standard temperature and pressure of 20 °C and 101.3 kPa. (3) Leak test equipment must have the ability to pressurize fuel storage s ys tems to 4.1 kPa and have an internal leak rate of less than 0.2 slpm. (4) You mu st be able to attach the test equipment to the vehicle without permanent alteration of the fuel storage or evaporative emissions control sy stems. (5) The point of attachment to the fuel storage s ys tem must allow pressurization to test sy stem integrit y of the fuel tank and fuel and vapor lines reaching up to and including the gas cap and the evaporative canister. An example of an effective attachment point is the evaporative emission sy stem test port available on some vehicles. (c) Leak test procedure . Tes t a vehicle’s fuel storage s ys tem for leaks as follows: (1) Fill the vehicle’s fuel tank to 40 % capacity
. (2) Soak the vehicle for 6 to 24 hours at a temperature of (20 to 30) °C and maintain this temperature throughout the leak test. (3) Before performin g the test, purge the fuel storage s ys tem of an y residual pressure, bringing the s ys tem into equilibration with the ambient. (4) Seal the evaporative canister’s vent to atmosphere and ensure that the s ystem purge valve is closed. (5) Attach the leak test e quipment to the vehicle. (6) Pressurize the fuel storage s ys tem with nitrogen or another inert gas to at least 2.4 kPa. Use good engineering judgment to avoid overpressurizing the system. (7) Maintain gas flow through the s ys tem for at least three minutes , ensuring that the flow reading is stable for an effective leak diameter of ± 0.002 inches.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 570 of 842 (8) Use the following equation, or a different equation you develop based on good engineering judgment, to calculate the effective leak diameter, D eff . 

##       0.5057

gas eff 1 2 1 2 0.2153 960 459.67

V D P P P P

G T    

 

  

     Where: D eff = Effective leak diameter, rounded to the nearest 0.01 inch. V gas = Volumetric flow of gas (scfh). P 1 = Inlet pressure to orifice (psia). P2 = Atmospheric pressure (psia). G = Specific gravity of gas at 14.7 psia and 60°F. T = Temperature of flowing medium (°F). (9) You may

perform any

number of replicate tests; however, you must perform the same number of tests for every vehicle from a given model year. The average value of replicate tests is the official result for a given vehicle. (10) You may

use special or alternative test procedures as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 571 of 842 (d) Equipment calibration . Use good engineering judgment to calibrate the leak check device.

**Subpart C**

**– [Amended]** 
63. Subpart C, consisting of §§ 86. 201, 86.213, 86.230, 86.232, 86.235, and 86.237 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 86.201 General applicability
. 86.213 Fuel specifications. 86.230 Test sequence: general requirements. 86.232 Vehicle preconditioning. 86.235 Dy

namometer procedure
. 86.237 Dy

namometer test run, gaseous emissions. **§ 86.201 General applicability.** (a) This subpart describes procedures for determining fuel econom y and measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and nonmethane h ydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions at low ambient temperat ures. (b) Use the equipment and procedures specified in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart H, for measurements under this subpart. Where those procedures depend on further specification in the standard
- setting part, use the provisions in this subpart. (c) Perfor m cold temperature tests at a nominal temperature of 20 °F ( −7 °C). **§86.213 Fuel specifications.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 572 of 842 (a) Gasoline . Use a gasoline test fuel with ethanol (low
- level blend onl y) or without ethanol as follows: (1) You must certify

using service accumulation fue l and E15 test fuel as specified in §86.113 for an y vehicles required to use an ethanol
- blend test fuel for measuring exhaust emissions. You may

use this test fuel any

time earlier than we specify
. (2) You may

use the test fuel specified in this paragra ph (a)(2) for vehicles that are not yet subject to exhaust testing with an ethanol
- blend test fuel under §86.113. Manufacturers may certify based on this fuel using carryover data until testing with the ethanol
- blend test fuel is required. The following specifications appl y for gasoline test fuel without ethanol:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 573 of 842 Table 1 of §86.213

– Cold temperature test fuel specifications for gasoline without ethanol

Item Regular Premium 1 Reference Procedure 2 (RON+MON)/2 3 87.8±0.3 92.3±0.5 AS TM D2699 Sensitivity3 7.5 7.5 Distillation Range (°F): Evaporated initial boiling point 10% evaporated 50% evaporated 90% evaporated Evaporated final boiling point 76

– 96 98
- 118 179
- 214 316
- 346 413 Maximum 76

– 96

105
- 125 195
- 225 316
- 346 413 Maximum AS TM D8 6

Hydrocarbon composition (vol %): Olefins Aromatics Saturates 12.5±0.5 26.4±4.0 Remainder 10.5±0.5

32.0±4.0 Remainder AS TM D1319

Lead, g/gallon 0.01, Maximum 0.01, Maximum AS TM D3237 Phosphorous, g/gallon 0.005 Maximum 0.005 Maximum AS TM D3231
T otal sulfur, wt. % 0.0015

– 0.008 0.0015

– 0.008 4 AS TM D3120 RVP, psi 11.5±0.3 11.5±0.3 AS TM D4953

1 The premium fuel specifications apply for vehicles designed to use high
- octane premium fuel.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 574 of 842 2 ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in §86.1. 3 Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing. 4 Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 weight percent for EPA testing. (3) Manufacturers may

use the E0 gasoline test fuel specified in §86.113 for certification instead of the fuel spec ified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as long as the change in test fuel does not cause cold CO or NMHC emissions to decrease; manufacturers must keep records documenting these emission effects and make them available to EPA upon request. (4) We may approve alternate fuel specifications that are substantiall y equivalent to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for manufacturers’ testing. (b) Diesel fuel . Diesel test fuel for cold temperature fuel economy testing must be a winter
- grade diesel fuel as specified in ASTM D975 (incorporated by reference in §86.1). This test fuel must also comply

with the requirements of 40 CFR part 80. We may approve alternate, substantiall y equivalent fuel specifications, as long as the level of kerosene added is not above 20 percent. **§ 86.230**  **Test sequence: general requirements.** (a) Sequence steps. Figure C94

– 1 of §86.230

– 94 shows the steps encountered as the test vehicle undergoes the procedures subsequently described, to determine conformity with the standards s et forth. (b) Driving schedule. The Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) test procedure (see §86.115 and appendix Ito this part) is used for vehicle preconditioning and testing. (c) Ambient temperature level. (1) Ambient temperature levels encountere d by the test vehicle shall average 20° ±5 °F ( −7 °C ±2.8 °C) and shall not be less than 10 °F (−14 °C) nor more than 30 °F ( −1 °C) during vehicle preconditioning, except for preconditioning performed in accordance with §86.232(a)(7), and during all emissi on testing. (2) The ambient temperature reported shall be a simple average of the test cell temperatures measured at constant intervals no more than one minute apart. Before the driving cycle may begin, the test cell temperature shall be 20 °F ±3 °F ( −7 °C ±1.7 °C) when measured in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section. The temperature may not exceed 25 °F ( −4 °C) or fall below 15 °F ( −9 °C) for more than three consecutive minutes during the test. (d) Prepare the vehicle as described in §86.130.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 575 of 842 **§ 86.232**  **Vehicle preconditioning.** (a) The vehicle shall be moved to the test area and the following operations performed: (1) The fuel tank(s) shall be filled to approximately the prescribed “tank fuel volume” with the test fuel specified §86.213. If th e existing fuel in the fuel tank(s) does not meet the specifications contained in §86.213, the existing fuel must be drained prior to the fuel fill. The test fuel shall be at a temperature less than or equal to 60 °F. For the operations in this paragraph ( a)(1), the evaporative emission control sy stem shall neither be abnormally purged nor abnormall y loaded. (2) [Reserved] (3) The fuel in the vehicle shall be stabilized at 20 F°±10 °F ( −7 °C±5.6 °C) prior to the start of the driving cycle except when vehicl e preconditioning is performed in accordance with paragraph (a)(7) of this section. (4) The vehicle shall be placed, either b y being driven or pushed, on a dyn amometer and operated through one UDDS cycle. (5) For those unusual circumstances where additional preconditioning is desired b y the manufacturer, such preconditioning may be allowed with the advance approval of the Administrator. (6) The Administrator may also choose to conduct additional preconditioning. The additional preconditioning shall consist of one or more driving cycles of the UDDS, as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. (7) The manufacturer may, for certification testing, precondition vehicles at temperatures above 20 °F ( −7 °C) and with temperature tolerances greater than those s pecified in §86.230(a) if the manufacturer has determined that such preconditioning does not decrease CO emissions during the testing specified in §86.237. (b) Within five minutes of completion of preconditioning, the vehicle shall be shut off. During this five minute period, the vehicle shall not experience ambient temperatures less than 10 °F ( −12 °C) nor more than 30 °F (−1 °C). (c) One of the following two methods shall be utilized to stabilize the vehicle before the emissions test: (1) Storing at cold temperatures. The vehicle shall be stored for not less than 12 hours nor for more than 36 hours prior to the cold start exhaust test. The ambient temperature (dry bulb)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 576 of 842 during this period shall be maintained at an average temperature of 20 °F±5 °F ( −7 °C±2 .8 °C) during each hour of this period and shall not be less than 10 °F ( −12 °C) nor more than 30 °F ( −1 °C). The ambient temperature reported shall be a simple average of the test cell temperature measured at constant intervals no more than one minute apart. In addition, the temperature may

not exceed 25 °F ( −4 °C) or fall below 15 °F (−9 °C) for more than three consecutive minutes. (2) Force
- cooling or warming. (i) The vehicle shall be stored for no more than 36 hours prior to cooling or warming for the c old start exhaust test. The vehicle shall not be stored at ambient temperatures which exceed 86 °F (30 °C) during this period. (ii) Vehicle cooling may

be accomplished by

either force
- cooling or force
- warming the vehicle to the test temperature. If cooling is augmented by fans, the fans shall be placed in a vertical position for maximum drive train and engine cooling, not primarily oil pan cooling. Fans shall not be placed under the vehicle. (iii) The ambient temperature need only be stringently

controlled after the vehicle has been cooled to 20 °F±3 °F ( −7 °C±1.7 °C), as determined by a representative bulk oil temperature. A representative bulk oil temperature is the temperature of the oil measured near the middle of the oil, not at the surface or at the bo ttom of the oil pan. If two or more diverse locations in the oil are monitored, they must all meet the temperature requirements. (iv) The vehicle must be stored for at least one hour after it has been cooled to 20 °F±3 °F ( −7 °C±1.7 °C) prior to the cold s tart exhaust test. The ambient temperature (dry bulb) during this period shall average 20 °F±5 °F ( −7 °C±2.8 °C) and shall not be less than 10 °F ( −12 °C) nor more than 30 °F (−1 °C). In addition, the temperature may not exceed 25 °F ( −4 °C) or fall below 15 °F ( −9 °C) for more than three consecutive minutes. (d) If the vehicle is stabilized at 20 °F ( −7 °C) in a separate area and is moved through a warm area to the test cell, the vehicle must be restabilized in the test cell for at least six times the peri od the vehicle is exposed to warmer temperatures. The ambient temperature (dry bulb) during this period shall average 20 °F±5 °F ( −7 °C±2.8 °C) and shall not be less than 10 °F (−12 °C) nor more than 30 °F ( −1 °C). In addition, the temperature may not exce ed 25 °F ( −4 °C) or fall below 15 °F ( −9 °C) for more than three consecutive minutes. The maximum time for moving a vehicle through a warm area shall be 10 minutes. **§ 86.235**  **Dynamometer procedure.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 577 of 842 (a) Overview. The emission sampling is completed over tw o test sequences, a “cold” start test after a minimum 12
- hour and a maximum 36
- hour soak according to the provisions of §86.232 and a “hot” start test following the “cold” start test by 10 minutes. Engine startup, operation over the UDDS, and engine shut
- d own make a complete cold start test. Engine startup and operation over the first 505 seconds of the driving schedule complete the hot start test. The collected composite samples are analyzed for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and, optionall y, other pollutants. (b) [Reserved] (c) Humidity

should be set low enough to prevent condensation on the dy namometer rolls. (d) [Reserved] (e) The time between dynamometer warming and the start of the emission test shall be no longer than 10 minutes if th e dynamometer bearings are not independently heated. If the dy

namometer bearings are independently heated, the emission test shall begin no longer than 20 minutes after dy namometer warming. (f) If the dynamometer horsepower must be adjusted manuall y, it sh all be set within one hour prior to the exhaust emission test phase. The test vehicle shall not be used to make the adjustment. Dy

namometers using automatic control of preselectable power settings may be set any time prior to the beginning of the emission t est. (g) [Reserved] (h) Four
- wheel drive vehicles will be tested in a two
- wheel drive mode of operation. Full
- time four
- wheel drive vehicles will have one set of drive wheels temporaril y disengaged b y the vehicle manufacturer. Four
- wheel drive vehicles whi ch can be manuall y s hifted to a two
- wheel drive mode will be tested in the normal on
- highway two - wheel drive mode of operation. **§ 86.237**  **Dynamometer test run, gaseous emissions.** (a) The complete dynam ometer test consists of a cold start drive of approxi mately 7.5 miles (12.1 kilometers) and a hot start drive of approximately 3.6 miles (5.8 kilometers). (b) If the preconditioned vehicle is not already on the dynamometer, it shall be pushed into position. (c) The vehicle is allowed to stand on the dy namome ter during the ten minute time period between the cold and hot start test. The cold start test is divided into two periods. The first***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 578 of 842 period, representing the cold start “transient” phase, terminates at the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occ ur at 505 seconds of the driving schedule. The second period, representing the “stabilized” phase, consists of the remainder of the driving schedule, including engine shutdown. The hot start test is identical to the first part or transient phase of the col d start test. Therefore, the hot start test terminates after the first period (505 seconds) is run. (d) The dynamometer run consists of two tests, a cold start test, after a minimum 12
- hour and a maximum 36
- hour soak according to the provisions of §86.132, and a hot start test following the cold start test by

10 minutes. The vehicle shall be stored prior to the emission test in such a manner that precipitation (e.g., rain or dew) does not occur on the vehicle. The complete dy namometer test consists of a col d start drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km) and simulates a hot start drive of 7.5 miles (12.1 km). The vehicle is allowed to stand on the dy namometer during the 10 minute time period between the cold and hot start tests. The cold start test is divided into two p eriods. The first period, representing the cold start “transient” phase, terminates at the end of the deceleration which is scheduled to occur at 505 seconds of the driving schedule. The second period, representing the “stabilized” phase, consists of the remainder of the driving schedule including engine shutdown. The hot start test, similarly , consists of two periods. The first period, representing the hot start “transient” phase, terminates at the same point in driving schedule as the first period of the cold start test. The second period of the hot start test, “stabilized” phase, is assumed to be identical to the second period of the cold start test. Therefore, the hot start test terminates after the first period (505 seconds) is run. Measurement of NOx and particulate matter is not required. **Subpart D**
**— [Removed]**  64. Subpart D is removed. **Subpart F**
**— [Amended]**  **§ 86.505**  **- 78** 
**– [Removed]**  65. Subpart F is amended b y removing § 86.505
- 78. **§86.513 -**  **94**
**— [Amended]** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 579 of 842 66. Section 86.513
- 94 is amended b y removing and reserving p aragraph (a) and by removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
67. Section 86.515
- 78 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows: **§ 86.515 -**  **78 EPA urban dynamometer driving schedule.** (a) The dyn amometer driving schedules are listed in appendix I. The driving schedules are defined b y a smooth trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time relationships. They consist of a nonrepetitive series of idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes of various time sequences and rates. Appropriate driving schedules are as follows: (1) Class I

—

Appendix I(b). (2) Class II

—

Appendix I(a)(2). (3) Class III

—

Appendix I(a)(2). * * * * * (d) For motorcycles with an engine displacement less than 50 cc and a top speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), the speed indicated for each second of operation on the applicable Class I driving trace (speed versus time sequence) specified in appendix I (b) shall be adjusted downward by the ratio of actual top speed to specified maximum test speed. Calculate the ratio with three significant figures b y dividing the top speed of the motorcycle in km/hr by 58.7. For example, for a motorcycle with a top speed of 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), the ratio would be 48.3/58.7 = 0.823. The top speed to be used under this section shall be indicate d in the manufacturer's application for certification, and shall be the highest sustainable speed of the motorcycle with an 80 kg rider on a flat paved surface. If the motorcycle is equipped with a permanent speed governor that is unlikely to be removed in actual use, measure the top speed in the governed configuration; otherwise measure the top speed in the ungoverned configuration. **Subpart G**

**— [Amended]** 
68. Section 86.608
- 98 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 86.608 -**  **98 Test proced ures.** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 580 of 842 (a) The prescribed test procedures are the Federal Test Procedure, as described in subpart B of this part, and the cold temperature CO test procedure as described in subpart C of this part. . For purposes of Selective Enforcement Audit testing, the manufacturer shall not be required to perform an y of the test procedures in subpart B of this part relating to evaporative emission testing, other than refueling emissions testing, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (1) The Administrator may omit any of the testing procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section. Further, the Administrator may , on the basis of a written application by a manufacturer, approve optional test procedures other than those in subparts B and C of this part for an y motor vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory testing using the procedures in subparts B and C of this part. (2) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart B of this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit tes ting: (i) For mileage accumulation, the manufacturer may use test fuel meeting the specifications for mileage and service accumulation fuels of §86.113. Otherwise, the manufacturer may use fuels other than those specified in this section only with the advance approval of the Administrator. (ii) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel at other than the approximate mid
- volume of the fuel tank, as specified in §86.131

– 96(a) with onl y a single temperature sensor, and may

drain the test fue l from other than the lowest point of the tank, as specified in §§86.131

– 96(b) and 86.152

– 98(a), provided an equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by the manufacturers and shall be made available to the Administrator upon request. Additionally , for any test vehicle that has remained under laboratory ambient temperature conditions for at least 6 hours prior to testing, the vehicle soak described in §86.132

– 96(c) may

be eliminated upon approval of the Administrator. In such cases, the vehicle shall be operated through the preconditioning drive described in §86.132

– 96(c) immediatel y following the fuel drain and fill procedure described in §86.132

– 96(b). (iii) The manufacturer may perform additional preconditioning on Selective Enforcement Audit test vehicles other than the preconditioning specified in §86.132 only if the additional preconditioning was performed on certification test vehicles of the same configuration. (iv) [Reserved] (v) The manufacturer may substitute slave t ires for the drive wheel tires on the vehicle as specified in §86.135

– 90(e): Provided, that the slave tires are the same size. (vi) [Reserved]***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 581 of 842 (vii) In performing exhaust sample anal ys is under §86.140

– 94. (A) When testing diesel vehicles, or methanol
- fuel ed Otto
- cycle vehicles, the manufacturer shall allow a minimum of 20 minutes warm
- up for the HC analyzer, and for diesel vehicles, a minimum of two hours warm
- up for the CO, CO2. and NOx analyzers. (Power is normall y left on infrared and chemiluminescent anal yz ers. When not in use, the chopper motors of the infrared anal yz ers are turned off and the phototube high voltage suppl y to the chemiluminescent anal yz ers is placed in the standby position.) (B) The manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from condensing in the sample collection bags. (viii) The manufacturer need not compl y with §86.142 or §86.155, since the records required therein are provided under other provisions of this subpart G. (ix) I f a manufacturer elects to perform the backgroun d determination procedure described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi) of this section in addition to performing the refueling emissions test procedure, the elapsed time between the initial and final FID readings shall be recorded, rounded to the nearest second rathe r than minute as described in §86.154

– 98(e)(8). In addition, the vehicle soak described in §86.153

– 98(e) shall be conducted with the windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle open. (x) The Administrator may elect to perform a seal test, described in § 86.153

– 98(b), of both integrated and non
- integrated sy stems instead of the full refueling test. When testing non
integrated s ys tems, a manufacturer may conduct the canister purge described in §86.153

– 98(b)(1) directl y following the preconditioning drive de scribed in §86.132

– 96(e) or directl y following the exhaust emissions test described in §86.137

– 96. (xi) In addition to the refueling test, a manufacturer may elect to perform the following background emissions determination immediately prior to the refueli ng measurement procedure described in §86.154, provided EPA is notified of this decision prior to the start of testing in an SEA. (A) The SHED shall be purged for several minutes immediately prior to the background determination. Warning: If at an y time th e concentration of hydrocarbons, of methanol, or of methanol and h ydrocarbons exceeds 15,000 ppm C, the enclosure should be immediately purged. This concentration provides a 4:1 safety factor against the lean flammability limit. (B) The FID (or HFID) hydro carbon anal yz er shall be zeroed and spanned immediately prior to the background determination. If not already on, the enclosure mixing fan and the spilled fuel mixing blower shall be turned on at this time.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 582 of 842 (C) Place the vehicle in the SHED. The ambient te mperature level encountered b y the test vehicle during the entire background emissions determination shall be 80 °F ±3 °F. The windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle must be open and the gas cap must be secured. (D) Seal the SHED. Immediatel y anal y ze the ambient concentration of hydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the initial background hydrocarbon concentration. (E) Soak the vehicle for ten minutes ±1 minute. (F) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon anal yz er shall be zeroed and spanned immediatel y prior to the end of the background determination. (G) Anal yz e the ambient concentration of h ydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the final background h ydrocarbon concentration. (H) The total h ydrocarbon mass emitted during the background determination is calculated according to §86.156. To obtain a per
- minute background emission rate, divide the total hydrocarbon mass calculated in this paragraph by the duration of the soak, rounded to the nearest second, described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi)(G) of thi s section. (I) The background emission rate is multiplied by the duration of the refueling measurement obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this section. This number is then subtracted from the total grams of emissions calculated for the refueling test acco rding to §86.156

– 98(a) to obtain the adjusted value for total refueling emissions. The final results for comparison with the refueling emission standard shall be computed b y dividing the adjusted value for total refueling mass emissions by

the total gallon s of fuel dispensed in the refueling test as described in §86.156

– 98(b). (xii) In addition to the requirements of subpart B of this part, the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline
- fueled and methanol
- fueled vehicles as follows prior to emission testing: (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel s ys tem to ensure the absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by appl yi ng a pressure of 14.5±0.5 inches of water (3.6±0.1 kPa) to the fuel sy stem, allowing the pressure to stabilize, and isolating th e fuel s ys tem from the pressure source. Following isolation of the fuel s ys tem, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. I f required, the manufacturer shall perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) o f this section and report this action in accordance with §86.609

– 98(d). (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling emission control sy stems.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 583 of 842 (C) The manufacturer may not modify the test vehicle's evaporative or refueling emission control sy stems by

component addition, deletion, or substitution, except to comply with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section if approved in advance b y the Administrator. (3) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart C of this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing: (i) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel at other than the approximate mid
- volume of the fuel tank, as specified in §86. 107
- 96(e), and may drain the test fuel from other than the lowest point of the fuel tank, provided an equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by the manufacturer and shall be made available to the Administrator upon reques t. (ii) In performing exhaust sample anal ys is under §86.140, the manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from condensing in the sample collection bags. (iii) The manufacturer need not comply with §86.142 since the records required therein are provided under other provisions of this subpart G. (iv) In addition to the requirements of subpart C of this part, the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline
- fueled vehicles as follows prior to exhaust emission testing: (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel s ys tem to ensure the absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by appl yi ng a pressure of 14.5±0.5 inches of water (3.6±0.1 kPa) to the fuel sy stem allowing the pressure to stabilize and isolating the fuel sy stem from the pressure sourc e. Following isolation of the fuel s ys tem, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. I f required, the manufacturer shall perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section and report this action in accordance with §86.609

– 98(d). (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling emission control sy stem. (C) The manufacturer shall not modify the test vehicle's evapor ative or refueling emission control sy stem by

component addition, deletion, or substitution, except if approved in advance by the Administrator, to comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. (4) [Reserved] * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 584 of 842 69. Section 86.609
- 98 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as follows: **§ 86.609 -**  **98 Calculation and reporting of test results.** (a) Initial test results are calculated following the test procedures specified in §86.608

– 98(a). Round the initial test results to the number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure. (b) Final test results for each test vehicle are calculated by summing the initial test results derived in paragraph (a) of this section f or each test vehicle, dividing b y the number of times that specific test has been conducted on the vehicle, and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard expressed to one additional significant figure. (c) Final de teriorated test results

— (1) For each test vehicle. The final deteriorated test results for each light
- dut y vehicle tested for exhaust emissions and/or refueling emissions according to subpart B, subpart C, or subpart R of this part are calculated b y first multiplyingor adding, as appropriate, the final test results by or to the appropriate deterioration factor derived from the certification process for the engine or evaporative/refueling family and model year to which the selected configuration belongs, and then b y multiplying by the appropriate reactivity adjustment factor, if applicable, and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), if a multiplicative deterioration factor as computed during the certification process is less than one, that deterioration factor is one. If an additive deterioration factor as computed during the certification process is less than zero, that deterioration factor will be zero. (2) Excepti ons. There are no deterioration factors for light
- dut y vehicle emissions obtained during spitback testing in accordance with §86.146

– 96. Accordingl y, for the fuel dispensing spitback test, the term “final deteriorated test results” means the final test res ults derived in paragraph (b) of this section for each test vehicle, rounded to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard. * * * * * **§86.610 -**  **98**
**— [Amended]**  70. Section 86.610
- 98 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2).
71. Section 86.612
- 97 is revised to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 585 of 842 **§ 86.612**  **- 97**  **Suspension and revocation of certificates of conformity.** (a) The certificate of conformity is immediatel y suspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to §86.610
- 98 ( b) effective from the time that testing of that vehicle is completed. (b) The Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformit y for a configuration that does not pass a selective enforcement audit pursuant to §86.610

– 98(c) based on the first test, or all tests, conducted on each vehicle. This suspension will not occur before ten day s after failure to pass the audit. (c) If the results of vehicle testing pursuant to the requirements of this subpart indicates the vehicles of a particular configuration p roduced at more than one plant do not conform to the regulations with respect to which the certificate of conformity was issued, the Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformity with respect to that configuration for vehicles manufactured by the manufacturer in other plants of the manufacturer. (d) The Administrator will notify the manufacturer in writing of any suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity in whole or in part: Except, that the certificate of conformity is immediately

s uspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to §86.610
- 98(b) and as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section. (e) The Administrator may revoke a certificate of conformity for a configuration when the certificate has been suspended pursuant t o paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the proposed remedy for the nonconformity, as reported b y the manufacturer to the Administrator, is one requiring a design change(s) to the engine and/or emission control sy stem as described in the Application for Certification of the affected configuration. (f) Once a certificate has been suspended for a failed vehicle as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following actions: (1) Before the certificate is reinstated for that failed vehicle

— (i) Remedy the nonconformity ; and (ii) Demonstrate that the vehicle's final deteriorated test results conform to the applicable emission standards or family particulate emission limits, as defined in this part 86 by retesting the vehicle in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. (2) Submit a written report to the Administrator within thirty day s after successful completion of testing on the failed vehicle, which contains a description of the remedy and test results for the vehic le in addition to other information that may be required by

this subpart.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 586 of 842 (g) Once a certificate has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following actions before the Administrator will consider re instating such certificate: (1) Submit a written report to the Administrator which identifies the reason for the noncompliance of the vehicles, describes the proposed remedy, including a description of an y proposed quality

control and/or quality

assurance measures to be taken b y the manufacturer to prevent the future occurrence of the problem, and states the date on which the remedies will be implemented. (2) Demonstrate that the engine famil y or configuration for which the certificate of conformity has bee n suspended does in fact compl y with the requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal production runs of that engine family or configuration at the plant(s) or the facilities specified b y the Administrator, in accordance with: the conditions specified in the initial test order pursuant to §86.603 for a configuration suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. (3) If the Administrator has not revoked the certificate pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and if the manufacturer elects to continue testing individual vehicles after suspension of a certificate, the certificate is reinstated for any vehicle actually determined to have its final deteriorated test results in conformance with the applicable standards through testing in accordance with the applicable test procedures. (h) Once a certificate for a failed engine famil y or configuration has been revoked under paragraph (e) of this section and the manufacturer desires to introduce into commerce a modified versi on of that engine family or configuration, the following actions will be taken before the Administrator may

issue a certificate for the new engine family or configuration: (1) If the Administrator determines that the proposed change(s) in vehicle design may have an effect on emission performance deterioration and/or fuel economy, he/she shall notify the manufacturer within five working day s after receipt of the report in paragraph (g)(1) of this section whether subsequent testing under this subpart will be sufficient to evaluate the proposed change(s) or whether additional testing will be required. (2) After implementing the change(s) intended to remedy the nonconformity, the manufacturer shall demonstrate, if the certificate was revoked pursuant to paragrap h (e) of this section, that the modified vehicle configuration does in fact conform with the requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal production runs of that modified vehicle configuration in accordance with the conditions spec ified in the initial test order pursuant to §86.603. The Administrator shall consider this testing to satisfy the testing requirements of §86.079

– 32 or §86.079

– 33 if the Administrator had so notified the manufacturer. If the subsequent testing results in a pass decision pursuant to the criteria in §86.610

– 98(c), the Administrator shall***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 587 of 842 reissue or amend the certificate, if necessary , to include that configuration: Provided, that the manufacturer has satisfied the testing requirements specified in paragraph ( h)(1) of this section. If the subsequent audit results in a fail decision pursuant to the criteria in §86.610
- 98(c), the revocation remains in effect. An y design change approvals under this subpart are limited to the modification of the configuration speci fied b y the test order. (i) A manufacturer may

at any time subsequent to an initial suspension of a certificate of conformity

with respect to a test vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, but not later than fifteen (15) day s or such other perio d as may be allowed by the Administrator after notification of the Administrator's decision to suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity in whole or in part pursuant to paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of this section, request that the Administrator grant suc h manufacturer a hearing as to whether the tests have been properl y conducted or an y sampling methods have been properly applied. (j) After the Administrator suspends or revokes a certificate of conformity pursuant to this section or notifies a manufacture r of his intent to suspend, revoke or void a certificate of conformity

under §86.007
- 30(e) or 40 CFR 86.1850, and prior to the commencement of a hearing under §86.614, if the manufacturer demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that the decision t o suspend, revoke or void the certificate was based on erroneous information, the Administrator shall reinstate the certificate. (k) To permit a manufacturer to avoid storing non
- test vehicles when conducting testing of an engine famil y or configuration su bsequent to suspension or revocation of the certificate of conformity

for that engine family

or configuration pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (e) of this section, the manufacturer may request that the Administrator conditionally reinstate the certificat e for that engine family or configuration. The Administrator may reinstate the certificate subject to the condition that the manufacturer consents to recall all vehicles of that engine famil y or configuration produced from the time the certificate is condi tionally reinstated if the engine family or configuration fails the subsequent testing and to remedy an y nonconformity at no expense to the owner.

**Subpart H**
**— [Removed]**  72. Subpart H, consisting of §§ 86.701
- 94 through 86.709
- 99, is removed. **Subpart M**
**— [Remo**  **ved]******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 588 of 842 73. Subpart M is removed. **Subpart N --**  **Exhaust Test Procedures for Heavy -**  **duty Engines** 74. The subpart heading is revised as set forth above. **Subpart N**
**— [Amended]**  **§§ 86.1301, 86.1302 -**  **84, 86.1303 -**  **84, 86.1304, 86.1305 -**  **90, 86.1305 -**  **2004, 86. 1306**  **- 07, 86.1306**  **- 96, 86.1308**  **- 84, 86.1309**  **- 90, 86.1310**  **- 90, 86.1310**  **- 2007, 86.1311**  **- 94, 86.1312**  **- 88, 86.1312**  **- 2007,**  **86.1313 -**  **94, 86.1313 -**  **98, 86.1313 -**  **2004, 86.1313 -**  **2007, 86.1314 -**  **94, 86.1316 -**  **94, 86.1318 -**  **84, 86.1319**  **- 90, 86.1320**  **- 90, 86.1321**  **- 94, 86.1322**  **- 84, 86.1323**  **- 84,**  **86.1323 -**  **2007, 86.1324 -**  **84, 86.1325**  **- 94, 86.1326**  **- 90, 86.1327**  **- 96, 86.1327**  **- 98, 86.1330**  **- 90, 86.1332**  **- 90, 86.1333**  **- 90,**  **86.1334 -**  **84, 86.1335 -**  **90, 86.1336 -**  **84, 86.1337 -**  **96, 86.1337 -**  **2007, 86.1338 -**  **84, 86.1338 -**  **2007, 86.1339**  **- 90, 86.1340**  **- 90, 86.1340**  **- 94, 86.1341**  **- 90, 86.1341**  **- 9**  **8, 86.1342 -**  **90, 86.1342 -**  **94, 86.1343**  **- 88, 86.1344**  **- 94, 86.1362**  **- 2007, 86.1363**  **- 2007, 86.1375**  **- 2007, 86.1380**  **- 2004** 

**– [Removed]**  **75.** Subpart N is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 86.1301, 86.1302
- 84, 86.1303
- 84, 86.1304, 86.1305
- 90, 86.1305
- 2004, 86.1306
- 07, 86.1306
- 96, 86.1308
- 84, 86.1309
- 90, 86.1310
- 90, 86.1310
- 2007, 86.1311
- 94, 86.1312
- 88, 86.1312
- 2007, 86.1313
- 94, 86.1313
- 98, 86.1313
- 2004, 86.1313
- 2007, 86.1314
- 94, 86.1316
- 94, 86.1318
- 84, 86.1319
- 90, 86.1320
- 90, 86.1321
- 94, 86.1322
- 84, 86.1323
- 84, 86.1 323
- 2007, 86.1324
- 84, 86.1325
- 94, 86.1326
- 90, 86.1327
- 96, 86.1327
- 98, 86.1330
- 90, 86.1332
- 90, 86.1333
- 90, 86.1334
- 84, 86.1335
- 90, 86.1336
- 84, 86.1337
- 96, 86.1337
- 2007, 86.1338
- 84, 86.1338
- 2007, 86.1339
- 90, 86.1340
- 90, 86.1340
- 94, 86.1341
- 90, 86.1341
- 98, 86 .1342
- 90, 86.1342
- 94, 86.1343
- 88, 86.1344
- 94, 86.1362
- 2007, 86.1363
- 2007, 86.1375
- 2007, 86.1380
- 2004. **§§ 86.1305 -**  **2010, 86.1333 -**  **2010, 86.1360 -**  **2007, 86.1362 -**  **2010, 86.1370 -**  **2007, 86.1372 -**  **2007**
**— [Redesignated as §§ 86.1305, 86.1333, 86.1360, 86.1362, 86.1370, 86**  **.1372]** 76. Redesignate specific sections in subpart N as follows: old section new section 86.1305
- 2010 86.1305***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 589 of 842 86.1333
- 2010 86.1333 86.1360
- 2007 86.1360 86.1362
- 2010 86.1362 86.1370
- 2007 86.1370 86.1372
- 2007 86.1372

**77.** Newl y rede signated § 86.1305 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1305 Introduction; structure of subpart.** (a) This subpart specifies the equipment and procedures for performing exhaust
- emission tests on Otto
- cycle and diesel
- cycle heavy
- dut y engines. Subpart A of this part sets forth the emission standards and general testing requirements to comply with EPA certification procedures. (b) Use the applicable equipment and procedures for spark
- ignition or compression
- ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine wh ether engines meet the duty - cycle emission standards in subpart A of this part. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the duty cycles and procedures specified in §§ 86.1333, 86.1360, and 86.1362. Adjust emi ssion results from engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events as described in § 86.004

–28. (c) The provisions in §§86.1370 and §§86.1372 apply for determining whether an engine meets the applicable not
- to - exceed emission st andards. (d) Measure smoke using the procedures in subpart Iof this part for evaluating whether engines meet the smoke standards in subpart A of this part. (e) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid tests, as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 590 of 842 (1) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commerciall y available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in
- use engines will use. (2) For diesel
- fueled engines, use the ultra low
- sulfur diesel fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing. (3) For gasoline
- fueled engines, use the appropriate E0 fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065, except that the sulfur concentration must be between 0.0015 and 0.008 weight percent and research octane must be at least 93. (f) You may

use special or alternate pro cedures to the extent we allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10. In addition, for 2010 and earlier model year engines, you may use modified test procedures as needed to conform to the procedures that were specified at the time of emission testing for the model year in question. (g) This subpart applies to you as a manufacturer, and to anyone who does testing for you. (h) For testing conducted with engines installed in vehicles, including field testing conducted to measure emissions under Not
- To
- Exceed test proced ures, use the test procedures and equipment specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J.
**78.** Newl y redesignated § 86.1333 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (d) to read as follows: **§ 86.1333 Transient test cycle generation.** (a) * * * (1) To unnorma lize rpm, use the following equations: (i) For diesel engines:

##  

% 112 rpm Max Test Speed Curb Idle Speed Actual rpm Curb Idle Speed

   
Where: Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 1065.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 591 of 842 (ii) For Otto
- cycle engines:



##   % 100 rpm Max Test Speed Curb Idle Speed Actual rpm Curb Idle Speed

   
Where: Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 1065. * * * * * (d) Determine idle speeds as specified in 40 CFR 1065.510.
**79.** Newl y redesignated § 86.1360 is amended b y revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c ), and (f)(3) to read as follows: **§ 86.1360**  **Supplemental emission test; test cycle and procedures.** * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Perform testing as described in §86.1362 for determining whether an engine meets the applicable standards when measured over the su pplemental emission test. * * * * * (c) The engine speeds A, B and C, referenced in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be determined as follows: Speed A = n lo + 0.25 × (n hi −n lo ) Speed B = n lo + 0.50 × (n hi −n lo ) Speed C = n lo + 0.75 × (n hi −n lo ) Where: nhi = High speed as determined b y calculating 70% of the maximum power. The highest engine speed where this power value occurs on the power curve is defined as nhi .***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 592 of 842 n lo = Low speed as determined by calculating 50% of the maximum power. The lowest en gine speed where this power value occurs on the power curve is defined as n lo . Maximum power = the maximum observed power calculated according to the engine mapping procedures defined in 40 CFR 1065.510. * * * * * (f) * * * (3) If the Maximum Allowable Emi ssion L imit for any point, as calculated under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, is greater than the applicable Not
- to - Exceed limit (if within the Not
to - Exceed control area defined in §86.1370(b)), then the Maximum Allowable Emission L imit for th at point shall be defined as the applicable Not
- to - Exceed limit. * * * * *
**80.** Newl y redesignated § 86.1362 is amended b y revising the introductory text and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: **§ 86.1362 Steady -**  **state testing with a ramped -**  **modal cycle.** This section describes how to test engines under steady - state conditions.
***** * * * * (f) For 2007 through 2010 model years, manufacturers may follow the mode order described in this paragraph (f) instead of the mode order specified in paragraph (a) of thi s section. Any EPA testing with these engines will rely on the same procedure used by the manufacturer for certification.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 593 of 842 RMC Mode Time in Mode

(seconds) Engine

Speed 1,2 Torque (percent) 2,3 1a Steady
- state 170 Warm Idle 0 1b Transition 20 Linear Tr ansition Linear Transition 2a Steady
- state 170 A 100 2b Transition 20 A Linear Transition 3a Steady
- state 102 A 25 3b Transition 20 A Linear Transition 4a Steady
- state 100 A 75 4b Transition 20 A Linear Transition 5a Steady
- state 103 A 50 5b Transi tion 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 6a Steady
- state 194 B 100 6b Transition 20 B Linear Transition 7a Steady
- state 219 B 25 7b Transition 20 B Linear Transition***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 594 of 842 8a Steady
- state 220 B 75 8b Transition 20 B Linear Transition 9a Steady
- state 21 9 B 50 9b Transition 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 10a Steady
- state 171 C 100 10b Transition 20 C Linear Transition 11a Steady
- state 102 C 25 11b Transition 20 C Linear Transition 12a Steady
- state 100 C 75 12b Transition 20 C Linear Transi tion 13a Steady
- state 102 C 50 13b Transition 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 14 Steady
- state 168 Warm Idle 0

1 Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. 2 Advance from one mode to the next within a 20
- second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of the next mo de. 3 The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 595 of 842 **81.** Newl y redesignated § 86. 1370 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3), (b)(6), and (f) introductory

text to read as follows: **§ 86.1370**  **Not -**  **To -**  **Exceed test procedures.** (a) General. The purpose of this test procedure is to measure in
- use emissions of heavy
- dut y diesel engine s while operating within a broad range of speed and load points (the Not
- To
- Exceed Control Area) and under conditions which can reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use. Emission results from this test procedure are to b e compared to the Not
- To
- Exceed Limits specified in §86.007

– 11(a)(4), or to later Not
- To
- Exceed Limits. The Not
- To
- Exceed Li mits do not apply for engine
- starting conditions. Tests conducted using the procedures specified in this subpart are considered vali d Not
- To
- Exceed tests (Note: duty cycles and limits on ambient conditions do not apply for Not
- To
- Exceed tests). (b) * * * (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, all operating speed and load points with brake speci fic fuel consumption (BSFC) values within 5% of the minimum BSFC value of the engine. For the purposes of this requirement, BFSC must be calculated under the general test cell conditions specified in 40 CFR part 1065. The manufacturer may petition the Admi nistrator at certification to exclude such points if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points in normal vehicle operation and use. Engines equipped with drivelines with multi
- speed manual transmissions or automatic transmissions with a finite number of gears are not subject to the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3). * * * * * (6)(i) For petroleum
- fueled diesel cycle engines, the manufacturer may identify particular engine
- vehicle combinations and may peti tion the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the Not
- to - Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not capable of operating at such points when used in the specified engine
- vehicle combination(s). (ii) For diesel cycle engines that are not petroleum
- fueled, the manufacturer may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the Not
- to - Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points in normal vehicle operation and use. * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 596 of 842 (f) NTE cold temperature operating exclusion. Engines equipped with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) whose operation within the NTE control area specified in paragraph (b) of this section when operating during cold temperature conditions as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section are not subject to the NTE emission limits during the specified cold temperature operation conditions. * * * * * **Subpart O**
**— [Removed]**  82. Subpart O, consisting of §§ 86.1401 through 86.1442, is removed. **Subpart R**

**— [Removed]**  83. Subpart R, consisting of §§ 86.1701
- 99 through 86.1780
- 99, is remove d. **Subpart S**

**– [Amended]**  **§§86.1805 -**  **01, 86.1806 -**  **01, 86.1806 -**  **04, 86.1808 -**  **07, 86.1811 -**  **01, 86.1812 -**  **01, 86.1813 -**  **01, 86.1814**  **- 01, 86.1814**  **- 02, 86.1815**  **- 01, 86.1815**  **- 02, 86.1845**  **- 01** 

**– [Removed]**  84. Subpart S is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 86.1805
- 01 , 86.1806
- 01, 86.1806
- 04, 86.1808
- 07, 86.1811
- 01, 86.1812
- 01, 86.1813
- 01, 86.1814
- 01, 86.1814
- 02, 86.1815
- 01, 86.1815
- 02, 86.1845
- 01.
**85.** Section 86.1801
- 12 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a) through (e) to read as follows: **§ 86.1801**  **- 12**  **Applicability.** (a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain ty

pes of new vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Where the provisions apply for a t ype of vehicle, they appl y for vehicles powered b y an y fuel. In some cases, manufacturers of h eavy - dut y engines and vehicles***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 597 of 842 can choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or the requirements of subpart A of this part; those provisions are therefore considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers compl y with the other se t of requirements. In cases where a provision applies only to a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, engine typ e, or other distinguishing characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate section. The provisions of this subpart appl y to certain vehicles as follows: (1) The provisions of this subpart appl y for light
- duty vehicles, and light
- duty

trucks, (2) The provisions of this subpart appl y for medium
- duty passenger vehicles. The provisions of this subpart also apply for other complete heavy
- dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as follows: (i) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel
- cycle vehicles through model ye ar 2018. (ii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not apply if engines meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.007
- 17. (iii) Greenhouse gas emission standards appl y as specified in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 instead of the standards specified in this subpart. (3) The pro visions of this subpart generally do not apply

to incomplete heavy
- dut y vehicles or to complete vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR (see subpart A of this part and 40 CFR part 1037). However, this subpart applies to such vehicles in the following cases: (i) Incomplete heav y - duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified to the exhaust emission standards in this subpart that appl y for complete heav y duty vehicles. (ii) The evaporative and refueling emission standards apply for incomp lete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR starting with model ye ar 2018. Evaporative emission standards also apply for vehicles above 14,000 pounds as specified in 40 CFR part 1037. (iii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart d o not apply for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR; these requirements appl y for incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR only if the installed engine does not meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.007
- 17. (b) Relationship to s ubpart A of this part . Unless specified otherwise, if heavy
- duty vehicles are not subject to provisions of this subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 598 of 842 provisions of this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the engines installed in those vehicles must meet the corresponding requirements under subpart A of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine comply with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart A of this part, the vehicle must be certified under this subpart, and the engine does not need to be certified separately
. (c) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this subpart also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragrap h (a) of this section. (d) Small volume manufacturers. Special certification procedures are available for small
- volume manufacturers as described in §86.1838. (e) The term “you” in this subpart refers to manufacturers subject to the emission standards and other requirements of this subpart. * * * * *
86. Section 86.1803
- 01 is amended as follows: a. By removing the definition for “Certification Short Test (CST)”. b. By adding definitions for “Class 2b” and “Class 3” in alphabetical order. c. By revising the de finitions for “Family emission limit”, “Heavy
- dut y vehicle”, and “H ybrid electric vehicle (HEV)”. d. By adding definitions for “LEV III” and “Low
- altitude conditions” in alphabetical order. e. By removing the definition for “L ow altitude conditions”. f. By adding the definition for “Rated power” in alphabetical order. g. By revising the definition for “Round, rounded or rounding”. h. By adding the definitions for “Section 177 states” and “Tier 3” in alphabetical order. i. By revising the definition for “U.S . sales”. j. By adding the definitions for “Volatile liquid fuel” and “We (us, our)” in alphabetical order. **§86.1803 -**  **01 Definitions.** * * * * * Class 2b means relating to heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 599 of 842 Class 3 means relating to heavy - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. * * * * * Family emission limit (FEL) means a bin standard or emission level selected by the manufacturer that serves as the applicable emission standard for the vehicles in the family or test group in the context of fleet
- average standards or emission credits. * * * * * Heavy
- duty vehicle means any motor vehicle rated at more than 8,500 pounds GVWR or that has a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds or that has a basi c vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet. Note that MDPVs are heavy
- duty vehicles that are in many cases subject to requirements that apply for light
- duty

trucks. * * * * * Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a motor vehicle which draws propuls ion energy from onboard sources of stored energy that are both an internal combustion engine or heat engine using consumable fuel, and a rechargeable energy storage s ys tem such as a battery , capacitor, hydraulic accumulator, or fly wheel. * * * * * LEV III means relating to the LEV III emission standards in Title 13, §§1961.2 and 1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted b y the California Air Resources Board (incorporated b y reference in §86.1). * * * * * Low
- altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters (1,800 feet). * * * * * Rated power means an engine’s maximum power output in an installed configuration, as determined b y using SAE J1349 (incorporated b y reference in §86.1). * * * * * Round, rounded or rounding ha s the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001 , unless otherwise specified.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 600 of 842 * * * * * Section 177 states means the states that have adopted California’s motor vehicle standards for a particular model ye ar under section 177 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7507). * * * * * Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 emission standards described in §§86.1811
- 17, 86.1813
- 17, and 86.1816
- 18. * * * * * U.S. sales means, unless otherwise specified, sales in any state of the United States except for California or the section 177 states. Sale location is based on the point of first sale to a dealer, distributor, fleet operator, broker, or other entity. * * * * * Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and h as a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0 pounds per square inch. * * * * * We (us, our ) means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and any authorized representatives. * * * * *
**87.** A new §86.1805
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as fol lows: **§ 86.1805 -**  **17 Useful life.** (a) General provisions . The useful life values specified in this section apply for all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and OBD emission requirements described in this subpart, except for standards that are specified to ap ply onl y at certification. These useful life requirements also apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, air conditioning efficiency credits, and other credit programs used b y the manufacturer to compl y with the fleet
- average CO 2 emission standards in §86.1818. Useful life values are specified as a given number of calendar ye ars and miles of driving, whichever comes first.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 601 of 842 (b) Greenhouse gas pollutants . The emission standards in §86.1818 appl y for a useful life of 10 ye ars or 120,000 miles for LDVs and LLDTs and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDTs, MDPVs, and heav y - dut y vehicles. Manufacturers may alternativel y certify

based on a longer useful life as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) Criteria pollutants . The useful life provisions of this paragraph (c) apply for all emission standards not covered b y paragraph (b) of this section. Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section and in §§ 86.1811, 86.1813, and 86.1816, the useful life for LDT2s, HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs is 15 y ears or 150,000 miles. The useful life for LDV and LDT1 is 10 years or 120,000 miles. Manufacturers may optionally

certify L DVs and LDT1s to a useful life of 15 ye ars or 150,000 miles, in which case the longer useful life would appl y for all the standards and r equirements. LDVs and LDT1s certified to the longer useful life are subject to higher numerical FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx as specified in §86.1811
- 17(b). (d) Intermediate useful life . Where exhaust emission standards are specified for an intermediate useful life, these standards apply for five ye ars or 50,000 miles. (e) Interim provisions . The useful life provisions of §86.1805
- 12 appl y for vehicles not yet subject to Tier 3 requirements. For example, vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR are not subj ect to the useful life provisions in this section until model year 2019 unless manufacturers voluntarily

certify to the Tier 3 requirements earlier than the regulations require. Also, where the transition to Tier 3 standards involves a phase
- in percentage for a given standard, vehicles not included as part of the phase
- in portion of the fleet continue to be subject to the useful life provisions of §86.1805
- 12 with respect to that standard.
28. Section 86.1806
- 05 is amended b y revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and adding paragraph (k)(7) to read as follows: **§ 86.1806 -**  **05 On -**  **board diagnostics for vehicles less than or equal to 14,000 pounds GVWR.**  * * * * * (b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD sy stem must detect and identify malfunctions in all mo nitored emission
- related powertrain s ys tems or components according to the following malfunction definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part (chassis
- based test procedures), excluding those test procedures defined as “Supplemental” test procedures in §86.004

–2 and codified in §§86.158, 86.159, and 86.160. For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers, your OBD s ys tem is expected to detect and identify malfunctions in all monitored emis sion
- related powertrain s ys tems or components***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 602 of 842 according to the malfunction definitions described in this paragraph (b) as measured and calculated in accordance with the chassis
- based test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part to the extent feasibl e, excluding those test procedures defined as “Supplemental” test procedures in §86.004

–2 and codified in §§86.158 through 86.160. However, at a minimum, your s ys tem must detect and identify

malfunctions as described in paragraph (k)(7) of this section. * * * * * (k) * * * (7) For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers (e.g., natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol), in lieu of the requirements specified for other manufacturers in this paragraph (k), you may

demonstrate that the ma lfunction indicator light will illuminate, at a minimum, under any

of the following circumstances when the vehicle is operated on the applicable alternative fuel: (i) Otto
- cycle. A catal ys t is replaced with a defective catal ys t sy stem where the catal ys t brick for the monitored volume has been removed (i.e., empty catal ys t sy stem) resulting in an increase of 1.5 times the NMHC standard or FEL above the NMHC emission level measured using a representative 4000 mile catal ys t sy stem. (ii)(A) Diesel. If monitor ed for emissions performance

— a catal ys t is replaced with a defective catal ys t sy stem where the catal ys t brick for the monitored volume has been removed (i.e., empty catal ys t can) resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard or FEL for NO X or PM. (B) If monitored for performance

— a particulate trap is replaced with a trap that has catastrophically

failed. (iii) (A) Otto
- cycle. An engine misfire condition is induced that completely disables one or more cylinders, either through me chanical or electrical means, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standards or FEL for NMHC, CO or NO X . (B) Diesel. An engine misfire condition resulting in complete lack of cylinder firing is induced and is not detected. (iv) If so equipped, an y ox ygen sensor is replaced with a completel y defective ox ygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard or FELfor NMHC, CO or NO X . (v) If so equipped and app licable, a vapor leak is introduced in the evaporative and/or refueling sy stem (excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the intake manifold)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 603 of 842 greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused by a 0.040 inch diameter orifice, or the evaporative purge air flow is blocked or otherwise eliminated from the complete evaporative emission control sy stem. At a minimum, gas cap removal or complete venting of the evaporative and/or refueling s ys tem may be introduced resulting in a gross leak of the complete evaporative emission control sy stem. (vi) A malfunction condition is induced resulting in complete disablement in any emission
related powertrain s ys tem or component, including but not necessaril y limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) s ys tem, if equipped, the secondary air s ys tem, if equipped, and the fuel control sy stem, singularly resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard or FEL for NMHC, CO, NOx or PM. (vii) A malfunction condition is induced that completely disables an electronic emission
- related powertrain s ys tem or component not otherwise described in this paragraph (k) that either provides input to or receives commands from the on
- board computer resulting in a measurable impact on e missions. At a minimum, manufacturers may be required to perform this disablement on critical inputs and outputs where lack of the input and output disables an entire monitor as described above, multiple monitors (e.g., two or more) used b y the on
- board c omputer or renders the entire on
- board computer and its functions inoperative. (viii) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers should use good engineering judgment in inducing malfunctions and may perform more stringent malfunction demonstrations than described in this paragraph (k)(7). In addition, the Administrator reserves the right to request a clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer to perform stricter demonstration requirements, to the extent feasible, on clean alternative fuel convers ions. * * * * *
88. A new § 86.1806
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1806 -**  **17 On -**  **board diagnostics.** Model year 2017 and later vehicles must have onboard diagnostic (OBD) sy stems as described in this section. OBD s ys tems must generally detec t malfunctions in the emission control sy stem, store fault codes corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators appropriately
. (a) Vehicles must comply with the 2010 OBD requirements adopted for California as described in this paragraph (a). California’s 2010 OBD requirements are part of Title 13, §1968.2 of the California Code of Regulations, approved on June 17, 2010 (incorporated by reference in §86.1). The following clarifications and exceptions apply for vehicles certified under this sub part:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 604 of 842 (1) For vehicles not certified in California, references to vehicles meeting certain California Air Resources Board emission standards are understood to refer to the corresponding EPA emission standards for a given family , where applicable. Use good engineering judgment to correlate the specified standards with the bin standards that appl y under this subpart. (2) Vehicles must comply with OBD requirements throughout the useful life as specified in §86.1805. If the specified useful life is different for evaporative and exhaust emissions, the useful life specified for evaporative emissions applies for monitoring related to fuel
- system leaks and the useful life specified for exhaust emissions applies for all other parameters. (3) The purpose and appli cability statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a) and (b) do not apply
. (4) The anti
- tampering provisions in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not appl y. (5) The requirement to verify proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft described in 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)( C) applies only for vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. (6) The deficiency

provisions described in paragraph (c) of this section apply instead of 13 CCR 1968.2(k). (b) The following additional provisions apply : (1) OBD s ys tems must record in comp uter memory the result of the most recent successfully completed diagnostic check for a 0.020 inch leak. The required data records include the miles driven since the last check occurred and the pass/fail result. The s ys tem may be designed to keep data on ly from the previous 750 miles of driving. The leak check results must be scan readable, and must be retained in s ystem memory even if codes are cleared or the vehicle loses battery

power. (2) For every

famil y selected for making the full OBD demonstratio n for certification, that demonstration must also include a test showing that the OBD sy stem is capable of detecting an implanted 0.020 inch leak in the fuel s ys tem. Manufacturers may separately

perform this test with any

number of additional families. F or any untested families, the statement specified in §86.1844
- 01(d)(8) applies with regard to this leak monitoring requirement. (3) For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel tank capacity, you may request our approval for a leak thres hold greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. We will generall y approve a leak threshold equal to the standard that applies under §86.1813.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 605 of 842 (c) You may

ask us to accept as compliant a vehicle that does not fully meet specific requirements under this section. Such deficiencies are intended to allow for minor deviations from OBD standards under limited conditions. We expect vehicles to have functioning OBD sy stems that meet the objectives stated in this section. The following prov isions apply regarding OBD s ys tem deficiencies: (1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, we will not approve a deficiency that involves the complete lack of a major diagnostic monitor, such as monitors related to exhaust aftertreatment dev ices, oxygen sensors, air
- fuel ratio sensors, NOx sensors, engine misfire, evaporative leaks, and diesel EGR (if applicable). (2) We will approve a deficiency onl y if you show us that full compliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering any relevant factors, such as the technical feasibility of a given monitor, or the lead time and production cycles of vehicle designs and programmed computing upgrades. (3) Our approval for a given deficiency applies only

for a single model year, though you may cont inue to ask us to extend a deficiency approval in renewable one
- ye ar increments. We may approve an extension if you demonstrate an acceptable level of effort toward compliance and show that the necessary hardware or software modifications would pose an unreasonable burden. (d) For alternative
- fuel vehicles, manufacturers may request a waiver from specific requirements for which monitoring may not be reliable for operation with the alternative fuel. However, we will not waive requirements that we judge t o be feasible for a particular manufacturer or vehicle model. (e) For alternative
- fuel conversions, manufacturers may meet the requirements of §86.1806
- 05 instead of the requirements of this section. **§86.1807 -**  **01**
**— [Reserved]**  28. Section 86.1807
- 01 is amend ed b y removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3)(ix). 89. Section 86.1808
- 01 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3) introductory text, (f)(6)(ii)(D), (f)(7)(i) introductory

text, (f)(7)(ii)(B), (f)(10)(ii), (f)(13) introductory text, ( f)(13)(iv), and (f)(16)(i). b. By adding paragraph (g).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 606 of 842 **§ 86.1808 -**  **01 Maintenance instructions.** * * * * * (f) * * * (1) Applicability . Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of this paragraph (f) beginning in the 1996 model year for manufacturers o f light
- duty vehicles and light
- duty trucks, and beginning in the 2005 model year for manufacturers of heavy
- dut y vehicles and heav y - dut y engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that are subject to the OBD requirements of this part. * * * * * (3) Information dissemination . By December 24, 2003, each manufacturer shall provide or cause to be provided to the persons specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section and to any other interested parties a manufacturer
- specific World Wid e Web site containing the information specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section for 1996 and later model ye ar vehicles which have been offered for sale; this requirement does not apply to indirect information, including the information specified in paragraphs (f)(12) through (f)(16) of this section. Upon request and approval of the Administrator, manufacturers who can demonstrate significant hardship in complying with this provision within four months after the effective date may request an additiona l six months lead time to meet this requirement. Each manufacturer Web site shall: * * * * * (6) * * * (ii) * * * (D) An y alternative means proposed b y a manufacturer must be available to aftermarket technicians at a fair and reasonable price. * * * * * (7 ) * * * (i) All information required to be made available by this section shall be made available at a fair and reasonable price. In determining whether a price is fair and reasonable, consideration may be given to relevant factors, including, but not limi ted to, the following: * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 607 of 842 (ii) * * * (B) The Administrator will act on the request within 180 day s following receipt of a complete request or following receipt of any additional information requested b y the Administrator. * * * * * (10) * * * (ii) P rovide on the manufacturer’s Web site an index of all emissions
- related training information available for purchase b y aftermarket service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. For model ye ars subsequent to 2003, the required information must be made avai lable for purchase within 3 months of model introduction and then must be made available at the same time it is made available to manufacturer
- franchised dealerships, whichever is earlier. The index shall describe the title of the course or instructional s ession, the cost of the video tape or duplicate, and information on how to order the item(s) from the manufacturer Web site. All of the items available must be shipped within 24 hours of the order being placed and are to be made available at a fair and rea sonable price as described in paragraph (f)(7) of this section. Manufacturers unable to meet the 24 hour shipping requirement under circumstances where orders exceed supply and additional time is needed b y the distributor to reproduce the item being ordere d may exceed the 24 hour shipping requirement, but in no instance can take longer than 14 day s to ship the item. * * * * * (13) Generic and enhanced information for scan tools . By September 25, 2003, manufacturers shall make available to equipment and tool companies all generic and enhanced service information including bi
- directional control and data stream information as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section. This requirement applies for 1996 and later model year vehicles. * * * * * (iv) Manufac turers can satisfy the requirement of paragraph (f)(13)(iii) of this section by making available diagnostic trouble trees on their Web sites in full
- text. * * * * * (16) * * * (i) Manufacturers who have developed special tools to extinguish the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for Model Years 1994 through 2003 shall make available the necessary information to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 608 of 842 equipment and tool companies to design a comparable generic tool. This information shall be made available to equipment and tool companies no later than September 23, 2003. * * * * * (g) Through model ye ar 2013, , the manufacturer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the purchaser the following statement for each new diesel
- fueled Tier 2 vehicle (certified using a test fuel with 15 ppm sulfur or l ess): “This vehicle must be operated onl y with ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (that is, diesel fuel meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).”
90. Section 86.1810
- 01 is amended b y removing paragraph (m) and revising par agraph (f)(1) to read as follows: **§ 86.1810 -**  **01 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers.** * * * * * (f) Altitude requirements. (1) Unless otherwise specified, emission standards apply at low
altitude conditions and at high
- altitude conditions. The following exceptions apply : (i) The supplemental exhaust emission standards as described in § 86.1811

– 04(f) appl y onl y at low
- altitude conditions; (ii) The cold temperature NMHC emission standards as described in § 86.1811

– 10(g) appl y onl y at low
- altitude conditions; (iii) The evaporative emission standards specified in § 86.1811
- 09(e) apply at low
- altitude conditions. The evaporative emission standards specified in § 86.1811
- 04(e) continue to appl y at high
- altitude conditions for 2009 and later model year vehicles. * * * * * **91.** A new §86.1810
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1810 -**  **17 General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers.** The following provisions apply to all vehicles certified under th is subpart: (a) An y device, s ys tem or element of design installed on or incorporated in a new motor vehicle to enable such vehicle to conform to the standards imposed by this subpart:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 609 of 842 (1) Shall not in its operation or function cause the emission into the ambient air of an y noxious or toxic substance that would not be emitted in the operation of such vehicle without such sy stem, except as specificall y permitted by regulation; and (2) Shall not in its operation, function or malfunction result in any unsafe co ndition endangering the vehicle, its occupants, or persons or property in close proximity to the vehicle. (b) In establishing the phy sicall y adjustable range of each adjustable parameter on a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall ensure that, taking into consideration the production tolerances, safe vehicle drivability

characteristics are available within that range. (c) Unless otherwise specified, the emission standards of this subpart appl y equally for certification and for in
- use vehicles throughout the specified useful
- life period. Also, manufacturers must use good engineering judgment to determine that all of a vehicle’s emission
related components are designed to operate properly throughout the specified useful
- life period. (d) Crankcase emission s prohibited. Vehicles may not discharge crankcase emissions into the ambient atmosphere. (e) On
- board diagnostics. All vehicles must have an on
- board diagnostic sy stem as described in §86.1806. (f) Altitude requirements. Emission standards apply at low
- al titude conditions and at high
altitude conditions, except as noted in this subpart. (g) The cold temperature standards in this subpart refer to test procedures set forth in subpart C of this part. All other emission standards in this subpart rel y on test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part. These procedures rel y on the test specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as described in subpart B of this part. (h) Multi
- fueled vehicles (including dual
- fueled and flexible
- fueled vehicles) shall co mply with all requirements established for each consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in the case of flexible fueled vehicles). In the case of flexible
- fueled vehicles operating on ethanol and gasoline, this involves additional exhaust emission measurements us ing the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.725. No additional evaporative emission testing is required. **§ 86.1811**  **- 04** 

**– [Reserved]**  92. Section 86.1811
- 04 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (h) and revising***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 610 of 842 paragraph (j) to read as follows: * * * * * ( j) Highway NO X exhaust emission standard. The NOx emissions measured on the federal Highway

Fuel Economy

Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, must not be greater than 1.33 times the applicable FTP NOx standard to which the manufacturer certifies the test group. Both the measured emissions and the product of the NOx standard and 1.33 must be rounded to the nearest 0.01 g/mi before being compared. * * * * *
**93.** A new §86.1811
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1811**  **- 17**  **Exhaust emission standar ds for light**  **- duty vehicles, light** **- duty trucks and**  **medium -**  **duty passenger vehicles.** (a) Applicability

and general provisions . This section describes exhaust emission standards that apply for model year 2017 and later light
- dut y vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and medium
- duty passenger vehicles. Except as noted, MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section that apply

to LDT4s. Some of the provisions of this section also apply to heav y - duty vehicles as specified in §86.1816. See §86.1818 for gre enhouse gas emission standards. See §86.1813 for evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may appl y to vehicles from model years earlier than 2017 as specified in paragraph (b)(9) of this section. (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards . Exhaust emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows: (1) Measure emissions using the chassis dy namometer procedures of subpart B of this part, as follows: (i) Establish appropriate load settings based on loaded vehicle we ight (see §86.1803). (ii) Use appropriate driving schedules. Measurements involve testing over multiple driving schedules. The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix Iof this part. The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) involves testing with the UDDS and the US06 driving schedule specified in paragraph (g) of Appendix Iof this part, and the SC03 driving schedule specified in paragraph (h) of App endix Iof this part. In particular, SFTP emissions are calculated as a composite of test results over these driving schedules based on the following calculation: SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35 ∙FTP + 0.28∙US06 + 0.37∙SC03***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 611 of 842 (iii) For vehicles that qualify for the deriv ed 5
- cycle method for determining fuel econom y label values and are therefore not required to operate over the SC03 driving schedule under 40 CFR 600.115, you may alternatively

use FTP emission results to substitute for the SC03 value in the calculation un der paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for a given vehicle for any testing under this section. (iv) Use E15 test fuel as required in §86.113, except as specified in this section. (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, for cert ain vehicles you may measure exhaust emissions based on nonmethane h ydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.665. (vi) Measure emissions from hy brid electric vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 standards according to the proced ures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 86.1). (2) Table 1 of this section describes full y phased
- in Tier 3 standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOx ap ply on a fleet
- average basis using discrete bin standards as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards include additional emission standards for high
- altitude testing and for CO emissions when testing over the FTP driving schedule. The SFTP standards for NMOG+NOx appl y on a fleet
- average basis as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §86.1811
- 17

– Fully Phased
- in Tier 3 Exhaust Emission Standards (g/mile)
NMOG+NOx PM CO HCHO
FTP 1 SFTP FTP US06 2 SFTP FTP 0.030 0.050 0.003 0.010 4.2 0.004

1 The fleet
- average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is 0.026 g/mile for LDV and LDT1 if a manufacturer certifies one or more test groups based on a useful life of 120,000***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 612 of 842 miles and 10 years in a given model year. 2 The US06 emission standard for PM is 0.020 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR.
(3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply for testing at low
- altitude conditions and high
- altitude conditions as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The SFTP standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section apply onl y for testing at low
- altitude conditions. (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is based on a fleet average for a given model year. You must specify a family em ission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP testing. Calculate your fleet
- average emission level as described in §86.1860 based on the FEL that applies for low
- altitu de testing to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi
fueled vehicles, calculate fleet
- average emission levels based onl y on emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in §86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. You comply with the emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that your fleet
- average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange FTP credits between or among any test groups subject to standards under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP credits. (i) You may

specify an y of the FELs from Table 2 of this section for d emonstrating that yo ur fleet
- average emission level complies with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx under low
- altitude conditions. These FEL values define emission bins that also determine corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOx emissions under high
altitude conditions, and for CO emissions, as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 613 of 842 Table 2 of §86.1811
- 17

— Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards (g/mile)

FEL Name NMOG+NOx

FELs for Low Altitude NMOG+NOx for

High Altitude CO for Low and High Altitude

Bin 160 0.160 0.160 4.2
Bin 125 0.125 0.160 2.1
Bin 70 0.070 0.105 1.7
Bin 50 0.050 0.070 1.7
Bin 30 0.030 0.050 1.0
Bin 20 0.020 0.030 1.0
Bin 0 0.000 0.000 0.0
(ii) Manufacturers earn a compliance credit of 0.005 g/mile NMOG+NOx for vehicles covered b y an extended warranty of 150,000 miles or 15 years for all components whose failure triggers MIL illumination (and subject to a useful life of 150,000 miles). Manufacturers may

apply the compliance credit as follows: (A) You may

subtract your official FTP emission result for certificati on by the amount of the compliance credit if that allows you to certify to a more stringent bin. In that case, you may

use the more stringent bin standard for calculating the fleet
average NMOG+NOx emission level. For an y compliance testing with these ve hicles, the applicable FTP bin standard for NMOG+NOx is higher than the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 614 of 842 specified bin standard b y the amount of the compliance credit. For example, if the official FTP emission result for NMOG+NOx is 0.052 g/mile, this qualifies for an FEL of 0.050 g/mile for calculating the fleet average and the vehicle is subject to an FTP bin standard of 0.055 g/mile. (B) If the amount of the compliance credit does not allow you to certify to a more stringent bin, calculate the fleet
- average NMOG+NOx emission level us ing an FEL for these vehicles that is smaller than the bin standard b y the amount of the compliance credit. For any compliance testing with these vehicles, the specified bin standard applies. For example, if the official FTP emission result for NMOG+NOx is 0.038 g/mile, calculate the fleet
- average NMOG+NOx emission level by specifying an FEL of 0.045 g/mile; these vehicles are subject to the specified FTP bin standard of 0.050 g/mile. (iii) If you qualify for a compliance credit for direct ozone reducti on under the LEV III program, you may appl y the compliance credit approved for California vehicles as described in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. (iv) You may

combine the adjustments in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section i f yo u qualify

for them separatel y. (5) The SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is also based on a fleet average in a given model year. You must specify FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet
- average emission level to show that you meet the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx, except that you may specify FELs in any

even increment of 0.010 g/mile up to a maximum value of 0.180 g/mile. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in §86.1860 for demonstrating compliance with the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. You comply with the emission standard for a given model ye ar if you have enough credits to show that your fleet
- average emission level is at or below the applicabl e standard. You may exchange SFTP credits between or among any test groups subject to standards under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP credits. (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for NMOG+NOx, PM, CO, and HCHO; it also includes measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life (for some vehicles). Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several years. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase
- in period must continue to comply with the Tier 2 PM standards in §86.1811
- 04(c). The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 615 of 842 (i) You must meet the FTP and the US06 PM standards with 20, 20, 40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to this section in model ye ars 2017 through 2021, respecti vel y; however, the phase
- in calculation must exclude sales in California and other states if they adopt their own comparable phase
- in requirements. Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet the Tier 3 US06 standard for PM. In mod el ye ar 2017, the phase
- in requirement applies only for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; however, if you certify these vehicles to the Tier 3 PM standards in the model year 2017, you may count those projected U.S. sales toward your calculation for m eeting the phase
- in percentage for that year (numerator onl y). (ii) You may

compl y with an indexed PM phase
- in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2017, and include a detail ed plan for compl yi ng with the indexed phase
- in schedule. You comply with the indexed phase
- in schedule by calculating a PM phase
- in index at or above 540 using the following equation for model years 2017 through 2021: PM phase
- in index = 5 ∙APP 2017 + 4 ∙APP 2018 + 3 ∙APP 2019 + 2 ∙APP 2020 + APP 2021 Where: APP = The actual phase
- in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, as described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section. (iii) Y ou may

alternatively

ask us to approve calculation of the annual percentage for a given model ye ar based on production volumes instead of sales volumes. (iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those standards over the useful life as specifi ed in §86.1805
- 17. Note that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for PM emission standards than for other emission standards. (v) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test fuel used for measuring NMOG+NOx emissio ns. (vi) You may

certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover data. (vii) You may

use the alternative phase
- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different schedule. (7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2025 and earlier model years:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 616 of 842 (i) FTP phase
- in . The fleet
- average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx phases in over several ye ars as describe d in this paragraph (b)(7)(i). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet
- average emission level to show that you meet the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx that applies for each model year. For model y ear 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator). Fleet
- average FTP emission standards decrease through the phase
- in period as shown in the following table:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 617 of 842 Table 3 of §86.1811
- 17

— Declining Fleet
- Average Tier 3 FTP Emission Standards for NMOG+NOx (g/mile)
Model Year LDV, LDT1 1 LDT2, HLDT
2017 2 0.086 0.101
2018 0.079 0.092
2019 0.072 0.083
2020 0.065 0.074
2021 0.058 0.065
2022 0.051 0.056
2023 0.044 0.047
2024 0.037 0.038
2025 0.030 0.030

1 If a manu facturer certifies one or more LDV or LDT1 test groups based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model year, calculate the alternative fleet
- average standard by multiplying the specified value by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest 0.001 g/mile. Through model year 2019, apply this***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 618 of 842 adjustment only if one or more test groups is certified to Bin 70 or lower standards based on the shorter useful life. 2 Vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards starting with the 2018 mo del year.
(ii) SFTP phase
- in . The fleet
- average SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx phases in over several years as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(ii). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section and calculate a fleet
- ave rage emission level to show that you meet the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx that applies for each model year. (A) Calculate the fleet
- average emission level together for all your light
- duty vehicles and light
- dut y trucks, except for those certified using the provisions of paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) of this section. For model ye ar 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator). (B) Fleet
- average FTP emission standards decrease through the phase
- in period as sh own in the following table:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 619 of 842 Table 4 of §86.1811
- 17

— Declining Fleet
- Average Tier 3 SFTP Emission Standards
Model Year NMOG+NOx

(g/mile)
2017 1 0.103
2018 0.097
2019 0.090
2020 0.083
2021 0.077
2022 0.070
2023 0.063
2024 0.057
2025 0.050

1 Vehic les above 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards starting with the 2018 model year.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 620 of 842 (C) You may

use the Option 1 provisions specified in the LEV III program to demonstrate compliance with EPA’s SFTP standards instead of the phased
- in fleet
aver age SFTP standards specified in this paragraph (b)(7)(ii). (iii) Interim provisions . (A) For LDT2 and HLDT certified to Bin 125 or Bin 160 standards under this section through model ye ar 2019, the Tier 2 useful life period applies as specified in §86.1805
- 12. (B) You may

alternatively

use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 through model ye ar 2019 for vehicles certified to Bin 125 or Bin 160 standards under this section. You may not certify

these vehicles in model year 2020 using carryover data. (iv) Yo u may

use the alternative phase
- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different schedule. (8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to phasing in the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to this section according to this schedule. Under this alternative phase
- in, yo u must meet all the FTP and SFTP emission standards as specified in (b)(1) through (6) of this section with 40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to this section in model years 2019 through 2021, respectivel y; however, the phase
- in calculation must exclude sales in California or other states if they adopt their own comparable phase
- in requirements. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase
- in period must continue to comply with the Tier 2 standards in §86.1811
- 04(c) and (f), including the Tier 2 SFTP emission standards for NMHC+NOx and CO for 4,000
- mile testing as specified in §86.1811
- 04(f)(1). Each vehicle counting toward the phase
- in percentage under this paragraph (b)(8) must meet all the standards that apply and use the Tier 3 test fuel spe cified in §86.113
- 07. Vehicles certified under this paragraph (b)(8) may not generate or use emission credits. (9) You may

not use credits generated from Tier 2 vehicles for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards except as specified in this paragraph (b)(9). You may generate earl y credits with U.S. sales of Tier 2 vehicles in the two model years before the Tier 3 standards start to appl y for a given vehicle model. Separate from any Tier 2 demonstrations, calculate earl y Tier 3 emission cre dits as described in §86.1861 by determining a fleet
average value for FTP emissions of NMOG+NOx based on the applicable bin standards and subtracting this value from 0.160 g/mile. Calculate your fleet
- average value for the model ye ar based on vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2015, on all sizes of vehicles in 2016, and on vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2017. Vehicles certified to the Tier 2 standards must meet all the Tier 2 requirements in §86.1811
- 10. You must also continue to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 621 of 842 meet the fl eet - average Tier 2 standards as long as they apply . You may

use these early credits as described in §86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx; however, starting in model year 2018, use of early credits is subject to a limitation based on credits generated in California, as follows: (i) For the applicable model years in which you generate emission credits relative to California’s LEV III fleet
- average NMOG+NOx standard, determine the actual California sales of light
- d uty vehicles and light
- duty

trucks and the actual nationwide sales of those same vehicles. In 2015, count sales only from vehicle models at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. In 2017, count sales only from vehicle models that you do not certify under this secti on. For each model ye ar, multiply the credits generated under the California program b y the ratio of nationwide sales to California sales to calculate an effective nationwide quantity . Sum these results for model years 2015 through 2017. (ii) You may

not use more earl y credits generated under this paragraph (b)(9) to meet Tier 3 emission standards than the calculated value of the effective nationwide credit quantity summed in paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section. I f your generated credits are greater than this threshold, determine the percentage of your generated early credits that exceed the threshold. Calculate an adjusted quantity of earl y credits generated under this paragraph (b)(9) b y decreasing the generated quantity from each model year b y the cal culated percentage that they exceed the applicable threshold. This adjusted quantity of credits may

be used for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards, subject to the five
- ye ar credit life described in §86.1861. (10) The following alternate s tandards apply for in
- use testing with 2021 and earlier model ye ar vehicles: (i) The alternate in
- use PM emission standard for FTP testing is 0.006 g/mile. (ii) The alternate in
- use PM emission standards for SFTP testing are 0.015 g/mile for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and 0.025 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. (iii) Alternate in
- use NMOG+NOx emission standards for FTP testing apply for vehicles certified to Bin 70 and lower. Calculate these alternate standards b y multiplying the a pplicable FEL b y 1.4. These alternate standards apply onl y for testing at low
- altitude conditions. (11) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for complying with declining fleet
- average average standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 622 of 842 (c) Highway

NMOG+NOx exhaust emission standard
. NMOG+NOx emissions measured on the federal Highway

Fuel Economy

Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable NMOG+NOx bin standard for FTP testing. Demo nstrate compliance with this standard for low
- mileage vehicles b y appl yi ng the appropriate deterioration factor. (d) Special provisions for Otto
- cycle engines . The following special provisions apply for vehicles with Otto
- cycle engines: (1) Enrichment limi ts . The nominal air
- fuel ratio throughout the US06 cycle may not be richer than the leanest air
- fuel mixture required for lean best torque, except as allowed under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. Unless we approve otherwise in advance, lean best torque is the leanest air
- fuel ratio required at an y speed and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque. The allowable tolerance around the nominal value for any given speed and load point over the US06 cycle for a particular vehicle is 4 perce nt, which is calculated as the nominal mass
- based air
- fuel ratio for lean best torque divided by 1.04. (2) Engine protection . AECDs that use commanded enrichment to protect the engine or emission control hardware must not use enrichment more frequently or to a greater degree than is needed for this purpose. For purposes of this section, commanded enrichment includes intended engine operation at air
- fuel ratios rich of stoichiometry , except the following: (i) Cycling back and forth in a narrow window between rich and lean operation as a result of feedback controls targeted to maintain overall engine operation at stoichiometry
. (ii) Small changes in the target air
- fuel ratio to optimize vehicle emissions or drivability
. This may be called “closed
- loop bia sing.” (iii) Temporary

enrichment in response to rapid throttle motion. (iv) Enrichment during cold
- start and warm
- up conditions. (v) Temporary

enrichment for running OBD checks to comply with §86.1806. (3) A/C
- on specific calibrations. (i) A/C
- on specific calibrations (e.g., air
- fuel ratio, spark timing, and exhaust gas recirculation) that differ from A/C
- off calibrations may be used for a given set of engine operating conditions (e.g., engine speed, manifold pressure, coolant temperature, air charge temp erature, and any other parameters). Such calibrations must not unnecessarily reduce emission control effectiveness during A/C
- on operation when the vehicle is operated under conditions that may reasonably

be expected during normal operation and use. If e mission control effectiveness decreases as a result***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 623 of 842 of such calibrations, the manufacturer must describe in the Application for Certification the circumstances under which this occurs and the reason for using these calibrations. (ii) For AECDs involving co mmanded enrichment, these AECDs must not operate differentl y for A/C
- on operation than for A/C
- off operation, except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This includes both the sensor inputs for triggering enrichment and the degree of enri chment emplo ye d. (4) “ Lean
- on - cruise” calibration strategies. Manufacturers may use “lean
- on - cruise” strategies subject to the following specifications: (i) A “lean
- on - cruise” strategy is defined as the use of an air
- fuel ratio significantly leaner than stoichiometry

during non
- deceleration conditions at speeds above 40 mph. (ii) You must not employ “lean
- on - cruise” strategies during vehicle operation in normal driving conditions, including A/C usage, unless at least one of the following conditions is met : (A) Such strategies are substantially employed during the FTP, US06, or SC03 duty cycle. (B) Such strategies are demonstrated not to significantly reduce vehicle emission control effectiveness over the operating conditions in which they are employed. (C) Such strategies are demonstrated to be necessary to protect the vehicle occupants, engine, or emission control hardware. (iii) If you propose to use a “lean
- on - cruise” strategy , you mustdescribe in the application for certification the circumstances under which such a calibration would be used and the reasons for using it. (e) through (f) [Reserved] (g) Cold temperature exhaust emission standards . The following standards apply for vehicles tested over the test procedures specified in subpart C of this part: (1) Cold temperature CO standards . These cold temperature CO standards are applicable onl y to gasoline
- fueled vehicles. These standards apply for testing at low
- altitude conditions and high
- altitude conditions. Cold temperature CO exhaust emission standards apply when measured using the test procedures specified in subpart C of this part, as follows: (i) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard is 10.0 g/mile CO.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 624 of 842 (ii) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, the standard is 12.5 grams per mile CO. (2) Cold temperature NMHC standards
. Fleet average cold temperature NMHC standards are applicable onl y to gasoline
- fueled vehicles, and apply equally to certification and in
- use except as otherwise specified in §86.1811
- 10(u) for in
- use standards for applicable phase
- in models. Te sting with other fuels such as E85, or testing on diesel vehicles, is not required. Multi
- fuel, bi
- fuel or dual
- fuel vehicles must comply with requirements using gasoline onl y. (i) The standards are shown in the following table: Table 5 of §86.1811
- 17

—Fl eet Average Cold Temperature NMHC Exhaust Emission Standards

Vehicle weight category Cold temperature NMHC sales
- weighted fleet average standard (g/mile) LDVs & LLDTs ( < 6,000 lbs

GVWR) 0.3 HLDTs >6,000 lbs GVWR 0.5
(ii) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in §86.1864

– 10(m). (iii) The standards specified in this paragraph (g)(2) apply only for testing at low
- altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluati on indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation from low altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD s pecific to high altitude must require engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify an y emission impact and validity of the AECD.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 625 of 842 (h) Small
- volume manufacturers . Small
- volume manufacturers meeting the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 may d elay compl yi ng with the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 through model ye ar 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in model ye ar 2022 would cause severe econo mic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency criterion does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the hardship relief.

94. A new §86.1813
- 1 7 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1813**  **- 17**  **Evaporative and refueling emission standards.** Vehicles must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in this section. The emission standards apply for total h ydrocarbon equiv alent (THCE) measurements using the test procedures specified in subpart B of this part, as appropriate. Note that this section and § 86.1829 allows you to certify without testing in certain circumstances. Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this sec tion, evaporative and refueling emission standards do not apply for diesel
- fueled vehicles. Unless otherwise specified, MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section that apply

to LDT4s. (a) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards . Vehicles m ay not exceed the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, as follows: (1) Measure emissions using the test procedures of subpart B of this part, as follows: (i) Follow the vehicle preconditioning and exhaust testing procedures as described in subpart B of this part. (ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emissions as shown in §86.130. (iii) Use E15 test fuel as required in §86.113, except as specified in this section. (iv) Emissions are measured as total h ydrocarbon; however, in the case of E15 tes t fuel, multiply measured values by

1.1 to convert values to total hydrocarbon equivalent. (2) Diurnal and hot soak emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 emission standards, as follows: (i) The emission standard for the sum of diurnal and hot soak measurem ents from the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 626 of 842 two - diurnal test sequence and the three
- diurnal test sequence is based on a fleet average in a given model year. You must specify a famil y emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test grou p with respect to all required diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate your fleet average emission level as described in §86.1860 based on the FEL that applies for low
- altitude testing to show that yo u meet the specified standard. For multi
- fueled vehicl es, calculate fleet
- average emission levels based only on emission levels for testing with gasoline. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading for vehicles required to meet the Tier 3 standards, other than electric vehicl es and gaseous
- fueled vehicles, as described in §86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal emission standard starting in the 2017 model ye ar. You comply with the emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that your fleet
average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange credits between or among test groups within an averaging set as described in §86.1861. Separate diurnal plus hot soak emission standards appl y as sho wn for high
- altitude conditions. The sum of diurnal and hot soak measurements may not exceed the following fleet
average Tier 3 standards: Table 1 of §86.1813
- 17

— Tier 3 Diurnal Plus Hot Soak Emission Standards (grams per test) Vehicle category Lo w - altitude conditions High
- altitude

conditions LDV, LDT1 0.300 0.65
LDT2 0.400 0.85
HLDT 0.500 1.15 1
HDV 0.600 1.75

1 1.25 g/test for MDPVs.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 627 of 842 (ii) Specify

FELs as follows: (A) You may

specify the low
- altitude FEL in increments of 0.025 g above or below the o therwise applicable Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak standard, up to the maximum values specified in the following table: Table 2 of §86.1813
- 17

— Tier 3 FEL Caps for Low
- Altitude Testing Vehicle category FEL caps
LDV 0.500
LLDT 0.650
HLDT 0.900
MDPV 1.000
HDV 1.4
(B) Calculate the FEL for testing at high
- altitude conditions based on the difference between the low
- altitude FEL and the standard. For example, if a light
- duty vehicle was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead of the 0.300 g standard, the FELfor testing under high
- altitude conditions would be 0.75 g (0.65+0.10). (iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not exceed 0.020 g for LDVs and LDTs and 0.030 g for HDVs when tested using the Bleed Emission Test Procedure adopted b y the California Air Reso urces Board (incorporated b y reference in §86.1). This procedure quantifies***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 628 of 842 diurnal emissions without measuring hot soak emissions. The standards in this paragraph (a)(2)(iii) do not appl y for testing at high
- altitude conditions. For vehicles with non
i ntegrated refueling emission control sy stems, the bleed emission test and standard do not apply to the refueling canister. (3) Running losses may

not exceed 0.05 g per mile when measured using the test procedures specified in § 86.134. (4) Fuel sy stems fo r vehicles operating on one or more volatile liquid fuels may not exceed an effective leak diameter of 0.02 inches when measured using the procedure specified in §86.167. For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel tank capacity , you may request our approval for a leak standard greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. (5) The Tier 3 evaporative emission standards start to phase in with model year 2017 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and with model year 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. Table 3 of this section specifies the minimum percentage of each manufacturer’s sales in each model ye ar that must be certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Calculate annual percentages based on projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to standards under this paragraph (a) for the applicable model year; however, the phase
- in calculation must exclude sales in California and other states if they adopt their own comparable phase
- in requi rements. Also, if you certify vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in model year 2017, you may count projected U.S. sales of those vehicles toward your calculation for meeting the 40 percent requirement in 2017 (numerator onl y). Manufacturers may meet this requirement using the additional alternative phase
- in provisions in paragraph (g) of this section. Vehicles from the identified model years not certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards continue to be subject to the evaporative emission standards specified in § 86.1811
- 09(e) or § 86.1816
- 08(d) , including the useful life provisions of §86.1805
- 12. Note that this subjects LDVs and LDT1s to a 150,000 mile useful life for evaporative emissions if the v ehicles are subject to a 150,000 mile useful life for exhaust emissions. Keep records as needed to show that you meet the phase
- in requirements specified in this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 629 of 842 Table 3 of §86.1813
- 17

— Default Phase
- in Schedule for Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
Model year Minimum percentage of

vehicles subject to the Tier 3 standards
2017 40% 1
2018 60%
2019 60%
2020 80%
2021 80%
2022 100%

1 The phase
- in percentage for model year 2017 applies only for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. (b) Refueling emissions . Vehicles must meet the refueling emission standards in this paragraph (b) when measured over the procedure specified in §86.150. These standards apply starting with model year 2018 for vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR. The following refueling standards apply : (1) 0.20 g THCE per gallon of fuel dispensed for gasoline
- fueled, diesel
- fueled and methanol
- fueled vehicles. (2) 0.15 g THC per gallon of fuel dispensed for liquefied petroleum gas
- fueled vehicles.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 630 of 842 (c) Fuel spitback . For vehi cles fueled b y volatile liquid fuels, fuel spitback emissions may not exceed 1.0 g THCE when measured using the test procedures specified in § 86.146. The fuel spitback standard applies only to newl y assembled vehicles. (d) Vapor routing . All vehicles s ubject to standards under this section must be designed to route fuel vapors exclusivel y to the evaporative canister or the engine’s air intake system. (e) Auxiliary

engines and separate fuel s ys tems . The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.103(f) appl y for vehicle s with auxiliary

engines. This includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that contribute no motive power through the vehicle’s transmission. (f) Refueling provisions for gaseous fuel vehicles . The following provisions apply specif icall y for gaseous fuel vehicles: (1) Refueling receptacles on natural gas
- fueled vehicles must comply with the receptacle provisions of the ANSI/AGA NGV1

– 1994 standard (incorporated b y reference in §86.1). (2) With our advance approval, liquefied petroleum gas - fueled vehicles with gauges or valves that can be opened to release fuel or fuel vapor during refueling (such as fixed liquid level gauges) may

be tested for refueling emissions without opening such gauges or valves, as outlined in §86.157

– 98(d)(2). We will approve your request if you can show that such gauges or valves will not be open during in
- use refueling due to inaccessibility or other design features that would prevent them from opening or make this very unlikely
. (g) Alternative phase
- in opt ions for Tier 3 evaporative emission standards . You may use any of the following alternative methods to transition to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards: (1) Starting in model ye ar 2015, you may earn an “allowance” for each vehicle at or below 14,0 00 pounds GVWR that you certify earl y to the Tier 3 standards in paragraph (a) of this section, as long as the vehicle is not sold in California or an y of the section 177 states. This applies in model years 2015 and 2016 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and in model years 2015 through 2017 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each allowance you earn, you may count it as one compliant vehicle in a later model year during the phase
- in period; however, you may not use allowances to increase yo ur compliance percentage for the default phase
- in specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section by more than 10 percentage points in any model year from 2017 through 2022. As an example, making 100,000 Tier 3 vehicles in 2016 and a total of 400,000 vehicl es at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR in 2017 would allow a manufacturer to “spend” up to 40,000 allowances in both 2017 and 2018, leaving a total of 20,000 allowances for 2019 through 2022. Calculate the total phase
- in percentage in each model year b y adding the allowances to the number of compliant vehicles (in the numerator), without increasing total production (in the denominator). For each allowance you earn, you may alternativel y count it as one compliant***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 631 of 842 vehicle for model year 2018 under the phase
- in s chedule described in paragraph (g)(5) of this section (numerator only). Vehicles earning allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) may not have an FEL above the applicable Tier 3 standard, and may not generate emission credits. Allowances may

not be traded to another company . You may earn additional allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) as follows: (i) To the extent that you over - compl y with the 40
- percent phase
- in requirement in model ye ar 2017, you may

count your actual U.S. sales exceeding the required number of Tier 3 vehicles as allowances toward meeting the phase
- in requirement in 2018 and later model ye ars. (ii) For vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR that you certify to the refueling emission standards in paragraph (b) of this section in model years 2 015 through 2017, a single vehicle may

produce two allowances if it is certified to the Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak standard and the refueling standard. Allowances earned under this paragraph (g)(1)(ii) may alternativel y be used in model years 2018 throu gh 2022 to phase in the refueling standard. (2) [Reserved] (3) You may

disregard the percentage phase
- in specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section for 2017 if you choose 50
- state certification for all your vehicles meeting the LEV III PZEV evaporative standards in 2017. Under this option, you may not produce a higher
- emitting version of those vehicle models for sale outside of California or the section 177 states. Such vehicles may

be certified using carryover data under the California program; howeve r, they may generate or use emission credits only if they are certified to meet the emission standards of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Vehicles that comply under this paragraph (g)(3) may not generate allowances under paragraph (g)(1) of this section , regardless of the calculated percentage of compliant vehicles in model year 2017. (4) If you certify

model year 2019 or earlier vehicles to the LEV III emission standards in California, you may

certify those as Tier 3 vehicles that count toward meeting the phase
- in requirements of this section. You may not certify

vehicles under this paragraph (g)(4) after model year 2019 based on carryover test data. Vehicles meeting the LEV III standards may also generate allowances under paragraph (g)(1) of this sect ion; however, these vehicles may generate or use emission credits under this subpart only if they are not used to generate allowances and if they

are certified using the Option 2 procedures under the LEV III program (including the bleed emission test). (5) You may

disregard the phase
- in percentages specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section for 2018 through 2022 if you compl y with the alternate phase
- in schedule described in this paragraph (g)(5). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2018, and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 632 of 842 include a detailed plan for complying with the alternate phase
- in schedule. You comply with the alternate phase
- in schedule by calculating an evaporative phase
- in index at or above 1,040 using the following equation for model ye ars 2018 through 2022: Evaporative phase
- in index = 5 ∙APP 2018 + 4 ∙APP 2019 + 3 ∙APP 2020 + 2 ∙APP 2021 + APP 2022 Where: APP = The actual phase
- in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales. (6) You may

alternatively

use the E0 t est fuel specified in §86.113 through model year 2019 for vehicles certified to emission standards comparable to the standards in this section based on testing specified b y the California Air Resources Board. You may not certify these vehicles in model ye ar 2020 using carryover data. (h) Small
- volume manufacturers . Small
- volume manufacturers meeting the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 may delay compl yi ng with the requirements in this section until model year 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency criterion does not apply

and there is no maximum duration of the hardship relief.
95. A new §86.1816
- 18 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1816**  **- 18**  **Emission standards for heavy -**  **duty vehicles.** (a) Applicability

and general provisions . This section describes exhaust emission standards that apply for mode l year 2018 and later complete heavy
- dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. These standards are optional for incomplete heav y - duty vehicles and for heavy

dut y vehicle above 14,000 pounds GVWR as described in §86.1801. Greenhouse gas emission stand ards are specified in §86.1818 for MDPVs and in 40 CFR 1037.104 for other HDVs. See §86.1813 for evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may appl y to vehicles before model year 2018 as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section. S eparate requirements apply for MDPVs as specified in §86.1811. See subpart A of this part for requirements that apply for incomplete heavy
- dut y vehicles and for heav y - dut y engines certified independent of the chassis. The following general provisions app ly : (1) Test all vehicles as described in this section using a chassis dynamometer; establish appropriate load settings based on adjusted loaded vehicle weight (see §86.1803).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 633 of 842 (2) Some provisions apply differentl y depending on the vehicle’s power
- to - weight ratio. Determine a vehicle’s power
- to - weight ratio b y dividing the engine’s rated power b y the vehicle’s GVWR (in hp/pound). For purposes of this section, if a test group includes multiple configurations, use the vehicle with the highest power
- to - weight ratio to characterize the test group. (3) Use E15 test fuel as required in §86.113, except as specified in this section. (4) Measure emissions from hy brid electric vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the standards of this section according to the proc edures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 86.1). (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards . Exhaust emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows: (1) Measure emissions using the procedures of subpart B of this part, using specific driving schedules and additional procedures as follows: (i) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix Iof this part. (ii) The Heav y - Dut y Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (HD
- SFTP) involves testing with the UDDS, the SC03 driving schedule specified in paragraph (h) of Appendix I of this part, and one of the following additional driving schedules: (A) For Class 2b vehicles, the US06 driving schedule specified in paragraph (g) of Appendix Iof this part. (B) For Class 2b vehicles with a power
- to - weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified to optional standards under paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) of this section, the highway portion of the US06 driving schedule characterized as the “second bag” in §86.159
- 08(a). (C) For Class 3 vehicles, the LA
- 92 driving schedule as specified in paragraph (c) of Appendix Iof this part. (iii) HD
- SFTP emissions are calculated as a composite of test results over these driving schedules based on the following calculation: HD
- SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35 ∙FTP + 0.28∙HDSIM + 0.37∙SC03***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 634 of 842 Where: HDSIM = the appropriate driving schedule specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. (iv) You may

alternatively

use FTP emission results to substitute for the SC03 value in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section for a given vehicle for any testing under this section. (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, you may measure exhaust emissions based on nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066.665. (2) Table 1 of this section describes full y phased
- in Tier 3 standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet
- average basis using discrete bin standards as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards include additional emission standards for CO emissions, and for NMOG+NOx standards when testing over the HD
- SFTP driving schedule. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §86.1816
- 17

– Fu lly Phased
- in Tier 3 HDV Exhaust Emission Standards (g/mile)
HDV Class Fleet
- average

NMOG+NOx PM HCHO

FTP FTP HD
- SFTP FTP 2b 0.178 0.008 0.010 1 0.006 3 0.247 0.010 0.007 0.006

1 For vehicles with a power - to - weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the HD
- SFTP standard for PM is 0.007 g/mile instead of the value specified in the table.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 635 of 842 (3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply equally for test ing at low
- altitude conditions and high
- altitude conditions. The HD
- SFTP standards described in this section apply onl y for testing at low
- altitude conditions. (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is based on a fleet average in a given model ye ar. You must specify

a family emission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP testing. Calculate yo ur fleet
- average emission level as described in §86.1860 to show that yo u meet the specified standard. For multi
- fueled vehicles, calculate fleet
- average emission levels based only on emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading as described in §86.1860 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. You comply with the emission standard for a given model ye ar if you have enough credits to show that yo ur fleet
- average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange credits between or among an y t est groups subject to standards under this section. You may specify an y of the FELs from Table 2 or Table 3 of this section for demonstrating that your fleet
- average emission level complies with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. These FE L values define emission bins that also determine corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOx emissions over the HD
- SFTP driving schedule and for CO emissions, as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 636 of 842 Table 2 of §86.1816
- 18

— Tier 3 FT P Bin Standards

— Class 2b (g/mile)

FEL Name NMOG+NOx CO

FTP (FEL) HD
- SFTP 1 FTP HD
- SFTP
Bin 250 0.250 0.800 6.4 22.0
Bin 200 0.200 0.800 4.2 22.0 Bin 170 0.170 0.450 4.2 12.0
Bin 150 0.150 0.450 3.2 12.0
Bin 0 2 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0

1 Vehicles with a p ow er - to - we ight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the following HD
- SFTP bin standards for NMOG+NOx apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.350 g/mil e for Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.550 g/mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250. 2 Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and HCHO standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 637 of 842 Table 3 of §86.1816
- 18

— Tier 3 Bin Standards

— Class 3 (g/mile)

FEL Name NMOG+NOx CO

FTP (FEL) HD
- SFTP FTP HD
- SFTP
Bin 400 0.400 0.550 7.3 6.0 Bin 270 0.270 0.550 4.2 6.0
Bin 230 0.230 0.350 4.2 4.0
Bin 200 0.200 0.350 3.7 4.0
Bin 0 1 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0

1 Vehicles certified to B in 0 must also meet PM and HCHO standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (5) [Reserved] (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for NMOG+NOx, PM, CO, and HCHO; it also includes m easurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life. Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several ye ars. An y vehicles not subject to Tier 3 PM standards during the phase
- in period must continue to comply with the PM standards in §86.1816
- 08. Paragraph (b)(7) of this section describes how to transition to Tier 3 standards for em issions other than PM. The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 638 of 842 (i) You must meet the FTP emission standard for PM with 20, 40, 70, and 100 percent of yo ur projected nationwide sales of all vehicles su bject to this section in model years 2018 through 2021, respectively; however, the phase
- in calculation must exclude sales in California or other states if they adopt their own comparable phase
- in requirements. Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet the Tier 3 HD
SFTP standard for PM. (ii) You may

compl y with an indexed PM phase
- in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January 1, 2018, and include a detailed plan for compl yi ng with the indexed phase
- in schedule. You comply with the indexed phase
- in schedule by calculating a PM phase
- in index at or above 440 using the following equation for model years 2018 through 2021: PM phase
- in index = 4 ∙APP 2018 + 3 ∙APP 2019 + 2 ∙APP 2020 + APP 2021 Where: APP = The actual phase
- in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, as described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section
. (iii) You may

alternatively

ask us to approve calculation of the annual percentage for a given model ye ar based on production volumes instead of sales volumes. (iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those standards over the useful life a s specified in §86.1805
- 17. Note that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for PM emission standards than for other emission standards. (v) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test fuel used for measuring NMOG+NO x emissions. (vi) You may

certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover data. (vii) You may

use the alternative phase
- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different sch edule. (7) This paragraph (b)(7) describes the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2022 and earlier model years. You may instead use the alternative phase
- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section. Th e primary approach involves meeting the fleet
- average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx according to the schedule described in Table 1 of this section. You must identify FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet
- average emission level to show that you meet the FTP***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 639 of 842 emission standard for NMOG+NOx that applies for each model ye ar. You may certify using interim bin standards specified in Table 5 of this section through model year 2021; include these vehicles in the fleet
- ave rage calculation by treating the sum of the NMOG and NOx emission standards as the Family Emission Limit under §86.1860. You may alternativel y use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 for vehicles certified to the interim bins; the useful life period for these vehicles is 120,000 miles or 11 years. Fleet
- average FTP emission standards decrease as shown in the following table:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 640 of 842 Table 4 of §86.1816
- 17

— Declining Fleet
- Average FTP Emission Standards for NMOG+NOx (g/mile)
Model Year Class 2b Class 3

2016 1 0.333 0.548
2017 1 0.310 0.508
2018 0.278 0.451
2019 0.253 0.400
2020 0.228 0.349
2021 0.203 0.298
2022 0.178 0.247

1 Fleet
- average standards are shown for 2016 and 2017 for purposes of voluntary early compliance as described in paragraph (b)(10) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 641 of 842 Table 5 of §86.1816
- 18

— Interim Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards (g/mile) 1
Class FEL Name NMOG NOx PM CO HCHO
2b Bin 395 0.195 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032
Bin 340 0.140 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032
3 Bin 630 0.230 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040 Bin 570 0.170 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040

1 Vehicles certified to Interim Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to HD
- SFTP standards. (8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to phasing in the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to this section according to this schedule. You may meet the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section according to the phase
- in schedule specified in Table 6 of this section based on the i ndicated percentage of your projected nationwide sales in each model ye ar; however, the phase
- in calculation must exclude sales in California or other states if they

adopt their own comparable phase
- in requirements. These vehicles must meet the applicable FTP emission standards for NMOG+NOx and for CO, and the HD
- SFTP emissions standards for CO that apply for Class 2b Bin 170 and Class 3 Bin 230 as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You may use averaging, banking, and trading relative to the T ier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx during the phase
- in period, but only if all the vehicles certified under §86.1816
- 08 have FELs that are at or below the applicable NMHC and NOx standards. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the pha se - in period must continue to comply with the gaseous exhaust emission standards in §86.1816
- 08. To generate emission credits during the phase
- in period, all pre
- Tier 3 vehicles must have FELs at or below the NOx and NMHC standards in §86.1816
- 08. Determ ine emission credits b y calculating fleet
- average emission levels for Tier 3 and pre
- Tier 3 vehicles together; for Tier 3 vehicles use an NMOG+NOx equivalent FEL of 0.395 g/mile for Class 2b vehicles and 0.630 g/mile for Class 3 vehicles.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 642 of 842 Table 6 of §86.1 816
- 18

— Alternative Phase
- in Schedule for Pollutants other than PM
Model Year Class 2b Class 3

2019 65% 60%
2020 77% 73%
2021 88% 87%
2022 100% 100%
(9) You may

not use credits generated from vehicles certified under §86.1816
- 08 for demonstratin g compliance with the Tier 3 standards. (10) You may

voluntarily

certify your vehicles under this section in model years 2016 and 2017. If you do this, the fleet
- average FTP emission standards for NMOG+NOx apply to all yo ur complete heavy
- duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. Use an y of the available bin standards as described in this section. Vehicles certified under this paragraph (b)(10) must comply with the PM standards specified in §86.18 16
- 08 instead of the Tier 3 PM standards specified in this section. (11) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for complying with declining fleet
- average average standards
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 643 of 842 (c) Highway

NMOG+NOx exhaust emission standard
. NMOG+NOx emissions measured on the highway test cycle in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable NMOG+NOx bin standard for FTP testing. Demonstrate compliance with this standard for low
- m ileage vehicles b y appl yi ng the appropriate deterioration factor. (d) Provisions for Otto
- cycle engines . The special provisions described in §86.1811
- 17(d) appl y to vehicles with Otto
- cycle engines that are certified under this section. (e) Small
- volume manufacturers . Small
- volume manufacturers meeting the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 may delay compl yi ng with the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 throu gh model ye ar 2021. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in model ye ar 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency criteri on does not apply and there is no maximum duration of the hardship relief.
96. Section §86.1817
- 08 is amended b y revising the introductory text to read as follows: **§ 86.1817 -**  **08 Complete heavy -**  **duty vehicle averaging, trading, and banking program.** Section 86 .1817

– 08 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.1817

– 05. Where a paragraph in §86.1817

– 05 is identical and applicable to §86.1817

– 08, this may be indicated b y specif

yi ng the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.1817

– 05.” This section does not apply for NOx or NMOG+NOx emissions for vehicles certified to the Tier 3 standards in §86.1861
- 18, including those vehicles that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018. * * * * *
97. Section 86.1818
- 12 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 86.1818 -**  **12 Greenhouse gas emission standards for light -**  **duty vehicles, light -**  **duty trucks, and medium**  **- duty passenger vehicles.**  (a) Applicability . (1) This section contains standards and other regulations applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, h ydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This section applies to 2012 and later model ye ar LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs, including multi
- fuel***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 644 of 842 vehicles, vehicles fueled with alternative fuels, hybrid electric vehicles, plug
- in hy brid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. Unless otherwise specified, multi
- fuel v ehicles must comply

with all requirements established for each consumed fuel. The provisions of this section, except paragraph (c), also appl y to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502, of all model year light
- dut y vehicles, light
- d uty trucks, and medium
- duty passenger vehicles. Manufacturers that qualify as a small business according to the requirements of §86.1801

– 12(j) are exempt from the emission standards in this section. Manufacturers that have submitted a declaration for a mod el year according to the requirements of §86.1801

– 12(k) for which approval has been granted b y the Administrator are conditionally exempt from the emission standards in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for the approved model y ear. (2) The standards specified in this section apply only for testing at low
- altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any deviation from low altitude emis sion control practices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD specific to high altitude must require engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact an d validity of the AECD. * * * * *
98. Section §86.1821
- 01 is amended b y adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: **§ 86.1821 -**  **01 Evaporative/refueling family determination.** * * * * * (f) For vehicles to be classed in the same leak family , they must be similar with respect to the items listed in paragraph (b) of this section and use the same OBD method for detecting leaks.
99. Section §86.1824
- 08 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(1) and removing and reserving paragraph (h) to read as follows: **§ 86.1824 -**  **08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative emissions.**
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (a) Durability

program objective
. The durability program must predict an expected in
- use emission deterioration rate and emission level that effectivel y represents a significant majority of the distribution of emission levels and deterioration in actual use over the full useful life of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 645 of 842 candidate in
- use vehicles of each vehicle design which uses the durability program. This requirement applies for all SHED
- based measurements. It does not appl y for spitback or leak standards. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) For gasoline fueled vehicles certified to meet the evaporative emission standards set forth in this subpart, any

mileage accumulation method for evaporative emissions must employ gasoli ne fuel for the entire mileage accumulation period which contains ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is commercially available in any state in the United States. Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, the manufacturer must determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the highest legal concentration commerciall y available during the calendar ye ar before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage accumulation. T he manufacturer must also provide information acceptable to the Administrator to indicate that the mileage accumulation method is of sufficient design, duration and severit y to stabilize the permeability of all non
- metallic fuel and evaporative s ys tem comp onents to the mileage accumulation fuel constituents. * * * * * (h) [Reserved] * * * * *
100. Section §86.1826
- 01 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1826**  **- 01**  **Assigned deterioration factors for small -**  **volume manufacturers and small**   ** volume test groups.** (a) Appl icability. This program is an option available to small
- volume manufacturers and small
volume test groups as described in §86.1838. (b) Determination of deterioration factors. No service accumulation method or vehicle/component selection method is require d. Deterioration factors for all ty pes of regulated emissions are assigned using the provisions in this paragraph (b). A separate assigned deterioration factor is required for each durability group. Manufacturers shall use good engineering judgment in appl yi ng deterioration factors. Manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines and prescribes.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 646 of 842 (1) The deterioration factors will be the Administrator's estimate, periodically updated and published in a guidance docume nt, of the 70th percentile deterioration factors calculated using the industry
- wide database of previousl y completed durability data vehicles or engines used for certification. (2) The Administrator may use discretion to develop assigned deterioration fact ors using alternative methods if there is insufficient information to calculate an appropriate industry
wide deterioration factor (for example: a new engine technology coupled with a proven emission control sy stem). These methods may include the use of as signed deterioration factors based on similar durability vehicles. (3) Alternativel y, with advance approval from the Administrator, a manufacturer may use deterioration factors developed by another manufacturer. The manufacturer seeking to use these deterioration factors must

— (i) Demonstrate that the engines from the two manufacturers share technical parameters to the degree that would support the conclusion that a common deterioration factor should apply

for both vehicle configurations as defined in §86. 1803. (ii) Provide supporting information, such as histograms of exhaust temperature data, comparisons of vehicle weight and road load horsepower, or comparisons of powertrains and emission control sy stems.
101. Section 86.1828
- 01 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.1828 -**  **01 Emission data vehicle selection.** * * * * * (g) Cold temperature NMHC testing . For cold temperature NMHC exhaust emission compliance for each durability group, the manufac turer must select the vehicle expected to emit the highest NMHC emissions at 20 °F on candidate in
- use vehicles from the test vehicles specified in paragraph (a) of this section. When the expected worst
- case cold temperature NMHC vehicle is also the expect ed worst
- case cold temperature CO vehicle as selected in paragraph (c) of this section, then cold testing is required onl y for that vehicle; otherwise, testing is required for both the worst
- case cold temperature CO vehicle and the worst
- case cold temperature NMHC vehicle.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 647 of 842 102. Section 86.1829
- 01 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C). b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i). c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv). d. By revising paragraph (b)(4). f. By removing and reserving paragraph (d). **§ 86.1829 -**  **01 Durability and emission testing requirements; waivers.** * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (i) Testing at low altitude . One EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and evaporative/refueling emission control sy stem combination must be t ested in accordance with the evaporative/refueling test procedure requirement of subpart B of this part. The configuration of the EDV will be determined under the provisions of §86.1828

– 01. The EDV must also be tested for exhaust emission compliance using the FTP and SFTP procedures of subpart B of this part. In lieu of testing natural gas or hydrogen fueled vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the evaporative and refueling emission standards specified in this subpart, a manufacturer may provide a statem ent in its application for certification that, based on the manufacturer's engineering evaluation of appropriate testing and/or design parameters, all light
- dut y vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and complete heav y - duty vehicles comply with applicable emission standards. This same testing exemption applies for vehicles fueled b y liquefied petroleum gas, except that refueling tests are required for systems that allow venting during the refueling operation. * * * * * (iv) For diesel
- fueled vehicles, a manufacture r may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data. Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate in formation, and good engineering judgment. * * * * * (4) Electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles . For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with all the req

uirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data. Such a statement must***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 648 of 842 be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment. * * * * *
103. A new §86.1829
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§86.1829 -**  **17 Durability and emission testing requirements; waivers.** This section describes general testing requirements for certifying vehicles under this subpart, and includes several provisions allowing for statements of compliance instead of testing in certain circumstances. Where a manufacturer provides a statement instead of test data under this section, it must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information, and good engineering judgment. (a) One durability

demonstration is required for each durability group. The configuration of the DDV is determined according to §86.1822. The DDV shall be tested and accumulate service mileage according to the provisions of §§86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825, and 86.1831. Small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups may optionally

use the alternative durability provisions of §86.1838. (b) The manufacturer must test EDVs as follows to demonstrate compliance with emission standards: (1) Test one EDV in each durability group using the test procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 to demonstrate compliance with cold temperature CO and NMHC exhaust emission standards. (2) Test one EDV in each test group using the FTP and SFTP test procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 and the HFET test procedures of 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, to demonstrate compliance with other exhaust emission standards. (3) Test one EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and evaporative/refueling emission control sy stem combination using the test procedures in subpart B of this part to demonstrate compliance with evaporative and refueling emission standards. (c) The manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with emission standards at low
- altitude conditions as described in paragraph (b) of this sectio n. For standards that apply at high
- altitude conditions, the manufacturer may either perform the same tests or provide a statement in the application for certification that, based on an engineering evaluation of appropriate testing to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 649 of 842 measure or simulate high
- altitude emissions, all vehicles comply with applicable emission standards at high altitude. (d) Manufacturers may

omit exhaust testing for certification in certain circumstances as follows: (1) For vehicles subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in §§86 .1811, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with applicable PM standards instead of submitting PM test data for a certain number of vehicles as follows: (i) Except as noted in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, manufacturers must submit PM test data for at least 25 percent of its durability data groups that are subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in §86.1811
- 17. For example, if a manufacturer has a mix of light
- dut y vehicles and light
- dut y truck s divided over a total of nine durability data groups in a given model ye ar, three of them would need PM data for certification in that model year. EPA will work with the manufacturer to select durability data groups for testing, with the general expectat ion that testing will rotate to cover all of a manufacturer’s product line over time. If a durability data group has been certified in an earlier model year based on submitted PM data, and that durability data group is eligible for certification using car ryover test data, that carryover data may count toward meeting the requirements of this paragraph (d)(1)(i), subject to the selection of durability data groups. (ii) In every

model year that manufacturers have only one or two durability

data groups subjec t to the Tier 3 PM standards, they must submit PM test data for certifying all their durability data groups. If manufacturers have three durability data groups subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in a given model ye ar, they must submit PM test data for at least two of those durability

data groups. (2) Small
- volume manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with the applicable PM standard instead of submitting test data. (3) Manufacturers may

omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG testing conducted in addition to the testing needed to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission standards. (4) Manufacturers may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the appl icable HCHO standard instead of submitting test data. (5) When conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing, a manufacturer may petition the Administrator to waive the requirement to measure PM emissions and HCHO emissions. (e) Manufacturers may

omit eva porative or refueling testing for certification in certain circumstances as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 650 of 842 (1) For diesel
- fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the refueling emission standard inst ead of submitting test data. (2) For vehicles fueled by natural gas or h ydrogen, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with evaporative and refueling emission standards instead of submitting test d ata. This same testing exemption applies for vehicles fueled b y liquefied petroleum gas, except that refueling tests are required for sy stems that allow venting during the refueling operation. (3) Manufacturers may

provide a statement in the application f or certification that vehicles comply with the leak standard in §86.1813 instead of submitting test data. (4) For vehicles certified to the refueling emission standards in §§86.1811 or 86.1813, a manufacturer may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the fuel dispensing spitback standard instead of submitting test data. (5) In lieu of testing vehicles for the supplemental two
- diurnal test sequence, a manufacturer may optionall y provide a statement of compliance i n its application for certification that, based on the manufacturer's good engineering judgment, all vehicles in the evaporative/refueling emission family comply with the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two
- diurnal test sequence. (i) The option to provide a statement of compliance in lieu of 2
- diurnal evaporative certification test data is limited to vehicles with conventional evaporative emission control sy stems (as determined by the Administrator). EPA may perform confirmatory

2
- diurnal evaporative emission testing on test vehicles certified using this option. I f data shows noncompliance, it will be addressed through §86.1851. Also, if data shows noncompliance, EPA will generall y disallow subsequent waivers for the applicable evaporative famil y. (ii) Manufacturers shall supply information if requested by EPA in support of the statement of compliance described in this paragraph (d)(12). This information shall include evaporative calibration information for the emission
- data vehicle and for other vehicles in the evaporative/refueling family , including, but not limited to, canister ty pe, canister volume, canister working capacity , fuel tank volume, fuel tank geometry , the ty pe of fuel delivery

s ys tem (return, returnless, variable flow fuel pump, etc.), a description of the input parameters and software strategy used to control the evaporative canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 2
- diurnal (FTP) driving cycle, the nominal purge flow vo lume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 3
- diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other supporting information as necessary to demonstrate that the purge flow rate calibration on***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 651 of 842 the 2
- diurnal test sequence is adequate to compl y with the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two
- diurnal test sequence. (6) Where a California evaporative emission standard is at least as stringent as a comparable federal evaporative emission standard for a vehicle, we may accept test data d emonstrating compliance with the California standard as demonstrating compliance with the comparable standard under this subpart. We may require you to provide test data clearly demonstrating that a vehicle tested using the California
- specified test proced ures will meet the comparable standard under this subpart when tested using the test procedures specified in this part. (7) Through model ye ar 2019, we may accept test data demonstrating compliance with the California refueling emission standard as demonstrating compliance with the analogous refueling emission standard under this subpart if all the following conditions apply : (i) You certified the vehicles in model year 2016 to California’s refueling emission standards. (ii) You are certifying the vehicles to refueling standards for the new model year based on carryover data instead of performing new testing. (iii) You are also certifying the vehicles for evaporative emissions based on California test procedures under the provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of th is section, (f) For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, manufacturers may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with all the requirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data.
104. Section §86.1837
- 01 i s amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 86.1837**  **- 01**  **Rounding of emission measurements.** (a) Unless otherwise specified, the results of all emission tests shall be rounded to the number of places to the right of the decimal point indicated by expressing the applicable emission standard of this subpart to one additional significant figure, in accordance with 40 CFR 1065.20. * * * * *
105. Section §86.1838
- 01 is revised to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 652 of 842 **§ 86.1838**  **- 01**  **Small -**  **volume manufacturer certification p rocedures.**  (a) The small
- volume manufacturer certification procedures described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are optional. Small
- volume manufacturers may use these optional procedures to demonstrate compliance with the general standards and sp ecific emission requirements contained in this subpart. (b) Eligibility requirements

— (1) Small
- volume manufacturers. (i) Optional small
volume manufacturer certification procedures apply for vehicles produced by manufacturers with the following number of combined sales of vehicles subject to standards under this subpart in all states and territories of the United States in the model ye ar for which certification is sought, including all vehicles and engines imported under the provisions of 40 CFR 85.1505 an d 85.1509: (A) 5,000 units for the Tier 3 standards described in §§ 86.1811
- 17, 86.1813
- 17, and 86.1816
- 18. This is based on average nationwide sales volumes for model years 2012 through 2014 for manufacturers that sell vehicles in model year 2012. The p rovision allowing delayed compliance with the Tier 3 standards applies for qualifying companies even if sales after model ye ar 2014 increase beyond 5,000 units. Manufacturers with no sales in model year 2012 may instead rel y on projected sales volumes; ho wever, if nationwide sales exceed an average value of 5,000 units in any three consecutive model years, the manufacturer is no longer eligible for provisions that apply to small
- volume manufacturers after two additional model years. For example, if actual sales in model years 2015 through 2017 exceed 5,000 units, the small
- volume provisions would no longer appl y starting in model ye ar 2020. (B) 15,000 units for all other requirements. (ii) If a manufacturer’s aggregated sales in the United States, as deter mined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are fewer than the number of units specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an aggregated relationship) may certify under the provisio ns of paragraph (c) of this section. (iii) A manufacturers that qualifies as a small business under the Small Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR part 121 is eligible for all the provisions that apply for small
- volume manufacturers under this sub part. See §86.1801
- 12(j) to determine whether companies qualify as small businesses. (iv) The sales volumes specified in this section are based on actual sales, unless otherwise specified.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 653 of 842 (v) Except for delayed implementation of new emission standards, an eligible manufacturer must transition out of the special provisions that apply for small
- volume manufacturers as described in §86.1801
- 12(k)(2)(i) through (iii) if sales volumes increase above the applicable threshold. (2) Small
- volume test groups. (i ) If the aggregated sales in all states and territories of the United States, as determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are equal to or greater than 15,000 units, then the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an aggreg ated relationship) will be allowed to certify a number of units under the small
- volume test group certification procedures in accordance with the criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section. (ii) If there are no additional manufacturers in an aggregated relationship meeting the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, then the manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including heavy
- dut y engines) are less than 15,000 units using the small
- volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. (iii) If there is an aggregated relationship with another manufacturer which satisfies the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, then the following provisions shall apply : (A) If none of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then each manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including heav y - duty engines) are less than 15,000 units using the small
- volume pro visions of paragraph (c) of this section. (B) If an y of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then the limit of 14,999 units must be shared among the manufacturers in such a relationship. In total for all the manufacturers involved in such a relationship, aggregated sales (including heavy
- duty engines) of up to 14,999 units may be certified using the small
- volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. Only

whole test groups shall be eligible f or small
- volume status under paragraph (c) of this section. (iv) In the case of a joint venture arrangement (50/50 ownership) between two manufacturers, each manufacturer retains its eligibility for 14,999 units under the small
volume test group certificat ion procedures, but the joint venture must draw its maximum 14,999 units from the units allocated to its parent manufacturers. Onl y whole test groups shall be eligible for small
- volume status under paragraph (c) of this section. (3) Sales aggregation for related manufacturers. The projected or actual sales from different firms shall be aggregated in the following situations:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 654 of 842 (i) Vehicles and/or engines produced b y two or more firms, one of which is 10 percent or greater part owned b y another; (ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced by any two or more firms if a third party has equit y ownership of 10 percent or more in each of the firms; (iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced b y two or more firms having a common corporate officer(s) who is (are) responsible for the overall direction of the companies; (iv) Vehicles and/or engines imported or distributed by all firms where the vehicles and/or engines are manufactured b y the same entity and the importer or distributor is an authorized agent of the entity
. (c) Small
- volume manufacturers and small
- volume test groups shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable sections of this subpart, except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. Small
- volume manufacturers and small
- volume test groups may optio nally

meet the following requirements: (1) Durability demonstration . Use the provisions of §86.1826 rather than the requirements of §§86.1823, 86.1824, and 86.1825. (2) In
- use verification testing. See §86.1845 for applicability of in
- use verification test ing to small
- volume manufacturers and small
- volume test groups except as noted in this paragraph (c)(2). (i) Small
- volume in
- use verification test vehicles may be procured from customers or may be owned by , or under the control of the manufacturer, provide d that the vehicle has accumulated mileage in typical operation on public streets and has received ty pical maintenance. (ii) In lieu of procuring small
- volume in
- use verification test vehicles that have a minimum odometer reading of 50,000 miles, a manufac turer may demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency that, based on owner survey data, the average mileage accumulated after 4 ye ars for a given test group is less than 50,000 miles. The Agency may approve a lower minimum odometer reading based on such data. (iii) The provisions of § 86.1845

– 04(c)(2) that require one vehicle of each test group during high mileage in
- use verification testing to have a minimum odometer mileage do not apply
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 655 of 842 (iv) Manufacturers intending to use the provisions of paragraphs ( c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section shall submit to the Agency , prior to the certification of the subject vehicles, a plan detailing how these provisions will be met. **§ 86.1843 -**  **01 General information requirements.** * * * * * (g) Recordkeeping . (1) This subp art includes various requirements to record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store these records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight years after you send an associated application for certificatio n, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English upon request. We may review them at any

time. (2) Upon written request by the Administrat or, a manufacturer shall submit any information as described in §86.1844

– 01 within 15 business day s. A manufacturer may request the Administrator to grant an extension. The request must clearl y indicate the circumstances necessitating the extension. * * * * *
106. Section 86.1844
- 01 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a), (d)(7), (d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(11), and (d)(16)(i) introductory text, removing paragraph (d)(16)(iv), and adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: **§ 86.1844 -**  **01 Information requirements: Appli cation for certification and submittal of**  **information upon request.** (a) All the information listed in this section must be submitted to the Agency according to the requirements specified in §86.1843; however, we may ask you to include less information than we specify , as long as you keep the specified records. * * * * * (d) * * * (7) A comprehensive list of all test results, including official certification levels, and the applicable intermediate and full useful life emission standards to which the test group is to be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 656 of 842 certified as required in §86.1829

– 01. Also include a comparison of drive cycle energy and target cycle energy

relative to both inertia and road load forces as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate. ( 8) A statement that all applicable vehicles will conform to the emission standards for which emission data is not being provided, as allowed under §86.1806 or §86.1829. The statement shall clearl y identify the standards for which emission testing was not c ompleted. (9) Information describing each emission control diagnostic s ys tem required by §86.1806, including all of the following: (i) A description of the functional operation characteristics of the diagnostic sy stem, with additional information demonstrating that the s ys tem meets the requirements specified in §86.1806. Include all testing and demonstration data submitted to the California Air Resources Board for certification. (ii) The general method of detecting malfunctions for each emission
- related po wertrain component. (iii) Any deficiencies, including resolution plans and schedules. (iv) A statement that the diagnostic s ys tem is adequate for the performance warranty test described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W. (v) For vehicles certified to meet the leak standard in §86.1813, a description of the anticipated test procedure. The description must include, at a minimum, a method for accessing the fuel s ys tem for measurements, and a method for pressurizing the fuel s ys tem to perform the procedure specif ied in §86.167 without involving the fuel cap or filler neck. * * * * * (11) A list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) installed on any applicable vehicles, including a justification for each AECD, the parameters they sense and control, a det ailed justification of each AECD that results in a reduction in effectiveness of the emission control sy stem, and rationale for why it is not a defeat device as defined under §86.1809. The following specific provisions appl y for AECDs: (i) For an y AECD uni quely used at high altitudes, EPA may request engineering emission data to quantify

an y emission impact and validity of the AECD.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 657 of 842 (ii) For an y AECD uniquely used on multi
- fuel vehicles when operated on fuels other than gasoline, EPA may

request engineerin g emission data to quantify an y emission impact and validity of the AECD. (iii) For Tier 3 vehicles with spark
- ignition engines, describe how AECDs are designed to comply with the requirements of §86.1811
- 17(d). I dentify which components need protection through enrichment strategies; describe the temperature limitations for those components; and describe how the enrichment strategy corresponds to those temperature limitations. We may

also require manufacturers to submit this information for certification related to Tier 2 vehicles. * * * * * (16) * * * (i) A statement indicating that the manufacturer has conducted an engineering analy sis of the complete exhaust sy stem to ensure that the exhaust sy stem has been designed: * * * * * (e) * * * (7) The result s of an y production vehicle evaluation testing required for OBD systems under §86.1806. * * * * *
107. Section 86.1845
- 04 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c)(5) to read as follows: iii. § 86.1845
- 04 Manufacturer in
- use verification testing requirements. (a) * * * (3) The following provisions apply regarding the possibility

of residual effects from varying fuel sulfur levels: (i) Vehicles certified to Tier 3 standards under §86.1811 must alway s measure emissio ns over the FTP, then over the HFET (if applicable), then over the US06 portion of the SFTP. If a Tier 3 vehicle meets all the applicable emission standards except the FTP or HFET emission standard for NMOG+NOx, and a representative fuel sample from the t ested vehicle has a measured fuel sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when measured as***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 658 of 842 described in 40 CFR 1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat the FTP and HFET measurements and use the new emission values as the official results for that vehicle. For all othe r cases of testing Tier 3 vehicles, measured emission levels from the first test will be considered the official results for the test vehicle, regardless of any t est results from additional test runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, the vehicle may operate for up to two US06 cycles (with or without measurement) before repeating the FTP and HFET measurements. The repeat measurements must include both FTP and HFET, even if the vehicle failed onl y one of those tests, unless the HFET is not required for a pa rticular vehicle. Tier 3 vehicles may not undergo any

other vehicle preconditioning to eliminate fuel sulfur effects on the emission control sy stem, unless we approve it in advance. (ii) Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in
- use testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre
- conditioning procedures designed solel y to remove the effects of high sulfur in gasoline from vehicles produced through the 2007 model year, EPA will consider allowing such procedures on a case
- by
- case basis. EPA' s decision will apply to manufacturer in
- use testing conducted under this section and to any in
- use testing conducted b y EPA. Such procedures are not available for complete HDVs. For model year 2007 and later Tier 2 vehicles, this provision can be used onl y i n American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and then only if low sulfur gasoline is determined b y the Administrator to be unavailable in that specific location. (b) * * * (3) Number of test vehicles
. For each test group , the minimum number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 of this paragraph (b)(3). After testing the minimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04

– 06 or S04

– 07 of this paragraph (b)( 3), a manufacturer may test additional vehicles upon request and approval b y the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. Any additional testing must be completed within the testing completion requirements shown in §86.1845

– 04(b)(4). The r equest and Agency approval (if any) shall apply to test groups on a case b y case basis and appl y only to testing under this paragraph. Separate approval will be required to test additional vehicles under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition to any te sting that is required under Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 of this paragraph (b)(3), a manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes it is unable to procure the te st vehicles necessary to test the required number of vehicles in a test group, the manufacturer may request, subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods the manufact urer has used to procure the required number of vehicles. The approval of any such request, and the substitution of an alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based on a review of the procurement efforts made b y the manufacturer to determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the required test group size. Tables S04

– 06 and S04

– 07 follow: * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 659 of 842 (4) Completion of testing . Testing of the vehicles in a test group and evaporative/refueling family must be completed with in 12 months of the end of production of that test group (or evaporative/refueling family) for that model ye ar. (5) Testing . (i) Each test vehicle of a test group shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of the Sup plemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to applicable exhaust CO 2 emission standards under this subpart shall also be tested in accordance with the highway fuel econom y test as described in part 600, subpart B, of this chapter. (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 driving schedules for one out of every

two vehicles tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in §86.1813, if applicable, as described in this paragraph (b)(5)(iii). Manu facturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one vehicle from each leak family

for a given model year. Manufacturers may rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as follows: (A) A vehicle is considered to pass the leak test if the OBD s ys tem completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving without showing a leak fault code. (B) Whether or not a vehicle’s OBD s ys tem has completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving, the manufacturer may operate the vehicle as needed to force the OBD s ys tem to perform a leak check. If the OBD leak check does not show a leak fault, the vehicle is considered to pass the leak test. (C) If the most recent OBD leak check from paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section shows a fault code, the vehicle is presumed to have failed the leak test. Manufacturers may

perform the leak measurement procedure described in §86.167 for an official result to replace the finding from the OBD leak check. (D) Manufacturers may

not perform repeat OBD checks or leak measurements to over - ride a failure under paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(C) of this section. (iv) For non
- gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative /refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the supplemental 2
- diurnal
- plus
- hot
- soak evaporative emission and refueling emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling famil y shall be tested in accordance with the 3
- diurnal
plus
- hot
- soak evaporative emission and refueling emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 660 of 842 specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section only if the veh icle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. (6) Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as
- received condition. (7) A manufacturer may

conduct subsequent diagnostic maintenance and/or testing of any vehicle. An y such maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified in §86.1847. (c) High
- mileage testing

— (1) Test groups . Testing must be conducted for ea ch test group. (2) Vehicle mileage. All test vehicles must have a minimum odometer mileage of 50,000 miles. At least one vehicle of each test group must have a minimum odometer mileage of 105,000 miles or 75 percent of the full useful life mileage, whichev er is less. See §86.1838

– 01(c)(2) for small volume manufacturer mileage requirements. (3) Number of test vehicles . For each test group, the minimum number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. After testing the minimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a manufacturer may test additional vehicles upon request and approval b y the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. An y additional testing must be completed within the testing completion requirements shown in §86.1845

– 04(c)(4). The request and Agency approval (if an y) shall apply to test groups on a case b y case basis and ap ply onl y to testing under this paragraph (c). In addition to the testing specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling family for evaporative/refueling emissions. I f a manufacturer believes it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary

to test the required number of vehicles in a test group as specified in Table S04

– 06 or Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the manufacturer may request , subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods the manufacturer has used to procure the required number of vehicles. The approval of an y such request, and the substitution of an alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based on a review of the procurement efforts made b y the manufacturer to determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the required test group size. (4) Initiation and completion of testing . Testing of a test group (or evaporative refueling family) must commence within 4 years of the end of production of the test group (or evaporative/refueling family) and be completed within 5 years of the end of production of the te st group (or evaporative/refueling family). (5) Testing . (i) Each test vehicle shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of this part when such te st vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to applicable exhaust CO2 emission standards under this subpart shall also be tested in accordance with the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 661 of 842 highway fuel economy

test a s described in part 600, subpart B of this chapter. One test vehicle from each test group shall receive a Federal Test Procedure at high altitude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is not required to be one of the same test vehicles tested at low al titude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is counted when determining the compliance with the requirements shown in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or the expanded sample size as provided for in this paragraph (c). (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 driving schedules for one out of every

two vehicles tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in §86.1813. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one vehicle from each leak family for a given model year. Manufacturers may rel y on OBD monitoring instead of testing as described in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of this section. (iv) For non
- gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the supplemental 2
- diurnal
- plus
- hot
- soak evaporative emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the 3
- diurnal
- plus
- hot
soak evaporative emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified in Table S04

– 06 and table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section only

if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. (6) Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as
- received condition. (7) A manufacturer may

conduct subsequent diagnostic maintenance and/or testing on any vehicle. An y such maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified in §86.1847

– 01. * * * * * 108. Section 86.1846
- 01 is revised to read as follows: iv. § 86.1846
- 01 Manufacturer in
- use confirmatory testing requirements. (a) General requirements. (1) Manufacturers must test, or cause testing t o be conducted, under this section when the emission levels shown by a test group sample from testing under §86.1845 exceeds the criteria specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The testing required under this section applies separately to each test gr oup and at each test point (low and high***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 662 of 842 mileage) that meets the specified criteria. The testing requirements appl y s eparately for each model year. These provisions apply to heav y - dut y vehicles and heav y - dut y engines starting with model year 2007. These provisions do not apply to emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O. (2) [Reserved] (3) [Reserved] (4) The provisions of §86.1845
- 04(a)(3) regarding fuel sulfur effects apply equally to testing under this section. (b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) A manufactur er shall test a test group or a subset of a test group as described in paragraph (j) of this section when the results from testing conducted under §86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions for that test group of an y pollutant(s) (except CO 2, CH 4 , and N 2 O) to be equal to or greater than 1.30 times the applicable in
- use standard and a failure rate, among the test group vehicles, for the corresponding pollutant(s) of fifty percent or greater. (i) This requirement does not apply to Supplemental FTP testing or evaporative/refueling testing. Testing conducted at high altitude under the requirements of §86.1845 will be included in determining if a test group meets the criteria triggering testing required under this section. (ii) The vehicle tested under the requirements of §86.1845

– 04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer miles of 75% of useful life will not be included in determining if a test group meets the triggering criteria. (iii) The SFTP composite emission levels shall include the IUVP FTP emissions, the IU VP US06 emissio ns, and the values from the SC03 Air Conditioning EDV certification test (without DFs applied). The calculations shall be made using the equations prescribed in §86.164. I f more than one set of certification SC03 data exists (due to running change testing or other reasons), the manufacturer shall choose the SC03 result to use in the calculation from among those data sets using good engineering judgment. (2) If fewer than 50 percent of the vehicles from a leak famil y pass the leak test under §86.1845, EPA may require further leak testing under this paragraph (b)(2). Testing under this section must include five vehicles from the family . If all five of these vehicles fail the test, the manufacturer must test five additional vehicles. EPA will determine whether to require further leak testing under this section after providing the manufacturer an opportunity to discuss the results, including consideration of any of the following information, or other items that may be relevant: (i) Detailed s ys tem design, c alibration, and operating information, technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed the leak emission standard. (ii) Comparison of the subject vehicles to other similar models from the same manufacturer. (iii) Data or other infor

mation on owner complaints, technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs, warrant y repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other manufacturer
- specific programs or initiatives.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 663 of 842 (iv) Evaporative emission test data on an y individual vehicles that did not pass leak testing during IUVP. (c) Useful life. Vehicles tested under the provisions of this section must be within the useful life specified for the emission standards which were exceeded in the testing under §86.1845. Testing should be within the useful life specified, subject to sections 207(c)(5) and (c)(6) of the Clean Air Act where applicable. (d) Number of test vehicles. A manufacturer must test a minimum of ten vehicles of the test group or Agency
- design ated subset. A manufacturer may , at the manufacturer's discretion, test more than ten vehicles under this paragraph for a specific test group or Agency
- designated subset. If a manufacturer chooses to test more than the required ten vehicles, all testing mu st be completed within the time designated in the testing completion requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. Any

vehicles which are eliminated from the sample either prior to or subsequent to testing, or an y vehicles for which test results are deter mined to be void, must be replaced in order that the final sample of vehicles for which test results acceptable to the Agency are available equals a minimum of ten vehicles. A manufacturer may cease testing with a sample of five vehicles if the results of the first five vehicles tested show mean emissions for each pollutant to be less than 75.0 percent of the applicable standard, with no vehicles exceeding the applicable standard for an y pollutant. (e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle of a test group or Agency
- designated subset shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and/or the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (whichever of these tests performed under §86.1845 produces emission levels requiring testing under this section) as described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. (f) Geographical limitations. (1) Test groups or Agency
- designated subsets certified to 50
- state standards: For l ow altitude testing no more than 50 percent of the test vehicles may be procured from California. The test vehicles procured from the 49 state area must be procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or greater than 4 000. (2) Test groups or Agency
- designated subsets certified to 49 state standards: For low
- altitude testing all vehicles shall be procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or greater than 4000. (3) Vehicles procured for high altitude testing may be procured from any area provided that the vehicle's primary

area of operation was above 4000 feet. (g) Testing. Testing required under this section must commence within three months of completion of the testing under §86.18 45 which triggered the confirmatory testing and must be completed within seven months of the completion of the testing which triggered the confirmatory testing. An y industry

review of the results obtained under §86.1845 and any additional vehicle procureme nt and/or testing which takes place under the provisions of §86.1845 which the industry believes may

affect the triggering of required confirmatory testing must take place within the three month period. The data and the manufacturers reasoning for reconsideration of the data must be provided to the Agency within the three month period.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 664 of 842 (h) Limit on manufacturer conducted testing. For each manufacturer, the maximum number of test group(s) (or Agency
- designated subset(s)) of each model ye ar for which testing under this section shall be required is limited to 50 percent of the total number of test groups of each model ye ar required to be tested by each manufacturer as prescribed in §86.1845rounded to the next highest whole number where appropriate. For each manufacturer with onl y one test group under §86.1845, such manufacturer shall have a maximum potential testing requirement under this section of one test group (or Agency
- designated subset) per model year. (i) Testing plan . Prior to beginning in
- use confirmat ory testing the manufacturer must, after consultation with the Agency , submit a written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and testing procedures (not otherwise specified by regulation) it intends to use. EPA must approve the test plan before the manufacturer may start further testing. (j) Testing a subset. EPA may designate a subset of the test group based on transmission ty pe for testing under this section in lieu of testing the entire test group when the results for the entire test group from testing conducted under §86.1845 show mean emissions and a failure rate which meet these criteria for additional testing.
109. Section 86.1848
- 10 is amended b y revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows: **§ 86.1848**  **- 10**  **Compliance wi th emission standards for the purpose of certification.**  * * * * * (c) * * * (7) All certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon compliance with all the provisions of §§86.1811 through 86.1816 and 86.1860 through 86.1862 both during and after mo del ye ar production. The manufacturer bears the burden of establishing to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the terms and conditions upon which each certificate was issued were satisfied. For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered by a certificate of conformity will continue to be held to the standards stated or referenced in the certificate that otherwise would have applied to the vehicles. (i) Failure to meet the applicable fleet average standard will be considered to be a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold in violation of the fleet average standard will not be covered b y the certificate. (ii) Failure to comply

fully with the prohibition against selling credits that i t has not generated or that are not available, as specified in §86.1861, will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold in violation of this prohibition will not be covered b y th e certificate.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 665 of 842 (iii) Failure to compl y fully with the phase
- in requirements of §§86.1811 through 86.1816 will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold that do not comply with th e applicable standards, up to the number needed to comply , will not be covered b y the certificate. * * * * *
110. A new §86.1860
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1860**  **- 17**  **How to comply with the Tier 3 fleet -**  **average standards.** (a) You must sho w that you meet the applicable fleet
- average NMOG+NOx standards from §§ 86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet
- average evaporative emission standards from §86.1813 as described in this section. Note that separate fleet
- average calculations are required for the FTP and SFTP exhaust emission standards under §86.1811. (b) Calculate your fleet
- average value for each model year for all vehicle models subject to a separate fleet
- average standard using the following equation, rounded to the nearest 0.001 g/mile for N MOG+NOx emissions and the nearest 0.001 g/test for evaporative emissions: **Error! Not a valid em bedded object.**  Where: i = A counter associated with each separate test group. b = The number of separate test groups to which you certify your vehicles
. N i = The actual sales for the model year for test group i . FEL i = The FEL selected for test group i . Disregard any separate standards that apply for in
use testing or for testing under high
- altitude conditions. N total = The actual sales for the model ye ar for all your vehicles subject to the same fleet
average standard, as described in paragraph (c) of this section. The pool of vehicle models included in N

total may vary by model year, and it may

be different for evaporative standards, FTP exhaust standards, and SFTP exhaust standards in a given model ye ar. (c) Do not include an y of the following vehicles to calculate your fleet
- average value:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 666 of 842 (1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the standards of this part because they are permanently exempted under 4 0 CFR part 85 or part 1068. (2) Exported vehicles. (3) Vehicles not subject to the requirements of this subpart, such as those excluded under § 86.1801. (4) Vehicles for which the location of first retail sale is in a state that has applicable state emissi on regulations for that model year. However, include them if we determine that the state standards and requirements are equivalent to those of this part (or less stringent) and that these vehicles sold in such a state will not be used to meet a separate fl eet - average standard under the state program. For example, you may not include vehicles certified for California if it has more stringent emission standards for these vehicles or if those vehicles must comply

with a separate fleet
- average standard under th e California program. (d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, your calculated fleet
- average value may not exceed the corresponding fleet
- average standard for the model ye ar. (e) You may

generate or use emission credits related to your cal culated fleet
- average value as follows: (1) You may

generate emission credits as described in §86.1861 if your fleet
- average value is below the corresponding fleet
- average standard. (2) You may

use emission credits as described in §86.1861 if your fleet
- av erage value is above the corresponding fleet
- average standard. Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, you must use enough credits for each model year to show that your adjusted fleet average value does not exceed the fleet
- average standard. (3) If you do not have enough emission credits to demonstrate compliance with a fleet
average standard in a given model year, you may carry forward a credit deficit for up to three model years. You may

not bank emission credits with respect to a given emission standard during a model year in which you have a credit deficit in the same averaging set. If you fail to meet the fleet
- average standard for four consecutive model years, the vehicles causing you to exceed the fleet
- average standard will be con sidered not covered b y the certificate of conformity . You will be subject to penalties on an individual
- vehicle basis for sale of vehicles not covered b y a certificate of conformity. (f) If the applicable bin standards and FELs for all your vehicle models are at or below a corresponding fleet
- average standard for a given model year, and you do not want to generate emission credits, you may omit the calculations described in this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 667 of 842 (g) For purposes of calculating the statute of limitations, a violati on of the requirements of paragraph (e)(3) of this section, a failure to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate was issued and hence a sale of vehicles not covered b y the certificate, all occur upon the expiration of the deadline for offsetting debits specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
111. A new §86.1861
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1861**  **- 17**  **How do the NMOG+NOx and evaporative emission credit programs work?** You may use emission credits for purposes of certification to show compliance with the applicable fleet
- average NMOG+NOx standards from §§ 86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet
average evaporative emission standards from §86.1813 as described in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart H, with certain exceptions and clarifications as specified in this section. MDPVs are subject to the same provisions of this section that apply to LDT4s. (a) Calculate emission credits as described in this paragraph (a) instead of using the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.705. Calculate positive or negative emission credits relative to the applicable fleet
average standard. Calculate positive emission credits if your fleet
- average level is below the standard. Calculate negative emission credits if your fleet
- average value is above the standard. Calculate c redits separately for each ty

pe of standard and for each averaging set. Calculate emission credits using the following equation, rounded to the nearest whole number: **Error! Not a valid em bedded object.**  Where: Emission credit = The positive or ne gative credit for each discrete fleet
- average standard, in units of vehicle
- grams per mile for NMOG+NOx and vehicle
- grams per test for evaporative emissions. Volume = Sales volume in a given model year from the collection of test groups covered b y the flee t - average value, as described in §86.1860. (b) The following restrictions apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.740: (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, emission credits may be exchanged only

within an averaging set, as f ollows: (i) HDVs represent a separate averaging set with respect to all emission standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 668 of 842 (ii) LDVs and LDTs together represent a single averaging set with respect to NMOG+NOx emission standards. Note that FTP and SFTP credits are not interchangeable. ( iii) The following separate averaging sets appl y for evaporative emission standards: (A) LDV and LDT1 together represent a single averaging set. (B) LDT2 represents a single averaging set. (C) HLDT represents a single averaging set. (D) HDV represents a si ngle averaging set. (2) You may

exchange evaporative emission credits across averaging sets as follows if you need additional credits to offset a deficit in the final year of maintaining deficit credits as allowed under paragraph (c) of this section: (i) Y ou may

exchange LDV/LDT1 and LDT2 emission credits. (ii) You may

exchange HLDT and HDV emission credits. (3) Credits expire after five years. For example, credits you generate in model year 2018 may be used onl y through model year 2023. (c) The credit
- de ficit provisions 40 CFR 1037.745 apply without modification to the NMOG+NOx and evaporative emission standards for Tier 3 vehicles. (d) The reporting and recordkeeping provisions of §86.1862 apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.730 and 1037.735. (e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.645 do not apply
.
112. Section 86.1862
- 04 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1862**  **- 04**  **Maintenance of records and submittal of information relevant to compliance with fleet**  **- average standards.**  (a) This section describes repor ting and recordkeeping requirements for vehicles subject to the following fleet
- average or fleet
- average standards:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 669 of 842 (1) Tier 2 NOx emission standard for light
- dut y vehicles and light
- dut y trucks in §86.1811
- 04. (2) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx for light
- duty vehicles and light
- dut y trucks in §86.1811
- 17. (3) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx for light
- duty vehicles and light
- dut y trucks in §86.1811
- 17. (4) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in §86.1813
- 17. (5) Tier 3 FTP emiss ion standard for NMOG+NOx for heavy
- dut y vehicles in §86.1816
- 18. (6) Cold
- temperature NMHC standards in §86.1811
- 10. (b) Maintenance of records. (1) The manufacturer producing an y vehicles subject to a fleet
average standard under this subpart must establ ish, maintain, and retain all the following information in organized and indexed records for each model ye ar: (i) Model year. (ii) Applicable fleet
- average standard.(iii) Calculated fleet
- average value. (iv) All values used in calculating the fleet
- average value achieved. (2) The manufacturer producing an y vehicle subject to the provisions in this section must keep all the following information for each vehicle: (i) Model year. (ii) Applicable fleet
- average standard. (iii) EPA test group. (iv) Assembly

plant. (v) Vehicle identification number. (vi) The FEL and the fleet
- average standard to which the vehicle is certified. (vii) Information on the point of first sale, including the purchaser, cit y, and state.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 670 of 842 (3) The manufacturer must retain all records requir ed to be maintained under this section for a period of eight ye ars from the due date for the annual report. Records may be stored in any format and on an y m edia, as long as manufacturers can promptly send EPA organized written records in English if we ask for them. Manufacturers must keep records readily available as EPA may review them at any

time. (4) The Administrator may require the manufacturer to retain additional records or submit information not specifically required b y this section. (5) EPA may

voi d ab initio a certificate of conformity for a vehicle certified to emission standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in this subpart for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section, to provide such information to the A dministrator upon request, or to submit the reports required in this section in the specified time period. (c) Reporting. (1) Each manufacturer must submit an annual report. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the annual report must contain, for each applicable fleet average standard, the fleet average value achieved, all values required to calculate the fleet
average value, the number of credits generated or debits incurred, all the values required to calculate the credits or debits, an d sufficient information to show compliance with all phase
in requirements, if applicable. The annual report must also contain the resulting balance of credits or debits. (2) When a manufacturer calculates compliance with the fleet
- average standard using the provisions in §86.1860

– 04(c)(2) or §86.1860
- 17(f), the annual report must state that the manufacturer has elected to use such provision and must contain the fleet
- average standard as the fleet
- average value for that model year. (3) For each applicable f

leet
- average standard, the annual report must also include documentation on all credit transactions the manufacturer has engaged in since those included in the last report. Information for each transaction must include all the following information: (i) Name of credit provider. (ii) Name of credit recipient. (iii) Date the transfer occurred. (iv) Quantity

of credits transferred. (v) Model year in which the credits were earned.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 671 of 842 (4) Unless a manufacturer reports the data required by this section in the annual production report required under §86.1844

– 01(e) and subsequent model year provisions, a manufacturer must submit an annual report for each model ye ar after production ends for all affected vehicles produced b y the manufacturer subject to the provisions of this subpart and no later than May 1 of the calendar year following the given model year. Annual reports must be submitted to: Director, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. (5) Failure b y a manufacturer to submit the annual report in the specified time period for all vehicles subject to the provisions in this section is a violation of Clean Air Act section 203(a)(1) (42 U.S.C 7522(a)(1)) for each subject vehicle produced b y that manufacture r. (6) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error occurred on an annual report previously

submitted to EPA, the manufacturer's credit or debit calculations will be recalculated. EPA may

void erroneous credits, unless transferred, and must adjust erroneous debits. In the case of transferred erroneous credits, EPA must adjust the selling manufacturer's credit or debit balance to reflect the sale of such credits and any resulting generation of debits. (d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. Any voiding of the certificate under paragraph (a)(6) of this section will be made only after EPA has offered the manufacturer concerned an opportunity for a hearing conducted in accordance with §86.614 for light
- dut y vehicles and light
- dut y trucks and with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, for heav y - duty vehicles.
113. Section 86.1863
- 07 is amended b y adding introductory text to read as follows: **§ 86.1863**  **- 07**  **Optional chassis certification for diesel vehicles.** This section does not apply for vehicles certified to the Tier 3 standards in §86.1816
- 18, including those vehicles that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018. * * * * *
114. Section 86.1864
- 10 is amended b y revising paragraph (p) to read as follows: **§ 86.1864 -**  **10 How to comply with the fleet ave rage cold temperature NMHC standards.**  * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 672 of 842 (p) Reporting and recordkeeping . Keep records and submit information for demonstrating compliance with the fleet average cold temperature NMHC standard as described in §86.1862
- 04.
115. Appendix Ito Part 86 i s amended b y revising the appendix heading and paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) introductory text to read as follows: **Appendix I to Part 86**
**— Dynamometer Schedules**  (a) EPA light
- duty

urban dy namometer driving schedule (UDDS) . This driving schedule is also known as the LA
- 4 cycle. (1) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for light
- dut y vehicles, light
- duty trucks, and heav y - dut y vehicles certified under subpart S of this part. (2) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for motorcyc les with engine displacement at or above 170 cc. Calculate the speed
- versus - time sequence in kilometers per hour by multiplying the listed speed by 1.6 and rounding to the nearest 0.1 kilometers per hour. (3) The driving schedule follows:

Time (sec.) Sp eed (mph.) Speed

(m/s) 0 0.0 0.00 1 0.0 0.00 2 0.0 0.00 3 0.0 0.00 4 0.0 0.00 5 0.0 0.00 6 0.0 0.00 7 0.0 0.00 8 0.0 0.00 9 0.0 0.00 10 0.0 0.00 11 0.0 0.00 12 0.0 0.00 13 0.0 0.00 14 0.0 0.00 15 0.0 0.00 16 0.0 0.00 17 0.0 0.00 18 0.0 0 .00 19 0.0 0.00 20 0.0 0.00 21 3.0 1.34 22 5.9 2.64 23 8.6 3.84 24 11.5 5.14 25 14.3 6.39 26 16.9 7.55 27 17.3 7.73 28 18.1 8.09 29 20.7 9.25 30 21.7 9.70 31 22.4 10.01 32 22.5 10.06 33 22.1 9.88 34 21.5 9.61 35 20.9 9.34 36 20.4 9.12 37 19.8 8.85 38 17.0 7.60 39 14.9 6.66 40 14.9 6.66 41 15.2 6.80 42 15.5 6.93 43 16.0 7.15 44 17.1 7.64 45 19.1 8.54 46 21.1 9.43 47 22.7 10.15 48 22.9 10.24 49 22.7 10.15 50 22.6 10.10 51 21.3 9.52 52 19.0 8.49 53 17.1 7.64 54 15.8 7.06 55 15.8 7.06 56 17.7 7.91 57 19.8 8.85***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 673 of 842 58 21.6 9.66 59 23.2 10.37 60 24.2 10.82 61 24.6 11.00 62 24.9 11.13 63 25.0 11.18 64 24.6 11.00 65 24.5 10.95 66 24.7 11.04 67 24.8 11.09 68 24.7 11.04 69 24.6 11.00 70 24.6 11.00 71 25.1 11.22 72 25.6 11.44 73 25.7 11.49 74 25.4 11.35 75 24.9 11.13 76 25.0 11.18 77 25.4 11.35 78 26.0 11.62 79 26.0 11.62 80 25.7 11.49 81 26.1 11.67 82 26.7 11.94 83 27.5 12.29 84 28.6 12.79 85 29.3 13.10 86 29.8 13.32 87 30.1 13.46 88 30.4 13.59 89 30.7 13.72 90 30.7 13.72 91 30.5 13.63 92 30.4 13.59 93 30.3 13.55 94 30.4 13.59 95 30.8 13.77 96 30.4 13.59 97 29.9 13.37 98 29.5 13.19 99 29.8 13.32 100 30.3 13.55 101 30.7 13.72 102 30.9 13.81 103 31.0 13.86 104 30.9 13.81 105 30.4 13.59 106 29.8 13.32 107 29.9 13.37 108 30.2 13.50 109 30.7 13.72 110 31.2 13.95 111 31.8 14.22 112 32.2 14.39 113 32.4 14.48 114 32.2 14.39 115 31.7 14.17 116 28.6 12.79 117 25.3 11.31 118 22.0 9.83 119 18.7 8.36 120 15.4 6.88 121 12.1 5.41 122 8.8 3.93 123 5.5 2.46 124 2.2 0.98 125 0.0 0.00 126 0.0 0.00 127 0.0 0.00 128 0.0 0.00 129 0.0 0.00 130 0.0 0.00 131 0.0 0.00 132 0.0 0.00 133 0.0 0.00 134 0.0 0.00 135 0.0 0.00 136 0.0 0.00 137 0.0 0.00 138 0.0 0.00 139 0.0 0.00 140 0.0 0.0 0 141 0.0 0.00 142 0.0 0.00 143 0.0 0.00 144 0.0 0.00 145 0.0 0.00 146 0.0 0.00 147 0.0 0.00 148 0.0 0.00 149 0.0 0.00 150 0.0 0.00 151 0.0 0.00 152 0.0 0.00 153 0.0 0.00 154 0.0 0.00 155 0.0 0.00 156 0.0 0.00 157 0.0 0.00 158 0.0 0.00 1 59 0.0 0.00 160 0.0 0.00 161 0.0 0.00 162 0.0 0.00 163 0.0 0.00 164 3.3 1.48 165 6.6 2.95 166 9.9 4.43 167 13.2 5.90 168 16.5 7.38 169 19.8 8.85 170 22.2 9.92 171 24.3 10.86 172 25.8 11.53 173 26.4 11.80 174 25.7 11.49 175 25.1 11.22 176 2 4.7 11.04 177 25.0 11.18 178 25.2 11.27 179 25.4 11.35 180 25.8 11.53 181 27.2 12.16 182 26.5 11.85 183 24.0 10.73 184 22.7 10.15 185 19.4 8.67 186 17.7 7.91 187 17.2 7.69 188 18.1 8.09 189 18.6 8.31 190 20.0 8.94 191 22.2 9.92 192 24.5 10. 95 193 27.3 12.20 194 30.5 13.63 195 33.5 14.98 196 36.2 16.18 197 37.3 16.67 198 39.3 17.57 199 40.5 18.11 200 42.1 18.82 201 43.5 19.45 202 45.1 20.16 203 46.0 20.56 204 46.8 20.92 205 47.5 21.23 206 47.5 21.23 207 47.3 21.14 208 47.2 21. 10 209 47.0 21.01***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 674 of 842 210 47.0 21.01 211 47.0 21.01 212 47.0 21.01 213 47.0 21.01 214 47.2 21.10 215 47.4 21.19 216 47.9 21.41 217 48.5 21.68 218 49.1 21.95 219 49.5 22.13 220 50.0 22.35 221 50.6 22.62 222 51.0 22.80 223 51.5 23.02 224 52.2 23. 34 225 53.2 23.78 226 54.1 24.18 227 54.6 24.41 228 54.9 24.54 229 55.0 24.59 230 54.9 24.54 231 54.6 24.41 232 54.6 24.41 233 54.8 24.50 234 55.1 24.63 235 55.5 24.81 236 55.7 24.90 237 56.1 25.08 238 56.3 25.17 239 56.6 25.30 240 56.7 25. 35 241 56.7 25.35 242 56.5 25.26 243 56.5 25.26 244 56.5 25.26 245 56.5 25.26 246 56.5 25.26 247 56.5 25.26 248 56.4 25.21 249 56.1 25.08 250 55.8 24.94 251 55.1 24.63 252 54.6 24.41 253 54.2 24.23 254 54.0 24.14 255 53.7 24.01 256 53.6 23. 96 257 53.9 24.10 258 54.0 24.14 259 54.1 24.18 260 54.1 24.18 261 53.8 24.05 262 53.4 23.87 263 53.0 23.69 264 52.6 23.51 265 52.1 23.29 266 52.4 23.42 267 52.0 23.25 268 51.9 23.20 269 51.7 23.11 270 51.5 23.02 271 51.6 23.07 272 51.8 23. 16 273 52.1 23.29 274 52.5 23.47 275 53.0 23.69 276 53.5 23.92 277 54.0 24.14 278 54.9 24.54 279 55.4 24.77 280 55.6 24.86 281 56.0 25.03 282 56.0 25.03 283 55.8 24.94 284 55.2 24.68 285 54.5 24.36 286 53.6 23.96 287 52.5 23.47 288 51.5 23. 02 289 51.5 23.02 290 51.5 23.02 291 51.1 22.84 292 50.1 22.40 293 50.0 22.35 294 50.1 22.40 295 50.0 22.35 296 49.6 22.17 297 49.5 22.13 298 49.5 22.13 299 49.5 22.13 300 49.1 21.95 301 48.6 21.73 302 48.1 21.50 303 47.2 21.10 304 46.1 20. 61 305 45.0 20.12 306 43.8 19.58 307 42.6 19.04 308 41.5 18.55 309 40.3 18.02 310 38.5 17.21 311 37.0 16.54 312 35.2 15.74 313 33.8 15.11 314 32.5 14.53 315 31.5 14.08 316 30.6 13.68 317 30.5 13.63 318 30.0 13.41 319 29.0 12.96 320 27.5 12. 29 321 24.8 11.09 322 21.5 9.61 323 20.1 8.99 324 19.1 8.54 325 18.5 8.27 326 17.0 7.60 327 15.5 6.93 328 12.5 5.59 329 10.8 4.83 330 8.0 3.58 331 4.7 2.10 332 1.4 0.63 333 0.0 0.00 334 0.0 0.00 335 0.0 0.00 336 0.0 0.00 337 0.0 0.00 338 0.0 0.00 339 0.0 0.00 340 0.0 0.00 341 0.0 0.00 342 0.0 0.00 343 0.0 0.00 344 0.0 0.00 345 0.0 0.00 346 0.0 0.00 347 1.0 0.45 348 4.3 1.92 349 7.6 3.40 350 10.9 4.87 351 14.2 6.35 352 17.3 7.73 353 20.0 8.94 354 22.5 10.06 355 23.7 10.59 356 25.2 11.27 357 26.6 11.89 358 28.1 12.56 359 30.0 13.41 360 30.8 13.77 361 31.6 14.13***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 675 of 842 362 32.1 14.35 363 32.8 14.66 364 33.6 15.02 365 34.5 15.42 366 34.6 15.47 367 34.9 15.60 368 34.8 15.56 369 34.5 15.42 370 34.7 15.51 371 35.5 15.87 372 36.0 16.09 373 36.0 16.09 374 36.0 16.09 375 36.0 16.09 376 36.0 16.09 377 36.0 16.09 378 36.1 16.14 379 36.4 16.27 380 36.5 16.32 381 36.4 16.27 382 36.0 16.09 383 35.1 15.69 384 34.1 15.24 385 33.5 14.98 386 31.4 14.04 387 29.0 12.96 388 25.7 11.49 389 23.0 10.28 390 20.3 9.07 391 17.5 7.82 392 14.5 6.48 393 12.0 5.36 394 8.7 3.89 395 5.4 2.41 396 2.1 0.94 397 0.0 0.00 398 0.0 0.00 399 0.0 0.00 400 0.0 0.00 401 0.0 0.00 402 0.0 0.00 403 2.6 1.16 404 5.9 2.64 405 9.2 4. 11 406 12.5 5.59 407 15.8 7.06 408 19.1 8.54 409 22.4 10.01 410 25.0 11.18 411 25.6 11.44 412 27.5 12.29 413 29.0 12.96 414 30.0 13.41 415 30.1 13.46 416 30.0 13.41 417 29.7 13.28 418 29.3 13.10 419 28.8 12.87 420 28.0 12.52 421 25.0 11.18 422 21.7 9.70 423 18.4 8.23 424 15.1 6.75 425 11.8 5.28 426 8.5 3.80 427 5.2 2.32 428 1.9 0.85 429 0.0 0.00 430 0.0 0.00 431 0.0 0.00 432 0.0 0.00 433 0.0 0.00 434 0.0 0.00 435 0.0 0.00 436 0.0 0.00 437 0.0 0.00 438 0.0 0.00 439 0.0 0.00 440 0.0 0.00 441 0.0 0.00 442 0.0 0.00 443 0.0 0.00 444 0.0 0.00 445 0.0 0.00 446 0.0 0.00 447 0.0 0.00 448 3.3 1.48 449 6.6 2.95 450 9.9 4.43 451 13.2 5.90 452 16.5 7.38 453 19.8 8.85 454 23.1 10.33 455 26.4 11.80 456 27.8 12.43 457 29.1 13.01 458 31.5 14.08 459 33.0 14.75 460 33.6 15.02 461 34.8 15.56 462 35.1 15.69 463 35.6 15.91 464 36.1 16.14 465 36.0 16.09 466 36.1 16.14 467 36.2 16.18 468 36.0 16.09 469 35.7 15.96 470 36.0 16.09 471 36.0 16.09 472 35.6 15.91 473 35.5 15.87 474 35.4 15.83 475 35.2 15.74 476 35.2 15.74 477 35.2 15.74 478 35.2 15.74 479 35.2 15.74 480 35.2 15.74 481 35.0 15.65 482 35.1 15.69 483 35.2 15.74 484 35.5 15.87 485 35.2 15.74 486 35.0 15.65 487 35.0 15.65 488 35.0 15.65 489 34.8 15.56 490 34.6 15.47 491 34.5 15.42 492 33.5 14.98 493 32.0 14.31 494 30.1 13.46 495 28.0 12.52 496 25.5 11.40 497 22.5 10.06 498 19.8 8.85 499 16.5 7.38 500 13.2 5.90 501 10.3 4.60 502 7.2 3.22 503 4.0 1.79 504 1.0 0.45 505 0.0 0.00 506 0.0 0.00 507 0.0 0.00 508 0.0 0.00 509 0.0 0.00 510 0.0 0.00 511 1.2 0.54 512 3.5 1.56 513 5.5 2.46***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 676 of 842 514 6.5 2.91 515 8.5 3.80 516 9.6 4.29 517 10.5 4.69 518 11.9 5.32 519 14.0 6.26 520 16.0 7.15 521 17.7 7.91 522 19.0 8.49 523 20.1 8.99 5 24 21.0 9.39 525 22.0 9.83 526 23.0 10.28 527 23.8 10.64 528 24.5 10.95 529 24.9 11.13 530 25.0 11.18 531 25.0 11.18 532 25.0 11.18 533 25.0 11.18 534 25.0 11.18 535 25.0 11.18 536 25.6 11.44 537 25.8 11.53 538 26.0 11.62 539 25.6 11.44 540 25.2 11.27 541 25.0 11.18 542 25.0 11.18 543 25.0 11.18 544 24.4 10.91 545 23.1 10.33 546 19.8 8.85 547 16.5 7.38 548 13.2 5.90 549 9.9 4.43 550 6.6 2.95 551 3.3 1.48 552 0.0 0.00 553 0.0 0.00 554 0.0 0.00 555 0.0 0.00 556 0.0 0.00 557 0. 0 0.00 558 0.0 0.00 559 0.0 0.00 560 0.0 0.00 561 0.0 0.00 562 0.0 0.00 563 0.0 0.00 564 0.0 0.00 565 0.0 0.00 566 0.0 0.00 567 0.0 0.00 568 0.0 0.00 569 3.3 1.48 570 6.6 2.95 571 9.9 4.43 572 13.0 5.81 573 14.6 6.53 574 16.0 7.15 575 17. 0 7.60 576 17.0 7.60 577 17.0 7.60 578 17.5 7.82 579 17.7 7.91 580 17.7 7.91 581 17.5 7.82 582 17.0 7.60 583 16.9 7.55 584 16.6 7.42 585 17.0 7.60 586 17.1 7.64 587 17.0 7.60 588 16.6 7.42 589 16.5 7.38 590 16.5 7.38 591 16.6 7.42 592 17.0 7.60 593 17.6 7.87 594 18.5 8.27 595 19.2 8.58 596 20.2 9.03 597 21.0 9.39 598 21.1 9.43 599 21.2 9.48 600 21.6 9.66 601 22.0 9.83 602 22.4 10.01 603 22.5 10.06 604 22.5 10.06 605 22.5 10.06 606 22.7 10.15 607 23.7 10.59 608 25.1 11.22 60 9 26.0 11.62 610 26.5 11.85 611 27.0 12.07 612 26.1 11.67 613 22.8 10.19 614 19.5 8.72 615 16.2 7.24 616 12.9 5.77 617 9.6 4.29 618 6.3 2.82 619 3.0 1.34 620 0.0 0.00 621 0.0 0.00 622 0.0 0.00 623 0.0 0.00 624 0.0 0.00 625 0.0 0.00 626 0.0 0.00 627 0.0 0.00 628 0.0 0.00 629 0.0 0.00 630 0.0 0.00 631 0.0 0.00 632 0.0 0.00 633 0.0 0.00 634 0.0 0.00 635 0.0 0.00 636 0.0 0.00 637 0.0 0.00 638 0.0 0.00 639 0.0 0.00 640 0.0 0.00 641 0.0 0.00 642 0.0 0.00 643 0.0 0.00 644 0.0 0.0 0 645 0.0 0.00 646 2.0 0.89 647 4.5 2.01 648 7.8 3.49 649 10.2 4.56 650 12.5 5.59 651 14.0 6.26 652 15.3 6.84 653 17.5 7.82 654 19.6 8.76 655 21.0 9.39 656 22.2 9.92 657 23.3 10.42 658 24.5 10.95 659 25.3 11.31 660 25.6 11.44 661 26.0 11.6 2 662 26.1 11.67 663 26.2 11.71 664 26.2 11.71 665 26.4 11.80***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 677 of 842 666 26.5 11.85 667 26.5 11.85 668 26.0 11.62 669 25.5 11.40 670 23.6 10.55 671 21.4 9.57 672 18.5 8.27 673 16.4 7.33 674 14.5 6.48 675 11.6 5.19 676 8.7 3.89 677 5.8 2.59 678 3. 5 1.56 679 2.0 0.89 680 0.0 0.00 681 0.0 0.00 682 0.0 0.00 683 0.0 0.00 684 0.0 0.00 685 0.0 0.00 686 0.0 0.00 687 0.0 0.00 688 0.0 0.00 689 0.0 0.00 690 0.0 0.00 691 0.0 0.00 692 0.0 0.00 693 0.0 0.00 694 1.4 0.63 695 3.3 1.48 696 4.4 1. 97 697 6.5 2.91 698 9.2 4.11 699 11.3 5.05 700 13.5 6.04 701 14.6 6.53 702 16.4 7.33 703 16.7 7.47 704 16.5 7.38 705 16.5 7.38 706 18.2 8.14 707 19.2 8.58 708 20.1 8.99 709 21.5 9.61 710 22.5 10.06 711 22.5 10.06 712 22.1 9.88 713 22.7 10. 15 714 23.3 10.42 715 23.5 10.51 716 22.5 10.06 717 21.6 9.66 718 20.5 9.16 719 18.0 8.05 720 15.0 6.71 721 12.0 5.36 722 9.0 4.02 723 6.2 2.77 724 4.5 2.01 725 3.0 1.34 726 2.1 0.94 727 0.5 0.22 728 0.5 0.22 729 3.2 1.43 730 6.5 2.91 731 9.6 4.29 732 12.5 5.59 733 14.0 6.26 734 16.0 7.15 735 18.0 8.05 736 19.6 8.76 737 21.5 9.61 738 23.1 10.33 739 24.5 10.95 740 25.5 11.40 741 26.5 11.85 742 27.1 12.11 743 27.6 12.34 744 27.9 12.47 745 28.3 12.65 746 28.6 12.79 747 28.6 12 .79 748 28.3 12.65 749 28.2 12.61 750 28.0 12.52 751 27.5 12.29 752 26.8 11.98 753 25.5 11.40 754 23.5 10.51 755 21.5 9.61 756 19.0 8.49 757 16.5 7.38 758 14.9 6.66 759 12.5 5.59 760 9.4 4.20 761 6.2 2.77 762 3.0 1.34 763 1.5 0.67 764 1.5 0.67 765 0.5 0.22 766 0.0 0.00 767 3.0 1.34 768 6.3 2.82 769 9.6 4.29 770 12.9 5.77 771 15.8 7.06 772 17.5 7.82 773 18.4 8.23 774 19.5 8.72 775 20.7 9.25 776 22.0 9.83 777 23.2 10.37 778 25.0 11.18 779 26.5 11.85 780 27.5 12.29 781 28.0 12 .52 782 28.3 12.65 783 28.9 12.92 784 28.9 12.92 785 28.9 12.92 786 28.8 12.87 787 28.5 12.74 788 28.3 12.65 789 28.3 12.65 790 28.3 12.65 791 28.2 12.61 792 27.6 12.34 793 27.5 12.29 794 27.5 12.29 795 27.5 12.29 796 27.5 12.29 797 27.5 12 .29 798 27.5 12.29 799 27.6 12.34 800 28.0 12.52 801 28.5 12.74 802 30.0 13.41 803 31.0 13.86 804 32.0 14.31 805 33.0 14.75 806 33.0 14.75 807 33.6 15.02 808 34.0 15.20 809 34.3 15.33 810 34.2 15.29 811 34.0 15.20 812 34.0 15.20 813 33.9 15 .15 814 33.6 15.02 815 33.1 14.80 816 33.0 14.75 817 32.5 14.53***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 678 of 842 818 32.0 14.31 819 31.9 14.26 820 31.6 14.13 821 31.5 14.08 822 30.6 13.68 823 30.0 13.41 824 29.9 13.37 825 29.9 13.37 826 29.9 13.37 827 29.9 13.37 828 29.6 13.23 829 29.5 13 .19 830 29.5 13.19 831 29.3 13.10 832 28.9 12.92 833 28.2 12.61 834 27.7 12.38 835 27.0 12.07 836 25.5 11.40 837 23.7 10.59 838 22.0 9.83 839 20.5 9.16 840 19.2 8.58 841 19.2 8.58 842 20.1 8.99 843 20.9 9.34 844 21.4 9.57 845 22.0 9.83 846 22.6 10.10 847 23.2 10.37 848 24.0 10.73 849 25.0 11.18 850 26.0 11.62 851 26.6 11.89 852 26.6 11.89 853 26.8 11.98 854 27.0 12.07 855 27.2 12.16 856 27.8 12.43 857 28.1 12.56 858 28.8 12.87 859 28.9 12.92 860 29.0 12.96 861 29.1 13.01 862 29.0 12.96 863 28.1 12.56 864 27.5 12.29 865 27.0 12.07 866 25.8 11.53 867 25.0 11.18 868 24.5 10.95 869 24.8 11.09 870 25.1 11.22 871 25.5 11.40 872 25.7 11.49 873 26.2 11.71 874 26.9 12.03 875 27.5 12.29 876 27.8 12.43 877 28.4 12.70 878 29.0 12.96 879 29.2 13.05 880 29.1 13.01 881 29.0 12.96 882 28.9 12.92 883 28.5 12.74 884 28.1 12.56 885 28.0 12.52 886 28.0 12.52 887 27.6 12.34 888 27.2 12.16 889 26.6 11.89 890 27.0 12.07 891 27.5 12.29 892 27.8 12.43 893 28.0 12.52 894 27.8 12.43 895 28.0 12.52 896 28.0 12.52 897 28.0 12.52 898 27.7 12.38 899 27.4 12.25 900 26.9 12.03 901 26.6 11.89 902 26.5 11.85 903 26.5 11.85 904 26.5 11.85 905 26.3 11.76 906 26.2 11.71 907 26.2 11.71 908 25.9 11.58 909 25.6 11.44 910 25.6 11.44 911 25.9 11.58 912 25.8 11.53 913 25.5 11.40 914 24.6 11.00 915 23.5 10.51 916 22.2 9.92 917 21.6 9.66 918 21.6 9.66 919 21.7 9.70 920 22.6 10.10 921 23.4 10.46 922 24.0 10.73 923 24.2 10.82 924 24.4 10.91 925 24.9 11.13 926 25. 1 11.22 927 25.2 11.27 928 25.3 11.31 929 25.5 11.40 930 25.2 11.27 931 25.0 11.18 932 25.0 11.18 933 25.0 11.18 934 24.7 11.04 935 24.5 10.95 936 24.3 10.86 937 24.3 10.86 938 24.5 10.95 939 25.0 11.18 940 25.0 11.18 941 24.6 11.00 942 24. 6 11.00 943 24.1 10.77 944 24.5 10.95 945 25.1 11.22 946 25.6 11.44 947 25.1 11.22 948 24.0 10.73 949 22.0 9.83 950 20.1 8.99 951 16.9 7.55 952 13.6 6.08 953 10.3 4.60 954 7.0 3.13 955 3.7 1.65 956 0.4 0.18 957 0.0 0.00 958 0.0 0.00 959 0. 0 0.00 960 2.0 0.89 961 5.3 2.37 962 8.6 3.84 963 11.9 5.32 964 15.2 6.80 965 17.5 7.82 966 18.6 8.31 967 20.0 8.94 968 21.1 9.43 969 22.0 9.83***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 679 of 842 970 23.0 10.28 971 24.5 10.95 972 26.3 11.76 973 27.5 12.29 974 28.1 12.56 975 28.4 12.70 976 2 8.5 12.74 977 28.5 12.74 978 28.5 12.74 979 27.7 12.38 980 27.5 12.29 981 27.2 12.16 982 26.8 11.98 983 26.5 11.85 984 26.0 11.62 985 25.7 11.49 986 25.2 11.27 987 24.0 10.73 988 22.0 9.83 989 21.5 9.61 990 21.5 9.61 991 21.8 9.75 992 22.5 10.06 993 23.0 10.28 994 22.8 10.19 995 22.8 10.19 996 23.0 10.28 997 22.7 10.15 998 22.7 10.15 999 22.7 10.15 1000 23.5 10.51 1001 24.0 10.73 1002 24.6 11.00 1003 24.8 11.09 1004 25.1 11.22 1005 25.5 11.40 1006 25.6 11.44 1007 25.5 11.40 1 008 25.0 11.18 1009 24.1 10.77 1010 23.7 10.59 1011 23.2 10.37 1012 22.9 10.24 1013 22.5 10.06 1014 22.0 9.83 1015 21.6 9.66 1016 20.5 9.16 1017 17.5 7.82 1018 14.2 6.35 1019 10.9 4.87 1020 7.6 3.40 1021 4.3 1.92 1022 1.0 0.45 1023 0.0 0.00 1024 0.0 0.00 1025 0.0 0.00 1026 0.0 0.00 1027 0.0 0.00 1028 0.0 0.00 1029 0.0 0.00 1030 0.0 0.00 1031 0.0 0.00 1032 0.0 0.00 1033 0.0 0.00 1034 0.0 0.00 1035 0.0 0.00 1036 0.0 0.00 1037 0.0 0.00 1038 0.0 0.00 1039 0.0 0.00 1040 0.0 0.00 1041 0.0 0.00 1042 0.0 0.00 1043 0.0 0.00 1044 0.0 0.00 1045 0.0 0.00 1046 0.0 0.00 1047 0.0 0.00 1048 0.0 0.00 1049 0.0 0.00 1050 0.0 0.00 1051 0.0 0.00 1052 0.0 0.00 1053 1.2 0.54 1054 4.0 1.79 1055 7.3 3.26 1056 10.6 4.74 1057 13.9 6.21 1058 17.0 7.60 1059 18.5 8.27 1060 20.0 8.94 1061 21.8 9.75 1062 23.0 10.28 1063 24.0 10.73 1064 24.8 11.09 1065 25.6 11.44 1066 26.5 11.85 1067 26.8 11.98 1068 27.4 12.25 1069 27.9 12.47 1070 28.3 12.65 1071 28.0 12.52 1072 27.5 12.29 1073 27.0 12.07 1074 27.0 12.07 1075 26.3 11.76 1076 24.5 10.95 1077 22.5 10.06 1078 21.5 9.61 1079 20.6 9.21 1080 18.0 8.05 1081 15.0 6.71 1082 12.3 5.50 1083 11.1 4.96 1084 10.6 4.74 1085 10.0 4.47 1086 9.5 4.25 1087 9.1 4.07 1088 8.7 3.89 10 89 8.6 3.84 1090 8.8 3.93 1091 9.0 4.02 1092 8.7 3.89 1093 8.6 3.84 1094 8.0 3.58 1095 7.0 3.13 1096 5.0 2.24 1097 4.2 1.88 1098 2.6 1.16 1099 1.0 0.45 1100 0.0 0.00 1101 0.1 0.04 1102 0.6 0.27 1103 1.6 0.72 1104 3.6 1.61 1105 6.9 3.08 110 6 10.0 4.47 1107 12.8 5.72 1108 14.0 6.26 1109 14.5 6.48 1110 16.0 7.15 1111 18.1 8.09 1112 20.0 8.94 1113 21.0 9.39 1114 21.2 9.48 1115 21.3 9.52 1116 21.4 9.57 1117 21.7 9.70 1118 22.5 10.06 1119 23.0 10.28 1120 23.8 10.64 1121 24.5 10.95***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 680 of 842 1122 25.0 11.18 1123 24.9 11.13 1124 24.8 11.09 1125 25.0 11.18 1126 25.4 11.35 1127 25.8 11.53 1128 26.0 11.62 1129 26.4 11.80 1130 26.6 11.89 1131 26.9 12.03 1132 27.0 12.07 1133 27.0 12.07 1134 27.0 12.07 1135 26.9 12.03 1136 26.8 11.98 1137 26.8 11.98 1138 26.5 11.85 1139 26.4 11.80 1140 26.0 11.62 1141 25.5 11.40 1142 24.6 11.00 1143 23.5 10.51 1144 21.5 9.61 1145 20.0 8.94 1146 17.5 7.82 1147 16.0 7.15 1148 14.0 6.26 1149 10.7 4.78 1150 7.4 3.31 1151 4.1 1.83 1152 0.8 0. 36 1153 0.0 0.00 1154 0.0 0.00 1155 0.0 0.00 1156 0.0 0.00 1157 0.0 0.00 1158 0.0 0.00 1159 0.0 0.00 1160 0.0 0.00 1161 0.0 0.00 1162 0.0 0.00 1163 0.0 0.00 1164 0.0 0.00 1165 0.0 0.00 1166 0.0 0.00 1167 0.0 0.00 1168 0.0 0.00 1169 2.1 0.9 4 1170 5.4 2.41 1171 8.7 3.89 1172 12.0 5.36 1173 15.3 6.84 1174 18.6 8.31 1175 21.1 9.43 1176 23.0 10.28 1177 23.5 10.51 1178 23.0 10.28 1179 22.5 10.06 1180 20.0 8.94 1181 16.7 7.47 1182 13.4 5.99 1183 10.1 4.52 1184 6.8 3.04 1185 3.5 1.5 6 1186 0.2 0.09 1187 0.0 0.00 1188 0.0 0.00 1189 0.0 0.00 1190 0.0 0.00 1191 0.0 0.00 1192 0.0 0.00 1193 0.0 0.00 1194 0.0 0.00 1195 0.0 0.00 1196 0.0 0.00 1197 0.2 0.09 1198 1.5 0.67 1199 3.5 1.56 1200 6.5 2.91 1201 9.8 4.38 1202 12.0 5.3 6 1203 12.9 5.77 1204 13.0 5.81 1205 12.6 5.63 1206 12.8 5.72 1207 13.1 5.86 1208 13.1 5.86 1209 14.0 6.26 1210 15.5 6.93 1211 17.0 7.60 1212 18.6 8.31 1213 19.7 8.81 1214 21.0 9.39 1215 21.5 9.61 1216 21.8 9.75 1217 21.8 9.75 1318 21.5 9.6 1 1219 21.2 9.48 1220 21.5 9.61 1221 21.8 9.75 1222 22.0 9.83 1223 21.9 9.79 1224 21.7 9.70 1225 21.5 9.61 1226 21.5 9.61 1227 21.4 9.57 1228 20.1 8.99 1229 19.5 8.72 1230 19.2 8.58 1231 19.6 8.76 1232 19.8 8.85 1233 20.0 8.94 1234 19.5 8.7 2 1235 17.5 7.82 1236 15.5 6.93 1237 13.0 5.81 1238 10.0 4.47 1239 8.0 3.58 1240 6.0 2.68 1241 4.0 1.79 1242 2.5 1.12 1243 0.7 0.31 1244 0.0 0.00 1245 0.0 0.00 1246 0.0 0.00 1247 0.0 0.00 1248 0.0 0.00 1249 0.0 0.00 1250 0.0 0.00 1251 0.0 0.00 1252 1.0 0.45 1253 1.0 0.45 1254 1.0 0.45 1255 1.0 0.45 1256 1.0 0.45 1257 1.6 0.72 1258 3.0 1.34 1259 4.0 1.79 1260 5.0 2.24 1261 6.3 2.82 1262 8.0 3.58 1263 10.0 4.47 1264 10.5 4.69 1265 9.5 4.25 1266 8.5 3.80 1267 7.6 3.40 1268 8.8 3.93 1269 11.0 4.92 1270 14.0 6.26 1271 17.0 7.60 1272 19.5 8.72 1273 21.0 9.39***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 681 of 842 1274 21.8 9.75 1275 22.2 9.92 1276 23.0 10.28 1277 23.6 10.55 1278 24.1 10.77 1279 24.5 10.95 1280 24.5 10.95 1281 24.0 10.73 1282 23.5 10.51 1283 23.5 10.51 1 284 23.5 10.51 1285 23.5 10.51 1286 23.5 10.51 1287 23.5 10.51 1288 24.0 10.73 1289 24.1 10.77 1290 24.5 10.95 1291 24.7 11.04 1292 25.0 11.18 1293 25.4 11.35 1294 25.6 11.44 1295 25.7 11.49 1296 26.0 11.62 1297 26.2 11.71 1298 27.0 12.07 12 99 27.8 12.43 1300 28.3 12.65 1301 29.0 12.96 1302 29.1 13.01 1303 29.0 12.96 1304 28.0 12.52 1305 24.7 11.04 1306 21.4 9.57 1307 18.1 8.09 1308 14.8 6.62 1309 11.5 5.14 1310 8.2 3.67 1311 4.9 2.19 1312 1.6 0.72 1313 0.0 0.00 1314 0.0 0.00 1315 0.0 0.00 1316 0.0 0.00 1317 0.0 0.00 1318 0.0 0.00 1319 0.0 0.00 1320 0.0 0.00 1321 0.0 0.00 1322 0.0 0.00 1323 0.0 0.00 1324 0.0 0.00 1325 0.0 0.00 1326 0.0 0.00 1327 0.0 0.00 1328 0.0 0.00 1329 0.0 0.00 1330 0.0 0.00 1331 0.0 0.00 1 332 0.0 0.00 1333 0.0 0.00 1334 0.0 0.00 1335 0.0 0.00 1336 0.0 0.00 1337 0.0 0.00 1338 1.5 0.67 1339 4.8 2.15 1340 8.1 3.62 1341 11.4 5.10 1342 13.2 5.90 1343 15.1 6.75 1344 16.8 7.51 1345 18.3 8.18 1346 19.5 8.72 1347 20.3 9.07 1348 21.3 9.52 1349 21.9 9.79 1350 22.1 9.88 1351 22.4 10.01 1352 22.0 9.83 1353 21.6 9.66 1354 21.1 9.43 1355 20.5 9.16 1356 20.0 8.94 1357 19.6 8.76 1358 18.5 8.27 1359 17.5 7.82 1360 16.5 7.38 1361 15.5 6.93 1362 14.0 6.26 1363 11.0 4.92 1364 8.0 3.58 1365 5.2 2.32 1366 2.5 1.12 1367 0.0 0.00 1368 0.0 0.00 1369 0.0 0.00 1370 0.0 0.00 1371 0.0 0.00 1372 0.0 0.00 (b) EPA driving schedule for motorcycles with engine displacement below 170 cc . Use the driving schedule specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this appendix, except that the schedule specified in this paragraph (b) applies for the portion of the driving schedule from 164 to 332 seconds. Time (sec.) Speed

(kph) Speed

(m/s) 164 3.4 0.94 165 6.8 1.89 166 10.3 2.86 167 13.7 3.81 168 1 7.1 4.75 169 20.5 5.69 170 23 6.39 171 25.2 7.00 172 26.7 7.42 173 27.4 7.61 174 26.6 7.39 175 26 7.22 176 25.6 7.11 177 25.9 7.19 178 26.1 7.25 179 26.3 7.31 180 26.7 7.42 181 28.2 7.83 182 27.5 7.64 183 24.9 6.92 184 23.5 6.53 185 20.1 5 .58 186 18.3 5.08 187 17.8 4.94 188 18.8 5.22 189 19.3 5.36 190 20.7 5.75 191 23 6.39 192 25.4 7.06 193 28.3 7.86 194 31.6 8.78 195 34.7 9.64 196 37.5 10.42 197 38.6 10.72 198 40.7 11.31 199 42 11.67 200 43.6 12.11 201 45.1 12.53***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 682 of 842 202 46.7 12.97 203 47.7 13.25 204 48.5 13.47 205 49.2 13.67 206 49.2 13.67 207 49 13.61 208 48.9 13.58 209 48.7 13.53 210 48.7 13.53 211 48.7 13.53 212 48.7 13.53 213 48.7 13.53 214 48.9 13.58 215 49.1 13.64 216 49.6 13.78 217 50.2 13.94 218 50.9 14 .14 219 51.3 14.25 220 51.8 14.39 221 52.4 14.56 222 52.8 14.67 223 53.4 14.83 224 54.1 15.03 225 55.1 15.31 226 56 15.56 227 56.6 15.72 228 56.9 15.81 229 57 15.83 230 56.9 15.81 231 56.6 15.72 232 56.6 15.72 233 56.8 15.78 234 57.1 15.86 235 57.5 15.97 236 57.7 16.03 237 58.1 16.14 238 58.3 16.19 239 58.6 16.28 240 58.7 16.31 241 58.7 16.31 242 58.5 16.25 243 58.5 16.25 244 58.5 16.25 245 58.5 16.25 246 58.5 16.25 247 58.5 16.25 248 58.4 16.22 249 58.1 16.14 250 57.8 16.06 251 57.1 15.86 252 56.6 15.72 253 56.2 15.61 254 55.9 15.53 255 55.6 15.44 256 55.5 15.42 257 55.8 15.50 258 55.9 15.53 259 56 15.56 260 56 15.56 261 55.7 15.47 262 55.3 15.36 263 54.9 15.25 264 54.5 15.14 265 54 15.00 266 54.3 15.08 267 5 3.9 14.97 268 53.8 14.94 269 53.6 14.89 270 53.4 14.83 271 53.5 14.86 272 53.7 14.92 273 54 15.00 274 54.4 15.11 275 54.9 15.25 276 55.4 15.39 277 55.9 15.53 278 56.9 15.81 279 57.4 15.94 280 57.6 16.00 281 58 16.11 282 58 16.11 283 57.8 16 .06 284 57.2 15.89 285 56.5 15.69 286 55.5 15.42 287 54.4 15.11 288 53.4 14.83 289 53.4 14.83 290 53.4 14.83 291 52.9 14.69 292 51.9 14.42 293 51.8 14.39 294 51.9 14.42 295 51.8 14.39 296 51.4 14.28 297 51.3 14.25 298 51.3 14.25 299 51.3 14 .25 300 50.9 14.14 301 50.3 13.97 302 49.8 13.83 303 48.9 13.58 304 47.8 13.28 305 46.6 12.94 306 45.4 12.61 307 44.1 12.25 308 43 11.94 309 41.8 11.61 310 39.9 11.08 311 38.3 10.64 312 36.5 10.14 313 35 9.72 314 33.7 9.36 315 32.6 9.06 31 6 31.7 8.81 317 31.6 8.78 318 31.1 8.64 319 30 8.33 320 28.5 7.92 321 25.7 7.14 322 22.3 6.19 323 20.8 5.78 324 19.8 5.50 325 19.2 5.33 326 17.6 4.89 327 16.1 4.47 328 12.9 3.58 329 11.2 3.11 330 8.3 2.31 331 4.9 1.36 332 1.5 0.42 (c) EP A driving schedule for class 3 heavy
- dut y vehicles . This driving schedule is also known as the LA
- 92 cycle. Time (sec.) Speed (mph) Speed

(m/s) 1 0.0 0.00

2 0.0 0.00 3 0.0 0.00 4 0.0 0.00 5 0.0 0.00 6 0.0 0.00***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 683 of 842 7 0.0 0.00 8 0.0 0.00 9 0.0 0.00 1 0 0.0 0.00 11 0.0 0.00 12 0.0 0.00 13 0.0 0.00 14 0.0 0.00 15 0.0 0.00 16 0.0 0.00 17 0.0 0.00 18 0.0 0.00 19 0.0 0.00 20 0.0 0.00 21 1.2 0.54 22 4.2 1.88 23 7.3 3.26 24 8.8 3.93 25 10.8 4.83 26 12.3 5.50 27 13.1 5.86 28 12.3 5.50 29 12. 3 5.50 30 11.5 5.14 31 11.5 5.14 32 11.1 4.96 33 11.1 4.96 34 11.1 4.96 35 13.1 5.86 36 15.0 6.71 37 16.9 7.55 38 16.9 7.55 39 16.1 7.20 40 15.7 7.02 41 15.4 6.88 42 15.0 6.71 43 13.8 6.17 44 10.8 4.83 45 8.4 3.76 46 6.1 2.73 47 4.2 1.88 48 3.5 1.56 49 3.5 1.56 50 1.5 0.67 51 0.0 0.00 52 0.0 0.00 53 0.0 0.00 54 0.0 0.00 55 0.0 0.00 56 0.0 0.00 57 0.0 0.00 58 0.0 0.00 59 0.0 0.00 60 0.0 0.00 61 0.0 0.00 62 0.0 0.00 63 1.2 0.54 64 3.5 1.56 65 7.7 3.44 66 11.1 4.96 67 13.8 6.17 68 16.5 7.38 69 18.4 8.23 70 20.4 9.12 71 20.7 9.25 72 19.6 8.76 73 17.3 7.73 74 12.3 5.50 75 8.1 3.62 76 6.1 2.73 77 9.6 4.29 78 12.7 5.68 79 15.7 7.02 80 18.0 8.05 81 20.4 9.12 82 21.9 9.79 83 23.4 10.46 84 23.8 10.64 85 24.6 11.0 0 86 25.0 11.18 87 26.1 11.67 88 26.1 11.67 89 26.9 12.03 90 26.9 12.03 91 26.9 12.03 92 26.5 11.85 93 25.7 11.49 94 21.9 9.79 95 16.5 7.38 96 10.0 4.47 97 4.6 2.06 98 1.5 0.67 99 0.4 0.18 100 0.0 0.00 101 0.0 0.00 102 0.0 0.00 103 0.0 0. 00 104 0.0 0.00 105 0.0 0.00 106 0.0 0.00 107 0.0 0.00 108 0.4 0.18 109 1.2 0.54 110 1.9 0.85 111 3.8 1.70 112 7.7 3.44 113 11.5 5.14 114 14.6 6.53 115 18.0 8.05 116 21.5 9.61 117 25.0 11.18 118 28.4 12.70 119 30.7 13.72 120 31.9 14.26 12 1 32.3 14.44 122 32.3 14.44 123 31.9 14.26 124 30.3 13.55 125 28.0 12.52 126 24.2 10.82 127 20.0 8.94 128 16.1 7.20 129 11.5 5.14 130 8.1 3.62 131 5.0 2.24 132 3.5 1.56 133 1.9 0.85 134 0.0 0.00 135 0.0 0.00 136 0.0 0.00 137 0.0 0.00 138 0 .0 0.00 139 0.0 0.00 140 0.0 0.00 141 0.0 0.00 142 0.0 0.00 143 1.5 0.67 144 6.9 3.08 145 12.7 5.68 146 16.5 7.38 147 20.0 8.94 148 23.0 10.28 149 25.7 11.49 150 28.0 12.52 151 30.7 13.72 152 32.6 14.57 153 34.2 15.29 154 35.3 15.78 155 36 .9 16.50 156 36.9 16.50 157 37.2 16.63 158 37.6 16.81***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 684 of 842 159 37.6 16.81 160 37.6 16.81 161 37.2 16.63 162 37.2 16.63 163 36.9 16.50 164 36.5 16.32 165 36.5 16.32 166 34.9 15.60 167 33.4 14.93 168 31.9 14.26 169 29.2 13.05 170 25.0 11.18 171 25 .0 11.18 172 26.1 11.67 173 27.6 12.34 174 29.2 13.05 175 31.1 13.90 176 32.3 14.44 177 34.2 15.29 178 34.9 15.60 179 35.7 15.96 180 36.5 16.32 181 36.9 16.50 182 36.9 16.50 183 37.2 16.63 184 37.6 16.81 185 37.2 16.63 186 37.6 16.81 187 38 .0 16.99 188 38.4 17.17 189 39.2 17.52 190 39.6 17.70 191 39.9 17.84 192 40.7 18.19 193 40.3 18.02 194 41.1 18.37 195 41.1 18.37 196 40.7 18.19 197 31.9 14.26 198 23.9 10.68 199 15.9 7.11 200 7.9 3.53 201 2.7 1.21 202 0.4 0.18 203 0.4 0.18 204 2.7 1.21 205 3.8 1.70 206 3.8 1.70 207 1.5 0.67 208 0.0 0.00 209 0.0 0.00 210 0.0 0.00 211 0.0 0.00 212 0.0 0.00 213 0.0 0.00 214 0.0 0.00 215 0.0 0.00 216 0.0 0.00 217 0.0 0.00 218 0.0 0.00 219 0.0 0.00 220 0.0 0.00 221 0.0 0.00 222 0.0 0.00 223 0.0 0.00 224 0.0 0.00 225 0.0 0.00 226 0.0 0.00 227 0.0 0.00 228 0.0 0.00 229 0.0 0.00 230 0.0 0.00 231 0.0 0.00 232 0.0 0.00 233 0.0 0.00 234 0.0 0.00 235 0.0 0.00 236 0.0 0.00 237 0.0 0.00 238 1.5 0.67 239 5.0 2.24 240 8.8 3.93 241 11.5 5.14 242 14.2 6.35 243 15.4 6.88 244 16.1 7.20 245 16.1 7.20 246 16.9 7.55 247 16.5 7.38 248 16.9 7.55 249 18.0 8.05 250 19.2 8.58 251 20.4 9.12 252 20.4 9.12 253 21.1 9.43 254 21.1 9.43 255 22.3 9.97 256 23.0 10.28 257 23.8 10.64 258 24.2 10.82 259 24.6 11.00 260 25.0 11.18 261 25.7 11.49 262 25.7 11.49 263 26.5 11.85 264 27.6 12.34 265 28.4 12.70 266 29.2 13.05 267 30.3 13.55 268 31.1 13.90 269 31.1 13.90 270 30.7 13.72 271 31.1 13.90 272 29.6 13.23 273 29.2 13.05 274 29.2 13.05 275 28.8 12.87 276 28.0 12.52 277 23.0 10.28 278 21.1 9.43 279 21.5 9.61 280 20.7 9.25 281 20.7 9.25 282 19.6 8.76 283 16.5 7.38 284 13.1 5.86 285 9.6 4.29 286 7.3 3.26 287 3.8 1.70 288 0.8 0.36 289 0.0 0.00 290 0.0 0 .00 291 0.0 0.00 292 0.0 0.00 293 0.0 0.00 294 0.0 0.00 295 0.0 0.00 296 0.0 0.00 297 0.0 0.00 298 0.0 0.00 299 0.0 0.00 300 0.0 0.00 301 0.0 0.00 302 0.0 0.00 303 0.0 0.00 304 0.0 0.00 305 0.0 0.00 306 0.0 0.00 307 0.0 0.00 308 0.0 0.00 309 0.0 0.00 310 0.0 0.00***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 685 of 842 311 0.0 0.00 312 0.0 0.00 313 0.4 0.18 314 2.7 1.21 315 7.3 3.26 316 11.5 5.14 317 15.4 6.88 318 18.4 8.23 319 20.7 9.25 320 24.2 10.82 321 26.9 12.03 322 29.6 13.23 323 31.1 13.90 324 32.6 14.57 325 33.8 15.11 3 26 34.9 15.60 327 36.9 16.50 328 39.2 17.52 329 41.1 18.37 330 43.0 19.22 331 43.8 19.58 332 44.5 19.89 333 45.3 20.25 334 45.3 20.25 335 44.9 20.07 336 44.5 19.89 337 43.8 19.58 338 43.4 19.40 339 42.6 19.04 340 41.9 18.73 341 41.5 18.55 3 42 40.7 18.19 343 40.3 18.02 344 41.1 18.37 345 41.5 18.55 346 42.6 19.04 347 43.4 19.40 348 44.2 19.76 349 44.9 20.07 350 45.7 20.43 351 46.5 20.79 352 46.8 20.92 353 47.2 21.10 354 48.0 21.46 355 47.6 21.28 356 48.4 21.64 357 48.0 21.46 3 58 47.2 21.10 359 46.1 20.61 360 45.7 20.43 361 44.9 20.07 362 44.2 19.76 363 43.8 19.58 364 44.5 19.89 365 44.9 20.07 366 45.3 20.25 367 46.5 20.79 368 48.0 21.46 369 48.8 21.82 370 49.5 22.13 371 49.9 22.31 372 49.9 22.31 373 49.9 22.31 3 74 49.5 22.13 375 49.5 22.13 376 48.8 21.82 377 48.8 21.82 378 48.8 21.82 379 48.4 21.64 380 48.8 21.82 381 49.5 22.13 382 50.3 22.49 383 50.7 22.66 384 51.8 23.16 385 52.6 23.51 386 53.4 23.87 387 54.1 24.18 388 55.3 24.72 389 55.3 24.72 3 90 56.1 25.08 391 56.4 25.21 392 56.4 25.21 393 56.4 25.21 394 57.2 25.57 395 56.8 25.39 396 57.6 25.75 397 57.6 25.75 398 57.6 25.75 399 58.0 25.93 400 58.0 25.93 401 58.4 26.11 402 58.4 26.11 403 58.8 26.29 404 59.1 26.42 405 58.8 26.29 4 06 58.8 26.29 407 58.0 25.93 408 58.0 25.93 409 57.6 25.75 410 57.6 25.75 411 57.6 25.75 412 57.6 25.75 413 57.6 25.75 414 59.1 26.42 415 59.5 26.60 416 59.9 26.78 417 60.3 26.96 418 60.3 26.96 419 61.1 27.31 420 60.3 26.96 421 59.9 26.78 4 22 59.5 26.60 423 59.1 26.42 424 59.1 26.42 425 59.5 26.60 426 59.5 26.60 427 59.5 26.60 428 59.9 26.78 429 60.3 26.96 430 60.7 27.14 431 60.7 27.14 432 61.4 27.45 433 61.8 27.63 434 61.8 27.63 435 61.8 27.63 436 61.8 27.63 437 61.1 27.31 4 38 60.7 27.14 439 60.3 26.96 440 60.3 26.96 441 60.3 26.96 442 59.5 26.60 443 58.8 26.29 444 59.1 26.42 445 58.8 26.29 446 58.8 26.29 447 58.8 26.29 448 58.4 26.11 449 58.0 25.93 450 58.0 25.93 451 58.0 25.93 452 58.4 26.11 453 59.1 26.42 4 54 59.5 26.60 455 59.9 26.78 456 59.9 26.78 457 60.3 26.96 458 61.1 27.31 459 61.1 27.31 460 61.1 27.31 461 61.4 27.45 462 61.4 27.45***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 686 of 842 463 61.1 27.31 464 60.7 27.14 465 59.9 26.78 466 59.1 26.42 467 59.1 26.42 468 59.1 26.42 469 59.9 26.78 4 70 59.5 26.60 471 59.9 26.78 472 58.8 26.29 473 58.0 25.93 474 57.6 25.75 475 56.8 25.39 476 56.1 25.08 477 55.3 24.72 478 54.1 24.18 479 52.6 23.51 480 49.2 21.99 481 46.1 20.61 482 43.0 19.22 483 37.2 16.63 484 29.6 13.23 485 21.5 9.61 48 6 16.5 7.38 487 15.7 7.02 488 18.4 8.23 489 21.5 9.61 490 25.0 11.18 491 27.3 12.20 492 29.2 13.05 493 30.7 13.72 494 31.5 14.08 495 31.1 13.90 496 31.1 13.90 497 30.3 13.55 498 30.0 13.41 499 30.0 13.41 500 29.6 13.23 501 30.0 13.41 502 28 .8 12.87 503 28.8 12.87 504 28.0 12.52 505 28.4 12.70 506 28.0 12.52 507 28.4 12.70 508 28.4 12.70 509 28.8 12.87 510 28.4 12.70 511 28.4 12.70 512 28.0 12.52 513 26.5 11.85 514 24.2 10.82 515 22.7 10.15 516 20.4 9.12 517 17.7 7.91 518 15.7 7.02 519 13.1 5.86 520 10.8 4.83 521 8.4 3.76 522 7.3 3.26 523 5.0 2.24 524 3.8 1.70 525 3.5 1.56 526 1.9 0.85 527 0.8 0.36 528 0.0 0.00 529 0.0 0.00 530 0.0 0.00 531 0.8 0.36 532 1.9 0.85 533 3.8 1.70 534 6.9 3.08 535 9.6 4.29 536 11.1 4.96 537 11.1 4.96 538 10.4 4.65 539 8.8 3.93 540 9.2 4.11 541 10.0 4.47 542 10.4 4.65 543 10.4 4.65 544 5.4 2.41 545 1.9 0.85 546 0.0 0.00 547 0.0 0.00 548 0.0 0.00 549 0.0 0.00 550 0.0 0.00 551 0.0 0.00 552 0.0 0.00 553 0.0 0.00 554 0.0 0.00 555 0.0 0.00 556 0.0 0.00 557 0.0 0.00 558 0.0 0.00 559 0.0 0.00 560 0.0 0.00 561 0.0 0.00 562 0.0 0.00 563 0.0 0.00 564 0.0 0.00 565 0.0 0.00 566 0.0 0.00 567 0.0 0.00 568 0.0 0.00 569 0.0 0.00 570 0.0 0.00 571 0.0 0.00 572 0.4 0.1 8 573 1.5 0.67 574 3.5 1.56 575 6.1 2.73 576 10.4 4.65 577 14.2 6.35 578 16.9 7.55 579 19.2 8.58 580 20.0 8.94 581 21.5 9.61 582 23.4 10.46 583 24.6 11.00 584 24.2 10.82 585 20.0 8.94 586 16.9 7.55 587 13.4 5.99 588 13.4 5.99 589 15.7 7.02 590 18.4 8.23 591 21.1 9.43 592 23.4 10.46 593 25.3 11.31 594 27.6 12.34 595 28.8 12.87 596 30.3 13.55 597 30.7 13.72 598 31.5 14.08 599 31.1 13.90 600 31.1 13.90 601 30.3 13.55 602 30.3 13.55 603 30.3 13.55 604 30.7 13.72 605 31.1 13.90 606 32.3 14.44 607 32.6 14.57 608 32.6 14.57 609 32.6 14.57 610 31.1 13.90 611 26.9 12.03 612 22.3 9.97 613 18.0 8.05 614 13.8 6.17***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 687 of 842 615 9.6 4.29 616 4.6 2.06 617 6.1 2.73 618 10.0 4.47 619 14.2 6.35 620 17.3 7.73 621 20.0 8.94 622 21.5 9.61 623 22.3 9.97 624 22.3 9.97 625 22.3 9.97 626 22.3 9.97 627 23.0 10.28 628 23.0 10.28 629 22.7 10.15 630 22.3 9.97 631 21.9 9.79 632 22.7 10.15 633 23.8 10.64 634 25.0 11.18 635 25.3 11.31 636 25.7 11.49 637 26.5 11.85 638 26.9 12.03 639 27.3 12.20 640 28.0 12.52 641 29.2 13.05 642 30.0 13.41 643 30.0 13.41 644 29.6 13.23 645 29.6 13.23 646 28.8 12.87 647 28.4 12.70 648 28.0 12.52 649 27.3 12.20 650 25.7 11.49 651 24.6 11.00 652 25.0 11.18 653 26.5 11.85 654 28.0 12.52 655 29.6 13.23 656 30.7 13.72 657 32.3 14.44 658 33.0 14.75 659 34.2 15.29 660 34.6 15.47 661 35.3 15.78 662 36.1 16.14 663 36.1 16.14 664 36.9 16.50 665 36.9 16.50 666 37.6 16.81 667 37.6 16.81 668 38.4 17.17 669 38.0 16.99 670 37.6 16.81 671 37.6 16.81 672 37.2 16.63 673 36.9 16.50 674 36.1 16.14 675 35.7 15.96 676 36.1 16.14 677 35.7 15.96 678 35.7 15.96 679 35.7 15.96 680 36.1 16.14 681 36.1 16.14 682 35.7 15.96 683 35.7 15.96 684 34.9 15.60 685 34.6 15.47 686 34.2 15.29 687 33.8 15.11 688 33.4 14.93 689 33.0 14.75 690 30.3 13.55 691 29.2 13.05 692 28.4 12.70 693 25.0 11.18 694 21.1 9.43 695 16.9 7.55 696 13.4 5.99 697 13.1 5.86 698 12.3 5.50 699 12.7 5.68 700 15.7 7.02 701 19.2 8.58 702 22.3 9.97 703 24.6 11.0 0 704 25.7 11.49 705 26.5 11.85 706 26.5 11.85 707 26.9 12.03 708 27.3 12.20 709 27.3 12.20 710 27.6 12.34 711 28.4 12.70 712 28.8 12.87 713 28.8 12.87 714 29.2 13.05 715 28.8 12.87 716 28.8 12.87 717 28.0 12.52 718 28.0 12.52 719 27.6 12.3 4 720 26.5 11.85 721 24.6 11.00 722 20.7 9.25 723 16.5 7.38 724 15.0 6.71 725 14.2 6.35 726 14.2 6.35 727 13.8 6.17 728 13.8 6.17 729 11.9 5.32 730 8.4 3.76 731 4.2 1.88 732 1.2 0.54 733 0.0 0.00 734 0.0 0.00 735 0.0 0.00 736 0.0 0.00 737 0.0 0.00 738 0.0 0.00 739 0.0 0.00 740 0.0 0.00 741 0.0 0.00 742 0.0 0.00 743 0.0 0.00 744 0.0 0.00 745 0.0 0.00 746 0.0 0.00 747 0.0 0.00 748 0.0 0.00 749 0.0 0.00 750 0.0 0.00 751 0.0 0.00 752 0.0 0.00 753 0.0 0.00 754 0.0 0.00 755 0.0 0.00 756 0.0 0.00 757 0.0 0.00 758 0.0 0.00 759 0.0 0.00 760 0.0 0.00 761 0.0 0.00 762 0.0 0.00 763 1.5 0.67 764 5.4 2.41 765 9.2 4.11 766 11.5 5.14***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 688 of 842 767 14.6 6.53 768 17.3 7.73 769 19.2 8.58 770 21.1 9.43 771 20.7 9.25 772 20.7 9.25 773 19.6 8.76 774 18.4 8.23 775 16.9 7.55 776 16.9 7.55 777 16.5 7.38 778 16.9 7.55 779 16.9 7.55 780 16.9 7.55 781 17.3 7.73 782 19.2 8.58 783 20.4 9.12 784 21.1 9.43 785 22.3 9.97 786 22.3 9.97 787 22.7 10.15 788 22.3 9.97 789 22.7 10.15 790 22.3 9.97 791 23.8 10.64 792 25.7 11.49 793 27.6 12.34 794 29.6 13.23 795 30.0 13.41 796 29.2 13.05 797 27.6 12.34 798 25.0 11.18 799 23.8 10.64 800 23.4 10.46 801 24.2 10.82 802 23.4 10.46 803 23.0 10.28 804 20.4 9.12 805 18.8 8.40 806 17 .3 7.73 807 15.0 6.71 808 13.1 5.86 809 9.2 4.11 810 6.9 3.08 811 4.6 2.06 812 4.6 2.06 813 4.6 2.06 814 4.2 1.88 815 5.4 2.41 816 4.6 2.06 817 3.5 1.56 818 2.3 1.03 819 2.3 1.03 820 1.9 0.85 821 3.1 1.39 822 6.1 2.73 823 4.6 2.06 824 2.7 1.21 825 2.3 1.03 826 2.3 1.03 827 3.1 1.39 828 4.2 1.88 829 3.5 1.56 830 3.8 1.70 831 4.2 1.88 832 3.5 1.56 833 3.5 1.56 834 3.5 1.56 835 4.6 2.06 836 5.8 2.59 837 3.5 1.56 838 0.8 0.36 839 3.5 1.56 840 3.8 1.70 841 2.3 1.03 842 0.0 0.0 0 843 1.2 0.54 844 6.9 3.08 845 13.8 6.17 846 18.8 8.40 847 23.8 10.64 848 27.3 12.20 849 30.7 13.72 850 33.8 15.11 851 37.6 16.81 852 40.7 18.19 853 43.8 19.58 854 46.1 20.61 855 48.0 21.46 856 49.5 22.13 857 51.5 23.02 858 53.0 23.69 859 54.5 24.36 860 55.7 24.90 861 56.8 25.39 862 58.0 25.93 863 59.1 26.42 864 60.3 26.96 865 61.1 27.31 866 61.8 27.63 867 61.8 27.63 868 61.8 27.63 869 61.8 27.63 870 62.6 27.98 871 63.4 28.34 872 63.0 28.16 873 63.0 28.16 874 62.6 27.98 875 61.8 27.63 876 61.8 27.63 877 62.2 27.81 878 62.2 27.81 879 62.6 27.98 880 63.7 28.48 881 64.5 28.83 882 64.9 29.01 883 66.0 29.50 884 66.0 29.50 885 66.8 29.86 886 66.4 29.68 887 66.8 29.86 888 67.2 30.04 889 66.4 29.68 890 66.4 29.68 891 66.0 29.50 892 65.7 29.37 893 65.7 29.37 894 66.4 29.68 895 66.0 29.50 896 65.7 29.37 897 65.3 29.19 898 65.3 29.19 899 64.5 28.83 900 64.5 28.83 901 64.1 28.66 902 63.7 28.48 903 63.7 28.48 904 63.7 28.48 905 64.5 28.83 906 64.5 28.83 907 64.9 29.01 908 64.5 28.83 909 64.1 28.66 910 64.9 29.01 911 65.3 29.19 912 65.3 29.19 913 65.3 29.19 914 64.1 28.66 915 63.4 28.34 916 63.0 28.16 917 63.4 28.34 918 64.1 28.66***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 689 of 842 919 64.9 29.01 920 65.3 29.19 921 64.5 28.83 922 64.1 28.66 923 63.4 28.34 924 63.7 28.48 925 63.4 28.34 926 63.4 28.34 927 63.4 28.34 928 63.4 28.34 929 63.7 28.48 930 64.5 28.83 931 65.3 29.19 932 64.9 29.01 933 63.7 28.48 934 63.0 28.16 935 59.9 26.78 936 55.3 24.72 937 50.7 22.66 938 49.2 21.99 939 48.0 21.46 940 46.1 20.61 941 44.2 19.76 942 41.1 18.37 943 39.9 17.84 944 36.1 16.14 945 32.6 14.57 946 29.2 13.05 947 24.6 11.00 948 20.7 9.25 949 19.2 8.58 950 16.5 7.38 951 15.0 6.71 952 11.9 5.32 953 9.6 4.29 954 8.4 3.76 955 5.8 2.59 956 1.2 0.54 957 0.0 0.00 958 0.0 0.00 959 0.0 0.00 960 1.2 0.54 961 3.1 1.39 962 5.0 2.24 963 8.4 3.76 964 11.5 5.14 965 14.6 6.53 966 16.9 7.55 967 18.8 8.40 968 21.1 9.43 969 23.8 10.64 970 26.5 11.85 971 28.0 12.52 972 29.6 13.23 973 30.7 13.72 974 32.6 14.57 975 34.2 15.29 976 35.3 15.78 977 36.1 16.14 978 36.9 16.50 979 38.0 16.99 980 38.0 16.99 981 38.0 16.99 982 38.0 16.99 983 38.0 16.99 984 37.2 16.63 985 36.9 16.50 986 36.1 16.14 987 35.7 15.96 988 34.9 15.60 989 34.9 15.60 990 33.8 15.11 991 31.5 14.08 992 28.8 12.87 993 25.7 11.49 994 24.6 11.00 995 23.4 10.46 996 22.3 9.97 997 21.5 9.61 998 20.0 8.94 999 20.0 8.94 1000 19.2 8.58 1001 19.2 8.58 1002 18.0 8.05 1003 11.9 5.32 1004 6.9 3.08 1005 2.7 1.21 1006 0.8 0.36 1007 0.4 0.18 1008 0.0 0.00 1009 0.0 0.00 1010 0.0 0.00 1011 0.0 0.00 1012 0.0 0.00 1013 0.0 0.00 1014 0.0 0.00 1015 0.0 0.00 1016 0.0 0.00 1017 0.0 0.00 1018 0.0 0.00 1019 0.0 0.00 1020 0.0 0.00 1021 0.0 0.00 1022 0.0 0.00 1023 0.4 0.18 1024 2.7 1.21 1025 6.1 2.73 1026 9.2 4.11 1027 11.5 5.14 1028 14.2 6.35 1029 16.1 7.20 1030 18.0 8.05 1031 20.0 8.94 1032 21.5 9.61 1033 23.0 10.28 1034 24.2 10.82 1035 25.0 11.18 1036 25.7 11.49 1037 26.9 12.03 1038 27.6 12.34 1039 27.6 12.34 1040 28.4 12.70 1041 29.2 13.05 1042 29.2 13.05 1043 30.0 13.41 1044 29.6 13.23 1045 29.6 13.23 1046 28.8 12.87 1047 28.0 12.52 1048 23.8 10.64 1049 18.8 8.40 1050 11.9 5.32 1051 6.1 2.73 1052 1.5 0.67 1053 1.5 0.67 1 054 4.2 1.88 1055 8.1 3.62 1056 10.4 4.65 1057 13.1 5.86 1058 15.4 6.88 1059 18.0 8.05 1060 20.4 9.12 1061 23.0 10.28 1062 25.3 11.31 1063 27.3 12.20 1064 28.8 12.87 1065 30.3 13.55 1066 31.1 13.90 1067 32.3 14.44 1068 31.9 14.26 1069 32.3 1 4.44 1070 31.9 14.26***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 690 of 842 1071 31.1 13.90 1072 28.8 12.87 1073 25.0 11.18 1074 22.7 10.15 1075 18.8 8.40 1076 15.4 6.88 1077 13.4 5.99 1078 11.9 5.32 1079 8.8 3.93 1080 5.0 2.24 1081 1.9 0.85 1082 2.3 1.03 1083 2.7 1.21 1084 3.5 1.56 1085 6.5 2. 91 1086 10.8 4.83 1087 13.8 6.17 1088 16.1 7.20 1089 18.4 8.23 1090 20.4 9.12 1091 21.9 9.79 1092 21.9 9.79 1093 20.7 9.25 1094 17.3 7.73 1095 13.1 5.86 1096 9.6 4.29 1097 8.8 3.93 1098 10.8 4.83 1099 12.7 5.68 1100 14.2 6.35 1101 14.6 6.53 1102 13.1 5.86 1103 11.1 4.96 1104 11.1 4.96 1105 11.1 4.96 1106 13.1 5.86 1107 15.7 7.02 1108 18.4 8.23 1109 20.7 9.25 1110 23.8 10.64 1111 25.7 11.49 1112 28.0 12.52 1113 30.0 13.41 1114 31.1 13.90 1115 32.3 14.44 1116 34.2 15.29 1117 35 .7 15.96 1118 36.9 16.50 1119 38.8 17.35 1120 40.3 18.02 1121 41.5 18.55 1122 42.2 18.87 1123 43.0 19.22 1124 43.8 19.58 1125 43.8 19.58 1126 43.4 19.40 1127 43.0 19.22 1128 42.2 18.87 1129 41.9 18.73 1130 41.5 18.55 1131 41.9 18.73 1132 41. 9 18.73 1133 41.9 18.73 1134 42.2 18.87 1135 42.6 19.04 1136 42.6 19.04 1137 42.6 19.04 1138 42.6 19.04 1139 42.6 19.04 1140 42.6 19.04 1141 42.6 19.04 1142 42.2 18.87 1143 43.0 19.22 1144 43.4 19.40 1145 43.0 19.22 1146 42.6 19.04 1147 41.9 18.73 1148 40.7 18.19 1149 36.9 16.50 1150 32.6 14.57 1151 28.0 12.52 1152 23.4 10.46 1153 18.4 8.23 1154 14.6 6.53 1155 12.3 5.50 1156 9.2 4.11 1157 5.8 2.59 1158 1.9 0.85 1159 0.4 0.18 1160 0.0 0.00 1161 0.0 0.00 1162 0.0 0.00 1163 0.0 0 .00 1164 0.0 0.00 1165 0.4 0.18 1166 4.2 1.88 1167 9.2 4.11 1168 11.9 5.32 1169 14.2 6.35 1170 15.7 7.02 1171 15.0 6.71 1172 14.2 6.35 1173 13.4 5.99 1174 13.8 6.17 1175 14.6 6.53 1176 14.6 6.53 1177 14.2 6.35 1178 16.1 7.20 1179 15.7 7.02 1180 15.7 7.02 1181 14.6 6.53 1182 13.1 5.86 1183 10.0 4.47 1184 7.3 3.26 1185 3.5 1.56 1186 0.8 0.36 1187 0.0 0.00 1188 0.0 0.00 1189 0.0 0.00 1190 0.0 0.00 1191 0.4 0.18 1192 2.7 1.21 1193 7.3 3.26 1194 11.5 5.14 1195 15.4 6.88 1196 19.2 8.58 1197 21.9 9.79 1198 23.8 10.64 1199 25.0 11.18 1200 26.1 11.67 1201 27.3 12.20 1202 28.8 12.87 1203 30.0 13.41 1204 29.6 13.23 1205 29.6 13.23 1206 28.8 12.87 1207 26.1 11.67 1208 22.3 9.97 1209 19.2 8.58 1210 16.5 7.38 1211 12.7 5.68 1212 9.6 4.29 1213 6.9 3.08 1214 4.2 1.88 1215 2.3 1.03 1216 0.8 0.36 1217 0.0 0.00 1218 0.0 0.00 1219 0.0 0.00 1220 0.0 0.00 1221 0.0 0.00 1222 0.0 0.00***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 691 of 842 1223 0.0 0.00 1224 0.0 0.00 1225 0.0 0.00 1226 0.0 0.00 1227 0.0 0.00 1228 0.0 0.00 1229 0.0 0.00 1230 0.0 0.00 1231 0.0 0.00 1232 0.0 0.00 1233 0.0 0.00 1234 0.0 0.00 1235 0.0 0.00 1236 0.0 0.00 1237 0.0 0.00 1238 0.0 0.00 1239 0.0 0.00 1240 3.5 1.56 1241 10.4 4.65 1242 15.4 6.88 1243 17.3 7.73 1244 17.3 7.73 1245 18.4 8. 23 1246 21.5 9.61 1247 24.6 11.00 1248 27.3 12.20 1249 30.0 13.41 1250 31.5 14.08 1251 31.9 14.26 1252 32.6 14.57 1253 33.4 14.93 1254 34.9 15.60 1255 36.5 16.32 1256 37.6 16.81 1257 39.2 17.52 1258 40.3 18.02 1259 40.7 18.19 1260 41.1 18.37 1261 40.7 18.19 1262 40.7 18.19 1263 40.7 18.19 1264 41.5 18.55 1265 42.6 19.04 1266 43.0 19.22 1267 44.5 19.89 1268 45.3 20.25 1269 45.3 20.25 1270 44.9 20.07 1271 43.4 19.40 1272 40.3 18.02 1273 38.0 16.99 1274 36.1 16.14 1275 36.5 16.32 1276 38.0 16.99 1277 39.2 17.52 1278 40.7 18.19 1279 42.2 18.87 1280 43.4 19.40 1281 44.9 20.07 1282 45.7 20.43 1283 46.1 20.61 1284 46.8 20.92 1285 46.5 20.79 1286 46.5 20.79 1287 46.5 20.79 1288 46.1 20.61 1289 46.1 20.61 1290 46.1 20.61 1291 46.8 20.92 1292 47.6 21.28 1293 48.0 21.46 1294 48.4 21.64 1295 48.0 21.46 1296 48.0 21.46 1297 47.2 21.10 1298 46.5 20.79 1299 46.8 20.92 1300 47.2 21.10 1301 48.4 21.64 1302 48.4 21.64 1303 48.8 21.82 1304 48.4 21.64 1305 47.6 21.28 1 306 46.5 20.79 1307 44.2 19.76 1308 42.2 18.87 1309 41.5 18.55 1310 41.1 18.37 1311 40.7 18.19 1312 40.3 18.02 1313 39.6 17.70 1314 39.2 17.52 1315 38.8 17.35 1316 38.0 16.99 1317 37.6 16.81 1318 37.2 16.63 1319 36.5 16.32 1320 34.6 15.47 13 21 31.5 14.08 1322 29.6 13.23 1323 29.2 13.05 1324 28.8 12.87 1325 28.8 12.87 1326 28.0 12.52 1327 28.0 12.52 1328 28.4 12.70 1329 29.6 13.23 1330 30.0 13.41 1331 30.3 13.55 1332 29.2 13.05 1333 26.5 11.85 1334 25.3 11.31 1335 25.0 11.18 133 6 24.6 11.00 1337 24.6 11.00 1338 25.3 11.31 1339 26.1 11.67 1340 27.3 12.20 1341 28.4 12.70 1342 29.2 13.05 1343 29.2 13.05 1344 29.6 13.23 1345 30.0 13.41 1346 31.1 13.90 1347 32.6 14.57 1348 33.8 15.11 1349 34.6 15.47 1350 34.9 15.60 1351 34.6 15.47 1352 34.9 15.60 1353 34.6 15.47 1354 34.9 15.60 1355 34.9 15.60 1356 34.9 15.60 1357 34.2 15.29 1358 33.8 15.11 1359 32.6 14.57 1360 31.5 14.08 1361 30.0 13.41 1362 28.8 12.87 1363 27.3 12.20 1364 23.8 10.64 1365 23.0 10.28 1366 23.0 10.28 1367 22.3 9.97 1368 20.4 9.12 1369 18.8 8.40 1370 17.7 7.91 1371 16.1 7.20 1372 14.6 6.53 1373 12.7 5.68 1374 11.1 4.96***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 692 of 842 1375 9.2 4.11 1376 8.8 3.93 1377 7.3 3.26 1378 6.1 2.73 1379 5.0 2.24 1380 4.2 1.88 1381 3.5 1.56 1382 2.7 1. 21 1383 2.3 1.03 1384 1.5 0.67 1385 1.2 0.54 1386 0.0 0.00 1387 1.2 0.54 1388 4.2 1.88 1389 7.3 3.26 1390 8.8 3.93 1391 10.8 4.83 1392 12.3 5.50 1393 13.1 5.86 1394 12.3 5.50 1395 12.3 5.50 1396 11.5 5.14 1397 11.5 5.14 1398 11.1 4.96 1399 11.1 4.96 1400 11.1 4.96 1401 13.1 5.86 1402 15.0 6.71 1403 16.9 7.55 1404 16.9 7.55 1405 16.1 7.20 1406 15.7 7.02 1407 15.4 6.88 1408 15.0 6.71 1409 13.8 6.17 1410 10.8 4.83 1411 8.4 3.76 1412 6.1 2.73 1413 4.2 1.88 1414 3.5 1.56 1415 3.5 1.56 1416 1.5 0.67 1417 0.0 0.00 1418 0.0 0.00 1419 0.0 0.00 1420 0.0 0.00 1421 0.0 0.00 1422 0.0 0.00 1423 0.0 0.00 1424 0.0 0.00 1425 0.0 0.00 1426 0.0 0.00 1427 0.0 0.00 1428 0.0 0.00 1429 0.0 0.00 1430 0.0 0.00 1431 0.0 0.00 1432 0.0 0.00 1433 0.0 0.00 1434 0.0 0.00 1435 0.0 0.00 1436 0.0 0.00 1437 0.0 0.00 1438 0.0 0.00 1439 0.0 0.00 1440 0.0 0.00 1441 0.0 0.00 1442 0.0 0.00 1443 0.0 0.00 1444 0.0 0.00 1445 0.0 0.00 1446 0.0 0.00 1447 0.0 0.00 1448 0.0 0.00 1449 0.0 0 .00 1450 0.0 0.00 1451 0.0 0.00 1452 0.0 0.00 1453 0.0 0.00 1454 0.0 0.00 1455 0.0 0.00 1456 1.2 0.54 1457 4.2 1.88 1458 7.3 3.26 1459 8.8 3.93 1460 10.8 4.83 1461 12.3 5.50 1462 13.1 5.86 1463 12.3 5.50 1464 12.3 5.50 1465 11.5 5.14 1466 11.5 5.14 1467 11.1 4.96 1468 11.1 4.96 1469 11.1 4.96 1470 13.1 5.86 1471 15.0 6.71 1472 16.9 7.55 1473 16.9 7.55 1474 16.1 7.20 1475 15.7 7.02 1476 15.4 6.88 1477 15.0 6.71 1478 13.8 6.17 1479 10.8 4.83 1480 8.4 3.76 1481 6.1 2.73 1482 4. 2 1.88 1483 3.5 1.56 1484 3.5 1.56 1485 1.5 0.67 1486 0.0 0.00 1487 0.0 0.00 1488 0.0 0.00 1489 0.0 0.00 1490 0.0 0.00 1491 0.0 0.00 1492 0.0 0.00 1493 0.0 0.00 1494 0.0 0.00 1495 0.0 0.00 1496 0.0 0.00 1497 0.0 0.00 1498 1.2 0.54 1499 3.5 1.56 1500 7.7 3.44 1501 11.1 4.96 1502 13.8 6.17 1503 16.5 7.38 1504 18.4 8.23 1505 20.4 9.12 1506 20.7 9.25 1507 19.6 8.76 1508 17.3 7.73 1509 12.3 5.50 1510 8.1 3.62 1511 6.1 2.73 1512 9.6 4.29 1513 12.7 5.68 1514 15.7 7.02 1515 18.0 8.0 5 1516 20.4 9.12 1517 21.9 9.79 1518 23.4 10.46 1519 23.8 10.64 1520 24.6 11.00 1521 25.0 11.18 1522 26.1 11.67 1523 26.1 11.67 1524 26.9 12.03 1525 26.9 12.03 1526 26.9 12.03***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 693 of 842 1527 26.5 11.85 1528 25.7 11.49 1529 21.9 9.79 1530 16.5 7.38 15 31 10.0 4.47 1532 4.6 2.06 1533 1.5 0.67 1534 0.4 0.18 1535 0.0 0.00 1536 0.0 0.00 1537 0.0 0.00 1538 0.0 0.00 1539 0.0 0.00 1540 0.0 0.00 1541 0.0 0.00 1542 0.0 0.00 1543 0.4 0.18 1544 1.2 0.54 1545 1.9 0.85 1546 3.8 1.70 1547 7.7 3.44 15 48 11.5 5.14 1549 14.6 6.53 1550 18.0 8.05 1551 21.5 9.61 1552 25.0 11.18 1553 28.4 12.70 1554 30.7 13.72 1555 31.9 14.26 1556 32.3 14.44 1557 32.3 14.44 1558 31.9 14.26 1559 30.3 13.55 1560 28.0 12.52 1561 24.2 10.82 1562 20.0 8.94 1563 16. 1 7.20 1564 11.5 5.14 1565 8.1 3.62 1566 5.0 2.24 1567 3.5 1.56 1568 1.9 0.85 1569 0.0 0.00 1570 0.0 0.00 1571 0.0 0.00 1572 0.0 0.00 1573 0.0 0.00 1574 0.0 0.00 1575 0.0 0.00 1576 0.0 0.00 1577 0.0 0.00 1578 1.5 0.67 1579 6.9 3.08 1580 12 .7 5.68 1581 16.5 7.38 1582 20.0 8.94 1583 23.0 10.28 1584 25.7 11.49 1585 28.0 12.52 1586 30.7 13.72 1587 32.6 14.57 1588 34.2 15.29 1589 35.3 15.78 1590 36.9 16.50 1591 36.9 16.50 1592 37.2 16.63 1593 37.6 16.81 1594 37.6 16.81 1595 37.6 1 6.81 1596 37.2 16.63 1597 37.2 16.63 1598 36.9 16.50 1599 36.5 16.32 1600 36.5 16.32 1601 34.9 15.60 1602 33.4 14.93 1603 31.9 14.26 1604 29.2 13.05 1605 25.0 11.18 1606 25.0 11.18 1607 26.1 11.67 1608 27.6 12.34 1609 29.2 13.05 1610 31.1 13 .90 1611 32.3 14.44 1612 34.2 15.29 1613 34.9 15.60 1614 35.7 15.96 1615 36.5 16.32 1616 36.9 16.50 1617 36.9 16.50 1618 37.2 16.63 1619 37.6 16.81 1620 37.2 16.63 1621 37.6 16.81 1622 38.0 16.99 1623 38.4 17.17 1624 39.2 17.52 1625 39.6 17. 70 1626 39.9 17.84 1627 40.7 18.19 1628 40.3 18.02 1629 41.1 18.37 1630 41.1 18.37 1631 40.7 18.19 1632 31.9 14.26 1633 23.9 10.68 1634 15.9 7.11 1635 7.9 3.53 1636 2.7 1.21 1637 0.4 0.18 1638 0.4 0.18 1639 2.7 1.21 1640 3.8 1.70 1641 3.8 1 .70 1642 1.5 0.67 1643 0.0 0.00 1644 0.0 0.00 1645 0.0 0.00 1646 0.0 0.00 1647 0.0 0.00 1648 0.0 0.00 1649 0.0 0.00 1650 0.0 0.00 1651 0.0 0.00 1652 0.0 0.00 1653 0.0 0.00 1654 0.0 0.00 1655 0.0 0.00 1656 0.0 0.00 1657 0.0 0.00 1658 0.0 0. 00 1659 0.0 0.00 1660 0.0 0.00 1661 0.0 0.00 1662 0.0 0.00 1663 0.0 0.00 1664 0.0 0.00 1665 0.0 0.00 1666 0.0 0.00 1667 0.0 0.00 1668 0.0 0.00 1669 0.0 0.00 1670 0.0 0.00 1671 0.0 0.00 1672 0.0 0.00 1673 1.5 0.67 1674 5.0 2.24 1675 8.8 3.9 3 1676 11.5 5.14 1677 14.2 6.35 1678 15.4 6.88***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Draft** 

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 694 of 842 1679 16.1 7.20 1680 16.1 7.20 1681 16.9 7.55 1682 16.5 7.38 1683 16.9 7.55 1684 18.0 8.05 1685 19.2 8.58 1686 20.4 9.12 1687 20.4 9.12 1688 21.1 9.43 1689 21.1 9.43 1690 22.3 9.97 1691 23.0 10. 28 1692 23.8 10.64 1693 24.2 10.82 1694 24.6 11.00 1695 25.0 11.18 1696 25.7 11.49 1697 25.7 11.49 1698 26.5 11.85 1699 27.6 12.34 1700 28.4 12.70 1701 29.2 13.05 1702 30.3 13.55 1703 31.1 13.90 1704 31.1 13.90 1705 30.7 13.72 1706 31.1 13.9 0 1707 29.6 13.23 1708 29.2 13.05 1709 29.2 13.05 1710 28.8 12.87 1711 28.0 12.52 1712 23.0 10.28 1713 21.1 9.43 1714 21.5 9.61 1715 20.7 9.25 1716 20.7 9.25 1717 19.6 8.76 1718 16.5 7.38 1719 13.1 5.86 1720 9.6 4.29 1721 7.3 3.26 1722 3.8 1.70 1723 0.8 0.36 1724 0.0 0.00 1725 0.0 0.00 1726 0.0 0.00 1727 0.0 0.00 1728 0.0 0.00 1729 0.0 0.00 1730 0.0 0.00 1731 0.0 0.00 1732 0.0 0.00 1733 0.0 0.00 1734 0.0 0.00 1735 0.0 0.00Page 695 of 842

(d) EPA driving schedule for testing heav y - dut y vehic les above 14,000 pounds GVWR . This driving schedule applies for testing vehicles subject to evaporative emission standards under subpart A of this part * * * * * **Appendix XIII to Part 86**
**— [Removed]**  28. Appendix XIII to Part 86 is removed. **Appendix XIV t o Part 86** 
**— [Removed]**  28. Appendix XIV to Part 86 is removed. **Appendix XV to Part 86**
**— [Removed]**  28. Appendix XV to Part 86 is removed. **Appendix XVI to Part 86**
**— [Removed]**  28. Appendix XVIto Part 86 is removed. **Appendix XVII to Part 86**
**— [Removed]**  28. Appen dix XVII to Part 86 is removed. **Appendix XVIII to Part 86**
**— [Removed]**  28. Appendix XVIII to Part 86 is removed.Page 696 of 842

**PART 600**
**— FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST EMISSIONS OF**  **MOTOR VEHICLES** 14. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as fol lows: Authority : 49 U.S.C. 32901

—23919q, Pub. L . 109

– 58. **Subpart A**
**— General Provisions**  16. The heading for subpart A is revised as set forth above.
28. Section 600.011 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§ 600.011 Incorporation by reference.**  * * * * * (b) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428
- 2959, ( 610) 832
- 9585, http://www.astm.org/
. (1) ASTM D975

– 11 Standard Specificat ion for Diesel Fuel Oils, approved March 1, 2011, IBR approved for § 600.107

– 08(b). (2) ASTM D 1298

– 99 (Reapproved 2005) Standard Practice for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravit y of Crude Petroleum and L iquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method, approved November 1, 2005, IBR approved for §§ 600.113

– 12(f) and (g) and 600.510
- 12(g). (3) ASTM D 1945

– 03 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas By Gas Chromatograph y, approved January 1, 2010, IBR approved for § 600.113
- 12(f). (4) ASTM D 3338/D 3338M

– 09 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels, approved April 15, 2009, IBR approved for § 600.113
- 12(f). (5) ASTM D 3343

– 05 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for Estim ation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels, approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for § 600.113
- 12(f). * * * * * **Subpart B**
**— [Amended]** Page 697 of 842

**§§ 600.113 -**  **08, 600.114 -**  **08, 600.116 -**  **08**
**— [Removed]**  116. Subpart B is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 600.113
- 0 8, 600.114
- 08, 600.116
- 08. **Subpart C**
**— [Amended]**  **§§ 600.206 -**  **08, 600.207 -**  **08, 600.208 -**  **08, 600.209 -**  **08, 600.210 -**  **08**
**— [Removed]**  117. Subpart C is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 600.206
- 08, 600.207
- 08, 600.208
- 08, 600.209
- 08, 600.210
- 08. **Subpart D**
**— [**  **Amended] §§ 600.302**  **- 08, 600.311**  **- 08** 
**— [Removed]**  118. Subpart D is amended by removing the following sections: 600.302
- 08, 600.311
- 08.

119. Section 600.311
- 12 is amended b y revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§ 600.311 -**  **12 Determination of values for fuel**  **economy labels.** * * * * * (g) Smog rating. Establish a rating for exhaust emissions other than CO 2 based on the applicable emission standards for the appropriate model ye ar as shown in Tables 1 through 3 of this section. For Independent Commercial Importer s that import vehicles not subject to Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. Similarly , if a manufacturer certifies vehicles to emission standards that are less stringent than all the identified standards for any reason, the v ehicle’s smog rating is 1. If EPA or California emission standards change in the future, we may revise the emission levels corresponding to each rating for future model y ears as appropriate to reflect the changed standards. If this occurs, we would publis h the revised ratings as described in §600.302

– 12(k), allowing sufficient lead time to make the changes; we would also expect to initiate a rulemaking to update the smog rating in the regulation.Page 698 of 842

Table 3 of §600.311

– 12

— Criteria for Establishing Smog Rati ng for Model Year 2025 and Later Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3 Emission

Standard California Air Resources Board LEV III Emission Standard 1 Bin 160 LEV 160 2 Bin 125 ULEV125 4 Bin 70 ULEV70 5 Bin 50 ULEV50 6 Bin 30 SULEV30 7 Bin 20 SULEV20 8

— TZEV 10 Bi n 0 ZEV

Table 2 of §600.311

– 12

— Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Years 2018
- 2024 Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3

Emission Standard U.S EPA Tier 2 Emission Standard California Air Resources Board LEV III Emission Standard 1 Bin 160 Bin 5 through Bin 8 LEV 160 3 Bin 125 Bin 4 ULEV125 5 Bin 70 Bin 3 ULEV70 6 Bin 50

— ULEV50 7 Bin 30 Bin 2 SULEV30 8 Bin 20

— SULEV20 9

— — TZEV 10 Bin 0 Bin 1 ZEVPage 699 of 842

Table 3 of §600.311

– 12

— Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating through Model Year 2017 Rating U .S. EPA Tier 2

Emission Standard California Air Resources Board LEV II Emission Standard 1

— ULEV &LEV II large trucks 2 Bin 8 SULEV II large trucks 3 Bin 7

— 4 Bin 6 LEV II, option 1 5 Bin 5 LEV II 6 Bin 4 ULEV II 7 Bin 3

— 8 Bin 2 SULEV II 9

— PZEV 10 Bin 1 ZEV * * * * * **Subpart F**
**— [Amended]**  **§§ 600.507 -**  **08, 600.509 -**  **08, 600.510 -**  **08, 600.512 -**  **08**
**— [Removed]**  120. Subpart F is amended b y removing the following sections: 600.507
- 08, 600.509
- 08, 600.510
- 08, 600.512
- 08. **Appendix IV and Appendix V**
**— [Removed**  **]** 121. Part 600 is amended b y removing and reserving Appendix IV and Appendix V.
**PART 1036**
**— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN**  **- USE HEAVY**  **- DUTY**  **HIGHWAY ENGINES**
122. The authority citation for part 1036 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart B**
**— [Amended]** Page 700 of 842

123. Section 1036.115 is amended b y revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§ 1036.115 Other requirements.** * * * * * (b) You must design and produce your engines to comply with evaporative emission standards as follows: (1) For comp lete heav y - duty vehicles you produce, you must certify the vehicles to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. (2) For incomplete heav y - duty vehicles, and for engines used in vehicles you do not produce, yo u do not need to certify your engines to evaporative emission standards or otherwise meet those standards. However, vehicle manufacturers certifying their vehicles with your engines may depend on you to produce your engines according to their specifications. Also, your engines must meet appl icable exhaust emission standards in the installed configuration.

**PART 1037**
**— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY**  **- DUTY MOTOR**  **VEHICLES**
124. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart B**

**– [Amended]** 

125. Section §1037.101 is amended b y revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: **§ 1037.101 Overview of emission standards for heavy -**  **duty vehicles.** * * * * * (b) * * *Page 701 of 842

(4) Fuel evaporative emissions . These requirements are des cribed in 40 CFR part 86 and §1037.103. (c) * * * (3) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated based on the ty pe of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative emission stand ards. Vehicles up to a certain size that are fueled with gasoline, diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, or LPG are subject to refueling emission standards.
126. A new §1037.103 is added to read as follows: **§ 1037.103 Evaporative emission standards.** (a) Applica

bility . Heavy
- duty

vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR that run on volatile liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel (such as natural gas or LPG) must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in this section starting in model year 20 18. Complete and incomplete heav y - duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, except that incomplete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A through model year 2017. (b) Emission standards . The evaporative emission standards specified in §86.1813 apply for vehicles subject to standards under this section based on emission measurements using the procedures specified in §1037.530. These standards phase in over model years 2018 through 2022. Count vehicles subject to standards under this section the same as heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. These vehicles may generate and use emission credits as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, but only for vehicles that are tested for certification (instead of relying on the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section). (c) Compliance demonstration . You m ay provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with evaporative and refueling emission standards instead of submitting test data if you include an engineering anal ys is describing how vehicles include design parameters that adequatel y demonstrate that vehicles comply with the standards. We would expect emission control components and sy stems to exhibit a comparable degree of control relative to vehicles that comply

based on testing. For example, vehicles that comply under this paragraph (c) should rely on comparable material specifications to limit fuel permeation, and components should be sized and calibrated to correspond with the appropriate fuel capacities, fuel flow rates, and vehicle operating characteristics. You may alternatively show that design parameters are comparable to those for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. (d) Incomplete vehicles . If you sell incomplete vehicles, you must identify the maximum fuel tank cap acity

for which you designed the vehicle’s evaporative emission control sy stem. (e) Useful life . Your vehicles must meet the evaporative emission standards of this sectionPage 702 of 842

throughout their useful life, expressed in service miles or calendar years, whichev er comes first. The useful life values for the standards of this section are those that appl y for criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86. (f) Auxiliary

engines and separate fuel s ys tems . The provisions of this paragraph (g) appl y for vehicles with auxili ary

engines. This includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that contribute no motive power through the vehicle’s transmission. (1) Auxiliary

engines and associated fuel
- sy stem components must be installed when testing complete ve hicles. If the auxiliary engine draws fuel from a separate fuel tank, you must fill the extra fuel tank before the start of diurnal testing as described for the vehicle’s main fuel tank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that an y nonmetal portions of the fuel s ys tem related to the auxiliary

engine have reached stabilized levels of permeation emissions. The auxiliary engine must not operate during the running loss test or any other portion of testing under this section. (2) For testing with incomple te vehicles, you may omit installation of auxiliary engines and associated fuel
- sy stem components as long as those components installed in the final configuration are certified to meet the applicable emission standards for Small SIequipment described in 4 0 CFR 1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 CFR 1048.105. For an y fuel
sy stem components that you do not install, your installation instructions must describe this certification requirement.
127. Section 1037.104 is amended b y revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows: **§ 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for CO 2**  **, CH 4**  **, and N 2**  **O for heavy -**  **duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.**  * * * * * (h) * * * (2) The evaporative and refueling emission standards in §1037.103.

* * * * * **Subpart C**
**— [Amended]** 
128. Section 1037.230 is amended b y revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:Page 703 of 842

**§ 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub -**  **families, and configurations.** * * * * * (e) Divide your vehicles that are subject to evaporative emission standards into groups of vehicles with s imilar physical features expected to affect evaporative emissions. Group vehicles in the same evaporative emission family if they are the same in all the following aspects, unless we approve a better way

of grouping vehicles into families that have similar emission control characteristics: (1) Method of vapor storage, including the number of vapor storage devices, the working material, and the total working capacity of vapor storage (as determined under 40 CFR 86.132
- 96(h)(1)(iv)). You may consider the wor

king capacity

to be the same if the values differ b y 20 grams or less. (2) Method of purging stored vapors. (3) Material for liquid and vapor fuel lines. * * * * *
129. A new §1037.243 is added to subpart C to read as follows: **§1037.243 Demonstrating compli ance with evaporative emission standards.**  (a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in subpart B of this part if you prepare an engineering anal ys is showing that yo ur vehicles in the family will comply

with applicable standards throughout the useful life, and there are no test results from an emission
- data vehicle representing the famil y that exceed an emission standard. (b) Your evaporative emission family is deemed not to comply if your engineering analysis is not adequate to show that all the vehicles in the family will comply with applicable emission standards throughout the useful life, or if a test result from an emission
- data vehicle representing the family

exc eeds an emission standard. (c) To compare emission levels with emission standards, appl y deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. Establish an additive deterioration factor based on an engineering anal ys is that takes into account the expecte d aging from in
- use vehicles. (d) Appl y the deterioration factor to the official emission result, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the ro unded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission
- data vehicle.Page 704 of 842

(e) Your anal ys is to demonstrate compliance with emission standards must take into account yo ur design strategy

for vehicles that require testing. Specificall y, vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR are presumed to need the same technologies that are required for heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly , your anal ys is to establish a deterioration factor must take into account your testing to establish deterior ation factors for smaller vehicles. **Subpart F**
**— [Amended]** 
130. Section 1037.501 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 1037.501 General testing and modeling provisions.** * * * * * (a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in §1037.53 0 to determine whether vehicles meet the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emission standards specified in § 1037.103. * * * * *
131. Add §1037.530 to subpart F to read as follows: **§ 1037.530 Evaporative emission test procedures.**  Apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to demonstrate compliance with the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emission standards as specified in §1037.103, with the following exceptions: (a) Use drive cycles for heavy
- dut y vehicles as follows: (1) The Heav y - Duty

Ur ban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (HD
- UDDS) is specified in 40 CFR part 86, Appendix I , paragraph (d). Itrepresents about 5.6 miles of driving for a heavy
duty vehicle in an urban area. (2) For the preconditioning drive, operate the vehicle over one HD
- UDDS instead of the drive specified in 40 CFR 86.132. (3) For the dynamometer run preceding the diurnal emission test, operate the vehicle over one HD
- UDDS instead of the FTP driving schedule. (4) For performing the running loss test and developing fuel tank temperature profiles, operate the vehicle over three consecutive HD
- UDDS cycles, each separated by two minutes if idle operation, instead of the driving specified in 40 CFR 86.134.Page 705 of 842

**Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehic le Emission and Fuel**  **Standards Page 798 of 798**  (b) The vehicle may

be driven onto the dy

namometer, as long as the vehicle is driven at minimum throttle and the total time of engine operation in the soak period before the diurnal emission test does not exce ed 3 minutes. (c) Testing under this subpart does not require measurement of exhaust emissions. Disregard references in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to procedures, equipment specifications, and recordkeeping related to measuring exhaust emissions. All refe rences to the exhaust test under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, are considered the “dynamometer run” as part of the evaporative testing sequence under this subpart.
**Part 1066**
**—**

**Vehicle -**  **Testing Procedures Subpart A** 
**—**

**Applicability and General Provisions**
1066 .1 Applicability
. 1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part. 1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the standard
- setting part. 1066.10 Other procedures. 1066.15 Overview of test procedures. 1066.20 Units of measure and overvie w of calculations. 1066.25 Recordkeeping.Page 706 of 842

**Subpart B**
**— Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas**  **Specifications**
1066.101 Overview. 1066.110 Equipment specifications. 1066.120 Measurement instruments. 1065.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement instruments. 1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications. 1066.137 L inearit y verification. 1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration. 1066.145 Engine fluids, test fuels, anal yt ical gases, and other calibration st andards. 1066.150 Analyzer interference and quench verification limit.

**Subpart C**
**— Dynamometer Specifications**  1066.201 Dy

namometer overview. 1066.210 Dy

namometers. 1066.215 Summary

of verification and calibration procedures for chassis dynamometers. 1066 .220 L inearit y verification for chassis dynamometer s ys tems. 1066.225 Roll runout and diameter verification procedure. 1066.230 Time verification procedure. 1066.235 Speed verification procedure. 1066.240 Torque transducer calibration. 1066.245 Response ti me verification.Page 707 of 842

1066.250 Base inertia verification. 1066.255 Parasitic loss verification. 1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation evaluation. 1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration verification. 1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification. 1066.280 Dy

namome ter readiness verification. 1066.290 Driver’s aid. **Subpart D**
**— Coastdown**  1066.301 Overview of coastdown procedures. 1066.305 Coastdown procedures for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. 1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 p ounds GVWR. 1066.320 Dy

namometer road
- load setting. **Subpart E**
**— Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test** 
1066.401 Overview. 1066.407 Vehicle preparation and preconditioning. 1066.410 Dy

namometer test procedure. 1066.420 Vehicle operation. 1 066.425 Test preparation. 1066.430 Performing emission tests. **Subpart F**
**— Hybrids and Electric Vehicles** Page 708 of 842

1066.501 Overview. **Subpart G**

**— Calculations** 
1066.601 Overview. 1066.610 Mass
- based and molar
- based exhaust emission calculations. 1066.620 Dilution air background emission correction. 1066.630 NO x intake
- air humidity and temperature corrections. 1066.640 Removed water correction. 1066.650 Flow meter calibration calculations. 1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations. 1066.665 NMOG determination. 1066.695 Data requirements. **Subpart H**
**— Cold**  **- Temperature Test Procedures**  1066.701 Applicability

and general provisions. **Subpart I**
**— Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles**  1066.801 Applicability

and general provisions. 1066.810 Road load powe r, test weight, and inertia weight class determination. 1066.812 Test sequence; general requirements. 1066.814 Vehicle preparation. 1066.816 SFTP vehicle preconditioning.Page 709 of 842

1066.820 Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP emissions. 1066.822 FTP exhaust emi ssion calculations. 1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview. 1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for agressive driving. 1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions. 1066.833 Test facility

requirements for the air condi tioning test element. 1066.835 AC17 Air conditioning efficiency test procedure. 1066.837 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure calculations. 1066.838 Air conditioning idle test procedure. 1066.839 Highway

fuel economy

test procedure. 1066.840 Fuel storage s y stem leak test procedure. **Subpart J**

**— [Reserved]**  **Subpart K**

**— Definitions and Other Reference Material** 
1066.1001 Definitions. 1066.1005 Sy

mbols, abbreviations, acrony ms, and units of measure. 1066.1010 Reference materials.Page 710 of 842

**Subpart A**
**—**

**Applicability and General Provisions §1066.1 Applicability.**  (a) This part describes the procedures that appl y t o testing we require for the following vehicles: (1) Model year 2014 and later heav y - dut y highway vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR part 1037 that are not subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86. (2) Model year 2022 and later highway vehicles that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR part 86 for provisi ons describing how to implement this part 1066. (b) The procedures of this part may appl y to other types of vehicles, as described in this part and in the standard
- setting part. (c) The term “you” means anyone performing testing under this part other than EPA. (1) This part is addressed primarily to manufacturers of vehicles, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing under this part for such manufacturers. (2) This part applies to any manufacturer or supplier of test equipment, instruments, suppl ies, or an y other goods or services related to the procedures, requirements, recommendations, or options in this part. (d) Paragraph (a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR that define emission standards and other requirements for particular ty pes of vehicles. In this part, we refer to each of these other parts generically as the “standard
- setting part.” For example, 40 CFR part 1037 is the standard
- setting part for heavy
- dut y highway vehicles and parts 86 and 600 are the standard
setting parts for light
- duty vehicles. For vehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, references to the standard
- setting part include subpart I of this part. (e) Unless we specify

otherwise, the terms “procedures” and “test procedures” in this part include all a spects of vehicle testing, including the equipment specifications, calibrations, calculations, and other protocols and procedural specifications needed to measure emissions. (f) For additional information regarding these test procedures, visit our Web site at www.epa.gov, and in particular http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/regulations.htm. **§1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part.** (a) You are responsible for statements and information in your applications for certification, requests for approve d procedures, selective enforcement audits, laboratory audits,Page 711 of 842

production
- line test reports, or any other statements you make to us related to this part 1066. If yo u provide statements or information to someone for submission to EPA, you are responsible f or these statements and information as if you had submitted them to EPA yourself. (b) In the standard
- setting part and in 40 CFR 1068.101, we describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information and the consequences of failing to meet this obligation. See also 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation applies whether you submit this information directly

to EPA or through someone else. (c) We may

void an y certificates or approvals associated with a submission of information i f we find that you intentionall y submitted false, incomplete, or misleading information. For example, if we find that you intentionally submitted incomplete information to mislead EPA when requesting approval to use alternate test procedures, we may void the certificates for all engine families certified based on emission data collected using the alternate procedures. This would also apply if you ignore data from incomplete tests or from repeat tests with higher emission results. (d) We may

require an authorized representative of your company to approve and sign the submission, and to certify that all the information submitted is accurate and complete. This includes everyone who submits information, including manufacturers and others. (e) See 40 CFR 1068. 10 for provisions related to confidential information. Note however that under 40 CFR 2.301, emission data are generally not eligible for confidential treatment. (f) Nothing in this part should be interpreted to limit our ability under Clean Air Act secti on 208 (42 U.S.C. 7542) to verify that vehicles conform to the regulations. **§1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the standard -**  **setting part.** (a) This part specifies procedures that can apply generall y to testing various categories of vehicles. See the standard
- setting part for directions in applying specific provisions in this part for a particular type of vehicle. Before using this part’s procedures, read the standard
- setting part to answer at least the following questions: (1) What drive schedules must Iuse for testing? (2) Should Iwarm up the test vehicle before measuring emissions, or do I need to measure cold
- start emissions during a warm
- up segment of the dut y cycle? (3) Which exhaust constituents do Ineed to measure? Measur e all exhaust constituents that are subject to emission standards, an y other exhaust constituents needed for calculating emission rates, and an y additional exhaust constituents as specified in the standard
- setting part. See 40 CFR 1065.5 regarding request s to omit measurement of N 2 O and CH 4 for vehicles, not subject to N 2 O or CH 4 emission standards
. (4) Do an y unique specifications apply for test fuels?Page 712 of 842

(5) What maintenance steps may Itake before or between tests on an emission
- data vehicle? (6) Do an y un ique requirements apply to stabilizing emission levels on a new vehicle? (7) Do an y unique requirements apply to test limits, such as ambient temperatures or pressures? (8) [Reserved] (9) Are there an y emission standards specified at particular operating c onditions or ambient conditions? (10) Do an y unique requirements appl y for durability testing? (b) The testing specifications in the standard
- setting part may differ from the specifications in this part. In cases where it is not possible to comply with bo th the standard
setting part and this part, you must comply with the specifications in the standard
- setting part. The standard
- setting part may also allow you to deviate from the procedures of this part for other reasons. (c) The following table shows how this part divides testing specifications into subparts:Page 713 of 842 Table 1 of §1066.5

—Description of Part 1066 subparts. This subpart Describes these specifications or procedures Subp art A Applicability and general provisions. Subp art B Equipment for testing.
Subp art C Dy namometer specifications. Subp art D Coastdowns for testing. Subp art E How to prepare your vehicle and run an emission test. Subp art F How to test hy brid vehicles. Subp art G Test procedure calculations. Subp art H Cold temperature testing.
Subp art I Exhaust emission test procedures for motor vehicles. Subp art J Reserved. Subp Definitions and reference material.Page 714 of 842

art K
**§1066.10 Other procedures.** (a) Your testing. The procedures in this part apply for all testing you do to show compliance with emission standards, with certain exceptions listed in this section. In some other sections in this part, we allow you to use other procedures (such as less precise or less accurate procedures) if they

do not affect your ability to show that your vehicle s comply with the applicable emission standards. This generally requires emission levels to be far enough below the applicable emission standards so that any errors caused b y greater imprecision or inaccuracy do not affect your ability

to state unconditio nally

that the engines meet all applicable emission standards. (b) Our testing. These procedures generally appl y for testing that we do to determine if yo ur vehicles compl y with applicable emission standards. We may perform other testing as allowed b y th e Act. (c) Exceptions. We may

allow or require you to use procedures other than those specified in this part as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). All the test procedures noted as exceptions to the specified procedures are considered genericall y as "other p rocedures." Note that the terms "special procedures" and "alternate procedures" have specific meanings; "special procedures" are those allowed b y 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(2) and "alternate procedures" are those allowed b y 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7). If we require you to request approval to use other procedures under this paragraph (c), you may not use them until we approve your request. **§1066.15 Overview of test procedures.** This section outlines the procedures to test vehicles that are subject to emission standards. (a) In the standard
- setting part, we set emission standards in g/mile (or g/km), for the following constituents: (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NO x . (2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be expressed in the following way s: (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC. (ii) Nonmethane h ydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting methane (CH 4 ) from THC. (iii) Total hydrocarbon
- equivalent, THCE, which results from adjusting THC mathematically

to be equivalent on a carbon
- mass basis.Page 715 of 842

(iv) Nonmethane h ydrocarbon
- equivalent, NMHCE , which results from adjusting NMHC mathematically

to be equivalent on a carbon
- mass basis. (v) Nonmethane organic gases, NMOG, which are calculated either from fully or partially speciated measurement of hydrocarbons including oxygenates, or b y adjusting measured NMHC values based on fuel ox ygenate properties. (3) Particulate mass, PM. (4) Carbon monoxide, CO. (5) Carbon dioxide, CO 2 . (6) Methane, CH 4 . (7) Nitrous oxide, N 2 O. (8) Formaldeh yde, CH 2 O. (b) Note that some vehicles may not be subject to standards for all the emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section. (c) The provisions of this part appl y for chassis dynamometer testing where vehicle speed is controlled to follow a prescribed duty cycle while simulating vehicle driving through the dy namometer’s road
- load settings. We generally set emission standards over test phases and/or drive schedules, as follows: (1) Vehicle operation . Testing involves measuring emissions and miles travelled while operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer. Refer to the definitions of “duty cycle” and “test phase” in §1066.1001. Note that a single drive schedule may have multiple test phases and require weighting of results from multiple test phases to calculate a composite distance
- based emissi on value to compare to the standard. (2) Constituent determination . Determine the total mass of each constituent over a test phase b y selecting from the following methods: (i) Continuous sampling . In continuous sampling, measure the constituent’s concentration continuously from raw or dilute exhaust. Multiply this concentration by

the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate at the emission sampling location to determine the constituent’s flow rate. Sum the constituent’s flow rate continuousl y over the test phase. This sum is the total mass of the emitted constituent. (ii) Batch sampling . In batch sampling, continuously extract and store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust for later measurement. Extract a sample proportional to the raw or dilute exhaust flo w rate, as applicable. You may extract and store a proportional sample of exhaust in an appropriate container, such as a bag, and then measure HC, CO, and NO x concentrations in the container after the test phase. You may deposit PM from proportionally ex tracted exhaust onto an appropriate substrate, such as a filter. In this case, divide the PM by the amount of filteredPage 716 of 842

exhaust to calculate the PM concentration. Multiply batch sampled concentrations by the total (raw or dilute) flow from which it was ex tracted during the test phase. This product is the total mass of the emitted constituent. (iii) Combined sampling . You may use continuous and batch sampling simultaneously during a test phase, as follows: (A) You may

use continuous sampling for some const ituents and batch sampling for others. (B) You may

use continuous and batch sampling for a single constituent, with one being a redundant measurement, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 1065.201. (d) Refer to the standard
- setting part for calculations to determine g/mile emission rates. (e) You must use good engineering judgment for all aspects of testing under this part. While the regulation highlights several specific cases where good engineering judgment is especiall y relevant, the requirement to use good engineering judgment is not limited to those provisions where we specificall y re - state this requirement. **§1066.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.** (a) Sy stem of units . The procedures in this part follow both conventional English Units and the International Sy stem of Units (SI), as detailed in NI ST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate b y reference in §1066.1010. (b) Units conversion . Use good engineering judgment to convert units between measurement s ys tems as needed. For example, if you measure vehicle speed as mph and we specify a precision requirement in terms of m/s, convert your measured mph value to m/s before comparing it to our specification. The following conventions are used throughout this document and should be use d to convert units as applicable: (1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft ∙lbf/min = 550 ft∙lbf/s = 0.7457 kW. (2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft ∙lbm/s 2 = 4.4482 N. (3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm. (4) For ideal gases, 1 μmol/mol = 1 ppm. (5) For ideal gases, 10 mmol/mol = 1 %. (c) Rounding . The ro unding provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for calculations in this part. This generally

specifies that you round final values but not intermediate values. Use good engineering judgment to record the appropriate number of significant digits for all measur ements.Page 717 of 842

(d) Interpretation of ranges . Interpret a range as a tolerance unless we explicitly identify it as an accuracy , repeatability , linearity , or noise specification. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for the definition of tolerance. In this part, we specify two ty pes of ranges: (1) Whenever we specify a range b y a single value and corresponding limit values above and below that value (such as X ±Y), target the associated control point to that single value (X). Examples of this ty

pe of range include “±10 % of max imum pressure”, or “(30 ±10) kPa”. In these examples, you would target the maximum pressure or 30 kPa, respectively
. (2) Whenever we specify a range b y the interval between two values, you may target an y associated control point to any value within that r ange. An example of this ty pe of range is “(40 to 50) kPa”. (e) Scaling of specifications with respect to an applicable standard . Because this part 1066 applies to a wide range of vehicles and emission standards, some of the specifications in this part are scaled with respect to a vehicle’s applicable standard or weight. This ensures that the specification will be adequate to determine compliance, but not overl y burdensome b y requiring unnecessaril y high
- precision equipment. Many of these specifications are given with respect to a “flow
- weighted mean” that is expected at the standard or during testing. Flow
weighted mean is the mean of a quantity after it is weighted proportional to a corresponding flow rate. For example, if a gas concentration is meas ured continuously from the raw exhaust of an engine, its flow
- weighted mean concentration is the sum of the products of each recorded concentration times its respective exhaust flow rate, divided by the sum of the recorded flow rates. As another example, the bag concentration from a CVS sy stem is the same as the flow
weighted mean concentration, because the CVS s ystem itself flow
- weights the bag concentration. **§1066.25 Recordkeeping.** The procedures in this part include various requirements to record data or other information. Refer to the standard
- setting part regarding recordkeeping requirements. If the standard
- setting part does not specify recordkeeping requirements, store these records in any format and on an y m edia and keep them readil y available fo r eight ye ars after you send an associated application for certification, or eight years after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for the m. We may review them at any

time. **Subpart B**
**— Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas**  **Specifications §1066.101 Overview.** Page 718 of 842

(a) This subpart addresses equipment related to emission testing, as well as test fuels and anal yt ical gases. This section addresses emission sampling and anal yt ical equipment, test fuels, and anal yt ical gases. (b) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 specify engine
- based procedures for measuring emissions. Except as specified otherwise in this part, the provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 appl y for testing required b y this part as follows: (1) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, describe equipment specifications for exhaust dilution and sampling s ys tems; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.110. (2) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, describe specifications for measurement instrument; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.120. (3) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, sub part D, describe specifications for measurement instrument calibrations and verifications; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.130. (4) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, describe specifications for fuel s, engine fluids, and analy

tical gases; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.145. (5) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, describe specifications for testing with oxygenated fuels; these specifications app ly for NMOG determinations as described in §1066.665. (c) The provisions of this subpart are intended to specify s ys tems that can very

accuratel y and precisely

measure emissions from motor vehicles such as light
- duty vehicles. To the extent that this leve l of accuracy and/or precision is not necessary for testing highway

motorcycles or nonroad vehicles, we may waive or modify the specifications and requirements of this part for testing these other vehicles, consistent with good engineering judgment. For e xample, it may be appropriate to allow the use of a h ydrokinetic dynamometer that is not able to meet all the performance specifications described in this subpart. **§1066.110 Equipment specifications.** (a) This section specifies equipment related to emissio n testing, other than measurement instruments. This equipment includes two broad categories

—dy namometers (described further in subpart C of this part) and emission
- sampling hardware. Other related sections in this subpart identify measurement instruments (§1066.120), describe how to evaluate the performance of these instruments (§§1066.130 and 1066.137), describe how to calibrate a CVS (§1066.140), specify engine fluids and anal yt ical gases (§1066.145), and specify requirements for anal yz er interference and quench verification (§1066.150).Page 719 of 842

(b) The following equipment specifications appl y for testing under this part: (1) Sampling s ys tem connections . Connect a vehicle’s exhaust sy stem to any dilution stage as follows: (i) Minimize laboratory

exhaust tubing lengths. You may use a total length of laboratory tubing up to 4 m. However, you may use a total length of laboratory tubing up to 10 m if you insulate or heat the tubing to minimize the temperature difference between the exhaust gas and the tubing wall over the course of the emission test. The laboratory exhaust tubing starts at the end of the vehicle’s tailpipe. The laboratory exhaust tubing ends at the first sample point or the point of first dilution. You may use flexible laboratory

exhaust tubing at any

location in the laboratory

exhaust sy stem. For multiple
- tailpipe configurations where the tailpipes combine into a single flow path for emission sampling, the start of the laboratory exhaust tubing may

be taken at the last joint where the exhaust f low first becomes a single, combined flow. (ii) You may

insulate or heat an y laboratory exhaust tubing. (iii) Use laboratory

exhaust tubing materials that are smooth
- walled and not chemically reactive with exhaust constituents. For measurements involving PM, tubing materials must also be electricall y conductive. Stainless steel is an acceptable material for an y measurements. You may use short sections of nonconductive flexible tubing to connect a PM sampling sy stem to the vehicle’s tailpipe; use good en gineering judgment to limit the amount of nonconductive surface area exposed to the vehicle’s exhaust. (iv) We recommend that you use laboratory exhaust tubing that has either a wall thickness of less than 2 mm or is air gap
- insulated to minimize temperature differences between the wall and the exhaust. (v) Seal your s ys tem to the extent necessary to ensure that any

remaining leaks do not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. (vi) Electrically

ground the entire exhaust sy stem, with the exception of nonconductive flexible tubing, as allowed under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. (vii) For vehicles with multiple tailpipes, route the exhaust into a single flow. To ensure mixing of the multiple exhaust streams before emission sampling, you may configure the exhaust sy stem with turbulence generators, such as orifice plates or fins, to achieve good mixing. We recommend a minimum Rey nolds number, Re #, of 4000 for the combined exhaust stream, where Re # is based on the in side diameter of the combined flow at the first sampling point. Re # is defined in 40 CFR 1065.640. (2) Provisions from 40 CFR part 1065 . Use equipment specifications in sections 40 CFR 1065.140 through 40 CFR 1065.190, except as follows: (i) For PM background measurement, the following provisions appl y instead of the analogous provisions in 40 CFR 1065.140(b):Page 720 of 842

(A) You need not measure PM background for every test. You may appl y PM background correction using a moving
- average background value as long as your background PM sample media (e.g., filters) were all made b y the same manufacturer from the same material . Use good engineering judgment to determine how many background samples make up the moving average and how frequentl y to update those values. Fo r example, you might take one background sample per week and average that sample into previous background values, maintaining five observations for each calculated average value. Background sampling time should be representative of the test phase duration to which the background correction is applied. (B) You may

sample background PM from the dilution tunnel at any time before or after an emission test using the same sample train used during the emission test. For this background sampling, the dilution tunnel blower must be turned on, the vehicle must be disconnected from the exhaust transfer tube, and the exhaust transfer tube must be capped. (C) Using good engineering judgment, the duration of your background sample does not need to be the same as the te st cycle in which you are appl yi ng the background correction. (D) Your background correction may not exceed 5 μg or 5 % of the net PM mass expected at the standard, whichever is greater. (ii) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv) do not apply
. (iii) For PM samples, configure dilution sy stems using the following limits: (A) Control the diluent temperature as described in 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1), except that the temperature may

set to (15 to 52) °C. Use good engineering judgment to control PM sample temp erature as required under 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(4). (B) Apply

the provisions of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) instead of 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). Add diluent to the raw exhaust such that the overall dilution factor of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust, as determi ned in Eq. 1066.620
- 2 or 1066.620
- 3, is within the range of (7:1 to 20:1) for each test phase. The maximum dilution factor limit of 20:1 does not apply for plug
- in hy

brid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and hy brid electric vehicles (HEVs), since the dilution fa ctor is infinite when the engine is off; however we strongly recommend that you stay under the maximum dilution factor limit when the engine is running. For partial
- flow sampling s ys tems, determine dilution factor using Eq. 1066.620
- 3. When determining d ilution factor for PM samples utilizing secondary dilution air, multiply

the dilution factor by

the dilution ratio of secondary dilution air to primary

diluted exhaust. (iv) In addition to the allowances in 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6) to address aqueous condensation in the CVS, you may also heat the dilution air as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section. (v) If you choose to dilute the exhaust by using a remote mix tee, you may use the following provisions, using good engineering judgment, provided they do not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the standard:Page 721 of 842

(A) You may

use accordion
- style or smooth
- walled flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of flow or gaseous emission measurement locations. (B) You may

use smooth
- walled electricall y conductive flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of where PM emission measurements are made. (C) Materials for inside surfaces are limited to 300 series stainless steel and poly mer based materials. (D) Use good engineering judgment t o ensure that the materials you choose do not cause or contribute to unrepresentative loss of PM to your sample. (vi) Paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section applies instead of 40 CFR 1065.145(b). (c) The following table summarizes the requirements of paragra ph (b)(2) of this section: Table 1 of §1066.110

– Summary of equipment specifications from 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, that appl y for chassis testing 40 CFR part 1065 references Applicability for chassis testing under this part

40 CF R 1065.140 Use all except: 40 CFR 1065.140(b) applies as described in this section. Use 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), with the additional allowance described in this section. Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv). Use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1) as described in this se ction. Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). 40 CFR 1065.145 Use all except 40 CFR 1065.145(b). 40 CFR 1065.150 through 1065.190 Use all.Page 722 of 842

**§1066.120 Measurement instruments.** The measurement instrument requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, apply with the following exceptions: (a) The provisions of §1066.122 apply instead of 40 CFR 1065.202. (b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.210 and 1065.295 do not apply
.Page 723 of 842

**§1066.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement instruments.** This section specifi es criteria that your test s ys tem must meet for updating and recording data. It also specifies criteria for controlling the systems related to driver demand, the dy namometer, sampling equipment, and measurement instruments. (a)(1) This paragraph (a)(1) app lies where we specify a minimum command and control frequency that is greater than the minimum recording frequency , such as for sample flow rates from a CVS that does not have a heat exchanger. For these measurements, the rate at which you read and interp ret the signal must be at least as frequent as the minimum command and control frequency . Values may

be recorded at the same frequency . They may also be recorded as means of the values, provided the frequency of the mean values meets the minimum recordin g frequency . All values read must be either recorded or used to calculate the mean values. For example, if your s ys tem reads and controls the sample flow rate at 10 Hz, you may record these values at 10 Hz, record them at 5 Hz by averaging pairs of conse cutive points together, or record them at 1 Hz by

averaging five consecutive points together. (2) For all other measured values covered b y this section, you may record the values instantaneously

or as mean values, consistent with good engineering judgment
. (3) You may

not use rolling averages of measured values where a given measured value is included in more than one recorded mean value. (b) Use data acquisition and control sy stems that can command, control, and record at the following minimum frequenci es:

Table 1 of §1066.122

–Data recording and control minimum frequencies
Applicabl e Section Measured Values Minim um Command and Control Frequency Minim

um Recording Frequency a §1066.31 0 §1066.32 0 Vehicle speed

— 10 Hz

§1066.43 0 Continuous concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers — 1 Hz
§1066.43 Power analyzer b

— 1 HzPage 724 of 842 0 §1066.50 1 §1066.43 0 Bag concentrations of raw or dilute

analyzers — 1 mean value per test phase 40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.43 0 Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS

with a heat exchanger upstr eam of the flow measurement — 1 Hz

40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.43 0 Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS

without a heat exchanger upstream of the flow measurement 5 Hz 1 Hz means

40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.43 0 Dilution air flow if actively controlled

(for example, a partial flow PM sampler) 5 Hz 1 Hz means

40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.43 0 Sam ple flow from a CVS that has a heat exchanger 1 Hz 1 Hz

40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.43 0 Sam ple flow from a CVS that does not have a heat exchanger 5 Hz 1 Hz means
§1066.42 5 Ambient temperature

— 1 Hz §1066.42 5 Ambient humidity

— 1 HzPage 725 of 842 §1066.42 5 Heated sample system temperatures,

including PM filter face — 1 Hz

a 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of mean values at a rate of 1 Hz
.

b For power analyzers’ sampling frequency, follow SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010).
**§1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.** The measurement instrument calibration and verification requirements in 40 CFR 1065, subpart D, appl y with the following exceptions: (a) The calibration and verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.303 do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section 1066.133 specifies additional calibration and verification pro visions that apply specificall y for chassis testing. (b) The linearity

verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.307 do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section 1066.137 specifies additional linearity verification provisions that apply specifically

for chassis testing. (c) The provisions of §1066.220 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.310. (d) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.320, 1065.325, and 1065.395 do not apply
. (e) If you are measuring flow volumetricall y, the provisions of §1066.1 40 apply instead of 40 CFR 1065.340. (f) The provisions of §1066.150 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c). (g) Table 1 of this section summarizes the required and recommended calibrations and verifications that are un ique to testing under this part and indicates when these have to be performed. Perform other required or recommended calibration and verifications as described in 40 CFR 1065.303, with the exceptions noted in this section. Table 1 follows:Page 726 of 842 Table 1 of §1 066.133

– Summary of required calibration and verifications. Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequencya
40 CFR 1065.303: Flow rates This calibration does not apply for testing under this part; see §1066.133 for alternative provisions.

40 CFR 10 65.307: Linearity verification The linearity calibrations from 40 CFR part 1065 do not apply under this part for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow; the linearity verification described in §1066.137 applies for the following measurements: Dy namometer Speed: See §1066.220. Dy namometer Torque: See §1066.220.

40 CFR 1065.310: Torque This calibration does not apply for testing under this part; see §1066.220.
40 CFR 1065.320: Fuel flow This calibration does not apply for testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.325: Intake flow This calibration does not apply for testing under this part.
40 CFR 1065.340: CVS calibration This calibration does not apply for CVS flow meters calibrated volumetrically as described in §1066.140.
40 CFR 1065.345: Vacuum leak Required upon initial installation of the sampling system; recommended within 35 days before the start of an emissions test and after maintenance such as pre
- filter changes. 40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c) These provi sions do not apply for testing under this part; see §1066.150.

40 CFR 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing These verifications do not apply for testing under this part.

aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently if needed to conform to the measurement system manufacturer’s instructions and good engineering judgment.Page 727 of 842

**§1066.137 Linearity verification.** This section describes requirements for linearity verification that are unique to testing under this part. (Note: see the definition of “ linearity” in 40 CFR 1065.1001, where we explain that linearity

means the degree to which measured values agree with respective reference values and that the term “linearity” is not used to refer to the shape of a measurement instrument's unprocessed resp onse curve.) Perform other required or recommended calibration and verifications as described in 40 CFR 1065.307, with the exceptions noted in this section. (a) For testing under this subpart, linearity verification under 40 CFR part 1065 is not require d for speed, torque, fuel flow rate, or intake air flow. (b) For gas analyzer linearity , you may use one of the following options: (1) Use instrument manufacturer recommendations and good engineering judgment to select at least ten reference values, yrefi , that cover the range of values that you expect during testing (to prevent extrapolation beyond the verified range during emission testing). We recommend selecting zero as one of your reference values. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from a l east - squares best
- fit straight line is 2 % or less of the value at each data point, concentration values may be calculated b y use of a single calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds 2 % at any point, use the best
- fit nonlinear equation that represents the data to within 2 % of each test point to determine concentration. If you use a gas divider to blend calibration gases, verify

that the calibration curve produced names a calibration gas within 2 % of its certified concentration. Perf orm this verification between 15 and 50 % of the full scale anal yz er range. (2) Use the linearity requirements of 40 CFR 1065.307, except for CO 2 measurements used for determining fuel econom y and GHG emissions for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds. If you choose this linearity option, you must drift check and drift correct your emission data according to 40 CFR 1065.672. (c) Perform linearit y verifications for the following temperature measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(7 ): (1) Test cell ambient air. (2) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double
- dilution, and partial
- flow sy stems. (3) PM sample. (4) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling s ys tems that use thermal chillers to dry samples and that use chiller temperat ure to calculate dewpoint at the chiller outlet. For testing, if you choose to use the high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the emission sample, you may verify the accuracy of the high alarm temperature setpoint using good engineering judgment without following the linearity

verification for chiller temperature. We recommend that you input a simulated reference temperature signal below the alarm setpoint, increase this signal until thePage 728 of 842

high alarm trips, and verify that the alarm setpoint value is no less than 2 °C below the reference value at the trip point
. (5) CVS inlet temperature. (d) Perform linearity verifications for the following pressure measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(8): (1) Exhaust back pressure. (2) Barometric pressure. (3) CVS inlet gage pressure or absolute pressure transducer. (4) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling s ys tems that use either osmotic
- membrane or thermal chille rs to dry

samples. For your testing, if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the emission sample, you may verify the accuracy

of the low alarm pre ssure setpoint using good engineering judgment without following the linearity verification for sample dryer pressure. We recommend that you input a reference pressure signal above the alarm setpoint, decrease this signal until the low alarm trips, and ve rify that the alarm setpoint value is no more than 4 kPa above the reference value at the trip point. (e) When following procedures or practices that we incorporate b y reference in §1066.1010, you must meet the linearity requirements given b y the procedur e or practice for an y anal yt ical instruments not covered under 40 CFR 1065.307, such as GC
- FID or HPL C. **§ 1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration.**  (a) Overview . This section describes how to calibrate flow meters for diluted exhaust constant - volume sampl ing (CVS) s ys tems. You may follow the molar flow calibration procedures in 40 CFR 1065.340 instead of the procedures in this section. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this calibration while the flow meter is installed in its permanent position, except as allowed in paragraph (c) of this section. Perform this calibration after you change an y part of the flow configuration upstream or downstream of the flow meter that may affect the flow
- meter calibration. Perform this calibration upon initial CVS install ation and whenever corrective action does not resolve a failure to meet the diluted exhaust flow verification (i.e., propane check) in 40 CFR 1065.341. (c) Ex
- situ CFV and SSV calibration . You may remove a CFV or SSV from its permanent position for calibration as long as it meets the requirements in 40 CFR 1065.340(c). (d) Reference flow meter . Calibrate a CVS flow meter using a reference flow meter such as a subsonic venturi flow meter, a long
- radius ASME/NI ST flow nozzle, a smooth approach orifice, a laminar flow element, a set of critical flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow meter. Use aPage 729 of 842

reference flow meter that reports quantities that are NIST
- traceable within ±1 % uncertainty. Use this reference flow meter’s response to flow as the reference value for CVS flow
- meter calibration. (e) Configuration . Calibrate the s ys tem with an y upstream screens or other restrictions that will be used during testing and that could affect the flow ahead of the reference flow meter. You may not use any

upstream scree n or other restriction that could affect the flow ahead of the reference flow meter, unless the flow meter has been calibrated with such a restriction. (f) PDP calibration . Calibrate a positive
- displacement pump (PDP) to determine a flow
versus - PDP speed equation that accounts for flow leakage across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a function of PDP inlet pressure. Determine unique equation coefficients for each speed at which yo u operate the PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as follows: (1) Connect the s ys tem as shown in Figure 1 of this section. (2) Leaks between the calibration flow meter and the PDP must be less than 0.3 % of the total flow at the lowest calibrated flow point; for example, at the highest restriction and lowest PDP
- speed point. (3) While the PDP operates, maintain a constant temperature at the PDP inlet within ±2 % of the mean absolute inlet temperature, in T
. (4) Set the PDP speed to the first speed point at which you intend to calibrate. (5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide
- open position. (6) Operate the PDP for at least 3 min to stabilize the sy stem. Continue operating the PDP and record the mean values of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities: (i) The mean flow rate of th e reference flow meter, ref Q  . This may

include several measurements of different quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for calculating ref

Q 

. (ii) The mean temperature at the PDP inlet, in T
. (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet, in p . (iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet, out p . (v) The mean PDP speed, nPDP f
. (7) Incrementall y close the restrictor valve to decrease the absolute pressure at the inlet to the PDP, in p .Page 730 of 842

(8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from the wide
- open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at the PDP inlet. (9) Calibrate the PDP b y using the collected data and the equations in §1066.650(a). (10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (9) of this section fo r each speed at which you operate the PDP. (11) Use the equations in §1066.652(a) to determine the PDP flow equation for emission testing. (12) Verify

the calibration by

performing a CVS verification (i.e., propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341. ( 13) Ensure that the lowest inlet pressure tested during calibration is at least as low as the lowest PDP inlet pressure that will occur during emission testing. You may not use the PDP below the lowest inlet pressure tested during calibration. (g) SSV cal ibration . Calibrate a subsonic venturi (SSV) to determine its discharge coefficient, C

d , for the expected range of inlet pressures. Calibrate an SSV flow meter as follows: (1) Connect the s ys tem as shown in Figure 1 of this section. (2) Verify that an y l eaks between the calibration flow meter and the SSV are less than 0.3 % of the total flow at the highest restriction. (3) Start the blower downstream of the SSV. (4) While the SSV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the SSV inlet within ±2 % of th e mean absolute inlet temperature, in T
. (5) Set the variable restrictor or variable
- speed blower to a flow rate greater than the greatest flow rate expected during testing. You may not extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated value s, so we recommend that you make sure the Rey nolds number, Re # , at the SSV throat at the greatest calibrated flow rate is greater than the maximum Re # expected during testing. (6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min to stabilize the sy stem. Continue operat ing the SSV and record the mean of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities: (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, ref Q  . This may

include several measurements of different quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for calculating ref

Q 

.Page 731 of 842

(ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, in T
. (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, in p . (iv) Static differential pressure between the static pressure at the venturi inlet and the static pressure at the venturi throat, SSV p 
. (7) Incrementall y close the restrictor valve or decrease the blower speed to decrease the flo w rate. (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (g)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of ten flow rates. (9) Determine a functional form of C d versus Re # by

using the collected data and the equations in §1066.650(b). (10) Verify

the calibration by

performing a CVS verification (i.e., propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341 using the new C d versus Re # equation. (11) Use the SSV onl y between the minimum and maximum calibrated flow rates. (12) Use the equations in §1066.652(b) to determi ne SSV flow during a test. (h) CFV calibration . The calibration procedure described in this paragraph (h) establishes the value of the calibration coefficient at measured values of pressure, temperature and air flow. Calibrate a critical
- flow venturi (CFV ) to verify its calibration coefficient, K v , at the lowest expected static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and outlet. Calibrate a CFV flow meter as follows: (1) Connect the s ys tem as shown in Figure 1 of this section. (2) Verify that an y leak s between the calibration flow meter and the CFV are less than 0.3 % of the total flow at the highest restriction. (3) Start the blower downstream of the CFV. (4) While the CFV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the CFV inlet within ±2 % of the m ean absolute inlet temperature, in T
. (5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide
- open position. In stead of a variable restrictor, yo u may alternatel y vary the pressure downstream of the CFV b y varyi ng blower speed or b y introducing a controlled leak. Note that some blowers have limitations on nonloaded conditions.Page 732 of 842

(6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min to stabilize the sy stem. Continue operating the CFV and record the mean values of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities: (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, ref Q  . This may

include several measurements of different quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for calculating ref

Q 

. (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, in T
. (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, in p . (iv) The mean static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and the CFV outlet, CFV p 
. (7) Incrementall y close the restrictor valve or decrease the downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the CFV, CFV p 
. (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of th is section to record mean data at a minimum of ten restrictor positions, such that you test the fullest practical range of CFV p  expected during testing. We do not require that you remove calibration components or CVS components to ca librate at the lowest possible restriction. (9) Determine K

v and the lowest allowable pressure ratio, r , according to §1066.650. (10) Use K

v to determine CFV flow during an emission test. Do not use the CFV below the lowest allowed r , as determined in §10 66.650. (11) Verify

the calibration by

performing a CVS verification (i.e., propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341. (12) If your CVS is configured to operate multiple CFVs in parallel, calibrate your CVS using one of the following methods: (i) Calibrate every

combination of CFVs according to this section and §1066.650(c). Refer to §1065.652(c) for instructions on calculating flow rates for this option. (ii) Calibrate each CFV according to this section and §1066.650. Refer to §1066.652 for instruct ions on calculating flow rates for this option. (i) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration . [Reserved]

Figure 1 of 1066.140

— CVS calibration configurations.Page 733 of 842 reference flow meter PDP

variable restrictor 12 6 ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p out 

# p in 

## T PD

P 

## f 

# t

reference flow meter PDP

variable restrictor 12 6 ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p out 

# p in 

## T PD

P 

## f 

# t

reference flow meter PDP

variable restrictor 12 6 ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p out 

# p in 

## T PD

P 

## f 

# t

CFV reference flow m eter variable restrictor ref 

## n  in



# p in 

# T atmos 

### p dew 

### T

blower

downstream pressure control

CFV reference flow m eter variable restrictor ref 

## n  in



# p in 

# T atmos 

### p dew 

### T

blower

downstream pressure control

SSV reference flow meter ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p in 

## T dew



## T 

## p 
variable speed

blower SSV reference flow meter ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p in 

## T dew



## T 

## p 
variable speed

blowerPage 734 of 842

**§1066.145 Test fuel, engine fluids, analytical gases, and other calibration standards.** (a) Tes t fuel . Use test fuel as specified in the standard
- setting part, or as specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, if it is not specified in the standard
- setting part. (b) Lubricating oil . Use lubricating oil as specified in 40 CFR 1065.740. For two
- stroke engines that involve a specified mixture of fuel and lubricating oil, mix the lubricating oil with the fuel according to the manufacturer’s specifications. (c) Coolant . For liquid
- cooled engines, use coolant as specified in 40 CFR 1065.745. (d) Anal yt ica l gases . Use anal yt ical gases that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.750. (e) Mass standards . Use mass standards that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.790. **§1066.150 Analyzer interference and quench verification limit.** Analyzers must meet the int erference and quench verification limits in the following table on the lowest instrument range that will be used during emission testing, instead of those specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D:

Table 1 of §1066.150

–Analyzer interference and quench veri fication limits.

Verificati on Limit 40 CFR 1065.350 ±2 % of full scale 40 CFR 1065.355 ±2 % of full scale 40 CFR 1065.370 ±2 % of full scale 40 CFR 1065.375 ±2 % of the flow
- weighted mean concentration of N 2 O expected at the standardPage 735 of 842

**Subpart C**
**— Dynam**  **ometer Specifications §1066.201 Dynamometer overview.**  This subpart addresses chassis dy namometers and related equipment. **§1066.210 Dynamometers.** (a) General requirements. A chassis dynamometer typically uses electrically generated load forces combined with its rotational inertia to recreate the mechanical inertia and frictional forces that a vehicle exerts on road surfaces (known as “road load”). Load forces are calculated using vehicle
- specific coefficients and response characteristics. The load forc es are applied to the vehicle tires b y rolls connected to motor/absorbers. The dyn amometer uses a load cell to measure the forces the dynamometer rolls appl y to the vehicle’s tires. (b) Accuracy

and precision. The dynamometer’s output values for road loa d must be NI ST
- traceable. We may determine traceabilit y to a specific international standards organization to be sufficient to demonstrate NIST
- traceability . The force
- measurement sy stem must be capable of indicating force readings as follows: (1) For dy

namometers testing of vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, the dy namometer force
- measurement s ys tem must be capable of indicating force readings during a test to a resolution of ±0.05 % of the maximum load
- cell force simulated by the dy namometer or ±9. 0 N (±2.0 lbf), whichever is greater. (2) For dynamometers testing of vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR the force
measurement s ys tem must be capable of indicating force readings during a test to a resolution of ±0.05 % of the maximum load
- cell force simulated by the dy namometer or ±36.0 N (±8.0 lbf), whichever is greater. (c) Test cycles. The dy

namometer must be capable of fully simulating vehicle performance over applicable test cycles for the vehicles being tested as referenced in the corresponding stand ard
- setting part, including operation at the combination of inertial and road
load forces corresponding to maximum road load conditions and maximum simulated inertia at the highest acceleration rate experienced during testing. (d) Component requirements. The following specifications apply : (1) The nominal roll diameter must be 120 cm or greater. The dy namometer must have an independent drive roll for each drive axle as tested under §1066.410(g), except that two drive axles may share a single drive roll. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that thePage 736 of 842

dy namometer roll diameter is large enough to provide sufficient tire
- roll contact area to avoid tire overheating and power losses from tire
- roll slippage. (2) Measure and record force and speed at 10 Hz or f aster. You may

convert measured values to 1
- Hz, 2
- Hz, or 5
- Hz values before your calculations, using good engineering judgment. (3) The load applied by

the dy namometer simulates forces acting on the vehicle during normal driving according to the following equation:

2 i i -1 i i i i i -1 v v FR A B v C v M t t      



Eq. 1066.210
- 1
Where: FR = total road
- load force to be applied at the surface of the roll. The total force is the sum of the individual tractive forces applied at each roll surface
. i = a counter to indicate a poi nt in time over the driving schedule. For a dyn amometer operating at 10
- Hz intervals over a 600
- second driving schedule, the maximum value of i should be 6,000. A = constant value representing the vehicle’s frictional load in lbf or newtons. See subpart D of this part. B = coefficient representing load from drag and rolling resistance, which are a function of vehicle speed, in lbf/mph or N ∙ s/m. See subpart D of this part. v = linear speed at the roll surfaces as measured by the dy namometer, in mph or m/s . L et v i
- 1 = 0 for i = 0. C = coefficient representing aerodynamic effects, which are a function of vehicle speed squared, in lbf/mph 2 or N ∙ s 2 /m2 . See subpart D of this part. M = mass of vehicle in lbm or kg. For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, d etermine the vehicle’s mass based on equivalent test weight (ETW) as specified in §1066.810 and set dynamometer inertia simulation as specified in §1066.410(h). For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, d etermine the vehicle’s mass based on the test weight , taking into account the effect of rotating axles, as specified in §1066.310(b)(7) and dividing the weight b y the acceleration due to gravity as specified in 40 CFR 1065.630, consistent with good engineering judgment.Page 737 of 842

t = elapsed time in the driving sch edule as measured by the dyn amometer, in seconds. Let ti
- 1 = 0 for i = 0. (4) We recommend that a dy namometer capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR be designed to apply an actual road
- load force within ±1 % or ±9.0 N (±2.0 lbf) of the reference value, whichever is greater. Dy namometers that do not fully meet this specification may

be used consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, slightly higher errors may

be permissible during highl y transient operation for vehicles wi th a GVWR above 8500 pounds. (e) Dy namometer manufacturer instructions . This part specifies that you follow the dy namometer manufacturer’s recommended procedures for things such as calibrations and general operation. If you perform testing with a dynamome ter that you manufactured or if you otherwise do not have these recommended procedures, use good engineering judgment to establish the additional procedures and specifications we specify in this part, unless we specify otherwise. Keep records to describe these recommended procedures and how they are consistent with good engineering judgment, including any quantified error estimates. **§1066.215 Summary of verification and calibration procedures for chassis dynamometers.**  (a) Overview . This section describes the overall process for verifying and calibrating the performance of chassis dy namometers. (b) Scope and frequency . The following table summarizes the required and recommended calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates when the y must occur:
Table 1 of §1066.215

– Summary of required dy

namometer calibrations and verifications. Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequencya
§1066.220: Linearity verification Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. Torque (load): Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1066.225: Roll runout and diameter verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.Page 738 of 842 §1066.230: Time verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.

§1066.235: Speed measurement verification Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.240: Torque (load) transducer verification Upon initial installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.245: Response time verification Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.250: Base inertia verification Upon initial installation and after major maintena nce. §1066.255: Parasitic loss verification Upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in §1066.270 or §1066.280. §1066.260: Parasitic friction compensation evaluation Upon initial installation, after major mai ntenance, and upon failure of a verification in §1066.270 or §1066.280. §1066.265: Acceleration and deceleration verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance.

§1066.270: Unloaded coastdown verification Upon initial installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.280 Dynamometer readiness verification Upon initial installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance.

aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to me asurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering judgment.
(c) Automated dyn amometer verifications and calibrations . In some cases, dy namometers are designed with internal diagnostic and control features to accomplish the verifications an d calibrations specified in this subpart. You may use these automated functions instead of following the procedures we specify in this subpart to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements, consistent with good engineering judgment. (d) Sequenc e of verifications and calibrations . Upon initial installation and after major maintenance, perform the verifications and calibrations in the same sequence as noted in Table 1Page 739 of 842

of this section, except that you may perform speed linearity

verification after the verifications in §§1066.225 and 1066.230. At other times, you may need to perform specific verifications or calibrations in a certain sequence, as noted in this subpart. If you perform major maintenance on a specific component, yo u are required to p erform verifications and calibrations only on components or parameters that are affected b y the maintenance. (e) Corrections
. Unless the regulation directs otherwise, if the dy namometer fails to meet any specified calibration or verification, make any nece ssary adjustments or repairs such that the dy namometer meets the specification before running a test. Repairs required to meet specifications are generally considered major maintenance under this part. **§1066.220 Linearity verification for chassis dynamom eter systems.**  (a) Scope and frequency . Perform linearity verification for dynamometer speed and torque at least as frequently as indicated in Table 1 of §1066.215. The intent of linearity verification is to determine that the sy stem responds accuratel y and proportionally over the measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generall y consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a measurement s ys tem. The measurement sy stem quantifies each reference value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the reference values by using a least
- squares linear regression and the linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. (b) Performance requirements . I f a measurement sy stem does not meet the applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of this section, correct the deficiency by re - calibrating, servicing, or replacing components as needed. Repeat the linearity verification after correcting the deficiency to ensure that the measurement sy stem meets the linearity c riteria. Before you may use a measurement s ys tem that does not meet linearit y criteria, you must demonstrate to us that the deficiency

does not adversely

affect your ability

to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. (c) Procedure . Use the f

ollowing linearit y verification protocol, or use good engineering judgment to develop a different protocol that satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of this section: (1) In this paragraph (c), the letter “y” denotes a generic measured quantity, the superscript over
- bar denotes an arithmetic mean (such as y ), and the subscript “ ref ” denotes the known or reference quantity being measured. (2) Operate the dyn amometer s ys tem at the specified operating con ditions. This may include an y specified adjustment or periodic calibration of the dynamometer s ys tem. (3) Set dy namometer speed and torque to zero. (4) Verify the dynamometer speed or torque signal based on the dynamometer manufacturer’s recommendations.Page 740 of 842

(5) After verification, check for zero speed and torque. Use good engineering judgment to determine whether or not to rezero or re
- verify speed and torque before continuing. (6) For both speed and torque, use the dyn amometer manufacturer’s recommendatio ns and good engineering judgment to select reference values, yrefi , that cover a range of values that yo u expect would prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission testing. We recommend selecting zero speed and zero torque as reference values for the linearity verification. (7) Use the dyn amometer manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering judgment to select the order in which you will introduce the series of reference values. For example, you may

select the reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous measurements and to avoid the influence of h ys teresis; you may select reference values in ascending or descending order to avoid long settling times of reference signals; or you may select values to ascend and then desce nd to incorporate the effects of any instrument hy steresis into the linearity

verification. (8) Set the dynamometer to operate at a reference condition. (9) Allow time for the dynamometer to stabilize while it measures the reference values. (10) At a reco rding frequency of at least 1 Hz, measure speed and torque values for 30 seconds and record the arithmetic mean of the recorded values, i y . Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an example of calculating an arithmetic mean. (11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(8) though (10) of this section until you measure speeds and torques at each of the reference settings. (12) Use the arithmetic means, i y , and reference values, yrefi , to calculate least
- squares linear regr ession parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations described in 40 CFR 1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may weight the results of individual dat a pairs (i.e., ( yrefi , i y )), in the linear regression calculations. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §1066.220

– Dy namometer measurement sy stems that require linearity verifications

Measur ement system Qu

antity Linearity criteria

| y m in ( a 1 - 1)+ a 0 | a 1 SEE r 2
Speed v < 0.05 %

∙ max v 0.

98
- 1.02 < 2 %

∙ max v > 0.

990 Torque T < 1 % ∙ 0. < 1 % ∙ > 0.Page 741 of 842 (load) max T 99
- 1.01 max T 990
(d) Reference signals . Generate reference values for the linearity - verification protocol in paragraph (c) of this section as described for speed and torque in 40 CFR 1065.307(d).

**§1066.225 Roll runout and diameter verification procedure.**  (a) Overview. This section describes the verification procedure for roll runout and roll diameter. Roll runout is a measure of the variation in roll radius around the circumference of the roll. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform these verifications upon initial instal lation and after major maintenance that could affect roll surface finish or dimensions (such as resurfacing or polishing). (c) Roll runout procedure. Verify roll runout based on the following procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good engineering judgment: (1) Perform this verification with laboratory and dy namometer temperatures stable and at equilibrium. Release the roll brake and shut off power to the dy namometer. Remove an y dirt, rubber, rust, and debris from the roll surface. Mark measurem ent locations on the roll surface using a permanent marker. Mark the roll at a minimum of four equall y spaced locations across the roll width; we recommend taking measurements every 150 mm across the roll. Secure the marker to the deck plate adjacent to the roll surface and slowl y rotate the roll to mark a clear line around the roll circumference. Repeat this process for all measurement locations. (2) Measure roll runout using an indicator with a probe that allows for measuring the position of the roll s urface relative to the roll centerline as it turns through a complete revolution. The indicator must have some means of being securely mounted adjacent to the roll. The indicator must have sufficient range to measure roll runout at all points, with a min imum accuracy and precision of ±0.025 mm. Calibrate the indicator according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions. (3) Position the indicator adjacent to the roll surface at the desired measurement location. Position the shaft of the indicator pe rpendicular to the roll such that the point of the indicator is slightly touching the surface of the roll and can move freel y through a full rotation of the roll. Zero the indicator according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions. Avoid distortio n of the runout measurement from the weight of a person standing on or near the mounted dial indicator.Page 742 of 842

(4) Slowly

turn the roll through a complete rotation and record the maximum and minimum values from the indicator. Calculate runout as the difference b etween these maximum and minimum values. (5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section for all measurement locations. (6) The roll runout must be less than 0.254 mm (0.0100 inches) at all measurement locations. (d) Diameter procedure. Verify roll diameter based on the following procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good engineering judgment: (1) Prepare the laboratory and the dynamometer as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (2) Measure roll diameter using a Pi Tape®. Orient the Pi Tape® to the marker line at the desired measurement location with the Pi Tape® hook pointed outward. Temporaril y secure the Pi Tape® to the roll near the hook end with adhesive tape. Slowly turn the roll, wrapping the Pi Tape® around the roll surface. Ensure that the Pi Tape® is flat and adjacent to the marker line around the full circumference of the roll. Attach a 2.26
- kg weight to the hook of the Pi Tape® and position the roll so that the weight dangles freel y. Remove the adhe sive tape without disturbing the orientation or alignment of the Pi Tape®. (3) Overlap the gage member and the vernier scale ends of the Pi Tape® to read the diameter measurement to the nearest 0.01 mm. Follow the manufacturer’s recommendation to correct the measurement to 20 °C, if applicable. (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section for all measurement locations. (5) The measured roll diameter must be within ±0.254 mm of the specified nominal value at all measurement locations. You may revise the nominal value to meet this specification, as long as you use the corrected nominal value for all calculations in this subpart. **§1066.230 Time verification procedure.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy

of the dyn amometer’s timing device. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. Perform this verification using one of the following procedures:Page 743 of 842

(1) WWV method. You may use the t ime and frequency signal broadcast by

NI ST from radio station WWV as the time standard if the trigger for the dyn amometer timing circuit has a frequency decoder circuit, as follows: (i) Dial station WWV at (303) 499
- 7111 and listen for the time announcement. Verify that the trigger started the dy namometer timer. Use good engineering judgment to minimize error in receiving the time and frequency signal. (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, re
- dial station WWV and listen for the time announcement. Verify

that the trigger stopped the dy namometer timer. (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time, y act , to the corresponding time standard, yref , to determine the time error, y error , using the following equation:

act ref error ref 100 % y y y y

   Eq. 1066.230
- 1 (2) Ramping method. You may set up an operator - defined ramp function to serve as the time standard as follows: (i) Set up the signal generator to output a marker voltage at the peak of each ramp to trigger the dynamometer timing circuit. Output the designated marker voltage to start the verification period. (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, output the designated marker voltage to end the verification period. (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between marker signals, y act , to the corresponding time standard, yref , to determine the time error, y error , using Eq. 1066.230
- 1. (3) Dy namometer coastdown method. You may use a signal generator to output a known speed ramp signal to the dy namometer controller to serve as the time standard as follows: (i) Generate upper an d lower speed values to trigger the start and stop functions of the coastdown timer circuit. Use the signal generator to start the verification period. (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, use the signal generator to end the verification period. (iii) Comp are the measured elapsed time between trigger signals, y act , to the corresponding time standard, yref , to determine the time error, y error , using Eq. 1066.230
- 1. (d) Performance evaluation . The time error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed ±0.001 %.Page 744 of 842

**§1066.235 Speed verification procedure.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy

and resolution of the dy namometer speed determination. When performing this verification, you must also verify the dy namometer sp eed at any

devices used to display or record vehicle speed (for example a driver’s aid) is representative of the speed input from the dy namometer speed determination. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 370 day s before testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. Use one of the following procedures to verify the accuracy

and resolution of the dy namometer speed simulation: (1) Pulse method . Connect a universal frequency counter to the output of the dy namometer’s speed
- sensing device in parallel with the signal to the dyn amometer controller. The universal frequency

counter must be calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to pe rform the procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(1). Make sure the instrumentation does not affect the signal to the dy namometer control circuits. Determine the speed error as follows: (i) Set the dy

namometer to speed
- control mode. Set the dy namom eter speed to a value of approximately

4.5 m/s (10 mph); record the output of the frequency counter after 10 seconds. Determine the roll speed, v act , using the following equation:

roll act f d v n     Eq. 1066.235
- 1 Where: f = frequency

of the dyn amometer speed sensing device, accurate to at least four significant figures. d roll = nominal roll diameter, accurate to the nearest 1.0 mm, consistent with §1066.225(d). n = the number of pulses per revolution from the dynamometer roll speed sensor.
Example: f = 2.9231 Hz = 2.9231 s - 1Page 745 of 842

d roll = 904.40 mm = 0.90440 m n = 1 pulse/rev

act 2.9231 0.90440

1 v 

  
v act = 8.3053 m/s (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section for the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two addit ional evenl y spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum speed point. (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, v act , to each corresponding speed set point, vref , to determine values for speed error at each set point, v error , using the fo llowing equation:

v error = v act - vref Eq. 1066.235
- 2 Example: v act = 8.3053 m/s vref = 8.3000 m/s v error = 8.3053

– 8.3000 = 0.0053 m/s (2) Frequency

method. Install a piece of tape in the shape of an arrowhead on the surface of the dy namometer roll ne ar the outer edge. Put a reference mark on the deck plate in line with the tape. Install a stroboscope or photo tachometer on the deck plate and direct the flash toward the tape on the roll. The stroboscope or photo tachometer must be calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(2). Determine the speed error as follows: (i) Set the dy

namometer to speed control mode. Set the dy namometer speed to a speed value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mph). Tune the stroboscope or photo tachometer until the signal matches the dynamometer roll speed. Record the frequency. Determine the roll speed, y act , using Eq. 1066.235
- 1, using the stroboscope or photo tachometer’s frequency for f
.Page 746 of 842

(ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two additional evenl y spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum sp eed point. (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, v act , to each corresponding speed set point, vref , to determine values for speed error at each set point, y error , using Eq. 1066.235
- 2. (d) Performance evaluation . The speed error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed ±0.02 m/s at any speed set point. **§1066.240 Torque transducer verification.** Verify torque - measurement sy stems by performing the verifications described in §1066.270 and 280. **§1066.245 Response time verification.** (a) Ov erview. This section describes how to verify the dy namometer’s response time. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 370 day s before testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. Use the dy namometer’s automated process to verify response time. You may perform this test either at two different inertia settings corresponding approximately to the minimum and maximum vehicle weights you expect to test or using base inertia and two acceleration rates that cover the range of acceleration rates experienced during testing (for example 0.5 and 8 mph/s). Use good engineering judgment to select road
- load coefficients representing vehicles of the appropriate weight. Determine the dynamometer’s settling response time, ts , based on the point at which there are no measured results more than 10 % above or below the final equilibrium value, as illustrated in Figure 1 of this section. The observed settling response time must be less than 100 milliseconds for each iner tia setting. Figure 1 of §1066.245

**—**Example of a settling response time diagram.Page 747 of 842 **Ti me**  **( t**  **) t**  **s R** **e s** **p o** **n s** **e 1.1**  **1.0 0.9** 

**§1066.250 Base inertia verification.** (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the dy namometer’s base inertia. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verificati on upon initial installation and after major maintenance (such as maintenance that could affect roll assembl y inertia). (c) Procedure. Verify

the base inertia using the following procedure: (1) Warm up the dynamometer according to the dynamometer manufa cturer’s instructions. Set the dy

namometer’s road
- load inertia to zero, turning off any electrical simulation of road load and inertia so that the base inertia of the dynamometer is the only inertia present, and motor the rolls to 5 mph. Apply a constant force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to accelerate from 10 to 40 mph, noting the corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also determine average force over the measurement int erval. (2) Starting from a steady roll speed of 45 mph, apply a constant force to the roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mph, noting the corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also determine average force over the measurement interval.Page 748 of 842

(3) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for a total of five sets of results at the nominal acceleration rate and the nominal deceleration rate. (4) Use good engineering judgment to select two additional acceleration and deceleration rates that cover the middle and upper rates expected during testing. Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section at each of these additiona l acceleration and deceleration rates. (5) Determine the base inertia, I b , for each measurement interval using the following equation:

b final initial F I v v

t 

  Eq. 1066.250
- 1
Where: F = average dyn amometer force over the measurement interval as measure d by the dy namometer. v final = roll surface speed at the end of the measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 mph. v initial = roll surface speed at the start of the measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 mph. t  = elapsed time during the measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 s. Example: F = 1.500 lbf = 48.26 ft ∙lbm/s 2
v final = 40.00 mph = 58.67 ft/s v initial = 10.00 mph = 14.67 ft/s t  = 30.00 s

b 48.26 58.67 14.67 30.00 I 

 I b = 32.90 lbmPage 749 of 842

(6) Calculate the base inertia error, I berror , for each of the thirty measure d base inertia values, I

b , by comparing it to the manufacturer’s stated base inertia, I bref , using the following equation:

bref bact

berror bref 100 % I I I I    Eq. 1066.250
- 2 Example: I bref = 32.96 lbm

bact I = 32.90 lbm (from paragraph (c)(5) of this section)

berror 32.96 32.90 100 %

32.96 I    I berror = 0.18 % (7) Determine the base inertia arithmetic mean value, b I , from the sum of the ten acceleration and deceleration interval base inertia values for each of the three acce leration/deceleration rates. Calculate base inertia mean values as described in 40 CFR 1065.602(b) (8) Calculate the inertia error for each of the three mean values of base inertia from paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Use Eq. 1066.250
- 2, substituting the mean base inertias associated with each acceleration and deceleration rate for the individual base inertias. (d) Performance evaluation . The dynamometer must meet the following specifications to be used for testing under this part: (1) All base inertia errors determined under paragraph (c)(6) of this section may not exceed ±1.0 %. (2) All mean base inertia errors determined under paragraph (c)(8) of this section may not exceed ±0.20 %.Page 750 of 842

**§1066.255 Parasitic loss verification.** (a) Overview. Verify

and correct the dynamometer’s parasitic loss. This procedure determines the dynamometer’s internal losses that it must overcome to simulate road load. These losses are characterized in a parasitic loss curve that the dy namometer uses to apply compensating forces to maintain the desired road
- load force at the roll surface. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in either §1066.270 or §1066.280. (c) Procedure. Perform this verification by following the dy

namometer manufacturer’s specifications to establish a parasitic loss curve, taking data at fixed speed intervals to cover the range of vehicle speeds that will occur during testing. You may zero the load cell at a selected speed if that improves yo ur ability to determine the parasitic loss. Parasitic loss forces may never be negative. Note that the torque transducers must be zeroed and spanned prior to performing this procedure. (d) Performance evaluation. In some cases, the dy namometer automatically updates the parasitic loss curve for further testing. If this is not the case, compare the new parasitic loss curve to the original parasitic loss curve from the dy namometer manufacturer or the most recent paras itic loss curve you programmed into the dynamometer. You may reprogram the dy namometer to accept the new curve in all cases, and you must reprogram the dy namometer if any point on the new curve departs from the earlier curve by more than ±9.0 N for dy namo meters capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR or ±36.0 N (±8.0 lbf) for dynamometers not capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR. **§1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation evaluation.** (a) Overview. This section d escribes how to verify the accuracy

of the dy namometer’s friction compensation. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in either §1066.270 or §1066.280. No te that this procedure relies on proper verification or calibration of speed and torque, as described in §§1066.235 and 1066.240. You must also first verify the dynamometer’s parasitic loss curve as specified in §1066.255. (c) Procedure. Use the followin g procedure to verify the accuracy

of the dy namometer’s friction compensation: (1) Warm up the dynamometer as specified b y the dynamometer manufacturer. (2) Perform a torque verification as specified b y the dy namometer manufacturer. For torque verificat ions rel yi ng on shunt procedures, if the results do not conform to specifications, recalibrate the dynamometer using NIST
- traceable standards as appropriate until thePage 751 of 842

dy namometer passes the torque verification. Do not change the dy namometer’s base inertia to pass the torque verification. (3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the base inertia with the road
- load coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the dynamometer to speed
- control mode with a target speed of 50 mph or a higher speed recommended by the dy namo meter manufacturer. Once the speed stabilizes at the target speed, switch the dy namometer from speed control to torque control and allow the roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the initial and final speeds and the corresponding start and stop times. I f friction compensation is executed perfectly , there will be no change in speed during the measurement interval. (4) Calculate the power equivalent of friction compensation error, FC error , using the following equation: 

#   2 2 error init final 2 I FC v v

t   

 Eq. 1066.2 60
- 1 Where: I = dynamometer inertia setting. t = duration of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.01 s. v init = the roll speed corresponding to the start of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.05 mph. v final = the roll speed corres ponding to the end of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.05 mph. Example: I = 2000 lbm = 62.16 lbf· s 2 /ft t = 60.0 s v init = 9.2 mph = 13.5 ft/s v final = 10.0 mph = 14.7 ft/s



#   2 2 error 62.16 1 3.5 14.7 2 6 0.00 FC   

 FC error = – 16.5 ft ∙lbf/s =

– 0.031 hpPage 752 of 842

(5) The friction compensation error may not exceed ±0.15 hp for dynamometers capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, or ±0.6 hp for dy namometers not capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR. **§1066.265 Acceleration a nd deceleration verification.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the dy namometer’s ability

to achieve targeted acceleration and deceleration rates. Paragraph (c) of this section describes how this verification applies when the dy namometer is programmed directly for a specific acceleration or deceleration rate. Paragraph (d) of this section describes how this verification applies when the dy namometer is programmed with a calculated force to achieve a targeted acceleration or deceleration rate. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification or an equivalent procedure upon initial installation and after major maintenance that could affect acceleration and deceleration accuracy . Note that this procedure relies on proper verification or c alibration of speed as described in §1066.235. (c) Verification of acceleration and deceleration rates. Activate the dynamometer’s function generator for measuring roll revolution frequency . If the dy namometer has no such function generator, set up a pro perl y calibrated external function generator consistent with the verification described in this paragraph (c). Use the function generator to determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as the dynamometer traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various nominal acceleration and deceleration rates. Verify the dyn amometer’s acceleration and deceleration rates as follows: (1) Set up start and stop frequencies specific to your dy namometer by

identifying the roll
revolution frequency , f

, in revolutions per second (or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40 mph vehicle speeds, accurate to at least four significant figures, using the following equation:

roll v n f d   

 Eq. 1066.265
- 1 Where: v = the target roll speed, in inches per second (correspon ding to drive speeds of 10 mph or 40 mph). n = the number of pulses from the dynamometer’s roll
- speed sensor per roll revolution. d roll = roll diameter, in inches.Page 753 of 842

(2) Program the dy

namometer to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate for each run, a act , using the following equation:

final init act v v a t

  Eq. 1066.265
- 2 Where: a act = acceleration rate (decelerations have negative values). v final = the target value for the final roll speed. v init = the setpoint value for the initial roll speed. t = time to accelerate from v init to v final . Example: v final = 40 mph v init = 10 mph t = 30.003 s

act 40.00 10.00 30.03 a  
a act = 0.999 mph/s (3) Program the dyn amometer to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0 .01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, a act , using Eq. 1066.265
- 2 (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section for additional acceleration and deceleration rates in 1 mph/s in crements up to and including one increment above the maximum acceleration rate expected during testing. Average the five repeat runs to calculate a mean acceleration rate, act

a , at each setting.Page 754 of 842

(5) Compare each mean acceleration rate, act a , to the corresponding nominal acceleration rate, a ref , to determine values for acceleration error, a error , using the following equation:

act ref error ref 100 % a a a a

   Eq. 1066.265
- 3 Example:

act a = 0.99 9 mph/s
a ref = 1 mph/s

error 0.999 1 100 % 1 a   
a error = – 0.100 % (d) Verification of forces for controlling acceleration and deceleration. Program the dy namometer with a calculated force value and determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as the dyn amometer traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various nominal acceleration and deceleration rates. Verify the dy namometer’s abilit y to achieve certain acceleration and deceleration rates with a given force as follows: (1) Calculate the force setting, F , using the following equation:

b F I a  Eq. 1066.265
- 4 Where: I b = the dy namometer manufacturer’s stated base inertia, in lbf·s 2 /ft. a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s 2

. Example: I b = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf· s 2 /ftPage 755 of 842

a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s 2 92.217 1.4667 F   F = 135.25 lbf (2) Set the dynamometer to road
- load mode and program it with a calculated force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, a act , for each run using Eq. 1066.265
- 2. Repeat this step to determine measured “negative acceleration” rates using a calculated force to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Average the five repeat runs to calculate a mean acceleration rate, act a , at each setting. (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(2) of this secti on for additional acceleration and deceleration rates as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. (4) Compare each mean acceleration rate, act a , to the corresponding nominal acceleration rate, a ref , to determine values for acce leration error, a error , using Eq. 1066.265
- 3 (e) Performance evaluation . The acceleration error from paragraphs (c)(5) and (d)(4) of this section may

not exceed ±1.0 %. **§1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification.** (a) Overview. Use force measurements to ve rify the dy namometer’s settings based on coastdown procedures. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 7 day s of testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. This procedure verifies the dy namometer’s s ettings derived from coastdown testing. For dynamometers that have an automated process for this procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the initial speed, final speed, inertial coefficients, and road
load coefficients as required for each test, usi ng good engineering judgment to ensure that these values properl y represent in
- use operation. Use the following procedure if your dyn amometer does not perform this verification with an automated process: (1) Warm up the dy

namometer as specified by the dy n amometer manufacturer. (2) With the dy

namometer in coastdown mode, set the dy namometer inertia for the smallest vehicle weight that you expect to test and set A, B, and C road
- load coefficients to values ty pical of those used during testing. Program the dynamometer to coast down over thePage 756 of 842

dy namometer operational speed range (typicall y from a speed of 80 mph through a minimum speed at or below 10 mph). Perform at least one coastdown over this speed range, collecting data over each 10 mph interval. (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2) of this section with the dy namometer inertia and road
- load coefficients set for the largest vehicle weight that you expect to test . (4) Determine the average coastdown force, F , for each speed and inertia setting for each of the coastdowns performed using the following equation:



##   init final I v v F t    Eq. 1066.270
- 1 Where: F = the average force measured during the coastdown for each speed interval and inertia setting, expressed in lbf· s 2 /ft and rounded to four significant figures. I = the dynamometer’s inertia setting, in lbf· s 2 /ft. v init = the speed at the start of the coastdown, expressed in ft/s and rounded to four significant figures. v final = the speed at the end of the coastdown interval, rounded to four significant figures. t = coastdown time for each speed and inertia setting, accurate to at least 0.01 s. Example: I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf · s 2 /ft v init = 25 mph = 36.66 ft/s v final = 15 mph = 22.0 ft/s t = 5.00 s 

##   65.17 36.66 22.0 5.00 F    F = 191.1 lbfPage 757 of 842

(5) Cal culate the target value of coastdown force, F ref , based on the applicable dy namometer parameters for each speed and inertia setting. (6) Compare the mean value of the coastdown force measured for each speed and inertia setting, act F , to the corresponding F ref to determine values for coastdown force error, F error , using the following equation:

act ref error ref 100 % F F F F

   Eq. 1066.270
- 2 Example: F ref = 192 lbf

act F = 191 lbf

error 191 192 100 % 192 F    F error = 0 .5 % (d) Performance evaluation . The coastdown force error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may

not exceed the following: (i) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, calculate F errormax from the following formula: F errormax (%) = (2.0 lbf/

F ref )·100 Eq. 1066.270
- 3 Example: F ref = 192 lbf F errormax (%) = (2.0/192)·100 = 1.04% (ii) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, the maximum allowable error, F errormax , for all speed and inertia settings is ± 1.0 % or ±36.0 N, whichever is greater
.Page 758 of 842

(e) I f the dy

namometer is not able to meet this requirement, diagnose and repair the dy namometer before continuing with emission testing. Diagnosis should include performing the verifications in §1066.255 and §1066.260. **§1066.280 Dynamometer readiness verific ation.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify that the dy

namometer is ready

for emission testing. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Proc edure. For dyn amometers that have an automated process for this verification procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the initial speed and final speed and the inertial and road
- load coefficients as required for the test, using good engineering judgm ent to ensure that these values properl y represent in
- use operation. Use the following procedure if your dy namometer does not perform this verification with an automated process: (1) With the dy

namometer in coastdown mode, set the dy namometer inertia to the base inertia with the road
- load coefficient A set to 20 lbf (or a force that results in a coastdown time of less than 10 minutes) and coefficients B and C set to 0. Program the dynamometer to coast down for one 10 mph interval from 55 mph down to 45 mp h. I f your dynamometer is not capable of performing one discrete coastdown, then coast down with preset 10 mph intervals that include a 55 mph to 45 mph interval. (2) Perform the coastdown. (3) Determine the coastdown force and coastdown force error using Eqs. 1066.270
- 1 and 1066.270
- 2. (d) Performance evaluation . The coastdown force error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may

not exceed the following: (1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, ± 1.0 % or ±9.0 N, whichever is greater .(2) For vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR, ± 1.0 % or ±36.0 N (±8.0 lbf), whichever is greater
. (e) If the verification results fail to meet the performance criteria in paragraph (d) of this section, perform the procedure up to two additional times. I f the dyn amometer is consistently unable to meet the performance criteria, diagnose and repair the dynamometer before continuing with emission testing. Diagnosis should include performing the verifications in §1066.255 and §1066.260.Page 759 of 842

**§1066.290 Driver’s aid.** Use g ood engineering judgment to provide a driver’s aid that facilitates compliance with the requirements of §1066.430. Verify the speed accuracy

of the driver’s aid as described in §1066.235.

**Subpart D**
**— Coastdown**  **§1066.301 Overview of coastdown procedures .**  (a) The coastdown procedures described in this subpart are used to determine the load coefficients (A, B, and C) for the simulated road
- load equation in §1066.210(d)(3). (b) The general procedure for performing coastdown tests and calculating load coeffi cients is described in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010). This subpart specifies certain deviations from those procedures for certain applications. (c) Use good engineering judgment for all aspects of coastdown testing. Fo r example, minimize the effects of grade b y performing coastdown testing on reasonably level surfaces and determining coefficients based on average values from vehicle operation in opposite directions over the course. **§1066.305 Coastdown procedures for mo tor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds**  **GVWR.** Calculate road
- load coefficients for chassis testing of motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR by

performing coastdowns using the provisions of SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated b y reference in §1066. 1010). **§1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.** This section describes coastdown procedures that are unique to vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. These procedures are valid for calculating road
- load coefficients for chassis and post - transmission powerpack testing and for calculating drag area ( C D A ) for use in the GEM simulation tool under 40 CFR part 1037.Page 760 of 842

(a) Determine load coefficients by performing a minimum of 16 valid coastdown runs (8 in each direction). (b) Follow the provisions of Sections 1 through 9 of SAE J1263, and SAE J2263 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010), except as described in this paragraph (b). The terms and variables identified in this paragraph (b) have the meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263 unle ss specified otherwise. (1) The test condition specifications of SAE J1263 apply except as follows for wind and road conditions: (i) We recommend that you do not perform coastdown testing on days for which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 mph. (ii) The gra de of the test track or road must not be excessive (considering factors such as road safety

standards and effects on the coastdown results). Road conditions should follow Section 7.4 of SAE J1263, except that road grade may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is greater than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, then the road grade as a function of distance along the length of the test surface must be incorporated into the anal ys is. To calculate the force due to grade use Section 11.5 of SAE J2263. (2) Operate the vehicle at a top speed above 70 mph, or at its maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mph. If a vehicle is equipped with a vehicle speed limiter that is set for a maximum speed below 70 mph, you must disable the vehicle speed limiter. Star t the test at or above 70 mph or at the vehicle’s maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mph. Data collection must occur through a minimum speed at or below 15 mph. Data anal ys is for valid coastdown runs must include a maximum speed as described in this paragraph (b)(2) and a minimum speed of 15 mph. (3) Gather data regarding wind speed and direction, in coordination with time
- of
- day data, using at least one stationary electro
- mechanical anemometer and suitable data loggers meeting the specificati ons of SAE J1263, as well as the following additional specifications for the anemometer placed adjacent to the test surface: (i) Calibrate the equipment by running the zero
- wind and zero
- angle calibrations within 24 hours before conducting the coastdown procedures . If the coastdown procedures are not complete 24 hours after calibrating the equipment, repeat the calibration for another 24 hours of data collection. (ii) Record the location of the anemometer using a GPS measurement device adjacent to the test surface (approximately) at the midway distance along the test surface used for coastdowns. (iii) Position the anemometer such that it will be at least 2.5 but not more than 3.0 vehicle widths from the test vehicle’s centerline as the test vehicle passes the location of that anemometer.Page 761 of 842

(iv) Mount the anemometer at a height that is within 6 inches of half the test vehicle’s maximum height. (v) Place the anemometer at least 50 feet from the nearest tree and at least 25 feet from the nearest bush (or equivale nt roadside features). (vi) The height of the grass surrounding the stationary anemometer may

not exceed 10% of the anemometer’s mounted height, within a radius equal to the anemometer’s mounted height. (4) You may

split runs as per Section 9.3.1 of SAE J2 263, but we recommend whole runs. If you split a run, analyze each portion separately, but count the split runs as one run with respect to the minimum number of runs required. (5) You may

perform consecutive runs in a single direction, followed by consecutive runs in the opposite direction, consistent with good engineering judgment. Harmonize starting and stopping points to the extent practicable to allow runs to be paired. (6) All valid coastdown run times in each direction must be within 2.0 standard de viations of the mean of the valid coastdown run times (from 70 mph down to 15 mph) in that direction. Eliminate runs outside this range. After eliminating these runs you must have at least eight valid runs in each direction. You may use coastdown run ti mes that do not meet these standard deviation requirements if we approve it in advance. In your request, describe wh y the vehicle is not able to meet the specified standard deviation requirements and propose an alternative set of requirements. (7) Anal yz e data for chassis and post
- transmission powerpack testing or for use in the GEM simulation tool as follows: (i) Follow the procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 11 of SAE J2263 to calculate coefficients for chassis and post
- transmissio n powerpack testing. (ii) Determine drag area, C D A , as follows instead of using the procedure specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263: (A) Measure vehicle speed at fixed intervals over the coastdown run (generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at or above 15 mp h and at or below 70 mph. Establish the height or altitude corresponding to each interval as described in SAE J2263 if you need to incorporate the effects of road grade. (B) Calculate the vehicle’s effective mass, M e , in kg by

adding 56.7 kg to the vehicl e mass for each tire making road contact. This accounts for the rotational inertia of the wheels and tires. (C) Calculate the road
- load force for each measurement interval, F i , for values of i ≥ 1 using the following equation:

i i 1 i e v v F M t 

    Page 762 of 842 Eq. 1066.310
- 1 Where: M e = the vehicle’s effective mass, expressed to the nearest 0.1 kg. v = vehicle speed at the beginning and end of the measurement interval. Δ t = elapsed time over the mea surement interval, in seconds. (D) Plot the data from all the coastdown runs on a single plot of F i vs. v i 2 to determine the slope correlation, D , based on the following equation:

2 i e m i

h F M g A D v

s 

       Eq. 1066.310
- 2 Where: g = gravitati onal acceleration = 9.81 m/s 2

. Δ h = change in height or altitude over the measurement interval, in m. Assume Δh = 0 if yo u are not correcting for grade. Δs = distance the vehicle travels down the road during the measurement interval, in m. A m = the calculated value of the y
- intercept based on the curve
- fit. (E) Calculate drag area, C D A , in m 2 using the following equation: adj D 2 D C A    Eq. 1066.310
- 3 Where: ρ = air densit y at reference conditions = 1.17 kg/m 3

.
adj B

98.21 293 T D D p

              Page 763 of 842 Eq. 1066.310
- 4 T = average ambient temperature during testing, in K.

B p = average ambient pressuring during the test, in kPa. (8) Determine the A, B, and C coefficients identified in §1066.210 as follows: (i) For chassis and post
- transm ission powerpack testing, follow the procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 12 of SAE J2263. (ii) For the GEM simulation tool, use the following values: A = A m B = 0 C = D adj **§1066.320 Dynamometer road -**  **load setting.** Determine dynamomete r road
- load settings for chassis testing by following SAE J2264 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010).

**Subpart E**
**— Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test**  **§1066.401 Overview.** (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle emissions over a specified drive schedule. Different procedures may appl y for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions as described in subpart I of this part or the standard
- setting part. This subpart describes how to: (1) Determine road
- load power, test weight, and inertia class. (2) Prepare the vehicle, equipment, and measurement instruments for an emission test. (3) Perform pre
- test procedures to verify proper operation of certain equipment and anal yz ers and to prepare them for testing. (4) Record pre
- test data. (5) Sample emissions.Page 764 of 842

(6) Record post
- test data. (7) Perform post
- test procedures to verify proper operation of certain equipment and anal yz ers. (8) Weigh PM samples. (b) The overall test consists of prescribed sequences of fueli ng, parking, and driving at specified test conditions. An exhaust emission test generall y consists of measuring emissions and other parameters while a vehicle follows the drive schedules specified in the standard
- setting part. There are two general ty pes of test cycles: (1) Transient cycles . Transient test cycles are t ypically specified in the standard
- setting part as a second
- by
- second sequence of vehicle speed commands. Operate a vehicle over a transient cycle such that the speed follows the target values. Proportionally sample emissions and other parameters and use the calculations in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, or subpart G of this part to calculate emissions. The standard
- setting part may specify three ty pes of transient testing based on the appro ach to starting the measurement, as follows: (i) A cold
- start transient cycle where you start to measure emissions just before starting an engine that has not been warmed up. (ii) A hot
- start transient cycle where you start to measure emissions just before starting a warmed
- up engine. (iii) A hot running transient cycle where you start to measure emissions after an engine is started, warmed up, and running. (2) Cruise cycles . Cruise test cycles are t ypicall y specified in the standard
- setting part as a disc rete operating point that has a single speed command. (i) Start a cruise cycle as a hot running test, where you start to measure emissions after the engine is started and warmed up and the vehicle is running at the target test speed. (ii) Sample emissions and other parameters for the cruise cycle in the same manner as a transient cycle, with the exception that the reference speed value is constant . Record instantaneous and mean speed values over the cycle. **§1066.407 Vehicle preparation and preconditioning .**  Prepare the vehicle for testing, including measurement of evaporative and refueling emissions, as described in the standard
- setting part. **§1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure.** Page 765 of 842

(a) D yn amometer testing may consist of multiple drive cycles with both cold
- s tart and hot
- start portions, including prescribed soak times before each test phase. The standard
- setting part identifies the driving schedules and the associated sample phases, soak periods, engine startup and shutdown procedures, and operation of access ories, as applicable. Not every test phase includes all these elements. (b) Place the vehicle onto the dy namometer without starting the engine (cold start test cycles onl y) or drive the vehicle onto dynamometer and position a fan that appropriatel y direct s cooling air to the vehicle during dyn amometer operation as described in this paragraph (b). This generall y requires squarely positioning the fan in front of the vehicle and directing the airflow to the vehicle’s radiator. Use good engineering judgment to design and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way

that properl y simulates in
- use operation. (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, use the following cooling fan configurations as allowed under Table 1 of this section: (i) Use a fixed
- speed fan to appropriatel y direct cooling air to the vehicle with the engine compartment cover open. The fan capacity may not exceed 2.50 m 3 /s and the fan should be placed nominall y within 31 cm of the front of the vehicle. If you determine that additio nal cooling is needed to properly represent in
- use operation, use good engineering judgment to increase the fan’s capacity or use additional fans, subject to our approval. When testing under this option, the engine compartment cover must be open. (ii) Use a fixed
- speed fan to direct cooling air to the vehicle with the engine compartment cover open. The fan capacity may not exceed 7.10 m 3 /s and the fan should be placed approximately

30 to 60 cm of the front of the vehicle. If you determine that additional cooling is needed to properl y represent in
- use operation, use good engineering judgment to increase the fan’s capacit y or use additional fans, subject to our approval. When testing under this option, the engine compartment cover must be open. (iii) Use a road
- speed modulated fan s ys tem that achieves a linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and within ±6.5 mph (±2.9 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at higher vehicle speeds. We recommend that the cooling fan have a minimum opening of 0.2 m 2 and a minimum width of 0.8 m. The discharge nozzle shall be placed nominall y within 61 cm of the front of the vehicle to prov ide representative cooling. When testing under this option, the engine compartment cover must be closed. (iv) Use a road
- speed modulated fan s ys tem with a minimum air flow nozzle discharge area that is equal to or exceeds the vehicle frontal inlet area. The optimum discharge area is 1.7 m 2 (1.3 m × 1.3 m), however, other sizes can be used. The discharge nozzle should be placed nominally

within the range of (60 to 92) cm from the front of the vehicle and 0 to 16 cm from the floor of the test cell. When t esting under this option, the engine compartment cover must be closed. (A) Air flow volumes must be proportional to vehicle speed. With the above optimum discharge size, the fan volume would vary from 0 cubic feet/ minute (cfm) at 0 mph toPage 766 of 842

approximately

9 5,000 cfm at 60 mph. I f this fan is also the only source of cell air circulation or if fan operational mechanics make the 0 mph air flow requirement impractical, air flow of 2 mph or less will be allowed at 0 mph vehicle speed. (B) The fan air flow veloci ty vector perpendicular to the axial flow velocity vector shall be less than 10 % of the mean velocity measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph. (C) Fan axial air flow velocity is measured two feet from nozzle outlet at each point of a one foot grid over the entire discharge area. The uniformity of axial flow tolerance is 20 % of the fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph. (D) The instrument used to verify the air velocity

must have an accuracy

of 2 % of the measured air flow speed.

Table 1 of §1066.410

–Test cell vehicle cooling fan requirements.
Test cycle Allowable

cooling fan configurations
FTP, AC idle, and LA
- 92 1066.410( b)(1)(i), 1066.410( b)(1)(iii)
US06 1066.410(

b)(1)(ii), 1066.410(b)(1)(iii) SC 03 and AC17 1066.410( b)(1)(iv)
HFET 1066.410(

b)(1)(i), 1066.410(b)(1)(iii)
(2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , use a road
- speed modulated fan s ys tem that achieves a linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/ s) of the corresponding roll speed when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and within ±10 mph (±4.5 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at higher vehicle speeds. For vehicles with GVWR above 19,500 lbs, we recommend that the cooli ng fan have a minimum opening of 2.75 m 2 , a minimum flow rate of 3,600 m 3 /min at 50 mph, and that it maintain a minimum speed profile across the duct, in the free stream flow, of ±15 % of the target flow rate.Page 767 of 842

The discharge nozzle shall be placed approxim ately 30 to 60 cm of the front of the vehicle to provide representative cooling. When testing under this option, the engine compartment cover must be closed. (3) If the cooling specifications in this paragraph (b) are impractical for special vehicle designs, such as vehicles with rear
- mounted engines, you may arrange for an alternative fan configuration that allows for proper simulation of vehicle cooling during in
- use operation, subject to our approval. (c) Record the vehicle’s speed trace based on the ti me and speed data from the dy namometer. Record speed to at least the nearest 0.01 m/s or 0.01 mph and time to at least the nearest 0.1 s. (d) You may

perform practice runs for operating the vehicle and the dy namometer controls to meet the driving toleranc es specified in §1066.430 or adjust the emission sampling equipment. Verify

that the accelerator pedal allows for enough control to closely follow the prescribed driving schedule. We recommend that you verify your ability

to meet the minimum dilution fac tor requirements of §1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B) during these practice runs. (e) Inflate tires on drive wheels according to the vehicle manufacturer’s specifications. The tire pressure for drive wheels must be the same for dynamometer operation and for dy namom eter coastdown procedures used for determining road
- load coefficients. Report these tire pressure values with the test results. (f) Tie down or load the test vehicle as needed to provide a normal force at the tire and dy namometer roll interface to preve nt wheel slip. For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , report this force with the test results. (g) For vehicles which provide four
- wheel drive or all
- wheel drive operation, utilize the vehicle’s normal (default) mode of operation. This may involve testin g four
- wheel drive or all
wheel drive on a dynamometer with a separate dynamometer roll for each drive axle. Alternativel y, two drive axles may use a single roll, as described in §1066.210(d)(1). You may also test the vehicle on a single roll b y deactivat ing the second set of drive wheels, but only if this mode of operation does not decrease emissions or energy consumption relative to normal in
use operation. We may

test such vehicles in multiple
- wheel or all
- wheel mode on one or more rolls to confirm that the alternate dynamometer procedures did not decrease emissions. (h) Determine test weight as follows: (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine ETW as described in §1066.810. Set dy

namometer vehicle inertia, I , based on dy

namometer typ e, as follows: (i) For two
- wheel drive dy namometers, set I = ETW. (ii) For four
- wheel drive dy namometers, set I = 0.985 ∙ETW. (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine the vehicle’s effective mass as described in 1066.310.Page 768 of 842

(i) Warm up the dy

namo meter as recommended by the dyn amometer manufacturer. (j) Following the test, determine the actual driving distance b y counting the number of dy namometer roll or shaft revolutions, or by integrating speed over the course of testing from a high
- resolution e ncoder system. **§1066.420 Vehicle operation.** This section describes how to test a conventionally configured vehicle (vehicles with transmission shifters, foot pedal accelerators, etc). You may ask us to modify

these procedures for vehicles that do not hav e these control features. (a) Start the vehicle as follows: (1) At the beginning of the test cycle, start the vehicle according to the procedure described in the owners manual. In the case of hybrid vehicles, this would generall y involve activating vehic le s ys tems such that the engine will start when the vehicle’s control algorithms determine that the engine should provide power instead of or in addition to power from the rechargeable energy

storage s ys tem (RESS). Unless we specify otherwise, engine star

ting throughout this part generally refers to this step of activating the sy stem on hy brid vehicles, whether or not that causes the engine to start running. (2) Place the transmission in gear as described b y the test cycle in the standard
- setting part. During idle operation, you may apply the brakes if necessary

to keep the drive wheels from turning. (b) If the vehicle does not start after your recommended maximum cranking time, wait and restart cranking according to your recommended practice. If you don’ t recommend such a cranking procedure, stop cranking after 10 seconds, wait for 10 seconds, then start cranking again for up to 10 seconds. You may repeat this for up to three start attempts. I f the vehicle does not start after three attempts, you must d etermine and record the reason for failure to start. Shut off sampling s ys tems and either turn the CVS off or disconnect the exhaust tube from the tailpipe during the diagnostic period to prevent flow through the exhaust system. Reschedule the vehicle fo r testing. This may require performing vehicle preparation and preconditioning if the testing needs to be rerun from a cold start. If failure to start occurs during a hot start test, you may reschedule the hot start test without repeating the cold start test, as long as you bring the vehicle to a hot start condition before starting the hot start test. (c) Repeat the recommended starting procedure if the engine has a false start (i.e., an incomplete start). (d) Take the following steps if the engine stalls : (1) If the engine stalls during an idle period, restart the engine immediately and continue the test. If you cannot restart the engine soon enough to allow the vehicle to follow the next acceleration, stop the driving schedule indicator and reactivate it when the vehicle restarts.Page 769 of 842

(2) Void the test if the vehicle stalls during vehicle operation. If this happens, remove the vehicle from the dyn amometer, take corrective action, and reschedule the vehicle for testing. Record the reason for the malfunction (if determined) and an y corrective action. See the standard
- setting part for instructions about reporting these malfunctions. (e) Operate vehicles during testing as follows: (1) Where we do not give specific instructions, operate the vehicle according to the recommendations in the owners manual, unless those recommendations are unrepresentative of what may reasonabl y be expected for in
- use operation. (2) If vehicles have features that preclude dynamometer testing, you may modify these features as necessary to allow testing, consistent with good engineering judgment, as long as it does not affect your ability to show that your vehicles comply with standards. Send us written notification describing these changes along with supporting rationale. (3) Operate vehicles during idle as follows: (i) For vehicles with automatic transmission, operate at idle with the transmission in “Drive” with the wheels braked, except that you may shift to “Neutral” for the first idle period and for an y idle period longer than one minute. If you put the vehicle in “Neutral” during an idle, you must shift the vehicle into “Drive” with the wheels braked at least 5 seconds before the end of the idle period. Note that this does not preclude vehicle designs involving engine operation with stop
- start functions where the engine stops when the brake is applied below a certain threshold speed and restarts upon release of the brake. (ii) For vehicles with manual transmission, operate at idle with the transmission in gear with the clutch dis engaged, except that you may shift to “Neutral” with the clutch engaged for the first idle period and for an y idle period longer than one minute. If you put the vehicle in “Neutral” during idle, yo u must shift to first gear with the clutch disengaged at l east 5 seconds before the end of the idle period. Note that this does not preclude vehicle designs involving engine operation with stop
- start functions where the engine stops when the clutch is disengaged below a certain threshold speed and restarts upon reengagement of the clutch. (4) Use the appropriate accelerator pedal to achieve the speed versus time relationship prescribed b y the driving schedule. Avoid smoothing speed variations and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations. (5) Operate the vehicle smoothly , following representative shift speeds and procedures. For manual transmissions, the operator shall release the accelerator pedal during each shift and accomplish the shift with minimum time. I f the vehicle cannot accelerate at the specified rat e, operate it at maximum available power until the vehicle speed reaches the value prescribed for that time in the driving schedule. (6) Decelerate as follows: (i) For vehicles with automatic transmission, use the brakes or accelerator pedal as necessary , without manually changing gears, to maintain the desired speed.Page 770 of 842

(ii) For vehicles with manual transmission, shift gears in a way that represents reasonable shift patterns for in
- use operation, considering vehicle speed, engine speed, and any other relevant variables. Disengage the clutch when the speed drops below 6.7 m/s (15 mph), when engine roughness is evident, or when good engineering judgment indicates the engine is likely to stall. Manufacturers may recommend shift guidance in the owners manual that differs from the shift schedule during testing as long as both shift schedules are included in the application for certification. In this case, we may use the shift schedule based on the shift pattern described in the owners manual. **§1066.425 Test prep aration.**  (a) Follow the procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing as described in 40 CFR 1065.590 if you need to measure PM emissions. (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR with compression
- ignition engines, v erify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination as described in 40 CFR 1065.520(g). (c) Unless the standard
- setting part specifies different tolerances, verify at some point before the test that ambient conditions are within the tolerances specified in this paragraph (c). For purposes of this paragraph (c), “before the test” means an y time from a point just prior to engine starting (excluding engine restarts) to the point at which emission sampling begins. (1) Ambient temperature must be (20 to 30) °C. See §1066.430(i) fo r circumstances under which ambient temperatures must remain within this range during the test. (2) Dilution air conditions must meet the specifications in §1066.110(b)(2). We recommend verifying dilution air conditions just before starting each test ph ase. (d) Control test cell ambient air humidity as follows: (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow the humidity requirements in Table 1 of this section, unless the standard
- setting part specifies otherwise. When complying with humidity

re quirements in the table, where no tolerance is specified, use good engineering judgment to maintain the humidity level near the specified value. (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, you may test vehicles at an y humidity
.Page 771 of 842 Table 1 of §1066.425

–Test ce ll humidity requirements.

Test cycle Hum

idity requirement (grains H 2 O/lb of dry air) Toleranc

e (grains H 2 O/lb of dry air)

AC17 69 ± 5 average, ± 10 instantaneous AC idle (40

to 60) FTP 1 and LA
- 92 50 HFET 50 SC03 100 ± 5 US06 50
1 FTP humidity requirement does not apply for cold (
- 7°C), intermediate (10 °C), and hot (35 °C) temperature testing.
(e) You may

perform a final calibration of proportional
- flow control s ys tems, which may include performing practice runs. (f) You may

perform the foll owing procedure to precondition sampling s ys tems: (1) Operate the vehicle over the test cycle. (2) Operate an y dilution sy stems at their expected flow rates. Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution sy stems as described in 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), takin g into account allowances given in §1066.110(b)(2)(iv). (3) Operate an y PM sampling s ys tems at their expected flow rates. (4) Sample PM using an y sample media. You may change sample media during preconditioning. You must discard preconditioning samples without weighing them. (5) You may

purge an y gaseous sampling s ys tems during preconditioning.Page 772 of 842

(6) You may

conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle equipment or anal yz ers during preconditioning. (g) Take the following steps before emission sampling begins: (1) For batch sampling, connect clean storage media, such as evacuated bags or tare
weighed filters. (2) Start all measurement instruments according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions and using good engineering judgment. (3) Start dilut ion systems, sample pumps, and the data
- collection sy stem. (4) Pre
- heat or pre
- cool heat exchangers in the sampling sy stem to within their operating temperature tolerances for a test. (5) Allow heated or cooled components such as sample lines, filters, chi llers, and pumps to stabilize at their operating temperatures. (6) Adjust the sample flow rates to desired levels using b ypass flow, if desired. (7) Zero or re
- zero an y electronic integrating devices before the start of any test phase. (8) Select gas anal yz er ranges. You may not switch the gain of an anal yz er’s analog operational amplifier(s) during a test. However, you may switch (automatically or manuall y) gas anal yz er ranges during a test if such switching changes onl y the range over which the digital resolution of the instrument is applied. (9) Zero and span all continuous gas analyzers using gases that meet the specifications of 40 CFR 1065.750. For FID anal yz ers, you may account for the carbon number of your span gas either during the calibration p rocess or when calculating your final emission value. For example, if you use a C 3 H 8 span gas of concentration 200 ppm ( mol/mol), you may span the FID to respond with a value of 600 ppm ( mol/mol) of carbon or 200 ppm of propane. However, if yo ur FID re sponse is equivalent to propane, include a factor of three to make the final calculated hydrocarbon mass consistent with a molar mass of 13.875389. When utilizing an NMC
- FID, span the FID anal yz er consistent with the determination of their respective resp onse factors, RF , and penetration fractions, PF , according to 40 CFR 1065.365. (10) We recommend that you verify gas anal yz er responses after zeroing and spanning by sampling a calibration gas that has a concentration near one
- half of the span gas concentr ation. Based on the results and good engineering judgment, you may decide whether or not to re
- zero, re - span, or re - calibrate a gas anal yz er before starting a test. (11) If you correct for dilution air background concentrations of associated engine exhaus t constituents, start sampling and recording background concentrations at the same time yo u start sampling exhaust gases. (12) Turn on cooling fans immediately before starting the test.Page 773 of 842

(h) Proceed with the test sequence described in §1066.430. **§1066.430 Performing emission tests.**  (a) See the standard
- setting part for drive schedules. These are defined b y a smooth trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time sequence. (b) The driver must attempt to follow the target schedule as closel y as possible, co nsistent with the specifications in paragraph (b) of this section. Instantaneous speeds must stay within the following tolerances: (1) The upper limit is 1.0 m/s (2 mph) higher than the highest point on the trace within 1.0 s of the given point in time. ( 2) The lower limit is 1.0 m/s (2 mph) lower than the lowest point on the trace within 1.0 s of the given time. (3) The same limits apply for vehicle preconditioning and warm
- up, except that the upper and lower limits for speed values are ±2.0 m/s (±4 mph). (4) Void the test if you do not maintain speed values as specified in this paragraph (b). Speed variations (such as may occur during gear changes or braking spikes) may occur as follows, provided that such variations are clearl y documented, including the time and speed values and the reason for the deviation: (i) Speed variations greater than the specified limits are acceptable for up to 2.0 seconds on any occasion. (ii) For vehicles that are not able to maintain acceleration as specified in §1066.420(e)( 5), do not count the insufficient acceleration as being outside the specified limits. (c) Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this section show the range of acceptable speed tolerances for ty pical points during testing. Figure 1 of this section is ty pical of portion s of the speed curve that are increasing or decreasing throughout the 2
- second time interval. Figure 2 of this section is ty pical of portions of the speed curve that include a maximum or minimum value.Page 774 of 842 **v. Figure 1 of §1066.430** 
**— Example of the allowable range**  **s for the driver’s trace.**

**vi. Figure 2 of §1066.430** 
**— Example of the allowable ranges for the driver’s trace.**  **1 .0**  **s**



### Time**S p** **e e** **d Allowable**  **Range 1** **. 0** **m /** **s 1** **. 0** **m /** **s**

**1 .0**  **s**

**1 .0**  **s**



### Time**S p** **e e** **d Allowable** 

**Range 1** **. 0** **m /** **s 1** **. 0** **m /** **s**

**1 .0**  **s**Page 775 of 842

(d) Start testing as follows: (1) If a vehicle is already running and warmed up, and starting is not part of the test cycle, operate the vehicle a s follows: (i) For transient test cycles, control vehicle speeds to follow a drive schedule consisting of a series of idles, accelerations, cruises, and decelerations. (ii) For cruise test cycles, control the vehicle operation to match the speed of the fir st phase of the test cycle. Follow the instructions in the standard
- setting part to determine how long to stabilize the vehicle during each phase, how long to sample emissions at each phase, and how to transition between phases. (2) If engine starting is part of the test cycle, initiate data logging, sampling of exhaust gases, and integrating measured values before starting the engine. Initiate the driver’s trace when the engine starts. (e) Perform the following at the end of each test phase, except as sp ecified in subpart I of this part: (i) Shut down the vehicle if it is part of the test cycle or if testing is complete. (ii) Continue to operate all sampling and dilution systems to allow the response times to elapse. Then stop all sampling and recording, including background sampling. Finall y, stop an y integrating devices and indicate the end of the duty cycle in the recorded data. (f) If testing involves engine shutdown followed by another test phase, start a timer for the vehicle soak when the engine s huts down. Turn off cooling fans, close the vehicle hood (if applicable), and turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the tailpipe(s) of the vehicle unless otherwise instructed in the standard setting part. If testing is complete, disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and drive the vehicle from dynamometer. (g) Take the following steps after emission sampling is complete: (1) For an y proportional batch sample, such as a bag sample or PM sample, verify that proportional samp ling was maintained according to 40 CFR 1065.545. Void any samples that did not maintain proportional sampling according to those specifications. (2) Place an y used PM samples into covered or sealed containers and return them to the PM
- stabilization environment. Follow the PM sample post
- conditioning and total weighing procedures in 40 CFR 1065.595. (3) As soon as practical after the phase or test cycle is complete, or optionally during the soak period if practical, perform the following:Page 776 of 842

(i) Begin drift check for all continuous gas anal yz ers as described in paragraph (g)(6) of this section and zero and span all batch gas anal yz ers as soon as practical prior to an y batch sample anal ys is. You may perform this batch analy zer zero and span prior to the end of the test cycle or phase. (ii) Anal yz e any

conventional gaseous batch samples (HC, CO, NO x , and CO 2 ) no later than 30 minutes after a phase or test cycle is complete, or during the soak period if practical. Anal yz e background samples no later than 60 mi nutes after the test cycle is complete. (iii) Analyze nonconventional gaseous batch samples (including background), such as NMHCE, N 2 O, or NMOG sampling with ethanol, as soon as practicable using good engineering judgment. (4) Range validation . If an anal yz er operated above 100 % of its range at any time during the test, perform the following steps: (i) For batch sampling, re
- anal yz e the sample using the lowest anal yz er range that results in a maximum instrument response below 100 %. Report the result fro m the lowest range from which the anal yz er operates below 100 % of its range. (ii) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next higher analy zer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100 % of its range, repeat the test using the nex t higher range. Continue to repeat the test until the analy zer consistently

operates at less than 100 % of its range. (5) After quantifying exhaust gases, verify drift as follows: (i) For batch and continuous gas anal yz ers, record the mean analyzer value after stabilizing a zero gas to the anal yz er. Stabilization may include time to purge the analyzer of any sample gas, plus an y additional time to account for anal yz er response. (ii) Record the mean analyzer value after stabilizing the span gas to the analyzer. Stabilization may

include time to purge the anal yz er of an y s ample gas, plus any additional time to account for anal yz er response. (iii) Use these data to validate that anal yz er drift does not exceed 2.0 % of the anal yz er full scale. (h) [Reserved ] (i) Measure and record ambient pressure. Measure and record ambient temperature continuously

to verify that it remains within the temperature range specified in §1066.425(c)(1) throughout the test. Also measure humidity if required, such as for correct ing NO x emissions, or meeting the requirements of §1066.425(d).

**vii. (j) For vehicles at or below 14,000**  **pounds GVWR , determine overall driver**  **accuracy as follows:**Page 777 of 842 **viii. (1) Compare the driven cycle energy, based on measured vehicle speeds, to a**  **reference value based on the target cycle energy that would have been generated by**  **driving exactly to the target trace as described in Section 5.1.9 of SAE J2951 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010).**  **ix. (2) The standard** 

**- setting part may require you to provide to us 10 Hz dat**  **a to characterize both target and actual values for cycle energy. Calculate target values**  **based on the vehicles speeds from the specified test cycle. x.**  **(3) Determine the inertial work ratio as described in Section 7.2.3 of SAE J2951. xi.**  **xii. xiii.**  Subpart F

— Hybrids and Electric Vehicles **§1066.501 Overview.** For HEV, PHEV, and pure electric vehicle (EV), use the following procedures: (a) Correct the results for Net Energy Change of the RESS as follows: (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J1711 (i ncorporated b y reference in §1066.1010) except as noted in this paragraph (a). Use ±1 % of reading or ±0.3 % of full scale, whichever is greater, in place of the current measurement accuracy in Section 4.2a of SAE J1711. (2) For vehicles above 14,000 poun ds GVWR, follow SAE J2711 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010) for requirements related to charge
- sustaining operation. (3) For pure EVs, irrespective of GVWR, follow SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010). (b) This paragraph (b) applies for vehicles that include an engine
- powered generator or other auxiliary

power unit that indirectly provides motive power. For example, this would include a vehicle that has a small gasoline engine that generates electricity to charge batteries. Unless w e approve otherwise, measure emissions for all test cycles when such an engine is operating. For each test cycle for which emissions are not measured, you must validate that such engines are not operating at an y time during the test cycle.

**Subpart G**

**— Cal**  **culations §1066.601 Overview.**  (a) This subpart describes how to

– (1) Use the signals recorded before, during, and after an emission test to calculatePage 778 of 842

distance
- specific emissions of each regulated pollutant. (2) Perform calculations for calibrations and pe rformance checks. (3) Determine statistical values. (b) You may

use data from multiple sy stems to calculate test results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch sample, such as multiple weighing of a PM filter or multiple readings from a bag sample. You may

not use test results from multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means where appropriate. You may discard statistical outliers, but you must report all results. **§1066.610 Mass -**  **based and molar -**  **based exhaust emission calculations.** (a) Calculate your total mass of emissions over a test cycle using the equations specified in paragraph (c) of this section or in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, as applicable. (b) For composite emission calculations over multiple test phases and corresponding weighting factors, see the standard
- setting part or subpart I
. (c) To calculate the total mass of an emission, multiply a concentration by

its respective flow and densit y as specified in Eq. 1066.610
- 1. Before calculating mass emissions as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, perform the following sequence of preliminary calculations to correct recorded concentration measurements: (1) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , correct all THC and CH 4 concentrations for initial contamination as described in 40 CFR 1065.660(a), including continuous readings, sample bags readings, and dilution air background readings. This correction is optional for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. (2) Correct all concentrations measured on a “dry” basis to a “wet” basis, including dilution air background concentrations. (3) Calculate all NMHC and CH 4 concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as d escribed in 40 CFR 1065.660. (4) For emission testing with an oxygenated fuel, calculate any HC concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, for THCE and NMHCE, and in §1066.665 for NMOG, depending on the requirements of the standard setting part. (5) Correct all NO x emission values for test cell ambient air humidity as described in §1066.630. (6) Correct all gaseous concentrations for dilution air background as described inPage 779 of 842

§1066.620. (7) Co rrect all PM filter masses for sample media buoyancy in air as described in 40 CFR 1065.690. (d) Calculate the emission mass of each gaseous pollutant using the following equation:

[emission] mix [emission] [emission] m V x c

    

Eq. 1066.610
- 1
Where: m [emission] = mass of emissions over the test phase. V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test phase at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa, corrected for an y volume removed for emission sampling and the addition of secondary

dilution air (if appli cable). ρ [emission] = density

of the emission as given in §1066.1005(f). x [emission] = amount of measured emission in the sample, after dry
- to - wet and background corrections. c = 10 - 2 for emission concentrations measured in % and 10 - 6 for emission concentr ations measured in ppm. Example : V mix = 170.919 m 3 (from paragraph (e) of this section) ρ NOx = 1.913 kg/m 3
x NOx = 0.9663 ppm c = 10 - 6
6 NOx 170.919 1.913 0.9666 10 0.000327 kg m       (e) Calculate the mass of particulate matter emissions using the following equations:Page 780 of 842

(1) If you sample PM onto a single filter per test phase as described in §1066.822(c) or onto a single filter per UDDS test phase as described in §1066.820(b)(3) or §1066.820(b)(4), calculate m PM using Eq. 1066.610
- 2.



#   mix PM PMfil PMbkgnd

PMstd sdastd V m m m V V  
    

   Eq. 1066.610
- 2
Where: m PM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the test phase. V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test phase at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa, corrected for an y volume removed for emissions sampling and the ad dition of secondary

dilution air (if applicable). V gasstd = total volume of sample flow through the gaseous emission bench over the test phase at standard temperature and pressure. V PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through the filter over the test phase at standard temperature and pressure. V sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air flow sampled through the filter over the test phase at standard temperature and pressure. m PMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the filter over th e test phase. m PMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background filter. V mixstd = total dilute exhaust volume over the test phase at the flow meter at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa. Example : Using Eq. 1066.610
- 5 V mixstd = 1 70.492 m 3 , where V mixact = 170.72 m 3 , p B = 101.7 kPa, p in = 0 kPa, and T in = 294.7 K Using Eq. 1066.610
- 5 V gasstd = 0.0291 m 3 , where V gasact = 0.0337 m 3 , p B = 101.7 kPa, p in = 0 kPa, and T in = 340.5 KPage 781 of 842

Using Eq. 1066.610
- 5 V PMstd = 0.9248 m 3 , where V PMact = 1.07 m 3 , p B = 101.7 kPa, p in = 0 kPa, and T in = 340.5 K Using Eq. 1066.610
- 5 V sdastd = 0.527 m 3 , where V sdaact = 0.531 m 3 , p B = 101.7 kPa, p in = 0 kPa, and T in = 296.3 K V mix = 170.492 + 0.0291 + 0.9248

– 0.527 = 170.919 m 3
m PMfil = 0.0000045 g m PMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

##   PM 170.919 0.0000045 0.0000014 0.00133 g 0.9248 0.527 m        

   (2) If you sample PM onto a single filter for all test phases as described in §1066.820(b)(1), calculate m PM using Eq. 1066.610
- 3.



##       

#   mix PM PMfil PMbkgnd

ct-PMstd ct-sdastd ht-PMstd ht-sdastd s-PMstd s-sdastd 0.43 0.57

V m m m V V V V

V V    
  

      

Eq. 1066.610
- 3
Where: m PM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the entire FTP as sampled according to §1066.820(b)(1). V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test phase at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa, corrected for an y volume removed for emissions sampling and the ad dition of secondary

dilution air (if applicable). V [phase]
- PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through the filter over the test phase (ct = cold transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard temperature and pressure. V [phase]
- sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air sampled through the filter over the test phase (ct = cold transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard temperature and pressure. m PMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the filter over the te st phase.Page 782 of 842

m PMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background filter. Example : V mix = 633.69 m 3 V ct - PMstd = 0.9248 m 3 V ct - sdastd = 0.527 m 3 V s - PMstd = 1.9676 m 3 V s - sdastd = 1.1212 m 3 V ht
- PMstd = 1.1215 m 3 V ht
- sdastd = 0.639 m 3
m PMfil = 0.0000106 g m PM bkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

##         PM 633.69 0.0000106 0.0000014 0.9248 0.527 1.1215 0.639

1.9676 1.1212 0.43 0.57 m    
  

     m PM = 0.00223 g (3) If you sample PM onto a single filter for all test phases as described in §1066.820(b)(2), calculate m PM using Eq. 1066.610
- 4.



###         

##   mix PM PMfil PMbkgnd

ct-PMstd ct-sdastd cs-PMstd cs-sdastd ht-PMs td ht-sdastd hs-PMstd hs-sdastd

0.43 0.57

V m m m V V V V V V V V    
  

        

Eq. 1066.610
- 4
Where: m PM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the entire FTP as sampled according to §1066.820(b)(2).Page 783 of 842

V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test phase at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa, corrected for an y volume removed for emissi ons sampling and the addition of secondary

dilution air (if applicable). V [phase]
- PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through the filter over the test phase (ct = cold transient, cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = cold stabilized) at standard temperature and pressure. V [phase]
- sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air sampled through the filter over the test phase (ct = cold transient, cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = cold stabilized) at standard temperature and pr essure. m PMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the filter over the test phase. m PMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background filter. Example : V mix = 972.12 m 3 V ct - PMstd = 0.9236 m 3 V ct - sdastd = 0.529 m 3 V cs - PMstd = 1.9666 m 3 V cs - sdastd = 1.1209 m 3 V ht
- PMstd = 1.1218 m 3 V ht
- sdastd = 0.641 m 3 V hs
- PMstd = 1.9674 m 3 V hs
- sdastd = 1.1213 m 3
m PMfil = 0.0000229 g m PMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

###           PM 972.12 0.0000129 0.0000014 0.9236 0.529 1.9666 1.1209 1.1218 0.641 1.9674 1.1213

0.43 0.57 m    
  

         m PM = 0.00155 gPage 784 of 842

(f) If your volumetric flow rate is not referenced to standard tem perature and pressure, correct flow rates to standard temperature and pressure using the following equation:



##   [flow]act B i n s td [flow]std in std V p p T V T p

   

 Eq. 1066.610
- 5 Where: V [flow]std = total volume of flow at the flow meter at standard temperature and pressure. V [f low]act = total volume of flow at the flow meter at test conditions. p B = barometric pressure. p in = pressure elevation above ambient at the sampler flow meter inlet (for most flow meters this can be set equal to 0. T std = standard temperature, 293.15 K. T in = average temperature of the dilute exhaust sample at the flow meter inlet. P std = standard pressure, 101.3 kPa. Example : V PMact = 1.07 m 3 p B = 101.7 kPa p in = 0 kPa T in = 340.5 K T std = 293.15 K p std = 101.3 kPa



##   3 PMstd 1.07 101.7 0 2 93.15 0.9248 m

340.5 101.3 V     

 **§1066.620 Dilution air background emission correction.** Page 785 of 842

(a) Correct the emissions in a gaseous sample for background as follows:

[emission] [emission]dexh [emission]bkgnd 1 1 x x x DF                 Eq. 1066.620
- 1 Where: x [emission]dexh = amount of measured emission in dilute exhaust (after dry - to - wet correction for emissions measured dry). x [emission]bkgnd = amount of measured emission in the dilution air (after dry
- to - wet correction for emissions measured dry). DF = dilution factor determined in §1066.620(b). Example : x NOxdexh = 1.07411 ppm x NOxbkgnd = 0.12 ppm DF = 9.5659

NOx 1 1.07411 0.12 1 0 .9666 ppm

9.5659 x         

        (b) Determine the dilution factor, DF , over the test phase using Eq. 1066.620
- 2. Note that for determination of  and  yo u may use measured fuel properties or the default fuel properties in Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.655.

CO2 THC CO 1 100 1 3 .76 1 2 4 2 DF x x x

          

       Eq. 1066.620
- 2Page 786 of 842

Where: x CO2 = amount of CO 2 measured in the sample over the test phase. x THC = amount of C 1 - equivale nt THC measured in the sample over the test. x CO = amount of CO measured in the sample over the test phase.  = atomic hydrogen
- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar composition.  = atomic ox ygen - to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar composition. Example : x CO2 = 1.4 % x THC = 1.0 ppm x CO = 80 ppm  = 1.85  = 0 

##   4 1 100 1.85 1.85 0 1 3 .76 1 2 4 2 9.5659 1.4 1.0 80 10 DF



       

     

   (c) Determine the dilution factor, DF , over the test phase for partial flow dilution sample sy stems that measure PM using Eq. 1066.620
- 3.
PMstd exhstd V DF V  Eq. 1066.620
- 3 Where: V PMstd = total dilute exhaust volume sampled through the filter over the test phase at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa.Page 787 of 842

V exhstd = to tal dilute exhaust volume sampled from the CVS at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa. Example : V mix = 170.9 m 3 V exhstd = 18.0 m 3 170.9 11.1 15.4 DF  
**§1066.630 NO x**  **intake -**  **air humidity and temperature corrections.** See the stand ard
- setting part to determine if you may correct NO x emissions for the effects of intake
- air humidity or temperature. Correct NO x emissions for intake
- air humidit y as described in this section. See §1066.610(c)(1) for the proper sequence for applying the NO x intake
- air humidity

and temperature corrections. You may use a time
- weighted mean combustion air humidity

to calculate this correction if your combustion air humidity remains within a tolerance of ± 5% of the mean combustion air humidity value over the test phase. (a) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR , a pply a correction for any reciprocating engines for the following test cycles: (1) For the FTP, US06, LA
- 92, and HFET test cycles, use the following equation to correct measured concentration s to a reference condition of 10.71 of H 2 O vapor per kilogram of dry air: 

##   NOxdexhcor NOxdexh 1

1 0 .0329 10.71 x x H  

  

Eq. 1066.630
- 1 

##   H2O d air B d

% % M RH p H M p p RH

  

   Eq. 1066.630
- 2 Where: H = Absolute humidity

in grams of H 2 O vapor per kilogram of dry air. M H2O = molar mass of H 2 O in g/mol.Page 788 of 842

RH = Relative humidity

of ambient air. M air = molar mass of air in kg/mol. p d = Saturated vapor pressure at the ambient dry bulb temperature. p B = barometric pressure. Example: M H2O = 18.01528 g/mol RH % = 37.5 % M air = 0.02896559 kg/mol Pd = 2.93 kPa PB = 96.71 kPa x NOxdexh = 1.2 ppm



##   2 18.01528 37.5 0.01 2.93 7.14741 gH O vapor kg dry air 0.02896559 96.71 2.93 37.5 0.01 H     

    

##   NOxdexhcor 1

1.2 1.07411 ppm 1 0 .0329 7.14741 10.71 x   

   (2) For the SC03 test cycle, use the following equation to correct measured concentrations to a reference condition of 10.71 of H 2 O vapor per kilogram of dry air: 

##   NOxdexhcor NOxdexh 0.8825

1 0 .0329 10.71 x x H  

  

Eq. 1066.630
- 3
Where: H = Absolute humidity

in grams of H 2 O vapor per kilogram of dry air according to Eq.Page 789 of 842

1066.630
- 2. Example: RH = 55.9 % Pd = 2.93 kPa PB = 96.71 kPa H = 10.7148 g H 2 O vapor/kg dry air x NOxdexh = 1.2 ppm 

##   NOxdexhcor 0.8825

1.2 1.059 ppm 1 0 .0329 10.7148 10.71 x   

   (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , apply correction factors as described in 40 CFR 1065.670. **§1066.640 Removed water correction.** If you remove water upstream of a concentration measurement, x , correct for th e removed water. Perform this correction based on the amount of water at the concentration measurement and at the flow meter, whose flow is used to determine the mass emission rate or total mass over a test phase. **§1066.650 Flow meter calibration calcula tions.**  This section describes the calculations for calibrating various flow meters. If you choose to determine molar flow rate, use the equations in 40 CFR 1065.640 to calibrate your flow meter. After you calibrate a flow meter using these calculations, use the calculations described in §1066.652 to calculate flow during an emission test. (a) PDP calibration calculations . For each restrictor position, calculate the following values from the mean values determined in §1066.140, as follows: (1) PDP volume p umped per revolution, V rev :

ref in std rev in std nPDP Q T p V p T f

  

  Page 790 of 842 Eq. 1066.650
- 1 Where:

ref Q  = air flow rate of reference flow meter.

in T = mean pump inlet absolute temperature

. p std = standard pressure.
in p = mean pump inlet absolute static pressure. T std = standard temperature.

nPDP f = mean pump speed. Example:

ref Q  = 0.1651 m 3 /s

in T = 299.5 K p std = 101 325 Pa

in p = 98290 Pa T std = 293.15 K

nPDP f = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s 0.1651 299.5 101325 98290 293.15 20.085 rev V   

  V rev = 0.00866 m 3 /r (2) PDP slip correction factor, K s :

out in s nPDP out 1 p p K f p   Page 791 of 842 Eq. 1066.650
- 2 Where:

nPDP f = mean pump speed.

out p = mean pump outlet absolute temperature

.
in p = mean pump inlet absolute static pressure. Example:

nPDP f = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s

out p = 100.103 kPa

in p = 98.290 kPa

s 1 1 00.103 98.290 20.085 100.103 K    K s = 0.006700 s/r (3) Perform a least
- squares regression of PDP volume pumped per revolution, V rev , versus PDP slip correction factor, K s , by calculating slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , as described in 40 CFR 1065.602. (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section for every speed that you run your PDP. (5) The following example illustrates these calculations: Table 1 of §1066.650

– Example of PDP calibration data

nPDP f (r/ min) a 1

(m3 /min) a 0

(m3 /r)Page 792 of 842 75 5.0 50

.43 0.

056
98 7.6 49

.86 -

0.013
12 54.5 48

.54 0.

028
14 01.3 47

.30 -

0 .061
(6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the corresponding slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , to calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in §1066.652. (b) SSV calibration . Perform the following steps to calibrate an SSV flow meter: (1) Calculate the Rey

nolds number, Re # , for each reference volumetric flow rate, using the throat diameter of the venturi, d t , and the mass air flow rate, m-ref Q  , of the reference flow meter. Assume an initial value for C d = 0 .98 to calculate m-ref

Q 

.
# m-ref

t 66670 Q Re = d   

   Eq. 1066.650
- 3 Where: μ = viscosity

of air in centipoises calculated using Eq. 1066.650
- 4.

3 2 3 1.458 10 110.4

T = T      Eq. 1066.650
- 4 Where: T = the temperature at the SSV inlet in Kelvin.Page 793 of 842

If the calibration venturi is used at the tunnel inlet (free standing), then assume a value of β = 0. If the SSV is installed in the CVS tunnel, use the actual inside tunnel diameter and the throat diameter to compute β , where β is the ratio of venturi throat to inlet diameters. (2) From the initial calibration of the venturi, establish an equation of C d as a function of Re # . The following functional forms should be reviewed, but a power series, least
- squares fit poly nomial equation may r esult in the best fit. Many factors involved in the installation of SSV and the operating range of the Rey nolds number can affect the functional relationship of C d with Re # . Calculate C d based on this initial equation of Re # . Compute a final m Q  based on this calculated C

d for both the calibration nozzle and the inline SSV. (3)(i) Compute the percent difference in air flow between the calibration venturi and the inline SSV. I f the difference in percent of point is greater than 1% , compute a new C d and Re # for the in
- tunnel venturi as follows:

mact dnew mtheo Q C = Q 

 Eq. 1066.650
- 5 Where: C dnew = the ratio of actual air flow/theoretical air flow.

mact Q  = flow measured b y the calibration venturi, kg/min.

mtheo Q  = the theoretical calculated flow based on the in
- tunnel SSV conditions with C d set equal to 1, kg/min.

# m-ref new t 0.8 Q Re = d   

   Eq. 1066.650
- 6 Where:
# new Re = Rey

nolds number based on the calibrated venturi flow, but the in
- tunnel SSV properties. (ii) Recalculate a new curve fit of C dnew for the inline venturi as a function of # new Re following the guidelines in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Agreement of the fit should be within 1.0 % of point. Install the new C d curve fit in the test cell flo w computing device and conduct the propane injection flow verification test as described in 40 CFR 1065.341.Page 794 of 842

(c) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. For CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate each venturi independentl y to determine a separate calibration coefficient, K v , for each venturi, or calibrate each combination of venturis as one venturi. (1) To determine the K v for a single venturi or a single combination of venturis, perform the following steps: (i) For each restrictor position, use the data collected at each calibration set point to calculate an individual K v for each po int using Eq. 1066.650
- 7:

refstd in v in Q T K = P

  Eq. 1066.650
- 7 Where:

refstd Q & = mean flow rate from the reference flow meter, at standard reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.3 kPa.

in T = mean temperature at the venturi inlet

.
in p = mean absolute static pressure at the venturi inlet. (ii) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the K v values according to 40 CFR part 1065 Eqs. 1065.602
- 1 and 1065.602
- 2. Plot K v as a function of venturi inlet pressure. For choked flow, K

v will have a relatively

constant value. As pressure decreases (vacuum increases), the venturi will become unchoked and K v will decrease. (iii) If the standard deviation of all the K v values is less than or equal to 0.3 % of the mean K

v , use the mean K v in Eq. 1066.652
- 7, and use the CFV onl y up to the highest venturi pressure ratio, r , measured during calibration using the following equation:

CFV in 1 p r p    Eq. 1066.650
- 8Page 795 of 842

Where:  p CFV = differential static pressure; venturi inlet minus venturi outlet. (iv) If the standard deviation of all the K v values exceeds 0.3 % of the mean K v , omit the K v value corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured during calibration. (v) If the number of remaining data p oints is less than seven, take corrective action by checking your calibration data or repeating the calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we recommend checking for leaks, appl ying tighter tolerances to measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize. (vi) If the number of remaining K v values is seven or greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining K v values. (vii) If the standard deviation of the remaining K v values is less than or equal to 0.3 % of the mean of the remaining K v , use that mean K v in Eq 1066.652
- 7, and use the CFV values onl y up to the highest r associated with the remaining K v . (viii) If the standard deviation of the remaining K v still exceeds 0.3 % of the mean of the remaining K

v values, repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) through (vii) of this section. (2) During exhaust emission tests, monitor sonic flow in the CFV b y monitoring the CFV pressure ratio. Based upon the calibration data selected to meet the criteria for paragraph s (c)(1)(iv) and (vii) of this section, in which K v is constant, select the data values associated with the calibration point with the lowest absolute venturi inlet pressure. (i) Calculate r during the exhaust emission test using Eq. 1066.650
- 8. (ii) The v enturi pressure ratio during all emission tests must be less than or equal to the calibration pressure ratio limit derived from the CFV calibration data. **§1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.** This section describes the equations for calculat ing flow rates from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter according to §1066.650, use the calculations described in this section to calculate flow during an emission test. If you choose to determine molar flow rate, use the equations in 4 0 CFR 1065.642 to calculate flow. (a) PDP volumetric flow rate . Based upon the speed at which you operate the PDP for a test interval, select the corresponding slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , as calculated in §1066.650(a), to calculate volumetric flow rate, Q & as follows:Page 796 of 842 nPDP in rev std

in std p V T Q f T p

   

  Eq. 1066.652
- 1 Where: T in = pump inlet absolute temperature

. p std = standard pressure. Pin = pump inlet absolute static pressure. T std = standard temperature. f n PDP = pump speed.

out p = pump outlet absolute temperature

.
in p = pump inlet absolute static pressure.

nPDP out in 1 rev 0 out p p a V a f p    

Eq. 1066.652
- 2 Example: a 1 = 50.43 m 3 /min = 0.8405 m 3 /s f nPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s p out = 99950 Pa p in = 98575 Pa a 0 = 0.056 m 3 /r T in = 323.5 K C p = 1000 J ∙m - 3 /kPa C t = 60 s/minPage 797 of 842 rev 0.8405 99950 98575 0.056 12.58 99950 V     V rev = 0.06383 m 3 /r 98575 0.06383 293.15 12.58 323.5 101325 Q    

  Q & = 0.7079 m 3 /s (b) SSV volumetric flow rate . Based on the C d versus Re # equati on you determined according to §1066.650(b), calculate SSV volumetric flow rate, V mix during an emission test as follows:
2

q d 1

4 1 s K C Y d Q p

         

  Eq. 1066.652
- 3 Where: Q & = air flow rate of flow meter, scfm (m 3 /min). K q = 0.0021074 (SIunit c onversion). ρ s = density

of air at standard conditions, lbm/ft 3 (kg/m 3 ) as determined in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. ρ 1 = density

of air at inlet conditions, lbm/ft 3 (kg/m 3 ), as determined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. C d = discharge coefficient. Y = Expansion factor, as determined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. d t = venturi throat diameter, inch (mm). β = ratio of venturi throat diameter to approach pipe diameter. Δp = pressure drop between inlet and throat, in. H 2 O (kPa). (1) The expansion factor ( Y ) is calculated as follows:Page 798 of 842 1 1 2 2 4 k 2 4 1 1 1 1 1

kk k k r Y r k r r           

     

               

   

       

       

Eq. 1066.652
- 4 Where: 1 abs p r p    d D   d = venturi throat diameter in inches (mm). D = inlet pipe diameter in inches (mm). k = ratio of specific heat (1.40 for air). (2) The inlet density (ρ 1 ) is calculated a s follows:

abs 1 mix abs p R T  

 Eq. 1066.652
- 5 Where: p abs = p 1 + barometric pressure T abs = T 1 + 273.15 R mix = R

u/ MW mix R u = 8.3144 kJ/kg ∙mole∙K MW mix = the molecular weight of the mix, as calculated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (3) The molecular weight of the mix, is calculated as follows:



##   2 air abs v H O v mix abs MW p p MW p MW p

    Page 799 of 842 Eq. 1066.652
- 6 Where: p v = vapor pressure, in Hg (kPa) MW air = 28.964 kg/kg ∙mole MW H20 = 18.015 kg/kg ∙mole (4) The densit y at standard conditions of 101.33 kPa and 20 °C is calculated as follows:
3 101.325 1.2041 kg/m 8.314472 293.15 28.96559 s   

 (c) CFV volumetric flow rate . Some CFV flow meters consist of a single venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. If you use multiple venturis and you calibrated each ve nturi independentl y to determine a separate calibration coefficient, K v , for each venturi, calculate the individual volumetric flow rates through each venturi and sum all their flow rates to determine Q & . I f you use multiple venturis and you calibrated each combination of venturis, calculate Q & using the K

v that was determined for that combination of venturis. (1) To calculate volumetric flow rate through one venturi or one combination of venturis, use its re spective mean K v you determined according to §1066.650(c) and calculate its volumetric flow rate Q

& during an emission test, as follows:

v i n in K P Q = T   Eq. 1066.652
- 7 Where: Q & = air flow rate of flow meter. K v = flow meter calibration coefficient. T in = temperature at the venturi inlet

. Pin = absolute static pressure at the venturi inlet.Page 800 of 842

Example: K v = 0.000074954 p in = 99654 Pa T in = 353.15 K 0.000074954 98936 353.15 Q    Q  = 0.39461 m 3 /s **§1066.665 NMOG determination.** For vehicles subject to an NMOG standard, determine NMOG as described in paragraph (a) of this section. Except as specified in the standard
- setting part, you may alternativel y calculate NMOG results based on measured NMHC emissions as described in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section. (a) Determine NMOG b y independentl y measuring alcohols and carbon yl s as described in 40 CFR 1065.805 and 1065.845. Unless the standard
- setting par t specifies otherwise, use good engineering judgment to determine which alcohols and carbonyl s you need to measure. Ty pically this would require you to measure all alcohols and carbonyls that you expect to contribute 1% or more of total NMOG emissions. N ote that the effective density used for NMHC mass determination should be based on ρ NMHC
- liq as given in §1066.1005(f), regardless of the ethanol content of the test fuel. Calculate NMOG using the following equation:

OHCi NMOG NMHC NMHC OHCi[THC-FID] OHCi 1 1 OHCi N N i i m m m RF m

 

      



#   Eq. 1066.665
- 1 Where: m NMOG = the C 1 - equivalent sum of the mass of NMOG in the exhaust. m OHCi = the C 1 - equivalent mass of ox ygenated species i in the exhaust calculated using Eq. 1066.610
- 1 and the density of the oxygenated species i as given in §1066.1005(f). m NMHC = the C 1 - equivalent mass of NONMHC and all OHCs in the exhaust, as determined b y §1066.610(c)(4) and calculated using Eq. 1066.610
- 1. Note that the effective density used for NMHC mass determination sh ould be based on ρ NMHC
- liq as given inPage 801 of 842

§1066.1005(f). ρ NMHC
- liq = the effective density of NMHC for liquid fuel as given in §1066.1005(f). ρ OCHi = the C 1 - equivalent density of ox ygenated species i as given in §1066.1005(f). RF OHCi[THC
- FID] = The response f actor of the THC FID to ox ygenated species i relative to propane on a C 1 - equivalent basis. You may generate your own response factors or use the following response factors, consistent with good engineering judgment: Table 1 of §1066.665

–Default values fo r THC FID response factor relative to propane on a C 1 - equivalent basis
Compound Response factor (RF )
methanol 0.63
ethanol 0.75 propanol 0.85 formaldehyde 0.00 acetaldehyde 0.50
(b) The following example shows how to determine NMOG emissions as desc ribed in paragraph (a) of this section based on ethanol (C 2 H 5 OH), methanol (CH 3 OH), acetaldeh yde (C 2 H 4 O), and formaldehyde (C 2 HO) as C 1 - equivalent concentrations: m NMHC = 0.0000125 kg m CH3OH = 0.0000002 kg m C2H5OH = 0.0000009 kg m HCHO = 0.0000001 kgPage 802 of 842

m C2H4O = 0.00000005 kg RF CH3OH[THC
- FID] = 0.63 RF C2H5OH[THC
- FID] = 0.75 RF HCHO[THC
- FID] = 0.00 RF C2H4O[THC
- FID] = 0.50 ρ NMHC
- liq = 0.576816 kg/m 3 ρ CH3OH = 1.33202 kg/m 3 ρ C2H5OH = 0.957559 kg/m 3 ρ HCHO = 1.24821 kg/m 3 ρ C2H4O = 0.915658 kg/m 3

NMOG 0.0000002 0.0000009 0.63 0.75 1.33202 0.957559 0.0000125 0.576816 0.0000001 0.00000005 0.00 0.5 1.24821 0.915658 0.0000002 0.0000009 0.0000001 0.00000005 0.000013273 kg m        
           

 (c) For ethanol
- gasoline blends ranging from E0 to E25, you may calculate NMOG emissions using the followi ng equations: (1) For hot start and hot running test cycles or phases other than the FTP, you may determine NMOG for use in criteria pollutant, fuel economy , and carbon
- related exhaust emission calculations based on the test cycle NMHC emission rate using Eq. 1066.665
- 2.

NMOGhot NMHChot 1.03 e e   Eq. 1066.665
- 2 Where: eNMOGhot = mass emission rate of NMOG over the hot running test cycle. eNMHChot = mass emission rate of NMHC over the hot running test cycle calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq as given in §1066.1005(f).Page 803 of 842

Example: eNMHChot = 0.000025 kg/mi

NMOGhot 0.000025 1.03 0.00002575 kg/mi e    (2) You may

determine FTP weighted composite NMOG for use in criteria pollutant, fuel econom y, and carbon
- related exhaust emission (CREE) calculations base d on the test cycle weighted composite NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using Eq. 1066.665
- 3. 

##  

NMOGcomp NMHCcomp EtOH

1.0302 0.0071 e e VP     Eq. 1066.665
- 3 Where: eNMOGcomp = weighted composite mass emission rate of NMOG over the test cycle. eNMHCcomp = weighted composite mass emission rate of NMHC over the test cycle calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq as given in §1066.1005(f). VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. Example: eNMHCcomp = 0.000025 kg/mi VPEtOH = 15.1 % 

##   NMOGcomp 0.000025 1.0302 0.0071 15.1 0.0000284 kg/mi e      (3) You may

determine FTP cold start test phase NMOG for use in fuel economy and C REE calculations based on the phase NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using Eq. 1066.665
- 4.



##   NMOG-FTPct NMHC-FTPct EtOH

1.0246 0.0079 e e VP

    Eq. 1066.665
- 4Page 804 of 842

Where: eNMOG
- FTPct = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP co ld start test phase. eNMHC
- FTPct = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP cold start test phase calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq as given in §1066.1005(f). VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. Example: eNMHC
- FTPct = 0.000052 kg/mi VPEtOH = 15.1 % 

##   NMOG-FTPct 0.000052 1.0246 0.0079 15.1 0.0000595 kg/mi e      (4) You may

determine FTP cold or hot stabilize test phase NMOG for use in fuel econom y and CREE calculations based on the phase NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using Eq. 1066.665
- 5. 

##   NMOG-FTPcs-hs NMHC-FTPcs-hs EtOH 1.1135 0.001 e e VP

    Eq. 1066.665
- 5 Where: eNMOG
- FTPcs
- hs = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP cold or hot stabilized test phase. eNMHC
- FTPcs
- hs = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP cold or hot stabilized test phase calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq as given in §1066.1005(f). VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. (5) You may

determine FTP hot start test phase NMOG for use in fuel economy and CREE calculations based on the phase NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using Eq. 1066.665
- 6.



##   NMOG-FTPht NMHC-FTPht EtOH

1.0195 0.0031 e e VP

   Page 805 of 842 Eq. 1066.665
- 6 Where: eNMOG
- FTPht = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP hot start test phase. eNMHC
- FTPht = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP hot start test phase calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq as given in §1066.1005(f). VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. (d) In addition to the allowance for use of the equations in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, the following provisions apply : (1) For determination of fuel econom y and CREE that use individual FTP phase (bag) emission results in 40 CFR part 600, you may calculate NMOG by

phase using Eq. 1066.665
- 3. (2) For determination of fuel econom y and CREE for h ybrids as described in 40 CFR 600.114
- 12, you may

calculate NMOG for 2
- bag FTPs using Eq. 1066.665
- 3. (e) For diesel fuel, we consider NMOG emission values to be equivalent to NMHC emission values for all test cycles. (f) For all fuels not covered by paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, manufacturers may propose a methodology

to calculate NMOG results from measured NMHC emissions. We will approve adjustments based on comparative testing that demonstrates how to properl y represent NMOG based on measured NMHC emissions. **§1066.695 Data requirements.**  Record the fol lowing information for each test: (a) Test number. (b) A brief description of the test vehicle (or other sy stem/device tested). (c) Date and time of day

for each part of the test sequence. (d) Test results. Also include a validation of driver accuracy as described in §1066.430(j). (e) Driver and equipment operators. (f) Vehicle information as applicable, including identification number, model year, applicable emission standards, vehicle model, test group, durability group, engine famil y, evaporative/refue ling emission family , basic engine description (including displacement, number of cylinders, turbo
- /supercharger used, and catal ys t ty pe), fuel s ys tem (t ype of fuel injection andPage 806 of 842

fuel tank capacity and location), engine code, gross vehicle weight rating, e quivalent test weight, inertia weight class, actual curb weight at zero miles, actual road load at 50 mph, transmission configuration, axle ratio, odometer reading, idle rpm, and drive wheel tire pressure. (g) Dy namometer identification, inertia weight setting, indicated power absorption setting, records to verify

compliance with the and driving distance and cycle
- validation criteria as calculated from measured roll or shaft revolutions. (h) Anal yz er bench identification, anal yz er ranges, recordings of analy zer output during zero, span, and sample readings. (i) Associate the following information with the test record: test number, date, vehicle identification, vehicle and equipment operators, and identification of the measurements recorded. (j) Test cell barometric pressure and humidity . You may use a central laboratory barometer if the barometric pressure in each test cell is shown to be within ±0.1 % of the barometric pressure at the central barometer location. (k) Records to verify

compliance with the ambient temperature requirements throughout the test procedure and records of fuel temperatures during the running loss test. (l) [Reserved] (m) For CVS s ys tems record, dilution factor for each phase of the exhaust test and the following additional informati on : (1) CFV and SSV V mix for each phase of the exhaust test. (2) PDP
. Test measurements required to calculate V mix for each phase of the exhaust test. (n) The humidity

of the dilution air if you remove H 2 O from an emission sample before measurement. (o) Te mperature of the dilute exhaust mixture and secondary dilution air (in the case of a double
- dilution system) at the inlet to the respective gas meter or flow instrumentation used for particulate sampling. (p) The maximum gas temperature over the course of the test within 20 cm upstream or downstream of the sample media (e.g., filter). (q) If applicable, the temperature of the heated FID, the gas in the heated sample line, and the heated filter. (r) Gas meter or flow measurement instrumentation readings at t he start and end of each test phase. (s) The stabilized pre
- test weight and post
- test weight of each particulate sample media (e.g., filter).Page 807 of 842

(t) Continuous temperature and humidity of the ambient air in which the particulate sample media (e.g., filter).are stabilized. (u) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, the test fuel composition, including all carbon
containing compounds; e.g. CO 2 , of the natural gas
- fuel used during the test. Record C 1 and C 2 compounds individually . You may record C 3 through C 5 hydrocarbons together, and you may record C 6 and heavier h ydrocarbon compounds together. Record CO and CO 2 separatel y. (v) Additional required records for liquefied petroleum gas
- fueled vehicles
. For vehicles fueled b y liquefied petroleum gas, the test fuel composition, including all carbon
- containing compounds. Each h ydrocarbon compound present, through C 4 compounds, shall be individually reported. C 5 and heavier hydrocarbons may be reported as a group. Record C 1 and C 4 compounds individually . You may re cord C 5 and heavier h ydrocarbon compounds together. Record CO and CO 2 separatel y.

**Subpart H**
**— Cold**  **- Temperature Test Procedures**  **§1066.701 Applicability and general provisions.** (a) The procedures of this part 1066 may be used for testing at an y ambient te mperature. The standard
- setting part may specify additional provisions for testing conducted at temperatures below 20 °C (68 °F). See, for example, 40 CFR part 86, subpart C, for testing related to exhaust emission standards and 40 CFR part 600 for calcu lating fuel econom y for light
- dut y motor vehicles. See the standard
- setting part to determine if your vehicle is required to meet emission standards outside the normal (20 to 30) °C (68 to 86 °F) temperature range. (b) Do not appl y the humidity correction factor in §1066.630(a) for cold
- temperature testing.

**Subpart I**
**— Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles**  **§1066.801 Applicability and general provisions.** This subpart I specifies how to apply the test procedures of this part for motor vehicle s at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, including light
- duty vehicles, light
- dut y trucks, and heav y - dut yPage 808 of 842

vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions. (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle emissions over a specified drive schedule in conjunction with subpart E of this part. Where the procedures of subpart E of this part differ from this subpart I, the provisions in this subpart Itake precedence. (b) Collect samples of every pollut ant for which an emission standard applies, unless specified otherwise. (c) This subpart covers the following test procedures: (1) General driving represented by the Federal Test Procedure (FTP). This procedure is also used for measuring evaporative emiss ions. This may be called the conventional test since it was first adopted for the earliest emission standards. (i) The FTP driving schedule consists of one Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) as specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix Iof 40 CFR part 86, followed by a 10
- minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. The UDDS represents about 7.5 miles of driving in an urban area. FTP measurements consist of a cold
- start test and a hot
- start test. Eng ine startup (with all accessories turned off), operation over the initial UDDS, and engine shutdown make a complete cold
- start test. The hot
- start test consists of the first 505 seconds of the UDDS following the 10
- minute soak and a hot
- running portion of the UDDS after the first 505 seconds. The hot
- running portion is generall y measured during the cold
- start test; however, in certain cases, the hot
- start test may involve a second full UDDS following the 10
- minute soak. (ii) Evaporative testing consists of a preconditioning drive with the UDDS and the FTP driving schedule (including exhaust measurement). The running loss test consists of a UDDS, then two New York City

Cycles as specified in paragraph (f) of Appendix Iof 40 CFR part 86, followed b y anoth er UDDS. The New York City Cycle represents about 1.7 miles of driving in a city center. (iii) Refueling emission tests consist of preconditioning and purge drives using UDDS and FTP cycles as described in 40 CFR 86.146 through 86.154. (2) Supplemental te sting that involves more aggressive driving. This includes driving over the US06 test cycle. This additional driving is an essential element of the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). SFTP testing consists of additional driving over the US06 dri ving schedule and the SC03 driving schedule specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of Appendix I of 40 CFR part 86, respectivel y. In the case of heav y - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, SFTP testing involves additional driving over the LA
- 92 driving schedule instead of the US06 driving schedule. See §§1066.830 through 1066.833. The US06 cycle represents about 8.0 miles of relativel y aggressive driving. The SC03 cycle represents about 3.6 miles of urban driving with the air conditioner operating. The LA
- 92 cycle represents approximately __ miles of relativel y aggressive driving for commercial trucks.Page 809 of 842

(3) SC03. (4) AC17. (5) HFET. (6) AC idle. (7) LA
- 92. (d) Starting in model ye ar 2022, speed tolerances and cycle
- vali dation criteria appl y as specified in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart E; however, for road load power determination in §1066.810, vehicle preconditioning, fuel dispensing spitback in 40 CFR 86.146, and canister purging in 40 CFR 86.153
- 98(d), the upper and lower speed tolerances are ±2.0 m/s (±4 mph). Up to three additional occurrences of speed variations greater than the tolerance are acceptable for road load power determination in §1066.810 and canister purging in 40 CFR 86.153
- 98(d), provided they

occur for l ess than 15 seconds on any occasion, and are clearly documented as to the time and speed at that point of the driving schedule. **§1066.810 Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class determination.** (a) Simulate a vehicle’s test weight on the dyn amometer using the appropriate equivalent test weight shown in Table 1 of this section. Equivalent test weights are established according to each vehicle’s test weight basis, as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Table 1 also specifies the ine rtia weight class corresponding to each equivalent test weight; the inertia weight class allows for grouping vehicles with a range of equivalent test weights. Table 1 follows:

Table 1 of §1066.810

–Equivalent test weights (pounds)
Test weight basis Equiva lent test weight Inertia weight class Up to 1062 1000 1000 1063 to 1187 1125 1000 1188 to 1312 1250 1250 1313 to 1437 1375 1250Page 810 of 842 1438 to 1562 1500 1500 1563 to 1687 1625 1500 1688 to 1812 1750 1750 1813 to 1937 1875 1750 1938 to 2062 2000 2000 206 3 to 2187 2125 2000 2188 to 2312 2250 2250 2313 to 2437 2375 2250 2438 to 2562 2500 2500 2563 to 2687 2625 2500 2688 to 2812 2750 2750 2813 to 2937 2875 2750 2938 to 3062 3000 3000 3063 to 3187 3125 3000 3188 to 3312 3250 3000 3313 to 3437 3375 3 500 3438 to 3562 3500 3500Page 811 of 842 3563 to 3687 3625 3500 3688 to 3812 3750 3500 3813 to 3937 3875 4000 3938 to 4125 4000 4000 4126 to 4375 4250 4000 4376 to 4625 4500 4500 4626 to 4875 4750 4500 4876 to 5125 5000 5000 5126 to 5375 5250 5000 5376 to 575 0 5500 5500 5751 to 6250 6000 6000 6251 to 6750 6500 6500 6751 to 7250 7000 7000 7251 to 7750 7500 7500 7751 to 8250 8000 8000 8251 to 8750 8500 8500 8751 to 9250 9000 9000Page 812 of 842 9251 to 9750 9500 9500 9751 to 10250 10000 10000 10251 to 10750 10500 105 00 10751 to 11250 11000 11000 11251 to 11750 11500 11500 11751 to 12250 12000 12000 12251 to 12750 12500 12500 12751 to 13250 13000 13000 13251 to 13750 13500 13500 13751 to 14000 14000 14000
(b) The test weight basis for establishing equivalent t est weight is loaded vehicle weight, as defined in 40 CFR 86.1803, with the following exceptions: (1) For heav y light
- dut y trucks (LDT3 and LDT4), test weight basis is adjusted loaded vehicle weight for emission tests and loaded vehicle weight for fuel eco nomy tests. Manufacturers may

choose instead to perform fuel econom y tests at adjusted loaded vehicle weight. Weight terms are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803. (2) For MDPVs and heavy
- dut y vehicles, test weight basis is adjusted loaded vehicle weight. (c) For each test vehicle subject to SFTP standards, determine road load forces at speeds between 10 and 70 miles per hour. The road load force must represent vehicle operation on a smooth level road during with no wind or calm winds, no precipitation, an ambient temperature of approximately

20 °C (68 °F), and atmospheric pressure of at least 98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road load force for speeds below 10 mph.Page 813 of 842

(d) We may

approve an alternate test cycle and cycle
- validation criteria for vehicles that do not have enough power to follow the specified driving trace. The alternate driving specifications must be based on making best efforts to maintain acceleration and speed to follow the specified test cycle. We must approve these alternate driving specifications before you perform this testing. **§1066.812 Test sequence; general requirements.**  (a) The following provisions apply for all testing: (1) Ambient temperatures encountered by the test vehicle must be (20 to 30) °C, unless otherwise specified. For vehicle s oaking steps, the soak period may be interrupted once for up to 10 minutes to transport the vehicle from one soak area to another, as long as the ambient temperature experienced by the vehicle is never below 20 °C. The temperatures monitored during testin g must be representative of those experienced b y the test vehicle. (2) Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the vehicle remains approximately level throughout testing to prevent abnormal fuel distribution. (3) If a test is void after collecting emi ssion data from previous test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those data points needed to complete emission measurements. You may combine emission measurements from different test runs to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. (b) FTP testing consists of a sequence of steps for measuring both exhaust and evaporative emissions. Evaporative testing involves both a two
- day test sequence and a three
day test sequence as shown in Figure 1 of this section. For vehicles with no evap orative canister, this defaults to a single test sequence for measuring FTP exhaust emissions. Evaporative test procedures are described in detail in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B. (c) Test procedures for onboard refueling vapor recovery are described in 40 C FR 86.150 through 86.157. This testing is also integral with the FTP test sequence. Fuel spitback testing is conducted as a stand
- alone test as described in 40 CFR 86.146. (d) SFTP testing is performed as described in §§1066.830 through 1066.832. This te sting may be performed in any sequence that follows the preconditioning protocol described in §1066.816. Figure 1 of §1066.812

–Federal test procedure test sequence.Page 814 of 842 Fuel drain and fill Vehicle Soak Preconditioning drive 1 hour MAX Fuel drain and fill Precondition canister Precondition canister Cold start exhaust test Cold start exhaust test 10 minutes 10 minutes Hot start exhaust test Hot start exhaust test 1-5 hours 7 minutes MAX Running loss test Hot soak test 7 minutes max 68 - 86 °F ambient Hot soak test 90-100 °F ambient Vehicle soak Vehicle soak Diurnal emission test 2 heat builds in 48 hours Diurnal emission test 3 heat builds in 72 hours 6-36 hours

12-36 hours

1 hour
6-36 hours 1 hour
6-36 hours Start

End End Diesel Only

**§1066.814 Vehicle preparation.**  (a) For vehicles subject to r unning loss testing, prepare the fuel tank(s) for recording the temperature of the test fuel, as described in 40 CFR 86.107

– 98(e). (b) Provide additional fittings and adapters, as required, to accommodate a fuel drain at the lowest point possible in the tank(s) as installed on the vehicle. (c) For preconditioning that involves loading evaporative emission canisterwith butane, provide valving or other means as necessary to allow purging and loading of the canister. (d) For vehicles to be tested for running l oss emissions, prepare the fuel tankfor measuring and recording the temperature and pressure of the fuel tank as specified in 40 CFR 86.107

– 98(e) and (f). Vapor temperature measurement is optional during the running loss test. If vapor temperature is not measured, fuel tank pressure need not be measured. (e) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions, prepare the exhaust sy stem by sealing or plugging all detectable sources of exhaust gas leaks. Inspect or test the exhaust sy stem to ensure that no detectable exhaust hydrocarbons are emitted into the running loss enclosure during testing.Page 815 of 842

(f) The following provisions apply for preconditioning steps to reduce nonfuel emissions to normal vehicle background levels for vehicles subject to Tier 3 evapo rative emission standards under 40 CFR 86.1813: (1) Manufacturers must notify us in advance if they

plan to perform such preconditioning. This notice must include a detailed description of the intended procedures and any measurements or thresholds for det ermining when stabilization is complete. Manufacturers need not repeat this notification for additional vehicle testing in the same or later model ye ars as long as the preconditioning practice conforms to these procedures. (2) Manufacturers may

preconditi on a vehicle as described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section only

within 12 months after the vehicle’s original date of manufacture, except they may remove the spare tire for any testing. **§1066.820 Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP testing** 
. (a) Ge neral . The dynam ometer run consists a cold start testing and hot start testing. Cold start testing begins after a 12 to 36 hour soak according to the provisions of 40 CFR 86.132. Hot start testing begins 10 minutes after the end of the cold start UDDS.
. (b) PM sampling options . You may collect PM using an y of the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section, taking into account the FTP composite emission calculations in §1066.822, instead of collecting a separate PM sample fo r each phase of the FTP. In all cases, testing must meet the requirements related to filter face velocity as described in 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi). (1) You may

collect PM on a single filter over the cold start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot st art UDDS. If you choose this option, you must adjust your sampling s ys tem flow rate to weight the filter face velocity over the three phases of the FTP, based on weighting targets of 0.43 for bag 1, 1.0 for bag 2, and 0.57 for bag 3. (2) You may

collect P M on a single filter over the cold start UDDS and the full hot start UDDS. If you choose this option, you must adjust your sampling s ys tem flow rate to weight the filter face velocity, based on weighting targets of 0.754 for the cold start UDDS and 1.0 fo r the hot start UDDS. (3) You may

collect PM on one filter over the cold start UDDS and on a separate filter over the hot start UDDS. (4) You may

collect PM on one filter over the cold start UDDS (bags 1 and 2) and on a separate filter over the 867 seconds of the stabilized portion of the cold start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot start UDDS (bags 2 and 3) Note that this option involves duplicate measurements during the stabilized portion of the cold start UDDS. (c) Test sequence . Perform FTP tes ting in the following sequence:Page 816 of 842

(1) Start sampling and recording simultaneousl y with starting the vehicle. (2) Fifteen seconds after the engine starts, place the transmission in gear. (3) Twent y seconds after the engine starts, begin the initial vehicle ac celeration of the driving schedule. (4) Operate the vehicle over the remainder of the UDDS as described in §1066.801. (5) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur 505 seconds into the cold start UDDS, simultaneously

switch all the sample flows fro m the cold start transient phase to the stabilized phase, stopping all cold start transient phase sampling and recording, including background sampling. Reset integrating devices for the stabilized phase and indicate the end of the cold start phase in the recorded data. (6) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last deceleration in the stabilized phase (1,369 seconds after the start of the test cycle). (7) Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all stabilized phase sampling and reco rding, including background sampling, stop integrating devices for the stabilized phase, and indicate the end of the stabilized phase in the recorded data. (8) Take the following steps for the hot start test: (i) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) throu gh (3) of this section. Operate the vehicle over the first 505 seconds of the UDDS as described in §1066.803. Begin hot start testing (9 to 11) minutes after the end of the sample period for the cold start UDDS. (ii) At the end of the deceleration sc heduled to occur 505 seconds into the hot start UDDS, turn off the engine and simultaneously stop all hot start sampling and recording, including background sampling, and integrating devices. As described in §1066.822, hot start testing may

in some cases involve driving over the full UDDS as for cold start testing. (9) This completes the procedures for measuring FTP exhaust emissions. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to continue measurement procedures for evaporative or refueling tests. **§1066.822 FTP exh aust emission composite calculations.**  (a) Determine the mass of exhaust emissions of each pollutant for each phase of FTP testing as described in §1066.610. (b) Calculate the final reported test results as a mass
- weighted value, e [emission]
- FTPcomp , in grams/mile using the following equation:Page 817 of 842 c h [emission]-FTPcomp ct cs ht hs

0.43 0.57 m m e D D D D

   
              Eq. 1066.822
- 1
Where: m c = the combined mass emissions determined from the cold start UDDS (generall y known as bags 1 and 2), in grams. D ct = the measured driving distance from the transient portion of the cold start test (bag 1), in miles. D cs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized portion of the cold start test (bag 2), as applicable, in miles. m h = the combined mass emissions determined from the hot start UDDS in grams. This is the hot stabilized portion from either the first or second UDDS, if applicable (bag 2 or bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3). See paragraph (d) of this section for special provisions that apply

for PM measurement. D ht = the measur ed driving distance from the transient portion of the hot start test (bag 3), in miles. D hs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized portion of the hot start test (bag 4), as applicable, in miles. Set D hs = D cs for testing where the hot stabili zed portion of the UDDS is not run. (c) For all pollutants, mass emissions for the cold start UDDS may alternatively

be collected separatel y for the cold start transient portion and the cold stabilized portion, then added together for a single cold start m ass, m c . Similarly , mass emissions for the hot start UDDS may alternativel y be collected separately for the hot start transient portion, then added together with the cold stabilized portion or hot stabilized portion for a single hot start mass, m h . (d) Ca lculate the final reported test results for PM as a mass
- weighted value, e PM
- FTPcomp , in grams/mile as follows: (1) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in §1066.820(b)(1): 

##    

PM PM-FTPcomp ct cs ht

0.43 0.57

m e D D D

    

Eq. 1066.822
- 2Page 818 of 842

Where: m PM = PM mass emissions determined from the test consisting of the cold start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot
- start UDDS (bags 1, 2, and 3), in grams per test phase, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610
- 3. (2) Use the following equation for PM measured as describ ed in §1066.820(b)(2):



##    

PM PM-FTPcomp ct cs ht hs

0.43 0.57

m e D D D D

     

Eq. 1066.822
- 3
Where: m PM = PM mass emissions determined from the test consisting of the cold start UDDS and the hot start UDDS (bags 1, 2, 3, and 4), in grams per test phase, as calculated using Eq. 1066 .610
- 4. (3) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in §1066.820(b)(3):

PM-cUDDS PM-hUDDS PM-FTPcomp ct cs ht hs

0.43 0.57 m m e D D D D

   
             

Eq. 1066.822
- 4
Where: m PM
- cUDDS = PM mass emissions determined from the test consisting of the cold start UDDS (bags 1 and 2), in grams per test phase, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610
- 2. m PM
- hUDDS = PM mass emissions determined from the test consisting of the hot start UDDS (bags 3 and 4), in grams per test phase, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610
- 2. (4) For PM measured as described in §1066. 820(b)(4), calculate PM emissions as described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, except that m PM
- hUDDS is the PM mass emissions determined from the stabilized portion of the cold start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot start UDDS (bags 2 and 3). **§ 1066.830**  **Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.**Page 819 of 842

The procedures described in §§1066.831 through 1066.834 describe the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). This testing applies for all vehicles subject to the SFTP standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. The SFTP test procedure consists of two separable test elements: A sequence of vehicle operation with more aggressive driving ; and a sequence of vehicle operation that includes the impact of the vehicle’s air conditioner. (a) Collect samp les of every pollutant for which an emission standard applies, unless specified otherwise. (b) The aggressive
- driving procedure consists of preconditioning the engine to a hot stabilized condition, after which the vehicle starts operating over the test cyc le. For most vehicles, the US06 test cycle applies. Some heavy
- dut y vehicles operate over a subset of the US06 test cycle, or over the LA
- 92 test cycle. (c) The SC03 test procedure in §1066.832 is designed to determine gaseous exhaust emissions while simulating an urban trip on a hot summer day . The full test consists of an engine key
- off for 10 minutes following the preconditioning steps, an engine start, and operation over the SC03 test cycle. The provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, and 40 CFR part 600 waive SC03 testing for some vehicles; in those cases, SFTP composite emissions are calculated by adjusting the weighting calculation. (d) The SFTP standard applies as a composite representing the constituent test cycles. The emission results from the aggressive driving test element (§1066.831), the air conditioning test element (§1066.832), and the FTP test element (§1066.812 (a) through (d) and (f)) are anal yz ed according to the calculation methodology in §1066.837 and compared to the applicable S FTP emission standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. (e) The SFTP elements may be run in any

sequence that maintains the applicable preconditioning steps specified in §86.816. **§1066.830.5 SFTP vehicle preconditioning.**  SFTP testing consists of three elements. Precondition and test vehicles as described in §1066.814 for the FTP test element. Take the following steps to precondition vehicles for the aggressive driving and air conditioning test elements: (a) Drain and refill the vehicle’s fuel tank(s) in an y of the following cases: (1) For testing unrelated to FTP or HFET testing. (2) For a test element that starts more than 72 hours after the most recent FTP or HFET measurement (with or without evaporative emission measurements). (3) For testing in which the test vehicle has not remained in an area where ambient temperatures were within the range specified for testing since the previous FTP or highway fuel econom y test.Page 820 of 842

(b) Take the following steps to precondition vehicles before the aggressive driving test e lement: (1) Keep ambient temperatures within the ranges specified for test measurements throughout the preconditioning sequence. (2) Push or drive the test vehicle onto the dynamometer. (3) Operate the test vehicle as needed to prepare it for testing and t o perform practice runs (for the driver or for sampling equipment). For our testing, we will generally operate the vehicle over the same cycle that will be used for testing in §86.831. You may ask us to perform vehicle preconditioning in a certain way to address fuel effects on adaptive memory sy stems or other factors. Do not measure emissions during the preconditioning drive. (3) Operate the test vehicle one time over one of the driving schedules specified in this paragraph (b)(3). You may ask us to us e a particular preconditioning driving schedule if that is related to fuel effects on adaptive memory s ys tems. Choose from the following driving schedules: (i) The first 505 seconds of the UDDS (generally known as bag 1) (ii) The last 866 seconds of the UDDS (generally known as bag 2). (iii) The highway

fuel economy

test cycle. (iv) US06 cycle or, for heav y - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR, just the highway portion of the US06 cycle. (v) The SC03 test cycle. (vi) The LA
- 92 test cycle. (4) Allow th e vehicle to idle for (1 to 2) minutes. This leads directl y into the test measurements described in §1066.831, (c) Take the following steps to precondition vehicles before the air conditioning test element: (1) Keep the vehicle in an environment meeting the conditions described in §1066.833 throughout the preconditioning sequence. (2) Push or drive the test vehicle onto the dynamometer. (3) Operate the test vehicle one time over the first 505 seconds of the UDDS (bag 1), the last 867 seconds of the UDDS (bag 2), or the SC03 test cycle. If the air conditioning test sequence starts more than 2 hours after a different exhaust emission test, you may instead operate the vehicle over the full UDDS.Page 821 of 842

(4) Following the preconditioning drive, turn off the test veh icle and the vehicle cooling fan(s) and allow the vehicle to soak for (9 to 11) minutes. This leads directly into the test measurements described in §1066.832. **§1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for aggressive driving.**  (a) Perform testing as desc ribed in this section using the US06 cycle described in paragraph (g) of 40 CFR part 86, appendix Ior the LA
- 92 cycle as specified in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR part 86, appendix I . The US06 cycle can be divided into two test phases

—the US06 City cycle comp rises the portion of the cycle from 1 to 130 seconds and from 495 to 596 seconds, and the US06 Highway cycle comprises the portion of the cycle between 130 and 495 seconds. Collect samples of every pollutant for which an emission standard applies, unless specified otherwise. (b) For testing based on the full US06 cycle, you may collect emissions as a single test phase, or you may collect emissions from city and highway

test phases separatel y (see 40 CFR part 600). Take the following steps for separate city and highway measurements: (1) At 130 seconds, simultaneously stop all “US06 City”, and start all “US06 Highway” sampling, recording, and integrating (including background sampling). At 136 seconds (before the acceleration), record the measured dynamomet er roll revolutions. (2) At 495 seconds, simultaneously stop all “US06 Highway”, and start all “US06 City” sampling, recording, and integrating (including background sampling). At 500 seconds (before the acceleration), record the measured dynamometer roll revolutions. (3) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, treat the emissions from the two discrete portions of city driving as a single sample. (4) I f you collect gaseous emissions over two test phases, you may collect PM as a single test phase over the full US06. I f you do, then calculate a composite dilution factor based on city and highway

emissions to show that you meet the dilution requirements of §1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B). (c) For diesel fueled vehicles, measure THC emissions on a co ntinuous basis as described in 40 CFR part 1065. For separate city and highway measurements as described in paragraph (c) of this section, perform separate calculations for each portion of the test cycle. (d) The provisions of §§1066.410 through 1066.430 apply , subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) Following the preconditioning specified in §1066.830, place the vehicle in gear and simultaneously

start sampling and recording. Begin the first acceleration 5 seconds after placing the vehicle in gear. (2) Operate the vehicle over one of the following test cycles:Page 822 of 842

(i) For heav y - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR, operate the vehicle over the LA
- 92 driving schedule as specified in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR part 86, appendix I
. (ii) Heav y - dut y vehicles above 8,500 pounds GVWR and at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR may

be certified using onl y the highway portion of the US06 driving schedule. See 40 CFR 86.1816. (iii) In all other cases, operate the vehicle over the full US06 driving sch edule. (3) Turn the engine off 2 seconds before the end of the driving schedule. Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all sampling and recording (including background) and stop integrating devices, indicating the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. (4) Correct calculated NO x emissions tests as described in §1066.630(a)(1). **§1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.**  (a) Perform testing as described in this section using the SC03 cycle as described in appendix I , para graph (h), of 40 CFR part 86. Precondition the vehicle in accordance with §1066.816 of this subpart to bring the vehicle to a warmed
- up stabilized condition. Section 1066.833 discusses the minimum facility requirements and corresponding control tolerance s for air conditioning ambient test conditions. (b) The provisions of §§1066.410 through 1066.430 apply , subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) You may

position additional cooling fans to provide sufficient air for vehicle cool ing if the vehicle has a rear
- mounted engine or if the fan configuration described in §1066.410(b)(1)(iv) is simply not adequate. The additional cooling fans may have a total capacity up to 2.50 m 3 /s; however, you may ask us to approve a greater fan capac ity under 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(1) b y demonstrating that the greater airflow represents in
- use operation in a way that has a meaningful effect on emissions. (2) Close all vehicle’s windows before testing. (3) Keep the vehicle in an environment meeting the con ditions described in §1066.833 throughout testing. (4) Set the vehicle’s air conditioning controls by selecting A/C mode and “maximum”, setting airflow to “recirculate” (if so equipped), selecting the highest fan setting, and turning the A/C Temperature t o full cool (or 72 °F for automatic sy stems). Turn the controls to the “on” position before testing so the air conditioning s ys tem is active whenever the engine is running. (5) Initiate data logging, sampling of exhaust gases, and integrating measured values before starting the engine.Page 823 of 842

(6) Simultaneously

start the engine and initiate the driver’s trace. Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after the engine starts to prepare for the initial acceleration. Follow the SC03 driving schedule. (7) Turn the en gine off 2 seconds before the end of the driving schedule. Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all sampling and recording (including background) and stop integrating devices, indicating the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. (8) Cor rect calculated NO x emissions as described in §1066.630(a)(2).
**1066.833 Test facility requirements for the air conditioning test element.**  This section describes how to create an environment that simulates a hot summer day for testing how a vehicle’s emiss ion controls function under higher temperatures with a full air conditioning load. The air conditioning test is one element of the SFTP, as described in §86.830. (a) Ambient air temperature . Measure and record ambient air temperature in the test cell at least once every

30 seconds during the sampling period. Control ambient air temperature during the test to a tolerance of 95 ±5 °F throughout the test and (93 to 97) °F on average. Use good engineering judgment to demonstrate that you meet the specified temperature tolerance throughout the preconditioning sequence. (b) Ambient humidity
. Measure and record ambient humidity in the test cell at least once every 30 seconds during the sampling period. Control ambient air temperature during the test as describ ed in §1066.425(d) throughout the preconditioning and testing sequence. Use good engineering judgment to measure ambient humidity during the preconditioning sequence. (c) Minimum test cell size . The test cell must be at least 20 feet wide, 40 feet long, a nd 10 feet high, unless we approve the use of a smaller test cell. We will approve this only if you demonstrate that the smaller test cell is capable of meeting all the requirements of this section. (d) Solar heat loading . Simulate solar heating as follow s: (1) You may

use a metal halide lamp, a sodium lamp, or a quartz halogen lamp with dichroic mirrors as a radiant energy emitter. We may

also approve the use of a different t ype of radiant energy

emitter if you demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section. (2) We recommend achieving radiant heating with spectral distribution characteristics as described in the following table:

Table 1 of §1066.833

–Recommended Spectral DistributionPage 824 of 842 Band width (nm) Percent of total spectrum Lower limit (%) Upper limit (%) <320 a

— 0 320

–400 0 7 400

– 780 45 55 >780 35 53

aFilter the UV region between 280 and 320 nm.
(3) Determine radiant energy intensity experienced by

the vehicle as the average value between two measurements along the vehicle’s centerl ine, one at the base of the windshield and the other bottom of the rear window (or equivalent location for vehicles without a rear window). This value must be 850 ±45 W/m2 . Instruments for measuring radiant energy intensity must meet the following minimum specifications: (A) Sensitivity

of 9 microvolts per watt/m 2

. (B) Response time of 1 second. (C) L inearit y of ± 0.5 %. (D) Cosine of ± 1 % from normalization 0

– 70 degree zenith angle. (4) Check radiant energy

uniformity

at least every

500 hours of emitte r usage or every 6 months, whichever is shorter, and after an y major modifications affecting the solar simulation. Measure the radiant energy uniformit y at each point of a 0.5 m grid over the vehicle’s full footprint, including the edges of the footprint, at an elevation 1 m above the floor. Radiant energy uniformit y must be 850 ±128 W/m 2 at all points. (e) Vehicle frontal air flow . You may use “blower in box” technology for frontal air flow as long as the s ys tem meets the requirements of §1066.410(b)(1)( iv). Verify that the test configuration meets the requirements of §1066.410(b)(1)(iv) before each test.Page 825 of 842

**§1066.835 AC17 air conditioning efficiency test procedure.**  (a) Overview
. Dy

namometer operation over this test procedure consists of four elements: a pre - conditioning cycle, a 30
- minute soak period under simulated solar heat, an SC03 drive cycle, and a Highway

Fuel Economy

Test (HFET) drive cycle. The vehicle is preconditioned with the UDDS to bring the vehicle to a warmed
- up stabilized condition. Thi s preconditioning is followed b y a 30 minute vehicle soak (engine off) that proceeds directl y into the SC03 driving schedule, during which continuous proportional samples of gaseous emissions are collected for anal ys is. The SC03 driving schedule is follow ed immediately by the HFET cycle, during which continuous proportional samples of gaseous emissions are collected for analysis. The entire test, including the preconditioning driving, vehicle soak, and SC03 and HFET official test cycles, is conducted in an environmental test facility as specified in 1066.833. The environmental test facility must be capable of providing the following nominal ambient test conditions of: 77 °F air temperature, 50 % relative humidity , a solar heat load intensity of 850 W/m 2 , and vehicle cooling air flow proportional to vehicle speed. Section 1066.833 discusses the minimum facility requirements and corresponding control tolerances for air conditioning ambient test conditions. The entire test sequence is run twice; with and wi thout the vehicle’s air conditioner operating during the SC03 and HFET test cycles. For gasoline
- fueled Otto
- cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in bags are anal yz ed for THC, CO, CO 2 , and CH 4 . For diesel cycle vehicles, THC emissions are meas ured on a continuous basis according to 40 CFR part 1065. (b) Dy namometer inertia settings . (1) Determine required AC17 dy namometer inertia weight class selections by the test vehicle’s test weight basis and corresponding equivalent weight as listed in Ta

ble 1 of §1066.810 and discussed in §1066.810(b) and (c). (2) Set the dynamometer test inertia weight and roadload horsepower requirements for the test vehicle according to §1066.810(b) and (c). Set the dy namometer’s horsepower adjustment settings such th at the force imposed during dynamometer operation matches actual road load force at all speeds. (c) Test cell ambient conditions
. (1) Ambient air temperature
. (i) Control ambient air temperature in the test cell during all emission sampling phases of the A C17 test sequence to 77 ±2 °F on average and 77 ±5 °F as an instantaneous measurement. During non
- emission sampling phases, you must still meet these tolerances, although you may have periods outside of the tolerances that do not exceed a cumulative total of 3 minutes. (ii) Record the air temperature continuousl y at a minimum of 30 second intervals. Alternativel y, you may use a moving average over a minimum of 30 second intervals to record and report air temperature. You must maintain records of test cel l air temperatures and values of average test temperatures for all certification related programs. (2) Ambient humidity
. (i) Control ambient humidity in the test cell during all emission sampling phases of the AC17 test sequence as described in §1066.425( d)(2). During non
emission sampling phases, you must still meet these tolerances, although you may have periods outside of the tolerances that do not exceed a cumulative total of 3 minutes.Page 826 of 842

(ii) Record the humidity

continuously

at a minimum of 30 second i ntervals. You must maintain records of test cell humidity and values of average test humidity for all certification related programs. (3) Solar heat loading
. The requirements of §1066.833(d) regarding solar heat loading specifications appl y. The solar l oad of 850 W/m 2 is applied only during specified portions of the test sequence. (4) Minimum test cell size . The requirements of §1066.833(c) regarding test cell size requirements appl y. (5) Test cell air flow requirements . The requirements of §1066.833(e) regarding air flow supplied to the vehicle apply . Air flow at a maximum of 4 mph may be provided during periods of idle and key
- off soak if required for maintenance of ambient requirements. (d) Interior temperature measurement . Measure the interior tempe rature of the vehicle during the emission sampling phases of the test(s). (1) Interior temperatures shall be measured b y placement of thermocouples at the following locations: (i) The outlet of the center duct on the dash. (ii) Behind the driver and passe nger seat headrests. L ocation of the temperature measuring devices approximately 30 mm behind each headrest. (2) The temperature at each location shall be recorded a minimum of every 5 seconds. (e) Air conditioning s ys tem settings . For the portion of the test where the air conditioner is required to be operating the settings shall be as follows: (1) Automatic s ys tems shall be set to automatic and the temperature control set to 72 °F, with blower or fan speed and vent location controlled by the automatic mode. (2) Manual s ys tems shall be set at the start of the SC03 drive cycle to full cool with the fan on the highest setting and the airflow setting to “recirculation.” Within the first idle period of the SC03 drive cycle (186 to 204 seconds) the fan spe ed shall be reduced to the setting closest to 6 volts at the motor, the temperature setting shall be adjusted to provide nominally 55 °F at the center dash air outlet, and the airflow setting changed to “outside air.” (f) Test procedure . The following st eps shall be taken for the AC17 test in place of the procedures in §§1066.410, 1066.420, 1066.425, and 1066.430: (1) Prepare the vehicle for testing according to 40 CFR 86.132, paragraphs (a) through (g), concluding with a 12
- 36 hour soak. (2) See §1066.83 3(e) for a discussion of cooling fan specifications. In addition to the cooling fan requirements of §1066.410(b)(1)(iv), for cases where vehicles have rear enginePage 827 of 842

compartments (or if this front location provides inadequate engine cooling), an additional c ooling fan shall be placed in a position to provide sufficient air to maintain vehicle cooling. The fan capacit y shall normally not exceed 5300 cfm (2.50 m 3 /s). If, however, it can be demonstrated that during road operation the vehicle receives additional cooling, and that such additional cooling is needed to provide a representative test, the fan capacity may be increased or additional fans used if approved using the provisions in 40 CFR 1065.10. (3) Open all vehicle windows. (4) Set the environmental tes t cell ambient test conditions to the conditions defined in paragraph (c) of this section, except that the solar heat shall be off. (5) Set the air conditioning s ys tem controls to off. (6) Start the vehicle (with air conditioning s ys tem off) and conduct a preconditioning UDDS. (7) Following the preconditioning cycle, the test vehicle and cooling fan(s) are turned off, all windows are rolled up for tests where the air conditioning sy stem is running, and the vehicle is allowed to soak in the ambient conditio ns of paragraph (c)(1) of this section for 30 ±1 minutes. Use good engineering judgement to ensure the windows are sealed where instrumentation and wiring pass through to the interior. If emissions are being measured with the air conditioner operating, the solar heat sy stem must be turned on within one minute of turning the engine off. Otherwise the solar heat sy stem shall be turned off. The 30 minute soak starts immediately after the solar load has achieved 850 ±45 W/m 2 . Facility calibration data on s olar lamp warm
- up can be used to establish the start of solar soak time. Total soak time encompasses the time to turn on the lamps (e.g., one minute), lamp warm
- up time (from calibration data), and the 30 minute solar soak. For example if it takes one mi nute to turn on the lamps and the facility calibration demonstrates that the lamps reach 850 W/m2 within two minutes, the soak time can be standardized at 33 minutes after engine off for that facility
. (8) Initiate data logging, sampling of exhaust gases, and integrating measured values before starting the engine. If emissions are being measured with the air conditioner operating, yo u must start the engine with the air conditioning sy stem running as specified in paragraph (e) of this section. Otherwise th e air conditioning s ys tem should be completely off. (9) Initiate the driver’s trace when the engine starts. Start the engine with the air conditioning sy stem running. Fifteen seconds after the engine starts, place vehicle in gear. (10) Eighteen seconds a fter the engine starts, begin the initial vehicle acceleration of the SC03 driving schedule. (11) Operate the vehicle according to the SC03 driving schedule, as described in appendix I , paragraph (h), of 40 CFR part 86. (12) Allow the engine to remain on after the end of the last deceleration (i.e., engine remains on at 594 seconds).Page 828 of 842

(13) Seven seconds after the end of the last deceleration (i.e., at 601 seconds), simultaneously

stop all SC03 and start all HFET sampling, recording, and integrating; including background sampling indicating the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. Record the measured roll or shaft revolutions. (14) Operate the vehicle according to the HFET driving schedule, as described in appendix Iof 40 CFR part 600. (vii) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last deceleration (i.e., engine off at 765 seconds) and simultaneously stop all HFET sampling, recording, and integrating; including background sampling, indicating the end of the test cycle. (15) Turn off the s olar heat sy stem, if applicable. (g) Calculations . (1) Determine the mass of exhaust emissions of each pollutant for each phase of AC17 testing as described in §1066.610. (2) Calculate the final reported test results as a mass
- weighted value, e [emission]
- AC17comp , in grams/mile using Eq. §1066.835
- 1. The final reported test result is the average of the SC03 and HFET gram per mile emissions.

SC 03 HFET CO 2-AC17comp SC03 HFET

0.5 0.5 m m e D D

   
       

    Eq. 1066.835
- 1
Where: e [emission]
- AC17comp = Weighted mass emission of CO 2 , in grams p er mile. m SC03 = Mass emissions determined from the SC03 test phase, in grams per test phase. m HFET = Mass emissions determined from the HFET test phase, in grams per test phase. D SC03 = The measured driving distance from the SC03 test phase, in miles. D HF ET = The measured driving distance from the HFET test phase, in miles. (h) Measuring the net impact of air conditioner operation . This test may be used to determine the net impact of air conditioner operation as may be required under 40 CFR 86.1868, which requires that CO 2 be measured using the procedures in this section with both air conditioning on and off. To do this, you must follow these steps: (1) Conduct testing using the test procedure described in this section with the airPage 829 of 842

conditioning sy stem ope rating, being sure to follow the appropriate instructions regarding air conditioner operation and use of the solar heat s ystem. Analyze the data and calculate the weighted CO 2 emissions in grams per mile according to paragraph (g) of this section. (2) Al low the vehicle to remain on the dy namometer, with the engine off, for 10 to 15 minutes after emissions sampling has concluded. The solar heat sy stem should be turned off. (3) Conduct the test procedure described in paragraph (f) of this section with the air conditioning sy stem turned off, being sure to follow the appropriate instructions regarding air conditioner operation (off) and use of the solar heat sy stem (off). Anal yz e the data and calculate the weighted CO 2 emissions in grams per mile according t o paragraph (g) of this section. (4) Calculate the incremental CO 2 emissions due to air conditioning operation by subtracting the CO 2 grams per mile determined in paragraph (h)(3) of this section from the CO 2 grams per mile determined in paragraph (h)(1) o f this section. (i) Records required and reporting requirements . For each test, record the information specified in §1066.818. Emission results must be reported for each phase of the test. You must also report the following information for each vehicle tested: vehicle class, model ty pe, carline, curb weight, engine displacement, transmission class and configuration, interior volume, climate control sy stem t ype and characteristics, refrigerant used, compressor typ e, and evaporator/condenser characteristic s. **§1066.837 Supplemental Federal Test Procedure calculations.**  (a) This section provides procedures for calculating mass emission results of each regulated exhaust pollutant for the SFTP composite calculation. (b)(1) If your test vehicle is equipped with air conditioning, calculate the final reported test results for the NMHC + NO x SFTP composite and optional CO composite standards using Eq. §1066.837
- 1.

[emission]-SFTPcomp [emission]-FTPcomp [emission]-SC03 [emission]-US06

0.35 0.37 0.28 e e e e

     

Eq. 1066.837
- 1 Where: e [emission]
- SFTPcomp = mass - weighted value of emi ssions in g/mile for a particular pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP, SC03, and US06 test schedules. e [emission]
- FTPcomp = mass - weighted value of emissions in g/mile for a particular pollutant over the FTP test schedule as determ ined in §1066.822. e [emission]
- SC03 = mass of emissions in g/mile for a particular pollutant measured over the driving distance of the SC03 test schedule as determined in §1066.832.Page 830 of 842

e [emission]
- US06 = mass of emissions in g/mile for a particular pollutant measured over the driving distance of the US06 test schedule as determined in §1066.831. In the case where a 2
- phase US06 test is run according to §1066.831(b)(7) and 40 CFR part 600, calculate the mass of emissions in g/mile, by

using the summed mass emi ssions of the “US06 City” phase and the “US06 Highway” phase, based on the measured driving distance of the US06 test schedule. (2) Determine composite emissions of NMHC + NO x over the SFTP schedule, eNMHC+NOxSFTPcomp , using Eq. §1066.837
- 2.

x x NMHC + NO -SFTPcomp NMHC-SFTPcomp NO -S FTPco mp e e e

 

Eq. 1066.837
- 2 Where: eNMHC
- SFTPcomp = the composite emission results for NMHC over the SFTP test schedule. eNOx
- SFTPcomp = the composite emission results for NO x over the SFTP test schedule. (c)(1) If the test vehicle is not equipped with air conditioning, calculate the final reported test results for the NMHC + NO x SFTP composite and optional CO composite standards using Eq. §1066.837
- 3.

[emission]-SFTPcomp [emission]-FTPcomp [em ission]-US06

0.72 0.28 e e e

   

Eq. 1066.837
- 3 Where: e [emission]
- SFTPcomp = mass - weighted value of e missions in g/mile for a particular pollutant weighted in terms of the contributions from the FTP and US06 test schedules. e [emission]
- FTPcomp = mass - weighted value of emissions in g/mile for a particulate pollutant over the FTP test schedule as determined in §1066.822. e [emission]
- US06 = mass of emissions in g/mile for a particulate pollutant measured over the driving distance of the US06 test schedule as determined in §1066.831. In the case where a 2
- phase US06 test is run according to §1066.831(b)(7) an d 40 CFR part 600, calculate the mass of emissions in g/mile, by

using the summed mass emissions of the “US06 City” phase and the “US06 Highway” phase, based on the measured driving distance of the US06 test schedule. (2) Determine composite emissions of N MHC + NO x over the SFTP schedule, eNMHC+NOx
SFTPcomp , using Eq. §1066.837
- 2. **§1066.839 Highway fuel economy test procedure.**Page 831 of 842

This section provides the test procedure for the highway fuel econom y test (HFET). The HFET consists of a preconditioning highway driving sequence and a measured highway driving sequence. This test procedure, and the associated standards set forth in 40 CFR parts 600 and 86 subpart S, are applicable to light
- duty vehicles and light
- duty

trucks. (a) General . The HFET is designated to simulate non
- metropolitan driving with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60.0 mph. The cycle is 10.2 miles long with 0.2 stops per mile and consists of warmed
- up vehicle operation on a chassis dy namometer through a specified driving cyc le. A proportional part of the diluted exhaust emission is collected continuousl y for subsequent analysis of NMOG, CO, and CO 2 using a CVS. For diesel vehicles, NMHC emissions are measured on a continuous basis according to 40 CFR part 1065. For determi nation of NMHC from THC and CH 4 , CH 4 may be measured either on a continuous or batch basis. (b) The following steps shall be taken for the HFET in place of the procedures in §§1066.410, 1066.420, 1066.425, and 1066.430. (1) Dy namometer inertia weight class selections are determined b y the test vehicles test weight basis and corresponding equivalent weight as listed in Table 1 of §1066.810 and discussed in §1066.810 (b) and (c). The test weight for a fuel econom y data vehicle will be that test weight specif

ied b y the Administrator from the test weights covered b y that vehicle configuration. We will base our selection of a test weight on the relative projected sales volumes of the various test weights within the vehicle configuration. (2) The HFET is designe d to be performed immediately following the FTP. When conditions allow, the tests should be scheduled in this sequence. In the event the tests cannot be scheduled within three hours of the FTP (including one hour hot soak evaporative loss test, if applic able) the vehicle should be preconditioned as described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. (i) If the vehicle has experienced more than three hours of soak at (20 to 30) °C since the completion of the FTP, or has experienced periods of storag e outdoors, or in environments where soak temperature is not maintained to (20 to 30) °C, the vehicle must be preconditioned by operation on a dynamometer through one cycle of the EPA Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule, as described in §1066.820. (ii) EPA may

approve a manufacturer’s request for additional preconditioning in unusual circumstances. (3) Use the following procedure to determine highway fuel econom y: (i) The dynamometer procedure consists of two cycles of the Highway Fuel Economy Driving Schedu le (§600.109

– 08(b)) separated b y 15 seconds of idle. Precondition the vehicle by operating it over one Highway Fuel Econom y driving schedule, as described in appendix Iof 40 CFR part 600..Page 832 of 842

(ii) At the conclusion of the HFET preconditioning cycle, allow the vehicle to idle for 15 seconds. (iii) Start sampling and recording, simultaneously with the start of the second Highway Fuel Econom y driving schedule. Begin the first acceleration 2 seconds after placing the vehicle in gear. (iv) If the engine is not r unning at the initiation of the highway fuel economy

test (preconditioning cycle), the start
- up procedure must be according to the manufacturer’s recommended procedures. (v) Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last deceleration (i.e., engine off at 765 seconds), stop all sampling and recording, including background sampling and stop integrating devices for the test, indicating the end of the test cycle in the recorded data **§1066.840 Fuel storage system leak test procedure.** (a) Scope . Verify that there are no significant leaks in your fuel storage s ystem using the leak test described in this section. Perform this check as required in the standard
- setting part. (b) Measurement principles . A leak may be detected by

measuring pressure, temperature, and flow to calculate an equivalent orifice diameter for the s ys tem. Use good engineering judgment to develop and implement leak test equipment. Your leak test equipment must meet the following requirements: (1) Pressure, temperature, and flow sens ors must be calibrated with NIST
- traceable standards. (2) Correct flow measurements to standard temperature and pressure of 20 °C and 101.3 kPa. (3) Leak test equipment must have the ability to pressurize fuel storage s ys tems to 4.1 kPa and have an inter

nal leak rate of less than 0.2 slpm. (4) You must be able to attach the test equipment to the vehicle without permanent alteration of the fuel storage or evaporative emissions control sy stems. (5) The point of attachment to the fuel storage s ys tem must all ow pressurization to test sy stem integrit y of the fuel tank and fuel and vapor lines reaching up to and including the gas cap and the evaporative canister. An example of an effective attachment point is the evaporative emission system test port available on some vehicles. (c) Leak test procedure . Test a vehicle’s fuel storage s ys tem for leaks as follows: (1) Fill the vehicle’s fuel tank to 40 % capacity
.Page 833 of 842

(2) Soak the vehicle for 6 to 24 hours at a temperature of (20 to 30) °C and maintain this temperature throughout the leak test. (3) Before performing the test, purge the fuel storage s ys tem of an y residual pressure, bringing the s ys tem into equilibration with the ambient. (4) Seal the evaporative canister’s vent to atmosphere and ensure that the s ystem purge valve is closed. (5) Attach the leak test equipment to the vehicle. (6) Pressurize the fuel storage s ys tem with N 2 or another inert gas to at least 2.4 kPa. Use good engineering judgment to avoid overpressurizing the s ys tem. (7) Maintain gas flow thro ugh the s ys tem for at least 180 seconds, ensuring that the flow reading is stable for an effective leak diameter of ± 0.002 inches. (8) Use the following equation, or a different equation you develop based on good engineering judgment, to calculate the eff ective leak diameter, D eff . 

##       0.5057

gas eff 1 2 1 2 0.2153 960 459.67

V D p p p p

G T    

 

  

     Where: D eff = Effective leak diameter, rounded to the nearest 0.01 inch. V gas = Volumetric flow of gas (scfh). p 1 = Inlet pressure to orifice (psia). p 2 = Atmospheric pressure (psia). G = Specific gravit y of gas at 14.7 psia and 60°F. T = Temperature of flowing medium (°F). (9) You may

perform any

number of replicate tests. The average value of replicate tests is the official result for a given vehicle. (10) You may

use special or alternative test procedures as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c).Page 834 of 842

(d) Equipment calibration . Use good engineering judgment to calibrate the leak check device.

**Subpart J**

**— [Reserved]** 

**Subpart K**

**— Definitions and Other Reference Material**  **§1066.1001 Definitions.** The definitions in this section apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. Other terms have the meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065. The definitions follow:

Base inertia means a value expressed in mass units to represent the rot ational inertia of the rotating dyn amometer components between the vehicle driving tires and the dy namometer torque - measuring device, as specified in §1066.250. Driving schedule means a series of vehicle speeds that a vehicle must follow during a test. Driving schedules are specified in the standard
- setting part. A driving schedule may consist of multiple test phases. Duty cycle means a set of weighting factors and the corresponding test cycles, where the weighting factors are used to combine the results of multiple test phases into a composite result. Footprint has the meaning given in the standard
- setting part. Nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) means the combination of organic gases other than methane as calculated in §1066.665. Note that for this part, the organic gases are summed on a mass basis without any

adjustment for photochemical reactivity
. Parts
- per - million (ppm) means ppm on a molar basis. For h ydrocarbon concentrations including HC, THC, NMHC, and NMOG, ppm means ppm on a C 1 - equivalent molar bas is. Road
- load coefficients means sets of A, B, and C road
- load force coefficients that are used in the dy

namometer road
- load simulation, where road
- load force at speed v equals A + B ∙ v + C ∙ v2

.Page 835 of 842 Test phase means a period over which a vehicle’s emission rate s are determined separately . For man y standards, compliance with the standard is based on a weighted average of the mass emissions from multiple test phases. For example, the standard
- setting part may specify a complete dut y cycle as a cold
- start test ph ase and a hot
- start test phase. In cases where multiple test phases occur over a duty cycle, the standard
- setting part may specify additional calculations that weight and combine results to arrive at composite values for comparison against the applicable standards.

Test weight has the meaning given in §1066.810. Unloaded coastdown means a dy namometer coastdown run with the vehicle wheels removed from the roll surface.

We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and an y authorized representatives. **§1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure.** The procedures in this part generally follow either the International S ys tem of Units (SI) or the United States customary units, as detailed in NI ST Special Publi cation 811, which we incorporate b y reference in §1066.1010. See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the way we use sy

mbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations. (a) Sy mbols for quantities
. This part uses the following s ymbols and units of measure for various quantities:

S ymbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Unit in

terms of SI base units α atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio mole per mole mol/mol 1

a acceleration feet per second squared or meters per second squared ft/s 2 or m/s 2 m ∙s - 2 β atomic oxygen to carbon ratio mole per mole mol/mol 1 C d discharge coefficient

d diameter meters m m D F dilution factor 1

e mass weighted emission result grams/mile g/mi F force pound force or newton lbf or N kg ∙s - 2 f frequency hertz Hz s - 1 I inertia pound mass or lbm or kg kgPage 836 of 842 kilogram I current am pere A A i indexing variable M mass pound mass or kilogram lbm or kg kg N total number in series n total number of pulses in a series ρ mass density kilogram per cubic meter kg/m3 kg ∙m- 3 R dynamometer roll revolutions revolutions per minute rpm 2 ∙ π ∙60 - 1 ∙ m· m- 1 ·s - 1 R e # Reynolds number R L road
- load coefficient horsepower or kilowatt hp or kW 10 3 ∙m2 ∙kg∙ s - 3 T Celsius temperature degree Celsius ° C K
– 273.15 T torque (moment of force) newton meter N ∙m m2 ∙kg∙s - 2 t time second s s Δ t time interval, period,

1/frequency second s s U volt age volt V m2 ∙kg∙s 3 ∙A - 1
v speed miles per hour or meters per second mph or m/s m ∙s - 1

x mass of emission over a test phase kilogram kg kg y generic variable (b) Sy mbols for chemical species . This part uses the following s ymbols for chemical specie s and exhaust constituents: Sym bol Species CH 4 methane CO carbon monoxide CO 2 carbon dioxide NM HC nonmethane hydrocarbon NM HCE nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent NM OG nonmethane organic gas NO NMHC nonoxygenated nonmethane

hydrocarbon NO nitric oxide NO 2 nitrogen dioxidePage 837 of 842 NO x oxides of nitrogen N 2 O nitrous oxide O 2 molecular oxygen OH C oxygenated hydrocarbon PM particulate matter TH C total hydrocarbon TH CE total hydrocarbon equivalent

(c) Superscripts . This part uses the following superscripts to define a quantity : Superscript Quantity overbar (such as y ) arithmetic mean
(d) Subscripts . This part uses the following subscripts to define a quantity :

Sub script Quantity abs absolute quantity act actual or measure d condition acti nt actual or measured condition over the speed interval

atm os atmospheric b base c coastdown co mp composite

cor corrected dex h dilute exhaust quantity

dil dilute e effective emi ssion emission specie
err or error

exh raw exhaust quantity exp expected quantity fil filter fina finalPage 838 of 842 l flo w flow measurement device type

i an individual of a series int intake init initial quantity, typically before an emission test ma x the maximum (i.e. peak) value expected at the standard

over a test phase; not the maximum of an instrument range me as measured quantity ref reference quantity rev revolution roll dynamometer roll s settling sat saturated condition spa n span quantity

std standard conditions test test quantity unc or uncorrec ted quantity
zer o zero quantity
(e) Other acrony

ms and abbreviations . This part uses the following additional abbreviations and acron yms: A/C air conditioning ALV W adjusted loaded vehicle weight

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFV critical
- flow ve nturi CVS constant - volume sampler EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETW equivalent test weight EV electric vehicle FID flame
- ionization detector FTP Federal test procedure GC gas chromatograph GHG greenhouse gas (including CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH 4 ) GV WR gross vehicle weight rating

HEV hybrid electric vehicle HFE T highway fuel economy test HLD T heavy light
- duty truckPage 839 of 842 HPL C high pressure liquid chromatography IBR incorporated by reference MDP V medium
- duty passenger vehicle NIST National Institute fo r Standards and Technology PD P positive
- displacement pump PHE V plug
- in hybrid electric vehicle

PM particulate matter RES S rechargeable energy storage system SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SC03 air conditioning driving schedule SEA selective enf orcement audit SFTP supplemental federal test procedure SSV subsonic venturi UDD S urban dynamometer driving cycle US06 aggressive driving schedule U.S. C. United States Code
(f) This part uses the following densities of chemical species:
Sym bol Quantity 1,2 kg/m3 g/ft 3 ρ CH4 density of methane 0.666905 18.8847 ρ CH3 OH density of methanol 1.33202 37.7185 ρ C2H 5OH C 1 - equivalent density of ethanol 0.957559 27.1151 ρ C2H 4O C 1 - equivalent density of acetaldehyde 0.915658 25.9285 ρ C3H 8 density of propane 0.611035 17.3026 ρ C3H 7 OH C 1 - equivalent density of propanol 0.83274 23.5806 ρ CO density of carbon monoxide 1.16441 32.9725 ρ CO2 density of carbon dioxide 1.82953 51.8064 ρ HC
gas effective density of hydrocarbon
- gaseous fuel 3 (see 3) (see 3) ρ HCH O density of formaldehyde 1. 24821 35.3455 ρ HC
liq effective density of hydrocarbon
- liquid fuel 4 0.576816 16.3336 ρ NM effective density of nonmethane hydrocarbon
- (see 3) (see 3)Page 840 of 842 HC
- gas gaseous fuel 3 ρ NM HC
- liq effective density of nonmethane hydrocarbon
-

liquid fuel 4 0.576816 16 .3336 ρ NM HCE
- gas effective density of nonmethane equivalent

hydrocarbon
- gaseous fuel 3 (see 3) (see 3) ρ NM HCE
- liq effective density of nonmethane equivalent

hydrocarbon
- liquid fuel 4 0.576816 16.3336 ρ NOx effective density of oxides of nitrogen 5 1.912 5 54.156 ρ N2O density of nitrous oxide 1.82966 51.8103
1 Densities are given at 20 °C and 101.3 kPa. 2 Densities for all hydrocarbon containing quantities are given in kg/m3

- carbon atom and g/ft 3

- carbon atom.

3 The effective density for natural gas fuel and liquefied petroleum gas fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen
- to - carbon ratio,  , of the hydrocarbon components of the test fuel. ρ HCgas = 0.04157 ∙(12.011 + (  ∙1.008)).

4 The effective density for gasoline and diesel fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen - to carbon ratio,  , of 1.85.

5 The effective density of NO x is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO 2 . (g) Constants . (1) This part uses the following constants for the composition of dry air: S ymbol Quantity mo l/mol x Arair amount of arg on in dry air 0.0 0934 x CO2air amount of carbon dioxide in

dry air 0.0 00375 x N2ai r amount of nitrogen in dry air 0.7 8084 x O2ai r amount of oxygen in dry air 0.2 09445 (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar masses of chemical spe cies:
S

ymbol Quantity g/mol (10 - 3 ·kg·mol - 1 ) M ai r molar mass of dry air 1 28.96559 M H2O molar mass of water 18.01528Page 841 of 842 1 See paragraph (g)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air.
**§1066.1010 Reference materials.** (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Prot ection Agency must publish a notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and R adiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202
- 1744, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Record s Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

– 741

– 6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. (b) Societ y of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonweal th Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096

– 0001, (877) 606

– 7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776

–4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada), http://www.sae.org. (1) SAE J1263, Road L oad Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques, Revised March 2010, IBR ap proved for §§1066.301(b) and 1066.310(b). (2) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, Revised October 2012, IBR approved for §1066.501. (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy of H ybrid
- Electric Vehicles, Including Plug
- In Hy brid Vehicles, Revised June 2010, IBR approved for §§1066.122 and 1066.501. (4) SAE J2263, Road L oad Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and Coastdown Techniques, Revised December 2008, IBR approved for § §1066.301(b) and 1066.310(b). (5) SAE J2264, Chassis Dy namometer Simulation of Road Load Using Coastdown Techniques, Issued April 1995, IBR approved for §1066.320. (6) SAE J2711, Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Econom y and Emissions of Hy brid
- Electric and Conventional Heavy
- Duty Vehicles, Issued September 2002, IBR approved for §1066.501. (7) SAE J2951, Drive Quality Evaluation for Chassis Dy namometer Testing, Revised November 2011, IBR approved for §1066.430.Page 842 of 842

**Control of Air Pollution from Motor Veh icles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and**  **Fuel Standards Page 829 of 829**  (c) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
- 1070, (301) 975
- 6478, www.nist.gov, or inquiries@nist.gov. (1) NIST Special Pu

blication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use of the International Sy stem of Units (SI), March 2008, IBR approved for §§1066.20(a) and 1066.1005. (2) [Reserved]

Dated: _______________________

_____________________________________________________ Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency