Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68575 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 29, 2010. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28133 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 86, 1033, 1039, 1042, 

1045, 1054, and 1065 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0142; FRL–9220–7] 

RIN 2060–AO69 

Revisions To In-Use Testing for HeavyDuty Diesel Engines and Vehicles; 

Emissions Measurement and 

Instrumentation; Not-to-Exceed 

Emission Standards; and Technical 

Amendments for Off-Highway Engines 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to make 

several revisions to EPA’s mobile source 

emission programs and test procedures. 

EPA believes that each of these is minor 

and non-controversial in nature. Most of 

the proposed changes arise from the 

results of the collaborative test program 

and related technical work we 

conducted for the highway heavy-duty 

diesel in-use testing program. Most 

noteworthy here is the proposal to adopt 

a particulate matter measurement 

allowance for use with portable 

emission measurement systems. Related 

to this are two provisions to align the inuse program timing requirements with 

completion of the program as required 

in current regulations and the 

incorporation of revisions to a few 

technical requirements in the testing 

regulations based on information 

learned in this and one other test 

program. Finally, the NPRM proposes to 

modify a few transitional flexibilities for 

locomotive, recreational marine, and 

Tier 4 nonroad engines and incorporates 

a handful of minor corrections. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by December 8, 2010. Request 

for a public hearing must be received by 

November 23, 2010. If we receive a 

request for a public hearing, we will 

publish information related to the 

timing and location of the hearing and 

the timing of a new deadline for public 

comments. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0142, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Please include two copies. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Headquarters 

Library, EPA West Building, Room: 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0142. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/dockets.html. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

Building, EPA Headquarters Library, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

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

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

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich 

Wilcox, Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood Drive, 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone 

number: (734) 214–4390; fax number: 

(734) 214–4050; email address: 

laroo.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register, we are making 

these revisions as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because we view 

these revisions as noncontroversial and 

anticipate no adverse comment. 

The regulatory text for this proposed 

rule is included in the direct final rule 

and parties should review that rule for 

the regulatory text. If we receive no 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1See ‘‘Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles, 70 FR 34594 (June 14, 

2005). 

2See ‘‘Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

New Motor Vehicles; Emission Measurement 

Accuracy Margins for Portable Emission 

Measurement Systems and Program Revisions, 73 

FR 13441 (March 13, 2008). 

adverse comment, we will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. If 

we receive adverse comment on the rule 

or any portions of the rule, we will 

withdraw the direct final rule or the 

portion of the rule that received adverse 

comment. We will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. We will not 

institute a second comment period on 

this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

II. Does this action apply to me? 

This action will affect companies that 

manufacture and certify heavy-duty 

diesel engines and vehicles for use on 

the highway. 

Category NAICS code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ....................................... 336112 

336120 

Engine and Truck Manufacturers. 

Industry ....................................... 333112 Manufacturers of lawn and garden tractors. 

Industry ....................................... 333618 Manufacturers of new engines. 

Industry ....................................... 482110, 482111, 482112 Railroad owners and operators. 

Industry ....................................... 811112, 811198 Independent commercial importers of vehicles and parts. 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

To determine whether particular 

activities may be affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

regulations. You may direct questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

as noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

III. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR Part 2. 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

IV. Details of the Proposed Rule 

A. Revision of 40 CFR Part 86 Subpart 

T to Revise the In-Use Testing Program 

for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines 

1. Background 

The manufacturer-run, in-use testing 

program for heavy-duty diesel vehicles 

that are used on the highway was 

promulgated in June 2005 to monitor 

the emissions performance of the 

engines used in 2007 and later model 

year vehicles when operated under a 

wide range of real world driving 

conditions.1 The program is specifically 

intended to monitor compliance with 

the applicable Not-to-Exceed (NTE) 

exhaust emission standards for nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon 

monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM). It 

requires each manufacturer of heavyduty highway diesel engines to assess 

the in-use exhaust emissions from their 

engines using onboard, portable 

emission measurement systems (PEMS) 

during typical operation while on the 

road. The PEMS unit must meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 1065 Subpart J. 

The program was amended in March 

2008 to delay some of the 

implementation dates and reporting 

deadlines and to adopt final PEMS 

measurement ‘‘accuracy’’ margins for 

gaseous emissions (i.e., NMHC, CO, and 

NOX).2 The development of PEMS 

accuracy margins are further described 

below. 

The in-use testing program began with 

a mandatory two-year pilot program for 

gaseous emissions in calendar years 

2005 and 2006. The program also 

included a pilot program for PM 

emissions in calendar years 2007 and 

2008. The programs are fully 

enforceable after their respective pilot 

program ends, i.e., the 2007 calendar 

year for gaseous emissions and the 2009 

calendar year for PM emissions. Fully 

enforceable means that engines found 

not compliant after this time frame 

could be subject to a compliance action. 

The in-use testing program is based 

on the NTE emission standards. For the 

purposes of the in-use testing program, 

EPA established a vehicle pass/fail 

criterion for each pollutant that 

compares a vehicle’s measured in-use 

emissions to a corresponding numerical 

compliance limit, i.e., NTE threshold. 

The NTE threshold for each pollutant is 

the sum of the NTE standard, any in-use 

compliance testing margin that is 

already allowed by the regulations, and 

a new emission measurement accuracy 

margin associated with the use of PEMS. 

The PEMS accuracy margin is the 

difference between the emission 

measurement ‘‘error’’ for the portable 

instrument and the measurement ‘‘error’’ 

for ‘‘laboratory grade’’ instruments that 

are used to test vehicles or engines on 

a dynamometer in a laboratory setting. 

This accuracy margin is expressed in 

the same numerical terms as the 

applicable NTE emission standards, i.e., 

grams of pollutant per brake 

horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr). 

When the in-use testing program was 

first established in June of 2005, there 

was uncertainty regarding what specific 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68577 

3The interim additive accuracy margins for the 

pilot programs are: NMHC = 0.17 g/bhp-hr, NOX = 

0.50 g/bhp-hr, CO = 0.60 g/bhp-hr, and PM = 0.10 

g/bhp-hr. 

4The final additive accuracy margins for the 

enforceable gaseous programs are: NMHC = 0.01 g/ 

bhp-hr, NOX = 0.15 g/bhp-hr, and CO = 0.25 g/bhphr. 

5See ‘‘Memorandum of Agreement, Program to 

Develop Emission Measurement Accuracy Margins 

for Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing,’’ dated May 2005. A 

copy of the memorandum is available in the public 

docket for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm). 

6See ‘‘Memorandum of Agreement, Program to 

Develop Emission Measurement Accuracy Margins 

for Heavy-Duty In-Use Testing,’’ dated May 2005. A 

copy of the memorandum is available in the public 

docket for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm). 

7See ‘‘Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From 

New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles,’’ 70 FR 34624 (June 14, 

2005). 

8See ‘‘Test Plan to Determine PEMS Measurement 

Allowance for the PM Emissions Regulated under 

the Manufacturer-Run Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine InUse Testing Program, for the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, 

and Engine Manufacturers Association’’, dated 

November 11, 2008 (published by EPA August 

2010), EPA report number: EPA–420–B–10–901. A 

copy of the report is available in the public docket 

for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/hd-hwy.htm). 

9See ‘‘PM PEMS Measurement Allowance 

Determination: Final Report,’’ U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, June 2010 (published by EPA 

August 2010), EPA report number: EPA–420–R–10– 

902. A copy of the report is available in the public 

docket for this rule and at the EPA/OTAQ Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq.hd-hwy.htm). 

accuracy margins should be used in the 

in-use testing program, since the 

portable measurement devices that were 

expected to be used in the program had 

not been rigorously tested at that time. 

As a result, we originally promulgated 

interim accuracy margins for use in the 

pilot programs.3 These interim values 

were believed to represent an upper 

bound of the possible instrumentation 

variability based on our experience with 

portable and laboratory instruments and 

test methods. Subsequently, we adopted 

final values for gaseous pollutants based 

on the cooperative research program 

described below.4

In May of 2005, shortly before the inuse test program was promulgated, EPA 

entered into a memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) with the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) and the 

manufacturers of heavy-duty highway 

diesel engines (through the Engine 

Manufacturers Association (EMA)) to 

develop ‘‘data driven’’ emission 

measurement allowances through a 

comprehensive research, development, 

and demonstration program for the fully 

enforceable programs.5 The overall test 

program was designed to be completed 

in two phases. The first phase addressed 

gaseous emission accuracy margins and 

the second phase addressed the PM 

emission accuracy margin. The 

remainder of this discussion focuses on 

the final PEMS accuracy measurement 

for PM, since the final margins for 

gaseous emissions have already been 

adopted. 

The MOA and the June 2005 final 

rulemaking addressed the consequences 

of failing to complete the accuracy 

margin development work in time for 

the scheduled start of the PM 

enforceable program.6 7 Two provisions 

in these documents are most relevant to 

today’s rule. The first provision 

addresses short term delays in receiving 

the final accuracy margins. Specifically, 

for each month the accuracy margins are 

delayed beyond the agreed upon dates, 

then the affected enforceable program 

would be delayed by the same number 

of months up to three months. The 

second provision, which is most 

relevant to today’s action, addresses 

delays in excess of three months. In 

particular, if the final accuracy margin 

and documentation were delayed more 

than three months from November 1, 

2008, then the affected PM enforceable 

program would be placed in abeyance 

for a year and the respective pilot 

program would be continued for 

calendar year 2009 using the interim 

allowance. If necessary, this 

programmatic adjustment would be 

repeated in subsequent years until the 

final PM accuracy margin was 

identified. 

2. Particulate Matter Emission 

Measurement Margin for Portable 

Emission Measurement Systems 

The MOA described above called for 

development of a comprehensive test 

plan for determining the final emission 

measurement accuracy margins for the 

manufacturer-run, in-use testing 

program.8 Generally, the detailed plan 

included a methodology that called for: 

(1) Comprehensive engine testing in the 

laboratory to assess the agreed upon 

sources of possible error and the 

resultant measurement variability 

between the PEMS and laboratory 

instrumentation and measurement 

methods; (2) the effects of 

environmental conditions on PEMS 

error and the variability in key engine 

parameters supplied by the engine’s 

electronic controls to the PEMS; (3) the 

development of a statistically-based 

computer model to simulate effects of 

all sources of error on the final 

measurement accuracy margin; and (4) 

validation of the simulation model 

results and resulting accuracy margin 

against data generated through actual inuse field testing using simultaneous onvehicle measurements from a mobile 

emissions laboratory (i.e., laboratorygrade instruments mounted inside a 

trailer) and a PEMS unit. This validation 

step is important because it provides 

confidence that the simulation model 

results reflect reasonable accuracy 

margin. If the two methods do not 

statistically agree, then there may be 

possible errors in the simulation model, 

the in-use mobile emissions testing 

results, or both. The test plan also 

contained the statistically-based 

algorithms for calculating the datadriven margin for PM from in-use data. 

After the simulation modeling results 

were completed, the test plan called for 

the final accuracy margin to be 

determined by the following generalized 

process. First, select the PEMS with the 

lowest or minimum positive value. 

Second, select the calculation method 

that has the lowest or minimum positive 

value. Third, and finally, use the results 

from that method to determine the final 

measurement accuracy margin. 

The cooperative test program for PM 

as described in the MOA is complete 

and a final report has been issued.9 Two 

PEMS units from different 

manufacturers were evaluated in the 

validation phase. When the predicted 

results from the model simulations for 

one of the PEMS units was compared to 

the mobile emissions laboratory results, 

the model did not validate for PM. It 

was determined from analyzing the 

results, that the PEMS exhibited a 

negative bias that was more pronounced 

during the validation tests when 

compared to the model development 

tests. The model did validate for the 

PEMS from the other manufacturer. 

Based on these results for that 

instrument, EPA, ARB, and EMA 

selected the final measurement 

allowance value and agreed to conclude 

the test program. We are proposing to 

adopt the resultant final emission 

measurement accuracy margin of 0.006 

g/bhp-hr for PM. The derivation of this 

value is documented in the final report 

referenced above. 

3. Delaying the Enforceable PM Program 

from 2009 to 2011 

As described above, the PM accuracy 

margin test program has been 

completed. However due to unexpected 

delays in beginning the test program, 

issues in the development of PM PEMS 

technology, and other challenges in 

conducting the work, the program took 

two years longer than originally 

anticipated. Accordingly, in-use test 

program regulations require that the first 

two years of the previously adopted 

enforceable program, which was 

originally scheduled for the calendar 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

10See ‘‘Control of Emissions of Air Pollution 

From New Motor Vehicles: In-Use Testing for 

Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines and Vehicles, 70 FR 

34614 (June 14, 2005). 

11See ‘‘List of Part 1065 Changes Resulting from 

HDIUT PM MA Program’’, dated June 2010. A copy 

of this list is available in the public docket for this 

rule. 

year 2009, be placed into abeyance for 

two years. Hence, we are proposing that 

the enforceable PM program will now 

begin in 2011 calendar year. 

As already noted, the current in-use 

test program regulations require that the 

PM pilot program, which began in the 

2007 calendar year, be continued for an 

additional two years through calendar 

year 2010. This would result in four 

years of pilot testing for PM. However, 

our current assessment shows that such 

extended pilot program testing is 

unnecessary as described below. 

The intent of the original two-year 

pilot program for PM was to make 

certain that engine manufacturers had 

adequate real-world operational 

experience, i.e., from recruiting vehicles 

to submitting test reports to EPA, to 

ensure a successful start of the 

subsequent fully enforceable program.10

Manufacturers have reached the May 31, 

2010 reporting deadline for the 2007 

calendar year PM pilot program. Also, 

engine manufacturers have completed a 

substantial amount of in-use testing for 

gaseous pollutants, i.e., NMHC, CO, and 

NOX. More specifically, two years of 

gaseous emissions pilot testing (2005 

and 2006 calendar years) and two years 

of the fully enforceable program (2007 

and 2008 calendar years) for these 

pollutants have been completed. 

Gaseous pollutant in-use testing is in 

many ways complementary to PM inuse testing because nearly all aspects of 

the test regime are the same. Even 

certain parts of the portable emission 

measurement system instrumentation 

are used to measure both types of 

pollutants. Engine manufacturers, 

therefore, have already had a substantial 

amount of experience conducting all 

aspects of in-use testing. As a result, we 

have concluded that the original intent 

for conducting the PM pilot program 

will be achieved by retaining the 

requirement for two years of pilot 

testing rather than expanding it to four 

years. Therefore, we are proposing not 

to extend the PM pilot testing program 

beyond its initial requirement of two 

years of testing. 

As a result of the proposal to delay 

the enforceable program for PM until 

the 2011 calendar year and the proposal 

not to extend the two-year pilot 

program, we need to reassess the 

schedule for conducting the required 

tests for the pilot program. Two 

considerations are especially important 

here. First, there is no apparent 

advantage to require that engine 

manufacturers conduct testing over a 

single, consecutive two-year period, e.g., 

calendar years 2007 and 2008. Second, 

there may be a benefit to allowing each 

manufacturer to decide which two years 

out of the four possible years to conduct 

its PM pilot testing. This is because the 

PM PEMS technology has continued to 

improve and mature as a result of the 

ongoing cooperative test program for 

developing the final PM accuracy 

margin. As result, a manufacturer may 

benefit from an additional flexibility in 

selecting when to complete the PM pilot 

program in order to gain experience 

with PEMS that will be more like the 

instrumentation they may use for the 

proposed 2011 enforceable program. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow 

each manufacturer to report test results 

in any two out of the potentially four 

calendar years for completing its testing 

obligations under the PM pilot program. 

Finally, we previously designated the 

engine families for the 2007, 2008, and 

2009 calendar years that each engine 

manufacturer must test, and we have 

recently designated engine families for 

the 2010 calendar year program. Given 

the new flexibility in choosing which 

two of the four years to fulfill their 

testing obligations for the PM pilot 

program, we are proposing that each 

engine manufacturer must notify EPA 

by letter to the Agency’s designated 

compliance officer to explicitly identify 

both: (1) The designated calendar year(s) 

where in-use PM pilot program testing 

will be forgone, and (2) the designated 

calendar year(s) when their obligations 

for PM pilot testing will be completed. 

We are proposing that this notification 

must be provided to the Agency by 

January 7, 2011 and must be quickly 

updated if planned testing changes for 

any calendar year. 

4. Removing the PM Accuracy Test 

Program From the Regulations 

We are taking this opportunity to 

delete the references in § 86.1935 that 

pertain to the final report for PM 

emission accuracy margin and the 

consequences that would ensue if the 

report was delayed beyond certain 

dates. These provisions are no longer 

needed because accuracy margin for PM 

pollutants are being promulgated in this 

Direct Final Rule. This will result in 

removal of § 86.1935 from the 

regulations in its entirety and any 

references made to § 86.1935 throughout 

40 CFR part 86. 

B. Revisions to 40 CFR 1033.150 To 

Allow the Use of Earlier Model Year 

Switch Engines With Equivalent 

Emission Controls 

Section 1033.150(e) allows the use of 

certified 2008 and later nonroad engines 

in switch locomotives. We are 

proposing to extend the allowance to 

include nonroad engines produced in 

model years before 2008 as long as they 

were certified to the same standards as 

2008 engines. This extension will not 

have any emissions impact since the 

engines will be required to have the 

same emission controls with or without 

the revisions. 

C. Revision of 40 CFR Part 1065 To 

Clarify the Requirements for PM PEMS 

Testing 

We are taking this opportunity to 

propose minor technical amendments to 

40 CFR part 1065 that are mostly related 

to the requirements for in-use PM 

instrumentation and that arose from 

knowledge gained during the accuracy 

margin laboratory and field work 

mentioned in Section A. above. The 

proposed changes are specified in the 

following paragraph. The reasons for 

these proposed revisions are detailed in 

a separate document.11 The proposed 

amendments have no effect on the 

stringency of the regulations, but simply 

improve and increase testing efficiency, 

allow new measurement techniques, or 

otherwise clarify the regulatory 

requirements. 

The proposed amendments are as 

follows: 

1. We propose to remove the 

requirement to control dilution air 

temperature for in-use testing; 

2. We propose adding an in-use filter 

face velocity specification; 

3. We propose adding an in-use filter 

face temperature specification; 

4. We propose specifying that there is 

no requirement for control of humidity 

control for in-situ PM analyzers; 

5. We propose allowing the use of a 

fixed molar mass for the dilute exhaust 

mixture for field testing; 

6. We propose deleting the frequency 

and rise/fall time specs for inertial batch 

PM analyzers; 

7. We propose adding a statement that 

field testing applies at any ambient 

temperature, pressure and humidity, 

unless otherwise specified in the 

standard setting part (e.g., 40 CFR part 

86 for heavy-duty highway engines); 

8. We propose adding language to 

state that EPA approves of electrostatic 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68579 

12See ‘‘Proposed Rule: Control of Emissions of 

Air Pollution from Locomotives and Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters 

per Cylinder’’, 72 FR 34594 (April 3, 2007). 

13See ‘‘Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air 

Pollution from Locomotives and Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines Less Than 30 Liters 

per Cylinder’’, 73 FR (May 6, 2008). 

14See ‘‘Sierra Instruments Model BG–3 vs. CVS 

Multiple Engine Correlation Study’’, dated 

November 2009. A copy of this list is available in 

the public docket for this rule. 

15Compliance evaluation when conducted by the 

Administrator, independent of the method for 

dilution, become the official results. Manufacturers 

should be prepared to demonstrate compliance with 

the full flow CVS even if initial certification was 

conducted using a partial flow dilution system. EPA 

will continue to use the CVS-based PM 

measurement method for our own compliance 

testing regardless of what method the manufacturer 

used to certify the engine. 

16See, Letter from EMA to EPA, ‘‘Treatment of 

Overlapping NTE and Regeneration Events (July 29, 

2009). A copy of the report is available in the public 

docket for this rule. 

deposition technique for PM collection 

and that the technique must meet 95% 

collection efficiency, as validated by the 

manufacturer; 

9. We propose excluding PM PEMS 

from the system-response and updatingrecording verification requirements; 

10. We propose clarifying when an 

HC contamination check of the 

sampling system should take place; 

11. We propose allowing the use of a 

PM loss correction to account for PM 

loss in the inertial balance, including 

the sample handling system for in-use 

testing only; 

12. We propose making a clarification 

on how to handle positive displacement 

pump (PDP) pressure calibrations at 

maximum pressure; 

13. We propose allowing a restart of 

the hot portion of the transient test if the 

hot start was void; 

14. We propose making some 

language changes to make the language 

used more consistent throughout the 

document; and 

15. We propose correcting 

typographical errors. 

D. Revision of 40 CFR 1065.140 To 

Allow the Use of Partial Flow Dilution 

Systems for Laboratory Transient Test 

Cycle PM Measurement 

We are proposing to make changes to 

40 CFR part 1065.140(d) to allow the 

use of partial flow sampling systems for 

measurement of PM during transient 

test cycles for laboratory testing. 

PM measurement has been 

traditionally performed using a full flow 

dilution tunnel where the entire amount 

of engine exhaust gas is collected and 

made available for sampling. With this 

sampling method, commonly referred to 

as a constant volume sampler (CVS), the 

size of the dilution tunnel depends on 

the exhaust gas volume, thus the greater 

the volume of exhaust gas emitted from 

the engine, the larger the dilution tunnel 

must be. As an alternative, a partial-flow 

dilution tunnel allows sampling of part 

of the total exhaust flow, which reduces 

the size of the sampling system. One of 

the drawbacks to partial flow sampling 

systems in the past was that the flow 

controllers did not have a fast enough 

response time to accurately respond to 

the changing exhaust flow rates during 

a transient cycle. Thus partial flow 

sampling systems were only allowed for 

use during steady-state cycle testing. 

Recent advancements in the 

development of fast response flow 

control systems, along with the 

advancement in the understanding of 

PM formation characteristics have made 

partial flow sampling systems a viable 

technology for use in transient 

applications when compared to the CVS 

reference method. 

We currently allow the use of partial 

flow sampling systems for measurement 

of PM for steady-state and ramped 

modal cycle (RMC) testing and have put 

specifications in place in 40 CFR 

1065.140(e) with respect to dilution air 

temperature, minimum dilution ratio, 

filter face temperature, and residence 

time to control PM formation. These 

specifications have further worked to 

improve the accuracy of partial flow 

systems when compared to the CVS. 

We initially proposed this allowance 

in the locomotive and compressionignition marine engines less than 30 

liters per cylinder NPRM, but did not 

finalize it due to concerns over the 

viability of partial flow systems in 

transient applications.12 13 Since 

promulgating that rule, EPA has worked 

with industry to gain a better 

understanding of partial flow systems 

and the improvements that have been 

made over the past decade. We have 

also reviewed additional data supplied 

by engine and partial flow system 

equipment manufacturers showing 

comparisons between the traditional 

CVS and partial flow systems for PM 

measurement.14 These data have shown 

that partial flow measurement of PM is 

a viable tool for measurement in 

transient applications and these systems 

can meet the dilution parameter control 

requirements in 40 CFR 1065.140 as 

well as the flow rate linearity 

requirements in 40 CFR 1065.307, Table 

1, and the validation of proportional 

flow control requirement in 40 CFR 

1065.545. Further, correlation testing 

involving partial flow systems and CVS 

based systems has shown that the 

partial flow method is equivalent to the 

CVS method via t- and f-test analysis. In 

light of these recent disclosures, EPA is 

proposing to allow the use of this 

measurement technique.15

E. Revision of 40 CFR 86.1370 To Clarify 

How To Handle NTE Events During 

Regeneration 

We are proposing to further define 

how to handle regeneration events that 

occur during real world in-use NTE 

tests. The current text as it exists in 40 

CFR 86.1370–2007(d)(2) has caused 

confusion with respect to determination 

of the NTE minimum averaging period. 

This proposed revision would 

establish a new method to calculate the 

minimum averaging period. The intent 

here is to minimize the number of 

voided NTE events due to regeneration 

for systems that undergo frequent and/ 

or infrequent regeneration, while 

ensuring that the NTE averaging time is 

appropriate based on the regeneration 

time. 

The regeneration duty cycle fraction 

over the course of the entire test day can 

be determined by dividing the mean 

time of the complete regeneration events 

(state 2) by the sum of the mean time of 

the non-regeneration events (state 0) and 

the mean time of the complete 

regeneration segments including time in 

those segments where regeneration is 

pending (states 1 and 2). 

To determine whether an NTE that 

includes a regeneration event is valid, 

the minimum average time is 

determined by summing the portion of 

the NTE event that occurs during 

regeneration and dividing by the 

fraction of time over the entire sampling 

period, i.e., shift-day, that regeneration 

occurred for complete regeneration 

events. This latter term is referred to as 

the regeneration fraction. If the duration 

of the NTE is greater than or equal to 

this minimum average time, then the 

NTE event is valid.16 For example, if an 

NTE event was 125 seconds long and 

contained 25 seconds of regeneration, 

and regeneration fraction was 0.24, the 

minimum averaging time for this NTE 

event is 104 seconds (25/0.24 = 104). In 

this example, the NTE event would be 

valid. 

F. Revision of 40 CFR 1065.915 To 

Allow the Use of ECM Fuel Rate To 

Determine NTE Mass Emission Rate 

We are proposing to allow the use of 

fuel rate data that is available from the 

engine’s electronic control module 

(ECM) along with other information, 

including the CO2, CO, and hydrocarbon 

emissions to calculate the requisite 

exhaust flow rate for mass emission rate 

determination. We believe that all large 

horsepower nonroad diesel engines will 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

17See ‘‘Determination of PEMS Measurement 

Allowances for Gaseous Emissions Regulated under 

the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine In-Use Testing 

Program, dated April, 2007. A copy of the report is 

available in the public docket for this rule and at 

the EPA/OTAQ Web site (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

hd-hwy.htm). 

18E-mail from Jean-Claude Perreault, Prinoth Ltd, 

to Byron Bunker, U.S. EPA, ‘‘Prinoth technical 

information’’, June 8, 2010. 

be equipped with ECMs that report fuel 

flow within the time frame proposed for 

implementation of the in-use testing 

program. The ECM fuel flow rate-based 

methodology currently requires prior 

EPA approval under 40 CFR 

1065.915(d)(5)(iv). This pre-approval 

requirement is based on past concerns 

with respect to the accuracy of the ECM 

broadcast fuel flow rate when 

calculating brake-specific emission 

results in the absence of an exhaust flow 

measurement. However, more recent 

information from the cooperative in-use 

emission measurement allowance 

program for PEMS showed that 

emission calculations incorporating the 

ECM fuel rate yielded results 

comparable to those using approved 

calculation methodology.17 Based on 

that study and the inclusion of ECM 

derived BSFC in the determination of 

the accuracy margin, we are proposing 

to eliminate the requirement that a 

manufacturer must have EPA approval 

to use this method to determine exhaust 

flow rates via an amendment to 40 CFR 

1065.915. 

G. Revision of 40 CFR 1045.145 To 

Extend the Notification Deadline for 

Small-Volume Manufacturers of Marine 

SI Engines 

Our current regulations for sterndrive/ 

inboard marine SI engines allow for 

delayed implementation of emission 

standards for small-volume 

manufacturers making sterndrive/ 

inboard marine SI engines (see 

§ 1045.145(a)). One requirement related 

to this delay is for the manufacturer to 

notify EPA before the standards take 

effect. However, we have learned that 

there are some small-volume engine 

manufacturers that have not yet learned 

about the new emission standards. We 

believe it is appropriate to extend the 

notification deadline for these 

manufacturers by one year to allow for 

further communications related to the 

new requirements. To accommodate the 

proposed later deadline, we are also 

proposing to add language in the 

regulation to clarify that manufacturers 

need to notify EPA before introducing 

such engines into U.S. commerce for 

them to have a valid temporary 

exemption. These proposed revisions 

address the logistical challenges related 

to implementing the new standards 

without changing the effective 

implementation schedule of the original 

rule. 

These proposed revisions address the 

logistical challenges related to 

implementing the new standards 

without changing the effective 

implementation schedule of the original 

rule. 

H. Revision of 40 CFR 1039.102 To 

Enable Phase Out of Tier 3 Diesel 

Engines 

When creating 40 CFR 1039.102 (69 

FR 39213, June 29, 2004), we included 

provisions intended to allow engine 

manufacturers to use emission credits to 

continue producing a small number Tier 

3 nonroad diesel engines after the Tier 

4 standards began to apply. However, 

we now realize that the provisions may 

not work as intended because the Tier 

4 averaging programs inadvertently do 

not allow manufacturers to show 

compliance with the applicable 0.19 g/ 

kW-hr NMHC standard using credits. In 

today’s rulemaking, we are proposing to 

amend this section to allow 

manufacturers to use credits to show 

compliance with alternate NOx + HC 

standards. The alternate NOX + NMHC 

standards for each power category 

would be equal to the numerical value 

of the applicable alternate NOX standard 

of § 1039.102(e)(1) or (2) plus 0.10 

g/kW-hr. Engines certified to these NOX

+ NMHC standards may not generate 

emission credits. Since additional 0.10 

g/kW-hr for the combined standard is 

less than the otherwise applicable 

NMHC standard, there would be a small 

environmental benefit when 

manufacturers choose to certify to the 

alternate standards. 

I. Revision of 40 CFR 1039.625 To 

Revise TPEM Provisions for Special 

High-Altitude Equipment 

We have been made aware of a 

number of unique challenges involved 

in implementing Tier 4 requirements for 

certain specialized high-altitude 

equipment. In setting the Tier 4 

standards in 2004, we anticipated that 

typical engineering challenges would 

arise in redesigning machines to use the 

new engines, and we restructured our 

transition program for equipment 

manufacturers, first established in the 

Tier 2/Tier 3 rule, to help manufacturers 

deal with these challenges. This 

important flexibility program has been 

highly successful. We do feel that a 

minor adjustment is warranted for the 

specialized high-altitude equipment 

identified. 

This equipment is designed for use on 

snow and, for at least some of its 

operating life, at elevations more than 

9,000 feet above sea level. The 

applications are ski area snow groomers, 

both alpine and cross-country, and 

personnel transporters used in search 

and rescue operations, and maintenance 

of utility lines and towers. 

One manufacturer of this equipment, 

has identified a number of technical 

issues specific to the equipment, 

including:18

1. Reliability: The performance of the 

new engine and aftertreatment 

components is untested at high altitudes 

in winter conditions. Engine operating 

temperatures may be elevated at higher 

altitudes with potential impacts on 

engine performance and reliability; 

2. Cold Starting: Diesel cold starting is 

aggravated at high altitudes due to lower 

oxygen availability. No-start situations 

for high-altitude equipment may be life 

threatening; 

3. Engine power: The degree to which 

a Tier 4 engine’s power is reduced, i.e., 

derated, with increasing altitude is 

unproven. Excessive derate would 

hinder the vehicles’ snow grooming 

function and performance; 

4. Particulate filter regeneration: 

These machines operate for long periods 

traveling downhill with little engine 

load. Regeneration must be validated; 

5. Functioning in extreme conditions: 

Snow groomers must reliability push 

and grind snow and ice in extreme 

conditions, including while moving up 

and down steep grades; and 

6. Weight: The added weight of Tier 

4 aftertreatment and cooling 

components will directly affect ground 

pressure, which can hamper a snow 

groomer’s essential function. 

In identifying these issues, the 

manufacturer stated that it expects two, 

possibly three, winters of prototype 

testing are needed to work through these 

issues and believes that flexibility in the 

use of exemptions provided by the Tier 

4 transition program is key to enabling 

this. We have evaluated the technical 

issues, and have concluded there are 

likely to be some unique challenges in 

implementing Tier 4 for high-altitude 

equipment of this type. 

In response, to provide modest but 

meaningful additional flexibility, we are 

proposing to remove the single engine 

family restriction for the use of the 

small volume provision allowing 700 

exempted units over seven years. This 

proposed additional flexibility would 

only apply for manufacturers of 

specialized high-altitude equipment 

(designed to commonly operate above 

9,000 feet), and only in the first two 

model years of Tier 4 standards. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68581 

Afterward, the single engine family 

restriction would apply. In no case 

would the 700 unit maximum over 

seven years be exceeded. 

We do not expect that this change will 

result in a significant negative impact 

on any engine or equipment 

manufacturers. Engine manufacturers 

are already expecting to produce some 

Tier 4 engines for the transition 

program, and the number of additional 

exempted engines will be relatively 

small. Equipment manufacturers can 

either take advantage of this change, or 

are already able to exempt the same 

number of affected machines for several 

years under the existing transition 

program provisions. 

We also believe the impact of this 

proposed modification on Tier 4 

environmental benefits will be 

negligible, given that: (1) It only applies 

to the small volume portion of the 

transition program, (2) the total U.S. 

annual sales of specialized high-altitude 

equipment is, at most, a few hundred, 

(3) much of this equipment operates for 

only a part of the year, (4) the 

modification only applies in the first 

two Tier 4 model years, and does not 

increase the overall exemption limit of 

700 over seven years. 

J. Revision of 40 CFR 1054.101 To 

Clarify Prohibitions Related to 

Handheld Small SI Engines Installed in 

Nonhandheld Equipment 

The existing regulations related to 

emission standards for nonroad sparkignition engines below 19 kW 

specifically prohibit the sale of 

nonhandheld equipment equipped with 

handheld engines. The regulations in 

§ 1054.101 state that handheld engines 

may not be installed in nonhandheld 

equipment, but the regulatory text does 

not state that this is prohibited under 

§ 1068.101 or identify which penalty 

provisions apply. In this rule we are 

proposing to add a statement to 

§ 1054.101(e) to describe how this 

action violates the prohibited acts 

identified in § 1068.101, consistent with 

the regulations under 40 CFR part 90. 

K. Revision of 40 CFR 1042 Appendix II 

To Correct Time Weighting at Mode for 

Engines Certifying to the E2 RMC Cycle 

The existing regulations contain an 

error in the time at mode for each 

steady-state point when certifying an 

engine to the E2 ramped modal cycle 

(RMC). When the E2 RMC cycle was 

generated, the times at mode were not 

correct based on the weighting of the 

discrete-mode cycle. In this notice we 

are proposing to correct the time at 

mode for all four steady-state portions of 

the E2 RMC cycle to correspond with 

the mode weighting for the discretemode test. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under the 

EO. EPA is taking direct final action on 

several revisions to EPA’s mobile source 

emission programs standards and test 

procedures. This proposed rule merely 

contains several minor and 

noncontroversial technical amendments 

to EPA’s mobile source emission 

programs as described in the Summary 

and Section IV. Details of the Proposed 

Rule. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an new information collection burden 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). It 

merely contains several minor and 

noncontroversial technical amendments 

to EPA’s mobile source emission 

programs as described in the Summary 

and Section IV. Details of the Proposed 

Rule. Therefore, there are no new 

paperwork requirements associated with 

this proposed rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

a small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business that meet the definition for 

business based on SBA size standards at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule will not 

impose any new requirements on small 

entities. 

EPA has determined that it is not 

necessary to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis in connection with 

this proposed rule. It merely contains 

several minor and noncontroversial 

technical amendments to EPA’s mobile 

source emission programs as described 

in the Summary and Section IV. Details 

of the Proposed Rule. We have, 

therefore, concluded that today’s 

proposed rule will not affect the 

regulatory burden for all small entities 

and will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

federal mandates for state, local, or 

tribal governments as defined by the 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The 

proposed rule imposes no enforceable 

duties on any of these governmental 

entities. Nothing in the proposed rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. EPA has determined 

that this proposed rule contains no 

federal mandates that may result in 

expenditures of more than $100 million 

to the private sector in any single year. 

It merely contains several minor and 

noncontroversial technical amendments 

to EPA’s mobile source emission 

programs as described in the Summary 

and Section IV. Details of the Proposed 

Rule. We have, therefore, concluded 

that today’s proposed rule will not effect 

the regulatory burden for all small 

entities and will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See the direct 

final rule EPA has published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of UMRA policy. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

rule merely contains several minor and 

noncontroversial technical amendments 

to EPA’s mobile source emission 

programs as described in the Summary 

and Section IV. Details of the Proposed 

Rule. We have, therefore, concluded 

that today’s proposed rule will not affect 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
68582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the regulatory burden for all small 

entities and will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See the direct 

final rule EPA has published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This proposed rule does not uniquely 

affect the communities of Indian Tribal 

Governments. Further, no circumstances 

specific to such communities exist that 

would cause an impact on these 

communities beyond those discussed in 

the other sections of this rule. This 

proposed rule merely contains several 

minor and noncontroversial technical 

amendments to EPA’s mobile source 

emission programs as described in the 

Summary and Section IV. Details of the 

Proposed Rule. We have, therefore, 

concluded that today’s proposed rule 

will not affect the regulatory burden for 

all small entities and will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. See the direct final 

rule EPA has published in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register for a more extensive 

discussion of Executive Order 13132. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant, and does not 

involve decisions on environmental 

health or safety risks that may 

disproportionately affect children. See 

the direct final rule EPA has published 

in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of Executive Order 

13045. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

This proposed rule merely contains 

several minor and noncontroversial 

technical amendments to EPA’s mobile 

source emission programs as described 

in the Summary and Section IV. Details 

of the Proposed Rule. We have, 

therefore, concluded that today’s 

proposed rule will not affect the 

regulatory burden for all small entities 

and will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. This proposed rule 

merely contains several minor and 

noncontroversial technical amendments 

to EPA’s mobile source emission 

programs as described in the Summary 

and Section IV. Details of the Proposed 

Rule. We have, therefore, concluded 

that today’s proposed rule will not affect 

the regulatory burden for all small 

entities and will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Thus, we have 

determined that the requirements of the 

NTTAA do not apply. See the direct 

final rule EPA has published in the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register for a more 

extensive discussion of NTTAA policy. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. See the direct final 

rule EPA has published in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of today’s 

Federal Register for a more extensive 

discussion of Executive Order 13045. 

K. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

comes from 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 86 

Environmental protection, NTE, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 1033 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Railroads, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 1039 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1042 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1045 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1054 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1065 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research. 

Dated: October 29, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27894 Filed 11–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS