### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION 

### January 10, 2014

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Summary and Analysis of Comments on Regula tory Amendments Related to

Technical Hardship for Nonroad Diesel Engines and R eplacement Engine Provisions for Nonroad Engines

FROM: Alan Stout

Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0102

This document describes the comments received follo wing the proposed rule, with various regulatory amendments. The comments identified are limited to those issues that we are addressing in a new final rule. These changes were reflected in a direct final rule, but were

withdrawn based on the adverse comments received.

The first table below describes the issues raised b y North American Repower regarding the proposed changes to the replacement engine exemptio n. These comments are handled separately because they are so extensive. The following table addresses the range of additional comments

from other commenters.

Table 1 — North American Repower Comments

Comment Response

1) The proposed changes to 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] are not related to alignment with NHTSA regulations, but as stated in the preamble, are to address issues creat ed by CARB regulations unrelated to new EPA GHG regulations. I do not believe this qualifies the pr oposed changes under the “good cause” exception clause of the Administrative Procedure Act as explained in the preamble. Placing these proposed changes into this “technical adjustment” direct final rule process fo r GHG regulations rather than the regular EPA regulation process denies stakeholders affected by these chang es their proper due process. I understand the need to expedite a solution for the California diesel owner s affected, but I believe EPA already has discretiona ry While the direct final rule depended on a “good cau se” exception to the Administrative Procedure Act for t he changes to §1068.240, this is not the case for this final rule, which follows from the proposal published at the same time as the direct final rule. The existing regulations do not give EPA authority to approve an y of the proposed technical changes to §1068.240 on the basis of hardship or other factors. Moreover, we b elieve that authority for hardship relief by EPA should be incorporated in the regulations only when it is not possible to explicitly codify the necessary relief directly into the regulations, without need for a case-by-ca se determination by EPA. Explicit allowances provide certainty to the regulated community, while potentialpower under the “hardship” exemptions to provide th ese

owners with needed relief, and should not use this

technical amendment as the means to discuss these proposed changes. For this reason alone, I suggest that the proposed changes to 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] be removed from the proposed regulations. hardship relief can cause uncertainty, since indivi dual

manufacturers would not know whether EPA would grant such relief to them or their competitors. W e are proceeding with a new final rule to adopt changes t o §1068.240 for the reasons described in the preamble and in our responses to these and other comments.

2) I do not object to the all the changes proposed of 1068.240, only paragraph 1068.240(c)(3)- [ sic ]

(3) The old engine block may be reintroduced into U.S. commerce as part of an engine that meets eithe r the current standards for new engines, the provisio ns for new replacement engines in this section, or ano ther valid exemption. Otherwise, you must destroy the ol d engine block or confirm that it has been destroyed.

This paragraph creates several issues and disregard s the entire concept of “Designing for Sustainability”. M ost notably, it ignores that all the emissions improvem ents in diesel engines over the past decades had nothing to do with the block, but with improved technologies atta ched to that block. The language displays a mindset that arcane bookkeeping practices should dictate how emissions policy is created rather than sound environmental engineering principles. By destroying the block, a “dirty old diesel engine” is removed from the EPA ledgers, but the opportunity to re-use this val uable, useful and carbon intensive component in an advance d design engine currently in development, or with oth er technologies yet to be CARB or EPA certified (in exactly the fashion that all HD emissions improveme nts to date have been accomplished), is lost forever. We agree that an engine block can remain unchanged through multiple tiers of standards. However, it i s not the case that any given engine block can be upgrade d to the most recent tier of standards. When an engine manufacturer goes through a redesign process to cre ate an engine block that serves as a new platform for meeting more stringent emission standards, the prev ious design of engine blocks are no longer suitable for upgrading to the newer standards.

The proposed regulation allows reuse of replaced engines. It merely requires the engine to be cover ed by a certificate or qualify for an exemption. They ca n be upgraded to the point of being certified to current standards, or they can qualify for the replacement engine exemption (as if they were new engines). Such engi nes may also be used if they qualify for a different exemption (export, display, testing, etc.). There is no requirement to destroy old engines.

I am seeking clarification or changes to the follow ing points:

• If the OEM could currently remanufacture this eng ine to meet current emission standards, the replacement motor issue would be rendered moot, and this “new”, emissions current engine would be required to be installed per CARB regulations. If the limitation i s that the current emissions configuration motor cannot fi t now, destroying the block now leaves no room for th is low carbon component to be used in a future certifi ed configuration that does fit. For logistical and other reasons, it may be appropr iate for the old engine to be replaced by a new engine e ven though the old engine may be suitable for restorati on to a working configuration that would allow it to be s old as a certified engine or as a replacement engine meeti ng applicable provisions from §1068.240. Such a remanufactured engine could then be appropriately installed in a different piece of equipment, subjec t to certain limitations that depend on the circumstance s. Under the new approach, there is no requirement to destroy old engines.

• This language states that the block can be re-use d to create a “new” replacement engine as defined in thi s section. But by definition, a “new” replacement eng ine is not an existing, used block, but a previously un used block, so this statement appears to state that EPA defines “new” as including engines made from used blocks. I f this is the case, then again the changes to 1068.24 0(c)3
[ sic ] are unneeded as this ‘needing to be replaced” engine could be rebuilt back to original specificat ions to satisfy CARB’s requirements. If the issue is that C ARB and EPA have different definitions of “new”, then t hat

issue should have been dealt with at the time CARB In section 216 of the Clean Air Act, Congress defin ed “new” for motor vehicles in a way that allowed for new engines to contain used parts. It defined “new” a s follows:

“Except with respect to vehicles or engines importe d or offered for importation, the term ‘new motor vehicle’ means a motor vehicle the equitable or leg al

title to which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser; and the term ‘new motor vehicle engine’ means an engine in a new motor vehicle or a motor vehicle engine the equitable or legal title t oapplied to EPA for authority to institute their ret roactive

emissions regulations. In either case, this is a co mplex issue, and one that should have a full airing, and not be subject to EPA’s direct rule order. I propose that this issue be discussed in the correct venue, and that t his language be retracted until a full airing with affe cted industry partners can be accomplished. which has never been transferred to the ultimate purchaser; and with respect to imported vehicles or engines, such terms mean a motor vehicle and engine

, respectively, manufactured after the effective date of a regulation issued under section 7521 of this titl e which is applicable to such vehicle or engine (or which would be applicable to such vehicle or engine had it been manufactured for importation into the United States).”

Thus whether the engine block or any other componen ts of the engine have been used previously is irreleva nt to determining whether or not the engine is new. This definition prevents manufacturers from producing effectively new engines around old engine blocks to circumvent Clean Air Act requirements.

It is important to note that this definition is not a recent provision. It has been in place essentially unchan ged since the Air Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. No. 90-1 48, 81 Stat. 48).

EPA’s pre-existing regulations clarify the definiti ons for “engine” and “new engine” and other relevant terms, Under these pre-existing regulations, engine blocks are not considered engines. These definitions are not being

revised in this rule.

• “or another valid exemption.” This statement seem s far too vague, presumably to give EPA leeway in grantin g permission to OEMs to utilize these blocks in other environmentally compliant uses. However, as written

, the statement appears to reference the 1068 section only, and no other valid exemptions are listed in this se ction. Presumably, uses such as conversion to an Alternati ve Fuel engine are meant to be allowed, but this langu age does not make this point clearly, but instead could actually be interpreted to specifically deny it. We disagree that this is vague. The regulations in 40 CFR part 1068 and the standard-setting parts descri be a variety of very specific exemptions. EPA does not have authority to grant exemptions other than as specifi ed in the regulations. Rather than listing those, the reg ulation draft simply states that all the regulatory exempti ons are available for engines that have been replaced under the tracked option. The presumed exemption for alterna tive fuels is erroneous; since there is no such exemptio n specified in the regulation, a fuel conversion alon e would not qualify as a “valid exemption.” On the contrary, existing regulations at 40 CFR part 85, s ubpart F, spell out specific provisions that apply for fue l conversions with engines used in motor vehicles. A fuel conversion with a replaced engine is not disallowed ; rather, such an engine under the tracked option may be re-introduced into U.S. commerce subject to the qualifications noted above. It is not unreasonable to believe that remanufactured engines can be made to comply with current emission standards for heavy-du ty highway engines or for nonroad spark-ignition engin es above 19 kW, whether they use gasoline or natural g as.

Current 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] regulation states that the OEM or its Agent take possession of the block, and the block can be used in any current EPA compliant fash ionby an OEM or another entity. The current language is very clear, the proposed language is not. This new language adds no further protection to the environm ent, but instead makes destroying a carbon intensive res ource The regulatory provisions in place for the last sev eral years have required the certificate-holding engine manufacturer to take possession of the old engine o r confirm that it has been destroyed. It is not clea r why

the commenter believes this would allow for differe nt companies to use such engine blocks to build workin g engines. The old language neither states that the “blockthe default action for blocks that cannot be immedi ately

remanufactured into one of the two defined configurations. I propose that the current language should remain in force, and the proposed language should be dropped from consideration. can be used in any current EPA compliant fashion” n or does it mention other entities

. The new language is actually more accommodating in this regard, since t he verb form allows for a company other than the certi fying engine manufacturer to sell the engine (which presu mes that the engine manufacturer sells the engine to th e other company under the exemption provisions of §1068.262 ). Since there are generally viable alternatives for b uilding up the old engine block into a cleaner engine, we disagree that destroying the old engine is the defa ult

action.

We have confirmed with engine manufacturers that th ey routinely take possession of these old engines, or confirm that they have been destroyed, so it is not clear how North American Repower’s current practices woul d be affected by this provision in any form.

• The proposed language for 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] makes no provision for technologies still coming to marke t that

could utilize these used blocks in an EPA or CARB compliant use, or for use by non OEMs in a complian t
and sustainable manner. This is in direct conflict with EPA’s policy of encouraging Manufacturing for Sustainability. EPA has recently created clear regulations on converting engines to Alternative Fu els, and the current administration has repeatedly publi cally stated that moving to alternative fuels is a priori ty, and

has created economic incentives to lower the econom ic barrier for adoption of this technology. Utilizing existing in use engines, remanufactured to an EPA compliant or CARB certified alternative fuel configuration, is t he lowest carbon pathway as well as the most economica lly advantageous path to moving to alternative fuels fo r end users. Currently no OEMs have an EPA or CARB certified or compliant Alternative Fuel Heavy Duty Engine conversion product. Therefore the OEM’s will be forced to destroy these blocks rather than allow them to be available for development into an Alternative Fuel compliant solution, even if they have such a progra m in development now or in the near future , or if a non OEM has such a program

. This comment is unfounded. The proposed language specifically contemplates producing certified engin es from recovered engine cores. There is also provisi on to build engine cores into working engines that are le ss than a certified configuration, subject to the cond itions that apply under the replacement engine exemption ( or any other exemption). These provisions apply wheth er the modified engine runs on a conventional or

alternative fuel.

Also, as described above, engine cores recovered fr om tracked replacement engines generally do not find t heir way to non-OEM rebuilders.

• Current 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] language allows OEMs to place the used block into a well-established remanufacturing materials stream such that these bl ocks are available for non OEM technology providers to create EPA compliant products, both now and in the future. The proposed language mandates that only th e OEM be allowed to reintroduce the block into commerce, potentially creating a monopoly over this valuable resource. If the argument is that this man date to destroy the block only applies to a very few coming from the California applications affected, and plen ty of like design used blocks can be sourced to fulfill t he non OEM need, then what is the point of destroying thes e few blocks if like design blocks are otherwise allo wed As noted above, the commenter is mistaken in its be lief and we believe the proposed language related to disposition of engine cores under the tracked optio n for replacement engines is actually more accommodating in accounting for third-party remanufacturers than the earlier language. We believe the manufacturer benefitting from the replacement engine exemption t o produce a new exempt engine has a clear responsibil ity to manage the disposition of the old engine core.

There is no requirement to destroy old engines. Th e new approach describes how engines may be re-introduced into commerce if they can be certified to current standards, or if they qualify for an exemption. On e of the new conditions on the replacement engine exempt ionback into commerce through other channels? I do not

believe creating a market monopoly, or establishing regulations that have no true effect other than to complicate doing business is the intention of EPA, and so I propose that the language should be retracted. is that the replacement engine has emission control representing the cleanest available technology for the given application. Allowing unlimited use of the e ngine cores to serve as replacement engines without this requirement could lead to a perpetual use of these dirtiest engines in the fleet.

We affirm the commenter’s observation that engine cores coming out of the tracked option of the replacement engine exemption would represent a smal l portion of the overall market of restoring engine c ores. Engine cores might become available most readily fr om retiring equipment models. In any case, we believe the regulation will not substantially limit third-party remanufacturers from being able to access engine co res for producing remanufactured engines.

• The proposed 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] language now places a burden upon the OEM to identify returned blocks o f 1068 replacements separately from other returned en gine cores. Absent a current ability to make this block into a current emission standard diesel engine, the OEM mu st destroy this block or risk being non-compliant. The OEMs are very risk adverse, to the point that they are unwilling to comment on this proposed language for fear of having their remanufactured products become a ta rget for further EPA regulation. Because of this risk-av erse regulatory culture, it is apparent that a far highe r number of engine blocks will be destroyed than intended fo r fear of being out of compliance. Again, this may make th e accounting end of EPA feel they are making inroads into improving the environment, but the reality is that environmentally irresponsible behavior is being encouraged. This a great waste of carbon already invested into a re-usable component, an expenditure that should be viewed as an investment into long lived a nd continuously improved products, not a onetime disposable use. The new approach is no different than what has appl ied for many years in that the engine manufacturer has the sole responsibility to manage the disposition of th e old engine. Before and after this change to the regula tions, manufacturers must either destroy the old engine or take it into their possession; once the manufacturers po ssess the old engine, applicable regulations regarding en gine rebuilding and replacement determine how the engine s may be re-used. Thus the proposed amendments do not

affect the manufacturers’ burden.

• There is no language in the proposed 1068.240(c)3
[ sic ] paragraph that mandates the destroyed blocks be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. Thi s potentially adds to the waste stream in an environmentally irresponsible manner. I do not beli eve this to be the intent of the regulations, but is tr uly an unintended consequence that has direct negative environmental impact. The used engine blocks should be viewed as a valuable resource, one that should be accompanied by responsible stewardship. Without the economic incentive of the block having value as an usable engine component, the cost of cleaning, transporting and placing a solo unusable block into a recycling stream will often be greater than its scr ap value, and the block will enter the solid waste str eam at best. Current language states that the OEM or its A gent take possession of the old block, which clearly pla ces responsibility for the block on these entities as t o its As described above, we believe the commenter fundamentally misunderstands both the old and the n ew regulatory provisions, since the new language is ac tually somewhat more accommodating than the old with respect to the role of third-party remanufacturers.

Also as described above, we believe there should be reasonable limits or conditions on using recovered engine cores to build remanufactured engines. We a lso believe that the proposed conditions are not restri ctive to the point that large numbers of engine cores will n eed to be destroyed as a result of regulatory requirements

. Beyond these qualifying conditions governing remanufacturing of engine cores, neither the existi ng regulations nor the revised regulations specify dis posal requirements, and it is therefore beyond the scope of this final rulemaking to specify disposal requirements.final disposition. The proposed language merely sta tes

that (the OEM) “destroy the old block, or confirm t hat is has been destroyed”. This language is vague as to responsibility over final disposal of the destroyed block and offers the public no protection from irresponsi ble disposal. I believe the proposed language should be retracted and current language should remain in for ce as it offers superior environmental protection assuran ces. Current market forces and existing EPA and CARB regulations already dictate OEM’s behave in an environmentally sound manner in returning these hig h carbon value components to compliant uses either no w, or in the future. Because of this potential value a lone, used blocks are currently entered into a very effec tive materials management stream that guarantees at a minimum these blocks will be part of the scrap meta l recycling stream. The proposed language destroys th is capability and sets a precedent that EPA seemingly prefers this carbon intensive component be turned i nto waste. By destroying these blocks, EPA increases th e number of blocks that must forged new, generating G HG unnecessarily. Considering that most engine block foundries in the US have been closed, we are also looking at the additional GHG needed to bring this component to the US, and are essentially exporting our GHG pollution to offshore foundries. I do not belie ve this to be the intention of EPA or the policy of th e current administration.

• “you must destroy the old engine block or confirm that it has been destroyed.” There is no definition of “destroyed” provided in this section. The OEMs, the Remanufacturing Industry and Alternative Fuel Conversion entities have long believed that complet e disassembly of an engine constituted destruction, a nd

that when a block was used to make a rebuilt/remanufactured/converted engine, its identi ty was based upon the EPA emissions family specification t o which it is when newly built. This belief is based upon EPA’s definition of an engine’s original date of manufacturing being the date the original crankshaf t is placed into the block. The belief is that the conve rse must also be true, that by removing the original crankshaft and all the other parts, the block loses its identity as a unique EPA specified engine and simpl y becomes an engine component. Support for this definition can be found in EPA engine labeling remo val regulations (40 CFR 1068.101):

(7) Labeling. (i) You may not remove or alter an em ission control information label or other required permane nt label except as specified in this paragraph (b)(7) or oth erwise allowed by this chapter. Removing or altering an em ission control information label is a violation of paragra ph (b)(1) of this section. However, it is not a violation to rem ove a label in the following circumstances:

(A) The engine is destroyed, is permanently disassemble d, or Any conventional definition of “destroy” leaves no doubt that a destroyed engine block can never be us ed to create a remanufactured engine. A destroyed engine is one that has value only as scrap metal. To suggest that merely removing an engine’s identity equates to bei ng destroyed is an improper interpretation of the plai n meaning of the word. As for crankshafts, being “unborn” is clearly not the same as being destroyed

. The referenced regulatory provision reinforces this by stating that destruction, disassembly, and other lo sses of identity are separate paths toward nullifying the o riginal engine title.

Moreover, there is no requirement to destroy old engines. We understand that manufacturers will in some cases destroy engine cores rather than using them f or remanufacturing, consistent with economic and environmental considerations. This is no judgment against the old engines, but rather a recognition t hat

there will be cases in which economic or environmen tal

considerations will lead to the conclusion that the engine core should not be used to produce a remanufactured engine.

The regulation does not prevent engine cores from participating in technology development. To the contrary, the regulation specifically accounts for engine manufacturers applying new technologies to produceotherwise loses its identity such that the original title to the

engine is no longer valid.

Recent personal communications with EPA staff have made it clear that EPA defines engine/block destruc tion as permanently altering the block so it cannot in a ny manner be placed back into service- a very differen t definition. The forced discarding of an engine bloc k by mangling it for being guilty of being originally manufactured with old fuel management and emissions technology is absolutely counterproductive to the s tated goals of the GHG regulations. Eliminating these old er blocks from an ability to participate in new techno logy development and product introduction by OEM and nonOEM technology providers is also counter to EPA, CARB and the Obama Administration’s goal of moving to lower carbon footprint vehicles and fuels. I do not believe this to be the intended goal of the EPA wit h this language, but it is a very real unintended negative consequence, and it should be retracted. remanufactured engines from these engine cores.

• EPA’s stated goal with this paragraph is to preve nt older engines from being re-introduced to commerce in new equipment. This should be attained effectively by other provisions in 1068 and by other current CARB and EPA regulations, and therefore this paragraph which mandates environmentally irresponsible behavior is not necessary. If other current regulations are not suf ficient to prevent introduction of dirty engines into new equipment, then those regulations need to be addres sed, not this piece of 1068.240. We have determined that this is an appropriate approach to limit the reintroduction of these engin es into service. While the commenter speculates that bette r alternatives exist, it does not provide any such ex amples

that we can consider.

• Remanufacturing of existing blocks right here in the USA not only reduces GHG emissions, but also provid es Green Jobs- a priority of the current administratio n. The flawed MIT study, which completely ignored the carb on intensity of metal product production from ore outs ide or inside the USA, and the GHG’s generated by the curr ent transport chain of raw materials and whole goods fo r engine block creation, also ignored the impact of n ew technologies coming to market to move existing dies el engines to run on Natural Gas, including renewable Natural Gas, in an emissions compliant fashion. Thi s study should not be used to judge the effectiveness of the remanufacturing process as it applies to diesel engines as it ignores the very history of emissions technology development in the US. CARB and EPA instituted engine emission standards after the Clea n Air Act passed prior to the technology existing which c ould meet these standards. This practice continues to th is day with new standards being created, and Technology providers responding by developing the needed technology. Eliminating engine blocks which are Designed for Sustainability, and could potentially be used to create emission compliant engines meeting current or future emission standards, is poor GHG, environmental and economic policy. We agree that jobs are important and believe that r euse of these engines will be the same or greater under the new language.Just because a technology may not be certified now,

doesn’t mean it won’t ever exist to allow a low car bon footprint Heavy Duty Engine be sold into commerce t hat meets all emissions requirements, including the use of low carbon fuels. Mandating destruction of diesel e ngine blocks because the technology is not currently cert ified that can use these components in an environmentally sound manner is short sighted, and I believe not th e intention of the proposed amendment. Please remove the proposed 1068.240(c)3 [ sic ] language from the direct rule regulation and please keep the current languag e in

force. There is no requirement to destroy old engines, and the regulation does not prevent engine cores from participating in technology development.

### Table 2 — Other Comments

Topic Comment Response

TPEM/technical hardship (§1039.625) Toyota : Regulation should allow for

technical hardship relief for vertically integrated companies The intent of the technical hardship provision is t o help equipment manufacturers who are unable to accelerat e or otherwise manage the engine development effort required to meet new emission standards. It would therefore be inappropriate to extend technical hard ship to equipment manufacturers that source their engine s from within the same company. We are not changing the regulation to address this concern.

TPEM/technical hardship (§1039.625) MECA/CARB : Changes are

problematic and unreasonable; EPA should require manufacturers getting

extra relief to recover the lost

environmental benefit. We have narrowed the scope of the proposed expansio n to address these concerns. The hardship is conditioned on the equipment manufacturer not being at fault, so it would not be appropriate to require additional control to make u p for the relief. Moreover, equipment manufacturers don’ t certify engines, so there is no ready mechanism to make changes that would compensate for using higher

emitting engines. We are not changing the regulation to

address this concern. Removing sales

limits on FEL

caps (§1039.104) MECA/CARB : Allowing greater

numbers of engines certified to higher FEL caps raises concerns about local exposure to higher emission

concentrations. The commenters also

noted that it was unclear that this change was necessary for any particular engine manufacturer.
John Deere : Described their need for relief from the FEL caps for one of their engine models. We have no reason to believe that the NOx and PM emission levels at the higher FEL cap will pose any

measureable increase in health risks. Manufacturer s will need to account for the increased FELs with ot her engines that have FELs below the standard. We have narrowed the scope of the proposal to more carefull y address the technical issues identified by John Dee re, but are otherwise not making changes to address the concern about increased local exposures. .

Replacement engines (§1068.240) CARB/NESCAUM: Supports the

overall intiative to allow for strategic upgrades of used engines to facilitate turnover to cleaner engines. We are finalizing these provisions to accomplish th is policy goal.

Replacement engines — disposition of used engines (§1068.240) Peter Ward : Objects to limitations on

the disposition of replaced engines. We believe the limitation on the re-use of old engi ne blocks is necessary and appropriate to avoid

circumvention of emission standards and other regulatory requirements. See the responses to Nort h American Repower’s more detailed comments on this topic. Replacement engines—25- year limit (§1068.240) CARB : CARB does not oppose the

25-year limit but will not adopt it for

California because California’s regulations require fleet

modernization well ahead of the 25 year limit..

National Groundwater Association : We are changing the 25-year limit to 40 years to address the concerns expressed in the comments. It is true that this limit does not apply for engines/equipment regulated by California ARB.The 25-year limit is an arbitrary rule that imposes economic hardship on companies that drive heavy equipment short distances; many times their expensive drilling rigs ($500,000+) are more than 25 years old.

National Groundwater Association— supplemental

comments : Changing to a 40-year limit would be a reasonable approach. Construction Industry Air Quality

Coalition: Objected to the 25-year

limitation and observed that this limit should not apply to engines/equipment regulated by California ARB.

NESCAUM : Supports disallowing the replacement engine exemption for equipment that is more than 25 years

old. Replacement engines—vs.

rebuild requirements (§1068.240) Hogan Lovells: Suggests adding

language to clarify that the limitations on the disposition of replaced engine apply only if the replacement engine is new. They also request confirmation that the new provisions to have no bearing on EPA’s engine rebuilding

program. We have modified the regulation to clarify the circumstances in which the restrictions apply for t he engine being replaced. The commenter is correct that rebuilding provisions continue to apply as described in §1068.120.