***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

**– Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review ** ***

Page 1 of 888 **EO 12866_EPA_Response_to_C omments_Tier_3_2060**  **- AQ86_NPRM_** **3_ 2**  **5_2013.doc ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**  **40 CFR Parts 79,**  **80, 85, 86, 600, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066 [EPA** 

**– HQ** 

**– OAR** 

**– 2011** 

**– 0135;**  **FRL_XXXX -**  **X] RIN 2060**  **- AQ86**  **Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards**  **AGENCY** : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). **ACTION** : Proposed Rule. **SUMMARY** : This action would establish more stringent vehicle emis sions standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a sy stems approach to addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission co ntrol sy stems more effective for both existing and new vehicles, and would enable more stringent vehicle emissions standards. The proposed vehicle standards would reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light

- duty

trucks, medium - duty

passenger vehicles, and some heavy

- duty vehicles. This would result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics across the country and help state and local agencies in their efforts to attain and maintain health

- based National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Motor vehicles are an important source of exposure to air pollution both regionally

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

- dut y vehicles, as part of a comprehensive approach toward regulating emissions from motor vehicles. **DATES** : EPA has announce d the comment period and the public hearing dates for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register Notice , which w as published on [insert date of publication of supplemental notice in the Federal Register]
. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of Management and Budge t (OMB) receives a cop y of your comments on or before [ **insert date 30 days after publication in the federal register**  ], thirty day s after date of publication in the **Federal Register**
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 2 of 888 **ADDRESSES** : Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–20 11

– 0135, by

one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on

- line instructions for submitting comments.

 Email: A

- and

- R
- Docket@epamail.epa.gov.

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

icer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.

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

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135. EPA's policy

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

be made available online at www.regulations.gov , including an y personal information provid ed, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted b y statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regu lations.gov or e - mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anony mous access” s ys tem, 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 wi thout going through 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. I f EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to conside r your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of an y defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/ep ahome/dockets.htm . For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I .B of the **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**  section of this document.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 3 of 888 Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the in dex, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as cop yri ghted material, will be publicly available only

in hard copy
. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronicall y in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y at the Air and Radiation Docket and In formation Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday

through Friday , excluding legal holiday s. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

- 1742. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** : Julia MacAllister, Office o f Transportation and Air Quality , Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency , 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor MI 48105; Telephone number: (734) 214

- 4131; Fax number: (734) 214

- 4816; E
- mail address: macallister.julia@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information**  **A. Does this Action Apply to Me?** Entities potentially

affected by

this proposed rule include gasoline refiners and importers, ethanol producers, gasoline additive manufacturers, transmix processors, term inals and fuel distributors, light

- duty vehicle manufacturers, independent commercial importers, alternative fuel converters, and manufacturers and converters of vehicles between 8,500 and 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Potentially

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

- 83 manufacturers.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 4 of 888 Industry 493190 4226 Other warehousing and storage

- bulk petroleum storage Industry 336111,

336112 3711 Li ght

- dut y vehicle and light

- dut y truck manufacturers Industry 811111,

811112, 811198 7538,

7533, 7534 Independent commercial importers Industry 335312,

336312, 336322, 336399, 811198 3621,

3714, 3519, 3599, 7534 Alternative fuel converters Industry 333618,

336120, 336211, 336312 3699,

3711, 3713, 3714 On
- highway heavy

- dut y engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) manufacturers a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). b Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated b y this proposed action. This table lists the ty

pes of entities that EPA is now awar e could potentially be regulated by this proposed action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your activities would be regulated b y this proposed action, you should carefully examine the applicabi lity criteria in 40 CFR parts 79, 80, 85, 86, 1065, and 106 6 and the referenced regulations. If you have an y questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity , consult the person listed in the preceding **FO R FURTHER INFOR** **MATION CONTACT**  section. **B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?** 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www .regulations.gov or e mail. 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 electronicall y within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a cop y of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 5 of 888  Id entify

the rulemaking by

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

 Follow directions

- The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments 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 an y assumptions and provide an y technical information and/or data that you used.

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

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

 Explain your views as clearl y as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats
.
 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. **C. Did EPA Conduct a Peer Review before Issuing this Notice?**  This regulatory

action was supported b y influential scientific information. Therefore, EPA conducted peer reviews i n accordance with OMB’s Final In formation Qualit y Bulletin for Peer Review. Specificall y, EPA conducted six peer reviews in connection with data supporting the proposed Tier 3 program, including new research on the effects of fuel properties changes (including sulfur effects) on exhaust and evaporative emissions of Tier 2 vehicles. The refinery

- by

refinery cost model was also peer reviewed. The peer review reports are located in the docket for today 's action, as well as the agency's response to the peer review comments. **Table of Contents** I. Executive Summary

and Overview o f Proposed Program A. Introduction B. What Are the Basic Components of the Proposed Program? 1. Proposed Standards for Light

- Dut y Vehicle, Light

- Duty Truck, and Medium

- Duty

Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions 2. Proposed Heav y - Dut y Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards 3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards 4. Onboard Diagnostic S ys tems (OBD)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 6 of 888 5. Emissions Test Fuel 6. Fuel Standards 7. Regulatory

Streamlining and Technical Amendments C. What Would the Impacts of the Proposed Standards Be ? II. Why is EPA Making This Proposal? A. Basis for Action under the Clean Air Act 1. Clean Air Act Section 202 2. Clean Air Act Section 211 B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels 1. Ozone 2. Particulate Matter 3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides 4. Carbon Monoxide 5. Mobile Source Air Toxics 6. Near
- Roadway

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

- Dut y Vehicles, L ight

- Duty Trucks, and Medium

- Dut y Passenger Vehicles 1. Overview 2. Summary

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

of the Proposed NMOG+NO X and PM Standards***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 7 of 888 6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the Propos ed Vehicle Emission Standards 7. Other Provisions B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heav y - Dut y Vehicles 1. Overview 2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards 3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs 4. HDV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading 5. Feasibility

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

Gasoline Vehicle (HDGV) Requirements 4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel 5. Improvements to In
- Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Sy stems 6. Other Initiatives D. Emissions Test Fuel 1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel 2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle Test Fuel 3. Proposed Implementation Schedule 4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel Economy L abels 5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy

- Duty Engine E missions Test Fuel 6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuels E. Small

- Business Provisions 1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards 2. Assigned Deterioration Factors 3. Reduced Testing Burden 4. Hardship 5. Applicability

of Flexibilities F. Compliance Provisions 1. Exhaust Emission Test Procedures 2. Reduced Test Burden 3. Miscellaneous Provisions 4. Manufacturer In

- Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements V. Proposed Fuel Program A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards 1. Overview 2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard 3. Per
- Gallon Sulfur Caps B. Refinery

Air Permitting Interactions 1. Background on New Source Review Programs***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 8 of 888 2. Background on NSR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program 3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program since Tier 2 Final Rule 4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting Implications 5. Proposed New Source Performance Standards and Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries 6. Possible Steps for Addressing Permitting Roadblocks C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethanol and Other Oxygenates D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles 1. Standards for E51

- 83 2. Standards for Mid

- Le vel Ethanol Blends (E16

- 50) E. Proposed Program Flexibilities 1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program 2. Regulatory

Flexibility

Provisions 3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations F. Compliance Provisions 1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements 2. Sampling and Testing Requirements 3. Small Refiner Compliance 4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance 5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties 6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions G. Statutory Authorit y for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls 1. Section 211(c)(1)(A) 2. Section 211(c)(1)(B) VI
. Technical Amendments and Regulatory Streamlining A. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 80 1. Regulatory

Streamlining 2. Subpart ITechnical Amendments 3. Performance

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

of Costs without ABT Program 4. Summary

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

of Proposed Program Costs D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced VIII. What are the Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule?***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 9 of 888 A. Overview B. Quantified Human Health Impacts C. Monetized Benefits D. What are the Limitations of the Benefits Anal ys is? E. Illustrative Anal ys is of Monetized Impacts Associated with the Proposal in 2017 IX
. Alternatives Anal ys is A. Vehicle Emission Standards 1. Shorter NMOG+NO X Standard Phase

- in 2. Longer NMOG+NO X Standards Phase

- in Due to Early Credits 3. Shorter PM Standards Phase

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

ment Impacts 1. Employ

ment Impacts in the Auto Sector 2. Refinery

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

And Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Red

uction Act C. Regulatory

Flexibility

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

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

of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 10 of 888 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy

Suppl y, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Ac t J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and L ow - In come Populations XIII. Statutory

Provisions And L egal Authorit y 

## I. **Executive Summary and Overview of Pr oposed**  **Program A.**  **Introduction** In this actio n, EPA is proposing a major program designed to reduce air pollution from passenger cars and trucks. This program includes new standards for both vehicle emissions and the sulfur content of gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated sy stem. We refer to this proposed program as the “Tier 3” vehicle and fuel standards. This proposed rule is part of a comprehensive approach to address the impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. Over 15 8 million Americans are currently experiencing unhealth y l evels of air pollution, which are linked with respiratory

and cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts that lead to increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and premature mortality . 1 Motor vehicles are a particularly important source of exposure to air pollution, especially in urban areas. By 2014 we project that in man y nonattainment areas, cars and light trucks will contribute 30
- 45 percent of total nitrogen oxides (NO X ) emissio ns, 20
- 25 percent of total volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, and 5

- 10 percent of total direct particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) emissions. 2 These compounds form ozone, PM, and other air pollutants, whose health and environmental effects are described in more detail in Section II. Cars and light trucks also continue to be a significant contributor to air pollution directly near roads, with g asoline vehicles accounting for more than 50 percent of near

- road concentrations of some criteria and toxic pollutants. 3 More than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close

1 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of December 14 , 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2011
- 0135. 2 Mobile source contributions derived from inventories developed for the Final Cross
- State Air P ollution Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011)
. For mo re information on these inventories see the “T echnical Support Document (TSD) for the final Transport Rule, Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ
- OAR
2009
- 0491, Emissions Inventory Final Rule TSD,” available on the web at ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4_2/transpo rtrulefinal_eitsd_28jun2011.pdf . 3 For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow , J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in Motor Vehicle

- Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 11 of 888 proximity to high

- traffic roadway s, and the average American spends m ore than one hour traveling along roads each day
. 4 , 5 Almost 90 percent of dail y trips use personal vehicles. 6 The standards set forth in this proposed rule would significantl y reduce levels of multiple air pollutants (such as ambient levels of ozone, PM, n itrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and mobile source air toxics (MSATs)) across the country, with immediate impacts expected due to the proposed sulfur control standards starting in 2017. These reductions would help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain health

- based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Few other national strategies exist that would deliver the same magnitude of multi

pollutant reductions projected to result from the proposed Tier 3 standards. Inthe absence of add itional controls , many areas will continue to have ambient ozone concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. See Section III.C for more details
. The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonably

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (section 202). EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution (section 211). These statutory authorities are described in Section II.A. The vehicle and gasoline sulfur standards we are proposing represent a “sy stems approach” to reducing vehicle

- related exhaust and evaporative emissions by addressing the vehicle and fuel as a s ys tem. The sy stems approach enables emission reductions that are both technologically feasible and cost

- effective beyond what would be possible looking at vehicle and fuel standards in isolation. We first applied such an approach with our Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur standards (fi nalized in 2000). 7 We believe that a similar approach for the proposed Tier 3 standards would be a cost

- effective way to achieve substantial additional emissions reductions. The proposed Tier 3 standards include new light

- and heav y - dut y vehicle emissio n standards for exhaust emissions of VOC (specifically, non

- methane organic gases, or NMOG), NO X , and PM, as well as evaporative emissions

4 U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Current Housing Reports, Series H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html
. (Note tha t this survey includes estimates of homes within 300 feet of highways with four or more lanes, railroads, and airports.) 5 Drago, R. (2011). Secondary activities in the 2006 American Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. Avai lable at http://www.bls.gov 6 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2003). National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bts.gov/publication s/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/ 7 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 12 of 888 standards. The proposed standards for light

- dut y vehicle, light

- dut y truck, and medium

- duty

passenger vehicle tailpi pe emissions are an 80 percent reduction in fleet average NMOG+NO X compared to current standards, and a 70 percent reduction in per

- vehicle PM standards. The proposed Tier 3 heavy

- dut y vehicle tailpipe emissions standards provide reductions in both NMOG+N O X and PM that are on the order of 60 percent , compared to current standards. The proposed evaporative emissions standards represent a 50 percent reduction from current standards. The vehicle emission standards, combined with the proposed reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the current 30 parts per million (ppm) average down to a 10
- ppm average, would result in dramatic emissions reductions for NO X , VOC, direct PM 2.5 , carbon monoxide (CO) and air toxics. For example, in 2030, when Tier 3 vehicles would make up the majority of the fleet as well as vehicle miles travelled, NO X and VOC emissions from on

- highway vehicles would be reduced by about one quarter, and CO emissions would be reduced b y about 30 percent. Emissions of many

air toxics would al so be reduced by 10 to nearl y 40 percent of national emissions from on

- highway vehicles. Reductions would continue beyond 2030 as more of the fleet is composed of Tier 3 vehicles. For example, the Tier 3 program would reduce on

- highway emissions of NO X and VOC nearl y 40 percent by 2050, when Tier 3 vehicles would comprise almost the entire fleet. Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on cataly tic converters to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and NO X , as well as PM (specif ically , the volatile hydrocarbon fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The catal yt ic converters become significantly less efficient when sulfur from the gasoline is deposited (adsorbed) onto the precious metals that catal yz e the reactions to reduce the emis sions. The Tier 2 rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline by approximately

90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling case that even this level of sulfur not only degrades the emission performance of vehicles on the road today , but also inhibits necessary further reductions in vehicle emissions performance to reach the proposed Tier 3 standards. Thus, the proposed Tier 3 10

- ppm average sulfur stand ard is significant in two way s: it enables vehicles designed to the proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust standards to meet these standards in

- use for the duration of their useful life, and it facilitates immediate emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the sulfur controls are implemented. Lo wer sulfur gasoline also facilitates the development of lower

cost technologies to improve fuel economy
. Sulfur in the fuel quickl y causes the fuel econom y benefits of lean

- burn technologies to d isappear due to its effect on NOx adsorber operation requiring more fuel to be burned
. We are not the first regulatory

agency to recognize the need for lower

- sulfur gasoline. Agencies in Europe and Japan have already imposed gasoline sulfur caps of 10 pp m, and the State of California is already averaging 10 ppm sulfur with a per gallon cap of 20 ppm . Other states are preempted b y the Clean Air Act from adopting new fuel programs to meet air quality objectives. Consequently , they could not receive the ai r quality

benefits of lower sulfur gasoline without federal action.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 13 of 888 This proposal is one aspect of a comprehensive national program regulating emissions from motor vehicles. EPA’s recent final rule for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light

- d uty (LD) vehicles starting with model year (MY) 2017 (referred to here as the “2017 LD GHG” standards) is another aspect of this comprehensive program. 8 The Tier 3 proposal addresses interactions with the 2017 LD GHG rule in a manner that aligns implement ation of the two actions, to achieve significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions while providing regulatory

certaint y and compliance efficiency. As vehicle manufacturers introduce new vehicle platforms for compliance with the GHG standards , they will be able to design them for compliance with the Tier 3 standards at the same time. The proposed Tier 3 standards are also closely coordinated with California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program to create a vehicle emissions program that wo uld allow automakers to sell the same vehicles in all 50 states
. ( In December 2012 EPA approved a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption for the California Air Resources Board ’s ( CARB ’s ) LEV III program with compliance beginning in 2015
. Ten states have adopted the LEV III program under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act. 9 ) We have worked closely with individual vehicle manufacturers and their trade associations, who have emphasized the importance of a harmonized national program. Together, the Tier 3, 2017 LD GHG, and L EV III standards would maximize reductions in GHGs, criteria pollutants and air toxics from motor vehicles while streamlining programs and enabling manufacturers the flexibility to design a single v ehicle for nationwide sales , thus reducing their costs of compliance . In this way , the Tier 3 proposal responds to the May 21, 2010 Presidential Memorandum that requested that EPA develop a comprehensive approach toward regulating motor vehicles, includin g consideration of non

- GHG emissions standards. 10 As part of the s ys tems approach to this program, we are considering the future fuels on which vehicles will be operating. In particular, the renewable fuels mandate that was revised by the Energy

Independen ce and Securit y Act (EISA) and is being implemented through the Renewable Fuel Standards program (RFS2) 11 will result in significant amounts of ethanol

- blended gasoline in the implementation timeframe of the proposed Tier 3 program. We are proposing to upd ate the specifications of the certification test fuel with which vehicles demonstrate compliance with emissions standards, in order to better reflect the ethanol content and other properties of gasoline that will be in use. This section provides an overvie w of the vehicle

- and fuel

- related standards we are proposing as well as the impacts of the proposed standards. The public health issues and statutory requirements that have prompted this proposal are

8 7 7 FR 62623 ( October 1 5 , 201 2 ). 9 These states include Connecticut, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ne w York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Vermont. 10 The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the

- press office/presidential

- memorandum

- regarding

- fuel

- efficiency

- standards. 11 75 FR 14670 (March 26, 2010)
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 14 of 888 described in Section II, and our discussion of how the proposal would reduce emissions and air pollution is presented in Section III. Details of proposed standards and how they

would be implemented can be found in Sections IV through VI . Sections VII through X contain our discussion of the proposed standard s’ technological feasibility

and cost, benefits, alternatives and economic impacts. **B. What Are the Basic Components of the Proposed Program?**  In the more than 10 ye ars since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, manufacturers of light

- duty vehicles have c ontinued to develop a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust emissions, especially VOC, NO X , and PM. The California LEV II program has been instrumental in the continuous technology

improvements by

requiring year after ye ar re ductions in the fleet average h ydrocarbon levels, in addition to requiring the introduction of advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology has made it possible for manuf acturers to achieve emission reductions well beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels are lowered further. As a result, we are proposing new standards for exhaust emissions of NMOG, NO X , and PM, as well as evaporative emissi ons standards. These standards would phase in beginning with MY 2017. The proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the existing Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed standards would apply to all light

- dut y v ehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), light

- dut y trucks (LDT1s, LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and Medium

- Dut y Passenger Vehicles (or MDPVs). We are also proposing separate but closel y related standards for heav y - duty vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). These vehicles were not included in Tier 2 but were made subject to new standards in a final rule that covered the broad heavy

duty sector (66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001). We have concluded that the proposed vehicle emissions standards, in conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur also proposed in this action , are feasible across the fleet in the proposed time frame. In the discussions of the various elements of our proposed program for light

and heav y - dut y vehicles throughout this preamble, we describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program. Auto manufac turers have stressed to us the importance of their being able to design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as well as greenhouse gas/Corporate Averag e Fuel Econom y (CAFE) requirements in the same timeframe. Consistency among the federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be necessary for different geograph ic areas. This would allow manufacturers to avoid the additional costs of parallel design, development, calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency among programs would also eliminate the need to supply

aftermarket parts for repair of multiple versions o f a vehicle. To that end, we worked closely with CARB and with the vehicle manufacturers, both***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 15 of 888 with individual companies and with their trade associations, to align the two programs in most respects
. We have also designed the proposed Tier 3 program to be implemented in the same timeframe as the federal and California GHG emissions and fuel econom y standards for model years 2017
- 2025. We expect that in response to these programs, manufacturers will be developing entirely new powertrains for most of thei r vehicles. Because the Tier 3 standards would phase in over the same timeframe, manufacturers would be in a position to simultaneously respond to all of these requirements. 1. Proposed Tailpipe Standards for Light

- Dut y Vehicle, L ight

- Dut y Truck, and Medium

- Dut y Passenger Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions We are proposing a comprehensive program that would include new fleet

average standards for the sum of NMOG and NO X tailpipe emissions (presented as NMOG+NO X ) and for PM. 12 These proposed standards, when applied in conjunction with reduced gasoline sulfur content, would result in very significant improvements in vehicle emissions from the levels of the Tier 2 program. For these pollutants, we are proposing standards as measured on test procedures that represent a r ange of vehicle operation, including the Federal Test Procedure (or FTP, simulating ty

pical driving) and the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (or SFTP, a composite test simulating higher temperatures, higher speeds, and quicker accelerations). In addit ion to the standards, we are also proposing to extend the regulatory

useful life period during which the standards appl y and to make test fuel more representative of expected real

- world fuel (see Section I.B. 5 below). As discussed in Section IV.A.6., the i mpact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust cataly st performance provides a compelling argument, particularl y for larger vehicles and trucks, that these vehicle standards would be achievable only with a reduction of gasoline sulfur content from the curre nt 30
- ppm average down to a 10
- ppm average. Sulfur is a well

- known cataly st poison. The nature of sulfur’s interactions with active cataly tic materials is complex and varies with cataly st composition, exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. Thu s, even if a manufacturer were able to certify a new vehicle to the proposed new stringent standards, the manufacturer’s ability to maintain the emission performance of that vehicle in

- use is greatl y jeopardized if the vehicle is being operated on gasoline sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm. Vehicle m anufacturers, both individually and through their trade associations, have emphasized that reduced gasoline sulfur would be required to meet the proposed standards. 13 , 14 Due to the variation in

12 A discussion of the reasons for combining the two pollutants fo r this purpose is in Section IV.A.3.a below
. 13 Letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, with white paper, from Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, October 6, 2011. 14 Global Automakers letter to EPA Administrator Jackson, October 21, 2011.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 16 of 888 actual vehicle o peration, any amount of gasoline sulfur will deteriorate cataly st efficiency . However, we believe that a 10

- ppm average sulfur level is sufficient ly low to enable compliance with these proposed Tier 3 vehicle standards, and as described below and in Secti on V, reducing sulfur levels further would cause sulfur control costs to quickly

escalate. The proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+NO X standards would be fleet

average standards, meaning that a manufacturer would calculate the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model year and compare that average to the applicable standard for that model year. The manufacturer would certify each of its vehicles to a per

- vehicle “bin” standard (see Section IV.A.2) and sales

- weight these values to calculate its flee t - average NMOG+NO X emissions for each model y ear. The proposed fleet average standards for NMOG+NO X evaluated over the FTP are summarized in Ta

ble I
- 1 . The standards for light

- duty vehicles would begin in MY 2017 at a level representing a 46 percent reduction from the current Tier 2 requirements. (For vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR, the stan dards would apply beginning in MY 2018). As shown, these proposed fleet

- average standards would decline during the first several ye ars of the program, becoming increasingly stringent until ultimately

reaching an 81 percent reduction when the transition is complete. The proposed FTP NMOG+NO X program includes two separate sets of declining fleet

- average standards, with LDVs and small light trucks ( LDT1s ) in one grouping and heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s) and MDPVs in a second grouping , that woul d converge at 30 milligram per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and later. 15 Manufacturers could also earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NO X levels below the applicable standard in an y model ye ar. Credits that were previously banked or obtained from other manufact urers could be used, or credits could be transferred to other manufacturers (see Section IV.A.7.a) . Unused credits would expire after 5 model ye ars. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in their credit balance for up to 3 model years. **Ta ble**  **I -**  **1 Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NO**  **X FT**  **P Standards (mg/mi)** 

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

15 Alternatively, a manufacturer could choose to certify its entire fleet of passenger cars and light trucks to the 30 mg/mi level beginning in MY 2017 and continuing for all subsequent model years. A percent phase

- in would apply. This would not be a fleet

- average standard.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 17 of 888 MDPV a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. b These proposed standards would apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDT1s to a useful life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet

- average standard would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.8 5 and rounding to the nearest mg. See Section IV.A.7.b. Similarly , the proposed NMOG+NO X standards measured over the SFTP would be fleet

- average standards, declining from MY 2017 until MY 2025, as shown in Table I
- 2 . In this case, the same standards would apply to both lighter and heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP NMOG+NO X standard would reach its final fleet average level of 50 mg/mi. **Table I**  **- 2**  **Proposed LDV, LDT, and MDPV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **SF TP**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

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

- dut y vehicles is more significant than previously thought. 16 Although many vehicles today

are performing at or near the levels of the proposed standards, the data indicate that improvements, especiall y in high

- load fuel contro l and in the durability of engine components, are possible. Under t ypical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of most current - technology

gasoline vehicles are fairly low at certification and in use, well below the Tier 2 PM standards. At the same time we see considerable variation in PM emissions among vehicles of various makes, models, and designs. As a result, we are proposing a new FTP PM standard that is set to ensure that all new vehicles perform at the level already being achieved b y well

- designed Tier 2 emission control technologies. The proposed PM standards would apply to each vehicle separately (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to the declining

16 Nam , E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.; Baldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarbro, C. (2008). Analysis of Particulate Matter Emissions from Light

- Duty Gasoline Vehicles in Kansas City, EPA420

- R
- 08
- 010. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 18 of 888 NMOG+NO X standards, the proposed PM standard on the FTP for certification testing is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for all model years. As for the NMOG+NO X standards, for vehicles over 6000 lbs GVWR , the FTP PM standard would apply beginning in MY 2018. Manufacturers could phase in their vehicle models as a percent of U.S. sales through MY 2022. Most vehicles are already performing at this stringent PM level, and the primary intent of the proposed standard is to bring all light

- duty

vehicles to the ty

pic al level of PM performance being demonstrated by the current light

- dut y fleet. The proposed program also includes a separate in

- use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in

- use vehicles that would apply during the percent phase

in period only . T his in

- use standard would address the uncertainties that accompan y the introduction of new technologies, and then expire. Table I
- 3 presents the FTP certification and in

- use PM standards and the phase

- in percentages. The proposed standards represent a significant numerical reduction from the Tier 2 PM emission standards of 10 mg/mi for light

- dut y vehicles.

**Table I**  **- 3**  **Phase -**  **In for Proposed FT**  **P PM Standards** 

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

a For vehicles above 6000 lbs GVWR , the proposed FTP PM standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. Finally , the proposed Tier 3 program includes certification PM standards evaluated over the SFTP (specifically the US06 component of the SFTP procedure) at a level of 10 mg/mi for l ighter vehicles and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. PM levels over the SFTP are ty picall y higher than the PM emitted over the FTP due to the increased load on the vehicle. Test data show that most current light

- duty vehicles are already performing in the range of the proposed standard. As in the case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being demonstrated by

many vehicles in the current light

- duty fleet. As with the FTP PM standard, we propose separate in

- use US06 PM standards during the percent phase

- in onl y, of 15 and 25 mg/mi for vehicles up to and above 6,000 lbs (lbs) GVWR, respectivel y. The US06 PM standards would also phase in on the same schedule as the F TP PM standards, reaching 100 percent of each compan y’s U.S. sales by MY 2022.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 19 of 888 2. Proposed Heav y - Dut y Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions Standards As discussed in detail in Section IV.B, we are proposing Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards for complete heav y - dut y ve hicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 14,000 lb GVWR. Vehicles in this GVWR range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,501

- 10,000 lb) and Class 3 (10,001

- 14,000 lb) vehicles, and are t ypically full

size pickup trucks and work vans. Most are built by companies with even larger light

- duty truck markets, and as such they frequently

share major design characteristics and potential emissions control technologies with their LDT counterparts. However, in contrast to the largel y gasoline

- fueled LDT fleet, roughl y half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel

- fueled, which is a consideration in setting emissions standards, as diesel engine emissions and control strategies differ from those of gasoline engines. The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs would parallel those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in standards levels, emissions test requirements, and implementation schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key

elements include a combined NMOG+NO X declining fleet average standard, new stringent PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, adoption of a 15 percent ethanol by volume (E15) certification test fuel for gasoline

- fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 years (wh ichever occurs first), and a new requirement to meet standards over an SFTP that would address real

- world driving modes not well

- represented b y the FTP cycle alone. We are proposing the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average NMOG+NO X standards shown i n Table I

- 4. The proposed standards would become more stringent in successive model ye ars from 2018 to 2022, with voluntary standards made available in 2016 and 2017, all of which would be set at levels that match those of California’s LEV III program for these classes of vehicles. Each covered HDV sold by a manufacturer in each model year would contribute to this fleet average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NO X level of the emission level (“bin”) declared for it by the manufacturer. Manufacturers could also earn credits for fleet average NMOG+NO X levels below the standard in any model year. Tier 3 credits that were previously banked, obtained from other manufacturers, or transferred across the Class 2b/Class 3 categories could be used to help demonstrate compl iance. Unused credits would expire after 5 model years. Manufacturers would also be allowed to carry deficits in their credit balance for up to 3 model years. **Table I**  **- 4**  **Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **St andards (mg/mi)** 

Voluntary Required Program Model Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 20 of 888 Class 2b 333 310 278 253 228 203 178 Class 3 548 508 451 400 349 298 247 We are proposing PM standards of 8 mg/mi and 10 mg/mi for Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs, respectively , phasing in as an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s sales per year. We are proposing the same phase

- in schedule as proposed for the light

- duty sector during model years 2018
- 2019
- 2020
- 2021: 20
- 40
- 70
- 100 percent, respectively , and a more flexible but equivalent alternative PM phase

- in is also being proposed. Tier 3 HDVs would also be subject to more stringent CO and formaldehyde exhaust emissions stand ards. Finally , we are proposing first

- ever SFTP standards for HDVs to ensure a robust overall control program that precludes high off

- FTP cycle emissions by having vehicle designers consider them in their choice of compliance strategies. As for light

- dut y vehicles, we are proposing that SFTP compliance be based on a weighted composite of measured emissions from testing over the FTP cycle, the SC03 cycle, and an aggressive driving cycle, with the latter tailored to various HDV sub

- categories: the US06 cycle for most HDVs, the highway portion of the US06 cycle for low power

- to - weight Class 2b HDVs, and the LA
- 92 (or “Unified”) cycle for Class 3 HDVs. The proposed SFTP standards are the same as those adopted for California LEV III vehicles, and would appl y to NMOG+NO X , PM, and CO emissions. Overall, we expect the Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs to result in substantial reductions in harmful emissions from this large fleet of work trucks and vans. The final Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NO X and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower than the current stringent standards that took full effect in the 2009 model year. 3. Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel sy stems occur when a vehicle is in operation, when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. These evaporative emissions, which occur on a daily basis from gasoline

- powered vehicles, are primarily functions of temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and activity . EPA first instituted evaporative emission stan dards in the early 1970s to address emissions when vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly referred to as hot soak plus diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have been modified and improved and the standards have become more numerically stringent. We have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel s ys tem designs by putting in place new requirements such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions to address permeation emissions. Subse quently standards were put in place to control refueling emissions from all classes of gasoline

-***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 21 of 888 powered motor vehicles up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. Even though evaporative and refueling emission control sy stems have been in place for most of these vehicles for many years, they

still contribute about 30

- 40 percent of the summer on

- highway mobile source h ydrocarbon inventory. These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM precursors, and also contain air toxics such as benzene. To control evaporative emissions, EPA is proposing more stringent standards that would require covered vehicles to have essentiall y zero fuel vapor emissions in use. These include more stringent evaporative emissions standards, new test procedures, and a new fuel/evaporative sy stem leak emiss ion standard. The program also includes refueling emission standards for a portion of heavy

- duty gasoline vehicles (HDGVs) over 10,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is proposing phase

- in flexibilities as well as credit and allowance programs. The proposed standards, harmonized with California’s “ z ero e vap” standards, are designed to essentially allow for a use of common technology in vehicle models sold throughout the U.S. The level of the standard remains above zero to account for nonfuel background emissions from the vehicle hardware itself. Requirements to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations would phase

- in over a six model year period. We are proposing two options for the 2017 model year, but after that the sales percentage requirements are 60 percent fo r MYs 2018 and 2019, 80 percent for model y ears 2020 and 2021, and 100 percent for model years 2022 and later. In Table I
- 5 we present the proposed eva porative diurnal plus hot soak emission standards by vehicle class. The standards are approximately

a 50 percent reduction from the existing standards. To enhance flexibility and reduce costs, EPA is proposing a program that would allow manufacturers to generate allowances through early certifications (basically

before the 2017 model year) and to demonstrate compliance using averaging concepts. Manufacturers may

comply on average within each of the four vehicle categories, but not across these categories . EPA is not proposing an y changes to the existing light

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

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

- day

and 3

- day

diurnal tests) LDV, LDT1 0.300 LDT2 0.400 LDT3, LDT4, MDPV 0.500 HDGV s 0.600 EPA is proposing a new testing requirement referred to as the bleed emission test procedure to help ensure fuel vapor emissions are eliminated. Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to measure diurnal emissions over the 2

- day diurnal test p rocedure from just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister and comply

with a 0.020 gram per test (g/test) standard for all LDVs,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 22 of 888 LDTs, and MDPVs, without averaging. The corresponding canister bleed test standard for HDGVs would be 0.030 g/test . The proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards would be phased in over a period of six model years between MY 2017 and MY 2022, with the leak test phasing in beginning in 2018. Data from in

- use evaporative emissions testing indicates that vapor leaks from vehicle fuel/evaporative sy stems are found in the fleet and that even very small leaks have the potential to make relativel y significant contributions to the mobile source VOC inventory . To help address this issue, we are also proposing to add a ne w emission standard and test procedure to control vapor leaks from vehicle fuel and vapor control s ystems. The standard would prohibit leaks with a cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.02 inches or greater. We are proposing to add this simple and inexpens ive test and emission standard to help ensure vehicles maintain zero fuel vapor emissions over their full useful life. New LDV, LDT, MDPV, and HDGV equal to or less than 14.000 lbs GVWR meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations would al so be required to meet the leak emission standard beginning in the 2018 model ye ar. The requirement to meet the leak emission standard would phase

- in on the same percentage of sales schedule as the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standard. Manufacturers would comply with the leak emission standard during certification and in use. EPA is not proposing that the leak emission standard apply to HDGVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA is also proposing new refueling emission control requirements for all HDGVs e qual to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR (i.e., Class 2b/3 HDGVs), starting in the 2018 model year. EPA is proposing to include these vehicles as part of the same basic implementation scheme used for LDVs and LDTs. The current refueling emission control requ irements appl y to complete Class 2b HDGVs, and EPA is proposing to extend those requirements to Class 3 HDGVs as well, since the fuel and evaporative control sy stems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their slightly

lighter

- weight Class 2b counterparts. 4. Onboard Diagnostic S ys tems (OBD) EPA and CARB both have OBD regulations applicable to the vehicle classes covered b y the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. In the past the requirements have been very similar, so most manufacturers have met CA RB OBD requirements and , as permitted in our regulations, EPA has generally accepted compliance with CARB’s OBD requirements as satisfying EPA’s OBD requirements. Over the past several ye ars CARB has upgraded its requirements to help improve the effective ness of OBD in ensuring good in

- use exhaust and evaporative s ys tem emissions performance. We have reviewed these provisions and agree with CARB that these revisions will help to improve in

- use emissions performance , while at the same time harmonizing with the CARB program
. Toward that end, we are proposing to adopt and incorporate b y reference the current CARB OBD regulations effective for the 2017 MY. We are also proposing two specific additions to enhance the implementation of the leak emission standard.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 23 of 888 EPA would retain the provision that certifying with CARB’s program would permit manufacturers to seek a separate EPA certificate on that basis. 5. Emissions Test Fuel In
- use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA’s test fuel specifications were fir st set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzene have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly , gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced clear gasoline (E0) across the country . This has had second

- order effects on other g asoline properties. In

- use fuel is projected to continue to change with the implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the potential expansion of the number of retailers that offer gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol b y volume ( E15 ) ) as well as today’s proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. As a result, we are proposing to update our federal emissions test fuel to better match today ’s in

- use gasoline and also to be forward

- looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content . The new test fuel specifications would apply to new vehicle certification, assembly line, and in

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

 Moving away

from “ Indol ene” (E0) to an E15 test fuel ;

 Lowering octane to match regular

- grade gasoline (except for premium

required vehicles);

 Adjusting distillation temperatures, aromatics, and olefins to better match today ’s in

- use fuel and to be consistent with anticipated E1 5 composition ; and

 Lowering the existing sulfur specification and setting a benzene specification to be consistent with proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur requirements and recent MSAT2 gasoline benzene requirements. 17 The proposed E15 emissions test fuel spec ifications are detailed in Section IV .D.1 as well as §1065.710 of the proposed regulations. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed fuel parameters and ASTM test methods, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft Regulatory Impact Analy sis (RIA). In addition to proposing a new E15 emissions test fuel, we are also proposing for the first time detailed specifications for the E85 emissions test fuel

17 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 24 of 888 used for flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) certification , as discussed in Section IV.D.2. 18 This is intended to avoid uncertaint y and confusion in the certification of FFVs designed to operate on ethanol levels up to 8 3 percent. Furthermore, we are proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to request approval for an alternative certification fuel such as a high

- octane 30 percent ethanol by volume (E30) blend for vehicles they

might design or optimize for use on such a fuel. This could help manufacturers that wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency , as a step toward complying with the 2017 and later light

- dut y greenhouse gas and CAFE standards (2017 LD GHG) . This in turn could help provide a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 by overcoming the disincentive of lower fuel econom y associated with increasing ethanol concentrations in fuel, and enhance the environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel by using it to enable more fuel efficient engines. In addition to seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed new emission test fuel requirements, we also seek comment on whether there are other aspects of today ’s proposed standards that , if modified , might provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the development of highly efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher level ethanol blends. 6. Fuel Standards Under the Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline and any ethanol

- gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an annual average basis by January 1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, the proposed Tier 3 program would appl y to gasoline in the U.S. and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding California. The proposed program would result in gasoline that contains, on average, two

- thirds less sulfur than it does today
. In addition, following discu ssions with numerous refiners and other segments of the fuel market (e.g., pipelines, terminals, marketers, ethanol industry representatives, transmix processors, additive manufacturers), we are proposing a Tier 3 fuel program that contains considerable fl exibility to ease both initial and long

- term implementation of the program. We are proposing an averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program that would allow refiners and importers to spread out their investments through an early credit program and rely on ongoing nationwide averaging to meet the 10

- ppm sulfur standard. We are also proposing a three

- year delay for small refiners and “small volume refineries” processing less than or equal to 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day . As a result of the early c redit program, even considering the proposed ABT program and flexibilities offered to small refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery control to the 10

- ppm avera ge

18 Flexible fuel vehicles are currently required to meet emissions certification requirements using both E0 and E85 t est fuels. However, there are currently no detailed regulatory specifications regarding the composition of E85 test fuels.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 25 of 888 occurring b y J anuary

1, 2020. For more on the proposed gasoline sulfur program flexibilities, refer to Section V.D. Under today ’s Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we are proposing to either maintain the current 80

- ppm refinery gate and 95

- ppm downstr eam per - gallon caps or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, respectivel y. We also evaluated and are seeking comment on the potential of lowering the per

- gallon caps to as low as 20 and 25 ppm. There are advantages and disadvantages with each of the various sulfu r cap options (explained in more detail in Section V.A.3), but under all scenarios, the stringency

of the 10

- ppm annual average standard would result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. A summary of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards is provid ed in Table I
- 6
.

**Table I**  **- 6**  **Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur**  **Standards Cap Option 1**  **Cap Option 2 Limit**  **Effective Limit**  **Effective** Refinery annual average standard 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a Refinery gate per - gallon cap 80 ppm Already 50 ppm January 1, 2020 Downstream per
- gallon cap 95 ppm Already 65 ppm March 1, 2020

a Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries. We are proposing that manufacturers of gasoline additives that are used downstream of the refinery at less than 1 volume percent must limit the sulfur contribution to the finished gasoline from the use of their additive to less than 3 ppm when the additive is used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. The proposed vehicle emissions standards are fuel neutral (i.e. they are applicable regardless of the ty pe of fuel that the vehicle is designed to use). The sulfur content of highway diesel fuel is already required to meet a 15ppm sulfur cap. Thus, no further action is needed to enable diesel fuel vehicles to meet the proposed emissions standards. There currentl y are no sulfur standards for the fuel used in compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquid propane gas (LPG) vehicles. We request comment on whether it is necessary for EPA to establish sulfur standards for CNG and LPG, and whether a 15 ppm sulfur cap similar to that established for highway diesel fuel w ould be appropriate. Comment is also requested on whether and how to address the sulfur contribution from odorants and other additives used in CNG and LPG. As the number of flex

- fuel vehicles (FFVs) in the in

- use fleet increases, it is now becoming increa singl y important that all fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel qualit y standards. A lack of clarity regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in FFVs could act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels with concentrations greater than 15 volume percent, which is important to satisfying the requirements of the RFS2 program. For these reasons, we believe it is important that our gasoline quality standards for not only

sulfur, but also benzene,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 26 of 888 RVP, detergency , and chemical composition (i.e., contains only carbon, h ydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) appl y to an y fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is not necessaril y clear how we should implement such standards within the context of our existing regulations as these fuels tend to be produced downstream of the petroleum refinery . For this reason we are seeking comment on both the need to extend our gasoline standards to all gasoline

- ethanol blends, as well as the appropriate regulatory

mechanisms for doing so. 7. Re gulatory

Streamlining and Technical Amendments We are proposing and requesting comment in this action on a number of items to help streamline the in

- use fuels regulations at 40 CFR part 80. The majority of items involve clarifying vague or inconsistent language, removal or updating of outdated provisions, and decrease in frequency and/or volume of reporting burden where data are no longer needed or are redundant with other EPA fuels programs. In general, we believe that these changes would reduce burden o n industry and allow us to achieve the standards and resulting environmental benefits as earl y as possible with no expected loss in environmental control. In some cases, these regulatory

streamlining items are non

- substantive amendments that correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the regulations. The regulatory

streamlining items that we are proposing for the in

- use fuels regulations are changes that we believe are straightforward and should be made quickly . In addition, there are a number of items th at we believe need further consideration and discussion on which we are seeking comment. The proposal also includes a variety of technical amendments to certification

- related requirements for engine and vehicle emission standards. We are proposing to r evise the fuel economy labeling requirements to correspond to the new Tier 3 standards. We are also proposing to remove obsolete regulatory text and make several minor corrections and clarifications. Please refer to Section VI for a complete discussion of technical amendments and regulatory streamlining provisions and issues. **C. What Would the Impacts of the Proposed Standards**  **Be ?**  The proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards together would reduce dramaticall y emissions of NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 , and air toxics. The gasoline sulfur standards, which would take effect in 2017, would provide large immediate reductions in emissions from existing gasoline vehicles and engines. NO X emissions would be reduced b y about 284,000 tons, or about 8 percent of emissions from on - highway

vehicles, in 2017 alone. The emission reductions would increase over time as newer vehicles become a larger percentage of the fleet. In 2030, when 80 percent of the light

- duty fleet (and 90 percent of the vehicle miles travelled) consists of T ier 3 vehicles, we expect the NO X and VOC emissions to be reduced by about 525,000 tons and 226,000 tons, respectively , or one quarter of emissions***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 27 of 888 from on

- highway

vehicles compared to their 2030 levels without the Tier 3 program. Emissions of CO would de crease b y almost 6 million tons, or 30 percent of emissions from on

- highway vehicles. Emissions of many air toxics would also be reduced, including benzene, 1,3

- butadiene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein and ethanol, with reductions ranging from 10 t o nearl y 40 percent of national emissions from on

- highway vehicles. We expect these reductions to continue beyond 2030 as more of the fleet continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicles; for example, by

2050, when nearl y all of the fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce on

- highway emissions of NO X and VOC nearl y 40 percent from the level of emissions projected without Tier 3 controls. These reductions in emissions of NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 and air toxics from the proposed Tier 3 standards are projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 2.5 and air toxics by 2030, and would immediately reduce ozone in 2017 when the proposed sulfur controls take effect. Specifically , the prop osed Tier 3 standards would significantl y decrease ozone concentrations across the country , with a population

- weighted annual average decrease of 0.47 ppb in 2017 and 1.55 ppb in 2030 from projected population

- weighted average levels of 71.3 ppb in 2017 an d 66.7 ppb in 2030. The magnitude of reductions is significant enough to bring ozone levels in five counties from above the standard to below the standard, even without any additional controls. Few other national strategies exist that would deliver the reductions needed for states to meet the current ozone standards. The proposed Tier 3 standards would decrease annual ambient PM 2.5 concentrations across the country in nonattainment and highl y - populated urban areas, with a population

- weighted annual av erage decrease of 0.0 6 μg/m 3 by 2030 from projected population

- weighted average levels of 9.3 ug/m3 in 2017 and 9.5 ug/m3 in 2030. Decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics are also projected with the proposed standards , including notable nationwide reductions in benzene concentrations. Additional information on the emission and air quality impacts of the proposed Tier 3 program is presented in Sections III.B and C. Exposure to ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 2.5 , and air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as premature deaths as well as other important public health and environmental effects (see Section II.B). The proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce these adverse impacts and yield significant benefits, including those we can monetize and those we are unable to quantify . We estimate that by 2030, the annual emission reductions of the Tier 3 standards would annually prevent between 6 70 and 1,7 00 PM
- related premature deaths, between 1 6 0 and 7 1 0 o zone - related premature deaths, 81 ,000 work day s lost, and approximately 1.4 million minor restricted

- activity day s. The estimated annual monetized health benefits of the proposed Tier 3 standards in 2030 (2010$) would be between $ 8.0 and $2 3 billion, assuming a 3

- percent discount rate (or between $ 7.4 billion and $2 1***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 28 of 888 billion assuming a 7

- percent discount rate). 19 The proposed fuel standards are projected to cost on average less than one cent per gallon of gasoline, and the proposed light

- dut y vehicle stan dards would have an average cost that increases in proportion to the increase in stringency from $50 per vehicle in 2017 to $134 per vehicle when the standards are full y phased in 2025. The annual cost of the overall program in 2030 would be approximately $3. 4 billion. 20 The 2030 benefits could outweigh the costs by

a factor of 7
. T he benefits in Table I
- 7 include all of the human health impacts we are able to quantify

and monetize at this time. However, the full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM, ozone and air toxics remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods and/or available data. As a result, the health benefits quantified in this section are likel y underestimates of the total benefits attributable to the proposed standards. See Sections VII and VIII for detailed descriptions of the costs and benefits of this proposal. **Table I**  **- 7**  **Summary of Annual Benefts and Costs Associated with the Proposed**

**Tier 3 Program (Billions, 2010$) a**  **Description 2030**  Vehicle Program Costs Fuels Program Costs Total Estimated Costs b $2. 1 $1.3 $3. 4 Total Estimated Health Benefits c,d,e,f ,g 3 percent discount rate 7 percent discount rate $ 8.0
- $2 3 $ 7.4
- $ 21 Annual Net Benefits (Total Benefits

– Total Costs) 3 percent discount rate 7 percent discount rate $ 4.6
- $ 20 $ 4.0
- $ 18 Notes: a All estimates represent annual benefits and costs anticipated for the year 2030. Totals are rounded to two significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. b The calculation of annual costs does not require amortization of costs over time. Therefore, the estimates of annual cost do not include a discount rate or rate of return assumption (see Section VII of the preamble for more information on vehicle and fue l costs). The program costs include the costs associated with the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards in all states except California. c The benefits presented in this table have been adjusted to remove benefits of the Tier 3 program in California.

19 These benefits estimates have been adjusted to remove benefits of the Tier 3 program in California. The Tier 3 proposal’s analysi s assumed emissions reductions and resulting benefits wo uld occur nationwide. California was recently granted a Clean Air Act wa iver of preemption for the LEV III vehicle program, and some other states have adopted it. The Tier 3 final rule analysis will account for those emission reductions that will occur even in the absence of Tier 3 vehicle standards, for all states that have adopted LEV III. See Section VIII of the preamble for more information on the benefits associated with the Tier 3 program. 20 Costs include estimates for the proposed Tier 3 standards in all states except California.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 29 of 888 d Total includes ozone and PM 2.5 benefits. Range was developed by adding the estimate from the Bell et al., 2004 ozone premature mortality function to PM 2.5 - related premature mortality derived from the American Cancer Society cohort study (Pope et al., 2002) for the low estimate and ozone premature mortality derived from the Levy et al., 2005 study to PM 2.5 - related premature mortality derived from the Six

- Cities (Laden et al., 2006) study for the high estimate. e Annual benefits analysis results reflect the use of a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate in the valuation of premature mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarctions, consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses. f Valuation of premature mortality based on long

- term PM exposur e assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20

- year segmented lag structure described in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 2006 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (September, 2006). g Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized i n this analysis; the total monetized benefits presented here may therefore be underestimated. Potential benefit categories that have not been quantified and monetized, due to current limitations in methods and/or data availability, are listed in Table VII I
- 2. For example, we have not quantified a number of known or suspected health and welfare effects linked with reductions in ozone and PM (e.g., reductions in heart rate variability, reduced material damage to structures and cultural monuments, and reduced eutrophication in coastal areas). We are also unable to quantify health and welfare benefits associated with reductions in air toxics
. 

## II. **Why Is EP**

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

be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution. These statutory requirements are described in Section II.A. Emissio ns from motor vehicles and their fuels contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, NO 2 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and CO, which are all pollutants for which EPA has established health

- based NAAQS. These pollutants are linked with respiratory

and/or cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to increased medication use, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and premature mortality
. Over 15 8 million people currently live in areas designated nonattainment for one or more of the cur rent NAAQS. 21 Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune s ys tem damage, an d neurological, reproductive, developmental, respiratory , and other health problems. 22 A more detailed discussion of the health and environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B.

21 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of December 14 , 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2011
- 0135. 22 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National

- Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 30 of 888 Cars and light trucks also continue to be a signific ant contributor to air pollution directly

near roads, with gasoline vehicles accounting for more than 50 percent of near

- road concentrations of some criteria and toxic pollutants. 23 More than 50 million people live, work, or go to school in close proximity to high

- traffic roadway s, and the average American spends more than one hour traveling each day , with nearl y 90 percent of daily trips occurring b y personal vehicle. 24 , 25 , 26 Exposure to traffic

- related pollutants has been linked with adverse health impacts such as respiratory

problems (particularly

in asthmatic children) and cardiovascular problems. In the absence of additional controls such as Tier 3 standards, man y areas will continue to have ambient ozone and PM 2.5 concentrations exceeding the NAAQS in the future. States and local areas are required to adopt control measures to attain the NAAQS and, once attained, to demonstrate that control measures are in place sufficient to maintain the NAAQS for ten ye ars (and eight ye ars later, a similar demonstrat ion is required for another ten

- ye ar period). The proposed Tier 3 standards would be a critical part of areas’ strategies to attain and maintain the standards. Maintaining the standards has been challenging in the past, particularly for areas where high population growth rates lead to significant annual increases in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Our air quality modeling for this proposal, which is described in more detail in Section III.C, p roject s that in 2017 a significant number of counti es outside CA will be within 10 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, in the absence of additional controls. These counties in particular would benefit from the proposed Tier 3 standards as they work to ensure long

- term maintenance of the NAAQS. Section III provides more detail on how this proposal would reduce motor vehicle emissions and ambient levels of pollution. The proposed rule would meaningfully

reduce ozone concentrations as early as 2017 (the first y ear of the program), and even more significantl y in 2030. The reductions are of significant enough magnitude to bring ozone levels in some counties from above the standard to below the standard, even without any additional controls. We also project that the Tier 3 standards would reduce ambient PM 2.5 concentrations.

23 For example, see Fujita, E.M; Campbell, D.E.; Zielinska, B.; Arnott, W.P.; Chow , J.C. (2011) Concentrations of Air Toxics in Motor Vehicle

- Dominated Environments. Health Effects Institute Research Report 156. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org 24 U.S. Census Bureau ( 2011 ) . Current Housing Reports, Series H150/09, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs09/ahs09.html 25 Drago, R. ( 2011 ) . Secondary activities in the 2006 American Time Use Survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper 446. Available at http://www.bls.gov 26 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2003) National Household Travel Survey 2001 Highlights Report. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 31 of 888 Without this proposal to reduce nationwide motor vehicle emissions, areas would have to adopt other measures to reduce emissions from other sources under their state or local authority . Few other measures exist for providing multi

- pollut ant reductions of the same magnitude and cost

- effectiveness as those expected from the proposed Tier 3 standards. Furthermore, states outside California do not have the authority to lower the sulfur in gasoline, which is needed to immediatel y reduce emi ssions from the existing fleet and also enable new vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards throughout their useful life. The reductions in ambient ozone and PM 2.5 that would result from the proposed Tier 3 standards would provide signific ant health benefits. By 2030, the standards would annually prevent between 6 70 and 1 , 7 00 PM
- related premature deaths, between 1 6 0 and 7 1 0 ozone
- related premature deaths, 81 ,000 work day s lost, and approximately 1.4 million minor restricted

- activity day s ( see Section VIII for more details). This proposal would also reduce air toxics; for example, we project that in 2030, the proposal would decrease ambient benzene concentrations by 10
- 25 percent in some urban areas. Furthermore, the proposed Tier 3 standards would reduce traffic

- associated pollution near major roads. EPA is proposing Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards as part of a comprehensive nationwide program for regulating all ty

pes of air pollution from motor vehicles. EPA recently finalized stand ards to reduce GHG emissions from light

- duty vehicles, starting with model ye ar 2017. 27 The Tier 3 standards in this proposal, which address non

- GHGs, would be implemented on the same timeframe, thus allowing manufacturers to optimize their vehicle redesigns over both sets of standards. Furthermore, the Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards are also closel y aligned with California’s LEV III program, in such a way

that manufacturers could design a single vehicle for nationwide sales. This reduces the cost of c ompliance for auto manufacturers. This Tier 3 proposal responds to the President’s request in his May 2010 memorandum for EPA to review the adequacy of its existing non

- GHG standards for new motor vehicles and fuels, and to promulgate new standards, if nec essary , as part of a comprehensive approach to regulating motor vehicles. 28 Based on our review, we have concluded that improved vehicle technology , combined with lower sulfur gasoline, make it feasible and cost

- effective to reduce emissions well below the current Tier 2 levels. These emission reductions are necessary to reduce air pollution that is (and projected to continue to be) at levels that endanger public health and welfare.

27 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012). 28 The Presidential Memorandum is found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the

- press office/presidential

- memorandum

- regar ding

- fuel

- efficiency

- standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 32 of 888 **A. Basis for Action under the Clean Air Act**  1. Clean Air Act Section 202 We are proposing to set motor vehicle emission standards under the authority of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Section 202(a) provides EPA with general authority

to prescribe vehicle standards, subject to any specific limitations elsewhere in the Act. EPA is also setting standards for larger light

- dut y trucks and MDPVs under the general authority of section 202(a)(1) and under section 202(a)(3), which requires that standards applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, NO X , CO and PM from heavy

- dut y vehicles 29 ref lect the greatest degree of emission reduction available for the model ye ar to which such standards apply , giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy , and safet y. In addition, section 202(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of hydrocarbons from all gasoline

- fueled motor vehicles during: (1) operation, and (2) over 2 or more day s of nonuse; under ozone

- prone summertime conditions. Regulations under section 202(k) shall take effect as expedi tiously

as possible and shall require the greatest degree of emission reduction achievable by means reasonably expected to be available for production during an y model year to which the regulations appl y, giving appropriate consideration to fuel volatility , and to cost, energy , and safet y factors associated with the application of the appropriate technology . Further, section 206 and in particular section 206(d) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a mo tor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements. 2. Clean Air Act Section 211 We are proposing to adopt gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our authority under section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. This section allows EPA to establish a fu el control if at least one of the following two criteria is met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; or (2) the emission products of the fuel w ill impair to a significant degree the performance of any emissions control device or sy stem which is either in general use or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a reasonable time it will be in general use were the fuel co ntrol to be adopted. We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls based on both of these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that gasoline with current levels of sulfur contributes to ambient levels of air pollution that endanger public health and welfare, as described in Section II.B. Under the second criterion, we believe that gasoline sulfur impairs the emissions control sy stems of vehicles, as discussed in Section III.A.2.

29 LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings above 6000 lbs are considered ‘‘heavy

- duty vehicles’’ under the CAA. See section 202(b)(3)(C). For regulatory purposes, we refer to those LDTs at or below

8500 lbs GVWR as ‘‘heavy light

- duty trucks’’ made up of LDT3s and LDT4s.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 33 of 888 **B. Overview of Public Health Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels**  Moto r vehicles emit pollutants that contribute to ambient levels of ozone, PM, NO 2 , SO 2 , CO, and air toxics. Motor vehicles are significant contributors to emissions of VOC and NO X , which contribute to the formation of both ozone and PM 2.5 . Approximately 159 million people currently live in counties designated nonattainment for one or more of the NAAQS, and this figure does not include the people living in areas with a risk of exceeding the NAAQS in the future. 30 The majority of Americans continue to be expos ed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects. 31 In addition, populations who live, work, or attend school near major roads experience elevated exposure concentrations to a wide range of air p ollutants. 32 EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient pollution levels. As a result of these programs, the number of areas that continue to violate the ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS or have high levels of air toxics is expected to continue to decrease. However, the baseline air quality modeling completed for this proposed rule predicts that without additional controls there will continue to be a need for reductions in ozone, P M 2.5 and air toxics concentrations in the future. Section III.C of this preamble presents the air quality modeling results for this proposed rule. 1. Ozone
a. Background Ground

- level ozone pollution is ty pically formed through reactions involving VOC and NO X in the lower atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many ty pes of pollution sources, such as highway and nonroad motor vehicles and engines, power plants, chemical plants, refinerie s, makers of consumer and commercial products, industrial facilities, and smaller area sources. The science of ozone formation, transport, and accumulation is complex. Ground

- level ozone is produced and destroyed in a cyclical set of chemical reactions, man y of which are sensitive to temperature and sunlight. When ambient temperatures and sunlight levels remain high for several day s and the air is relativel y stagnant, ozone and its precursors can build up and result in more ozone

30 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA

- HQ
OAR
- 20 11
- 0 135. 31 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National

- Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 32 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Health Effects of Traffic

- Related Air Pollution. (2010) Traffic

- related air pollut ion: a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org]***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 34 of 888 than ty pically occurs on a single high

- temperature day . Ozone and its precursors can be transported hundreds of miles downwind from precursor emissions, resulting in elevated ozone levels even in areas with low local VOC or NO X emissions. b. Health Effects of Ozone The health and w elfare effects of ozone are well documented and are assessed in EPA’s 2006 Air Quality Criteria Document and 2007 Staff Paper. 33 , 34 People who are more susceptible to effects associated with exposure to ozone can include children, the elderly , and individua ls with respiratory disease such as asthma. Those with greater exposures to ozone, for instance due to time spent outdoors (e.g., children and outdoor workers), are of particular concern. Ozone can irritate the respiratory

s ystem, causing coughing, throat irritation, and breathing discomfort. Ozone can reduce lung function and cause pulmonary inflammation in healthy individuals. Ozone can also aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require medical attention and/or the use of additional me dication. Thus, ambient ozone may

cause both healthy

and asthmatic individuals to limit their outdoor activities. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular

- related morbidity and highly

suggestive evidence that short

- term ozone exposure directl y or indirectly contributes to non

- accidental and cardiopulmonary

- related mortality , but additional research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms causing these effects. In a report on the estimation of ozone - rel ated premature mortality published by

the National Research Council (NRC), a panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short

- term exposure to ambient ozone is likely

to contribute to premature deaths and that ozone

- related mortality should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure. 35 Animal toxicological evidence indicates that with repeated exposure, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue and irreversible reductions in lung function. The respiratory effects observed in controlled human exposure studies and animal studies are coherent with the evidence from epidemiologic studies supporting a causal relationship between acute ambient ozone exposures and inc reased respiratory

related emergency

room visits and hospitalizations in the warm season. In addition, there is suggestive evidence of a contribution of ozone to cardiovascular

- related morbidity and non

- accidental and cardiopulmonary mortalit y.

33 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/60 0/R

- 05/004aF

- cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 34 U.S. EPA. (2007). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA

- 452/R

- 07
- 003. Washington, DC, U.S. EPA. 35 Nat ional Research Council. (2008). Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution . The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 35 of 888 c. Current an d Projected Ozone Levels Concentrations that exceed the level of the ozone NAAQS occur in many parts of the country , including many major population centers. In addition, our modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects that in the future we wil l continue to have man y areas that will have ambient ozone concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see Section III.C.1). States will need to meet the standard in the 2015

- 2032 timeframe. The emission reductions and significant ambient ozone improvem ents from this proposed rule, which would take effect starting in 2017, would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS. The primary

and secondary

NAAQS for ozone are 8

- hour standards with a level of 0.075 ppm. The most rece nt revision to the ozone standards was in 2008; the previous 8

- hour ozone standards, set in 1997, had a level of 0.08 ppm. In 2004, the U.S. EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. 36 , 37 As of December 14 , 2012 , there we re 4 1 ozo ne nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS composed of 2 21 full or partial counties w ith a total population of over 1 18 million. Nonattainment designations for the 2008 ozone standard were finalized on April 30, 2012 and May 31, 2012. 38 These designations include 46 areas, composed of 227 full or partial counties, with a population of over 123 million. As of December 14 , 2012, over 138 million people are living in ozone nonattainment areas. 39 States with ozone nonattainment areas are required to tak e action to bring those areas into attainment. The attainment date assigned to an ozone nonattainment area is based on the area’s classification. Most ozone nonattainment areas are required to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the 2007 to 2013 time f rame and then to maintain it thereafter. 40 T he attainment dates for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS are in the 2015 to 2032 timeframe, depending on the severit y of the problem in each area. In addition, EPA is working to complete the current review of the ozone NAAQS by mid

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

36 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). 37 A nonattainment area is defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient standard or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. 38 77FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). 39 The 138 million total is calculated by summing, without double counting, the 1997 and 2008 ozone nonattainment populations contained in the Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure report (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html). If there is a population associated with both the 1997 an d 2008 nonattainment areas, and they are not the same, then the larger of the two populations is included in the sum. 40 The Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 8

- hour ozone nonattainment ar ea are designated as extreme and will have to attain before June 15, 2024. The Sacramento, Coachella Valley , Western Mojave and Houston 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas are designated as severe and will have to attain by June 15, 2019.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 36 of 888 be in the 2019 to 2036 timeframe, depending on the severit y of the problem in each area. EPA has already adopted many emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient ozone levels. As a result of these and other federal, state and local programs, 8

- hour ozone levels are expected to improve in the future. However, even with the implementation of all current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating the ozone NAAQS well into the future. Thus additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas with attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and may

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

purposes, fine particles are measured as PM 2.5 and inhalable or thoracic co arse particles are measured as PM 10
- 2.5 , corresponding to their size (diameter) range in micrometers and referring to total particle mass under 2.5 and between 2.5 and 10 micrometers, respectivel y. The EPA currently has standards that measure PM 2.5 and PM 10 . 41 Particles span man y sizes and shapes and consist of hundreds of different chemicals. Particles are emitted directly from sources and are also formed through atmospheric chemical reactions; the former are often referred to as “primary” particles, and the latter as “secondary” particles. Particle pollution also varies by time of year and location and is affected by several weather

- related factors, such as temperature, clouds, humidity , and wind. A further lay er of complexity comes from particles’ abili ty

to shift between solid/liquid and gaseous phases, which is influenced b y concentration and meteorology, especiall y temperature. Fine particles are produced primaril y b y combustion processes and b y transformations of gaseous emissions (e.g., sulfur oxi des ( SO X ) , nitrogen oxides (NO X ) , and volatile organic compounds ( VOC ) ) in the atmosphere. The chemical

41 Regulatory defi nitions of PM size fractions, and information on reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in ambient air, are provided in 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 37 of 888 and phy sical properties of PM 2.5 may vary greatl y with time, region, meteorology , and source category . Thus, PM 2.5 may include a complex mixture of di fferent components including sulfates, nitrates, organic compounds, elemental carbon and metal compounds. These particles can remain in the atmosphere for day s to weeks and travel hundreds to thousands of kilometers. b. Health Effects of PM Scientific studie s show ambient PM is associated with a series of adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in detail in EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (I SA) for Particulate Matter. 42 Further discussion of health effects associated with PM can also b e found in the draft RIA. The ISA summarizes health effects evidence associated with both short

- term and long

- term exposures to PM 2.5 , PM 10
- 2.5 , and ultrafine particles. The I SA concludes that health effects associated with short

- term exposures (hours to day s) to ambient PM 2.5 include mortality , cardiovascular effects, such as altered vasomotor function and myocardial ischemia, and hospital admissions and emergency

department visits for ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure, and respiratory

e ffects, such as exacerbation of asthma sy mptoms in children and hospital admissions and emergency department visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease and respiratory

infections. 43 The I SA notes that long

- term exposure (months to years) to PM 2.5 is associated with the development/progression of cardiovascular disease, premature mortality , and respiratory effects, including reduced lung function growth in children, increased respiratory s ymptoms, and asthma development. 44 The I SA concludes that the currentl y available scientific evidence from epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and toxicological studies supports a causal association between short

- and long

- term exposures to PM 2.5 and cardiovascular effects and premature mortality . Furthermore, the IS A concludes that the collective evidence supports likely causal associations between short

- and long

- term PM 2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. The I SA also concludes that the scientific evidence is suggestive of a causal association for reproduct ive and developmental effects including respiratory

- related infant mortality , and cancer, mutagenicity , and genotoxicity and long

- term exposure to PM 2.5 . 45 For PM 10
- 2.5 , the I SA concludes that the current evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship betw een short

- term exposures and premature mortality ,

42 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. 43 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. Section 2.3.1.1. 44 U.S. E PA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. page 2
- 12, Sections 7.3.1.1 and 7.3.2.1. 45 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Partic ulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. Section 2.3.2.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 38 of 888 cardiovascular effects, and respiratory effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding the health effects associated with long

- term exposure to PM 10
- 2.5 . 46 For ultrafine particles, the I SA concl udes that there is suggestive evidence of a causal relationship between short

- term exposures and cardiovascular effects, such as changes in heart rhy thm and blood vessel function. It also concludes that there is suggestive evidence of association between short

- term exposure to ultrafine particles and respiratory

effects. Data are inadequate to draw conclusions regarding the health effects associated with long

- term exposure to ultrafine particles. 47
c. Current and Projected PM 2.5 Levels There are man y areas of the country that are currently

in nonattainment for the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Our modeling without the proposed Tier 3 controls projects that in the future we will continue to have man y areas that will have ambient PM 2.5 concentrations above the level of the NAAQS (see Section III.C.2). States will need to meet the 24

- hour standard in the 201 5
- 2019 timeframe and the annual standard in the 202 1
- 2025 timeframe . The emission reductions and improvements in ambient PM 2.5 from this proposed rule, which would take effect starting in 2017, would be helpful to states as they work to attain and maintain the PM 2.5 NAAQS. There are two NAAQS for PM 2.5 : an annual standard ( 1 2 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 )) and a 24

- hour stan dard (35 μg/m 3 ). The most recent revisions to these standards were in 1997 , 2006 and in December 2012
. The December 2012 rule revised the level of the annual PM 2.5 standard from 15 μg/m 3 to 12 μg/m 3

. 48 In 2005 EPA designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. 49 As of December 14 , 201 2 , over 91 million people lived in the 35 areas that are designated as nonattainment for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. These PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are comprised of 191 full or partial counties. On October 8, 2009, the EPA issued final nonattainment area designations for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 50 These designations include 32 areas composed of 121 full or

46 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington , DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. Section 2.3.4 and Table 2
- 6. 47 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. Section 2.3.5 and Table 2
- 6. 48 U.S. EPA (2012). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pd f 49 70 FR 19844 (April 14, 2005). 50 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 39 of 888 partial counties with a population of over 70 million. In total, there are 50 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas wi th a population of over 10 5 million people. 51 States with PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will be required to take action to bring those areas into attainment in the future. Most 1997 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas are required to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the 2010 to 2015 time frame and then required to maintain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS thereafter. 52 The 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will be required to attain the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the 2014 to 2019 time frame and then be required to maintain the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS thereafter. 53 The 2012 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas will likely be required to attain the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the 20 20 to 20 25 time frame, depending on the severity of an area’s fine particle pollution problems and the availability

o f pollution controls
. The standards proposed here begin taking effect in 2017. EPA has already adopted many mobile source emission control programs that are expected to reduce ambient PM levels. As a result of these and other federal, state and local pr ograms, the number of areas that fail to meet the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the future is expected to decrease. However, even with the implementation of all current state and federal regulations, there are projected to be counties violating the PM 2.5 NAAQS well into the future. Thus additional federal control programs, such as Tier 3, can assist areas with attainment dates in 2017 and beyond in attaining the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and may

relieve areas with already stringent local regulations from som e of the burden associated with adopting additional local controls. 3. Nitrogen Oxides and Sulfur Oxides
a. Background Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is a member of the NO X family of gases. Most NO 2 is formed in the air through the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) emitted when fuel is burned at a high temperature. Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), a member of the sulfur oxide (SO X ) famil y of gases, is formed from burning fuels containing sulfur (e.g., coal or oil derived), extracting gasoline from oil, or extracting metals from ore. SO 2 and NO 2 and their gas phase oxidation products can dissolve in water droplets and further oxidize to form sulfuric and nitric acid which react with

51 Data come from Summary Nonattainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of December 14, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 20 11
- 0 135. 52 U.S. EPA. (2007). PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Implementation Rule (Final). Washington, DC: U.S. E PA. 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007. 53 U.S. EPA . (2011). PM Standards Revision

– 2006: Timeline. Available at http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html#timeline . Accessed December 31, 2011.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 40 of 888 ammonia to form sulfates and n itrates, both of which are important components of ambient PM. The health effects of ambient PM are discussed in Section II.B.2.b of this preamble. NO X and VOC are the two major precursors of ozone. The health effects of ozone are covered in Section II. B.2.1.b. b. Health Effects of NO 2 In formation on the health effects of NO 2 can be found in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (I SA) for Nitrogen Oxides. 54 The EPA has concluded that the findings of epidemiologic, controlled human exposure, and animal toxic ological studies provide evidence that is sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between respiratory

effects and short

- term NO 2 exposure. The ISA concludes that the strongest evidence for such a relationship comes from epidemiologic studies of r espiratory

effects including s ymptoms, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions. Based on both short

- and long

- term studies, the I SA concludes that associations of NO 2 with respiratory health effects are stronger among a number of groups; thes e include individuals with preexisting pulmonary conditions (e.g., asthma or COPD), children and older adults. The ISA also draws two broad conclusions regarding airway responsiveness following NO 2 exposure. First, the ISA concludes that NO 2 exposure may enhance the sensitivity to allergen

- induced decrements in lung function and increase the allergen

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

hy perresponsiveness were reported following 1
- hour exposures of asthmatics to 0.1 ppm NO 2 . Enhanced airway responsiveness could have important clinical implications for asthmatics since transient increases in airway responsiveness following NO 2 exposure have the potential to increase s ymptoms and w orsen asthma control. Together, the epidemiologic and experimental data sets form a plausible, consistent, and coherent description of a relationship between NO 2 exposures and an array

of adverse health effects that range from the onset of respiratory

s ymptoms to hospital admission. Although the weight of evidence supporting a causal relationship is somewhat less certain than that associated with respiratory morbidity , NO 2 has also been linked to other health endpoints. These include all

- cause (nonaccid ental) mortality , hospital admissions or emergency department visits for cardiovascular disease, and decrements in lung function growth associated with chronic exposure.

54 U.S. EPA (2008). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen
– Health Criteria (Final Report). EPA/600/R

- 08/071. Washington, DC: U.S.EPA.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 41 of 888 c. Health Effects of SO 2 In formation on the health effects of SO 2 can be found in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Sulfur Oxides. 55 SO 2 has long been known to cause adverse respiratory

health effects, particularly among individuals with asthma. Other potentially

sensitive groups include children and the elderl y. During periods of ele vated ventilation, asthmatics may experience sy

mptomatic bronchoconstriction within minutes of exposure. Following an extensive evaluation of health evidence from epidemiologic and laboratory studies, the EPA has concluded that there is a causal relations hip between respiratory health effects and short

- term exposure to SO 2 . Separatel y, based on an evaluation of the epidemiologic evidence of associations between short

- term exposure to SO 2 and mortality , the EPA has concluded that the overall evidence is su ggestive of a causal relationship between short

- term exposure to SO 2 and mortality
. d. Current Levels of NO 2 Between 2003 and 2005, national mean concentrations of NO 2 were about 15 parts per billion (ppb) for averaging periods ranging from a day to a ye ar. 56 There are two NAAQS for NO 2 : an annual standard (53 ppb) and a 1

- hour standard (100 ppb). The primary

NAAQS for NO 2 was revised in January 2010
. EPA completed area designat ions in January 2012 and there are currentl y no nonattainment areas . The des ign ations were based on the existing community

- wide monitoring network. Once the expanded network of NO 2 monitors is fully deployed and three years of air qualit y data have been collected, EPA intends to redesignate areas, as appropriate, based on the air qu ality data from the new monitoring network. 57 , 58 4. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas emitted from combustion processes. Nationally

and, particularl y in urban areas, the majority of CO emissions to ambient air come from mobile s ources.

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

– Health Criteria (Final Report) . EPA/600/R

- 08/047F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection A gency. 56 U.S. EPA. (2010). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the NO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/FinalNO2RIAfulldocument.pdf 57 U.S. EPA. (201 2 ). Fact Sheet

– Air Quality Designations for the 2010 Primary Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) National Ambient A ir Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/designations/pdfs/20120120FS.pdf 58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Revision to Ambient Nitrogen Dioxide Monitoring Requirements. March 7, 2013. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20130307fr.pdf***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 42 of 888 a. Health Effects of Carbon Monoxide In formation on the health effects of CO can be found in the EPA Integrated Science Assessment (I SA) for Carbon Monoxide. 59 The I SA concludes that ambient concentrations of CO are associated with a number of adverse health effects. 60 This section provides a summary of the health effects associated with exposure to ambient concentrations of CO. 61 Human clinical studies of subjects with coronary artery disease show a decrease in the time to onset of exercise

- induced angina (chest pain) and electrocardiogram changes following CO exposure. In addition, epidemiologic studies show associations between short

- term CO exposure and cardiovascular morbidity , particularly

increased emergency

room visits and hospital admissions for coronary heart disease (including ischemic heart disease, m yocardial infarction, and angina). Some epidemiologic evidence is also available for increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for congestive heart failure and cardiovascular dis ease as a whole. The IS A concludes that a causal relationship is likely to exist between short

- term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity . It also concludes that available data are inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists between l ong - term exposures to CO and cardiovascular morbidity
. Animal studies show various neurological effects with in

- utero CO exposure. Controlled human exposure studies report inconsistent neural and behavioral effects following low

- level CO exposures. The ISA concludes the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship with both short

- and long

- term exposure to CO and central nervous s ys tem effects. A number of epidemiologic and animal toxicological studies cited in the ISA have evaluated associations between CO exposure and birth outcomes such as preterm birth or cardiac birth defects. The epidemiologic studies provide limited evidence of a CO

- induced effect on preterm births and birth defects, with weak evidence for a decrease in birth weight. Animal t oxicological studies have found associations between perinatal CO exposure and decrements in birth weight, as well as other developmental outcomes. The ISA concludes these studies are suggestive

59 U.S. EPA, (2010). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Mono xide (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 09/019F, 2010. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686. 60 The ISA evaluates the health evidence associated with different health effects, assigning one of five “weight of evidence” determinations: causal relationship, likely to be a causal relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal relationship. For definitio ns of these levels of evidence, please refer to Section 1.6 of the ISA. 61 Personal exposure includes contributions from many sources, and in many different environments. Total personal exposure to CO includes both ambient and nonambient components; and both components may contribute to adverse health effects.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 43 of 888 of a causal relationship between long

- term exposures to CO and developmental effects and birth outcomes. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of effects on respiratory morbidit y such as changes in pulmonary function, respiratory sy

mptoms, and hospital admissions associated with ambient CO concentrations. A limit ed number of epidemiologic studies considered copollutants such as ozone, SO 2 , and PM in two

pollutant models and found that CO risk estimates were generally robust, although this limited evidence makes it difficult to disentangle effects attributed to CO itself from those of the larger complex air pollution mixture. Controlled human exposure studies have not extensively evaluated the effect of CO on respiratory morbidity
. Animal studies at levels of 50

- 100 ppm CO show preliminary evidence of altered pulm onary

vascular remodeling and oxidative injury . The ISA concludes that the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short

- term CO exposure and respiratory

morbidit y, and inadequate to conclude that a causal relationship exists between long

- term exposure and respiratory morbidity
. Finally , the I SA concludes that the epidemiologic evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between short

- term exposures to CO and mortality
. Epidemiologic studies provide evidence of an association between short

- term exposure to CO and mortality , but limited evidence is available to evaluate cause

specific mortalit y outcomes associated with CO exposure. In addition, the attenuation of CO risk estimates which was often observed in copollutant models contrib utes to the uncertainty as to whether CO is acting alone or as an indicator for other combustion

- related pollutants. The I SA also concludes that there is not likely to be a causal relationship between relevant long

- term exposures to CO and mortality
. 5. Mobil e Source Air Toxics Li ght

- dut y vehicle emissions contribute to ambient levels of air toxics known or suspected as human or animal carcinogens, or that have noncancer health effects. The population experiences an elevated risk of cancer and other noncancer health effects from exposure to the class of pollutants known collectively as “air toxics.” 62 These compounds include, but are not limited to, benzene, 1,3

- butadiene, formaldeh yde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, polycyclic organic matter, and naphthalene. These compounds were identified as national or regional risk drivers or contributors in the 2005 National

- scale Air Toxics Assessment and have significant inventory contributions from mobile sources. 63
a. Health Effects of Air Toxics

62 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National

- Scale Assessment. www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf. 63 U.S. EPA (2011) 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment. http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 44 of 888 i. Benzene The EPA’s IRIS database lists benzene as a known human carcinogen (causing leukemia) b y all routes of exposure, and concludes that exposure is associated with additional health effects, including genetic changes in both humans and animals and increased proliferation of b one marrow cells in mice. 64 , 65 , 66 EPA states in its IRI S database that data indicate a causal relationship between benzene exposure and acute l ymphocy tic leukemia and suggest a relationship between benzene exposure and chronic non

- ly mphocy tic leukemia and chronic ly mphocy tic leukemia. EPA’s IRIS documentation for benzene also lists a range of 2.2 x 10 - 6 to 7.8 x 10 - 6 as the unit risk estimate (URE) for benzene. 67 , 68 The International Agency for Research on Carcinogens (IARC) has determined that benzene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has characterized benzene as a known human carcinogen. 69 , 70 A number of adverse noncancer health effects including blood disorders, such as preleukemia and aplastic anemia, have also been associated with long

- term exposure to benzene. 71 , 72 The most sensitive noncancer effect observed in humans, based on current data, is the depression of th e absolute ly mphocy te count in blood. 73 , 74 EPA’s inhalation reference concentration (RfC) for benzene is 30 μg/m 3

.

64 U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. This material is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
. 65 International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, Fr ance 1982. 66 Irons, R.D.; Stillman, W.S.; Colagiovanni, D.B.; Henry, V.A. (1992). Synergistic action of the benzene metabolite hydroquinone on myelopoietic stimulating activity of granulocyte/macrophage colony

- stimulating factor in vitro, Proc. Natl. Acad . Sci. 89:3691

- 3695. 67 A unit risk estimate is defined as the increase in the lifetime risk of an individual who is exposed for a lifetime to 1 μg/m3 benzene in air. 68 U.S. EPA. (2000). Integrated Risk Information System File for Benzene. This material i s available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
. 69 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1987). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 29, Supplement 7, Some industrial chemicals and dyestuffs, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 70 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program. (2011). 12th Report on Carcinogens
. Available at: http://ntp.ni ehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75

- E1BF
- FF40
- DBA9EC0928DF8B15. 71 Aksoy, M. (1989). Hematotoxicity and carcinogenicity of benzene. Environ. Health Perspect. 82: 193
- 197. 72 Goldstein, B.D. (1988). Benzene toxicity. Occupational medicine. State of the Art Reviews. 3: 541
- 554
. 73 Rothman, N., G.L. Li, M. Dosemeci, W.E. Bechtold, G.E. Marti, Y.Z. Wang, M. Linet, L.Q. Xi, W. Lu, M.T. Smith, N. Titenko

- Holland, L.P. Zhang, W. Blot, S.N. Yin, and R.B. Hayes. (1996). Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. Am. J. Ind. Med. 29: 236

- 246. 74 U.S . EPA. (2002). Toxicological Revie w of Benzene (Noncancer Effects). Environmental Protection Agency , Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environm ental Assessment, Washington DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 45 of 888 The RfC is based on suppressed absolute l ymphocy te counts seen in humans under occupational exposure conditions. In addition, recent work, i ncluding studies sponsored b y the Health Effects Institute (HEI), provides evidence that biochemical responses are occurring at lower levels of benzene exposure than previously known. 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 EPA’s IRI S program has not y et evaluated these new data. EPA do es not currently

have an acute reference concentration for benzene. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk L evel (MRL) for acute exposure to benzene is 29 μg/m 3 for 1

- 14 day s exposure. 79 , 80

ii. Formaldehyde In 1991, EPA concl uded that formaldeh yde is a carcinogen based on nasal tumors in animal bioassays. 81 An Inhalation Unit Risk for cancer and a Reference Dose for oral noncancer effects were developed by the Agency

and posted on the Integrated Risk Information Sy stem (IRIS) d atabase. Since that time, the National Toxicology

Program (NTP) and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have concluded that formaldeh yd e is a known human carcinogen. 82 , 83 , 84 The conclusions b y IAR C and NTP reflect the results of epidemiologic research published since 1991 in combination with previous animal, human and mechanistic evidence. Research conducted b y the National Cancer Institute reported an increased risk of nasophary ngeal cancer and specific

75 Qu, O.; Shore, R.; Li, G.; Jin, X.; Chen, C.L.; Cohen, B.; Melikian, A.; Eastmon d, D.; Rappaport, S.; Li, H.; Rupa, D.; Suramaya, R.; Songnian, W.; Huifant, Y.; Meng, M.; Winnik, M.; Kw ok, E.; Li, Y.; Mu, R.; Xu, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, K. (2003). HEI Report 115, Validation & Evaluation of Biomarkers in Workers Exposed to Benzene in China. 76 Qu, Q., R. Shore, G. Li, X. Jin, L.C. Chen, B. Cohen, et al. (2002). Hematological changes among Chinese workers with a broad range of benzene exposures. Am. J. Industr. Med. 42: 275

- 285. 77 Lan, Qing, Zhang, L., Li, G., Vermeulen, R., et al. (2004). Hematotoxically in Workers Exposed to Low Levels of Benzene. Science 306: 1774

- 1776. 78 Turtletaub, K.W. and Mani, C. (2003). Benzene metabolism in rodents at doses relevant to human exposure fr om

Urban Air. Research Reports Health Effect Inst. Report No.113. 79 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2007). Toxicological profile for benzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service
. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp3.pdf. 80 A minimal risk level (MRL) is defined as an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. 81 EPA. Integrated Risk Information System. Formaldehyde (CASRN 50

- 00
- 0) http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419/htm 82 National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011 83 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 88 (2006): Formaldehyde, 2

- Butoxyethanol and 1

- tert - Butoxypropan
- 2
- ol 84 IARC Mongraphs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 100F (2012): Formaldehyde***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 46 of 888 ly mphohematopoietic malignancies among workers exposed to formaldehyde. 85 , 86 , 87 A National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health study

of garment workers also reported increased risk of death due to leukemia among workers exposed to formaldeh yde. 88 Extended follow

- up of a cohort of British chemical workers did not report evidence of an increase in nasophary ngeal or l ymphohematopoietic cancers, but a continuing statistically significant excess in lung cancers was reported. 89 Finall y, a study of emba lmers reported formaldeh yde exposures to be associated with an increased risk of my eloid leukemia but not brain cancer. 90 Health effects of formaldehyde in addition to cancer were reviewed b y the Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry in 1999 91 and supplemented in 2010, 92 and by

the World Health Organization. 93 These organizations reviewed the literature concerning effects on the eyes and respiratory s ys tem, the primary point of contact for inhaled formaldehyde, including sensory irritation of eye s and respiratory

tract, pulmonary

function, nasal histopathology , and immune s ystem effects. In addition, research on reproductive and developmental effects and neurological effects were discussed. EPA released a draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyd e
– Inhalation Assessment through the IRI S program for peer review by the National Research Council (NRC) and public comment in June 2010. 94 The draft assessment reviewed

85 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2003. Mortality from lymphohematopoetic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 95: 1615

- 1623. 86 Hauptmann, M..; Lubin, J. H. ; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Blair, A. 2004. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 1117

- 1130. 87 Beane Freeman, L. E.; Blair, A.; Lubin, J. H.; Stewart, P. A.; Hayes, R. B.; Hoove r, R. N.; Hauptmann, M. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: The National Cancer Institute cohort. J. National Cancer Inst. 101: 751

- 761. 88 Pinkerton, L. E. 2004. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup. Environ. Med. 61: 193

- 200. 89 Coggon, D, EC Harris, J Poole, KT Palmer. 2003. Extended follow

- up of a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J National Cancer Inst. 95:1608

- 1615. 90 Hauptmann, M,; Stewart P. A.; Lubin J. H.; Beane Freeman, L. E.; Hornung, R. W.; Herrick, R. F.; Hoover, R. N.; Fraumeni, J. F.; Hayes, R. B. 2009. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101:1696

- 1708. 91 AT SDR. 1999. Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 1999. 92 AT SDR. 2010. Addendum to theToxicological Profile for Formaldehyde
. U.S. Departm ent of Health and Human Services (HHS), October 2010. 93 IPCS. 2002. Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 40. Formaldehyde. World Health Organization. 94 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde (C AS No. 50
- 00
- 0)

– Inhalation Assessment: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). External Review Draft. EPA/635/R

- 10/002A. U.S. Environmental***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 47 of 888 more recent research from animal and human studies on cancer and other health effec ts. The NRC released their review report in April 2011. 95 The EPA is currentl y revising the draft assessment in response to this review.

iii. Acetaldehyde Acetaldeh yd e is classified in EPA’s IRI S database as a probable human carcinogen, based on nasal tumors in rats, and is considered toxic by the inhalation, oral, and intravenous routes. 96 The URE in IRI S for acetaldehyde is 2.2 × 10 - 6 per μg/m 3

. 97 Acetaldeh yde is reasonabl y anticipated to be a human carcinogen by the U.S. DHHS in the 12 th Report on Carcinoge ns and is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) b y the IARC. 98 , 99 EPA is currentl y conducting a reassessment of cancer risk from inhalation exposure to acetaldehyde. The primary

noncancer effects of exposure to acetaldehyde vapors include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. 100 In short

- term (4 week) rat studies, degeneration of olfactory epithelium was observed at various concentration levels of acetaldeh yde exposure. 101 , 102 Data from these studies were used b y EPA to develop an inhalation reference concentration of 9 μg/m 3 . Some asthmatics have been shown to be a sensitive subpopulation to decrements in functional expiratory volume (FEV1 test) and bronchoconstriction upon acetaldehyde inhalation. 103 The

Protection Agency, Washington DC [online]. Available: http://cfpub.e pa.gov/ncea/irs_drats/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614 95 NRC (National Research Council). 2011. Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde. Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?r ecord_id=13142 96 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acetaldehyde. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm
. 97 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 98 NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, T we lfth Editi on. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 pp. 99 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1999). Re

- evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine, and hydrogen peroxide. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemical to Humans, Vol 71. Lyon, France. 100 U.S. EPA (1991). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acetaldehyde. This material is available electronically at http://www.ep a.gov/iris/subst/0290.htm. 101 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ir is/subst/0364.htm
. 102 Appleman, L.M., R.A. Woutersen, and V.J. Feron. (1982). Inhalation toxicity of acetaldehyde in rats. I. Acute and subacute studies. Toxicology. 23: 293

- 297. 103 Myou, S.; Fujimura, M.; Nishi K.; Ohka, T.; and Matsuda, T. (1993) Aeroso lized acetaldehyde induces histamine

- mediated bronchoconstriction in asthmatics. Am. Rev. Respir.Dis.148(4 Pt 1): 940
- 943.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 48 of 888 agency is currentl y con ducting a reassessment of the health hazards from inhalation exposure to acetaldeh yd e.

iv. Acrolein EPA most recently

evaluated the toxicological and health effects literature related to acrolein in 2003 and concluded that the human carcinogenic potential o f acrolein could not be determined because the available data were inadequate. No information was available on the carcinogenic effects of acrolein in humans and the animal data provided inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity
. 104 The IARC determined in 199 5 that acrolein was not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity in humans. 105 Lesions to the lungs and upper respiratory tract of rats, rabbits, and hamsters have been observed after subchronic exposure to acrolein. 106 The Agency has developed an RfC for acr olein of 0.02 μg/m 3 and an RfD of 0.5 μg/kg

- day
. 107 EPA is considering updating the acrolein assessment with data that have become available since the 2003 assessment was completed. Acrolein is extremely

acrid and irritating to humans when inhaled, with acute exposure resulting in upper respiratory tract irritation, mucus hy persecretion and congestion. The intense irritancy of this carbonyl has been demonstrated during controlled tests in human subjects, who suffer intolerable eye and nasal mucosal sensory reactions within minutes of exposure. 108 These data and additional studies regarding acute effects of human exposure to acrolein are summarized in EPA’s 2003 IRI S Human Health Assessment for acrolein. 109 Studies in humans indicate that levels as low as 0.09 ppm (0.21 mg/m 3 ) for five minutes may elicit

104 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Research and Development, National Center for Environment al Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm
. 105 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1995). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 63. Dry c leaning, some chlorinated solvents and other industrial chemicals, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 106 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Ass essment, Washington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm. 107 U.S. EPA. (2003). Integrated Risk Information System File of Acrolein. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Was hington, DC. This material is available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0364.htm. 108 U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assess ment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R

- 03/003. p. 10. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf
. 109 U.S. EPA. (2003) Toxicological review of acrolein in support of summary information on Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Nati onal Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. EPA/635/R

- 03/003. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0364tr.pdf
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 49 of 888 subjective complaints of eye irritation with increasing concentrations leading to more extensive eye, nose and respiratory s ymptoms. Acute exposures in animal studies report bronchial hyper

- responsiveness. Bas ed on animal data (more pronounced respiratory

irritancy in mice with allergic airway disease in comparison to non - diseased mice 110 ) and demonstration of similar effects in humans (e.g., reduction in respiratory

rate), individuals with compromised respiratory function (e.g., emph ys ema, asthma) are expected to be at increased risk of developing adverse responses to strong respiratory irritants such as acrolein. EPA does not currentl y have an acute reference concentration for acrolein. The available health ef fect reference values for acrolein have been summarized by EPA and include an ATSDR MRLfor acute exposure to acrolein of 7 μg/m 3 for 1

- 14 day s exposure; and Reference Exposure Level (REL) values from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for one

- hour and 8

- hour exposures of 2.5 μg/m 3 and 0.7 μg/m 3 , respectively. 111

v. 1,3

-Butadiene EPA has characterized 1,3
- butadiene as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. 112 , 113 The IARC has determined that 1,3

- butadiene is a human carcinogen and the U.S. DHHS has characterized 1,3

- butadiene as a known human carcinogen. 114 , 115 , 116 There are numerous studies consistently demons trating that 1,3
- butadiene is metabolized into genotoxic metabolites by experimental animals and humans. The specific mechanisms of 1,3

- butadiene

- induced carcinogenesis are unknown; however, the scientific evidence strongly suggests that the carcinogenic

110 Morris JB, Symanowicz PT, Olsen JE, et al. (2003). Immediate sensory nerve

- mediated respiratory responses to irritants in healthy and allergic airway

- diseased mice. J Appl Physiol 94(4):1563

- 1571. 111 U.S. EPA. (2009). Graphical Arrays of Chemical

- Specific Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Expos ures (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 09/061, 2009. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003 112 U.S. EPA. (2002). Health Assessment of 1,3

- Butadiene. Office of Research and Development, Nati onal Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC. Report No. EPA600
- P
- 98
- 001F. This document is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/supdocs/buta

- sup.pdf
. 113 U.S. EPA. (2002). “Full IRIS Summary for 1,3

- butadiene (CASRN 106

- 99
- 0)” Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/s ubst/0139.htm. 114 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (1999). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, Volume 71, Re

- evaluation of some organic chemicals, hydrazine and hydrogen peroxide and Volume 97 (in pr eparation), World Health Organization, Lyo n, France. 115 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2008). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans, 1,3

- Butadiene, Ethylene Oxide and Vinyl Halides (Vinyl Fluoride, V inyl Chloride and Vinyl Bromide) Volume 97, World Health Organization, Lyon, France. 116 NTP. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, T we lfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicolog y Program. 499 pp.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 50 of 888 effects are mediated b y genotoxic metabolites. Animal data suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer effects associated with 1,3

- butadiene exposure; there are insufficient data in humans from which to draw conclusions about sensitiv e subpopulations. The URE for 1,3

- butadiene is 3 × 10 - 5 per μg/m 3

. 117 1,3
- butadiene also causes a variet y of reproductive and developmental effects in mice; no human data on these effects are available. The most sensitive effect was ovarian atroph y observ ed in a lifetime bioassay of female mice. 118 Based on this critical effect and the benchmark concentration methodology , an RfC for chronic health effects was calculated at 0.9 ppb (approximately 2 μg/m 3 ). vi. Ethanol EPA is planning to develop an assessment of the health effects of exposure to ethanol, a compound which is not currentl y listed on EPA’s IRI S database. Extensive health effects data are available for ingestion of ethanol, while data on inhalation exposure effects are sparse. In developing the asse ssment, EPA is evaluating pharmacokinetic models as a means of extrapolating across species (animal to human) and across exposure routes (oral to inhalation) to better characterize the health hazards and dose

- response relationships for low levels of ethano l exposure in the environment.

vii. Polycyclic Organic Matter The term pol yc yclic organic matter (POM) defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon compounds (PAHs). One of these compounds, naphthalene, is discus sed separately below. POM compounds are formed primarily from combustion and are present in the atmosphere in gas and particulate form. Cancer is the major concern from exposure to POM. Epidemiologic studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to diesel exhaust, coke oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke; all of these mixtures contain POM compounds. 130 , 131 Animal studies have reported respiratory

tract tumors from inhalation exposure to benzo[a]py rene and

117 U.S. EPA. (2002). “Full IRIS Summary for 1,3

- butadiene (CASRN 106

- 99
- 0)” Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0139.htm. 118 Bevan, C.; Stadler, J.C.; Elliot, G.S.; et al. (1996). Subchronic toxicity of 4

- vinylcyclohexene in rats and mice by inhalation. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 32:1

- 10. 130 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (1995). Toxicological profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Available electronically at http://www .atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=122&tid=25. 131 U.S. EPA (2002). Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust . EPA/600/8

- 90/057F Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=29060
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 51 of 888 alimentary

tract and liver tumors from oral exposure to benzo[a]py rene. 132 In 1997 EPA classified seven PAHs (benzo[a]py rene, benz[a]anthracene, chry sene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3

- cd]py

rene) as Group B2, pr obable human carcinogens. 133 Since that time, studies have found that maternal exposures to PAHs in a population of pregnant women were associated with several adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight and reduced length at birth, as well as impaired cognitive development in preschool children (3 ye ars of age). 134 , 135 These and similar studies are being evaluated as a part of the ongoing IRIS assessment of health effects associated with exposure to benzo[a]py rene. viii. PAN PAN (perox y acet ylnitrate) has not been evaluated by EPA’s IRIS program. In formation regarding the potential carcinogenicity of PAN is limited. As noted in the EPA air quality

criteria document for ozone and related photochemical oxidants, cy togenetic studies indicate that PAN is not a p otent mutagen, clastogen (a compound that can cause breaks in chromosomes), or DNA

- damaging agent in mammalian cells either in vivo or in vitro. Some studies suggest that PAN may be a weak bacterial mutagen at concentrations much higher than exist in prese nt urban atmospheres. 136 Effects of ground

- level smog causing intense eye irritation have been attributed to photochemical oxidants, including PAN. 137 Animal toxicological information on the inhalation effects of the non

- ozone oxidants has been limited to a f ew studies on PAN. Acute exposure to levels of PAN can cause changes in lung morphology , behavioral modifications, weight loss, and susceptibility to pulmonary

132 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2012). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans, Chemical Agents and Related Occupations. Vol. 100F. Lyon, France. 133 U.S. EPA (1997). Integrated Risk Information System File of indeno(1,2,3

- cd)pyrene. Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www .epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0457.htm. 134 Perera , F.P.; Rauh, V.; Tsai, W

- Y.; et al. (2002). Effect of transplacental exposure to environmental pollutants on birth outcomes in a multiethnic population. Environ Health Perspect. 111: 201
- 205. 135 Perera, F.P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R.M.; Tsai, W.Y.; Tang, D.; Diaz, D.; Hoepner, L.; Barr, D.; Tu, Y.H.; Camann, D.; Kinney, P. (2006). Effect of prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of life among inner

- city children. Environ Health Perspect 114: 1287

- 1292. 136 U.S. EPA. (2006). Air quality criteria for ozone and related photochemical oxidants (Ozone CD). Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for Environmental Assessment; report no. EPA/ 600/R

05/004aF

- cF.3v. page 5
- 78 Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/. 137 U.S. EPA (2005). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/R

- 05/004aF

- cF, 2006. p age 5
- 63. This document is available in Docket EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0161. This document may be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 52 of 888 infections. Human exposure studies indicate minor pulmonary function effects at high PAN conce ntrations, but large inter

- individual variability precludes definitive conclusions. 138

ix. Naphthalene Naphthalene is found in small quantities in gasoline and diesel fuels. Naphthalene emissions have been measured in larger quantities in both gasoline and dies el exhaust compared with evaporative emissions from mobile sources, indicating it is primarily

a product of combustion. Acute (short

- term) exposure of humans to naphthalene by inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact is associated with hemoly tic anemia an d damage to the liver and the nervous s ys tem. 139 Chronic (long term) exposure of workers and rodents to naphthalene has been reported to cause cataracts and retinal damage. 140 EPA released an external review draft of a reassessment of the inhalation carcinogenicity of naphthalene based on a number of recent animal carcinogenicity studies. 141 The draft reassessment completed external peer review. 142 Based on external peer review comments received, a revised draft assessment that considers all routes of e xposure, as well as cancer and noncancer effects, is under development. The external review draft does not represent official agency opinion and was released solel y for the purposes of external peer review and public comment. The National Toxicology Program listed naphthalene as "reasonabl y anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in 2004 on the basis of bioassay s reporting clear evidence of carcinogenicit y in rats and some evidence of carcinogenicity

in mice. 143 California EPA has released a new risk assessm ent for

138 U.S. EPA (2005).Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/R

- 05/004aF

- cF, 2006. page 5
- 78. This document is available in Docket EPA

- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0161. This document may be accessed electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/st andards/ozone/s_o3_cr_cd.html 139 U. S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm
. 140 U. S. EPA. 1998. Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm
. 141 U. S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene (Reassessment of the Inhalation Cancer Risk), Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm
. 142 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. (2004). External Peer Review for the IRIS Reassessment of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Naphthalene. August 2004. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=84403
. 143 NT P. (2011). Report on C arcinogens, T we lfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 pp.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 53 of 88 8 naphthalene, and the IARC has reevaluated naphthalene and re

- classified it as Group 2B: possibly

carcinogenic to humans. 144 Naphthalene also causes a number of chronic non

- cancer effects in animals, including abnormal cell changes and growth in res piratory and nasal tissues. 145 The current EPA IRIS assessment includes noncancer data on h yperplasia and metaplasia in nasal tissue that form the basis of the inhalation RfC of 3 μg/m 3

. 146 The ATSDR MRLfor acute exposure to naphthalene is 0.6 mg/kg/day
.

x. Other Air Toxics In addition to the compounds described above, other compounds in gaseous hydrocarbon and PM emissions from light

- duty vehicles would be affected by this proposal. Mobile source air toxic compounds that would potentially be impacted include eth ylbenzene, propionaldehyde, toluene, and xylene. Information regarding the health effects of these compounds can be found in EPA’s IRI S database. 147 b. Current Levels of Air Toxics The majority

of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentrations of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects. 148 The levels of air toxics to which people are exposed vary depending on where people live and work and the kinds of activities in which they engage, as discussed in detail i n U.S. EPA’s most recent Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule. 149 According to the National Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) for 2005, 150 mobile sources were responsible for 43 percent of outdoor toxic emissions and over 50 percent of the cancer risk and noncancer hazard associated with primary emissions. Mobile sources are also large contributors to precursor emissions which react to form secondary

concentrations of air toxics. Formaldehyde is the largest contributor to cancer risk of all 80 pollutants quantitatively a ssessed in the 2005 NATA. Mobile sources were responsible for over 40 percent of primary emissions

144 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2002). Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals for Humans. Vol. 82. Lyon, France. 145 U. S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene, Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System, Research and Development, National Center for Environme ntal Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm 146 U.S. EPA. (1998). Toxicological Review of Naphthalene. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0436.htm. 147 U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database is available at: www.epa.gov/iris 148 U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency (2007). Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 149 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2007). Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources; Final Rule. 72 FR 8434, February 26, 2007. 150 U. S. EPA. (2011). 2005 National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 54 of 888 of this pollutant in 2005, and are major contributors to formaldeh yde precursor emissions. Benzene is also a large contributor to cancer risk, and mobile s ources account for over 70 percent of ambient exposure. Over the ye ars, EPA has implemented a number of mobile source and fuel controls which have resulted in VOC reductions, which also reduced formaldeh yd e, benzene and other air toxic emissions. 6. Near
- Ro adway

Pollution Locations in close proximity to major roadway s generall y have elevated concentrations of man y air pollutants emitted from motor vehicles. Hundreds of such studies have been published in peer

- reviewed journals, concluding that concentration s of CO, NO, NO 2 , benzene, aldeh ydes, particulate matter, black carbon, and man y other compounds are elevated in ambient air within approximately

300
- 600 meters (about 1,000

- 2,000 feet) of major roadways. Highest concentrations of most pollutants emitted directly by motor vehicles are found at locations within 50 meters (about 165 feet) of the edge of a roadway ’s traffic lanes. A recent large

- scale review of air quality measurements in vicinity of major roadway s between 1978 and 2008 concluded that the pol lutants with the steepest concentration gradients in vicinities of roadway s were CO, ultrafine particles, metals, elemental carbon (EC), NO, NO X , and several VOCs. 151 These pollutants showed a large reduction in concentrations within 100 meters downwind of the roadway . Pollutants that showed more gradual reductions with distance from roadway s included benzene, NO 2 , PM 2.5 , and PM 10 . In the review article, results varied based on the method of statistical anal ys is used to determine the trend. For pollutants with relatively high background concentrations relative to near - road concentrations, detecting concentration gradients can be difficult. For example, many

aldehydes have high background concentrations as a result of photochemical breakdown of precursors f rom many

different organic compounds. This can make detection of gradients around roadway s and other primary emission sources difficult. However, several studies have measured aldeh ydes in multiple weather conditions, and found higher concentrations of m any carbonyls downwind of roadway s. 152 , 153 These findings suggest a substantial roadway source of these carbon yl s.

151 Karner, A.A.; Eisinger, D.S.; Niemeier, D.A. (2010). Near

- roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real

- wo rld data. Enviro n Sci Technol 44: 5334

- 5344. 152 Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Kwon, J.l; et l. (2006). Concentrations and source characteristics of airborne carbonyl compounds measured outside urban residences. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 56: 1196

- 1204. 153 Cahill, T.M.; Charles, M.J. ; Seaman, V.Y. (2010). Development and application of a sensitive method to determine concentrations of acrolein and other carbonyls in ambient air. Health Effects Institute Research Report 149. Available at http://dx.doi.org***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 55 of 888 In the past 15 years, many studies have been published with results showing that populations who live, work, or go to school near high

- traffic r oadway s experience higher rates of numerous adverse health effects, compared to populations far away

from major roads. 154 Inaddition, numerous studies have found adverse health effects associated with spending time in traffic, such as commuting or walking along high

- traffic roadways. The health outcomes with the strongest evidence linking them with traffic

- associated air pollutants are respiratory effects, particularly

in asthmatic children, and cardiovascular effects. Numerous reviews of this body of heal th literature have been published as well. In 2010, an expert panel of the Health Effects Institute (HEI) published a review of hundreds of exposure, epidemiology , and toxicology studies. 155 The panel rated how the evidence for each type of health outcome supported a conclusion of a causal association with traffic

- associated air pollution as either “sufficient,” “suggestive but not sufficient,” or “inadequate and insufficient.” The panel categorized evidence of a causal association for exacerbation of chil dhood asthma as “sufficient.” The panel categorized evidence of a causal association for new onset asthma as between “sufficient” and as “suggestive but not sufficient.” “Suggestive of a causal association” was how the panel categorized evidence linking traffic

- associated air pollutants with exacerbation of adult respiratory sy mptoms and lung function decrement. It categorized as “inadequate and insufficient” evidence of a causal relationship between traffic

- related air pollution and health care utilizat ion for respiratory problems, new onset adult asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease (COPD), nonasthmatic respiratory allergy , and cancer in adults and children. Other literature reviews have been published with conclusions similar to the HEI panel ’s. 156 , 157 , 158 Health outcomes with few publications suggest the possibility of other effects still lacking sufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions. Among these outcomes with a small number of positive studies are neurological impacts (e.g., autism and reduced cognitive

154 In the widely

- used PubMed database of health publications, between January 1, 1990 and August 18, 2011, 605 publications contained the keywords “traffic, pollution, epidemiology,” with approximately half the studies published after 2007. 155 Health Effects Institute Panel on the Heal th Effects of Traffic

- Related Air Pollution. (2010). Traffic

- related air pollution: a critical review of the literature on emissions, exposure, and health effects. HEI Special Report 17. Available at http://www.healtheffects.org 156 Boothe, V.L.; Shende ll, D.G. (2008). Potential health effects associated with residential proximity to freeways and primay roads: review of scientific literature, 1999

- 2006. J Environ Health 70: 33

- 41. 157 Salam, M.T.; Islam, T.; Gilliland, F.D. (2008). Recent evidence for adverse effects of residential proximity to traffic sources on asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med 14: 3

- 8. 158 Raaschou

-Nielsen, O.; Reynolds, P. (2006). Air pollution and childhood cancer: a re view of the epidemiological literature. Int J Cancer 118: 2920

- 9.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 56 of 888 function) and reproductive outcomes (e.g., preterm birth, low birth weight). 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 In addition to health outcomes, particularl y cardiopulmonary effects, conclusions of numerous studies suggest mechanisms by which traffic

- related air pollution affects health. Numerous studies indicate that near

- roadway exposures increase sy stemic inflammation, affecting organ sy stems, including blood vessels and lungs. 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 Lo ng - term exposures in near

- road environments have been associated with inflammation

- associated conditions, such as atherosclerosis and asthma. 167 , 168 , 169 Several studies suggest that some factors may increase susceptibility

to the effects of traffic

- associated air pollution. Several studies have found stronger respiratory

associations in children experiencing chronic social stress, such as in violent neighborhoods or in homes with high family stress. 170 , 171 , 172

159 Volk, H.E.; Hertz

- Picciotto, I.; Delwiche, L.; et al. (2011). Residential proximity to freeways and autism in the CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect 119: 873

- 877. 160 Franco
- Suglia, S .; Gryparis, A.; Wright, R.O.; et al. (2007). Association of black carbon with cognition among children in a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm308. [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 161 Power, M.C.; Weisskopf, M.G.; Alexeef, S .E.; et al. (2011). Traffic

- related air pollution and cognitive function in a cohort of older men. Environ Health Perspect 2011: 682

- 687. 162 Wu, J.; Wilhelm, M.; Chung, J.; et al. (2011). Comparing exposure assessment methods for traffic

- related air pollut ion in and adverse pregnancy outcome study. Environ Res 111: 685

- 6692. 163 Riediker, M. (2007). Cardiovascular effects of fine particulate matter components in highway patrol officers. Inhal Toxicol 19: 99

- 105. doi: 10.1080/08958370701495238 Available at http://dx.doi.org 164 Alexeef, S.E.; Coull, B.A.; Gryparis, A.; et al. (2011). Medium

- term exposure to traffic

- related air pollution and markers of inflammation and endothelial function. Environ Health Perspect 119: 481
- 486. doi:10.1289/ehp.1002560 Avai lable at http://dx.doi.org 165 Eckel. S.P.; Berhane, K.; Salam, M.T.; et al. (2011). Traffic

- related pollution exposure and exhaled nitric oxide in the Children’s Health Study. Environ Health Perspect (IN PRESS). doi:10.1289/ehp.1103516
. Available at http: //dx.doi.org 166 Zhang, J.; McCreanor, J.E.; Cullinan, P.; et al. (2009). Health effects of real

- world exposure diesel exhaust in persons with asthma. Res Rep Health Effects Inst 138. [Online at http://www.healtheffects.org] 167 Adar, S.D.; Klein, R.; Klein, E.K.; et al. (2010). Air pollution and the microvasculatory: a cross

sectional assessment of in vivo retinal images in the population

- based Multi

- Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. PLoS Med 7(11): E1000372. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000372
. Available at http://dx.doi.org 168 Kan, H.; Heiss, G.; Rose, K.M.; et al. (2008). Proxpective analysis of traffic exposure as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Environ Health Perspect 116: 1463

- 1 468. doi:10.1289/ehp.11290
. Available at http://dx.doi.org 169 McConnell, R.; Islam, T.; Shankardass, K.; et al. (2010). Childhood incident asthma and traffic

related air pollution at home and school. Environ Health Perspect 1021

- 1026. 170 Islam, T.; Urban, R.; Gauderman, W.J.; et al. (2011). Parental stress increases the detrimental effect of traffic exposure on children’s lung function. Am J Respir Crit Care Med (In press)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 57 of 888 The risks associated with residence, workplace, or schools near major roads are of potentially

high public health significance due to the large population in such locations. According to the 2009 American Housing Survey , over 22 million homes (17.0 percent of all U.S. housing units) were located within 3 00 feet of an airport, railroad, or highway with four or more lanes. This corresponds to a population of more than 50 million U.S. residents in close proximity to high

- traffic roadway s or other transportation sources. As discussed in Section III, populati ons near major roads have higher fractions of minority residents and lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, on average, Americans spend more than an hour traveling each day , bringing nearl y all residents into a high

- exposure microenvironment for part of the day
. EPA continues to research near

- road air quality , including the t ypes of pollutants found in high concentrations near major roads and health problems associated with the mixture of pollutants near roads. 7. Environmental Impacts of Motor Vehicles and Fuels
a. Plant and Ecosy stem Effects of Ozone Elevated ozone levels contribute to environmental effects, with impacts to plants and ecos ys tems being of most concern. Ozone can produce both acute and chronic injury

in sensitive species depending on the concentration level and the duration of the expos ure. Ozone effects also tend to accumulate over the growing season of the plant, so that even low concentrations experienced for a longer duration have the potential to create chronic stress on vegetation. Ozone damage to plants includes visible injury t o leaves and impaired photosy nthesis, both of which can lead to reduced plant growth and reproduction, resulting in reduced crop yields, forestry production, and use of sensitive ornamentals in landscaping. In addition, the impairment of photosynthesis, the process b y which the plant makes carboh ydrates (its source of energy and food), can lead to a subsequent reduction in root growth and carboh ydrate storage below ground, resulting in other, more subtle plant and ecos ys tems impacts. These latter impacts include increased susceptibility of plants to insect attack, disease, harsh weather, interspecies competition and overall decreased plant vigor. The adverse effects of ozone on forest and other natural vegetation can potentially

lead to species shifts an d loss from the affected ecos ys tems, resulting in a loss or reduction in associated ecosy stem goods and services. Lastly , visible ozone injury

to leaves can result in a loss of aesthetic value in areas of special

171 Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; et al. (2007). Sy nergistic effects of traffic

- related air pollution and exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115: 1140
- 1146. 172 Chen, E.; Schrier, H.M.; Strunk, R.C.; et al. (2008). Chronic traffic

- related air pollution and stress intera ct to predict biologic and clinical outcomes in asthma. Environ Health Perspect 116: 970

- 5.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 58 of 888 scenic significance like national parks an d wilderness areas. The final 2006 Ozone Air Quality

Criteria Document presents more detailed information on ozone effects on vegetation and ecos ys tems. b. Visibility Visibility can be defined as the degree to which the atmosphere is transparent to visible l ight. 173 Visibility impairment is caused b y light scattering and absorption b y suspended particles and gases. Visibility is important because it has direct significance to people’s enjo ym ent of daily activities in all parts of the country . Individuals val ue good visibility for the well

- being it provides them directly , where they

live and work, and in places where they enjoy recreational opportunities. Visibility

is also highly

valued in significant natural areas, such as national parks and wilderness area s, and special emphasis is given to protecting visibility in these areas. For more information on visibility see the final 2009 PM ISA. 174 EPA is pursuing a two

- part strategy to address visibility

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

in Mandatory

Class I Federal areas. 175 There are 156 national parks, forests and wilderness areas categorized as Mandatory Class I Federal areas. 176 These areas are defined in CAA section 162 as those national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks which were in existence on August 7, 1977. Second, EPA has concluded that PM 2.5 causes adverse effects on visibility in other areas that are not protected b y the Regional Haze Rule, depending on PM 2.5 concentrations and other factors that control their visibility impact effectiveness such as dry chemical composition and relative humidity (i.e., an indicator of the water composit ion of the particles). EPA revised the PM 2.5 standards in December 2012 and established a target level of protection that is expected to be met through attainment of the existing secondary standards for PM 2.5 . i. Current Visibility Levels As mentioned in Section II.B.2.c , millions of people live in nonattainment areas for the PM 2.5 NAAQS. These populations, as well as large numbers of individuals who travel to these areas, are likel y to experience visibility impair ment. In addition, while visibility trends have improved in mandatory class I federal areas,

173 National Research Council, (1993). Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Haze in National Parks and Wilderness Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. This book can be view ed on the National Academy Press Website at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309048443/html/ 174 U.S. EPA. (2009). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R

- 08/139F. 175 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). 176 62 FR 38680
- 38681 (July 18, 1997).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 59 of 888 the most recent data show that these areas continue to suffer from visibility impairment. In summary, visibility impairment is experienced throughout the U.S., i n multi

- state regions, urban areas, and remote mandatory class I federal areas.
c. Atmospheric Deposition Wet and dry

deposition of ambient particulate matter delivers a complex mixture of metals (e.g., mercury , zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum, cadmium), organic compounds (e.g., pol yc yclic organic matter, dioxins, furans) and inorganic compounds (e.g., nitrate, sulfate) to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The chemical form of the compounds deposited depends on a variet y of factors including ambient conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity , oxidant levels) and the sources of the material. Chemical and ph ys ical transformations of the compounds occur in the atmosphere as well as the media onto which they deposit. These transformations in turn influence the fate, bioavailability and potential toxicity

of these compounds. Atmospheric deposition has been identified as a key component of the environmental and human health hazard posed by several pollutants including mercury , dioxin and PCBs. 177 Adverse impacts on wate r quality can occur when atmospheric contaminants deposit to the water surface or when material deposited on the land enters a waterbody through runoff. Potential impacts of atmospheric deposition to waterbodies include those related to both nutrient and toxic inputs. Adverse effects to human health and welfare can occur from the addition of excess nitrogen via atmospheric deposition. The nitrogen

- nutrient enrichment contributes to toxic algae blooms and zones of depleted ox ygen, which can lead to fish kills, frequently in coastal waters. Deposition of heav y metals or other toxics may lead to the human ingestion of contaminated fish, impairment of drinking water, damage to freshwater and marine ecos ys tem components, and limits to recreational uses. Seve ral studies have been conducted in U.S. coastal waters and in the Great Lakes Region in which the role of ambient PM deposition and runoff is investigated. 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 , 182

177 U.S. EPA. (2000). Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters: Third Report to Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. EPA

- 453/R

- 00
- 0005. 178 U.S. EPA. (2004). National Coastal Condition Report II. Office of Research and Development/ Office of Water. EPA

- 620/R

- 03/002. 179 Gao, Y., E.D. Nelson, M.P. Field, et al. (2002). Characteriz ation of atmospheric trace elements on PM 2.5 particulate matter over the New York

- New Jersey harbor estuary. Atmos. Environ. 36: 1077
- 1086. 180 Kim , G., N. Hussain, J.R. Scudlark, and T.M. Church. (2000). Factors influencing the atmospheric depositional fluxes of stable Pb, 210Pb, and 7Be into Chesapeake Bay. J. Atmos. Chem. 36: 65
- 79. 181 Lu, R., R.P. Turco, K. Stolzenbach, et al. (2003). Dry deposition of airborne trace metals on the Los Angeles Basin and adjacent coastal waters. J. Geophys. Res. 108(D2, 4074): AAC 11

- 1 to 11
- 24. 182 Marvin, C.H., M.N. Charlton, E.J. Reiner, et al. (2002). Surficial sediment contamination in Lakes Erie and Ontario: A comparative analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(3): 437

- 450.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 60 of 888 Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur contributes to acidification, altering biogeochemistry

and affecting animal and plant life in terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems across the United States. The sensitivity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosy stems to acidification from nitrogen and sulfur deposition is predominantly

governed by

geology
. Prolonged exposure to excess nitrogen and sulfur deposition in sensitive areas acidifies lakes, rivers and soils. Increased acidity in surface waters creates inhos pitable conditions for biota and affects the abundance and nutritional value of preferred prey species, threatening biodiversity and ecos ys tem function. Over time, acidifying deposition also removes essential nutrients from forest soils, depleting the cap acity of soils to neutralize future acid loadings and negativel y affecting forest sustainability. Major effects include a decline in sensitive forest tree species, such as red spruce ( Picea rubens ) and sugar maple ( Acer saccharum ), and a loss of biodivers ity of fishes, zooplankton, and macro invertebrates
. In addition to the role nitrogen deposition play s in acidification, nitrogen deposition also leads to nutrient enrichment and altered biogeochemical cycling. In aquatic s ys tems increased nitrogen can al ter species assemblages and cause eutrophication. In terrestrial sy stems nitrogen loading can lead to loss of nitrogen sensitive lichen species, decreased biodiversit y of grasslands, meadows and other sensitive habitats, and increased potential for invasi ve species. For a broader explanation of the topics treated here, refer to the description in Section 6.3.2 of the RIA. Adverse impacts on soil chemistry and plant life have been observed for areas heavil y influenced by atmospheric deposition of nutrients , metals and acid species, resulting in species shifts, loss of biodiversity , forest decline, damage to forest productivit y and reductions in ecosystem services. Potential impacts also include adverse effects to human health through ingestion of contaminated vegetation or livestock (as in the case for dioxin deposition), reduction in crop yi eld, and limited use of land due to contamination. Atmospheric deposition of pollutants can reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings and culturall y i mportant articles through soiling, and can contribute directly (or in conjunction with other pollutants) to structural damage by means of corrosion or erosion. Atmospheric deposition may affect materials principally b y promoting and accelerating the corrosion of metals, b y degrading paints, and by deteriorating building materials such as concrete and limestone. Particles contribute to these effects because of their electroly tic, hygroscopic, and acidic properties, and their ability

to adsorb corrosive gases (principall y s ulfur dioxide). i. Current Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Over the past two decades, the EPA has undertaken numerous efforts to reduce nitrogen and sulfur deposition across the U.S. Analy ses of long

- term monitoring data for the U.S. show that deposition of both nitrogen and sulfur compounds has decreased over the last 17 ye ars . The data show that reductions***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 61 of 888 were more substantial for sulfur compounds than for nitrogen compounds. In the eastern U.S., where data are most abundant, total sulfur deposition dec reased by about 44 percent between 1990 and 2007, while total nitrogen deposition decreased by 25 percent over the same time frame. 183 These numbers are generated b y the U.S. national monitoring network and they likel y underestimate nitrogen deposition beca use neither ammonia nor organic nitrogen is measured. Although total nitrogen and sulfur deposition has decreased over time, many areas continue to be negativel y impacted b y deposition. Deposition of inorganic nitrogen and sulfur species routinely measur ed in the U.S. between 2005 and 2007 were as high as 9.6 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare (kg N/ha) averaged over three ye ars and 20.8 kilograms of sulfur per hectare (kg S/ha) averaged over three years. 184 d. Environmental Effects of Air Toxics Emissions fr om producing, transporting and combusting fuel contribute to ambient levels of pollutants that contribute to adverse effects on vegetation. Volatile organic compounds, some of which are considered air toxics, have long been suspected to play

a role in veg etation damage. 185 In laboratory experiments, a wide range of tolerance to VOCs has been observed. 186 Decreases in harvested seed pod weight have been reported for the more sensitive plants, and some studies have reported effects on seed germination, floweri ng and fruit ripening. Effects of individual VOCs or their role in conjunction with other stressors (e.g., acidification, drought, temperature extremes) have not been well studied. In a recent study of a mixture of VOCs including ethanol and toluene on h erbaceous plants, significant effects on seed production, leaf water content and photosy nthetic efficiency were reported for some plant species. 187

183 U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA’s Report on the Environment. Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm? fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0 &subtop=341 &lv=list.listByChapter&r=216610. 184 U.S. EPA. (2012). U.S. EPA's Report on the Environment. Data accessed online February 15, 2012 at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm? fuseaction=detail.viewPDF&ch=46&lShowInd=0&subtop=341 &lv=list.listByChapt er&r=216610. 185 U.S. EPA. (1991). Effects of organic chemicals in the atmosphere on terrestrial plants. EPA/600/3

- 91/001. 186 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants in an open

- top chamber experiment. Environ. Pollut. 124:341
- 343. 187 Cape JN, ID Leith, J Binnie, J Content, M Donkin, M Skewes, DN Price AR Brown, AD Sharpe. (2003). Effects of VOCs on herbaceous plants in an open

- top chamber experiment. Environ. Pollut. 124:341
- 343.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 62 of 888 Research suggests an adverse impact of vehicle exhaust on plants, which has in some cases been attributed to aromatic compounds and in other cases to nitrogen oxides. 188 , 189 , 190 

## III. **How Wo**  **uld This Pr**  **oposal Reduce Em issions and**  **Air Pollution?**  **A. Effects of the Proposed Vehicle and Fuel Changes on Mobile Source**  **Emissions** The vehicle and fuel standards that EPA is proposing w ould significantl y reduce the tailpipe and evaporative emissions of light

- and heav y - dut y vehicles in several way s, as described in this section. In addition, the proposed gasoline sulfur standard would reduce emissions of SO 2 from existing gasoline

- power ed vehicles and equipment. As described in Section II, all of these emission reductions would in turn improve air quality nationwide and reduce the health effects associated with air pollution from mobile sources. As with the Tier 2 program, EPA is propos ing to implement closely

coordinated requirements for both automakers and refiners in the same rulemaking action. The proposed vehicle emission standards and gasoline sulfur standards represent a “s ys tems approach” to reducing vehicle

- related exhaust and e vaporative emissions. By

recognizing the relationships among the various sources of emissions addressed b y this proposed rule, we have been able to integrate the provisions into a single, coordinated program. 1. How Do Vehicles Produce the Emissions Addres sed in this Proposal? The degree to which vehicles produce exhaust and evaporative emissions depends on the design and functionality of the engine and the associated exhaust and evaporative emission controls, in concert with the properties of the fuel on which the vehicle is operating. In the following paragraphs, we discuss how light

and heav y - dut y vehicles produce each of these t yp es of emissions, both from the tailpipe and from the fuel sy stem.
a. Tailpipe (Exhaust) Emissions Which pollutants are emitted at the vehicle’s tailpipe and their quantities depend on how the fuel is combusted in the engine and how the resulting gases are

188 Viskari E

- L. (2000). Epicuticular wax of Norway spruce needles as indicator of traffic pollutant deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 121:327

- 337. 189 Ugrekhelidze D, F Korte, G Kvesitadze. (1997). Uptake and transformation o f benzene and toluene by plant leaves. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 37:24

- 29. 190 Kammerbauer H, H Selinger, R Rommelt, A Ziegler

- Jons, D Knoppik, B Hock. (1987). Toxic components of motor vehicle emissions for the spruce Picea abies. Environ. Pollut. 48:235

- 24 3.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 63 of 888 treated in the exhaust sy stem. Historically , much of tailpipe emission control has focused on h ydrocarbon compounds (HC) and NO X . The portion of h ydrocarbons that is methane is minimally reactive in forming ozone. Thus, for emission control purposes, the focus is generall y on non - methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), which are also expressed as non

- methane organic gases (NMOG) in order to account for oxygenates (usually

ethanol) now usually

present in the fuel. Tailpipe hydrocarbon emissions also include several toxic pollutants, including benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde. To varying degrees, the m ass emissions of these pollutants are reduced along with other hydrocarbons by the catal yt ic converter and improved engine controls. Li ght

- and heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles also emit PM and CO. PM forms directly as a combustion product (primaril y as ele mental carbon, usually called soot) and also indirectl y as semi

- volatile hydrocarbon compounds that form particles in the exhaust system or soon after exiting the tailpipe. CO is a product of incomplete fuel combustion. When operating properl y, modern exh aust emission controls (centering on the catal yt ic convertor) can reduce much of the HC (including toxics), NO X and CO exiting the engine. However, tailpipe emissions are increased during periods of vehicle startup, as catal yt ic convertors must warm up to be effective; during subsequent operation due to the interference of sulfur in the gasoline; during high load operating events, as the catal ys t is overwhelmed or its operation is modified to protect against permanent damage; and as a vehicle ages, as the cataly st degrades in performance due to the effects of high temperature operation and contaminants in the fuel and lubricating oil. b. Evaporative Emissions Gasoline vehicles also produce vapors in the fuel tank and fuel s ys tem that can be released as evapor ative emissions. These vapors are primaril y the lighter, more volatile hydrocarbon compounds in the gasoline, which, like exhaust hydrocarbons, contribute to concentrations of VOCs in the atmosphere. As discussed in Section IV below, vehicle evaporative (“evap”) control sy stems are designed to block or capture vapors as they are generated. Vapors are generated in the vehicle fuel tank and fuel s ys tem (and released to the atmosphere if not adequatel y controlled) as fuel heats up due to ambient temperature increase and/or vehicle operation. Fuel vapors are also released when they permeate through hose material, when they leak at connections or due to damaged components, and during refueling events. In general, the evap emission controls on current veh icles (and that would be improved under this proposed rule) consist of a canister filled with activated charcoal and connected by hoses to the fuel s ys tem. The hoses direct generated vapors to the canister, which collects the vapors on the carbon and stores them until***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 64 of 888 the sy stem experiences a “purge” event. During purge, the engine draws fresh air through the canister, carryingvapors released b y the carbon to the engine to be combusted and restoring the capacity of the canister. Evaporative emissions oc cur when vapors are emitted to the atmosphere because the evap s ys tem is compromised, the carbon canister is overwhelmed, or vapors permeate or leak. As such, evaporative emission controls also involve proper material selection for fuel sy stem components, careful design of these components, and onboard diagnostics to check the s ys tem for failure. 2. How Would the Proposed Changes to Gasoline Sulfur Content Affect Vehicle Emissions? Gasoline vehicles depend to a great degree on cataly tic converters to reduce levels of pollutants in their exhaust, including NMOG and NO X , as well as PM (specifically , the volatile hydrocarbon fraction), CO, and most air toxics. The presence of sulfur in gasoline has a strong impact on these emissions, particularl y NO X , due to i ts impact on proper catal ys t operation. Sulfur naturally

occurs in crude oil and thus in gasoline. In vehicle catal yt ic converters, the precious metals that catal yz e the reactions that convert the pollutants become significantl y less efficient when sulf ur is deposited (adsorbed) onto them. The Tier 2 rulemaking required refiners to take steps to reduce sulfur levels in gasoline b y approximately 90 percent, to an average of 30 ppm. At the time there were indications that sulfur reductions below 30 ppm m ay continue to provide additional emission benefits. However, the data was insufficient to quantify the benefits to the existing fleet, and the Tier 2 vehicle standards could be achieved without lowering sulfur further. As a result, to minimize the cost of the Tier 2 program, the sulfur standard was not further reduced below 30 ppm. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, subsequent research provides a compelling case that even this level of sulfur degrades the emission performance of vehicles on the road today , and inhibits necessary further reductions in vehicle emissions performance, which depend on optimum cataly st performance to reach emission targets. A study conducted by EPA and the auto industry in support of the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule found significant reductions in NO X , CO and total HC when nine Tier 2 vehicles were tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32

- ppm fuel. 191 In particular, the study found a nearly

50 percent increase in NO X when sulfur was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Another recent study b y Umicore showed reductions of 41 percent for NO X and 17 percent for HC on a PZEV operating on fuel with 33

- ppm and 3

- ppm fuel. 192

191 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420

- R
- 07
- 002, Chapter 6 192 Ball D., Clark D., Moser D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NOx Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE 2011 World Congress Paper 2011

- 01
- 0300***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 65 of 888 A larger study recently completed by EPA confirmed th ese results, showing significant reductions in FTP

- composite NO X (23 percent), CO (12 percent) and total HC (13 percent) on the 5

- ppm fuel, relative to 28

- ppm fuel. For NO X , the majority of overall reductions were driven b y large reductions on warmed

- up p eriods of the test cycle (Bag 2), which showed a 59 percent reduction between 28 and 5

- ppm fuel, consistent with the role of sulfur in catal ys t degradation discussed above. Appl yi ng individual bag reductions to in

- use activity patterns from EPA emission m odels suggests an overall NO X reduction of nearl y 40 percent on the road. Based on these studies, the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standard are significant in two way s: they enable vehicles designed to the proposed Tier 3 tailpipe exhaust stan dards to meet these standards for the duration of their useful life, and they

facilitate immediate emission reductions from all the vehicles on the road at the time the sulfur controls are implemented. **B. How Would Emissions Be Reduced?**  The proposed standards would reduce emissions of VOC, NO X (including NO 2 ), direct PM 2.5 , CO, SO 2 , and air toxics. The proposed sulfur standards would reduce emissions from the on

- road fleet immediately upon implementation, so to reflect these earl y reductions, we present em ission reductions in calendar year 2017. The proposed vehicle standards would begin to reduce emissions as the cleaner cars and trucks begin to enter the fleet in model y ear 2017. The magnitude of reduction would grow as more Tier 3 vehicles enter the fle et. Therefore, we also present emission reductions in calendar ye ar 2030, when model year 2017 and later cars and trucks contribute nearly 90 percent of fleet

- wide vehicle miles travelled. Although 2030 is the farthest y ear that is feasible for air quali ty modeling, the full reduction of the vehicle program would be realized after 2030, when the fleet has fully turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. In Chapter 7 of the RIA, we present emission reductions projected in 2050, as well as additional calendar years b etween 2017 and 2030. Emission reductions are estimated on an annual basis, for all 50 U.S. states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The reductions were estimated using a version of EPA’s MOVES model updated for th is anal ys is, as described in detail in Chapter 7 of the RIA. This version of MOVES includes our most recent data on how vehicle emissions are affected b y changes in sulfur, ethanol, and other fuel properties. We estimated emission reductions compared to a reference case that assumed partial RFS2 implementation by 2017, with full implementation in 2022 and beyond. The ethanol scenarios used for the reference and control cases were the “post

- EPAct/EI SA” scenario defined in Chapter 7 of the RIA, reflecting a mix of E10 and E15 in 2017, and E15 only in 2030. The reference case also assumed continuation of the Tier 2 vehicle program indefinitely , and an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (10 ppm in California).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 66 of 888 As discussed throughout this preamble, implementati on of the proposed Tier 3 standards is aligned with the 2017 LD GHG standards to achieve significant criteria pollutant and GHG emissions reductions while providing regulatory certaint y and compliance efficiency to the auto and oil industries. The 2017 LD GHG standards were still in a preliminary state of development (pre

- proposal) at the time we finalized our assumptions for the Tier 3 emissions, air quality , and cost anal ys es, so we were not able to reflect them in these anal ys es . However , w e continue t o expect vehicle criteria pollutant performance to be neutral under the GHG program , because exhaust and evaporative emissions are not proportional to the amount of fuel burned; rather, our standards are expressed on a per

- mile basis, not on a per - gallon b asis. Vehicle criteria emissions are almost exclusively controlled by

a vehicle’s emissions aftertreatment sy stem and not by the efficiency of the engine. The majority

of the NMOG that is emitted from a gasoline engine is generated during cold start, b efore the cataly st is lit off, and NO X is often created during higher load operation. Optimizing catal ys t efficiency , minimizing thermal parasitics, minimizing fuel sy stem leaks , and lower gasoline sulfur will be key enablers for all vehicles to meet the Tier 3 standards, regardless of the vehicle’s fuel efficiency
. Because we do not expect the increase in fuel efficiency to result in lower criteria pollutant emissions, we did not claim in the 2017 LD GHG rule an y reductions attributable to the ability of vehicles to meet lower criteria emission levels (s ee 77 FR 62899
- 62901, October 15, 2012)
. In other words, in the 2017 LD GHG rule, we assumed that, a bsent the proposed Tier 3 standards , the light

- duty fleet would continue to meet the Tier 2 standards. Thus , we believe that the inclusion of the light

- duty GHG standards in our cost and benefit anal ys es for the proposed Tier 3 standards would have had little or no impact on the results or our conclusions, as discussed in Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3.2.1 of the draft RIA. Nevertheless, for the final rulemaking we will include the LD GHG requirements in the anal ys is. The anal ys is described here does account for the following national onroad rules:

 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulf ur Control Requirements (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000)

 Heav y - Duty

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

 Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007)

 Regulation of F uels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program (75 FR 14670, March 26, 2010)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 67 of 888  Li ght

- Dut y Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for 2012

- 2016 (75 FR 25324, May

7, 2010) The anal ys is also accounts for many other national rules and standards. In addition, the modeling accounts for state and local rules including local fuel standards, Inspection/Maintenance programs, Stage II refueling controls, the National L ow Emission Ve hicle Program (NLEV), and the section 177 s tates LEV and LEVII programs . See the Tier 3 emissions modeling TSD for more detail. A summary

of emission reductions projected to result from Tier 3, relative to the reference case, is shown in calendar years 20 17 and 2030 for NO X , VOC, direct PM 2.5 , CO, SO 2 , and total air toxics in Table III
- 1 . For man y pollutants, the immediate reductions in 2017 are significant; for example, combined NO X and VOC emissions would be reduce d by over 300,000 tons. By

2030, combined NO X and VOC emissions would be reduced b y roughl y 750,000 tons, one quarter of the onroad inventory . Man y of the modeled air toxics would be significantly reduced as well, including benzene, 1,3

- butadiene, aceta ldehyde, acrolein and ethanol (ranging from 20 to nearly 40 percent of the national onroad inventory by 2030). The relative reduction in overall emissions would continue to increase beyond 2030 as more of the fleet continues to turn over to Tier 3 vehicle s; for example, by 2050, when nearly

all of the fleet would have turned over to Tier 3 standards, we estimate the Tier 3 program would reduce onroad emissions of NO X and VOC nearly 40 percent from the level of emissions projected without Tier 3 controls. **Table III**  **- 1**  **Estimated Emission Reductions from the Proposed Tier 3 Standards**  **(Annual U.S. short tons) a**  2017 2030 Tons % of

Onroad Inventory Tons % of Onroad Inventory NO X 284,381 8% 524,790 28% VOC 44,782 3% 226,028 23% CO 746,683 4% 5,765,362 30% Direct PM 2.5 121 0.1% 7,458 10% Benzene 1,625 4% 8,58 2 36% SO 2 16,261 51% 17,267 51% 1,3
- Butadiene 322 5% 1,087 37% Formaldeh yd e 727 3% 2,707 12% Acetaldeh yd e 762 3% 4,414 26% Acrolein 23 1% 184 15% Ethanol 2,684 2% 27,821 24% a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 68 of 888 Reductions for each pollutant are discussed in the following sections, focusing on the contribution of program elements to the total reductions summarized above. 1. NO X The proposed sulfur standards would significantl y reduce NO X emissions immediately

upon implementation of the program. As discussed above, recent research on the impact of sulfur on Tier 2 technology vehicles shows the potential for significant reductions in NO X emissions from the existing fleet of Tier 2 vehicles b y lowering sulfur levels to 10 ppm. Prior research shows that NO X emissions would also be expected to decrease from the fleet of older (pre

- Tier 2) light

- duty vehicles as well as heavy

- dut y gasoline vehicles, 193 although at to a lesser extent than for Tier 2 vehicles. Table III
- 2 shows the reduction in NO X emissions, in annual short tons, projected in calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030. The reductions are split into those attributable to the introduction of low sulfur fuel in the pre

- Tier 3 flee t (defined for this analy sis as model years prior to 2017); and reductions attributable to vehicle standards enabled b y low sulfur fuel (model ye ar 2017 and later) . As shown, upon implementation of the proposed sulfur standards, total onroad NO X emissions are project ed to drop 8 percent. This is primarily due to large reductions from Tier 2 gasoline vehicles, which contribute about one

- quarter of the NO X emissions from the on

- road fleet in 2017. The relative reduction grows as cleaner vehicles turn over i nto the fleet. By

2030, we project that the reduction in overall onroad NO X inventory would be close to 30 percent. **Table III**  **- 2**  **Projected NO X**  **Reductions from Tier 3 Program (Annual U.S. Tons)**  **a 2017**  **2030 Total reduction**  **284,381 524,790**  Reduction from pre

- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 264,653 66,286 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 19,728 458,504
**Percent reduction in onroad NO**  **X emissions**  **8% 28%** 

a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.

193 Rao, V. (2001) Fuel Sulfur Effects on Exhaust Emissions: Recommendations for MOBILE6 , EPA420
- R
- 01
- 039***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 69 of 888 2. VOC Ta ble III
- 3 shows the reduction in VOC emissions, in annual short tons, projected in calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030 resulting from the proposed standards. In 2017, as with NO X , we project reductions from the pre

- Tier 3 fleet with the proposed fuel standards. By 203 0 the reduction in overall onroad VOC emissions would be over 20 percent, the majority of this from the Tier 3 fleet. The proposed evaporative standards are projected to account for roughl y one quarter of the overall vehicle program reduction in 2030. **Ta ble**  **III -**  **3 Projected VOC Reductions from Tier 3 Program (Annual U.S.**  **Tons) a**  **2017 2030**  **Total reduction 44,782**  **226,028** Reduction from pre

- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 39,561 13,739 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 5,222 212,289

Exhaust 41,433 168,264 Evaporative 3,349 57,764 **Percent reduction in onroad VOC emissions**  **3% 23%** 

a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 3. CO Table III
- 4 shows the reductions for CO, broken down by pre - and po st - Tier 3 in the manner described for NO X and VOC above. Based on research showing sizeable CO reductions from lower sulfur fuel, the immediate reductions in the onroad fleet from sulfur control are also significant. The CO exhaust standards are projecte d to reduce onroad CO emissions 30 percent by 2030. **Table III**  **- 4**  **Projected CO Reductions from Tier 3 Program (Annual U.S. Tons) 2017**  **2030 Total reduction**  **746,683 5,765,362**  Reduction from pre

- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 608,502 139,074
Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 138,181 5,626,288
**Percent reduction in onroad CO emissions**  **4% 30%** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 70 of 888 a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it.

4. Direct PM 2.5 Reductions in direct emissions of PM 2.5 are projected to result solely from the proposed vehicle tailpipe standards, so meaningful reductions are realized mainly as the fleet turns over. By 2030, we project a reduction of about 7,500 tons annually , which represents approximately 10 percent of the onroad direct PM 2.5 inventory . However, since the PM standards are mainly focused on improving engine durability

through the end of a vehicle’s useful life, the relative reduction in onroad emissions is projected to grow to 17 percent with full fleet turnover in 2050. Redu ctions in NO X and VOC emissions would also reduce secondary PM formation, which is quantified as part of the air quality analy sis described in Section III.C. 5. Air Toxics Emissions of air toxics also would be reduced b y the proposed sulfur, exhaust and evap orative standards. Air toxics are generall y a subset of compounds making up VOC, so the reduction trends tend to track the VOC reductions presented above. Table III
- 5 presents reductions for certain key air toxics, and Table III
- 6 presents reductions for the sum of 71 different toxic compounds. **Table III**  **- 5**  **Reductions for Certain Individual Compounds (Annual U.S. Tons)**

Tons Reduced in 2017 % Reduction

in Onroad Emissions Tons Reduced

in 2030 % Reduction in

Onroad Emissions Acetaldeh yd e 762 3% 4,414 26% Formaldeh yd e 727 3% 2,707 12% Acrolein 23 1% 184 15% 1,3
- Butadiene 322 5% 1,087 37% Benzene 1,625 4% 8,581 36% Naphthalene 96 2% 420 17% Ethanol 2,684 2% 27,821 24% a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. The totals shown in Table III
- 6 represent the sum of 71 species including the toxics in Table III
- 5 , 15 polycyclic aromatic h ydrocarbon (PAH) compounds in gas and particle phase, and additional gaseous compounds such as toluene, x yl enes, sty rene, hexane, 2,2,4

- trimethylpentane, n

- hexane, and propionaldeh yde (Appendix 7A in the draft RIA). As shown, in 2030 the overall onroad inventory of total***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 71 of 888 toxics would be reduced by over 20 percent, with nearl y one third of the vehicle program reductions coming from the proposed evaporative standards. **Table III**  **- 6**  **Reductions in Total Mobile Source Air Toxics (Annual U.S. Tons) 2017**  **2030 Total reduction**  **15,156 89,685**  Reduction from pre

- Tier 3 fleet due to sulfur standard 12,452 5,022 Reduction from Tier 3 fleet due to vehicle and sulfur standards 2,683 84,663

Exhaust 13,748 64,144 Evaporative 1,408 25,541 **Percent reduction in onroad toxics emissions**  **3% 23%** 

a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from the Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states. For the final rule we will account for LEV III vehicle standards in states that have subsequently adopted it. 6. SO 2 SO 2 emissions from mobile sources are a direct function of sulfur in the fuel, and reducing sulfur in gasoline would result in immediate reductions in SO 2 from the on and off

- road fleet. The reductions, shown in Table III
- 7 , are a function of the sulfur level and fuel consumption. This is reflected in the relative contribution of on

- road vehicles and off

- road equipment, where off

- road gasoline consumption accounts for approximately 5 percent of overall gasoline use. 194 **Table III**  **- 7**  **Projected SO 2**  **Reductions from Tier 3 Program (Annual U.S. Tons) 2017**  **2030 Total reduction**  **16,261 17,267**  Reduction from onroad vehicles due to sulfur standard 15,494 16,370
Reduction from off

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

194 U.S. Energy Information Administration (2011), Annual Energy Outlook 2011, DOE/EIA

0383(2011)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 72 of 888 7. Greenhouse Gases Reductions in nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions and methane (CH 4 ) emissions, both potent greenhouse gas emissions, are projected for gasoline cars and trucks due to the proposed sulfur and tailpipe standards. A study conducted by

the University of California at Riverside found a 29 percent r eduction in N 2 O emissions over the FTP when sulfur was reduced from 30 to 5 ppm, 195 while EPA research described in Section IV.A on sulfur effects found a 25 percent reduction in CH 4 emissions when sulfur was reduced from 28 to 5 ppm. Several studies have e stablished correlations between reductions in tailpipe NO X emissions and reductions in N 2 O from gasoline cars and trucks, 196 , 197 , 198 as well as correlations between reductions in tailpipe HC emissions and reductions in CH 4 . 199 , 200 One such study (Behrentz et al.) reported an N 2 O: NO X ratio of 0.095±0.035, and supported the application of N 2 O: NO X ratios to NO X emissions as a reasonable method for estimating N 2 O emission inventories. As detailed in RIA Chapter 7.3, a range of N 2 O r eductions is bounded by applying this ratio to NO X reductions projected for this proposal (from Table III
- 1), and applying the UC Riverside sulfur results to MOVES N 2 O inventories for pre

- Tier 3 vehicles. Using a 100

- ye ar global warming potential of 298 for N 2 O according to the 2007 IPCC AR4, 201 the range of reductions calculated for N 2 O is from 2.9 to 7.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO 2 e) in 2017, growing to 12.3 to 13.5 MMTCO 2 e in 2030. MOVES can be used to directl y estimate CH 4 reductions from the sulfur and vehicle standards, estimating an additional 0.1 MMTCO 2 e reduction in 2017, growing to 0.5 MMTCO2e in 2030. The range of total GHG reductions from the Tier 3 rule is 3.0 to 7.4 MMTCO 2 e in 2017, growing to 12.8 to 14.0 MMTCO 2 e in 2030. These reductions would be offset to some degree by CO 2 emissions associated with higher energy use required in the process of removing sulfur within

195 Huai, e t al. (2004) Estimates of the emission rates of nitrous oxide from light

- duty vehicles using different chassis dynamometer test cycles Atmo spheric Environment 6621

- 6629 196 Michaels, H. (1998) Emissions of Nitrous Oxide from Highway Mobile Sources , U.S. EP A EPA420
- R
- 98
- 009 197 Behrentz, et al. (2004), Measurements of nitrous oxide emissions from light

- duty motor vehicles: a pilot study Atmospheric Environment 4291

- 4303 198 Meffert, et. al (2000) Analysis of Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Light Duty Passenger Cars , SAE 2000
- 01
- 1952 199 Meszler, D. (2004), Light Duty Vehicle Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions: Greenhouse Gas Impacts Study for Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future 200 Graham, L. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 1997

- 2005 Model Year Light Duty Vehicles Environment Canada ERMD Report #04
- 44 201 The global warming potentials (GWP) used in this rule are consistent with the 100

- year time frame values in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). At this time, the 1996 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) 100

- year GWP values are used in the official U.S. greenhouse gas inventory submission to the United Nations Framew ork Convention on Climate Change (per the reporting requirements under that international convention, which were last updated in 2006). N 2 O has a 100

- year GWP of 298 and CH 4 has a 100

- year GWP of 25 according to the 2007 IPCC AR4

.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 73 of 888 the refinery . To assess the potential refinery permitting implications of the Tier 3 proposa l , we calculated the CO 2 emission impacts on a refinery

- by

- refinery basis. We used the projected refinery

- specific changes from our refinery

- by

- refinery modeling (see Chapter 5 of the draft RIA) to estimate changes in process energy and then applied emiss ion factors that correspond to those changes. The results showed an increase of up to 4.6 MMTCO 2 e in 2017 for all U
. S
. refineries complying with the lower sulfur standards assuming that the proposed sulfur standards are full y phased

- in
. 202 The actual increase is expected to be considerabl y lower, since this is a permitting anal ys is and refineries will not be operating at their permit capacity . The actual increase will also be a function of several factors, including technology

options sel ected b y the refineries and the projected use of averaging, banking and trading in avoiding the need for investments at some refineries. As a result , 4.6 MMTCO 2 e represents an upper - bound estimate of the possible increase in refinery CO 2 emissions due to the need for additional process heat and h ydrogen production to enable the additional hydrotreating required. In 2017, the range of potential decrease in CH 4 and N 2 O emissions overlaps with the range of projected increase in CO 2 from refinery processes, s uggesting that a net increase or decrease in GHG emissions cannot be quantified with certainty
. However, we estimate the program would result in net GHG reductions as the program continues into the future, as shown b y our 2030 estimates. We do not expec t the Tier 3 vehicle standards to result in any discernible changes in vehicle CO 2 emissions or fuel economy. Emissions of the pollutants that we have designed the program to address

– NMOG, NO X , and PM

– are not a function of the amount of fuel consumed, since manufacturers need to design their catal yt ic emission control sy stems to reduce these emissions regardless of their engine

- out levels. However, there may be some slight reduction of vehicle mass if manufacturers explore lighter exhaust manifold mat erials in order to reduce thermal mass and promote earlier catal ys t light

- off. EPA invites comments on any potential impacts of the proposed Tier 3 program on vehicle CO 2 emissions and fuel econom y. **C. How Would Air Pollution Be Reduced?**  Reductions in emiss ions of NO X , VOC, PM 2.5 and air toxics expected as a result of the proposed Tier 3 standards are projected to lead to significant decreases in ambient concentrations of ozone, PM 2.5 , and air toxics. The results of our air quality modeling of the impacts of the Tier 3 proposal are summarized in the following section. The air quality modeling predicts significant improvements in ozone concentrations due to the proposed Tier 3 standards. Ambient PM 2.5 and NO 2 concentrations are also expected to improve as a result of the proposed Tier 3

202 Keller, P. ( February, 201 3 ). New Source Review Permitting Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to the docket.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 74 of 888 program. Decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics are projected with the proposed standards, including notable nationwide reductions in benzene concentrations. Our air quality modeling also predicts improvements in visibility and sulfur deposition, as well as substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the proposed standards. 1. Ozone The air qualit y modeling done for this proposal projects that in 2017, with all current controls in effect but excludi ng the emissions changes expected to occur as a result of this proposed action or an y other additional controls, at least 40 counties, with a projected population of almost 50 million people, would have projected design values above the level of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard of 75 ppb
. Even in 2030 the modeling projects that in the absence of additional controls there would be 12 counties with a population of almost 32 million people with projected design values above the level of the 2008 8

- hour ozone st andard of 75 ppb
. Since the emission changes from this proposal go into effect during the period when some areas are still working to attain the ozone NAAQS, the projected emission changes would help state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain the ozone standard. Air quality modeling indicates ozone design value concentrations would decrease dramaticall y in many areas of the country

as a result of this action and in some places those decreases would be enough to change the projected d esign values from being above the NAAQS to being below the NAAQS. The decreases in ozone design values are likely

due to projected tailpipe reductions in NO X and VOCs from reductions in fuel sulfur and engine controls. In 2017, the majority

of the design value decreases are between 0.5 and 1.0 ppb. The projected population

- weighted average design value concentration without the proposed rule is 71.3 ppb in 2017. The proposed rule would also reduce the projected ozone design values in three countie s from above the level of the standard to below. These three counties are Bucks County in Penns yl vania, Arlington County

in Virginia and St L ouis County in Missouri. The projected population in these three counties in 2017 is almost 2 million people. In 2030, the proposed rule would result in larger decreases in ozone design values, with the majority of counties projecting decreases of between 1.0 and 1.5 ppb, and over 200 more counties with decreases greater than 1.5 ppb. The projected population

weighted average design value concentration without the proposed rule is 66.7 ppb in 2030. There are also two more counties whose projected design values would be reduced from above the level of the ozone standard to below by the proposed rule in 2030. These counties are Hudson County in New Jersey

and Brazoria County

in Texas. The projected population in these two counties in 2030 is over 1 million people. Table III
- 8 and Table III
- 9 show the average change in 2017 and 2030 8

- hour ozone design values for: (1) all counties with 2005 baseline design val ues, (2)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 75 of 888 counties with 2005 baseline design values that exceeded the 2008 ozone standard, (3) counties with 2005 baseline design values that did not exceed the 2008 standard, but were within 10 percent of it, (4) counties with 2017/2030 design values that exceeded the 2008 ozone standard, and (5) counties with 2017/2030 design values that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 percent of it. Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended to reflect counties that although not violating the standards, will also be impacted b y changes in ozone as they work to ensure long

- term maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 2017 and 2030, indicating in five different way s the overall improvement in air quality. On a population

- weighted basis, the average modeled future

- year 8
- hour ozone design values are projected to decrease b y 0.47 ppb in 2017 and 1.55 ppb in 2030. On a population

- weighted basis design values in those counties that are projected to be above th e 2008 ozone standard in 2017 and 2030 are projected to decrease b y 0.30 and 1.62 ppb respectivel y due to the proposed standards. **Table III**  **- 8**  **Average Change in Projected 8 -**  **hour Ozone Design Value in 2017 c**  Average a Number of U.S. Counties 2020

Populationb Change in

2017 design value (ppb) All 676 238,026,106
- 0.50 All, population

- weighted

- 0.47 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 393 176,910,535
- 0.56 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population

- weighted - 0.51 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard 201 40,516,171
- 0.47 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard, population

weighted - 0.42 Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 37 47,659,433
- 0.35 Counties whose 2017 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population

- weighted - 0.30 Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard 124 68,625,934
- 0.51 Counties whose 2017 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard, population

- weighted - 0.49

a Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 76 of 888 c This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III ve hicle standards. **Table III**  **- 9**  **Average Change in Projected 8 -**  **hour Ozone Design Value in 2030 c**  Average a Number of U.S. Counties 2030

Populationb Change in

2030 design value (ppb) All 676 261,497,900
- 1.35 All, population

- weighted

- 1.55 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 393 194,118,748
- 1.54 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population

- weighted - 1.69 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard 201 44,436,103
- 1.18 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard, population

weighted - 1.25 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard 10 30,619,714
- 1.49 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2008 8
- hour ozone standard, population

- weighted - 1.62 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard 40 21,541,863
- 1.37 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard, population

- weighted - 1.50

a Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. c This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards i n California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.

2. Particulate Matter The air qualit y modeling conducted for this proposal projects that in 2030, with all current controls in effect but excluding the emissions changes expected to occur as a result of this proposal or an y other additional controls, at least 14 counties, with a projected population of over 28 million people, would have projected design values above th e level of the annual standard of 1 2 μg/m 3 and at***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 77 of 888 least 21 counties, with a projected population of over 31 million people, would have projected design values above the level of the 24

- hour standard of 35 μg/m 3
. 203 Since the emission changes from this proposed action would go into effect during the period when some areas are still working to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the projected emission changes would be useful to state and local agencies in their effort to attain and maintain the PM 2.5 standard. The proposed rule would reduce 24

- hour and annual PM 2.5 design values in 2030. Annual PM 2.5 design values in the majority of modeled counties would decrease b y between 0.01 and 0.05 μg/m 3 and in over 100 additional counties design values are projected to dec rease b y greater than 0.05 μg/m 3

. The projected population

- weighted average design value concentration without the proposed rule is 9.5 μg/m 3 in 2030. The average modeled future

- ye ar annual PM 2.5 design values in 2030 decrease b y 0. 0 6 μg/m 3 on a populat ion

- weighted basis. Design values in those counties that are projected to be above the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2030 decrease even more, b y 0. 11 μg/m 3 on a population

- weighted basis, due to the proposed standards. In addition, the average modeled future

- year 24
- hour PM 2.5 design values in 2030 decrease b y 0. 20 μg/m 3 on a population

- weighted basis
. The projected population

- weighted average design value concentration without the proposed rule is 24.3 μg/m 3 in 2030. The decreases in PM 2.5 design values are likely due to the projected tailpipe reductions in primary PM 2.5 , NO X and VOCs. The proposed rule has little impact on PM 2.5 design values for the majority of counties in 2017, although our air qualit y modeling underestimated the PM decreases that would result from this proposal (see Section 7.4.2.3 of the draft RIA for more detail). Table III
- 10 and Table III
- 11 present the average change in 2030 annual and 24
- hour PM 2.5 design va lues for: (1) all counties with 2005 baseline design values, (2) counties with 2005 baseline design values that exceeded the PM 2.5 standard, (3) counties with 2005 baseline design values that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 percent of it, ( 4) counties with 2030 design values that exceeded the PM 2.5 standard, and (5) counties with 2030 design values that did not exceed the standard, but were within 10 percent of it. Counties within 10 percent of the standard are intended to reflect counties that although not violating the standards, will also be impacted b y changes in PM 2.5 as they work to ensure long

- term maintenance of the annual and/or 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. All of these metrics show a decrease in 2030. On a population

- weighted basis, ther e is a 0. 0 6 μg/m 3 decrease in the average modeled future

- ye ar annual PM 2.5 design values in 2030 and a decrease of 0. 1 1 μg/m 3 in those counties that are projected to be above the annual PM 2.5 standard in 2030. In addition, the average population

- weighted modeled

203 The projections from the modeling analysis for the Tier 3 proposal differ from what was presented in the recent PM NAAQS RIA ( http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html ). The differences in mo deling between the analyses stem primarily from the difference in modeling platform and the different years being evaluated (2020 vs. 2030).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 78 of 888 future

- ye ar 24
- hour PM 2.5 design values are projected to decrease b y 0. 20 μg/m 3 due to the proposed standards and design values in those counties that are projected to be above the 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard in 2030 would decrease b y 0. 32 μg/m 3

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

Population Change in 2030

design value (  g/m 3 ) All 576 247,415,381 - 0.05 All, population

- weighted

- 0.06 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard
314 1 5 2 ,10 9 , 56 9 - 0.0 5 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard, population

- weighted

- 0.0 7 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard
8 3 3 1 ,8 63 , 37 6 - 0.05 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard, population

- weighted

- 0.0 5 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard d
14 28 , 624 ,7 58 - 0.1 1 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the annual PM 2.5 standard, population

- weighted d

- 0.1 0 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard
28 2 3 , 84 0, 2 7 2 - 0. 07 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the annual PM 2.5 standard, population

- weighted

- 0. 09

a Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. c This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emissio n reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards. d Eight of these counties are in California, see Table 7
- 3 5 in the DRIA.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 79 of 888 **Table III**  **- 11**  **Average Change in Projected 24 -**  **hour PM 2.5**  **Design Values in 2030**  **c** Average a Number of U.S. Counties 2030

Populationb Change in

2030 design value (μg/m3 ) All 569 245,111,480 - 0. 1 6 All, population

- weighted

- 0. 20 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard 108 91,474,036 - 0. 2 9 Counties whose 2005 base year is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM2 .5 standard, population

- weighted
- 0. 27 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard
140 53,990,060 - 0. 1 8 Counties whose 2005 base year is within 10 percent of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard, population

weighted
- 0. 2 1 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard d 21 31,002,272 - 0. 50 Counties whose 2030 control case is violating the 2006 24
- hour PM 2.5 standard, population

- weighted d

- 0. 3 2 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard
7 4,212,913 - 0. 37 Counties whose 2030 control case is within 10 percent of the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard, population

- weighted
- 0. 5 0
a Averages are over counties with 2005 modeled design values b Population numbers based on Woods & Poole data. Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. 2001. Population by Single Year of Age CD. c This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards. d Eleven of these counties are in California, see Table 7

- 3 7 in the DRIA. 3. Nitrogen Dioxide Although our modeling i ndicates that b y 2030 the majority of the country will experience decreases of less than 0.1 ppb in their annual NO 2 concentrations due to this proposal, annual NO 2 concentrations are projected to decrease by more than 0.3 ppb in most urban areas. These e missions reductions would also likely decrease 1

- hour NO 2 concentrations and help any potential nonattainment areas to attain and maintain the standard. Additional information on the emissions reductions that are projected with this proposal is available in Section 7.2.1 of the draft RIA.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 80 of 888 4. Air Toxics Our modeling indicates that the impacts of proposed Tier 3 standards include generally

small decreases in ambient concentrations of air toxics, especially in urban areas, with notable nationwide reduction s in benzene. Although reductions are greater in 2030 (when Tier 3 cars and trucks would contribute nearly 90 percent of fleet

- wide vehicle miles travelled) than in 2017(the first y ear of the proposed program), our modeling projects there would be small i mmediate reductions in ambient concentrations of air toxics due to the proposed sulfur controls in 2017. Furthermore, the full reduction of the vehicle program would be realized after 2030, when the fleet has full y turned over to Tier 3 vehicles. Air tox ics pollutants dominated by

primary emissions (or a decay

product of a directly

emitted pollutant) have the largest impacts, rather than air toxics that primarily result from photochemical transformation. Specificall y, in 2030, our modeling projects that the proposal would decrease ambient benzene concentrations across much of the country on the order of 1 to 5 percent, with reductions ranging from 10 to 25 percent in some urban areas. Our modeling also shows reductions of 1,3

- butadiene and acrolein conce ntrations in 2030 ranging between 1 and 25 percent, with 1,3

- butadiene decreases of at least 0.005 μg/m3 in urban areas. These toxics are national risk drivers and the reductions in ambient concentrations from this proposed rule would result in reductions in risks from cancer and noncancer health effects. In some parts of the country (mainl y urban areas), ethanol and formaldeh yde concentrations are projected to decrease on the order of 1 to 5 percent in 2030 as a result of the proposal. Decreases in ethanol concentrations are expected due to reductions in VOC as a result of the proposed standards. Changes in ambient acetaldeh yd e concentrations are generally less than 1 percent across the U.S., although the proposal may decrease acetaldehyde concentrations in some urban areas b y 1 to 2.5 percent in 2030. Although the reductions in ambient air toxics concentrations expected from the proposed Tier 3 standards are generall y small, they are projected to benefit the majority of the U.S. population. As shown i n Table III
- 12 , over 80 percent of the total U.S. population is projected to experience a decrease in ambient benzene and acrolein concentrations of at least 2.5 percent, with more than 90 percent of the populations pr ojected to experience 1,3

- butadiene concentrations of similar magnitude. Over 80 percent of the U.S population is projected to experience at least a 1 percent decrease in ambient ethanol concentrations, and over 60 percent would experience a similar decre ase in ambient formaldeh yde concentrations with the proposed standards. **Table III**  **- 12**  **Percent of Total Population Experiencing Changes in Annual Am**  **bient Concentrations of Toxic Pollutants in 2030 as a Result of the Proposed Standards**  **a** Percent Change Benzene Acrolein 1,3
- Butadiene Formaldeh yd e Ethanol Acetaldeh yd e ≤
- 50***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 81 of 888 > - 50 to ≤
- 25 0.1% > - 25 to ≤
- 10 2.8% 0.7% 56.8% > - 10 to ≤
- 5 23.7% 36.8% 30.8% > - 5 to ≤
- 2.5 54.5% 43.7% 7.1% 1.2% 33.0% 0.3% > - 2.5 to ≤
- 1 17.7% 15.3% 3.4% 63.2% 55.3% 25.1% > - 1 to < 1 1.4% 3.5% 1.7% 35.6% 11.6% 74.6% ≥ 1 to < 2.5 0.0% ≥ 2.5 to < 5 ≥ 5 to < 10 ≥ 10 to < 25 ≥ 25 to < 50 ≥ 50
a This analysis assumed emissions reductions from Tier 3 vehicle standards would occur in all states and did not account for emission reductions associated with LEV III vehicle standards in California and other states that have subsequently adopted it. The analysis for the final rule will account for LEV III vehicle standards.

5. Visibility Air quality

modeling conducted for this proposed action was used to project visibility conditions in 139 mandatory class I federal areas across the U.S. The results show that in 2030 all the modeled areas would continue to have annual average deciview levels above background and the proposed rule would improve visibility in all these areas. 204 The average visibility at all modeled mandatory class I federal areas on the 20 percent worst day s is projected to improve by 0.04 deciviews, or 0.28 percent, in 2030. Section 7.2.5.5 of the draft RIA contains more detail on the visibility portion of the air qualit y modeling. 6. Nitrogen and Sulfur Deposition Our air qualit y modeling projects substantial decreases in nitrogen deposition as a result of the proposed standards. The standards would result in annual percent decreases of greater than 5 percent in most major urban areas and greater than 7 percent in a few areas. In addition, smaller decreases, in the 1 to 1.5

204 The level of visibility impairment in an area is based on the light

- extinction coefficient and a unitless visibility index, called a “deciview”, which is u sed in the valuation of visibility. The deciview metric provides a scale for perceived visual changes over the entire range of conditions, from clear to hazy. Under many scenic conditions, the average person can generally perceive a change of one decivie w. The higher the deciview value, the worse the visibility. Thus, an im provement in visibility is a decrease in deciview value.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 82 of 888 percent range, would occur over most of the rest of the country . The impacts of the proposed standards on sulfur deposition are smaller, ranging from no change to decreases of over 2 percent in some areas. For maps of 2030 deposition impacts and additional information on these impacts see Section 7.2.5.6 of the draft RIA. 7. Environmental Justice Environmental justice (EJ) is a principle asserting that all people deserve fair treatment and meaningful involvement with respect to environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA seeks to provide the same degree of protection from environmental health hazards for all people. As r eferenced below, numerous studies have found that some environmental hazards are more prevalent in areas with high population fractions of racial/ethnic minorities and people with low socioeconomic status (SES), as would be expected on the basis of those areas’ share of the general population. As discussed in Section II of this document, concentrations of many air pollutants are elevated near high

- traffic roadway s. If minority populations and low

- income populations disproportionately live near such roads, then an issue of EJ may be present. Such disparities may be due to multiple factors. 205 People with low SES often live in neighborhoods with multiple stressors and health risk factors, including reduced health insurance coverage rates, higher smoking and drug use rates, limited access to fresh food, visible neighborhood violence, and elevated rates of obesit y and some diseases such as asthma, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease. Although questions remain, several studies find stronger associations betwee n air pollution and health in locations with such chronic neighborhood stress, suggesting that populations in these areas may be more susceptible to the effects of air pollution. 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 Household

- level

205 Depro, B.; Timmins, C. (2008) Mobility and environmental equity: do housing choices determine exposure to air pollution? N orth Caroline State University Center for Environmental and Resource Economic Policy 206 Clougherty, J.E.; Kubzansky, L.D. (2009) A framework for examining social stress and susceptibility to air pollution in respiratory health. Environ Health Perspect 117: 1351
- 1358. Doi:10.1289/ehp.0900612 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 207 Clougherty, J.E.; Levy, J.I.; Kubzansky, L.D.; Ryan, P.B.; Franco Suglia, S.; Jacobson Canner, M.; Wright, R.J. (2007) Synergistic effects of traffic

- related air pollution and exposure to violence on urban asthma etiology. Environ Health Perspect 115: 1 140
- 1146. doi:10.1289/ehp.9863 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 208 Finkelstein, M.M.; Jerrett, M.; DeLuca, P.; Finkelstein, N.; Verma, D.K.; Chapman, K.; Sears, M.R. (2003) Relation betw een income, air pollution and mortality: a cohort study. Canadian Med A ssn J 169: 397
- 402. 209 Shankardass, K.; McConnell, R.; Jerrett, M.; Milam, J.; Richardson, J.; Berhane, K. (2009) Parental stress increases the effect of traffic

- related air pollution on childhood asthma incidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106: 12406

- 12411. doi :10.1073/pnas.0812910106 [Online at http://dx.doi.org]***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 83 of 888 stressors such as parental smoking and relationship s tress also may increase susceptibility

to the adverse effects of air pollution. 210 , 211 To address the existing conditions in areas near major roadway s, in comparison with other locations, we reviewed existing scholarl y literature examining the topic, and condu cted our own evaluation of two national datasets: the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey for calendar year 2009 and the U.S. Department of Education’s database of school locations. Existing publications that address EJ issues generally report th at populations living near major roadways (and other t ypes of transportation infrastructure) tend to be composed of larger fractions of nonwhite residents. People living in neighborhoods near such sources of air pollution also tend to be lower in income than people living elsewhere. Numerous studies evaluating the demographics and socioeconomic status of populations or schools near roadway s have found that they include a greater percentage of minority residents, as well as lower SES (indicated by variable s such as median household income). Locations in these studies include Los Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, Way ne County , MI, Orange County , FL, and the State of California 212 , 213 , 214 , 215 , 216 , 217 We analyzed two national databases that allowed us to evaluate whether homes and schools were located near a major road. One database, the American Housing Survey

(AHS), includes descriptive statistics of over 70,000 housing units across the nation. The study is conducted every

two years by

the U.S. Census

210 Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L (2011) Non

- chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: an overvie w of current initiatives and potential air pollutant interactions. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8: 2020

- 2073. Doi:10.3390/ijerph8062020 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 211 Rosa, M.J.; Jung, K.H.; Perzanowski, M.S.; Kelvin, E.A.; Darling, K.W.; Camann, D.E.; Chillrud, S.N.; Whyatt, R.M.; Kinney, P.L.; Perera, F.P.; Miller, R.L (2010) Prenatal exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, environmental tobacco smoke and asthma. Respir Med (In press). doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2010.11.022 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 212 Marshall, J.D. (2008) Environmental inequality: air pollution exp osures in California’s South Coast Air Basin. 213 Su, J.G.; Larson, T.; Gould, T.; Cohen, M.; Buzzelli, M. (2010) Transboundary air pollution and environmental justice: Vancouver and Seattle compared. GeoJournal 57: 595

- 608. doi:10.1007/s10708

- 009
- 9269
- 6 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 214 Chakraborty, J.; Zandbergen, P.A. (2007) Children at risk: measuring racial/ethnic disparities in potential exposure to air pollution at school and home. J Epidemiol Community Health 61: 1074

- 1079. doi: 10.1136/jech.200 6.054130 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 215 Green, R.S.; Smorodinsky, S.; Kim, J.J.; McLaughlin, R.; Ostro, B. (2003) Proximity of California public schools to busy roads. Environ Health Perspect 112: 61

- 66. doi:10.1289/ehp.6566 [http://dx.doi.org] 216 Wu, Y; Batterman, S.A. (2006) Proximity of schools in Detroit, Michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Exposure Sci & Environ Epidemiol. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500484 [Online at http://dx.doi.org] 217 Su, J.G.; Jerrett, M.; de Nazelle, A.; Wolch, J. (2011) Do es exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic gradients? Environ Res 111: 319

- 328.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 84 of 888 Bureau. We anal yz ed d ata from the 2009 AHS. The second database we anal yz ed was the U.S. Department of Education’s Common Core of Data, which includes enrollment and location information for schools across the U.S. In anal yz ing the 2009 AHS, we focused on whether or not a hou sing unit was located within 300 feet of “4

- or - more lane highway , railroad, or airport.” 218 We analyzed whether there were differences between houses and householders in such locations and those not in them. 219 We found that houses with a nonwhite householde r were 22
- 34 percent more likel y to be located within 300 feet of these large transportation facilities, while houses with a Hispanic householder were 17

- 33 percent more likel y. Households near large transportation facilities were, on average, lower in in come and educational attainment, more likely to be a rental propert y and located in an urban area. In examining schools near major roadway s, we examined the Common Core of Data (CCD) from the U.S. Department of Education, which includes information on all public elementary and secondary

schools and school districts nationwide. 220 To determine school proximities to major roadway s, we used a geographic information system (GI S) to map each school and roadway s based on the U.S. Census’s TIGER roadway file. 221 We found that minority students were overrepresented at schools within 200 meters of the largest roadway s, and that schools within 200 meters of the largest roadway s also had higher than expected numbers of students eligible for free or reduced

- price lunches. For example, Black students represent 21.57 percent of students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary

road, whereas Black students represent 16.62 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Hispanic students represent 30.13 percent of students at schools located within 200 meters of a primary road, whereas Hispanic students represent 21.93 percent of students in all U.S. schools. Overall, there is substantial evidence that people who live or attend school near major roadway s are more likely to be of a minority

race, Hispanic ethnicity , and/or low SES. The reduction of near

- roadway concentrations of man y pollutants, discussed above, is likely to help in mitigating this disparity in racial, ethnic, and economically

- based exposures.

218 This variable primarily represents roadway proximity. According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook, in 2010, the Un ited States had 6,506,204 km or roadways, 224,792 km of railways, and 15,079 airports. As such, highways represent the overwhelming majority of transportation facilities described by this factor in the AHS. 219 Bailey, C . (2011) Demographic and Social Patte rns in Housing Units Near Large Highways and other Transportation Sources . Memorandum to docket. 220 http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ 221 Pedde, M.; Bailey, C. (2011) Identification of S chools within 200 M eters of U.S. P rimary and S econdary Roads. Memorandum to the d ocket.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 85 of 888 

## IV. **Proposed Ve**  **hic le Em**  **issions Pr ogram**  In the more than 10 ye ars since EPA finalized the Tier 2 Vehicle Program, manufacturers of light

- duty vehicles have continued to develop a wide range of improved technologies capable of reducing key exhaust emissions, especially hydroc arbons, nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and particulate matter (PM). The California LEV II program has been instrumental in the continuous technology improvements by requiring year after ye ar reductions in fleet average h ydrocarbon levels in addition to requiring the introduction of advanced exhaust and evaporative emission controls in partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). This progress in vehicle technology

has made it possible for manufacturers to achieve emission reductions well beyond the requirements of the Tier 2 program if gasoline sulfur levels are lowered further. Extensive data from existing Tier 2 (and California LEV II) vehicles show the opportunity

for further reductions, especiall y i n addressing emissions produced at start - up, emissions under high

- speed, high

- load conditions, the effects of sulfur in gasoline, the effects of increased oil consumption, and the effects of vehicle and control sy stems age. For these reasons, we are proposing more stringent standards designed to reduce emissions, primarily non - methane organic gases (NMOG), NO X , and PM from new vehicles. As discussed in detail below and in the draft RIA, we have concluded that, in conjunction with the reductions in fuel sulfur proposed in this action, the proposed vehicle emissions stan dards are feasible and cost

- effective across the fleet in the proposed timeframe. We believe that simultaneous reductions in fuel sulfur would be a key factor in enabling the entire fleet of light

- dut y vehicles to meet the proposed emission standards in

- u se, throughout the life of the vehicle. This section describes in detail the proposed program for reducing tailpipe and evaporative emissions from light

- dut y vehicles (LDVs, or passenger cars), light

- duty trucks (LDT1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s), Medium

- Duty Passeng er Vehicles (MDPVs), and heav y - duty vehicles (HDVs). Sections IV.A and B discuss the proposed tailpipe emission standards and time lines, and other provisions for new light

- duty vehicles and MDPVs and for new heavy

- dut y vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross Veh icle Weight Rating (GVWR). Section IV.C presents the proposed evaporative emissions standards and program as well as proposed improvements to the existing Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) provisions. In Section IV.D, we describe our proposal to update our feder al certification fuel to better match today ’s in

- use fuel and to be forward

- looking with respect to potential future gasoline ethanol and sulfur content. We also discuss in this section proposed compliance flexibilities for small companies and small

- volum e manufacturers (IV.E) and test procedure and other compliance provisions (IV.F).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 86 of 888 **A. Tailpipe Emission Standards for Light**  **- Duty Vehicles, Light**  **- Duty Trucks,**  **and Medium -**  **Duty Passenger Vehicles** 1. Overview The proposed Tier 3 standards are very similar in structure to those in the Tier 2 program. As with the Tier 2 program, the proposed standards would apply to all LDVs and LDTs below 8,500 lbs GVWR, and MDPVs (8,500 to 10,000 lbs GVWR). (We discuss the proposed standards for heav y - dut y vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR other than MDPVs, in Section IV.B below.) Also as with Tier 2, manufacturers would select from several “bins” of emission standards such that the average of their vehicles’ emissions complies with the proposed fleet

- average standards. In the discu ssions of the various elements of our proposed program for light

and heav y - dut y vehicles throughout this preamble, we describe how the provisions would be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) LEV III program. 222 Auto manufacturers hav e stressed to us the importance of their being able to design and produce a single fleet of vehicles in all 50 states that would comply with requirements under the Tier 3 program and the LEV III program, as well as greenhouse gas/CAFE requirements in the s ame timeframe. Consistency among the federal and California programs means that special versions of vehicles with different emission control hardware and calibrations would not be necessary for different geographic areas. This would allow manufacturers t o avoid the additional costs of parallel design, development, calibration, and manufacturing. Consistency

among programs would also eliminate the need to suppl y aftermarket parts for repair of multiple versions of a vehicle. We believe that the most cost

effective national program will result from close coordination of CARB LEV III and federal Tier 3 program elements and their implementation. To that end, we worked closel y with CARB and the vehicle manufacturers, both individually and through their trade associations, to align the two programs. The Tier 3 program we are proposing is identical to L EV III in most major respects for both light

- duty and heav y - dut y vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions requirements, as discussed in detail below in this se ction. The levels and the timing of the light

- duty and heav y - dut y declining fleet

- average NMOG+NOx standards that we are proposing would be identical to those in LEV III. Also, the Tier 3 emissions bins to which manufacturers would certify individual veh icle models in order to comply with the average standards, for both light

- and heavy

duty vehicles, would also be identical to those in LEV III. Similarly , the proposed Tier 3 per

- vehicle PM standards match LEV III standards through MY 2024. In addition, our proposed primary evaporative emissions standards and onboard diagnostics requirements are also identical to the LEV III requirements.

222 LEV III program as approved by the California Air Resources Board, January 2012***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 87 of 888 We note there are a few proposed Tier 3 provisions that CARB and EPA understand would be different, for reasons dis cussed below. Specifically , these include the LEV III program and our proposed Tier 3 program would have different light

- duty PM requirements late in the program (i.e., after MY 2024 (IV.A.3.b.)), would require different test fuels (E10 and E15, respectiv el y (IV.A.3.c)), and only EPA would have an evaporative leak test (IV.C.5.b). EPA and CARB will continue to work toward additional consistency between our programs whenever practicable as both programs are implemented. Beyond these three provisions, the differences between the programs would not be major and would exist only in the early transitional years of the Tier 3 program. These differences would result from the fact that the LEV III requirements begin slightl y earlier and that a limited phase

- in o f some provisions would be necessary for a smooth transition to overall aligned programs. These temporary differences would include the process for how earl y compliance credits would be generated and used (e.g., Section IV.A.7.a); how quickly manufacturer s would need move toward certifying all of their vehicle models to longer useful

- life values (e.g., Section IV.A.7.b) and on the new test fuel (e.g., Section IV.A.7.c); and transitional emissions bins to facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3 (IV. A.7.m). Similarly , the primary Tier 3 evaporative standards would have a brief phase in period, temporaril y resulting in requirements that would be slightly

different from those in LEV III. The proposed Tier 3 program is designed primarily to reduce exhau st and evaporative emissions during summer ambient temperature conditions when NMOG, NO X and PM emissions contribute to air quality concerns. We are not proposing new emission requirements for an y vehicle or fuel over the cold temperatures test cycles (i. e., the 20 ° F cold CO and NMHC tests). However, we seek comment on the need for doing so, including vehicles operating on E85 fuel, and on the appropriate form and level for an y such cold

- temperature requirements. 2. Summary

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

average standards, meaning that the manufacturer would calculate the average emissions of the vehicles it sells in each model year and compare that averag e to the applicable standard for that model year. The proposed fleet average standards for NMOG+NO X evaluated over the FTP are summarized in Ta ble I
- 1
. (For***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 88 of 888 comparison, the average NMOG and NO X standard for the Tier 2 program, when added together, equal 160 mg/mi). The standards would begin in MY 2017 at a level representing a 46 percent r eduction from the current Tier 2 requirements for lighter vehicles and would become increasingl y stringent, culminating in an 81 percent reduction in MY 2025. The proposed FTP NMOG+NO X program includes separate fleet average standards for lighter and heav ier vehicles that would converge at 30 milligrams per mile (mg/mi) in MY 2025 and later. 223 , 224 Manufacturers would determine their fleet average FTP NMOG+NO X emission values based on the per

- vehicle “bin standards” to which they certified each vehicle model. As with the Tier 2 program, manufacturers would be free to choose to certify

vehicles to any

of the bins, so long as the sales

- weighted average of the NMOG+NO X values from the selected bins met the fleet average standard for that model year. Table IV
- 1 presents the per

- vehicle bin standards. Similarly , the proposed fleet average NMOG+NO X standards measured over the SFTP are summarized in Table I
- 2 . The proposed SFTP NMOG+NO X fleet average standards decline from MY 2017 until MY 2025. In this case, the same standards would apply

to both lighter an d heavier vehicles. In MY 2025, the SFTP NMOG+NO X standard would reach its full y phased

- in fleet average level of 50 mg/mi. We are also proposing PM standards as part of this Tier 3 program. The proposed PM standards would apply to each vehicle separatel y (i.e., not as a fleet average). Also, in contrast to the declining NMOG+NO X standards, the proposed certification PM standard on the FTP is 3 mg/mi for all vehicles and for all model ye ars, but phasing in beginning in MY 2017 for vehicles at or below 6, 000 lbs GVWR and in MY 2018 for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR. Based on EPA and CARB test programs, most current light dut y vehicles are already performing at or below this level. However, some vehicles are emitting above this level, due to such factors as combustion chamber designs, and fuel and oil consumption controls that are not optimized for low PM emissions. The intent of the proposed 3 mg/mi standard is to bring all light

- dut y vehicles to the PM level typical of that being demonstrated b y most li ght

- duty vehicles today
. To address the uncertainties that will accompan y the introduction of new technologies, the proposed program also includes a separate in

- use FTP PM standard of 6 mg/mi for the testing of in

- use vehicles during the phase

- in period, as described in more detail below. As presented in Table I
- 3 , for vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR, these FTP certification and in

- use standards would be phased in beginning with a requirement that at least 20 percent of a company’ s U.S. sales

223 The proposed declining NMOG+NO X fleet

- average standards would consist of one set of declining standards that would apply to light

- duty vehicles (LDVs) and small light trucks (LDT1s) and a second set of declining standards that would apply to heavier light trucks (LDT2s, LDT3s. LDT4s), and MDPVs. 224 This preamble presents the proposed standards in terms of milligrams per mile for convenience. The associated regulatory language will continue to present the standard in terms of grams per mile for consistency with earlier programs.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 89 of 888 meet the standards in MY 2017 and reaching a 100 percent compliance requirement in MY 2021. The proposed standards represent a significant numerical reduction from the Tier 2 PM emission standards of 10 mg/mi for light

- dut y vehicles. Finally , the proposed Tier 3 program includes PM standards evaluated over the US06 cycle (a component of the SFTP test, discussed further below) at a level of 10 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6,000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. We are proposing separate standards for different sizes of vehicles because PM generation ty picall y increases when vehicles are carrying heavier loads and/or when they are pulling trailers. The US06 PM standards would phase in on the same schedule as the FTP PM standards, reaching 100 percent of each company ’s U.S. sales by MY 2022. These US06 standards would appl y to the same vehicle models that a manufacture chose to certify to the FTP PM standard during the percent phase in period. PM levels over the US06 are t ypically higher than the PM e mitted over the FTP due to the increased load on the vehicle. As in the case of the FTP PM standards, the intent of the proposed standard is to bring the emission performance of all vehicles to that already being demonstrated by

man y vehicles in the cur rent light

- duty fleet. As with the FTP PM standard, we propose a separate in

- use US06 PM standard during the percent phase

- in period of 15 and 25 mg/mi for vehicles of 6000 lbs GVWR and less, and for vehicles above 6,000 lbs GVWR, respectively
. The next subsections describe in more detail the proposed standards, how they would be implemented over time, and the technological approaches that we believe will be available to manufacturers in order to comply
. 3. Proposed FTP Standards As summarized above, we propose new standards for the primary pollutants of concern for this rule (NMOG, NO X , and PM) as measured on the FTP. The following paragraphs describe in more detail these FTP standards for NMOG+NO X and PM, as well as for carbon monoxide (CO) and formal deh yde (HCHO).
a. FTP NMOG+NO X Standards We propose that the Tier 3 NMOG and NO X standards, both of which are important to reduce ambient ozone concentrations, be expressed in terms of the sum of the two pollutants, or as NMOG+NO X in mg/mi. 225 This approach c ontrasts with the Tier 2 standards, which were expressed as separate NMOG and NO X standards. We believe that the combined standard is appropriate for this proposed program for several reasons. At the stringent proposed emission levels, combining NMOG and NO X would provide a small amount of compliance flexibility , while at the same time significantl y reducing both NMOG and NO X emission levels. For example,

225 In the past, EPA has taken a similar combined

- standard approach for heavy

- duty highway engines and many categories of nonroad engines.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 90 of 888 the combined standard would allow a gasoline vehicle manufacturer to have slightly higher NMOG if it were offset by lower NO X , or allow a diesel vehicle manufacturer to have slightly higher NO X if offset by

lower NMOG. This approach still ensures major reductions in both pollutants compared to today ’s levels. This is because the very

stringent level of the full y phased

- in proposed combined standard (30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X ) means that even with a degree of allowed trading off of one pollutant for the other, the maximum emissions of either pollutant would need to be well below current levels. The standards of the California LEV III program would also be expressed as NMOG+NO X ; aligning Tier 3 with LEV III in this respect would facilitate an important element of a national program. We believe that a full y phased

- in level for the proposed fleet

- average standard o f 30 mg/mi is the most stringent level that we could reasonabl y propose in the context of our proposed 10

- ppm average standard for gasoline sulfur. As discussed in the feasibility Section IV.A.5 below, when necessary margins of compliance are considered, this proposed standard is very close to zero. We request comment on this level for the proposed standard, as well as the declining standards during the transition years (see Table IV
- 3 below). EPA is proposing compliance mechanisms for the new Tier 3 FTP standards that are the same in most respects as those of the Tier 2 program. Using the Tier 2 approaches as much as pos sible would streamline the implementation of the program by maintaining most of the compliance processes that manufacturers are familiar with today
. A key compliance mechanism adapted from the Tier 2 program is a “bin” structure for the proposed emission standards. For these purposes, a bin is a set of several standards that are intended to be complied with as a group. Thus each Tier 3 bin would have an NMOG+NO X standard and a PM standard , as well as CO and HCHO standards. A manufacturer choosing to ce rtify a vehicle to a certain bin would need to meet each of that bin’s standards for the full useful life of the vehicle. In this approach, manufacturers could certify vehicles to any

of the bins, but they would have to ensure that average NMOG+NO X of the bins to which all of its vehicles were certified met the fleet average standard specific to the vehicle category (i.e., LDV/LDT1 and LDT2/3/4/MDPVs) for that model y ear. That is, a manufacturer would comply by ensuring that the sales

- weighted average of the NMOG+NO X values of the bins to which each of its vehicle models was certified was lower than the fleet average standard that applied for that model year. For each proposed bin, we are including CO and HCHO standards at levels intended to prevent new en gine and emission control designs that would result in increases in today ’s CO and HCHO emissions. The standards are based on the comparable current LEV II and Tier 2 bin standards for these pollutants. The current standards do not appear to be technolog y - forcing, and we believe that this would continue to be the case as Tier 3 technologies are developed. The bin structure that we are proposing for light duty vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and MDPVs standards is presented in Table IV
- 1
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 91 of 888 **Table IV**  **- 1**  **Proposed FTP Standards for LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs (mg/mi)** Bin NMOG+ NO X

(mg/mi) PM a

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) HCHO

(mg/mi) Bin 160 160 3 4.2 4 Bin 125 125 3 2.1 4 Bin 70 70 3 1.7 4 Bin 50 50 3 1.7 4 Bin 30 30 3 1.0 4 Bin 20 20 3 1.0 4 Bin 0 0 0 0 0

a In MYs 2017
- 20, the PM standard applies only to that segment of a manufacturer’s vehicles covered by the percent of sales phase

- in for that model year. Consistent with the Tier 2 principle of vehicle and fuel neutrality, we are proposing that the same standards appl y to LDVs, LDTs, or MDPVs, regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles certified to operate on an y fuel (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, E85, CNG, LNG, hydrogen, and methanol) would all be subject to the same standards. We propose to maintain the fleet

- average approach of the Tier 2 standards. Unlike Tier 2, the proposed Tier 3 fleet

- average standards would decline annually to a fully phased

- in level of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . (The Tier 2 program, after a period of transitio n, established a single fleet average standard for all model years.) Specificall y, we are proposing NMOG+NO X standards as measured on the FTP that would reduce the combined fleet

- average emissions graduall y from MY 2017 through 2025, as shown in Table IV
- 2 below. Beginning in MY 2017, we propose separate fleet average standards for lighter and heavier vehicles that would both decline annually , convergi ng in MY 2025. These proposed declining average standards are identical to CARB’s LEV III standards. 226 The declining fleet

- average NMOG+NO X standard requirement would begin in 2017 for light

- dut y vehicles and light

- dut y trucks with a GVWR up to and includi ng 6 , 000 lbs and in 2018 for all other light

- duty vehicles and light

- duty trucks (i.e., those with a GVWR greater than 6 , 000 lbs). The standards would apply to the heavier vehicles a year later to facilitate the transition to a 50

- state program for all manufacturers. During this transition period, there would be two fleet

average NMOG+NO X standards for each model year, one for LDVs and LDT1s and

226 See California Low

- Emission Vehicles (LEV) & GHG 2012 regulations adopted by State of California Air Resources Board, March 22, 2012, Resolution 12

- 21 incorporating by reference Resolution 12

- 11 , which was adopted January 26, 2012. Available at http://www .arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm (last accessed November 19 , 2012).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 92 of 888 a second fleet

- average standard for all other LDTs (LDT2s, LDT3s, and LDT4s) and for MDPVs. We are proposing th at the fleet

- average standards decline in a linear way

from MY 2017 through MY 2025, at which point the two fleet

- average standards would converge and stabilize for later model years at the same level, 30 mg/mi, as shown in Table IV
- 2 . Note that these fleet average standards are for LDT2 and larger vehicles, and for LDVs and LDT1s that manufacturers certify to the 150,000 mile useful life value. Sect ion IV.A.7.b discusses how the Clean Air Act defines the useful life values for certification purposes and how EPA proposes to also provide for certification to slightly lower emissions standards to a useful life value of 120,000 miles, representing a leve l of stringency that is equivalent to that of the emission standards corresponding to the 150,000 mile useful life, for LDVs and LDT1s. **Table IV**  **- 2**  **Proposed LD V, LDT,**  **and MDPV Fleet Average FTP NMOG+NO X**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

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

a For vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, the fleet average standards would apply beginning in MY 2018. b These proposed standards apply for a 150,000 mile useful life. Manufacturers could choose to certify all of their LDVs and LDV1s to a useful life of 120,000 miles. If any of these families are certified to the shorter useful life, a proportionally lower numerical fleet average standard would apply, calculated by multiplying the respective 150,000 mile standard by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest mg. EPA is also proposing an alternative phase

- in of the 30 mg/mi FTP NMOG+NO X standard that would be available if a manufacturer prefers a stable standard and four full ye ars of lead time, as specified in the Clean Air Act for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. F or MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR to the primary declining FTP fleet average standards, as in the primary program. Then, beginning in MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard of 30 mg/mi would appl y to an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s light

- duty vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. The percent phase

- in would match the proposed PM percent phase

- in schedule, as discussed below

– specificall y 40 percent of sales in MY 2019, 70 percent in MY 2020, and 100 percent in MY 2021 and later model ye ars. A manufacturer choosing to certify any vehicle to this alternative phase

- in would need to use this approach for all its models in MYs 2019 and later; certifying part of its fleet to the declining fleet average after MY 2018 would not be permitted, since the structures of the two approaches, including the earl y credits provisions of the NMOG+NOx fleet average program, would not be consistent. A m anufacturer***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 93 of 888 certifying to this alternative phase

- in would also need to compl y with the alternative SFTP N MOG+NOx phase

- in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM phase

- ins as described below. Vehicles covered b y the alternative phase

- in programs would be considered “final Tier 3” vehicles and thus would also comply with the Tier 3 certification fuel and full useful life provisions. EPA requests comment on this alternative phase

- in approach as well as on the primary option above. b. FTP PM Standards We also propose new FTP standards for PM emissions, as summarized in Table IV
- 3 below. For many years, EPA’s focus for mobile source PM was on diesel engine emissions. In recent years, the very effective controls on PM exhaust emissions that manufacturers h ave developed for heav y - dut y diesel engines have been successfull y applied to light

- duty diesel engines as well. At the same time, attention to gasoline engine PM emissions has increased as research has demonstrated that the level of PM from gasoline light dut y vehicles is more significant than had been previously thought. 227 Under t ypical driving, as simulated by the FTP, the PM emissions of most current - technology

gasoline vehicles are fairly low, well below the Tier 2 PM standards. At the same time we s ee considerable variation in PM emissions among vehicle models not consistently associated with any

specific engine or emission control technology (Section 1.5.1 of the draft RIA) . As a result, we are proposing a new FTP PM standard that is set to ensure that all new vehicles would perform at a level representing what is already being achieved by well

- designed Tier 2 emission control technologies. PM emissions over the FTP are generall y attributed to the cold start, when PM formation from combustion of the fuel is facilitated by the operating conditions, including a cold combustion chamber and fuel enrichment . During cold start, PM control via oxidation of semi

- volatile organic compounds from the lubricating oil by catal yt ic converters is less effective
. We believe that the proposed FTP PM standard can be achieved with improvements to the fuel controls during the cold start without the need for any new technology

or hardware . Improvements in cold

start exhaust cataly st performance for NMOG+NOx control w ill also reduce emissions of semi

- volatile organic PM . As such, cold start PM levels are relatively independent of vehicle application and therefore we are proposing a single FTP PM standard for all light

- duty and MDPV vehicles. The PM standard level we are proposing would ensure that future PM performance is consistent with current well

performing Tier 2 vehicles. Unlike the NMOG+NO X FTP standard, the PM

227 Nam , E.; Fulper, C.; Warila, J.; Somers, J.; Michaels, H.; Bauldauf, R.; Rykowski, R.; and Scarboro, C. Analysis of Particulate Matter Emissions from Light

- Duty G asoline Vehicles in Kansas City, EPA420

- R
- 08
- 010. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ann Arbor, MI, April 2008.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 94 of 888 standard would not decline over time, since most manufacturers are already producing vehicles that w ould meet the proposed new standards. Although we believe it is important that the proposed FTP PM standard apply from the beginning of the Tier 3 program, we are proposing several provisions to provide a degree of flexibility for manufacturers in how many vehicle models would need to meet that standard in the early years of the program. Manufacturers have raised several issues that we believe these provisions would address. In meetings with EPA, several manufacturers have expressed concerns about how a PM standard in the range of the proposed 3 mg/mi standard would be implemented. One concern related to the initial uncertainties about PM emissions performance that will accompany the development of new engine technologies, including those that may

be introduced to address the GHG emissions/fuel econom y standards that EPA and NHTSA recently finalized for these vehicles. Also, manufacturers expressed concerns related to the testing of PM on the FTP, particularl y about potential updates to the test procedures required to accurately measure PM at very

low levels. Finall y, related to the concerns about the new test procedures are the current limitations that exist for some manufacturers regarding the capacity

of their test facilities to perform a significant volume of gasoline vehicle PM testing. For these reasons, we are proposing a percent

- of

- sales phase

- in during the first 5 years of the program to address these concerns. Beginning in MY 2017 (and in MY 2018 for vehicles over 6 , 000 lbs GVWR), manufactur ers would comply with the PM standard with a minimum of 20 percent of their U.S. sales. As shown in Table IV
- 3 , the percentage of the manufacturer’s s ales that would need to comply would increase each ye ar, reaching 100 percent in MY 2021. In addition to this percent phase

- in, we are proposing a separate PM standard of 6 mg/mi that would apply onl y for in

- use testing of vehicles certified to the new st andards, and only during the percent phase

- in period. Due to the MY 2018 start date for vehicles over 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, manufacturers that have few or no vehicle models over 6 , 000 lbs GVWR would be required to certify a larger percentage of their total light

- duty sales in MY 2017 than full line manufacturers. While we believe that most manufacturers would likely choose a single l arge - volume durabilit y group to meet the 2017 requirements, we seek comment on an option to comply with the MY 2017 PM requirements by allowing manufactures to certify 10 percent of all their light

- dut y vehicle sales in MY 2017 to the new PM standards , including light

- duty vehicles over 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs
. This approach would be consistent with the CARB LEVIII program , which requires that 10 percent of all light

- duty vehicle sales meet the new PM standards in MY 2017. Because of the expected time and expense of performing emission tests on the improved PM test procedures, we are proposing to limit the number of test s***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 95 of 888 using the new procedure s that a manufacturer would need to perform at certification and during in

- use testing. Specificall y, manufacturers would be required to test vehicles representing a minimum of 25 percent of a model’s durability test groups during certification each model year (and a minimum of 2 durability groups). 228 Manufacturers could select which durability groups to test, but would need to rotate the groups tested each ye ar to eventuall y cover their whole fleet. Similarly, manufacturers perfo rming in

- use testing under the In - Use Verification Program could limit their testing to 50 percent of their low

- and high

- mileage test vehicles. Again, manufacturers would need to rotate their vehicle models so that each model would be tested every

other year. Overall, we believe that the flexibility that these proposed provisions would provide would facilitate the expeditious implementation of the proposed program, with no significant impact on the potential benefits of the program. The PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent technically feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of this proposal. Although the CARB LEV III program includes a 1 mg/mi standard which will begin phasing in starting in MY 2025, they acknowledge th at there is a need for continuing PM measurement method development prior to implementing this standard. 229 Inorder for EPA to propose a standard at this level, there must be established methods to reliably and consistentl y measure PM below that standard, for compliance purposes. We request comment on all of the proposed FTP standards, their structure, and their implementation schedules.

**Table IV**  **- 3**  **Summary of Proposed FTP Standards** Program Element Units Model Year Notes
2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 NMOG+NO X Standard (fleet average) mg/mi Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV
- 2 ) b

PM Standards Phase

- in % 20 20 40 70 100 100 100

FTP Certification mg/mi 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Note c
In
- use mg/mi 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 Note d

228 Durability groups are a subset of engine families. Several engin e families may have the same durability group. 229 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, , December 7, 2011***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 96 of 888 a For vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, the proposed FTP PM wo uld apply beginning in MY 2018. b The percent phase

- in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards. c Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2. d Manufacturers would be r equired to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in

- use vehicles
. As with the proposed FTP NMOG+NO X standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase

- in of the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard that would be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the alternative phase

- in for the FTP NMOG+NO X program above could also postpone the beginning of the phase

- in for PM compliance for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR until MY 201 9. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR to the 3 mg/mi FTP PM standard (and have a 6 mg/mi in

- use PM standard) for 20 percent of its sales in each of those years, as with the primary PM percent phase

- in schedul e. Then, for MYs 2019 and later, it would comply with the 3 mg/mi ( and 6 mg/mi in

use) PM standards for their LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. For MYs 2019 and 2020 (i.e., before the phase

- in is full y implemented in MY 2021), m anufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to meet the PM standard on the same segment of their fleet vehicles being used to meet the NMOG+ NO X fleet average standard, and at the applicable phase

- in percentage of sales for the given model ye ar. Manufacturers certifying to the alternative PM phase

- in standard would also need to compl y with the alternative US06 PM phase

in as described below, as well as the NMOG+ NO X FTP and SFTP phase

- ins. EPA requests comment on this alternative phase

- in app roach as well as on the primary PM phase

- in option above. 4. Proposed SFTP Standards In addition to the proposed FTP standards, we are proposing NMOG+NO X and PM standards as measured on the SFTP. The SFTP (and specificall y the US06 component of the test) is designed to simulate higher speeds and higher acceleration rates (and thus higher loads) when substantially more heat can be generated during the combustion process. It is during these kinds of operation that engines can go into a fuel “enrichment” m ode, where the engine’s controls may temporarily

create a rich air/fuel mixture to protect exhaust components from thermal damage. Enrichment can increase emissions of NMOG+NO X and PM, primarily due to the incomplete combustion that occurs under rich conditions and the diminished effectiveness of the catalyst in these circumstances. However, enrichment can be minimized or eliminated in current and future engines, where components can be thermally protected even under high

- load conditions by careful electronic management of the air/fuel mixture and the combustion process. To reduce emissions caused b y excessive enrichment, we are proposing new SFTP standards. Further, as descri bed in Section IV.A.4.c below, we are proposing limitations on the magnitude of enrichment that could be commanded by the vehicle operator . We describe the proposed SFTP standards in the following paragraphs.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 97 of 888 We are also proposing an SFTP composite CO st andard of 4.2 g/mi for all model years 2017 (or 2018) and later. This standard represents no effective change from the current Tier 2 SFTP CO standard, which we believe is already at a level that is sufficiently

stringent.
a. SFTP NMOG+NO X Standards We hav e reviewed certification and in

- use NMOG and NO X data on a wide range of recent vehicles as tested on the US06 cycle. See Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for an anal ys is of this data. It is clear that most current vehicles are generall y avoiding significant e nrichment events during high

- load operation and thus achieve relativel y low NMOG+NO X emissions on the US06 test. The data shows that with minor (if an y) improvements to engine calibrations and with no significant loss of performance, manufacturers are abl e to essentially eliminate enrichment events and their emissions consequences. Thus, as presented in Table IV
- 5 below, we are proposing new composite SFTP standards for NMOG+NO X at levels that would be more stringent than those required b y the existing Tier 2 program. We believe that the new standards would require emission performance at levels currentl y achieved today by most vehicles under high

- loa d operation, and we do not believe that significant additional reductions would result from SFTP standards more stringent than the proposed 50 mg/mi fully phased

- in level. The SFTP emissions value for certification of gaseous pollutants would continue to be calculated as a weighted composite value of emissions on three cycles (0.35 x FTP + 0.28 x US06 + 0.37 x SC03), as is done for the Tier 2 SFTP standards. We believe that the proposed standards could be more challenging in the earl y ye ars of the program. Thus, we propose a declining fleet average standard that would become increasingl y stringent from MY 2017 to MY 2025. Manufacturers would comply with a declining NMOG+NO X fleet

- average SFTP standard for each year beginning in MY 2017 (MY 2018 for vehi cles over 6000 lbs GVWR) and culminating for MY 2025 and later with a fleet

- average standard of 50 mg/mi. To provide flexibility in meeting the fleet

- average standards, manufacturers would determine for themselves what the specific SFTP composite standard would be for an individual vehicle famil y and report that self

- selected standard and the measured emission performance. (These self

- selected standards are analogous to “family emission limits,” or “FELs,” used in other programs (e.g., heav y - duty highway engine standards).) For each famil y, a manufacturer would choose an y composite NMOG+NO X standard, up to 180 mg/mi, in even 10 mg/mi increments. The manufacturer would then calculate the sales

- weighted average of all the selected standards of the families across its fleet and compare that emissions value to the applicable fleet

- average standards for that model year. Table IV
- 4 presents the proposed dec lining fleet

- average SFTP NMOG+NO X standards. As with the proposed FTP NMOG+ NO X and PM standards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase

- in of the 50 mg/mi SFTP NMOG+ NO X standard***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 98 of 888 that would be available if a manufacturer prefers a stable standard and four full ye ars of lead time for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. F or MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR to the primary SFTP declining fleet average standards, as in the primary program. Then, beginning in MY 2019, a stable fleet average standard of 50 mg/mi would apply to an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s light

- dut y vehicles, light

- duty trucks, and MDPVs, both up to and above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. The percent phase

- in would match the proposed PM percent phase

- in schedule, as discussed below . A m anufacturer certifying to this alternative phase

- in would also need to compl y with the alternative FTP NMOG+ NO X phase

- in and the alternative FTP PM and US06 PM phase

- ins, as described elsewhere in this section. EPA requests comment on this alternative phase

- in approach as well as on the primary option above. b. US06 PM Standards Our proposed approach to addressing PM emissions on the US06 test (a component of the composite SFTP standard) is somewhat different from the SFTP standards that we are proposing for NMOG and NO X emissions. In the case of PM, US06 data on recent vehicles shows that current gasoline vehicles can have very low PM emissions, but US06 PM emission levels vary depending on man y factors
. In some cases, manufacturer emission control strategies that are sensitive to variations in operating conditions (e.g., variation due to driver behavior or automatic transmission shift points) appear to result in very low PM levels during some tests and y et higher PM on other tests on the same vehicle when driven slightly different ly . We also believe that some of the observed high PM emissions may be partl y due to increasing oil consumption in vehicles as they age, especiall y under higher

- load conditions or hard closed

- throttle deceleration conditions. Thus, we now believe that more focus on vehicles as they age is important. We have designed the proposed US06 PM standards in light of all of these factors, which relate to PM emission formation under relat ively extreme driving conditions. For these standards, we are proposing to focus on the US06 cycle component of the composite SFTP, since most of our concern about PM formation and sensitivity

of engine controls arises from high

- speed, high

- load driving c onditions. Similarly , the quantity of PM emissions from warmed

- up engines is closely related to engine load, since the higher rate of fuel consumption results in more opportunities for PM to form. For this reason, we propose that heavier vehicles, which face high

- load conditions more frequently than lighter vehicles, comply with a higher US06 standard and lighter vehicles compl y with a lower standard. The proposed US06 PM standard would be 10 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and 20 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. EPA is seeking comment on the use of vehicle weight to establish separate US06 PM standards for cars and trucks. The data presented in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA demonstrate that today ’s heavier vehicles are already achieving PM emiss ion levels well below our proposed 20 mg/mi standard and are approximately equivalent to the performance of lighter vehicles. According to our data,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 99 of 888 manufacturers appear to be controlling PM emissions in heavier vehicles over severe dut y cycles. Thus, EP A seeks comment on the proposed US06 PM standards in general, including whether EPA should adopt a common US06 standard of 10 mg/mi for all light

- dut y vehicles. As is the case for the proposed FTP PM standards, we are proposing a single per - vehicle maximum standard to appl y in each model year, with an allowable percentage phase

- in schedule identical to the FTP PM phase

- in. Finally , as with the FTP PM standard (and for the same reasons), we propose a slightly

less stringent in

- use US06 PM standard that w ould appl y during the percent phase

- in period only . The proposed in

- use SFTP PM standards would be 15 mg/mi for vehicles at or below 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi for heavier vehicles. As with the proposed FTP and SFTP NMOG+ NO X standards and FTP PM stand ards, EPA is also proposing an alternative phase

- in of the 20 mg/mi PM standard as measured on the US06 cycle, that would be available if a manufacturer prefers 4 full years of lead time for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. A manufacturer that chooses the a lternative phase

- in for the FTP NMOG+ NO X program above could also postpone the beginning of the phase

- in for US06 PM compliance for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR until MY 2019. For MYs 2017 and 2018, a manufacturer would certify vehicles up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR to the 10 mg/mi FTP PM standard (and have a 15 mg/mi in

- use standard) for 20 percent of its sales in each of those ye ars, as with the primary PM percent phase

- in schedule. Then, for MYs 2019 and later , it would comply with the respective standards fo r vehicles up to and above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR for their LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs (i.e., 10 mg/mi and 15 mg/mi (in

- use) for vehicles up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, and 20 mg/mi and 25 mg/mi (in

- use) for vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. ) F or MYs 2019 and 2020, manufacturers choosing this alternative would be required to meet both the FTP PM and the US06 PM standards on the same segment of their fleet vehicles being used to meet the 30 mg/mi fleet average NMOG+ NO X standards, at the applicable percent phase

- in requirement for the given model year . Manufacturers certifying to the alternative US06 PM phase

- in standard would also need to comply with the alternative FTP PM phase

- in as described above, as well as the NMOG+ NO X FTP and SFTP phase

- ins
. EPA requests comment on this a lternative phase

- in approach as well as on the primary US06 phase

- in option above. All of the proposed SFTP/US06 standards are shown in Table IV
- 4 and Table IV
- 5
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 100 of 888 **Table IV**  **- 4**  **Proposed LD and MDPV SFTP Composite Fleet Average Standards**  Model Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 and later NMOG + NO X (mg/mi) 103 a 97 90 83 77 70 63 57 50 CO (g/mi) 4.2 a

a For vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, the NMOG+NO X and CO standards would apply beginning in MY 2018
. **Table IV**  **- 5**  **Summary of Proposed SFTP Standards** Program Element Units Model Year Notes
2017 a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 NMOG+NO X Standard (fleet average) mg/mi Per declining fleet average for cars and trucks (see Table IV
- 4 ) b PM Standards Phase

- in % 20 20 40 70 100 100 100

US06 LDV , LDT 1& 2 Certification mg/mi 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Note c LDV , LDT 1& 2 In
- use mg/mi 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 Note d US06 LDT 3 &4, MDPV

Certification mg/mi 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Note c LDT 3 &4, MDPV In
- use mg/mi 25 25 25 25 25 20 20 Note d

a For vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, the standards would apply beginning in MY 2018
. b The percent phase

- in would not apply to the declining fleet average standards. c Manufacturers would be required to test 25 percent of each model year’s durability groups, minimum of 2. d Manufacturers would be required to test 50 percent of their low and high mileage in

- use vehicles
. We request comment on our proposed SFTP NMOG+NO X and PM standards, their structure, and their implementation schedules.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 101 of 888 c. Enrichment L imitation for Spark

- Ignition Engines To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment during operating conditions represented by the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations on the magnitude of enrichment that could be commanded, including enrichment episodes encountered during in

- use operation . During conditions where enrichment was demonstrate d to be present on the SFTP, the nominal air to fuel ratio could not be richer at an y time than the leanest air to fuel ratio required to obtain maximum torque (lean best torque or LBT). An air to fuel ratio of LBT plus a tolerance of 4 percent additional enrichment would be allowed in actual vehicle testing to protect for an y in

- use variance in the air to fuel ratio from the nominal LBT air to fuel determination, for such reasons as air or fuel distribution differences from production variances or aging. LBT is defined as the leanest air to fuel ratio required at a speed and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque. Specificall y, an increase in fuel would not result in an increase in torque while maintaining a fixed spark advance. LBT is determined by setting the spark advance to a setting that is less than or equal to the spark advance required for best torque (MBT) and maintaining that spark advance when sweeping the air to fuel ratio. This fixed spark advance requirement is intended to prevent torque changes related to spark changes masking true LBT. Manufacturers may request approval of an alternative LBT definition for a unique technology

or control strategy . The Agency could determine that an enrichment amount was excessive or n ot necessary and therefore deem that the approach did not meet the air to fuel ratio requirements. Enrichment required for thermal protection would continue to be allowed upon demonstration of necessit y to the Agency, based upon temperature limitations of the engine or exhaust components. Manufacturers would be required to provide descriptions of all components requiring thermal protection, temperature limitations of the components, how the enrichment strategy will detect over

- temperature conditions an d correct them, and a justification regarding wh y the enrichment is the minimum necessary

to protect the specific components. The Agency may determine that the enrichment is not justified or is not the minimum necessary based on the use of engineering jud gment using industry

- reported thermal protection requirements. 5. Feasibility

of the Proposed NMOG+NO X and PM Standards In this section, with additional support in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA, we describe how we reached our conclusion that the proposed Tier 3 standards would be technologicall y feasible in the time frame of the program
. For each of the proposed emission standards, the lead time provided by the proposed program is more than sufficient for all manufacturers to comply . First, manufacturers in many cases are already adopting compl yi ng technologies for reasons other than this proposed rulemaking. For example, many of the technologies that manufacturers will begin to develop as earl y as MY 2014 in response to the CARB LEV III FTP***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 102 of 888 and SFTP NMOG+NO X standards for the California market will likely represent steps toward compliance with this proposed national program. Similarly , manufacturers are already building some vehicles that comply with our proposed evaporative emissions standards in response t o the CARB LEV III evaporative standards. In addition, as described above, our proposed program incorporates a number of phase

- in provisions that would ease the transition to compliance, including time some manufacturers would need to install PM testing c apability and to ramp up production on a national scale . We invite comment on our conclusions relating to the feasibility

of the proposed program for each of the standards, as discussed below, including our overall conclusion that technological lead time is not a driving factor in complying with any of the proposed standards. This feasibility

assessment is based on a variet y of complementary technical data, studies, and analy ses. As described below, these include our anal ys is of the stringency

of the proposed standards as compared to current Tier 2 emission levels. We also discuss below our observation that manufacturers are currentl y certifying several vehicle models under the California LEV II program that could likely achieve the proposed Tier 3 NM OG+NO X and PM standards or similar levels. EPA has assessed the emissions control challenges manufacturers would generally face (e.g., cold start NMOG reductions and running (warmed

- up) NO X emissions under ty pical and more aggressive driving conditions) and the corresponding technologies that we expect to be available to manufacturers to meet these challenges. Our feasibility assessment accounts for the fact that the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to all t ypes of new vehicles, ranging from small cars to large pick

- up trucks and MDPVs and representing a wide diversity in applications and in specific engine designs. It is important to note that our primary assessment of the feasibility of engine and emission control technologies is based on the assump tion that vehicles would be certified on gasoline with a fuel sulfur content of 10 ppm and operated on in

- use gasoline with 10 ppm sulfur or less. 230 Therefore, our primary assessment does not incorporate the degradation of emission control sy stem caused by higher levels of sulfur content, as is discussed in Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA. This assessment reinforces the critical role of gasoline sulfur control, as proposed in Section V below, in making it possible for EPA to propose emission standards at these very

stringent levels. See Section IV.6 below for a full discussion of our current knowledge of the effects of gasoline sulfur on current vehicle emissions as well as our projections of how we expect that sulfur would affect compliance with s tandards in the range of the proposed Tier 3 standards.

230 Our technology, feasibility, and cost assessments are also consistent with an assumption that certification fuel would contain 15 percent ethanol and would have other properties as specified in Section IV.D below
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 103 of 888 Since there are multiple aspects to the Tier 3 program, it is necessary to consider technical feasibility in light of the different program requirements and their interactions with each other. In m an y cases, manufacturers would be able to address more than one requirement with the same general technological approach (e.g., faster catal ys t light

- off can improve both FTP NMOG+NO X and PM emissions). At the same time, the feasibility assessment must co nsider that different technologies may be needed on different ty pes of vehicle applications (i.e., cars versus trucks) and must consider the relative effectiveness of these technologies in reducing emissions for the full useful life of the vehicle while op erating on expected in

- use fuel. For example, certain smaller vehicles with correspondingl y small engines may be less challenged to meet FTP standards than larger vehicles with larger engines. Conversely , these smaller vehicles may have more difficult y m eeting the more aggressive SFTP requirements than vehicles with larger and more powerful engines. Additionally , the ability to meet the proposed SFTP emission requirements can also be impacted by the path taken to meet the FTP requirements (e.g., larger v olume catal ys ts for US06 emissions control vs. smaller catal ys ts for improved FTP cold

- start emissions control). Throughout the following discussion, we address how these factors, individually and in interaction with each other, affect the feasibility of the proposed program. We invite comment on our assessments of these or an y other such potential interactions. Also, although we are not aware of an y t echnological reasons that vehicle emission controls responding to new Tier 3 requirements should affect vehicle CO 2 emissions or fuel econom y in an y significant way, it is possible that such interactions could occur. For example, there may

be some slight change in vehicle mass if manufacturers explore lighter exhaust manifold materials in order to reduce thermal mass and promote earlier cataly st light

- off. W e invite comment on any such potential effects as well.
a. FTP NMOG+NO X Standards The proposed new emission requirements include stringent NMOG+ NO X standards on the FTP that would require ne w vehicle hardware in order to achieve the 30 mg/mi fleet average level in 2025. The typ e of new hardware that would be required would vary

depending on the specific application and emission challenges. Smaller vehicles with corresponding smaller engines would generally need less new hardware while larger vehicles may need additional hardware and improvements beyond what would be needed for the smaller vehicles. While some vehicles, especiall y larger light trucks, may face higher costs in meeting the prop osed standards, it is important to remember that not every vehicle needs to meet the standard. The proposed program has been structured to provide higher emission standard “bins” (see Table IV

- 1 above) to which manufacturers may certify more challenged v ehicles, so long as these vehicles are offset with vehicles certified in lower emission bins such that the fleet

- wide average meets the standard. W e believe that the availability of the proposed less

- stringent bins would allow for feasible and cost

- effect ive compliance for all vehicles. In the Tier 2 program, manufacturers took advantage of this flexibility , especially in the early

years of the program. Then, as technologies improved and/or became less expensive and the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 104 of 888 need for averaging diminished, manufacturers began certifying all or most of their fleets to the average bin (Tier 2 Bin 5). We anticipate that manufacturers will follow a similar trend with the proposed Tier 3 standards, rel yi ng on fleet averaging more significantly

in the transitional years but certifying increasing numbers of their vehicles to the final fleet average standard of 30 mg/mi in the later ye ars of the program. In order to assess the technical feasibility of a 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X national fleet average FTP standard, EPA con ducted two supporting anal ys es. The initial analy ses performed were of the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleets. This provided a baseline for the current federal fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions performance of the California LEV II fleet . The second consideration was a modal analy sis of ty pical vehicle emissions under certain operating conditions. In this way

EPA determined the specific emissions performance challenges that vehicle manufacturers would face in meeting the lower fleet ave rage emission standards. Each of these considerations is described in greater detail below. The current federal fleet is certified to an average of Tier 2 Bin 5, equivalent to 160 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . 231 For MY 2009, 92 percent of LDVs and LDT1s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 91 percent of LDT2s through LDT4s were certified to Tier 2 Bin 5. This was not an unexpected result as there is currently no motivation for vehicle manufacturers to produce a f ederal fleet that over

- complies with respect to the current Tier 2 standards. By comparison, in the California fleet, where compliance with the “PZEV” program encourages manufacturers to certify vehicles to cleaner levels, only 30 percent of the LDVs and LDT1s are certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 60 percent are certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. The situation regarding the truck fleet in California is similarly stratified, with 37 percent of the LDT2s through LDT4s being certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 and 55 percent bein g certified to Tier 2 Bin 3. In man y cases identical vehicles are being certified to a lower standard in California and a higher standard federall y. We note that vehicles certified to a lower standard in California are operated on gasoline with an averag e sulfur content of 10 ppm and thereb y are able to maintain their emissions performance in

- use. Based on these patterns of federal and California certification, EPA believes that much of the existing Tier 2 fleet could be certified to a lower federal flee t average immediatel y, with no significant feasibility concerns, if lower sulfur gasoline were made available nationwide
. Regardless of the Tier 2 bin standards at which manufacturers choose to certify their vehicles, actual measured emissions performance of these vehicles is ty picall y well below the numerical standards. This difference is referred to as

231 The current Tier 2 program does not com bine NMOG and NO X emissions into one fleet

- average standard. The fleet

- average standard in that program is for NO X emissions alone.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 105 of 888 “compliance margin” and is a result of manufacturers’ efforts to address all the sources of variability , including:

 Test
- to - test variability (within on e test site and lab

- to - lab)

 Build variation expectations

 Manufacturing tolerances and stack

- up

 Vehicle operation (for example: driving habits, ambient temperature, etc.)

 Fuel composition

 The effects of fuel sulfur on exhaust cataly sts and oxygen sensors

 T he effects of other fuel components, including ethanol and gasoline additives

 Oil consumption

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

60 percent. In other words, actual vehicle emissions performance was on average about 40 percent of a 160 mg/mi NMOG+NO X standard, or about 64 mg/mi. By

comparison, for California

- certified vehicles, the average Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULE V) compliance margin was somewhat less for the more stringent standards, approximately 50 percent. We believe that the recent California experience is a likely indicator of compliance margins that manufacturers would design for in order to comply with the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. Thus, a ty pical Tier 2 Bin 5 vehicle, performing at 40 percent of the current standard (i.e., at about 64 mg/mi) would need improvements sufficient to reach about 15 mg/mi (50 percent of a 30 mg/mi standards). To understand how the several currently

- used technologies described below could be used b y manufacturers to reach the stringent proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards, it is helpful to consider emissions formation in common modes of operation for gasoline engines, or mod al anal ys is. 232 The primary challenge faced b y manufacturers for producing Tier 3 compliant light

- duty gasoline vehicle powertrains would be to reduce the emissions during cold

- start operation which, based on modal anal ys is of a gasoline powered vehicle bei ng

232 A mo dal analysis provides a second

- by

- second view of the total amount of emissions over the entire cycle being considered.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 106 of 888 operated on the FTP cycle, occurs during about the first 50 seconds after engine start. Thus, effective control of these cold

- start emissions would be the primary technological goal of manufacturers compl yi ng with the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. As discussed below, light

- dut y manufacturers are already appl yi ng several technologies capable of significant reductions in these cold start emissions to vehicles currently

on the road. b. SFTP NMOG+NO X Standards The increase in the stringency of the SFTP NMO G+NO X standards, specificall y across the US06 cycle, would generally onl y require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and diligent implementation of new technologies that manufacturers are already introducing or are likely to introduce in respo nse to the current and 2017 LD GHG emission standards. These include downsized gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines, which may also include improvements to the engine and emission control hardware to tolerate higher combustion and exha

ust temperatures expected in these future GHG

- oriented engine designs. The upgraded materials or components would enable manufacturers to rel y less on fuel enrichment during high

- speed/high

- load operation to protect components from overheating. This fuel enrichment is currently the source of elevated VOC, NO X , and PM emissions seen in a subset of the current Tier 2 fleet. With respect to enrichment, changes to the fuel/air mixture by increasing the fuel fraction has historically been the primary

method av ailable to manufacturers to protect the catal ys t and other exhaust components from over

- temperature conditions. Changing the fuel/air mixture is no longer the onl y tool available to manufacturers for this purpose. With the application of electronic thro ttle controls, variable valve timing, exhaust gas recirculation and other exhaust temperature influencing technologies on nearl y every light

- duty vehicle, the manufacturer has the ability

to sy stematically

control the operation and combustion processes of the engine to minimize or altogether avoid areas and modes of operation where thermal issues can occur. While some of these solutions could in some cases result in a small and temporary

reduction in vehicle performance (absolute power levels), we believe that it could be an effective way to reduce NMOG+NO X emissions over the SFTP test. Additionally , some components, especiall y catal ys ts, can experience accelerated thermal deterioration that occurs when operating at higher temperatures for more time than e xpected under normal operation (e.g., trailer towing, mountain grades). Some upgrades of existing vehicle emission control technology , like catal ys t substrates and washcoats may be required to limit thermal deterioration and ensure vehicle emissions compli ance throughout the useful life of the vehicle. Inorder to assess the technical feasibility of a 50 mg/mi NMOG+NO X national fleet average SFTP standard, EPA conducted an anal ys is of SFTP levels of Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles. The analysis was performed on the US06 results from***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 107 of 888 current Tier 2 and LEV II vehicles tested in the in

- use verification program (IUVP) by manufacturers and submitted to EPA. This analy sis provided a baseline for the current Tier 2 and LEV II fleet emissions performance, as well as the SFTP emissions performance capability of the cleanest vehicles meeting the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. The anal ys is concluded that most vehicles in the IUVP testing program are already capable of meeting the composite SFTP standard of 50 mg/mi whe n the Tier 3 FTP standard levels are factored into the composite calculation. With the technological improvements already underway as discussed above, we believe all 2017 and later vehicles would be able to compl y with the proposed SFTP standards, directl y, or through the flexibility of the averaging, banking and trading program. For further information on the analy sis see Chapter 1 of the draft RIA.
c. FTP and SFTP PM Standards As described above for NMOG+NO X over the SFTP, the increase in the stringency

of the FTP and SFTP PM standards would generall y also onl y require additional focus on fuel control of the engines and diligent implementation of new technologies like gasoline direct injection (GDI) and turbocharged engines. Some upgrades of existing vehic le emission control technology may be required to ensure vehicle emissions performance is maintained throughout the useful life of the vehicle. These upgrades may include improvements to the engine to control wear that could result in increased PM from oi l consumption and selection of GDI sy stems that would be capable of continuing to perform optimally even as the sy stems age. We based our conclusions about the ability of manufacturers to meet the proposed PM standards largel y on the PM performance of th e existing fleet, both on the FTP and SFTP. In the case of FTP testing of current vehicles, data on both low and high mileage light

- duty vehicles demonstrate that the majority of vehicles are currentl y achieving levels at or below the proposed Tier 3 FTP standards. The testing results can be found in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA. A small number of vehicles are at or just over the proposed FTP PM standard at low mileage and could require calibration changes and/or cataly st changes to meet the new standards. It is our expectation that the same calibration and cataly st changes required to address NMOG would also provide the necessary PM control. Vehicles that currentl y have higher PM emissions over the FTP or SFTP at higher mileages would likely

be required to control o il consumption and combustion chamber deposits. We also analyzed PM test data on US06 emissions for current Tier 2 vehicles. The data show that many vehicles are already

at or below the proposed standards on the US06. Vehicles that have high PM emissio n rates on the US06 would likely

need to control enrichment, and oil consumption particularly later in life. As described above for SFTP NMOG+NO X control, enrichment can be more accuratel y managed through available electronic engine controls. The strateg ies for***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 108 of 888 reducing oil consumption are similar to those described above for controlling oil consumption on the FTP. However, given the higher engine speeds experienced on the US06 and the increase in oil consumption that can accompan y this kind of operation , manufacturers would most likely focus on oil sources stemming from the piston to cylinder interface and positive crankcase ventilation (PCV). Manufacturers have informed us that they have already

reduced or are planning to reduce the oil consumption of their engines b y improved sealing of the paths of oil into the combustion chamber and improved piston

- to - cylinder interfaces. They

are already

taking or considering these actions to address issues of customer satisfaction and cost of ownership. In addit ion, many vehicle manufacturers acknowledge the relationship between combustion chamber deposits and PM formation and are activel y pursuing design changes to mitigate fuel impingement within the combustion chamber and its commensurate PM effects. Both ty p es of controls are being widel y applied by manufacturers today. d. Technologies Manufacturers are Likel y to Appl y Most of the technologies expected to be applied to light

- duty vehicles to meet the stringent proposed standards would address the emissions contr ol sy stem’s ability to control emission during cold start. The effectiveness of current vehicle emissions control sy stems depends in large part on the time it takes for the catal ys t to light off, which is t ypically defined as the catalyst reaching a temp erature of 250
° C. In order to improve catal ys t light

- off, we expect that manufacturers would add technologies that provide heat from combustion more readily to the catal ys t or improve the catal ys t efficiency at lower temperatures. These technologies inc lude calibration changes, thermal management, close

- coupled catal ys ts, cataly st platinum group metals (PGM) loading and strategy, and secondary air injection, all which generally

improve emission performance of all pollutants. In some cases where the cata ly st light

- off and efficiency are not enough to address the cold start NMOG emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the cataly st is lit off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of th ese technologies addresses NMOG, NO X , and PM performance. The technologies are described in greater detail below. Additional information on these technologies can also be found in Chapter 1 of the RIA.

 Engine Control Calibration Changes

– These include c hanges to retard spark and/or adjust air/fuel mixtures such that more combustion heat is created during the cold start. Control changes may include injection strategies in GDI applications, unique cold

- start variable valve timing and lift, and other avail able engine parameters. Engine calibration changes can affect NMOG, NO X and PM emissions.

 Cataly st PGM Loading

– Additional PGM loading, increased loading of other active materials, and improved dispersion of PGM and other active materials in the catal ys t provide a greater number of sites available to catal yz e emissions and addresses NMOG, NO X and PM emissions.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 109 of 888 Cataly st PGM loading, when implemented in conjunction with low sulfur gasoline, will effectively eliminate NO X emissions under warmed

up condition s.

 Thermal Management

– This category of technologies includes all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the catal ys t with minimal cooling. This includes insulating the exhaust piping between the engine and the catal ys t, reducing the wetted area of the exhaust path, reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust sy stem, and/or using close

- coupled cataly sts (i.e., the catal ys ts are packaged as close as possible to the engine’s cylinder head to mitigate the cooling effects of longer exhaust p iping). Thermal management technologies primaril y address NMOG emissions, but also affect NO X and PM emissions **.**
 Secondary

Air Injection

– By

injecting air directly

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

 Hydrocarbon Adsorber

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

 Gasoline Sulfur

– The relative effectiveness for NMOG and NO X control of the exhaust

- cataly st related technologies are constrained b y gasoline fuel sulfur lev els. Thus, reduced sulfur in gasoline is an enabling technology

to achieve the standards and maintain this performance during in

- use operation. We discuss the relationship between gasoline sulfur and emissions in greater detail in Section IV.6 below and in the draft RIA. Discussions between EPA, CARB, vehicle manufacturers, and major component suppliers indicated that large light

- duty trucks (e.g., pickups and full

size sport utility

vehicles (SUVs) in the LDT3 and LDT4 categories) would be the most cha llenging light

- duty vehicles to bring into compliance with the proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards at the 30 mg/mi corporate average emissions level. A similar challenge was addressed when large light

- duty trucks were brought into compliance with the Tier 2 standards over the past decade. Figure IV
- 1 provides a graphical representation of the effectiveness of Tier 3 technologies for large light

duty truck applications. A compliance margin is shown in both cases. Note that the graphical representation of the effectiveness of cataly st technologies on N O X and NMOG when going from Tier 2 to Tier 3 levels also includes a reduction in gasoline sulfur levels from 30 ppm to 10 ppm.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 110 of 888 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

Tier 2 Bin 5 LDT3/4

w/30 ppm S Gasoline Tier 3 LDT3/4 w/10 ppm S Gasoline**N M** **O G** **+ N** **O x** **E m** **i s** **s o** **i n** **s (** **m g** **/ m** **i )** **@ 1** **2 0** **, 0** **0 0** **m i** **l e** **s**

NMOG+NOx Emissons of Tier 3 LD3/T4 NMOG+NOx Emissions of Tier 2 Bin 5 LDT3/4

60% Compliance Margin

50% Compliance Margin Tier 2 Bin 5 NMOG+NOx St an da rd

Tier 3 NMOG+NOx St an dard **Hydrocarbon Adsorber**  **Reduced Thermal**  **Mass +**  **Calibration Changes**  **Increased Catalyst**  **Ac tive**  **Materials +**  **Calibration Changes**  **Secondary Air Injection**  **+ Calibration**  **Changes** 77% Emissions

Reduction

**Figure IV**  **- 1**  **: Contribution of Tier 3 Technologies to Large Light -**  **Duty Truck C**  **om pliance**  **233******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 111 of 888 6. Impact of Gasoline Sulfur Control on the Feasibility of the Proposed Vehicle Emission Standards
a. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Exhaust Cataly sts Modern three

- way

catal ytic exhaust sy stems utilize platinum group metals (PGM), metal oxides and other active materials to selectivel y oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases. These s ys tems simultaneously

reduce nitrogen oxides when air

- to - fuel ratio control operates in a condition of relativel y low amplitude/high frequency oscil lation about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well

- known cataly st poison. There is a large body of work demonstrating sulfur inhibition of the emissions control performance of PGM three

- way

exhaust catal ys t sy stems. 234 , 235 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 The nature of s ulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catal yt ic materials and catal ys t substrates is complex and varies with cataly st composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperature. The variation of these interactions with exhaust gas compos ition and temperature means that the operational history of a vehicle is an important factor; continuous light

- load operation, throttle tip

- in events and enrichment under high

- load conditions can all impact sulfur interactions with the catal ys t.

233 The technologies and levels of control in this figure are based on a combination of confidential business information submitted by auto manufacturers and suppliers, public data, and EPA staff engineering judgment. 234 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMa ggio, C.L. (1994). Impact of sulfur on model palladium

- only catalysts under simulated three

- way operation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 3 , 205
- 227. 235 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995). Impact of sulfur on the performance of vehicle aged palladium mono liths.” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 6 , 185
- 200. 236 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W., DiMaggio, C.I. (1997). Axial characterization of oxygen storage capacity in close coupled lightoff and underfloor catalytic converters and impact of sulfur. Applied Catalys is B: Environmental 11 , 273
- 290. 237 Waqif, M., Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., Touret, O. (1997), Study of ceria sulfation. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 11 , 193
- 205. 238 Bazin, P., Saur, O. Lavalley, J.C., Blanchard, G., Visciglio, V. , Touret, O. (1997). “Influence of platinum on ceria sulfation.” Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 13 , 265
- 274. 239 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. (2000). Fuel Property Requirement for Advanced Technology Engines. SAE Technical P aper 2000
- 01
- 2019. 240 Takei, Y., Kungasa, Y., Okada, M., Tanaka, T. Fujimoto, Y. (2001). “Fuel properties for advanced engines.” Automotive Engineering International 109 12 , 117
- 120. 241 Kubsh, J.E., Anthony, J.W. (2007). The Potential for Achieving Low Hydro carbon and NO X Exhaust Emissions from Large Light

- Duty Gasoline Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2007

- 01
- 1261. 242 Shen, Y., Shuai, S., Wang, J. Xiao, J. (2008). Effects of Gasoline Fuel Properties on Engine Performance. SAE Technical Paper 2008

- 01
- 0628. 243 Ball , D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NO X Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technical Paper 2011

- 01
- 0300.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 112 of 888 Sulfur fro m gasoline is oxidized during spark

- ignition engine combustion primarily to SO 2 and, to a much lesser extent, SO 3 - 2 . Sulfur oxides selectively chemicall y bind (chemisorb) with, and in some cases react with, active sites and coating materials within the catal ys t, thus inhibiting the intended cataly tic reactions. Sulfur oxides inhibit pollutant catal ys is chiefl y b y selective poisoning of active PGM, ceria sites, and alumina washcoatings (see Figure IV
- 2 ). 244 The amount of sulfur retained b y the cataly st is primaril y a function of its operating temperature, the active materials and coatings used within the catalyst, the concentration of sulfur oxides in the incoming exhaust gases, and air

- to - fuel ratio feedback and control by

the engine management s ys tem.

244 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 5: Catalyst Deactivation in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 113 of 888 

### 100 Å Catalytic Site Deactivated by S ulfur Poisoning Active Catalytic Site
Alumina Wa shcoat Mo nolith Substrate

**Figure IV**  **- 2**  **Functional schematic showing selective poisoning of active catalytic sites by sulfur compounds. Adapted from Heck and Farrauto 2002.**  **2 44** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 114 of 888 Selective sulfur poisoning of platinum (Pt) and rhodium (Rh) is primarily from surface

- layer chemisorption. Sulfur poisoning of palladium (Pd) and ceria appears to be via chemisorption combined with formation of more stable metallic sulfur compounds, e.g. PdS and Ce 2 O 2 S, present in both surface and bulk form (i.e., below the surface layer. 245 , 246 , 247 , 248 Ceria, zirconia and other ox ygen storage components (OSC) play

an important role that is crucial to NO X reduction o ver Rh as the engine air

- to - fuel ratio oscillates about the stoichiometric closed

- loop control point. 249 Water
- gas - shift reactions are important for NO X reduction over cataly sts combining Pd and ceria. This reaction can be blocked by sulfur poisoning and may be responsible for observations of reduced NO X activity over Pd/ceria cataly sts even with exposure to fairly low levels of sulfur (equivalent to 15 ppm in gasoline). 250 , 251 Pd is also of increased importance for meeting Tier 3 standards due to its unique app lication in the closed

- coupled

- cataly sts location required for vehicles certifying to very stringent emission standards. Pd is required in closed

coupled cataly sts due to its resistance to high temperature thermal sintering. Sulfur removal from Pd requir es rich operation at higher temperatures than required for sulfur removal from other PGM catal ys ts. 252 In addition to its interaction with catal ys t materials, sulfur can also react with the washcoating itself to form alumina sulfate, which in turn can block coating pores and reduce gaseous diffusion to active materials below the coating surface. 253 This may be a significant mechanism for the observed storage of sulfur compounds

245 Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003). A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur Poisoning of the Water

- Gas
- Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria.” Catalysis Letters, 85, Issues 3

- 4, pg. 139
- 146. 246 Li

- Dun, A., Quan, D.Y. (1990). “Mechanism of sulfur poisoning of supported Pd(Pt)/Al 2 O 3 catalysts for H 2 - O 2 reaction.” Applied Catalysis 61 , Issue 1, pg. 219
- 234. 247 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 248 Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. (2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles. Environmental Science and Technology, 36 , No. 2 pg. 276
- 282. 249 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 250 Luo, T. Gorte, R.J. (2003) A Mechanistic Study of Sulfur Poisoning of the Water

- Gas
- Shift Reaction Over Pd/Ceria . Catalysis Letters, 85 , Issues 3
- 4, pg. 139
- 146. 251 Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NO X Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technical Paper No. 2011

- 01
- 0300. 252 Beck, D.D., Sommers, J.W. (1995) Impact of su lfur on the performance of vehicle aged palladium monoliths. Applied Catalysis B: Environmental 6 , 185
- 200. 253 Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. (2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level on Motor Vehicle Particulate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.” Environmental Science and Technology, 36 , No. 2 pg. 276
- 282.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 115 of 888 at light and moderate load operation with subsequent, rapid release as sulfate particulate matter when high

- load, high

- temperature conditions are encountered. 254 Operating the catal ys t at a sufficientl y high temperature under net reducing conditions (e.g., air

- to - fuel equivalence that is net fuel

- rich of stoichiometry) can effectivel y rel ease the sulfur oxides from the cataly st components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently

high temperatures at rich air

- to - fuel ratios can minimize the effects of fuel sulfur levels on cataly st active materials and cataly st efficiency
. However, it cannot completely eliminate the effects of sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in

- use fleet recentl y completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately

following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur level, suggest ing that lower fuel sulfur levels will bring emission benefits unachievable b y catal ys t regeneration procedures alone. 255 Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air

- to - fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures necessary to release sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal degradation of the catalyst over time via thermal sintering of active materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate in reactions. Additionall y, it is not alway s possible to maintain these catal ys t temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light load operation) and the rich air

- to - fuel ratios necessary can result in increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels has be en the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur contamination of the catal ys t and ensure optimum emissions performance over the useful life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline sulfur has become even more important as vehicle emission standards ha ve become more stringent. Some studies have suggested an increase in cataly st sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent conversion efficiency) when standards increase in stringency

and emissions levels decrease. Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 program (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the impact of sulfur was considered negligible. The Tier 2 program recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunction with the new emission standards. 256 At that time, very little work had been done to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel sulfur, especially on in

- use vehicles that may have some degree of catal ys t deterioration due to real

- world operation. In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties, benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2 compliant vehicles. Section 1.2.3 of the

254 Maricq, M. M. Chace, R.E., Xu, N., Podsiadlik, D.H. (2002). The Effects of the Catalytic Converter and Fuel Sulfur Level on Motor Vehicle Parti culate Matter Emissions: Gasoline Vehicles.” Environmental Science and Technology, 36 , No. 2 pg. 276
- 282. 255 See Chapter 1 of the RIA (Section 1.2.3.2) for more details on this study and its results. 256 Tier 2 Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420

- R
- 99
- 023, D ecem ber 22, 1999), available at http://epa.gov/tier2/finalrule.htm#regs.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 116 of 888 draft RIA provides details of the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Study
. 257 The study found significant reductions in NO X , CO and total hydrocarbons (HC) when the vehicles were tested on low sulfur fuel, relative to 32 ppm fuel. 258 In particular, th e study found a nearly

50 percent increase in NO X over the FTP when sulfur was increased from 6 ppm to 32 ppm. Given the prep procedures related to cataly st clean

- out and loading used by these studies, these results may represent a “best case” scenario re lative to what would be expected under more typical driving conditions. Nonetheless, these data suggested the effect of sulfur loading was reversible for Tier 2 vehicles, and that there were likely to be significant emission reductions possible with furth er reductions in gasoline sulfur level. For more discussion of the impact of gasoline fuel sulfur on the current light

- dut y vehicle fleet, see Section III.A. b. EPA Gasoline Sulfur Effects Testing Both the MSAT and Umicore studies showed the emission reduct ion potential of lower sulfur fuel on Tier 2 and later technology vehicles over the FTP cycle. However, assessing the potential for reduction on the in

- use fleet requires understanding how sulfur exposure over time impacts emissions, and what the state of loading is for the t ypical vehicle in the field. In response to these data needs, EPA conducted a new study to assess the emission reductions expected from the in

use Tier 2 fleet with a reduction in fuel sulfur level from current levels. It was designe d to take into consideration what was known from prior studies on sulfur build

- up in cataly sts over time and the effect of periodic regeneration events that may result from higher speed and load operation over the course of day

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

20,000
- 40,000 odometer miles. The makes and models targeted for recruitment were chosen to be representative of high sales vehicles covering a range of t yp es and sizes. Test fuels were two non

- ethanol gasolines with properties ty pical of certification test fuel, one at a sulfur level of 5 ppm and the other at 28 ppm. A nominal concentration of approximately 25 ppm was targeted for the high level to be representative of retail fuel available to the public in the vehicle recruiting area. All emissions data was collected using the FTP cycle at a nominal temperature of 75 °F. Using the 28 ppm test fuel, emissions data were collected from vehicles in their as

- received state as well as following a high

- speed/load “clean

- out” procedure consisting of two back

- to - back US06 cycles intended to reduce sulfur loading in the

257 This test program is described in Chapter 6 of the RIA of the MSAT2 final rulemaking, EPA 420

- R
- 07
- 002, February 2007, available athttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/420r07002chp6. pdf. 258 See Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources Final Rule, EPA 420

- R
- 07
- 002.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 117 of 888 catal ys t. A statistical analy sis of this data showed highl y significant reductions in several pollutants including NO X and h ydrocarbons, suggesting that reversible sulfur loading exists in the in

- use fleet and has a measurable effect on aftertreatment performance ( Table IV
- 6 ) . For example, Bag 2 NO X emissions dropped 32 percent between the pre

- and post

- cleanout tests on 28 ppm fuel.

**Table IV**  **- 6**  **Average Clean -**  **out Effect on In -**  **use Emissions Using 28 ppm Test Fuel**  **a** NO X (p

- value) THC

(p

- value) CO

(p

- value) NMHC

(p

- value) CH 4

(p

- value) PM

(p

- value) Bag 1

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

(0.0009) 16.5%

(0.0024) – 17.8% (0.0181) 15.3%

(0.0015) – Bag 3 38.3%

(<0.0001) 21.4%

(<0.0001) 19.5%

(0.0011) 27.8%

(<0.0001) 12.0%

(<0.0001) 24.5%

(<0.0001) FTP Composite 11.4%

(<0.0001) 4.1%

(0.0187) 7.6%

(0.0008) 3.0%

(0.0751) 6.9%

(0.0003) 13.7%

(<0.0001) Bag 1

– Bag 3

– – 4.2% (0.0714) – – –

a The clean

- out effect is not significant at α = 0.10 when no reduction estimate is provided.
To assess the impact of lower sulfur fuel on in

- use emissions, further testing was conducted on a representative subset of vehicles on 28 ppm and 5 ppm fuel with accumulated mileage. A first step in this portion of the study was to assess differences in the effectiveness of the clean

- out procedure when done using different fuel sulfur levels. Table IV
- 7 presents a comparison of emissions immediately

following (<50 miles) the clean

- out procedures at the low vs. high su lfur level. These results show significant emission reductions for the 5 ppm fuel relative to the 28 ppm fuel immediately after this clean

- out; for example, Bag 2 NO X emissions were 47 percent lower on the 5 ppm fuel vs. the 28 ppm fuel. This indicates that the cataly st is not fully desulfurized, even after a clean out procedure, as long as there is sulfur in the fuel. **Table IV**  **- 7**  **: Percent Reduction in Exhaust Emissions When Going from 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur**  **Gasoline for the First Three Repeat FTP Tests**

**Immediately Following Clean -**  **out** NO X (p

- value) THC

(p

- value) CO

(p

- value) NMHC

(p

- value) CH 4

(p

- value) PM a Bag 1 5.9% 5.4% 7.3% 4.6% 11.1%

–***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 118 of 888 (0.0896) (0.0118) (0.0023) (0.0465) (<0.0001) Bag 2 47.3%

(0.0010) 40.2%

(<0.0001) – a 34.4% (0.0041) 53.6%

(<0.0001) – Bag 3 51.2%

(<0.0001) 35.0%

(<0.0001) 10.1%

(0.0988) 45.0%

(<0.0001) 25.4%

(<0.0001) – FTP Composite 17.7%

(0.0001) 11.2%

(<0.0001) 8.3%

(0.0003) 8.8%

(0.0003) 21.4%

(<0.0001) – Bag 1

– Bag 3

– a

– a 5.8% (0.0412) – a

– a

–

**a** Sulfur level not significant at α = 0.10. To assess the overall in

- use reduction between high and low sulfur fuel, a mixed model analy sis of all data as a function of fuel sulfur level and miles driven after cleanout was performed. This anal ys is found highl y significant reductions for several pol lutants, as shown in Table IV
- 8 . Reductions for Bag 2 NO X were particularl y high, estimated at 59 percent between 28 ppm and 5 ppm overall. For some pollutants, such as Bag 2 NO X , the model fitting did not find a significant miles

- by

- sulfur interaction, suggesting the relative differences were not dependent on miles driven after clean

- out. Other results, such as Bag 1 h ydrocarbons, did show a significant miles

- by

- sulfur interaction. In this case, determination of a sulfur level effect for the in

- use fleet required estimation of a miles

- equivalent level of sulfur loading, which was determined b y the cleanout results obtained from the baseline testing on the vehicles as

- received.

**Table IV**  **- 8**  **Summary of Mixed Model Results for Emission Reductions When Going from 28 ppm to 5 ppm Sulfur Gasoline, Adjusted for In**  **- use Sulfur** 

**Loading (Mileage Accumulation) Where Appropriate** NO X (p

- value) THC

(p

- value) CO

(p

- value) NMHC

(p

- value) CH 4

(p

- value) NO X+NMOG

(p

- value) PM a Bag 1 10.7%

(0.0033) 8.5% b

(0.0382) 7.5% b

(0.0552) 7.5%

(< 0.0001) 13.9% b

(< 0.0001) N/A

– Bag 2 59.2%

(< 0.0001) 48.8%

(< 0.0001) – a 44.8% b (0.0260) 49.9%

(< 0.0001) N/A

– Bag 3 62.1%

(< 0.0001) 40.2%

(< 0.0001) 20.1%

(< 0.0001) 49.9%

(< 0.0001) 29.2%

(< 0.0001) N/A

– FTP Composite 23.0% b

(0.0180) 13.0% b

(0.0027) 11.9% b

(0.0378) 10.6% b

(0.0032) 25.8% b

(< 0.0001) 17.3%

(0.0140) – Bag 1

– Bag 3

– a 5.2% (0.0063) 4.3%

(0.0689) 5.1%

(0.0107) 4.6%

(0.0514) N/A

–
**a** Sulfur level not significant at α = 0.10. For THC Bag 1 and CH 4 Bag 1, because the effect of clean

out was not statistically significant, the reduction estimates are based on the estimates of least squares means. b Model with significant sulfur and mileage interaction term.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 119 of 888 Major findings from this study include:

 Reversible sulfur loading is occurring in the in

- use fleet of Tier 2 vehicles and has a measureable effect on emissions of NO X , hydrocarbons, and other p ollutants of interest.

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

 Reducing fuel sulfur levels from current levels to levels in the range of the proposed gasoline sulfur standards would be expected to achieve significant reductions in emissions of NO X , hydrocarbons, and other pollutants of interest in the in

- use fleet. The overall reductions found in this study are in agreement with other low sulfur studies conducted on Ti er 2 vehicles. The magnitude of NO X and HC reductions found in this study when switching from 28 ppm to 5 ppm fuel are consistent with those found in MSAT and Umicore studies mentioned above. For further details regarding the Tier 2 In

- Use Gasoline Sulf ur Effects Study , see the draft report on this work. 259
c. Fuel Sulfur Impacts on Vehicles at the Proposed Tier 3 Levels As discussed in previous sections, the Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet average NMOG+NO X emissions by over 80 percent. The feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X fleet average standard depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust cataly st sy stems that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely control s trategies would involve using exhaust catal ys t technologies and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducing cold

- start emissions of NMOG and on both cold

- start and warmed

- up (running) emissions of NO X . An important part of this strategy , particul arly for larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving cold

- start NMOG emissions control, would be to reduce NO X emissions to near

- zero levels. This would allow sufficient NMOG compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the combined NMOG+NO X emissi ons standards for their full useful life. Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to ensure high catal ys t efficiency . The impact of sulfur on OSC components in th e catal yst makes this a challenge even at relatively low (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels. NO X conversion b y exhaust catalysts is strongl y influenced b y the OSC components like

259 U.S. EPA. 2013. "The Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level on Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles In

- Use
. " EPA
- 420
- D
- 1 3
- 003. Available in the docket for this rule.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 120 of 888 ceria. Ceria sulfation may play an important role in the degradation of NO X em ission control with increased fuel sulfur levels observed in the MSAT, Umicore and EPA Tier 2 In

- Use Gasoline Sulfur Effects studies. 260 Li ght

- dut y vehicles certified to CARB SULEV and federal Tier 2 Bin 2 exhaust emission standards accounted for approximate ly 3.1 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively

of vehicle sales for MY2009. L ight

- dut y vehicles certified to SULEV under LEV II are more t ypicall y certified federally to Tier 2 Bin 3, Bin 4 or Bin 5, and vehicles certified to SULEV and Tier 2 Bins 3

- 5 comprised approximately

2.5 percent of sales for MY2009. In particular, nonh ybrid vehicles certified in California as SULEV are not certified to federal Tier 2 Bin 2 emissions standards even though the numeric limits for NO X and NMOG are shared between the California LEV II and federal Tier 2 programs for SULEV and Bin 2. Confidential business information shared b y the auto companies indicate that the primary reason is an inability

to demonstrate compliance with SULEV/Bin 2 emission standards after vehicles have operated in

- use on gasoline with greater than 10 ppm sulfur and with exposure to gasoline up to the Tier 2 80 ppm gasoline sulfur cap. While vehicles certified to the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards both demonstrate compliance using certification gasoline with 15

- 40 ppm sulfur content, in

- use compliance of SULEV vehicles in California occurs after operation on gasoline with an average of 10 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap of 30 ppm sulfur while federall y certified vehic les operate on gasoline with an average of 30 ppm sulfur and a maximum cap of 80 ppm sulfur. Although the SULEV and Tier 2 Bin 2 standards are numerically equivalent, the increased sulfur exposure of in

- use vehicles certified under the federal Tier 2 program results in a need for a higher emissions compliance margin to take into account the impact of in

- use gasoline sulfur on full useful life vehicle emissions. As a result, vehicles certified to California SULEV ty

pically certify to emissions standards un der the federal Tier 2 program that are 1

- 2 certification bins higher (e.g., SULEV certified federally as Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4) in order to ensure in

- use compliance with emissions standards out to the full useful life of the vehicle when operating on high er - sulfur gasoline. Emissions of vehicles certified to the SULEV standard of the California LEV II program, or the equivalent Tier 2 Bin 2 standards, can provide some insight into the impact of fuel sulfur on vehicles at the very low proposed Tier 3 emissi ons levels. Vehicle testing by Toyota of LEV I, LEV II ULEV and protot ype SULEV vehicles showed larger percentage increases in NO X and HC emissions for SULEV vehicles as gasoline sulfur increased from 8 ppm to 30 ppm, as compared to other LEV vehicles the y tested. Testing of a SULEV

- certified PZEV vehicle b y Umicore showed a pronounced, progressive trend of increasing NO X emissions (referred to as “NO X creep”) when switching from a 3 ppm sulfur gasoline to repeated, back

- to -

260 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Catalyst in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 121 of 888 back FTP tests using 33 ppm sul fur gasoline. 261 The PZEV Chevrolet Malibu, after being aged to an equivalent of 150,000 miles, demonstrated emissions at a level equivalent to the compliance margin for the Tier 3 Bin 30 NMOG+NO X standard when operated on 3 ppm sulfur fuel and for at least one FTP test after switching to 33 ppm certification fuel. Following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel, NO X emissions alone were more than double the proposed Tier 3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X standard. 262 This represents a NO X percentage increase that is approximately

2
- 3 times of what has been reported for similar changes in fuel sulfur level for Tier 2 and older vehicles over a similar difference in fuel sulfur. 263 , 264 There are no LDTs larger than LDT2 and no larger non

- hy brid LDVs. We expect that additional catal ys t technologies, for example increasing catal ys t surface area (volume or substrate cell density) and/or increased PGM loading, would need to be applied to larger vehicles in order to achieve the cataly st efficiencies necessary to comply w ith the proposed Tier 3 standards. Any sulfur impact on catal ys t efficiency would have a larger impact on vehicles and trucks that rel y more on very high catal ys t efficiencies in order to achieve very low emissions. The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on cataly tic activity

and the resultant loss of exhaust cataly st effectiveness to chemically reduce NO X and oxidize NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs across all vehicle categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur on NO X emissions control of catal ys ts in the fully

- warmed

- up condition is particularly

of concern for larger vehicles (the largest LDVs and LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs). Manufacturers face the most significant challenges in reducing cold

- start NMOG emissions for these vehicles. Because of the need to reach near

- zero NO X levels, any significant degradation in NO X emissions control over the useful life of the vehicle would likel y prevent some if not most larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NO X low enough to comply with the 30 mg/mi f

leet

- average standard. These vehicles represent a sufficiently large segment of light

- dut y vehicle sales now and in the foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset (and thus the fleet

- average standard achieved) by certifying vehicles to bi ns below the fleet average. Any degradation in cataly st performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin necessary to ensure in

- use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 mil es versus the current 120,000 miles would further add to manufacturers’ compliance challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (See Section IV.7.b below for more on the useful life requirements.)

261 Heck, R.M., Farrauto, R.J. (2002). Chapter 6: Automotive Cataly st in Catalytic Air Pollution Control, 2 nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 262 Ball, D., Clark, D., Moser, D. (2011). Effects of Fuel Sulfur on FTP NO X Emissions from a PZEV 4 Cylinder Application. SAE Technial Paper No. 2011

- 01
- 0300. 263 Butler, A. and Cho i, D. (2012). The Effects of Fuel Sulfur Level on Emissions In

- Use Tier 2 Vehicles. Found in the docket, EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

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

– An Investigation of Costs and Benefits
. Published by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 122 of 888 d. Gasoline Sulfur Control Required to Meet Tier 3 Emissions Stand ards The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust cataly st performance and the relative stringency of the Tier 3 standards, particularl y for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination o f sulfur from gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10
- ppm standard for sulfur in gasoline represents the lowest practical limit from a standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering gasoline sulfur to levels below 1 0 ppm would further help ensure in

- use vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that a gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance b y gasoline

- fueled engines with a national fleet average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . The le vel of the proposed Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10

- ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. Not onl y should a 10
- ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manufacturers to certify their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but based on the results of testing both Tier 2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their emission performance in

- use over their full useful life. It is imp ortant to note that while the preceding discussion focused on gasoline sulfur control, spark ignition engines operating on other fuels (i.e., CNG, LP G, E85) and utilizing a three way cataly st sy stems for control of emission are similarly a ffected by the su lfur levels in the fuel. We invite comment on all aspects of our anal ys is of gasoline sulfur effects and our conclusions, especiall y comments that include any additional relevant testing data. 7. Other Provisions
a. Earl y Credits The California LEV III program i s scheduled to begin at least two model ye ars earlier than the proposed federal Tier 3 program. 265 As stated earlier, EPA proposes to implement the Tier 3 standards in MY 2017, for vehicles 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and less, and in MY 2018 for vehicles over 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. As a result, LEV III vehicles sold in California beginning in MY 2015 will be required to meet a lower fleet average NMOG+NO X level than the federal fleet is meeting at that time. In addition, the California NMOG+NO X standards will continue to dec line resulting in the gap growing between the current federal program and LEV III. The earl y credit program we are proposing is designed to accomplish three goals: (1) Encourage manufacturers to produce a cleaner federal fleet earlier than otherwise requ ired; (2) provide needed flexibility to the manufacturers to facilitate the “step down” from the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average required in MY 2016 to the LEV III
- based declining fleet average in MY 2017; and (3) create a Tier 3 program that is equiva lent in stringency to the LEV III program such that manufacturers will be able to produce a 50

- state fleet at the earliest opportunity
.

265 The LEV III program as approved by the California Air Resources Board, January 2012.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 123 of 888 The first provision that we are proposing to address these goals is to allow manufacturers to generate earl y federal c redits against the current Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement 266 in MYs 2015 and 2016 for vehicles under 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and MYs 2016 and 2017 for vehicles greater than 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. (Early credits would only

be available for manufacturers complying under the primary program (declining fleet average), not the alternative phase

- in approach (Section IV.A.3.a above). In order to generate these credits, manufacturers would sum the NMOG and NO X certification standards for each federall y certified Tier 2 vehicle and calculate an NMOG+ NO X fleet average. Credits would be based on the difference between the new, cleaner, fleet average and the Tier 2 Bin 5 requirement (160 mg/mi total of NMOG and NO X ). We expect that manufacturers could accomplish this by certifyi ng existing Tier 2 vehicles to a lower fleet average, mainl y for the higher bins as the current sulfur content in gasoline would preclude them from certifying the cleanest bins federally (Our anal ys is, presented in Section IV.A.5 above and Chapter 1 of th e draft RIA, shows that many vehicles currentl y certified to Tier 2 Bin 5 could likely be certified to a lower bin with some reduction in compliance margin; e.g., from Bin 5 to Bin 4 or Bin 3.) We expect to reali ze earl y environmental benefits, as the re s ult of a cleaner federal fleet, that justify the credits generated. We believe that this provision would help us realize both our first and our second goals. For example, a manufacturer certifying their federal fleet to Tier 2 Bin 4 would earn 50 mg/mi of NMOG+ NO X credits per vehicle (i.e., 160 mg/mi minus 110 mg/mi) which should encourage manufacturers to certify a cleaner federal fleet and provide ample opportunity for credit generation to facilitate the “step down” in stringency. However, if we allowe d excessive early credits to be generated it could allow manufacturers to delay their federal compliance with the same fleet average as California for several years. This would be in direct conflict with our third goal of creating a program of equal strin gency to the California program as earl y as possible. In order to address this concern we are proposing that the application of the early federal credits be constrained under the following conditions:

 Earl y federal credits generated under the provision de scribed above could be used without limitation in MY 2017.

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

- state sales to California only sales. Calculation of these credits would account for the fact that some LEV III credits may have

266 Tier 2 standards are not set in the form of NMOG+NOx. The equivalent Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in NMOG+ NO X t erms would be equal to 160 mg/mi (90 mg/mi NMOG + 70 mg/mi NO X ).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 124 of 888 begun to expire and would no longer be eligible as a basis for Tier 3 earl y credits. By capping th e available federal credits we believe that the two programs, LEV III and Tier 3 would be at parit y starting in 2018 MY. In addition, because the number of federal earl y credits that could be used would be based on the number of LEV III credits that the m anufacturer had generated, there may be additional motivation for manufacturers to over

- perform in California during the initial model ye ars. We are proposing that early credit life be limited to 5 years with no discounting, consistent with the California LE V II and LEV III programs and similar to the basic credit carry

- forward provisions of the recent light

- dut y and heav y - dut y greenhouse gas rules . We are not proposing any carry - over of Tier 2 credits for use in the Tier 3 program
. We seek comment on the 5
- ye ar credit life in the context of the programs goals of harmonization with California L EV III and whether the added flexibility would be advantageous relative to an y added burden associated with corresponding record retention requirements. b. Us eful L ife The “useful life” of a vehicle is the period of time, in terms of y ears and miles, during which a manufacturer is responsible for the vehicle’s emissions performance. 267 For LDVs and LDTs (including MDPVs) under the Tier 2 program, there have hi storically been both “full useful life” values, approximating the average life of the vehicle on the road, and “intermediate useful life” values, representing about half of the vehicle’s life. For the Tier 3 program, we are proposing several changes to th e current useful life provisions that are appropriate to the proposed standards described above. Every vehicle manufacturer with which the EPA has met has expressed the desire for a single national vehicle fleet and has indicated an ability and willingne ss to certify their vehicles to a 150,000 mile, 15 year full useful life in support of that goal, since the LEV III program would appl y a single 150,000 mile, 15 ye ar useful life value for all of the new standards. However, the CAA, written at a time when vehicles did not last as long as today , precludes EPA from requiring a useful life value longer than the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 year, as applicable) value set in Tier 2, for all LDVs and for LDTs up to 3,750 lbs LVW and up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR (LDT1s). For vehicles heavier than these limits (i.e., LDT2s, 3s, 4s, as well as MDPVs, representing a large fraction of the light

- duty fleet) we are proposing a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life value. For the lighter vehicles, we are proposing

267 The useful life of the vehicle should not be confused with the vehicle’s emissions warranty. The useful life value is relevant for certification and in

- use compliance purposes; the emissio ns warranty relates to the period during which the manufacturer is obligated to repair or replace failing emission control equipment on a properly maintained vehicle
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 1 25 of 888 to continue to app ly

the 120,000 mile (and 10 or 11 y ear, as applicable) full useful life requirement from the Tier 2 program. Numerically , we are proposing 120,000 mile useful life NMOG+NO X standards that are 85 percent of the respective NMOG+ NO X 150,000 mile standards. (See Chapter 1 of the draft RIA for a description of our anal ys is of this relationship.) For the lighter vehicles, we propose that manufacturers be allowed to choose to certify to either useful life value in complying with the proposed fleet average and per - vehicle standards. 268 A manufacturer choosing to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for any of their lighter vehicles would demonstrate compliance with the numerically lower fleet

- average NMOG+ NO X standards for all LDV and LDT1 families
. Standards for all other pollutants 269 would remain the same regardless of whether compliance was at the 120,000 mile or the 150,000 mile useful life periods. If a vehicle manufacturer chose to comply with the 120,000 mile useful life standards for their lighter vehicles, it would be required to separatel y demonstrate that its larger vehicles complied with the 150,000 mile fleet average standards. Except for vehicles not required to meet a 150,000 miles useful life and for which a manufacturer chose to app ly the 120,000 mile useful life value, we propose that manufacturers be required to certify vehicles to the 150,000 mile useful life beginning with the first model year that a vehicle model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NO X Bin 70 or lower. This useful

- lif e requirement would appl y beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, all vehicles would need to certify to the 150,000 mile useful life, regardless of NMOG+NO X certification bin, unless they are allowed and the manufacturer has chosen to remain at 120,00 0 mile useful life. (Note that the timing of the requirement to certify on the new test fuel would follow the same approach as for the useful life requirement (i.e., based on the first year a model is certified to Bin 70 or below) as described in Section IV .A.7.c below.) We request comment on the proposed useful life provisions, including the 85 percent factor we propose to use to establish the standards for the 120,000 mile useful life.
c. Test Fuels We recognize that test fuels are an important element of a national program. Vehicle manufacturers have emphasized the desire to reduce test burden by producing one vehicle that is tested to a single test procedure and a single fuel and meets both California and federal requirements. Although we have been abl e to reasonabl y align the proposed Tier 3 program with the LEV III program in most key respects, we recognize that there would still exist some differences in emissions performance between vehicles operated on the LEV III and Tier 3 certification

268 CARB has stated that they do not expect to accept vehicles certified under the federal Tier 3 program to a 120,000 mile useful life value for California certification, and thus for meeting California’s fleet average NMOG+NO X standards. 269 PM, CO, and HCHO***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 126 of 888 fuels. T he largest differences between the two fuels are the amount of ethanol they contain and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). The proposed Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards assume operation on federal certification fuel. We propose that manufacturers begin to certify v ehicles on the new Tier 3 fuels 270 beginning with the first model year that a vehicle model is certified to the FTP NMOG+NO X Bin 70 or lower, independent of its useful life. The new

- fuel requirement would apply beginning in MY 2017. Beginning in MY 2020, a ll gasoline

- fueled models would need to certify on the new fuel, regardless of their certification bin. 271 As discussed in Section IV.A.7.b above, manufacturers would also need to appl y the 150,000 mile useful life value to these same vehicles as they begin to be certified to Bin 70 and lower. During the transition period from Tier 2 fuel to the new Tier 3 and LEV III fuels, manufacturers have indicated a substantial workload challenge of developing and certifying a vehicle to the two new fuels simultane ously . To address this potential workload and certification challenge, we propose that vehicles certified in MY 2015 through 2019 to California LEV III standards using California LEV III certification fuels and test procedures could be used for certifying to EPA standards. (For example, for MY 2015 and 2016, EPA would consider such vehicles to be Tier 2 vehicles, although they could be tested on California LEV III fuel. 272 Similarly , for MY 2017 through 2019, EPA would consider such vehicles to be Interim Tier 3 vehicles, although they

could be tested on California LEV III fuel.) For these vehicles only , we would not perform or require in

- use exhaust testing on Tier 3 fuel. California does not have fuel specifications f or high altitude testing or cold CO and hydrocarbon testing . For this reason, we are proposing that for vehicles that manufacturers choos e to certify using LEV III fuel and test procedures, they can use test fuels meeting either Tier 2 or Tier 3 fuel specifications to comply with these f ederal

- onl y requirements. We would perform in

- use testing for these vehicles on the same fuel as selected b y the manufacturer at certification. Certifications after MY 2019, however, would be required to use the Tier 3 fuel and carry

- over certifi cations using LEV II, LEV III or Tier 2 certification fuels would not be allowed after MY 2019. CARB has indicated that they would accept

270 This includes fuels used for low tem perature and high altitude testing and durability requirements. See Section IV.D below
. 271 Diesel fueled and alternative fueled vehicles would continue to test on the fuels used under the Tier 2 program. 272 Because the Tier 2 program has NO X fleet average standards (instead of the NMOG+NO X fleet averag e standard of LEV III and Tier 3), manufacturers certifying to LEV III standards in MY 2015 and 2016 would not include such vehicles in their Tier 2 NO X fleet average calculation. Tier 2 provisions that are not a part of the California program would still apply . For example, high altitude testing, which is only required in the federal program, would still need be performed on federal Tier 2 fuel.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 127 of 888 Tier 3 test data (on federal certification fuel) to obtain a California certificate as earl y as MY 2015. In this manner manufacturers should be able to avoid compliance testing on more than one fuel as vehicles certified to LEV III using federal certification fuel could obtain F inal Tier 3 status. 273 d. High Altitude Requirements FTP emission standards are historicall y des igned to be applicable at all altitudes. Under Tier 2, the same FTP emission bin standards applied to vehicles tested at both low and high

- altitude. However, fundamental ph ys ical challenges exist at high altitude resulting in ty pically higher emissions during cold starts compared with starts at lower altitudes (i.e., sea level). This expected increase in emissions is primarily

due to the lower air density at higher altitudes. Due to the lower air density , the needed volume of the hot combustion exhaust required to quickly heat the cataly st in the first minute after a cold start is reduced. As a result, catal ys t light

- off is delayed and cold start emissions increase. Vehicles under the Tier 2 program ty

pically had sufficient compliance margins to abso rb this increase in emissions during testing under high

- altitude conditions
. H owever, given the near

zero standards we are proposing in Tier 3, vehicles will have less compliance margin with which to address the issue. Under the Tier 3 program, we expect that the emission control technologies selected for low altitude performance would also provide very significant emission control at high altitude. 274 However, as explained above, unique emission challenges exist with operation at higher altitude. The stri ngency of the Tier 2 standards is such that manufacturers compl y with the same standards at all altitudes without the need to design their emission control strategies specificall y for the more challenging high altitude operation. The Tier 3 stringency may not allow manufacturers emission control strategies at lower altitude to maintain sufficient compliance margin when tested at higher altitude , therefore requiring manufacturers to design their emission controls specificall y for higher altitude. To avoid requiring special high

- altitude emission control technologies, we propose to allow manufacturers the limited relief of complying with the next less

stringent bin for testing at high altitude for vehicles certified at sea level to Bin 20, 30, and 50 (e.g., certifying to Bin 50 for testing at high altitude versus Bin 30 at sea level). For vehicles certified at sea level to Bins 70 and 125, 35 mg/mi of relief will be provided. No relief is proposed for Bin 160. We do not believe that the impact of the fairl y small fraction of overall U.S. driving that occurs in high altitude locations warrants a requirement for additional technologies to be applied specificall y for high

- altitude conditions. In addition, this

273 That is, a manufacturer that certifies a vehicle to LEV III in MY 2015 and MY 2016. 274 High

- altitude condi tions means a test altitude of 1,620 meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 128 of 888 provision is intended to be applicable to all F inal Tier 3 vehicles for the duration of the Tier 3 program. While vehicles would need to meet the Tier 3 standards at all intermediate altitudes, the question remains as to what the value of the standard should be at a given intermediate altitude. We req uest comment on both the level of the proposed high altitude standards and the appropriate level of the standard at intermediate altitudes. In particular, we seek comment on whether this could be addressed by requiring that all emission control strategies remain in effect at altitudes that are in between the specific altitudes used for high and low altitude testing and that any altitude

- related auxiliary

emission control device ( AECD ) must be identified by the manufacturer and justified as not being defeat devices.

**Table IV**  **- 9**  **Proposed High Altitude Standards** Bin Sea Level FTP Standard

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

e. Highway

Test Standards Sustained high

- speed operation can result in NO X emissions that may not be represented on either the FTP or SFTP cycles. Although we are not aware of any serious issues with this mode of operation with current Tier 2 vehicles, we are interested in preventing increases in these NO X emissions as manufacturers develop new or improved engine and emission control technologies. For this reason, we are proposing that the same FTP NMOG + NO X standards proposed above also appl y on the Highway Fuel Econom y Test (HFET), which is performed as a part of GHG and Fu el Economy compliance testing. Thus, the FTP NMOG+NO X standard for the bin at which a manufacturer has chosen to certify a vehicle would also apply on the HFET test. For example, if a manufacturer certifies a vehicle to Bin 70, the vehicle’s NMOG+NO X per formance over the HFET could not exceed 70 mg/mi. Manufacturers would simply need to ensure that the same emission control strategies implemented for the FTP and SFTP cycles were also effectively utilized during the highway test cycle. We believe that thi s proposed requirement would not require manufacturers to take an y unique technological action, would not add technology costs, and would not add significantl y to the certification burden. We request comment on this proposed provision.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 129 of 888 f. Interim 4,000 mile SFTP Standards During the period of the declining NMOG+ NO X standards, we are proposing that interim Tier 3 vehicles meet 4,000 mile SFTP standards, consistent with the existing Tier 2 and LEV II program requirements. The 4,000 mile standards are designe d to prevent excessive emission levels from a single vehicle or a single SFTP cycle, which can occur if onl y a composite approach is taken. Under the Tier 3 program, the proposed composite standards would be fleet average standards that would decline from 2017 until 2025, as described in Section IV.A 4. While this approach is expected to result in fleet

- wide reductions in SFTP emissions during all years of the declining standard, the level of the fleet average requirement during the initial years provides an opportunity for backsliding of SFTP emissions on individual vehicles or on individual SFTP cycles. We believe it is appropriate to require any individual Interim Tier 3 vehicle to at a minimum meet the same requirements under the Tier 2 and LEV II pro grams. Table IV
- 10 below presents the proposed 4,000 mile SFTP standards for interim Tier 3 vehicles. **Table IV**  **- 10**  **Proposed 4,000 Mile SFTP Exhaust Standards for Interim Tier 3 Vehicles**  **(grams/mile)** Vehicle Category US06

NMOG+NO X US06

CO SC03

NMOG+NO X SC03

CO LDV/LDT1 0.14 8.0 0.20 2.7 LDT2 0.25 10.5 0.27 3.5 LDT3 0.4 10.5 0.31 3.5 LDT4 0.6 11.8 0.44 4.0
We believe that vehicles considered to be Final Tier 3 (i.e., they meet the Tier 3 PM requirements, specificall y the stringent SFTP PM standards) will have sufficiently

robust designs that the 4,000 mile SFTP standards will no longer be necessary . Additio nally , once the program reaches the fully phased

- in fleet average composite standard of 50 mg/mi in 2025, high SFTP emissions even on a limited portion of a manufacturer’s fleet should be effectively mitigated. We seek comment on this proposed 4,000 mile SFTP provision. g. Phase

- in Schedule As described in Section IV.A.3, under the proposed Tier 3 program, manufacturers would be required to certify each vehicle model to an FTP bin, which would then be used to calculate the NMOG+NO X fleet average of all of it s vehicles. Manufacturers would also need to determine the SFTP levels of each model and calculate the NMOG+NO X fleet average for the SFTP requirements as described in Section IV.A.4. These separate FTP and SFTP fleet average***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 130 of 888 calculations would satisfy o ne aspect of certification under the Tier 3 program, specificall y the standards associated with each model y ear. As described in Sections IV.A.7.b and IV.A.7.c above, the longer (150,000 mile) useful life value, as applicable, and the new Tier 3 certificat ion fuel for exhaust testing would be implemented as manufacturers certified vehicles to more stringent NMOG+NO X standards, with the threshold to implement both of these provisions being Bin 70. Beginning in MY 2017, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lowe r would be required to be certified on Tier 3 test fuel. In addition, any vehicle certified to Bin 70 or lower that would be required to meet the longer 150,000 mile useful life would be required to do so. Beginning in MY 2020 all vehicles would be requi red to be certified to on the Tier 3 test fuel, regardless of the bin they are certified to or the useful life they are required to meet. Manufacturers would also be required to comply with more stringent PM standards on a percent phase

- in schedule. Compl iance with the PM standards, which is consistent with the CARB LEV III program, would be independent of the fleet average requirements described above. The PM emission standards for FTP and SFTP described in Section IV.A.3 and 4 respectivel y would be impl emented as a percent phase

- in requirement as described below under a basic phase

- in schedule or under an optional phase

- in schedule. Vehicles certified to a Tier 3 bin, meeting the requirements of the PM phase

- in schedule, and complying with the other Tier 3 requirements (i.e., 150,000 mile useful life (as applicable) and Tier 3 certification fuel, as applicable) would be considered “Final Tier 3” compliant vehicles. All other vehicles certified to Tier 3 bins but not y et meeting the PM and other Tier 3 re quirements would be considered “Interim Tier 3” compliant vehicles. At the completion of the percent phase

- in period for PM (2021 for the basic PM phase

- in schedule and 2022 for the alternative PM phase

- in schedule, as described below), 100 percent of veh icles would need to meet the all Tier 3 requirements and would be considered “Final Tier 3” vehicles. For the PM requirements, each ye ar manufacturers would be required to meet either the basic PM percent phase

- in or alternative PM phase

- in as described in the following subsections. The basic percent PM phase

- in schedule is composed of fixed yearl y minimum phase

- in percentages that we expect that most manufacturers would meet to comply with the Tier 3 requirements. The alternative PM phase

- in schedule p rovides additional flexibility for manufacturers with product offerings that may

not provide sufficient vehicle model granularit y to allow for a gradual transition into the F inal Tier 3 requirements as described below. Ineither case, Interim Tier 3 vehic les not yet meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must at a minimum meet the Tier 2 PM full useful life FTP standard of 10 mg/mi and the SFTP weighted composite standard of 70 mg/mi.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 131 of 888 i. Basic PM Percent Phase

-In Schedule It is important to note that the percent p hase

- in of the new Tier 3 standards that we are proposing and the declining fleet average standards to which a manufacturer’s fleet is held are separate and independent elements of the Tier 3 program. “Phase

- in” in this context means the fraction of a manufacturer’s fleet that would be required to meet the new Tier 3 PM standards in a given model y ear. We expect manufacturer fleets to consist of a mix of vehicles certified to Tier 2, LEV II, LEV III and Tier 3 standards throughout the percent phase

- in period. As discussed above, vehicles originally certified to Tier 2, LEV II, and LEV III would be carried over into the Tier 3 program as Interim Tier 3 vehicles. A vehicle would be considered a “ F inal Tier 3 vehicle” when it is certified to one of the Tier 3 bins; meets the Tier 3 PM standards; certifies to the 150,000 useful life value (for LDT2s, LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs); and certifies on the new certification test fuel. Table IV
- 11 below presents the proposed PM phase

- in schedule for F inal Tier 3 vehicles.

**Table IV**  **- 11**  **PM Phase -**  **in Schedule for Final Tier 3 Vehicles Model Year**  **2017 2018**  **2019 2020**  **2021 2022**  **and later**  Manufacturer’s Fleet (%) 20 a 20 40 70 100 100 Vehicle T ypes ≤ 6 , 000 lbs

GVWR All veh icles ≤ 8,500 lbs GVWR and MDPV s

a In 2017 model year, a manufacturer may optionally include vehicles up to 8,500 lbs GVWR and/or MDPVs in its phase

- in calculation.

ii. Optional PM Phase

- in The proposed PM percent

- of

- sales phase

- in schedule described above would allow manufacturers with multip le vehicle models to plan the phase

- in of those models based on anticipated volumes of each vehicle model. However, manufacturers certifying only a few vehicle models might not benefit from this schedule. This is because, in order to satisfy the phase

- in schedule percentages, they might have to over

- comply with the required percentages earlier than would a manufacturer with man y vehicle models available for the phase

- in. For instance, a manufacturer with onl y two models that each equally accounted for 5 0 percent of their sales would be required to introduce (at least) one of the models in MY 2017 meet the PM phase

- in requirement of 20 percent in the first year. Because it represented 50 percent of the manufacturer’s sales, this model***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 132 of 888 would then also mee t the requirements for MY 2018 (20 percent) and MY 2019 (40 percent). To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the manufacturer would need to introduce the second Tier 3 vehicle that ye ar. Thus the manufacturer would have introduc ed 100 percent of its Tier 3 models one ye ar earlier than would have been required of a manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 2021 (by distributing its their models over the entire phase

- in period). To provide for m ore equal application of this benefit among all manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are proposing an optional “indexed” PM phase

- in schedule that could be used by a manufacturer to meet its PM percent phase

- in requirements. A manufacturer that exceeded the phase

- in requirements in an y given year would be allowed to, in effect, offset some of the phase

- in requirements in a later model year. The optional phase

- in schedule would be acceptable if it passes a mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at higher volumes than obligated to under the normal phase

- in schedule, while ensuring that significant numbers of vehicles are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements durin g each ye ar of the optional phase

- in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would weight the earlier years by multiplying their percent phase

- in by the number of ye ars prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second y ear of the 100 percent phase

- in requirement). T he proposed mathematical equation for appl yi ng the optional PM phase

- in is as follows: (5 x APP2017) + (4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x APP2021) ≥540, where APP is the anticipated phase

- in percentage for the referenced model ye ar. T he sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or equal to 540, which is the result when the optional phase

- in equation is applied to the primary percent phase

- in schedule (i.e., 5 x 20% + 4 x 20% + 3 x 40% + 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 540). Applying th e proposed optional PM phase

- in equation to the hy pothetical manufacturer in the example above, the manufacturer could postpone its model introductions by

one ye ar each, to MY 2018 and MY 2021. Its calculation would be (5 x 0% + 4 x 50% + 3 x 50% + 2 x 50 % + 1 x 100% = 550, and thus the phase

in would be acceptable. EPA requests comment on the proposed PM phase

- in schedules.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 133 of 888 h. In
- use Standards i. NMOG + NO

X The proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require a substantial migration of emission control technology historically

used onl y on a small percent of the fleet and ty

pically limited to smaller vehicles and engines. While we believe that these technologies can generally be used on any

vehicle and are applicable to the entire fleet, manufacturers have l ess experience with the in

- use performance of these technologies across the fleet. For example, technologies that accelerate catal ys t warm - up such as catal ys t location close to the engine exhaust ports and other advanced thermal management approaches woul d be new to certain vehicle ty pes, particularl y larger vehicles (i.e., LDT3/4s), which have historically not relied on these technologies to meet emission standards. To help manufacturers address the lack of in

- use experience and associated challenges wi th the expanded introduction of these technologies particularly in the larger vehicles , we are proposing temporarily

- relaxed in

- use NMOG+NO X standards that would apply to all vehicles certified to Bins 70 and cleaner as Interim or Final Tier 3 vehicles
. T he in

- use standards would apply during the entire percent phase

- in period (i.e., through MY 2021). The proposed in

- use standards would be 40 percent less stringent than the certification standards, providing a significant but reasonable temporary

cushion for the uncertainties associated with new technologies (or new applications of existing technologie s) over the life of the vehicle. The proposed in

- use NMOG + NO X standards are shown in Table IV
- 12
. **Table IV**  **- 12**  **Proposed FTP In -**  **Use Standards for Light Duty Vehicles and MDPVs (mg/mi)**  Bin NMOG+NO X

(mg/mi) Bin 160 160 Bin 125 125 Bin 70 98 Bin 50 70 Bin 30 42 Bin 20 28

ii. PM As with the proposed NMOG+NO X standards, the introduction of new emission control technologies or new applications of existing technologies (e.g., GDI, turbocharging, downsized engines) would create significant uncertainties for***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 134 of 888 manufacturers about in

- use performance over the vehicle ’s useful life. We are proposing a temporary

in

- use FTP standard for PM of 6 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles and MDPVs certified to the Tier 3 full useful life 3 mg/mi standard. Since the Tier 3 PM standard has a percent phase

- in schedule spread over s everal years, starting in 2017 with full phase

- in completed in 2022, we are proposing that the in

use standard apply

to all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire percent phase

- in period (i.e., through MY 2021). We are also proposing temporarily

- relaxed in

- use US06 PM standards. We propose in

- use standards 5 mg/mi less stringent than the certification standards, or 15 mg/mi for all light duty vehicles up to and including 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and 25 mg/mi for all light dut y vehicles and light - dut y trucks over 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and MDPVs. Consistent with the FTP in

- use standards, these in

- use standards would apply to all vehicles certified to the new PM standards during the entire percent phase

- in period (i.e., through MY 2021). EPA requests comment on the proposed in

- use standards. i. FFVs Because of the ph ys ical and chemical differences in how emissions are generated and controlled between vehicles operating on gasoline and ethanol, manufacturers of vehicles designed for high

- percentage blends of ethanol (usually called Flexible Fuel Vehicles, or FFVs) may face unique compliance challenges under the proposed Tier 3 program. Historicall y, under the Tier 2 program, FFVs have onl y been required to meet all Tier 2 emission standards while operating on gasoline; when operating on the alternative fuel (generall y this means a blend that is nominally

85 percent ethanol, or E85), they have only

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

rise considerabl y in the future as ethanol use increases in response to the Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS). Thus, it is increasingl y important that FFVs maintain their emission performance when operating on E85 across different operating conditions. We believe that at standard test conditions, r equiring manufacturers to meet the Tier 3 standards on any blend of gasoline and ethanol would not add technological feasibility

concerns beyond compliance on gasoline alone (or low

level blends like E10 or E15). We are thus proposing that in addition to complying with the Tier 3 requirements when operating on gasoline, FFVs also comply with both the FTP and the SFTP emission standards when operating on E85. This would include the requirement to meet emission standards for both gasoline and E85 for the FT P, highway

test, and SFTP emission standards at standard test temperatures (i.e., 68 ° F to 86 ° F). Since FFVs can operate on any blend of gasoline and ethanol (up to a nominal 85 percent ethanol), the emission requirements appl y to operation at all levels of the alternative fuel that can be achieved with commercially available***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 135 of 888 fuels. However, for emission compliance demonstration purposes, we will continue to test on gasoline and the highest available level ethanol. EPA welcomes comment on this proposed approach to FFV compliance. j. Credit for Direct Ozone Reduction (DOR) Technology Since the late 1990s, technologies have been commercialized with which vehicles can remove ozone from the air that flows over the vehicle’s coolant radiator. In such direct ozo ne reduction (DOR) technology, a catalytic coating on the radiator is designed to convert ambient ozone into gaseous ox ygen, addressing the air quality

concerns about ozone. Detailed technical anal ys es for the California LEV II and the federal Tier 2 programs showed that when properl y designed these sy stems can remove sufficient ozone from the air to be equivalent to a quantifiable reduction in tailpipe NMOG emissions. In the earlier programs, both California and EPA provided methodologies through which a manufacturer could demonstrate the capability and effectiveness of the ozone

- reducing technology and be granted an NMOG credit. A small number of vehicle models with DOR applications received credit under the LEV II program; no manufacturer formally appl ied for credits under the federal Tier 2 program. Some manufacturers have expressed an interest in the continued availability of a DOR credit as a part of their potential LEV III and Tier 3 compliance strategies. EPA believes that when a DOR s ys tem is sho wn to be effective in reducing ozone, a credit toward Tier 3 compliance is warranted. We propose that manufacturers following the California methodology for demonstrating effectiveness and calculating a appropriate credit for a DOR s ys tem be granted a spe cific credit toward the NMOG portion of the NMOG+NO X standard. 275 As with the California program, such a credit could not exceed 5 mg/mi NMOG. We invite comment on the appropriateness of this proposed DOR credit approach, including the application of the C alifornia methodology to the federal Tier 3 program. k. Credit for Adopting a 150,000

- Mile Emissions Warrant y Under the Tier 3 standards proposed above manufacturers would be expected to design their emission control sy stems to continue to operate effecti vely for a useful life of 150,000 miles (120,000 miles for some smaller vehicles). However, as with the current Tier 2 program, manufacturers are onl y required to replace failed emission control components or sy stems on customers’ vehicles for a limited t ime period, specified in the Clean Air Act (80,000 miles/8 years for key emission control components). EPA believes that voluntary extension of this warranty obligation by

manufacturers would provide additional emission reductions

275 EPA is incorporating the CARB DOR methodology by reference.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 136 of 888 by helping ensure that c ontrols continue to operate effectivel y in actual operation through the full life of the vehicle. We propose that a manufacturer providing its customers with a robust emission control sy stem warranty of 15 years or 150,000 miles be eligible for a modest c redit of 5 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . 276 Because of the significant liability that manufacturers would be accepting, we do not expect that the use of this credit opportunity

would be widespread. However, based on our modeling of the expected deterioration of the emis sions of future Tier 3 vehicles absent repair/replacement of failed emission controls, we anticipate that the value to the environment of long emissions warranties in terms of reduced real

- world emissions would significantl y exceed the 5 mg/mi NMOG+NO X cre dit. 277 We propose to use the same criteria for approving such a credit as does the parallel California program. 278 Thus, in addition to committing to customers that failing emission controls would be repair ed or replaced for 15 years/150,000 miles, manufacturers would also need to accept the liability that in the event that a specific emissions control device failed on greater than 4 percent of a vehicle model’s production, they

would recall the entire production of that model for repair. EPA requests comme nt on this optional credit opportunity
. l. Averaging, Banking, and Trading of Credits An averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program was established in the Tier 2 program to provide for credits to be generated by certifying vehicles that perform better th an the standards, for those credits to be used to offset vehicles that perform worse than the standards, and for credits to be banked for later use or traded to other manufacturers. The ABT program is largely unchanged by

this Tier 3 proposal. In some ca ses, especiall y during the transitional years, there would be specific restrictions on the generation of credits, as described above. Also, we are proposing that Tier 3 credits expire after 5 years, consistent with the LEV II and LEV III programs and simi lar to the basic credit carry - forward provisions in the recent light

- dut y and heavy

- dut y greenhouse gas rules. We invite comment on the ABT program in general, and specific comment on a longer Tier 3 credit life, including an y flexibilities that this may provide and any implications for record retention requirements by manufacturers
.

276 Manufacturers choosing to comply with the standards for a 120,000 mile useful life for their LDVs and LDT1s would not be eligible for this extended warranty credit for those vehicles. 277 Beardsley, M, et al. (2013, February). Updates to MOVES for the Tier 3 NPRM. Memorandum to the docket. 278 EPA is incorporating the CARB extended emission warranty provisions by reference.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 137 of 888 m. Tier 3 Transitional Emissions Bin s In discussions with manufacturers , EPA has become aware that some vehicles may

continue to be produced as late as MY 2019 that could be certified to Tier 2 Bin 3 or Bin 4 standards . In order to provide manufacturers flexibility in meeting the fleet average standards and thus to further facilitate the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3, we will allow manufacturers t o certify to the combined NMOG+NO X levels of these bins through MY 20 19
. Two proposed transitional Tier 3 bins, Bin 110 and Bin 85, would have NMOG+NO X standards on the FTP of 110 mg/mi and 85 mg/mi, respectivel y (i.e., the sum of the NMOG and NO X values from the Tier 2 bins ) ; the associated FTP standards for CO, PM, and HCHO corresponding to these bins would be identical to those for vehicles certified to the proposed Tier 3 Bin 125. Tier 3 SFTP standards would apply to these vehicles, and these vehicles would be included in the Tier 3 PM percent phase

- in calculations.
n. Compliance Demonstration In general, w e are proposing that manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3 light

- duty vehicle emission standards in a very similar manner to curr ent Tier 2 vehicle compliance (see § 86.1860 of the proposed regulatory

language ). However, we propose for Tier 3 that manufacturers calculate their compliance with the fleet average standards and percent phase

- in standards based on annual nationwide s ales, including sales in California and Clean Air Act Section 177 states. We believe that this approach represe nts another step toward achieving the goal of an effectivel y nationwide program as earl y as possible, which has been a basic principle in EPA’s development of this proposed program and broadly supported by

vehicle manufacturers. We also believe that basing compliance on nationwide sales may reduce the need for manufacturers to project future sales and track past years’ sales in a disaggregated way. Because the proposed Tier 3 provisions will becom e increasingl y consistent with LEV III provisions as the Tier 3 program phases in, we believe that an y disproportionate impacts of different mixes of vehicles in different states are unlikel y to occur. We seek comment on this approach to compliance demonstration. This proposed nationwide compli ance calculation approach would appl y to vehicles as they

become subject to the Tier 3 provisions, either the declining fleet

average NMOG+NO X curves or the perc ent phase

- in PM standards. Were any manufacturer to choose to use the alternative FTP and SFTP phase

- ins, which are not a part of the LEV III program, the manufacturer would not include sales in California or in the Secti o n 177 states in its compliance c alculations. 279

279 If EPA ultimately decided to continue the disaggregated approach to fleet compliance calculations, we could potentially base com pliance with the proposed Tier 3 emission requirements on U.S. sales ( i.e., sales in non - California and non - Section 177 states ).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 138 of 888 **B. Tailpipe Emissions Standards for Heavy**  **- Duty Vehicles**  1. Overview We are proposing Tier 3 exhaust emissions standards for heav y - dut y vehicles (HDVs) between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR that are certified to gram per mile standards on a chassis dy namometer. Vehicles in this GVWR range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,501

- 10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001

- 14,000 lbs) vehicles, and are t ypically full

- size pickup trucks and work vans certified as complete vehicles. 280 Most are built by companies w ith even larger light

- duty truck markets, and as such they frequentl y share major design characteristics and potential emissions control technologies with their LDT counterparts. However, in contrast to the largel y gasoline

- fueled LDT fleet, roughl y half of the HD pickup and van fleet in the U.S. is diesel

- fueled, which is a consideration in setting emissions standards, as diesel engine emissions and control strategies differ from those of gasoline engines. Manufacturers of diesel

- fueled complete HDVs have the option under existing EPA regulations to satisfy EPA criteria emissions requirements for these vehicles b y using engines certified through engine dynamometer testing, but for the most part have chosen to certify whole vehicles on the chassis test. We are proposing to codify

this common practice and require that diesel

- fueled Class 2b and 3 complete Tier 3 vehicles, like their gasoline

- fueled counterparts, be certified to the Tier 3 standards on the chassis test. The current prohibition in 40 CFR 86.1 863
- 07(d) on averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) credit generation and use by chassis

- certified diesel HDVs would be replaced by the proposed fleetwide averaging program. We are not proposing changes to the heav y - dut y engine certification requirements at this time. Manufacturers of incomplete HDVs that are sold to secondary manufacturers for subsequent completion (less than 10 percent of the Class 2b and 3 U.S. market) are also allowed under existing EPA regulations to certify via either the chassis or e ngine test, and those who choose to chassis

- certify in the future would be subject to Tier 3 requirements. We are not proposing to mandate chassis certification of incomplete Class 2b and 3 vehicles, but we note that California’s LEV III program does include such a requirement for Class 2b and we request comment on doing the same in the federal program. We further note that MDPVs are classified as HDVs under the Clean Air Act but, as in our current Tier 2 program, would be covered as part of our Tier 3 li ght

- dut y program discussed in Section IV.A, and not in the proposed program described here.

280 40 CFR 86.1803
- 01 defines HDVs to also include motor vehicles at or below 8,500 lbs GVWR that have a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 lbs or a basic vehicle fro ntal area in excess of 45 square feet, and we are proposing that these vehicles also would be subject to the standards and other provisions applicable to Class 2b vehicles discussed in this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 139 of 888 The key elements of the proposed Tier 3 program for HDVs parallel those proposed for passenger cars and LDTs, with adjustments in standards levels, emissions test r equirements, and implementation schedules, appropriate to this sector. These key

elements include a combined NMOG+NO X declining fleet average standard beginning in 2018 and reaching the final, full y phased

- in level in 2022, creation of a bin structure for standards, new stringent PM standards phasing in on a separate schedule, changes to the test fuel for gasoline

- and ethanol

- fueled vehicles, extension of the regulatory useful life to 150,000 miles, and a new requirement to meet standards over the SFTP th at would address real

- world driving modes not well

- represented by the FTP cycle alone. We believe that other requirements already in place for HDV testing and compliance remain appropriate. In particular, we believe the current HDV certification requirem ent to test at the adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW), equal to vehicle curb weight plus one

- half the payload weight, is more appropriate for these heavy

- dut y work trucks and vans than the LDT requirement to test at curb weight plus 300 lbs. These diff erences from light

- dut y requirements also factor into the evaluation of potential control technologies and subsequent choice of standards levels, as discussed below. As with the proposed light

- duty Tier 3 program, we are putting strong emphasis on coordinating this HDV Tier 3 proposal with California’s LEV III program for Class 2b and 3 vehicles, referred to in LEV III as medium

- duty vehicles (MDVs). The goal is to create a coordinated “national program” in which California would accept compliance with Tie r 3 standards as sufficient to also satisfy L EV III requirements, thus allowing manufacturers to compl y nationwide by marketing a single vehicle fleet. With this goal in mind, we discuss the relationship of the proposed HDV Tier 3 program provisions to L E V III throughout this section. As part of this effort, we are proposing that manufacturers of Tier 3 HDVs calculate compliance with the fleet average standards and percent phase

- in standards discussed in this section based on annual nationwide sales, inc luding sales in California and Clean Air Act Section 177 states. This would help to create an effectivel y nationwide program, which has been a basic principle in EPA’s development of this proposed program and broadly supported by

vehicle manufacturers. If th is proposed approach to HDV fleet compliance calculations is not adopted , EPA could base compliance with the proposed Tier 3 requirements on U.S. sales outside of C alifornia and the Section 177 states. Furthermore, in 2011 EPA and NHTSA set first

- ever standards for GHGs and fuel consumption from HD pickups and vans (as well as other heav y - duty vehicles and engines). These standards phase in over 2014

- 2018, so in developing the Tier 3 HDV proposal we have carefull y taken this new program into account t o maximize the coordination between the two complementary heavy

- dut y regulatory programs and avoid inconsistencies.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 140 of 888 2. HDV Exhaust Emissions Standards
a. Bin Standards We are proposing that manufacturers certify HDVs to Tier 3 requirements by having them meet th e standards for one of the bins listed in Table IV
- 13
. Manufacturers would choose bins for their vehicles based on their product plans and corporate s trategy

for compliance with the fleet average standards discussed in Section IV.A.2.b, and once a vehicle’s bin is designated, those bin standards apply throughout its useful life. Because the fleet average standards become more stringent over time, the b in mix would graduall y s hift from higher to lower bins. As in the past, we are proposing numerically higher standards levels for Class 3 vehicles than for Class 2b vehicles, reflective of the added challenge in reducing per - mile emissions from large work trucks designed to carry and tow heavier loads. Also, the proposed standards levels for both Class 2b and Class 3 HDVs are significantl y higher than those being proposed for light

- duty trucks due to marked differences in vehicle size and capability , and t o our requirement to test HDVs in a loaded condition (at ALVW). By conducting emissions testing with loaded vehicles, the heav y - dut y program ensures that emissions controls are effective when these vehicles are performing their core function: hauling heav y loads. This is a key difference between the heavy

- dut y and light

- duty truck programs. The proposed bin structure and standards levels are consistent with those in the LEV III program. We request comment on the usefulness of creating additional bins be tween Bin 0 and the next lowest bin in each vehicle class, as a means of encouraging clean technologies and adding flexibility
.

**Table IV**  **- 13**  **Proposed FTP Standards for HDVs** NMOG +NO X (mg/mi) NMOG

(mg/mi) NO X

( mg/mi) PM

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) Formaldeh yd e

(mg/mi) **Class 2b (8,501 -**  **10,000 lbs GVWR):** Bin 395 (interim)

-- 195 200 8 6.4 6 Bin 340 (interim)

-- 140 200 8 6.4 6 Bin 250 250
-- -- 8 6.4 6 Bin 200 200
-- -- 8 4.2 6 Bin 170 170
-- -- 8 4.2 6 Bin 150 150
-- -- 8 3.2 6 Bin 0 0
-- -- 0 0 0 **Class 3 (10,001 -**  **14,000 lbs GVWR):** Bin 630 (interim)

-- 230 400 10 7.3 6 Bin 570 (interim)

-- 170 400 10 7.3 6 Bin 400 400
-- -- 10 7.3 6 Bin 270 270
-- -- 10 4.2 6 Bin 230 230
-- -- 10 4.2 6***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 141 of 888 Bin 200 200
-- -- 10 3.7 6 Bin 0 0
-- -- 0 0 0 The proposed NMOG and NO X standards for the highest bins in each class (Class 2b Bin 395 and Class 3 Bin 630) are equal to the current non

- methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) and NO X standards that took full effect in 2009, as well as to equivalent LEV standards in California’s LEV II program. These bins are intended as carryover bins. That is, we would expect them to be populated with vehicles that are designed to meet the current standards, and that are being phased out as new lower

- emitting vehicle designs phase in to satisfy the proposed Tier 3 fleet average NMOG+NO X standard. We also consider the next highest bins (Class 2b Bin 340 and Class 3 Bin 570) to be carryover bins, be cause they likewise can be readily achieved b y vehicles designed for today’s EPA and California LEV II emissions programs. As the 2018

- 2022 phase

- in progresses, it would become increasingl y difficult to produce vehicles in these bins and still meet the fl eet average standard. Therefore vehicles in these bins (as well as some others not y et designed to meet Tier 3 PM standards described in Section IV.B.2.d) would be considered “interim Tier 3” vehicles, and the bins themselves would be considered “interim bins .” To facilitate their use in this carryover function, we are proposing that the interim bins not include SFTP requirements, longer useful life requirements, or requirements to conduct exhaust emissions testing with the proposed new gasoline test fuel discussed in Section IV.D, although testing on this fuel would be allowed. For gasoline

- fueled HDVs in all other bins, we are proposing that exhaust emissions testing be conducted with the new test fuel. (See Section IV. D.5 for discussion of our request for comment on extending this requirement to testing of gasoline

- fueled heav y - dut y engines as well.) In the context of these proposed accommodations for the interim bins, we propose two additional measures to help ensure these bins are focused on their function of helping manufacturers transition to F inal Tier 3 vehicles. First, we propose that the interim bins be available onl y in the phase

- in ye ars of the program, that is, through MY 2021, as is appropriate to their interim status. Second, we are propos ing that vehicles in the interim bins meet separate NMOG and NO X standards, as indicated in Table IV
- 13 , rather than combined NMOG+NO X standards. This proposed provision is intended to keep a manufacturer from redesigning or recalibrating a vehicle design under combined NMOG+NO X Tier 3 standards for such purposes as reducing fuel consumption, through means that result in higher NO X or NMOG emissions than exhibited by today ’s vehicles, contrary to the intended carryover function of the interim bins. We note that other, more stringent, proposed bins also carry this potential but to a lesser degree, and we feel their relativel y low NM OG+NO X standards levels sufficiently

mitigate this concern, whereas the interim bins have the potential to allow a doubling of emissions or more. We request comment on this issue and the proposed approach to addressing it.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 142 of 888 b. Fleet Average NMOG+NO X Standards As in the light

- dut y program, a key element of the Tier 3 program is a fleet average NMOG+NO X standard that becomes more stringent in successive model ye ars: in the case of HDVs, from 2018 to 2022. Each HDV sold by a manufacturer in each model ye ar contributes to this fleet average based on the mg/mi NMOG+NO X level of the bin declared for it b y the manufacturer. For the interim bins, with separate NMOG and NO X standards, the NMOG+NO X level is the simple sum of the NMOG and NO X standards. Manufacturers m ay also earn or use credits for fleet average NMOG+NO X levels below or above the standard in any model ye ar, as described in Section IV.B.4. We are proposing the separate Class 2b and Class 3 fleet average standards shown in Table IV
- 14 , though a manufacturer could effectivel y average the two fleet classes using credits (see Section IV.B.4). We believe this split

- curve approach is superior to a single HDV phase

- in because it recognizes the different Class 2b/Class 3 fleet mixes among manufacturers and the different challenges in meeting mg/mi standards between Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, while still allowing for a corporate compliance strategy based on a combined HDV fleet through the use of credits. The proposed fleet average standards are consistent with those set for the MDV LEV III program in model y ears 2018 and later. Note that the LEV III program also sets standards for model y ears before 20 18, something EPA is not requiring due to lead time considerations. However, we are proposing that manufacturers may

voluntarily

meet bin and fleet average standards in model y ears 2016 and 2017 that are consistent with the MDV LEV III standards, for the purpose of generating credits that can be used later or traded to others. These proposed voluntary standards are shown in Table IV
- 14 . This proposed voluntary opt - in program serves the important purpose of furthering consistency between the federal and California programs, such that manufacturers who wish to can produce a single vehicle fleet for sale nationwide, with the opportunity for reciprocal ce rtification in affected model ye ars. It further incentivizes pulling ahead of Tier 3 technologies, with resulting environmental benefits, b y providing for early compliance credits in this nationwide fleet. Manufacturers choosing to opt into this early compliance program could start in either model year 2016 or 2017. They would have to meet the full complement of applicable bin standards and requirements, including SFTP standards, but not the Tier 3 PM FTP and SFTP standards discussed in Section s IV .B.2.d and IV.B.3.a , or the evaporative emissions standards discussed in Section IV .C, because these requirements phase in on a later schedule. We are also requesting comment on extending the voluntary compliance opportunity

to the 2015 model year. **Table IV**  **- 14**  **Proposed HDV Fleet Average NMOG+NO X**  **Standards (mg/mi)**

Voluntary Required Program***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 143 of 888 Model Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later Class 2b 333 310 278 253 228 203 178 Class 3 548 508 451 400 349 298 247 We believe that offering this voluntary opt - in would benefit the environment, the regulated industry , and vehicle purchasers, because it has potential to accomplish earl y emissions reductions while maintaining the goal of a cost

effective, nationwide vehicle program in every model year going forward. We request comment on all facets of this proposed approach. Although manufacturers would be allowed to meet the fleet average NMOG+NO X standard through whatever combination of bin

- specific vehi cles they choose, it is instructive to note that the fully phased in fleet average standard for model years 2022 and later would be the equivalent of a Class 2b fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 170 and 10 percent Bin 250 vehicles, and a Class 3 fleet mix of 90 percent Bin 230 and 10 percent Bin 400 vehicles. Therefore, it is a ppropriate to consider Bin 170 Class 2b vehicles and Bin 230 Class 3 vehicles to be representative of Tier 3

- compliant HDVs in the long term. The Tier 3 program we are proposing for HDVs would result in substantial reductions in harmful emissions from th is large fleet of work trucks and vans, vehicles that are t ypically driven over high annual miles on every part of the nation’s highway

and urban roadway

s ys tem. The F inal Tier 3 standards levels for NMOG+NO X and PM are on the order of 60 percent lower th an the current stringent standards that took full effect three ye ars ago.
c. Alternative NMOG+NO X Phase

- in We believe that the program described in Sections IV.B.2.a and b above would provide manufacturers with a flexible and effective compliance path. Howev er, as in the case of the light

- dut y standards discussed above, we are proposing to provide an alternative compliance path that would be available to any manufacturer who prefers a stable standard and four full years of lead time, as specified in the Clean Air Act. 281 This alternative approach would be equivalent to the primary

approach that is based on NMOG+NO X declining fleet average standard s and would apply during the program phase

- in over the 2016

- 2022 model

281 For vehicles above 6 , 000 lbs GVWR, CAA section 202(a)(3 )(C) requires EPA to provide manufacturers with a minimum of 4 years of lead time before mandatory changes to any standard applicable to HC, NO X , CO or PM can be implemented, and 3 years of stability between changes to any such standard.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 144 of 888 ye ars , with the first three of those model year standards made voluntary and set at levels to align with the California LEVIII program . W e are proposing an alternative phase

- in structured to require an annually increasing percent

- of

- sales of HDVs certified to the full y phased in 178 mg/mi (Class 2b) and 247 mg/mi (Class 3) standards, as shown in Table IV
- 15
. **Table IV**  **- 15**  **Proposed Percent -**  **of -**  **Sales Alter native NMOG+NO**  **X Phase**  **- in**  Voluntary Required Program Model Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 and later Class 2b 29% 39% 54% 65% 77% 88% 100% Class 3 21% 32% 47% 60% 73% 87% 100%

Under our alternative phase

- in proposal, the availability of emissions averaging makes the two alternatives functionally equivalent, not just in the annual emissions reductions they achieve, but also in how manufacturers may design their mix of products to meet the phase

- in standards. Although we are proposing to make the alternative approach available, we believe that the primary approach

– the declining fleet average standard discusse d above

- is more consistent with the approach taken in California’s LEV III program and in recent GHG reduction rules
. To help ensure that the percent

- of

- sales alternative is fully

equivalent to the primary program in terms of fleet

- wide emissions control and technology mix choices, we are proposing that it include some additional provisions. First, we are proposing that the Tier 3 vehicles being phased in under the percent

- of

- sales alternative, in addition to meeting the fully phased

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

co mpliance program. These include the CO and formaldehyde FTP standards in Table IV
- 13 , the 150,000 mile (15 year) useful life requirement, exhaust emissions testing with the new test fuel for gasoline

- and ethanol

- fuel ed vehicles discussed in Section IV.D, and the NMOG+NO X and CO SFTP standards in Table IV
- 16 . The specific proposed standards are those for the bins in these tables closest to the fully

phased

- in NMOG+NO X standards: Bin 170 for Class 2b and Bin 230 for Class 3. (The PM and evaporative emissions standards phase in on separate schedules under both alternatives, as discussed in Sections IV.B.2.d and IV .C .) Second, we are proposing to make an ABT program available for the percent - of

- sales alternative, structured like the one proposed for the primary option. This would involve certifyingthe vehicles in a manufacturer’s HDV fleet to the bin standards in Table IV
- 13 , and demonstrating compliance with the fleet average***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 145 of 888 standards for the primary program in each model y ear, including through the use of ABT credits as in the primary program. We are proposing to use the flee t average calculation method for purposes of ABT because, as explained above, we have determined that making this demonstration is equivalent to demonstrating compliance with the percent

- of

- sales requirement, and we see no value in complicating the program with another set of calculations. However, we are proposing one difference between the primary and alternative options with respect to ABT provisions. Unlike in the primary option, manufacturers would not have to certify all vehicles into bins in order to take advantage of the ABT provisions under the percent

- of

- sales alternative. Rather they could choose to certify

an y “phase

- out” vehicles (that is, those not counting toward the percent

- of

- sales phase

- in) to the pre

- Tier 3 NMHC and NO X standards, prov ided these vehicles do not have famil y emission limits (FEL s) above those standards. These non

- Tier 3 vehicles would not be subject to the Tier 3 standards or other vehicle

- specific elements of the Tier 3 compliance program. For the purposes of the fleet average ABT calculation, the NMOG+NO X levels for these non - Tier 3 vehicles would be set equal to the sum of the NMOG and NO X standards for the highest bins: 395 mg/mi for Class 2b and 630 mg/mi for Class 3, because these standards are numerically equal to the pre

- Tier 3 NMHC and NO X standards. d. Phase

- in of PM Standards Consistent with the light

- duty Tier 3 proposal discussed in Section IV.A, we are proposing to phase in the PM standards for HDVs as an increasing percentage of a manufacturer’s production of chassis

- certified HDVs (combined Class 2b and 3) per ye ar. The reasons discussed in Section IV.A for this phase

- in schedule in the light

- duty sector also apply

to the heavy

- dut y sector. In addition to concerns regarding the availability and required upgr ades of test facilities used for both light

duty and heav y - dut y vehicle testing, manufacturers have expressed uncertainty about PM emissions with new engine and emissions control technologies entering the market as a result of new GHG standards. Therefore we are proposing the same phase

- in schedule as proposed for the light

- dut y sector in model years 2018
- 2019
- 2020
- 2021: 20
- 40
- 70
- 100 percent, respectively . This would apply to HDVs certified under either NMOG+NO X phase

- in alternative. The California Air Resources Board is phasing in the LEV III PM standards for HDVs on the same schedule, except that LEVIII would also involve a 10 percent PM phase

- in in the 2017 model year, and we ask for comment on our doing so as well, in the context of the voluntary

opt - in discussed in Section IV.B.2.b . The voluntary NMOG+ NO X and PM standards may

be pursued separately , with no requirement that they be met on the same vehicles
. For manufacturers choosing the declining fleet average NMOG+NO X compliance path, the PM phase

- in requirement for HDVs would be completely independent of the NMOG+NO X phase

- in. As a result, vehicles certified to any of the bin standards for NMOG and NO X need not necessaril y meet Tier 3 PM standards before the 2021 mod el year. Instead, the current 0.02 g/mi PM standard***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 146 of 88 8 would apply

for those vehicles not yet phased into the Tier 3 PM standards. We are proposing that manufacturers choosing the percent

- of

- sales phase

- in alternative for NMOG+NO X would be required to meet the PM phase

- in requirements with only those vehicles certified to the Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standard, except in the 2018 and earlier model years when the standards, including the PM standards, would be voluntary , and in the 2021 model year when the 100 percent PM phase

- in requirement exceeds the 87

- 88 percent NMOG+NO X phase

- in requirement. Consistent with the approach we are proposing for the light

- dut y sector, we would consider an y vehicle under either compliance path that is not certified to Tier 3 standards for PM, NMOG, and NO X (as well as the other, concomitant Tier 3 standards and requirements such as extended useful life), an “Interim Tier 3” vehicle, a term that also applies to vehicles certified in one of the interim bins, as discussed above. Note that compliance with Tier 3 evaporative emissions requirements would follow a separate phase

- in schedule as described in Section IV.C, such that a vehicle in an exhaust emissions family that the manufacturer has phased into the new useful life and test fuel re quirements, may be in an evaporative emissions family that has not yet phased these in for evaporative emissions testing. i. Optional PM Phase

- in The proposed percent

- of

- sales phase

- in schedule for the PM standard, described above, would allow manufacturers with multiple vehicle models to determine and plan the phase

- in of those models based on anticipated volumes of each vehicle model. However, manufacturers certifying only a few vehicle models may not be able to take advantage of this schedule. This is because, in order to satisfy the phase

- in schedule percentages, they may have to over

- compl y with the required percentages earlier than would a manufacturer with many vehicle models available for the phase

- in. For instance, a manufacturer with onl y two models that each equally accounted for 50 percent of its sales would be required to introduce (at least) one of the models in MY 2018 to meet the p hase

- in requirement of 20 percent in the first ye ar. At the 50 percent level, this model would then also meet the requirements for MY 2019 (40 percent). To meet the MY 2020 requirement of 70 percent of sales, however, the manufacturer would need to introd uce the second Tier 3 vehicle that ye ar. Thus the manufacturer would have introduced 100 percent of its Tier 3 models one year earlier compared to a manufacturer that was able to delay the final 30 percent of its fleet until MY 2021 by distributing its re designed models over the entire phase

- in period. To provide for more equal application of this benefit among all manufacturers in the early years of the program, we are proposing an optional “indexed” phase

- in schedule that could be used by a manufacturer to meet its phase

in requirements. A manufacturer that exceeded the phase

- in requirements in any***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 147 of 888 given ye ar would be allowed to, in effect, offset some of the phase

- in requirements in a later model ye ar. The optional phase

- in schedule would be acceptable if it passes a mathematical test. The mathematical test is designed to provide manufacturers a benefit from certifying to the standards at higher volumes than obligated to under the normal phase

- in schedule, while ensuring that significant numbers of vehi cles are meeting the new Tier 3 requirements during each year of the optional phase

- in schedule. In this approach, manufacturers would weight the earlier ye ars b y multiplying their percent phase

- in by the number of years prior to MY 2022 (i.e., the second ye ar of the 100 percent phase

- in requirement). The proposed mathematical equation for appl yi ng an optional phase

- in is as follows: (4 x APP2018) + (3 x APP2019) + (2 x APP2020) + (1 x APP2021) ≥ 440, where APP is the anticipated phase

- in percentage for the referenced model year. The sum of the calculation would need to be greater than or equal to 440, which is the result when the optional phase

- in equation is applied to the primary percent phase

- in schedule (4 x 20% + 3 x 40% + 2 x 70% + 1 x 100% = 440). EPA requests comment on this proposed optional phase

- in mechanism.
e. NMOG+NO X and NMOG vs. NMHC The reasons for setting combined NMOG+NO X standards outlined in Section IV.A.1.a for the light

- dut y sector appl y to HDVs certified in the non

interim Tier 3 bi ns as well. In fact, the combined standard is especially appropriate in the heav y - dut y sector with comparable sales of diesel and gasoline

- fueled vehicles, because it avoids the need to set “lowest common denominator” standards for NMOG (likely

based on f

easible gasoline vehicle technologies) and NO X (likely based on feasible diesel vehicle technologies). These considerations also apply to the form of the SFTP standards, discussed below. The current HDV standards that control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), adopted in a 2001 final rule, 282 are in the form of NMHC. This is consistent with HD engine standards adopted in the same final rule, but contrasts with Tier 2 LDV/LDT standards to control VOCs that are in the form of NMOG. We believe it is appropriate to transition HDVs to NMOG

- based standards, and further to combined NMOG+NO X standards, consistent with the light

- duty Tier 3 proposal and light

- and medium

- duty L EV III program. Further, the introduction of ox ygenated test fuels requires an NMOG calculation to properl y control VOC emissions not properl y accounted for in an NMHC calculation. This would improve consistency with the LEV III program and help to facilitate a single nationwide vehicle fleet. We do not believe that this change would add significant

282 66 FR 5002 (January 18, 2001).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 148 of 888 cost to the program as manufacturers are already capable of and experienced in making NMOG determinations at their test facilities. 3. Supplemental FTP Standards for HDVs Unlike passenger cars and light trucks, HDVs are not currentl y sub ject to SFTP standards. SFTP standards are intended to ensure vehicles have robust emissions control over a wide range of real

- world driving patterns not well

- covered by the FTP drive cycle. Even though HDVs are not ty picall y driven in the same way as pa ssenger cars and LDTs, especially as they frequentl y carry or tow heav y loads, we believe some substantial portion of real world heav y - dut y pickup and van driving is not well

- represented on the FTP cycle. The goal in setting the SFTP standards levels is not to force manufacturers to add expensive new control hardware for off

- FTP cycle conditions, but rather to ensure a robust overall control program that precludes high off

- FTP cycle emissions by having vehicle designers consider them in their choice of co mpliance strategies. High off

- FTP cycle emissions, even if encountered relativel y infrequently in real

world driving, could create a substantial inadequacy in the Tier 3 program, which aims to achieve very

low overall emissions in use. The SFTP provision s would also help make the HDV program more consistent with the HD engine program, which for several ye ars has included “not

- to - exceed” provisions to control off

- cycle emissions. Therefore, in addition to the SFTP provisions, we are further limiting enrichment on spark ignition engines in all areas of operation unless absolutely necessary . a. SFTP NMOG+NO X , PM and CO Standards The proposed SFTP standards levels are provided in Table IV
- 16 . These are consistent with those in the LEV III program.

**Table IV**  **- 16**  **Proposed SFTP Standards for HDVs** Vehicles in FTP Bins: NMOG+NO X (mg/mi) PM

(mg/mi) CO

(g/mi) **Class 2b with horsepower (hp)/GVWR ≤ 0.024 hp/lb:**  **a** FTP Bins 200, 250, 340 550 7 22.0 FTP Bins 150, 170 350 7 12.0 **Class 2b:** FTP Bins 200, 250, 340 800 10 22.0 FTP Bins 150, 170 450 10 12.0 **Class 3:** FTP Bins 270, 400, 570 550 7 6.0 FTP Bins 200, 230 350 7 4.0***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 149 of 888 a These standards apply for vehicles optionally tested using emissions from only the highway portion of the US06 cycle. We are proposing that Tier 3 SFTP implementation for HDVs be linked directly to the Tier 3 FTP phase

- in and bins for these vehicles. That is, an HDV certified to an y of the Tier 3 FTP bin standards must meet the SFTP standards for that bin as well. However, because the FTP PM standard would phase in on a separate schedule, we propose to require th at SFTP PM compliance be linked to the same schedule. That is, an HDV certified to the Tier 3 FTP PM standard must meet the applicable SFTP PM standard as well. This approach recognizes the complementary

nature of FTP and SFTP provisions and helps to ens ure that Tier 3 emissions controls are robust in real world driving. There are no proposed SFTP requirements for the interim Tier 3 bins in each class (Class 2b Bins 340 and 395 and Class 3 Bins 570 and 630), because these are essentially carry - over bins from the previous standards to aid the transition to Tier 3, and therefore are not intended to prompt vehicle redesigns to new standards. These implementation provisions are consistent with the approach taken in the LEV III program, except that California would allow FTP and SFTP phase

- in requirements to be met on different vehicles, and would appl y more of the Tier 3 requirements for SFTP and extended useful life to vehicles in the interim bins. We request comment on the proposed standards, and on whethe r or not EPA should adopt any LEV III provisions that differ from what we are proposing, such as the application of PM SFTP standards to vehicles that are in the interim bins and that also are certified to the Tier 3 PM FTP standards
. To help ensure a robu st SFTP program that achieves good control over a wide range of real world conditions, the current Tier 2 light

- dut y program adopted a weighted

- composite cycle, and we are proposing to retain this approach for light

duty Tier 3 testing, as discussed in Sec tion IV.A.1.c. Under this composite cycle, NMOG+NO X emissions are calculated from results of testing over three cycles: the US06, the FTP, and the SC03, weighting these results by 0.28, 0.35, and 0.37, respectivel y. We considered appl yi ng the same compos ite cycle for all HDV SFTP testing. However, based on data provided b y industry stakeholders, we decided that the full US06 cycle, combined with the ALVW loaded test condition, would not be sufficiently

representative of real

- world driving for two groups of HDVs: those with low power

- to - weight ratios and Class 3 vehicles. As part of their investigation of potential LEV III SFTP standards for MDVs, California Air Resources Board staff determined that it is not uncommon for vehicles above 8 , 500 lbs GVWR wi th low power

- to - weight ratio, which are largel y in Class 2b, to have to work extremel y hard to keep up with the accelerations required in the initial and final portions of the full US06 cycle, even proving ph ys ically

unable to do so in some cases, and rais ing the concern that these vehicles would not be able to run a valid emissions test. 283 Although our SFTP

283 Letter from Robert H. Cross, California Air Resources Board, to Dawn Friest, EMA, dated March 2, 2011.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 150 of 888 provisions allow a test to continue when a vehicle is incapable of attaining the vehicle speed demanded by the drive trace, we believe routine occurren ce of such an event for a group of vehicles would not be consistent with a well

- designed test regime. We would expect results from such tests to exhibit significant test

- to - test variability , making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from them. Furthermore, in real

- world driving, we would expect that most drivers who regularl y demand and do not receive adequate response would modify either their driving behavior or their vehicle purchase decisions. Based on manufacturer

- supplied data, the California Air Resources Board staff established a power

- to - weight (GVWR) ratio of 0.024 horsepower (hp)/lb as an approximate threshold in their efforts to characterize this issue. The vast majority of Class 2b vehicles are above this threshold today . Th ose below it tend to be used in applications where towing is not done extensively and the need for cargo space is more important than payload weight. Furthermore, it is possible that this group of vehicles will grow as purchasers adjust to sustained high fuel prices and when EPA’s GHG standards and NHTSA’s new fuel consumption standards take effect. In consideration of this matter, we are proposing that, in SFTP testing of Class 2b vehicles at or below 0.024 hp/lb, manufacturers may at their option replace the full US06 component of the composite SFTP emissions with the test results from only the second of the three emissions sampling bags in the US06 test, generall y referred to as the “highway” portion of the US06, subject to correspondingl y lower SFTP standards levels discussed above. (These vehicles would still be driven during the test in the same way as the higher power

- to - weight Class 2b vehicles (over the full US06 cycle) just using best effort (maximum power) if the vehicle cannot maintain the drivi ng schedule.) The large majority of Class 2b vehicles, with power

- to - weight above 0.024 hp/lb, would be required to measure and use emissions over the full US06 cycle in the composite SFTP. We believe that this approach would provide a robust but repeata ble and reliable test for the full range of Class 2b vehicles, as the highway portion of the US06 retains broad coverage of vehicle speed/acceleration combinations measured in real

- world driving. For Class 3 vehicles, which can weigh as much as 14,000 lbs GVWR, we are also concerned that the full US06 cycle would not provide a representative drive cycle for SFTP testing. These vehicles are much larger than the light

- dut y vehicles that formed the basis for development of the US06 cycle, and loading them to ALVW for the SFTP test yields a very heavy test vehicle, not likely

to be safel y driven in the real world in the way t ypified b y this aggressive cycle. We believe that the LA
- 92 (or “Unified”) driving cycle developed by CARB is more representative of Clas s 3 truck driving patterns and would produce more robust results for use in SFTP evaluations. Therefore we are proposing that the LA

- 92 cycle be used in place of the US06 component of the composite SFTP for Class 3 HDVs. The set of composite SFTP cycles we are proposing is full y consistent with the MDV LEV III program.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 151 of 888 Although we consider the highway portion of the US06 cycle appropriate for low power

- to - weight vehicles, we also believe that the corresponding NMOG+NO X standards should be set at lower lev els than for vehicles with emissions measured over the full US06 test. Our goal is to provide roughly equivalent stringency

and avoid creating an ease

- of

- compliance incentive to produce vehicles in one group or the other. We have reviewed the MDV SFTP st andards set b y the California Air Resources Board staff and consider them appropriate in achieving this goal. These proposed standards are included in Table IV
- 16
. HDVs do not have SC03 emissions requirements under the current HDV standards. Manufacturers of HDVs have indicated that they expect the SC03 emissions to be consistently lower than either the US06 or the FTP emissions levels, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden may be unnecessary . We are therefore proposing that HDV manufacturers have the option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissions results for purposes of co mpliance. However, we would retain the ability to determine the composite emissions using SC03 test results in confirmatory or in

- use testing. b. Enrichment L imitation for Spark

- Ignition Engines To prevent emissions from excessive enrichment in areas not ful ly encountered in the SFTP cycles, we are proposing limitations in the frequency and magnitude of enrichment episodes for spark

- ignition HDVs. These limitations would be identical to those for light

- duty vehicles discussed in detail in Section IV .A.4.c. 4. H DV Emissions Averaging, Banking, and Trading This section describes our proposed approach for emissions credits related to exhaust emissions. See Section V.C for similar provisions that apply for evaporative emissions. We are proposing to continue the current practice of allowing manufacturers to satisfy standards through the averaging of emissions, as well as through the banking of emissions credits for later use and the trading of credits with others. There are a number of facets of this proposed Tier 3 ABT program for HDVs that would be different from the current program. First, instead of separate NMHC and NO X credits, manufacturers would earn combined NMOG+NO X credits, consistent with the form of the standards. Second, we are proposing to allow manufacturers to accrue a deficit in their credit balance. Deficits incurred in a model year may be carried forward for up to 3 model y ears, but must be made up with surplus credits after that to avoid noncompliance and possible penalties. Manufacturers wou ld have to use an y new credits to offset an y s hortfall before those credits can be traded or banked for additional model years. We are proposing that credits must be used within 5 y ears after they are earned, or otherwise be forfeited. The proposed 5/3

- year credit/deficit life provisions are consistent with our proposed light

- dut y Tier 3 approach, the California LEV III***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 152 of 888 program for MDVs, and EPA programs for controlling GHG emissions from light

and heav y - dut y vehicles. Third, as part of our proposal to r equire chassis certification of complete diesel HDVs, we are proposing to allow diesel HDVs to participate in this ABT program without restriction. Currently , they are not allowed to earn or use ABT credits. We are not proposing to restrict or adjust cre dit exchange between diesel and gasoline

- fueled HDVs, consistent with our shift to combined NMOG+NO X standards that helps to ensure comparable stringency for these two engine ty

pes, and consistent also with the LEV III MDV program. We are proposing that cr edits earned b y a Tier 3 HDV may be used to demonstrate compliance with NMOG+NO X standards for any other Tier 3 HDV, regardless of size and without adjustment. This effectivel y allows manufacturers to plan a comprehensive HDV compliance strategy for their entire Class 2b and Class 3 product offering, b y balancing credits so as to demonstrate compliance with the standards for both classes. HDV manufacturers are currentl y certifying their vehicles to existing standards without the use of NO X or NMHC credits , and the levels we are proposing for Tier 3 standards are not based on an y assumption of credit transfers into Tier 3. As a result, we are not proposing provisions for converting pre

- Tier 3 credits, should any exist at the time, into Tier 3 credits, including for use in the interim bins. In the past we have set caps, called famil y emission limit (FEL) caps, on how high emissions can be for vehicles that use credits, regardless of how many credits might be available. Under our proposed bin structure, we b elieve that exhaust emission FELcaps are no longer relevant for Tier 3 HDVs, as every vehicle must meet whatever standards appl y in the bin chosen for the vehicle b y the manufacturer. (The bin standard becomes the effective FEL.) Indeed, because credits and deficits are calculated based on the difference between a manufacturer’s fleet average emissions and the fleet average standards for a given model ye ar, credits are not calculated for individual vehicle families at all. Under this proposed approach, the standards for NMOG and NO X in the highest available bin serve the purpose of the FEL caps in previous programs. We are proposing no averaging program for the HDV SFTP program, because we believe that the bin structure and FTP

- centered NMOG+NO X ABT progr am provide adequate flexibility for smooth program implementation, especiall y in light of our aim to have the FTP standards be the primary technology forcers. A separate ABT program for SFTP compliance would add substantial complexity

with little benefit, and, b y making it possible to demonstrate robust SFTP control on a vehicle that lacks commensurate FTP control, could prove at odds with the primary

goal of the supplemental test for HDVs. However, we note that California’s LEV III program does provide s ome flexibility in this matter, on a vehicle

- for

- vehicle basis rather than through use of emissions credits, and for this reason we request comment on the need for and considerations surrounding our granting similar flexibility for HDVs in Tier 3.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 153 of 888 5. Feasibil ity

of HDV Standards The feasibility

assessment, discussed in more detail in Chapter 1 of the draft RIA, recognizes that the proposed Tier 3 program is composed of several new requirements for Class 2b and 3 heav y - duty vehicles, which include primarily lar ge gasoline and diesel pick

- up trucks and vans with diverse application

- specific designs. These proposed new exhaust emissions requirements include stringent NMOG+NO X and PM standards for the FTP and the newl y proposed SFTP, that would as a whole require new emissions control strategies and hardware in order to achieve the proposed standards. The t ype of new hardware that would be required will vary depending on the specific application and emissions challenges. Additionally , gasoline and diesel vehicles would require different emissions control strategies and hardware. The level of stringency for the proposed SFTP NMOG+NO X standards would generall y onl y require additional precise control of the engine parameters not necessitated in the past because of the lack of SFTP requirements. Similarly , the new PM standards on both the FTP and SFTP cycles would require more precise control of engine operation on gasoline vehicles while diesels already equipped with diesel particulate filters would require minimal changes. The new PM standards may also require that manufacturers consider the durability of their engines to the 150,000 miles useful life requirement with respect to engine wear resulting in increased oil consumption and potentially higher PM emissions. In order to assess the technical feasibility of NMOG+NO X national fleet average FTP standards of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b vehicles and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles, we conducted an anal ys is of certification data for the HDVs certified in the 2010 and 2011 MYs. This analy sis provided a baseline for the current HDV fleet emissions performance, as well as the emissions performance specific to the Class 2b and 3 vehicles. The emissions performance of each heav y - dut y vehicle class specific to gasoline and die sel is shown in Table IV
- 17 below. It is important to note that the emissions results are onl y the 4 , 000 mile test point results and do not incorporat e any

deterioration which manufacturers must account for when certifying to a full useful life standard. Designs limiting the deterioration of emission control hardware are critical to meeting the emission standards at the proposed useful life of the Tier 3 program. Deterioration factors to adjust the values to the proposed Tier 3 useful life standard of 150,000 miles were not available however deterioration factors to adjust to 120,000 miles useful life are discussed in the RIA Chapter 1. The anal ys is al so reflects the importance of the NMOG+NO X standard approach where diesels and gasoline MDVs can balance their combined NMOG and NO X levels. Diesel vehicles in the anal ys is produce very low NMHC emissions (NMOG is not reported for diesels) but higher NO X emissions, while gasoline vehicles have opposite performance. The combined standard allows manufacturers to determine the proper balance of the unique emissions challenges of a diesel or gasoline vehicle.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 154 of 888 **Table IV**  **- 17**  **2010/11 Certification Test Results at 4**  **,000 Miles** 

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

Class 3 0.080 0.083 0.073 2.373 0.156 NMHC+NO X Diesel Class 2b 0.037 0.138 0.195 0.174

Class 3 0.019 0.249 0.158 0.268 Combined Class 2b 0.043 0.026 0.089 0.922 0.133 Combined Class 3 0.050 0.041 0.161 1.265 0.212

Manufacturers t ypicall y certify their vehicles at emissions levels well below the numerical standards. This difference is referred to as “compliance margin” and is a result of manufacturers’ efforts to address all the sources of variability that could occur during the certification or in

- use testing processes and during in

- use operation. These sources of variability include: test

- to - test variability , test location, build variation and manufacturing tolerances, vehicle operation (for example: driving habits, ambient temperature, etc.), and the deleterious effects of sulfur and other oil and fuel contaminants. To meet the proposed NMOG+NO X standard of 178 mg/mi for Class 2b and 247 mg/mi for Class 3 vehicles and establish a compliance margin for these sources of variability , manufacturers will need to reduce their emission levels considerabl y fr om the levels indicated in this data set, particularl y diesel vehicles. However, as discussed above, these emission results do not include the expected emissions deterioration which would be determined b y manufacturers during development and certificati on testing. Therefore, manufacturers would need to further reduce emissions levels in anticipation of the unavoidable emissions deterioration that will occur during the useful life of the vehicle. Further, deterioration is a function of several factors, but it is predominantly due to emissions control hardware thermal exposure (high temperatures), which is ty picall y a significant issue on vehicles used for performing work like Class 2b and 3 vehicles. We also expect that the 2011 heav y - dut y GHG rule will present new challenges to manufacturers’ emissions performance goals as vehicles begin to use new engines designed to meet the new GHG requirements. 284 Some of these new technologies may

result in emissions challenges that are specific to certain operating conditions. For example, downsized gasoline engines will likely have improved FTP exhaust emissions but have increased challenge with the high

- load

284 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 155 of 888 SFTP requirements. Diesel

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

– duty fleet with similar engines. Testing of two HDGVs with the highest sales volume (Ford F250 and Chevrolet Silverado 2500), albeit not aged to full useful life, confirmed that they have similar PM emissions levels as the light

- duty counterparts and therefore also meet the proposed standards for both the Class 2b and Class 3 configurations. Data from light

- dut y gasoline vehicles with similar or common engines with their heav y - dut y “sister” vehicle models demonstrates that these vehicles are currently meeting the proposed Tier 3 FTP PM standards at the Tier 2 useful life mileage of 120,000 miles. Heav y - duty diesel vehicles all are equipped with DPFs and have no challenges meeting the FTP or SFTP PM standards being proposed for Tier 3. The SFTP test data from the same two heav y - dut y vehicles described above indicates that gasoline vehicles can achieve the proposed standards for SFTP NMOG+NO X and PM. Since heavy

- dut y vehicles are not currentl y required to comply with an y of the SFTP requirements, manufacturers have not focused on improving the emis sions performance specifically over the SFTP cycles (US06 and SC03). Therefore, although the limited testing results had a high degree of variability , several tests met the proposed PM standards for the high power

- to weight Class 2b vehicles. Consistent with light

- duty , vehicles that are demonstrating high PM on the US06 would need to control enrichment and oil consumption from engine wear. Manufacturers have confirmed that they have been implementing product changes to reduce oil consumption to address both customer satisfaction issues and to reduce cost of vehicle ownership. Given the technologies likely to be applied to meet the proposed HDV exhaust emissions standards, discussed below , we consider the lead time available before the standards take effect under all of the proposed alternatives to be sufficient . HDV manufacturers are already adopting some of the compl yi ng technologies, e specially

for their light

- dut y vehicles , and these can readil y be adapted for heav y - duty

applications. In addition , manufacturers have already begun developing these technologies for HDVs, including diesels, in response to California’s recentl y adopted LEV III MDV standards which begin to take effect in the 2015 model year . Finally , as described above in S ection s IV
. B.2, IV.B.3, and IV .B.4, our proposed program incorporates a number of phase

- in and alternative compliance provisions that would ease the transition to final standards without disrupting HD pickup and van product redesign cycles. Among these is an alternative phase

- in that starts mandatory standards in model year 2019. We invite comment on our conclusions relating to the feasibility of the proposed program in the lead time we are proposing. We are not proposing relaxed standards for in

- use testing of Tier 3 HDVs because we do not believe additional flexibility provisions are needed to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 156 of 888 successfull y implement the new emission control technologies in the proposed timeframe. However, we note that the LEV III program provides such standards for PM, and also fo r NMOG+NO X in the lower

- emissions MDV bins (those at or below Bin 250 and Bin 400, for Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles, respectively), and we are taking comment on the need to do so in Tier 3 as well. We also note that the need for NMOG+NO X in

- use testing st andards is further mitigated b y our proposed structuring of the NMOG+NO X standards as a declining fleet average with defici t and credit banking provisions . These provisions provide substantial flexibility to manufacturers in introducing any new NMOG or NO X control technologies for which long

- term durability is not yet proven. Manufacturers can place any vehicles for which they

have in

- use performance concerns in a higher bin, and this is facilitated by the fact that, unlike LEV III, our Tier 3 proposal do es not target sales volumes for any individual bins. Comments supporting relaxed in

- use NMOG+NO X standards should therefore address why , in the absence of these standards, the proposed declining fleet average standard is not feasible in one or more model ye ars. Commenters on this issue are asked to also address the applicable model ye ars for any

such in

- use testing standards. The LEV III MDV program has four different applicability

periods based on a combination of specific model y ears listed in the regul ations (up to 2020) and a set number of model y ears (two or five) after a test group is first certified. Comments are requested on whether it might be preferable to adopt a simpler approach in Tier 3, such as making in

- use testing standards available in the model years in which standards are phasing in, that is, through model ye ar 2021.

i. Technologies Likely to be Applied The technologies expected to be applied to vehicles to meet the lower proposed standards levels would address the emissions control sy st em’s ability to control emissions during cold start. Current vehicle emissions control sy stems depend on the time it takes for the catal ys t to light

- off, which is t ypicall y defined as the catal ys t reaching a temperature of 250 ° C. While the specific emiss ions challenge is somewhat different for gasoline engines than for diesel engines, achieving the necessary

temperatures in the catalysts is a common challenge. In order to improve catal ys t light

- off, the manufacturers would likely add technologies that pro vide heat from combustion more readily to the catal ys t or improve the catal ys t efficiency

at lower temperatures. These technologies could include calibration changes, thermal management, close

- coupled catal ys ts, cataly st PGM loading, and possibl y secondary air injection. In some cases, where the cataly st light

- off response and efficiency are not enough to address the cold start emissions, hydrocarbon adsorbers may be applied to trap hydrocarbons until such time that the catal ys t is lit

- off. Note that with the exception of hydrocarbon adsorbers each of these technologies addresses both NMOG and NO X performance. Key potential technologies are described in greater detail below.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 157 of 888  Engine Control Calibration Changes

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

 Thermal Management

– This technology includes all design attributes meant to conduct the combustion heat into the cataly st with minimal cooling on both gasoline and diesel engines. This includes insulating the exhaust piping between the engine and the catal ys t, reducing the wetted area of the exhaust path and/or reducing the thermal mass of the exhaust sy stem. Close

- coupling of catal ys ts (packaging the catal ys ts as close to the head of the engine as possible to mitigate the cool ing effects of longer exhaust piping) can also be effective, but is more difficult to employ than in light

- duty applications because of durability concerns with highly

loaded operation and the potential increase in fuel consumption to protect the catal ys t from high temperatures.

 Cataly st PGM Loading

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

 Selective Catal yt ic Reduction Optimization

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

useful life, the period of use or time during which emissions standards apply , is 120,000 miles or 11 years, whichever occurs first (40 CFR 86.1805

- 4). For Tier 3 vehicle criteria emissions we are proposing to extend the useful life to 150,000 miles or 15 years, whichever occurs first. This change would better reflect the improvements in vehicle durability and longevit y that have occurred in the se veral ye ars since the 120,000 mile useful life was established, and would maintain consistency with the LEV III MDV program and with our Tier 3 program for large LDTs, for which the same useful life period has been proposed. California’s LEV III staff pap er included a discussion of the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 158 of 888 feasibility of this longer useful life based on experience with it in the PZEV element of the ZEV mandate. 285 We are proposing that the new useful life requirement apply to Tier 3 HDVs in all bins except those designated as interim bins, consistent with the purpose of the interim bins to provide for limited carry

- over of pre

- Tier 3 vehicle designs during the phase

- in period. Although the percentage application in each year will therefore depend on each manufacturer’s fleet binning strategy , the declining NMOG+ NO X fleet average standard would ensure a robust phase

- in of the new useful life requirement over the 2018

- 2022 model years, such that it is expected to be about 50 percent in 2018, and necessaril y reaches 100 percent b y 2022 when the interim bins are no longer available. For those manufacturers choosing to certify to the voluntary

standards, the new useful life will apply even earlier, in 2016 or 2017. For manufacturers choosing the alternative percent

- of

- sales NMOG+ NO X alternative, we are proposing that the new useful life requirement appl y to all HDVs counted toward the phase

- in requirement, resulting in a generally equivalent useful life phase

- in rate to that of the primary approach. See Section IV.D.4.b for further discussion of useful life with regard to GHG standards. We are also proposing that manufacturers may

optionally

retain the 120,000 mile/11 year useful life for PM on interim Tier 3 vehicles that are not phased in to the Tier 3 PM standards. b. Heav y - Duty Alternative Fuel Vehicles As in the proposed light

- duty program, we are proposing that manufacturers demonstrate heav y - dut y flex fuel vehicle (FFV) and dual

- fuel vehicle compliance with both the FTP and the SFTP emissions standards when operating on both the conventional petroleum

- derived fuel and the alternative fuel. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles would demonstrate compliance with both the FTP and SFTP emission standards while operating on the alternative fuel. For all of these vehicles, this inclu des the requirement to meet FTP emissions standards when conducting fuel consumption and GHG emissions testing, and also to meet the FTP and highway test requirements at high altitudes (see Sections IV.B.6.e and f). Because FFVs can operate on various co mbinations of their conventional and alternative fuel, the emissions requirements apply to operation at any

mix of the fuels achievable in the fuel tank with commercially available fuels, including for compliance at high altitudes, even though the required demonstration of compliance is limited to the conventional and alternative fuels designated for certification testing.
c. Optional Certification for Vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR The HD greenhouse gas (GHG) standards include a provision for optional certifi cation of complete gasoline

- fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR to g/mi

285 “Preliminary Discussion Paper

– Amendments to California’s Low

- Emission Vehicle Regulations for C riteria Pollutants

– LEV III”, California Air Resources Board, February 8, 2010.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 159 of 888 GHG standards on the chassis test. 286 Because that rule does not change the requirements for certification to criteria pollutant standards, manufacturers choosing this option would have t o certify the vehicle for GHGs, but use installed engines certified to g/hp

- hr standards for all other emissions. We believe it may provide benefits for both the environment and the manufacturers to allow consistent certification of these vehicles on a ch assis test for all emissions, treating any vehicles so certified in the same way as Class 3 vehicles, including applicable standards, inclusion into fleet average calculations, test fuel, useful life, and the application of Tier 3 evaporative emissions req uirements. We request comment on the value of, and an y issues concerning, our providing such an option to manufacturers of both gasoline and diesel

- fueled HDVs above 14,000 lbs GVWR, including the applicability of the existing chassis test cycles for the se larger trucks. Comment is also requested on whether manufacturers of such vehicles that are certified to a F inal Tier 3 bin should be allowed to exclude them from the fleet average NMOG+NO X calculation, as a means of encouraging the production of such low

- emissions vehicles b y not penalizing them for having emissions somewhat above the Class 3 fleet average. Finall y, we also request comment on whether an y such option for diesel

- fueled HDVs should extend to GHG emissions as well. d. Existing Provision to W aive HDV PM Testing EPA’s existing program includes a provision for manufacturers to waive measurement of PM emissions in non

- diesel heavy

- dut y vehicle emissions testing. We are proposing to eliminate this provision. We believe that the PM standards we are proposing for these vehicles are of sufficient stringency that routine waiver of testing would not be appropriate. The California Air Resources Board LEV III program reflects this view. We do not expect this change to be onerous for manufacturers, as the number of heavy

- dut y vehicle families is not large. Even so, we request comment on alternative approaches, such as that being proposed for light

- duty vehicles, involving measuring PM on a subset of families each year. We request comment on an y other potential situations in which waiver of PM measurement may

be appropriate. Note that we are proposing to waive the PM emissions measurement requirement for small manufacturers, for reasons explained in Section IV.E.
e. Meeting HDV Standards in Fuel Consump tion and GHG Emissions Testing As with the proposed light

- duty Tier 3 program, we are proposing that HDVs must meet the FTP bin standards when tested over both the city and highway test cycles. We do not believe this adds a very significant test burden as vehicle

286 76 FR 57106 (September 15, 2011).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 160 of 888 emissions are already required to be measured when these tests are run for GHG and fuel consumption determinations. Nor do we believe that this proposed requirement is design forcing. Rather, we are proposing this requirement to ensure that test vehicle calibrations are not set b y manufacturers to minimize fuel consumption and GHG emissions, at the expense of high criteria pollutant emissions. Considering the additional work involved in measuring PM emissions and the reduced likelihood of high P M emissions on the highway test, we are not proposing that PM emissions testing be included in this requirement, but we ask for comment on whether we should instead include them, but waive the requirement to measure them in manufacturers’ certification tes ting, to ensure that an y unforeseen PM control technology

challenges in highway

driving conditions are addressed in the future. f. HDV Altitude Requirements As in the past, we intend that HDV Tier 3 standards result in emissions controls that are effective over a full range of operating altitudes. We do not anticipate that the proposed FTP bin standards would require the use of special hardware to achieve compliance at altitude. We also do not believe that adjustment to the FTP standards is appropriate for HDV testing at altitude, as we expect that manufacturers would be able to meet these standards with adequate compliance margin to cover this test condition. As in the proposed light

- dut y program, and for the same reasons, we are not proposing to require that HDVs compl y with SFTP standards at altitude. **C. Evaporative Emissions Standards and Onboard Diagnostic System**  **Requirements** Gasoline vapor emissions from vehicle fuel sy stems, which are a mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, occur when a vehicle is in operat ion, when it is parked, and when it is being refueled. These evaporative emissions from gasoline

- powered vehicles which occur on a daily basis are primarily

functions of temperature, fuel vapor pressure, and activity . EPA first instituted evaporative emi ssions standards in the earl y 1970s to address hydrocarbon emissions when vehicles are parked after being driven. These are commonly referred to as hot soak and diurnal emissions. Over the subsequent years the test procedures have been modified and impro ved, the standards have been revised to be more stringent, and we have addressed emissions which arose from new fuel s ys tem designs by establishing new requirements such as running loss emission standards and test procedure provisions to address resting lo sses (e.g., permeation). Onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) requirements for control of refueling emissions first began to phase

- in for light

- duty vehicles (LDVs) and light

- dut y trucks (LDTs) in the 1998 MY. These were later expanded to cover medium

- dut y passenger vehicles (MDPVs) and some heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles (HDGVs). Even though evaporative and refueling emission control sy stems have been in place for most of these vehicles for many ye ars, evaporative emissions still contribute 30
- 40 perce nt of the on

- road mobile source h ydrocarbon inventory . These fuel vapor emissions are ozone and PM***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 161 of 888 precursors, and also contain air toxics such as benzene. Even though there are mature evaporative emission control programs in place, further h ydrocarbon e mission reductions are needed and can be achieved from highway motor vehicles. Vehicles demonstrating near zero fuel vapor emissions have been certified by CARB and a limited number are in

- use in California and other states. Furthermore, test programs co nducted by the Coordinating Research Council and EPA show that attention is needed to insure better in

- use performance of current evaporative control sy stems. Cost effective hydrocarbon emission reductions can be achieved through new vehicle standards and improved focus on in

- use performance. This section discusses the proposed vehicle

- related evaporative emission standards and related provisions for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. As discussed below, we are proposing more stringent standards that would a pply for the 2

- and 3

- day

evaporative emissions tests, a new canister bleed test and emission standard, a new certification test fuel specification, 287 and a new fuel/evaporative sy stem leak test procedure and emission standard. We are also proposing ref ueling emission controls for a portion of HDGVs over 10,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). This section also describes proposed phase

- in flexibilities, credit and allowance programs, and seeks comment on several other issues related to evaporative emissions control. The proposed evaporative emissions program has six basic elements: (1) the Tier 3 evaporative emission phase

- in program (MY 2018

- 2022+), (2) the early allowance/credit program (MY 2015

- 2016), (3) the transitional program (MY 2017), (4 ) requirements for HDGVs including ORVR, (5) a leak emission standard and test procedures, and (6) other miscellaneous proposed changes and areas for comment. In this proposed rule, the vehicle classifications, LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs, would remai n unchanged from Tier 2. For purposes of this discussion of the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions program, the vehicle standards can be further placed in four categories: (1) “zero evaporative emission” PZEV vehicles certified b y CARB as part of the Z EV program, (2) vehicles certified by CARB to meet LEV III evaporative emission program requirements on CARB certification fuel (7 RVP E10), (3) vehicles meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions program requirements using the proposed certificati on test fuel (9 RVP E15), and (4) transitional vehicles meeting current EPA evaporative requirements on Tier 2 certification fuel (9 RVP E0). 288 , 289 For ease of reference these four categories

287 For flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) certification fuel for evaporative and refueling emissions testing wo uld remain a 9 RVP gasoline splash blended with ethanol to yield a blend containing 15 percent ethanol. 288 We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission standards for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs in 2007 (72 FR 8428, February 26, 2007). The most recent standards for HDGVs were adopted in 2000 (66 FR 5165, January 18, 2001).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 162 of 888 may be referred to as PZEV evap, LEV III evap, Tier 3 evap, an d Tier 2 evap in this section. 290 1. Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards
a. Proposed Standards This proposal for evaporative emissions builds on previous EPA requirements as well as CARB’s recent LEV III rule which starts phasing in with the 2018 MY. This p roposal facilitates a national program for vehicle evaporative emissions control. We believe the proposed program is appropriate since it would require new evaporative emissions control technology in new vehicles while also achieving improved in

- use sy ste m performance. This section describes proposed requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. The proposal includes more stringent emission standards for hot soak plus diurnal emissions (2

- and 3

- day tests), plus a new canister bleed standard and testi ng requirement for measuring emissions from the fuel tank and the evaporative canister. The proposal also introduces a limited corporate averaging program for demonstrating compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standards. We are proposing a phase

- in of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards that would begin with the 2017 MY, with incentives for manufacturers to introduce Tier 3 compliant vehicles earlier or in greater numbers than required. The proposal includes revised provisions for demonstratin g compliance with the evaporative emission standards at high altitude. See Section IV.C.3 for additional provisions for the HDGV category
.

i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standards Previous hot soak and diurnal emission controls have dramaticall y reduced vehicle evaporative emissions over the past thirty plus years. However, some emissions remain and control technology is available to capture these emissions in a cost effective manner. Toward that end, EPA is proposing more stringent hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standards for the Tier 3 program. The standards apply to both the 2

- day

and 3

- day

evaporative emission test requirements. The standards are designed to bring into the broader motor vehicle fleet the “ zero evap” technology

used by the manufacturers in their partial zero emission vehicles (PZEVs). Manufacturers developed this “zero evap” technology as part of their response to meeting the requirements of the CARB Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program. Th is program, which is in effect in 11 other states, allows

289 See S ection IV.D.1 for a discussion of the proposed certification fuel changes, including discussion of options for and implications of the certification test fuel having 10 percent ethanol. 290 “PZEV evap” as di scussed here refers only to the evaporative emission and useful life requirements of the PZEV program, not the exhaust emission requirements.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 163 of 888 manufacturers to meet their ZEV mandate percentages (totall y or in

- part) by the use of vehicles which among other characteristics have very low fuel vapor emissions. The standard levels presented in Table IV
- 18 are designed primaril y to accommodate what is often referred to as new vehicle background h ydrocarbon emissions. These emissions arise from the off

- gassing of volatile h ydrocarbons from plastics, rubbers, and other pol ym ers found in new vehicles (e.g., new tires, interiors, seats, fuel s ys tem components, paints, and adhesives). In the field these emissions decrease over time as the vehicle ages, but this cannot necessarily be replicated in the time that manufacturers n ormall y allocate for vehicle certification. In the past manufacturers have emplo yed techniques such as vehicle baking (discussed below) to accelerate the rate of this off

- gassing, and until recently it has not been a major consideration for certification. In the past EPA has set relatively uniform (but not identical) evaporative emission standards for LDVs and LDTs and somewhat higher values for HDGVs. The proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standards presented in Table IV
- 18 are somewhat higher as vehicles get larger in weight and phy sical size. This is because in general the vehicles have higher levels of non

- fuel background emissions as they get larger. As mentioned above, the standards, which are approximately a 50 perce nt reduction from the existing hot soak plus diurnal standards, are intended primarily to accommodate non

- fuel background emissions. Thus, the technology focus for the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards is for vehicles to have essentially

zero fuel vapor emissions. As described in more detail in Section IV .C.2 below, EPA is proposing a program that would allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standard s using averaging concepts. Under the proposal, manufacturers may compl y b y averaging within each of the four vehicle categories but for the reasons discussed below, may not rely on averaging across categories. The technical approaches to meeting the pro posed standards are discussed in Section IV.C.2 . EPA is not proposing an y changes to the existing light

- duty

running loss or refueling emission standards with the Tier 3 proposal, with the exception of the certification test fuel requirement. **Table IV**  **- 18**  **Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test) a,b,c**  Vehicle Category Highest Hot Soak + Diurnal Level (over both 2

- day

and 3

- day

diurnal tests) LDV, LDT1 0.300 LDT2 0.400 LDT3, LDT4, MDPV 0.500 HDGV s 0.600 a The standards are in grams of hydrocarbons as measured by flame ionization detector during the diurnal and hot soak emission tests in the enclosure known as the sealed housing for evaporative determination (SHED). b Note th at the proposed standards are the same for both tests; current standards are slightly different for the 2

- and 3

- day

tests***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 164 of 888 c Vehicle categories are the same as in EPA’s Tier 2 final rule; see 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000.

ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard Inaddition to more stringent hot soak plus diurnal standards, EPA is proposing a new canister bleed emission test and standard as part of the Tier 3 program. The proposed bleed test procedure is described in Section IV.C.4.a., below. The purpose of the new test and standard is to ensure that near

- zero fuel vapor emissions are being emitted b y vehicles from the fuel tank through the evaporative emission canister. Under this proposal, manufacturers would be required to measure diurnal emissions over the 2
- day diurnal test procedure from just the fuel tank and the evaporative emission canister and compl y with a 0.020 g/test standard for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and 0.030 g/test for HDGVs. The feasibility of this standard is discussed in Section IV .C.2.g.ii below. EPA is proposing not to appl y the averaging program to this new bleed test standard as compliance is relativel y s traightforward and low in cost. Therefore, each evaporative/refueling emission family cert ified b y manufacturers would need to demonstrate compliance with their respective standard. As discussed below, the canister bleed standard would not apply at high altitude. The canister bleed test and standard drives canister design elements such as tot al gasoline working capacity , internal architecture, and the ty pe of carbon used. Since the performance of the canister is also evaluated in the hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emissions sealed housing for evaporative determination (SHED) test we are pro posing that th e canister bleed emission standard not be included in the In - Use Verification Program but it must be met in use. We would not expect to have canister bleed specific family criteria for certification but the test would have to be completed an d the standard met for each evaporative/refueling family including potentially

twice if there were two canisters used. A deterioration factor would not be required, but as mentioned above, the standard would have to be met in

- use and could be evaluated in EPA confirmatory

testing
. iii. Early and Transitional Hot Soak Plus Diurnal Standard As part of its LEV III program, CARB has included an alternative set of evaporative emission standards, referred to as Option 1 standards. These are shown in Table IV
- 19
. **Table IV**  **- 19**  **CARB Option 1 Evaporative Emission Standards** Vehicle Category Highest Hot Soak + Diurnal Level (over both 2

- and 3

- day diurnal tests) (g/test) Running Loss (g/mile) Vehi cle SHED Rig

SHED Passenger Car 0.350 0.0 0.05***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 165 of 888 LDT < 6,000 lbs GVWR 0.50 0 0.0 0.05 All other vehicles > 6, 000 lbs GVWR 0.750 0.0 0.05 The Option 1 standards include evaporative emission standards (hot soak plus diurnal) that are slightly higher numericall y than our proposed standards. Vehicles certified under this option may not use averaging in the CARB LEV III program because they

bas ically represent the same evaporative emission standards as exist for PZEVs under CARBs ZEV program wherein averaging is not permitted. Option 1 also includes an additional test of the vehicle fuel s ys tem (rig test) that from an engineering perspective is practically more difficult to conduct than the bleed test discussed above and is intended to force manufacturers to demonstrate at certification that their stand alone (not in chassis) fuel/vapor control s ys tem designs have no ( < 54 mg) fuel vapor emissio ns. EPA is not proposing that Option 1 be part of the long term Tier 3 evaporative emission program. While we see the merit of the rig test as an engineering design and development tool for the manufacturers, by its very nature, the rig SHED standard is n ot implementable as an enforceable standard
. We believe that the hot soak plus diurnal SHED test and the canister bleed test will accomplish the same objective of keeping fuel vapor emissions to a minimum. EPA believes most manufacturers will prefer to certify to the averaging based standards proposed by EPA (similar in stringency and program construct to CARB Option 2). However, because some manufacturers may have vehicle models meeting the CARB Option 1 standards and emission requirements now or in the near future, EPA is proposing that compliance with the CARB Option 1 standards would be an acceptable interim alternative to compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards if the model is certified by CARB before the 2017 MY. EPA pr oposes that these vehicles could then be certified using carryover provisions through the 2019 MY. 291 As noted in the following sections, vehicles certified under this provision would count toward the phase

- in percentage requirements and could earn allowanc es as discussed below , but the vehicles would not be eligible to earn or use credits for the evaporative emissions averaging program. Carryover vehicles would have to meet EPA leak emiss i on standard to be counted toward the sales percentage requirements f or 2018 and later model years. b. Useful L ife Trends indicate that vehicle lifetimes are increasing. It is important that emission control sy stems be designed to meet requirements while vehicles are in

291 EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the CARB Option 1 test procedures and emission standards for this i nterim period
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 166 of 888 use. As discussed in Section IV.A and IV.B of this pr oposal , along with the new emission standards, we are proposing a longer useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years, whichever comes first, for LDTs up to 6 , 000 lbs GVWR but over 3 , 750 lbs loaded vehicle weight (LVW) (LDT2s), all LDTs over 6,000 lbs GVWR (LDT3/ 4), MDPVs, and HDGVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. The proposed longer useful life would also apply to certifications to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. For an evaporative/ refueling family certified to 150,000 miles/15 ye ar useful lif

e for evaporative emissions this useful life would also apply to the refueling, leak, and high altitude standards, where applicable when a family certifies to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. All of these standards impact the fuel and vapor c ontrol sy stems and it is technologicall y consistent to require the same useful life for these standards because they all rely on the mechanical integrity , durability , and operational performance of the same components in the evaporative emissions control s ys tem. Due to limitations in the CAA, for LDVs and for LDTs up to 6,000 lbs GVWR and at or below 3,750 lbs LVW (LDT1s), we are keeping the current useful life of 120,000 miles/10 years unless, as described in Section IV.A, a manufacturer elects alternati ve exhaust emission requirements that are associated with 150,000 mile/15 year useful life for these vehicles. For manufacturers that select those optional standards, the useful life of 150,000 miles/15 years would appl y for all Tier3 evaporative emission standards including the hot soak plus diurnal emission standards, the refueling emission standard, and the leak standard because of the design and operating relationships between the engine, the fuel s ys tem, the evaporative control s ys tem and their variou s components. During the early

and transitional program periods and until the final year of the allowed phase

- in period for the Tier 3 evaporative emission program (MY 2015
- 2022) the differences between the proposed exhaust and evaporative emission phase

- in programs presents the possibility that in some cases a manufacturer could certify a model to the Tier 3 exhaust requirements but not necessaril y to the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements. 292 In those situations, we are proposing that a family coul d have a 150,000 miles/15 years useful life for exhaust emissions but maintain the current useful life for all of the evaporative and refueling emission standards. We also propose that during the phase

- in period, if a family is certified to the Tier 3 eva

porative emission requirements but not y et certified for Tier 3 exhaust emission requirements, then the useful life could be 150,000 miles/15 y ears for evaporative and refueling emissions standards but the current useful life for exhaust emissions, Howeve r, b y the 2022 MY EPA proposes that the useful life for all of these requirements would be 150,000 miles/15 years for LDT2/3/4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since b y that model year all vehicles must be certified using Tier 3

292 By the 2020 MY, all Tier 3 evaporative system emissions certifications must use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test procedures. This affects evaporative (hot soak plus diurnal), canister bleed, refueling, and leak emission standards certification.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 167 of 888 certification fuel and test procedures an d meet Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 293 OBD regulations call for the sy stems to operate effectivel y over the useful life of the vehicle. We are not proposing to change that requirement, but rather to clarify that during the early

and transition years of the phase

- in (MY 2015
- 2022), all of the OBD monitoring requirements have the same useful life as that for the exhaust emission standard except for the evaporative sy stem leak monitoring requirement which has the same as that required for the evaporat ive and refueling emission standards control sy stems. 2. Evaporative Emissions Program Structure and Implementation Flexibilities
a. Percentage Phase

- In Requirements The proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards would be phased in over a period of six m odel years ( MYs ) , including a transitional year in 2017. For MY 2017, except as discussed below, the requirement would apply to 40 percent of a manufacturer’s combined sales of LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s. To be consistent with the start date for new exhaust standards affecting these vehicles, the phase

- in requirements would not include vehicles over 6,000 lbs GVWR until the 2018 MY. For the 2018

- 2019 MYs, the requirement would apply to 60 percent of a manufacturer’s sales of all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs. This would increase to 80 percent for MYs 2020 and 2021 and by MY 2022 it would apply to 100 percent of sales in these four categories. Beginning in MY 2018 an y vehicle included in the percentage projection, except vehicles that had earned allowances wo uld have to meet the leak emission standard. Our proposal for MY 2017 has two options and we are seeking comment on a third option
. The first, which we are calling the “percentage” option, would require that 40 percent of a manufacturer’ s LDVs, LDT1s, an d LDT2s sold outside of California and the states that have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III program s must meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements on average. The second which we are calling the “PZEV zero evap onl y” option, would require a manufacturer to sell all of the LDVs, LDT1s, and LDT2s certified with CARB as meeting the PZEV evaporative emission requirements (zero evap) in MY 2017 throughout all of the U.S. and not to offer for sale any non

- PZEV zero eva p version of those vehicles in an y s tate whose vehicles are covered b y the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards . Thus, this would apply to sales in any

state except for California and states that have adopted the CARB ZEV or LEV III program s under

293 The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result of the use of previously earned allowances and small businesses which have until the 2022 MY to meet the propose d Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements..***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 168 of 888 sectio n 177 of the Clean Air Act . Under this second option, no tracking of sales or end of year compliance calculation would be required. Some manufacturers may find this option attractive, as they have more limited product offerings and find tracking of produc tion and sales more difficult. The basic goal of the 2017 MY program is to provide evaporative emission reductions benefits in the other states which are similar to those expected in California and the states which adopt ed LEV III under section 177 of the Clean A ir Act. Due to model phase

- out and phase

- in issues related to current and future products, some manufacturers have indicated that increasing production of Tier 3 evaporative emission compliant vehicles for the 2017 MY to meet the 40 percent value d iscussed above could be difficult and costly . To address this issue, we are asking for comment on a third option: d ecreasing this value from 40 percent to 20 percent but requiring that these same vehicles also meet the leak emission standard in the 2017 MY. This approach has the potential to address the transition issue and EPA believes that the leak standard will provide evaporative emission reduction benefits equal to or greater than the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Thus, under this approach , the manufacturers’ product transition concerns could be addressed and the overall evaporative emission reductions would still be achieved for 2017 MY vehicles. As discussed below, beginning in the 2018 MY, a Tier 3 compliant vehicle must also meet the l eak emission standard. This option would be effective onl y in the 2017 MY
. EPA asks for comment on whether this option should require the leak emission standard to apply to the same 20 percent of vehicles that are compl yi ng with the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements, or whether this option should allow manufacturer s the flexibility to meet some or all of the 20 percent leak emission standard requirement with vehicles not yet compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative requirements
. At the time of certification, manufacturers would identify which families would be included in their Tier 3 evaporative emission percentage calculations (this could be families above or below the individual Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the given class of vehicles as w ell as vehicles meeting CARB’s O ption 1 standards) and could also include earned allowances as discussed below. They would use projected sales information for these families plus allowance s as desired and available , to show how they expect to meet the phase

- in percentages for the model year of interest. At the end of the model year they would be expected to show that the percentages were met and if not they would either use additional all owances or bring more vehicle families into the calculation. Requiring a showing at the time of certification based on projected sales requires due diligence b y the manufacturers and EPA, but the Tier 3 evaporative emissions program allows for fleet avera ging, so a validation or “truing up” of these sales projections is necessary for determining compliance with the requirements of the standard
. This is discussed in Section s IV .C.2.c.and d. As discussed further below, v alidated sales information would als o be used for earning earl y allowances and to show compliance with the alternative phase

- in schedule approach
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 169 of 888 For these purposes, vehicles included in the phase

- in percentage could be: (1) families which certified to CARB LEV III requirements in MY s 2 015 and 2016 (CARB Option 1), (2) families certified to meet Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements, and (3) vehicles from the earl y allowance program. However, beginning in the 2017 MY, an y new evaporative/refueling emission family certifications would have to meet the proposed EPA Tier 3 certification requirements for both test procedure and certification test fuel for the evaporative and refueling emission standards. The leak emission standard would appl y in the 2018 MY. Furthermore, assuming other regulatory provisions related to carryover of emissions data are met, 2015

- 2016 MY CARB evaporative emissions certifications could be carried over until the end of the 2019 MY and included as compliant vehicles within the program if they met the leak emiss ion standard. The phase

- in percentages for MYs 2017 through 2022 reflect a percentage phase

- in concept applied successfull y b y EPA in previous rules involving evaporative and refueling emissions control. The proposed phase

- in provides an appropriate balance between the needed emission reductions and time for the manufacturers to make an orderl y transition to the new technology on such a broad scale. The higher initial percentage here is appropriate because the expected evaporative emission control te chnology is already being used to varying degrees by 1 6 manufacturers on over 50 vehicle models today and is projected to gain even deeper penetration by

2017 due to the partial zero emission vehicles (PZEV) option within the CARB ZEV program. As a flexibi lity , we are proposing to allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the phase

- in percentage requirements of the evaporative emissions program b y using a manufacturer

- determined alternative phase

- in percentage scheme. Under this approach, before the 2018 MY, manufacturers would have to present a plan to EPA which demonstrates that the sum of the product of a weighting factor and the percentages of their U.S. vehicle sales for each model year from 2018 through 2022 is greater than or equal to 1040. Th e 1040 value is equal to the sum of the product of the weighting factors and the percentage requirements for MYs 2018 through 2022, calculated in the following manner: [(5)(2018MY %)+4(2019MY %)+3(2020MY %)+2(2021MY %)+(1)(2022MY %)]. This would allow manufacturers to use a phase

- in more consistent with product plans which may call for a lower percentage in the earl y ye ars or to benefit from producing and selling more than the minimum percentage of compliant vehicles earl y. This flexibility could also be helpful in the event that a manufacturer elects to put some vehicles on a different phase

- in schedule for meeting Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. As explained further below, any allowances earned could be counted toward compliance w ith the 1040 value. Within this proposed flexibility EPA asks for comment in three areas. First, we seek comment on the need for and value of this alternative phase

- in percentage flexibility option. Second, we did not include the 2017 MY in this flexibil ity because we believe that the PZEV zero evap nationwide option, the use of any earned allowances, and the ability to have a deficit in a given year are sufficient. However, we ask for comment on including the 2017 MY “percentage” option in this flexibility (both the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 170 of 888 40 and 20 percent approaches discussed above) . If after comment the 40 percent option from the 2017 MY is included in the final rule , the sum of the percentages would include an additional 240= (6)(40) for a total; of 1280; the equation above would add a term of (6)(2017MY %). Similarly , we ask for comment on whether the 2 0 percent option from the 2017 MY should be included i n the alternative phase

- in approach. If it is included in the final rule , the sum of the percentages would i nclude an additional 1 20= (6)( 2 0) for a total; of 1 16 0; the equation above would add a term of (6)(2017MY %). b. Earl y Allowance Program We are proposing incentives for earl y introduction of vehicles compliant with the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulat ions . Manufacturers could take advantage of these incentives prior to MY 2018 by selling vehicles that meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations earlier than required or in greater numbers than required. As described below, manufacturers could ear n “allowances” for selling any vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations earlier than required . The vehicles could be LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, or HDGVs
. Specifically these include the following: (1) for MYs 2015 and 2016, any L DV s and LDTs meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulation s and sold outside of California and the states that have adopted CARB’s ZEV or LEV III programs , (2) f or MYs 2015
- 2017, an y MDPV or HDGV meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations earl y and sold in any state, (3) for MY 2017, any L DT3/4 meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations and sold outside of California and the states that have adopted CARB’s LE V III or ZEV programs , and (4) for MYs 2015

- 2017, any HDGV between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR meeting the refueling emissions regulations and sold outside of California and the states that have adopted CARB’s LEV III or ZEV programs
. Inorder to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations , the vehicles could be certified to either the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or CARB’s PZEV zero evaporative emission and useful life requirements. Vehicles generating allowances would have to meet the proposed evaporative emission standards (CARB O ption 1 or EPA Tier 3) , the high altitude evaporative emission standard, the canister bleed standard as well as the refueling emission standards. Manufacturers would earn one allowance for each qualifying vehicle sold. Manufacturers can use these allowances in MY 2017 through 2022 to help demonstrate compliance with the phase

- in percentage requirements and fleet average evaporative emission standards for those ye ars. Allowances would be used in the compliance determination in the following manner. Vehicles qualifying for allowances could be used in the fleet average evaporative emission standard calculation for an y year during the phase

- in. This would apply

to the primary

phase

- in and alternative phase

- in programs. Allowance v ehicles would be ente red into the compliance calculation with an emission value***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 171 of 888 equivalent to the evaporative emission standard for their vehicle category from Table IV

- 18 even if it w as certified to CARB O ption 1 standards (Table IV

- 19 ). For the percent phase

- in requirement in either the primary or alternative phase

- in schemes, allowance vehicles would count for one vehicle for each allowance used within their vehicle category
. For the primary scheme this would be counted as one vehicle, but for the alternative phase

- in optio n the value would be multiplied by the weighting factor ( 5 for 2018, 4 for 2019, 3 for 2020, etc )
. Within the alternative phase

- in scheme the manufacturer would be limited to using these earl y allowances for no more than 10 percentage points of the phase

- i n requirements in an y given model year (e.g., MYs 201 8
- 2022 )
. EPA believes this limitation is appropriate. Earl y introduction of “zero evap” technology should be encouraged, but not necessarily

at the expense of its widespread use across the various veh icle categories as the phase

- in progresses. The proposed allowances are designed primarily to facilitate manufacturer transition during the program phase

- in. As such, we propose that they could not be traded between manufacturers and unused allowances wo uld expire after the 2022 MY. An example here may

be helpful in demonstrating how the proposed concept would work. Take a h ypothetical manufacturer who earned 10,000 allowances in 2015 and 2016 and sells 100,000 units per y ear. In 2018, the manufacturer would have a phase

- in requirement of 60 percent or 60,000 vehicles. For the primary

phase

- in option the manufacturer could use part or all of its allowances in 2018. For the alternative phase

- in scheme the proposed regulations would limit the use of allo wances to 10 percentage points at the 60 percent. Without a multiplier this would require the use of all 10,000 allowances in 2018, but with the proposed multiplier only 2 , 000 allowances would be needed to reach the 10 percentage point maximum. Using a sim ilar calculus, the manufacturer could use another 10 percentage points in 2019, but it would require 2 , 500 allowances since the multiplier is 4. The number of allowances to reach 10 percentage points would increase each ye ar as the multiplier decreased. F or the MY 2017, manufacturers choosing EPA’s proposed “percentage” option (see Section IV.C.2. a) could earn allowances for sales of LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and other related requirements assuming their LDV, LDT 1 /2 sales meet the 40 percent requirement. Similarly , m anufacturers choosing EPA’s proposed “PZEV zero evap onl y” option could earn allowances in MY 2017 for LDT3 /4 s, MDPVs, and HDGVs that meet the CARB O ption 1 evaporative emission standards and related requirements. For both the “percentage” and “PZEV zero evap only” options for the 2017 model year, to avoid double counting, the allowances would be earned onl y for those vehicles sold outside of California and the states that have adopted CARB’s LEV III/ZEV program requirements. Vehicles earning allowances could either be vehicles certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or vehicles certified using carryover data from the CARB PZEV zero evaporative emission requirements from the 2015 or 2016 MYs. Since credits and allowances serve primarily the same purpose and allowing for splits of allowances/credits greatly complicates program implementation, we are proposing***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 172 of 888 that manufacturers could only earn allowances in MYs 201 5
- 201 7 for an y qualifying LDT3s, LDT4s, MDPVs, and HDGVs since these vehicles are not covered b y the proposed Tier 3 standards until the 2018 MY . EPA asks for comment on whether this opportunity to earn allowances coupled with the aforementioned restrict ion on their use is the appropriate balance.
c. Evaporative Emissions ABT Throughout EPA’s programs for mobile source emission controls, we have often included emission averaging programs for exhaust emissions. An emission averaging program is an important f actor we take into consideration in setting emission standards under the Clean Air Act. An emission averaging program can reduce the cost and improve the technological feasibility of achieving standards, helping to ensure the standards achieve the greates t achievable reductions, considering cost and other relevant factors, in a time frame that is earlier than might otherwise be possible. Manufacturers gain flexibility in product planning and the opportunity

for a more cost

- effective introduction of produc t lines meeting a new standard. Emission averaging programs also create an incentive for the early introduction of new technology , which allows certain emission families to act as leaders for new technology . This can help provide valuable information to manufacturers on the technology before they

apply the technology

throughout their product line. These programs generally involve averaging and banking, and sometimes trading (ABT). Averaging allows a manufacturer to certify one or more families at emissi on levels above the applicable emission standards as long as the increased emissions are offset by

one or more families certified below the applicable standards. These are referred to as family emission limits (FEL s). The over

complying families generate credits that are used by the under

- complying families. Compliance is determined on a total mass emissions basis to account for differences in production volume, and on other factors as necessary . The average of all emissions for a particular manufacture r’s production within category must be at or below the level of the applicable emission standards. Banking allows a manufacturer to generate emission credits and bank them for future use in its own averaging program in later years. Trading allows a manuf acturer to sell credits or obtain credits from another manufacturer. EPA is proposing an emissions ABT program for the Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emissions standards. This would be the EPA’s first averaging program for evaporative emissions from light

- duty or heavy

- dut y vehicles. It would not apply

to the high altitude standard, the canister bleed standard or the leak emission standard because it is the low altitude “zero evap” hot soak plus diurnal standard which will drive the fundamental technology used to comply

with all of these requirements. EPA is proposing to include trading of emission credits between manufacturers, but in past similar programs there have been very few trades. Incorporating trading within the program adds a signifi cant degree of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 173 of 888 complexity , so we are seeking comment on the need for and value of including trading. The evaporative emissions ABT program would start with the 2017 MY for the percentage option. The programs would continue for the 2018 MY and beyond and w ould not sunset, as does the allowance program. Vehicles generating averaging/ banking credits in the 2017 MY or later would not be permitted to also generate allowances as this would be double counting. A key element of an averaging program is the ident ification of the averaging sets. This sets the criteria for which emission families can be averaged for purposes of compliance as well as credit and deficit determinations. We are proposing four averaging sets and the applicable emission standard for each of the averaging sets as shown in Table IV

- 18
. Except as noted in section d below, credit exchanges between averaging sets would not be permitted. Participation in averaging is voluntary since a manufacturer could elect to certify each famil y within the averaging set to its individual limit as if there was no averaging program. An evaporative emission ABT includes two very distinct steps. The first is the determination of the credit/deficit status of each family relative to its applicable standard from Table IV

- 18 . The second is the role of ABT in the overall compliance demonstrat ion which will be discussed in S ection IV .C.2.d which follows. A manufacturer choosing to participate in the evaporative emissions ABT program would certify

each emission fami ly

to an FEL. The FEL selected by the manufacturer becomes the emission standard for that emission family . As noted below, emission credits (or deficits) are based on the difference between the emission standard that applies (by vehicle category) and the FEL. The vehicles would have to meet the FELfor all emission testing. We are proposing that the FELs selected b y the manufacturer would have to be selected at 0.025 g/test increments above or below the applicable Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for each vehicle category . FELs could not be set any higher than 0.500 g/test for LDVs, 0.650 g/test for LDT1s and LDT2s, 0.900 g/test for LDT3s and LDT4s, 1.000 g/test for MDPVs, 1.4 g/test for HDGVs at or below 14,000 lbs GVWR, and 1.9 g/test for those above 14,000 lbs GVWR, respectivel y. These FEL caps are the 3

- day hot soak plus diurnal emission standards currentl y applicable under EPA’s regulations. The vehicle groupings for defining these FEL caps differ somewhat from the groupings that appl y for the standards; we request comment on the need to reconcile these different groupings. Evaporative emission credits under the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal standards would be calculated differently in the 2017 model year and the 2018 and later model years. For 2017 calculations would be based on sales in the U.S. excluding California and the section 177 states which have adopted the LEV I II/ZEV programs
. For 2018 and later model years it would be based on all 50***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 174 of 888 states. Calculations would use the fo llowing equat ion: Credits = (fleet average s tandard

– fleet average FEL) × “ U.S. sales ” . The “fleet average standard” term here is the applicable Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal standard for the vehicle category from Table IV
- 18 . The sales number used in the 2018 and later MY calculation would be the number of vehicles of th e evaporative emission families in that category sold in the U.S. which are subject to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards
. 294 Emission credits banked under the proposed evaporative emission ABT program would have a five ye ar credit life and would not be discounted. This means the credits would maintain their full value through the fifth model ye ar after the model year in which they are generated. At th e beginning of the sixth model ye ar after they

are generated, the credits would expire and could not be used by the manufacturer. We are proposing to limit credit life so there is a reasonable overlap between credit generating and credit using vehicles. As mentioned above, for purposes of the compliance calculation, allowance vehicles would have an FEL equivalent to the EPA emission standard (Table IV

- 18 ) for their respective vehicle category
. We request comment on all aspects of the ABT program. In particular, we request comment on the structure of the proposed evaporative emission ABT program and how the various provisions may affect manufacturers’ ability to utilize ABT to achieve the desired evaporative emission

- reductions in the most efficient an d economical way
. We also ask for comment on basing ABT calculations on nationwide sales in 2018 and later model years , even if there is a separate calculation for California and the section 177 states. d. Compliance Demonstration Demonstration of complianc e with the evaporative emissions standards would be done after the end of each model year. There are two steps. In the first step, manufacturers would have to show compliance with the phase

- in percentages whether they

used the primary

phase

- in scheme or an alternative phase

- in scheme. It is sales from these families together with their respective FELs which would be used to make the demonstration of compliance with the emission standard on average within each vehicle averaging set. Compliant vehicles ty p es for these purposes would be the same as described in Section IV.C.2.a above for projected sales. If the required sales percentages are not met by direct sales or allowances, non - Tier 3 vehicles would have to be identified to make up the shortfall. In the second step, using the family emission limits, manufacturers would calculate the sales

- weighted average emission levels within each of the four vehicle categories using U.S. sales. 295 Manufacturers would be allowed to use credits only within a

294 If EPA ultimately decided to continue the disaggregated approach to fleet compliance calculations, we could potentially base compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements on U.S. sales (i.e., non

- California and non

- section 177 states). 295 The only exception here would be for vehicles not meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2022 MY as a result of the use of previously earned allowances.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 175 of 888 defined averaging set. The averaging sets are: (1) LDVs and LDT1s, (2) LDT2s, (3) LDT3s, LDT4s, and MDPVs, and (4) HDGVs. These sales

- weighted calculated values would have to be at or below the emission standard for that vehicle category as proposed in Table IV
- 18 , unless credits from ABT are used. If the difference between the standard and the sales

- weighted average FEL is a positive value this could be a banked credit available for future use. If the difference between the standard and th e sales

- weighted average FEL is a negative value this would be a credit deficit. Credit deficits would be allowed to be carried forward . However, manufacturers would be required to make up the deficit within the next three model ye ars with credits from v ehicles in the same averaging set except as described below. As discussed above, m anufacturers would be required to identify and include in the calculations vehicle families from each and any covered category (see Table IV
- 18 ) whose total annual nationwide sales in the given model year equals or exceeds the prescribed percentages. If the inclusion of non

- Tier 3 vehicles results in an exceedance of the hot soak plus diurnal emission standard for that category of vehicles, the credit d eficit would have to be made up in a subsequent model year. Allowances could also be used to demonstrate compliance with the percentage phase

- in requirements and the vehicle category average emission standard. For purposes of the percentage phase

- in re quirements vehicles which have earned allowances are counted as compliant in the percentage calculation. For purposes of the calculations for compliance with the emission standard, allowance vehicles enters into the evaporative emissions ABT calculation a s having an emission rate equivalent to the standard for that category of vehicle. Thus, allowance vehicles would help in demonstrating compliance with the percentage phase

- in requirement (up to ten percentage points per model y ear) and would help in redu cing deficits since their calculation value would be equivalent to the level of the standard. EPA asks for comment on whether allowances should be permitted to be used across vehicle categories during the transition y ears. As was discussed above, durin g the 2017

- 2019 model years EPA is allowing manufacturers to meet the percentage phase

- in requirements using carryover certification data from vehicle s certified to CARBs O ption 1 standards in the 2015 or 2016 model years . These vehicles may have CARB O pti on 1 certification values slightly higher than those proposed for EPA’s Tier 3 program for the given vehicle and vehicle category
. Since the emission standard values in Tables IV
- 18 and IV

- 19 are very similar for any

given vehicle category , f or purposes o f simplification during the phase in , EPA proposes that an y CARB O ption 1 vehicles used in the 2017

- 2019 MY emission standard compliance determination be entered into the calculation with the emission level equivalent to the Tier 3 vehicle category in whic h the vehicle model would otherwise fit. Furthermore, we are proposing not allowing manufacturers to generate emission credits for families certified with EPA based on carryover CARB PZEV evaporative emissions data using CARB Option 1 as in Table IV
- 19 . We are proposing not to include these vehicles in the ABT program since the programs are not directly

comparable, and the structure of the current CARB ZEV program,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 176 of 888 which is the genesis of most PZEV offerings, allows for a different number of PZEV sales as a function of manufacturer size. As mentioned above, we are proposing to limit use of credits only within a defined averaging set. Cost effective technology is available to meet the proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standard s on average within each of the vehicle categories in the averaging sets, especiall y since the proposed standards are designed to accommodate nonfuel h ydrocarbon background emissions. Thus, further flexibility

is not needed. Moreover, we are proposing to constrain averaging to within these sets because of equit y issues for the manufacturers. We are concerned that the four or five manufacturers with a wide variety of product offerings in most or all of these categories would have a competitive advantage over the majority

of manufacturers which have more limited product lines. This effect could be even more pronounced if the number of evaporative families was considered, since larger more diverse manufacturers have more models and thus more evaporative families. EPA asks for comment on issues related to averaging sets. Manufacturer use of credits from different averaging sets to demonstrate compliance would be permitted in limited cases. As noted above, if a manufacturer has a credit deficit at the end of a model ye ar in a given averaging set, they would have to use credits from the same averaging set during the next three years to make up the deficit. However, if a deficit still exists at the end of the third ye ar, we propose that the manufacturer coul d use credits from a different averaging set to cover the remaining deficit with the following limitations. Manufacturers would be able to use credits from the LDV and LDT1 averaging set to address remaining deficits in the LDT2 averaging set, and vice ve rsa. We also are proposing that manufacturers be permitted to use credits from the LDT3, LDT4, and MDPV averaging set to address remaining deficits in the HDGV averaging set, and vice versa. No other use of credit exchanges across different averaging set s would be allowed. These restrictions are being proposed because of equity concerns caused by the different nature and size of various manufacturer product lines. During the program phase in there will be a declining percentage of vehicles not yet cove red b y the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements and thus covered b y the current EPA requirements in 40 CFR 86.1811

- 09 and 86.008

- 10. These vehicles would need to be certified to current EPA requirements or seek EPA certificates based on LEV I I or LEVIII emission data, subject to the certification fuel requirements discussed below. For both the percentage phase

- in and sales

- weighted average calculation steps above, we are proposing to base the calculation on nationwide s ales (excluding Californ ia and the section 177 states in the 2017 MY) and annual nationwide sales beginning in the 2018 MY. We believe this approach is consistent with the manufacturers’ plans for 50

- state vehicles. A program design which would enable a nationwide program has b een an important premise of this proposal. Furthermore, this is simpler for the manufacturers and for EPA since it relieves the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 177 of 888 need to project future model year sales or track past model year sales at a disaggregated level. We recognize that decisions b y manufacturers on a national fleet versus a bifurcated approach such as exists today (California and section 177

- states separate from the rest of U.S. sales) have not yet been made. 296 The CARB LEV III and EPA phase

- in requirements are identical beginning in 2018, so EPA sees little need for concern that a nationwide

- based accounting approach could lead to disproportionate state by state impacts or the encouragement of practices which would lead to an y particular state or area not receiving the anticipated emission reductions with this nationwide approach to the calculation. However, for evap orative emissions for the 2017 MY we are proposing that percentage phase

- in and sales be done on a disaggregated level (i.e., California and section 177 states and the remainder of the country) since at the present time the anti

- backsliding provisions of the LEV III evaporative emissions program stay s in place through the 2017 MY. This is being done differently for the calculations for the earl y allowance program because these “zero evap” vehicles are already counted in the pre

- existing ARB program. As was discussed above, manufacturers not meeting the percentage phase

- in requirements would need to include non

- Tier 3 vehicles in the count and include their emissions in the overall calculation of compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal standard and r esolve shortfalls in compliance with the emission standard with future reductions, earned allowances , or credits. Resolving this sales percentage shortfall problem becomes a bit more complicated for the 2017 MY 20 percent option upon which EPA is seeking comment, because it would require that 20 percent of vehicles meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements and that 20 percent meet the proposed leak emission standard. T hese may or may not be the same vehicles, (e.g., non - Tier 3 vehicles co uld end up in the end of year calculation and we are seeking comment on whether to allow the two 20 percent requirements to be allowed to be met on different vehicles)
. As a means to resolve this potential problem, EPA asks comment on a provision which wo uld require that any shortfall of either of the 20 percent values ( Tier 3 evaporative or leak emission standard) for the 2017 MY be covered b y future sales of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in excess of the evaporative emissi on percentage sales requirement for that MY or some combination of MYs
. For example, if a manufacturer were 5 percentage points short in the 2017 MY , then it would have to accelerate sales of vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements in the 2018
- 2021 MYs to cover the 5 percentage points (e.g., 65 percent in 2018 instead of 60 percent or 63 percent in 2018 MY and 62 percent in the 2019 MY, etc
. ).

296 If the decision is ultimately made to continue the disaggregated approach to fleet compliance calculations, the compliance with the proposed Tier 3 requirements would be based on U.S. sales (non

- California, non

- section 177 states).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 178 of 888 e. Small Volume Manufacturers As another flexibility , we are proposing that small volume manufactur ers, those with average annual nationwide sales of 5,000 units or less, be permitted to delay meeting the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards , including the requirement to use EPA certification test fuel, until the 2022 MY (see Section IV .E.5 be low for a discussion of our proposed 5,000 vehicle threshold) . This would include the hot soak plus diurnal standards, the canister bleed emission standard, and the leak emission standard. In the interim, these vehicles would have to meet the current evaporative and refueling emission standards. The initial determination of whether a manufacturer is under the 5,000 unit threshold would be based on the three ye ar average of actual nationwide sales for MYs 2012

- 2014. This allowance would not be affected if a qualifying manufacturer’s nationwide sales later exceeded that value before 2022. Similarly , new market entrants (not in the market in the 2012 MY) with projected sales of less than 5,000 units could be covered b y the small volume manufacturer provisions. However, in this case if actual running average nationwide sales exceeded 5,000 units per year in an y three consecutive model years they

would have to meet the Tier 3 evaporative requirements in the third model year thereafter. For example, if a new market entrant in 2015 projected nationwide production of 4,000 units per y ear and the average of actual values in 2015
- 2017 exceeded 5,000 units p er year they would have to meet Tier 3 evaporative requirements by the 2020 MY. f. High

- Altitude Requirements We adopted the most recent vehicle evaporative emission standards in 2007. 297 These newest standards appl y onl y to testing under low

- altitude condi tions. 298 Inthat rule, we decided to continue to apply the previous “Tier 2” standards for testing under high

- altitude conditions. This was necessary to achieve an equivalent level of overall stringency for high

- altitude testing. This was intended to acc ount for the various effects of altitude and lower atmospheric pressure on vapor generation rates, canister loading and purging dynamics, and other aspects of controlling evaporative emissions due primaril y to lower air and vapor concentrations in air. Wh ile it is important for vehicles to have effective emission controls at high altitudes, we do not want the high

- altitude standards and test procedures to dictate the fundamental design of the Tier 3 evaporative emission control sy stems since the high altitude vehicle population is only about five percent of the national total. Therefore, w e believe it is appropriate to address this goal b y applying the current EPA 2

- day low altitude evaporative emission standards and requirements for high

- altitude testing . The vehicle categories for the high altitude standards in this proposed rule are the same as for the low altitude standards. The

297 72 FR 8428 (February 26, 2007). 298 High

- altitude con ditions means a test altitude of 1,620 meters (5,315 feet). Low altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters (1,800 feet).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 179 of 888 proposed standards are presented below in Table IV
- 20 . This would both reduce emissi ons at high altitude and again create a requirement to confirm that emission controls function effectively at high altitude without forcing manufacturers to apply altitude

- specific technologies. Furthermore, the leak emission standard proposed in Section IV.C.5.b below would apply equall y at low and high altitude testing.

**Table IV**  **- 20**  **Proposed High -**  **Altitude Evaporative Emission Standards (g/test)**

Vehicle Category Highest Hot Soak + Diurnal Level (over both 2

- day

and 3

- day

tests)(g/test) LDV, LDT1 0.65 LDT2 0.85 LDT3, LDT4 1.15 MDPV 1.25 HDGVs < 14,000 lbs GVWR 1.75 HDGVs > 14,000 lbs GVWR 2.3 A few additional points should be noted about our proposed Tier 3 high altitude evaporative emissions control program. First, by proposing to apply

the current low altitude evaporative emission standards and requirements by category for high

- altitude, we are proposing not to include the canister bleed test and emission stan dard. These vehicles would have to meet the canister bleed emission standard at low altitude and any adjustment to meet the standard at high altitude to account for canister adsorption and desorption effects of higher altitudes would result in fundamental ly

the same technology

and increase the testing burden, but not necessarily

lead to more emissions control. Therefore, we believe the low

- altitude canister bleed test is sufficient for achieving the proposed level of emission control for operation in both low

- altitude and high

- altitude conditions. Second, for vehicles certified with FELs above or below the applicable standard for testing at low altitude, we propose that the same differential apply to the FELs for high

- altitude. For example, if an LDV was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead of the 0.300 g standard, the high

- altitude FEL would be 0.75 g (0.65g+0.1 0 g). This high

- altitude FEL would not be used for an y emission

- credit calculations, but it would be used as the emission standard for compliance purposes. Third, gasoline RVP for certification test fuel would be set at 7.8 RVP with 15 percent ethanol, as specified in Section IV.D. Finall y , we are proposing a minor adjustment to the high altitude test procedures. Today , the 2

- and 3

- day test p rocedures appl y equall y at low and high altitude. We are proposing to keep that requirement but to allow for an adjustment of 5 °F in the temperatures related to the running loss test within the 3

- day test cycle. Thus, the applicable fuel and ambient tempe ratures at §86.134
- 96 (f) and (g) would 90±5 °F instead of 95±5 °F for high altitude testing. EPA believes this is appropriate given the differences in atmospheric conditions at low versus high altitude and will still result in equivalent control of runni ng loss emissions at higher altitudes. We request comment on the alternative approach of keeping test***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 180 of 888 temperatures the same, but omitting the 3

- day test cycle for testing at high altitude. This would effectively

establish the 2

- day

test cycle as a suffici ent means of demonstrating that emission control sy stems continue to operate properl y at high altitude. As mentioned above, emission data from vehicles meeting the current CARB zero evap and useful life requirements could be used to qualify that vehicle t o meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission regulations for the 2017

- 2019 MYs. To qualify for a f ederal certificate, the vehicle would also have to meet the Tier 3 high altitude evaporative emission requirements. While CARB requires vehicles to meet EPA high al titude requirements, we ask for comment on the need for and value of an interim option which would permit manufacturers to gain such certification by an engineering demonstration that the vehicle would comply at an y altitude rather than by performing additional testing. g. Technological Feasibility The basic technology

for controlling evaporative emissions was first introduced in the 1970s. Manufacturers routed fuel tank and carburetor vapors to a canister filled with activated carbon, where vapors were stored until engine operation allowed for purge air to be drawn through the canister to extract the vapors for delivery

to the engine intake. Over the past 30 y ears, evaporative emission standards have changed several times, most notably in the mid

- 1990s when enhanced evaporative controls were required to address 2

- and 3

- day diurnal emissions and running losses. Refueling emission controls were added with phase

in beginning in the 1998 MY. Almost universally manufacturers elected to integrate evaporat ive and refueling emission control sy stems. In the mid

- 2000s more stringent evaporative emission standards with E10 durability gasoline led to the development and adoption of technology to identify

and eliminate permeation of fuel through fuel tanks, fuel lines, and other fuel

- sy stem components.

i. Hot Soak Plus Diurnal The current baseline technology for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs is a properl y designed and assembled fuel/evaporative s ys tem for controlling emissions over the 2
- and 3

- day

test sequences to meet the current standard of 0.650 grams/test. This involves activated carbon canisters which capture gasoline vapors, with engine calibrations designed to maximize canister purge over the test sequence. Fuel sy stems generall y include widespread use of various grades of permeation

- resistant materials. The anticipated control technologies to comply with the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standards include an improved carbon canister designs to even better capture vapor emissions from the c anister, air intake designs to prevent the escape of unburned fuel from the engine’s crankcase, various upgrades to further limit potential micro

- sized leaks, and further steps to reduce permeation rates. Appl yi ng these new or improved technologies will a llow***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 181 of 888 manufacturers to meet the proposed 300 mg standard for LDVs/LDT1s. The proposed evaporative emission standards are slightly higher for larger vehicles to account for potentially

higher background emissions and in some cases larger surface area compon ents, but the baseline and anticipated control technologies follow a very

similar path. These baseline and control technologies are described further in the rest of this section. Current evaporative canisters use high working

- capacit y activated carbon, us ually with multiple compartments, to optimize vapor loading and purging behavior. These canisters sometimes employ carbons of different working capacities within each chamber. Testing indicates that the total canister adsorption capacity in grams of gaso line vapor is generally dictated by

the requirements of the refueling emission test and standard rather than the evaporative emission test (either the 2

- or 3
- day

sequence). Manufacturers have identified the engine’s intake sy stem as another source of eva porative emissions. These result from crankcase vapors and from unburned fuel from injectors, or sometimes from an injection event that occurred shortly before engine shutdown. We estimate a ty pical emission rate of about 40 mg associated with each engin e shutdown event; however, since the actual emission rates depend on timing of individual injection events and cylinder position at shutdown, baseline emission rates can vary significantly . These vapors must follow a contorted path before reaching the amb ient air, which would generally cause these emissions to show up during the first day of the diurnal test rather than the hot soak test. One way

to prevent these emissions is to add activated carbon to the air intake downstream of the air filter, ty picall y in the form of reticulated foam coated with activated carbon. This device would have onl y a few grams of working capacity and would be designed to purge easil y to ensure that the vapor storage is available at engine shutdown. This carbon insert would a lmost completely eliminate any vapor emissions from the air intake s ys tem. Manufacturers wanting to avoid adding an y specialized emission control component to control evaporative emissions from the air intake could pursue alternative approaches. First, it is possible to allow the engine to continue rotating for 2

- 3 revolutions after engine shutdown to sweep any hydrocarbon vapors from the intake sy stem into or through the cylinder. These vapors could be burned in the cylinder, oxidized at the catal ys t, or stored until the engine starts again. This may still allow for a small amount of residual vapor release, but this should be a very small quantity . Vehicle owners would be unlikely to notice this amount of engine operation after shutdown. Second, to the extent that manufacturers use direct injection, there should be no fuel vapor coming from the intake sy stem. Any unburned fuel coming from the injectors would be preserved in the cylinder or released to the exhaust system and the catal ys t. A small amount of crankcase vapor might remain, but this would likely not be enough to justify

adding carbon to the intake sy stem.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 182 of 888 Fuel tanks are designed to limit permeation emissions. Fuel tanks are ty picall y made of high

- density pol yeth yl ene with an embedded barrie r layer of eth yl vinyl alcohol (EvOH) representing about 1.8 percent of the average wall thickness. The EvOH layer is effective for reducing permeation emissions. Recent developments in production processes have led to improved barrier coverage around th e ends of the tank where the molded plastic is pinch

- welded to form a closed vessel. We are expecting manufacturers to increase the EvOH barrier thickness to about 3 percent of the average wall thickness to provide a more uniform barrier layer, to provide better protection with ethanol

- based fuels, and to improve permeation resistance generall y. These changes are expected to decrease emission rates over the diurnal test from about 40 mg per day to 15 mg per day from the fuel tank assembly or less
. Fuel li nes are also already designed for low permeation rates. The biggest portion of fuel and vapor lines are made of metal, but that may still leave several feet of nonmetal fuel line. There may be development of new materials to further reduce permeation rat es, but it is more likely that manufacturers will adjust the mix of existing ty

pes of plastic fuel lines to achieve the desired performance at the lowest possible price. The bigger area of expected development with respect to fuel lines is to re

engineer fuel s ys tems to further reduce the number of connections between fuel

sy stem components and other fuel

- line segments. Today these s ys tems may

involve more than the optimum number of connections and segments due to assembly and production considerations or other factors. Designing the fuel sy stem more carefully to minimize connection points will limit possible paths for fuel vapors to escape. This would reduce emission rates and it should also improve sy stem durability by eliminating potential failure poi nts. A broader approach to addressing this source of emissions is to integrate designs and to move fuel

- sy stem components inside the fuel tank, which eliminates the concern for vapor emissions and permeation from those components and connections. A remain ing area of potential evaporative emissions is the connection between the fill neck and the fuel tank. Manufacturers can reduce emissions by perhaps 10 mg per day

by making this connection permeation

- resistant. The challenge is to design a low

- cost solut ion that is easily assembled and works for the demanding performance needs related to stiffness/flexibility . The best approach is likely either to use mating parts made from low

- permeation materials, or to use conventional materials but cover this joint w ith material that acts as a barrier layer. Purge rates are currently

designed to flow relatively large volumes of outside air through the canister when the purge solenoid is activated. This involves using available manifold vacuum to create purge flow, wi th limits in place to avoid drawing too much unmetered fuel vapor from the canister. Tightening the evaporative emission standard would lead manufacturers to address remaining emission sources from micro

- size leak points, permeation, and diffusion, as not ed above. Since the amount of additional vapor being captured b y the carbon canister***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 183 of 888 is small and the test procedure is not changing, we do not expect the change in standards to drive changes in purge strategy , rates, or canister capacity
. Nonetheless, v ehicle sy stem and engine changes to improve fuel economy could impact future purge strategies. Thus, as part of this approach, manufacturers may incorporate designs to reduce vapor volume/mass directed to the canister and thus potentially

reduce the purge air volume requirements. In addition, canister designs can be optimized to increase the effectiveness of a given volume of purge air. This could involve selecting different combinations of carbon characteristics and canister architecture t ypes and b y ad ding features to add heat (or preserve heat) in the canister during a purge event. Itis also possible that fuel econom y strategies which impact purge volume may lead some manufacturers to add vacuum pumps to supplement engine

- based purge on some vehicle models in the future. It is worth noting that there may be some models where manufacturers incorporate hardware or another control technique that may not be widel y used across b y all manufacturers or across all models. This is especially true for this set of proposed emission control requirements since we are considering such a wide array of basic vehicle and engine designs. Also, future vehicle/engine s ys tems such as hy brids may have more unique challenges in areas such as the diurnal fuel tank vapor loa d sent to the activated carbon canister and subsequent purging of those vapors. In response to this challenge, manufacturers may employ techniques to reduce fuel tank vapor generation and/or to enhance purge efficiency . Hardware such as a vapor blocking v alve or other techniques to enhance purge efficiency from the canister through heating may be employed to a limited degree. The technologies discussed above are in use to varying degrees on many of the CARB PZEV zero evap vehicles mentioned above. Taken together, we believe these technologies provide manufacturers with effective tools for reducing emissions sufficiently

to meet the proposed evaporative emission standards. ii. Canister Bleed Emission Standard More stringent evaporative emission standards have led to more careful measurements, which led manufacturers to discover that 80 mg or more of fuel vapor would diffuse from the canister vent as a result of the normal redistribution of vapors within the activated carbon while the vehicle is at rest. The e mission rate depends on the tank volume, its fill quantity , and the size and architecture of the canister and the characteristics of the carbon itself. While the biggest effect of this vapor distribution is a uniform concentration within the canister, it can also cause vapors to escape through the canister vent even without continued canister loading that would result from fuel tank heating. These are referred to as canister bleed emissions. These emissions occur to some degree during the 2

- and 3

- day ev aporative emissions test, but a separate standard is needed if the goal of near zero fuel vapor emissions is to be achieved. The design to address this concern is a supplemental “scrubber” canister (or canister compartment) with a very low working capacity carbon. Adding 100 or***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 184 of 888 200 ml of this ty

pe of carbon near the canister vent provides a margin of “reserve capacity” to capture diffusion losses from the canister. Since this extra carbon has low working capacity

and it purges readil y, it is typically cl eared of h ydrocarbon vapors and ready to perform its function after an y amount of engine operation or even with natural back purge which occurs when the fuel in the tank cools. This scrubber element is expected to eliminate all but 5

- 10 mg of emissions fr om the evaporative canister over the measurement procedure.

iii. Leak Emission Standard Vapor leaks in the vehicle fuel/evaporative s ys tem can arise from micro

cracks or other flaws in various fuel/evaporative sy stem component structures or welds, problems wi th component installations, and more generall y from connections between components and fuel lines and vapor lines. Because these emissions from these areas would occur in the 2

- 3 day evaporative emissions test if the problems were present, manufacturers h ave taken steps to address these potential problem areas as part of their overall evaporative emissions control strategy . Since the 2

- and 3
- day hot soak plus diurnal standards are proposed to become more stringent and leak emissions occur during the evap orative emissions test, we expect manufacturers to take the measures described above in Section IV .C.2.g.i . These include reducing connections, improving the qualit y of fuel and vapor line connections, use of impro ved component materials and revised installation practices. Manufacturers could also review their OBD leak warranty data and related information from OBD queries to help inform their strategies. One of the key reasons for proposing a leak emission standard is to promote the continuing development of designs , part production techniques, and assembly practices which will yield less in

- use emissions deterioration and improved in

- use emissions performance. EPA believes this focus on in

- use durability is impo rtant because a vehicle with even a small leak, e.g., the size of the 0.020

- 0.040 inch orifice diameter monitored by OBD s ys tems would likely emit above the proposed hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission standard in use. 3. Heav y - Duty

Gasoline Vehi cle (HDGV) Requirements
a. Overview of the Proposal for HDGVs As presented above, EPA is proposing to include HDGVs within the Tier 3 evaporative emissions program. The proposed hot soak plus diurnal and canister bleed test emission standards that would appl y to these HDGVs are as presented in Table IV
- 18 and the high altitude standard is presented in Table IV
- 20 . These vehicles would be included in the averaging calculation beginning in the 2018 MY and would be eligible for creating and using allowances and credits as discussed above. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed below, EPA is proposing that HDGVs equal to or less than 14,000 lbs GVWR be required to meet the refueling emi ssion standard by

the 2018 MY.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 185 of 888 b. Background on the HDGV Sector HDGVs are generall y gasoline

- powered vehicles with either a GVWR of greater than 8,500 lbs, or a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 lbs, or a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet. 299 HDGVs are predominantl y but not exclusively

commercial vehicles, mostly trucks and other work t yp e vehicles built on truck chassis. EPA often discusses HDGVs in three basic categories for regulatory

purposes according to their GVWR class. These include Class 2b (8,501

- 10,000 lbs GVWR), Class 3 (10,001

- 14,000 lbs GVWR), and Class 4 and above (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). These are further sub

- categorized into complete and incomplete vehicles. 300 Class 2b HDGVs are mostly produced b y the manufacturers as complete vehicles and are very similar to lower GVWR LDTs of the same basic model sold by the manufacturers. Class 3 HDGVs are also built from LDT chassis with fuel sy stem designs that are similar to their Class 2b and LDT counterparts, but these are on some occa sions sent to secondary manufacturers as incomplete vehicles to attach a load carrying device or container. EPA estimates that more than 95 percent of Class 2b/3 vehicles are complete when they leave the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Class 4 and above HDGVs are built on a more traditional heav y - truck chassis and in most cases leave the OEM as an incomplete vehicle. For Class 2b/3 vehicles, it is common to certify the vehicle for emissions purposes (exhaust, evaporative, etc) as a full chassis, while for Class 4 and above the vehicle is certified as a chassis for evaporative emissions while the engine is dy

namometer ce rtified for exhaust emissions. For LDVs and LDTs, the current EPA evaporative and refueling emission test procedures are the same for all vehicle categories and the emission standards are of a similar but not alway s identical stringency, within the subclasses. However, this is not true for HDGVs. For HDGVs, the level of the evaporative emission standards and the test procedures vary by category and the refueling emission control requirements are also different. There are several reasons for these differences, including variations in the size, design, and other properties of the basic fuel sy stem, the dimensions of the vehicles, and the potential for actions of secondary manufacturers to impact the fuel s ys tem. There are many fuel sy stem similarities between Class 2b/3 HDGVs and heavy LDTs, but fewer similarities between heav y LDTs and HDGVs in Class 4 and above. Over the past 15 t o 20 years, there have been several notable changes in HDGV products and market that have influenced the application of evaporative and

299 MDPVs also meet the definition of HDVs, but they are classified separately for evaporative and refueling emission purposes. See 40 CFR 86.1803

- 01. 300 Vehicles may be com

plete or incomplete vehicles. A complete HDGV is one that has the primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment) attached, normally by the vehicle OEM. An incomplete vehicle is one that does not have the primary load carrying device or container (or equivalent equipment) attached w hen it is first sold. This may include vehicles sold to seco ndary vehicle manufacturers.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 186 of 888 refueling emission control requirements and may impact potential new or revised requirements going forward. Most notewo rth y among these are the increased use of diesel engines across all weight classes and the emergence of better defined market segments for primary

OEMs and secondary

manufacturers. The increased use of diesel engines has reduced overall HDGV sales and brou ght about a consolidation of manufacturer HDGV product offerings. For Class 2b/3 HDGVs, these are now all derived from LDT chassis and have the same basic fuel sy stem and engine characteristics. This has led EPA to extend the light

- duty evaporative and r efueling test procedures and emission standards to the Class 2b/3 HDGVs, when applicable. In a rule promulgated in 2000, EPA required manufacturers to certify

these HDGVs using light

- duty test procedures. Also, in this same rule, EPA extended the vehicle refueling emission standards to complete Class 2b vehicles. These actions were technically appropriate because of the similarities between the LDT and Class 2b HDGVs and fuel s ys tems and the large fraction of complete Class 2b HDGVs produced by the vehicl e manufacturers. Today , fuel s ys tems for Class 3 HDGVs are comparable those for Class 2b HDGVs, so it is reasonable and technicall y feasible to extend the Class 2b refueling emission requirements to Class 3 HDGVs
. Class 4 and heavier HDGVs still play a sm all but important role in the traditional truck and heavy

- dut y vehicle markets. These vehicles are sometimes distinctly different from Class 2b/3 vehicles in terms of testing, c hassis designs, and fuel sy stem characteristics; secondary manufacturers also play

a larger role in the overall completion of the vehicle. For these vehicles, the engines are certified for emissions on an engine dynamometer while the evaporative emissions are certified separately on the vehicle chassis. Furthermore, these vehicles are larger dimensionally

(which often means longer fuel and vapor lines) and have larger volume fuel tanks (sometimes two), which may be mounted on the underbody or side

- rail. It is common for a secondary manufacturer to complete the vehicle by adding the cargo container or other working equipment box or package (e.g., small cargo truck or tow truck) and in some cases to reconfigure components. While the extrapolation of refueling emission control technology is conceptuall y straightforward, in some cases there may be unique technical issues related to implementing refueling emission controls for these heavier HDGVs relative to Class 2b/3 HDGVs and LDTs. Based on these considerations, EPA is proposing that the refueling emission standards in §86.1816

- 05 to apply to Class 3 HDGVs as well. This is appropriate because the fuel and evaporative control s ys tems on these vehicles are very similar to those on their slightly

lighter

- weight Class 2b counterparts, and in some cases Class 3 HDGVs are already designed t o meet this proposed requirement. EPA is proposing that this requirement be met beginning in the 2018 MY. EPA is also proposing that manufacturers be permitted to comply as earl y as the 2015 MY to earn on a one - to - one basis allowances which could be used to phase

- in the Class 3 refueling emission control requirement or as an allowance under the Tier 3 evaporative emission program. EPA believes this is appropriate since the expected***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 187 of 888 daily average reduction in vehicle refueling emissions for this class of vehicles is large relative to the reduction in evaporative emissions expected under Tier 3. Any certifications, including those done earl y, must use EPA Tier 3 test procedures and certification test fuels.
c. Other Potential Program Elements for HDGVs EPA is seeking comments on several other programmatic elements related to the Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission control proposal. First , e ven if we do not revise the current evaporative emission standards for these vehicles and they

are not required to control refueling emissions, we are seeking comment on requiring manufacturers to certify their evaporative emissions using Tier 3 certification test fuel. Tier 3 certification test fuel would provide equivalent or better emissions control as compared to current certification test fuel in terms of the fuel quality impact on emission control sy stem designs to meet the existing evaporative emission standards and would provide equivalent or better in

use performance. Requiring this new certification test fuel has the potential to add efficiency to the certification process since manufacturers could certify one sy stem for EPA and CARB for each evaporative family . Since incomplete vehicles and those over 14,000 lbs GVWR often do not use the same test vehic le/engine for evaporative and exhaust emission testing, we seek comment on whether a requirement for vehicle evaporative and/or refueling emission certification on Tier 3 test fuel would technically necessitate engine exhaust emission certification on Tier 3 test fuel. Second, a s mentioned in Section IV. B., EPA is also seeking comment on requiring the use of Tier 3 certification test fuel for HDGVs which are engine

dy namometer certified, not chassis

- certified, for exhaust emissions. This would potentially include all engine familie s certified for use in HDGVs above 8,500 lbs. GVWR. We are seeking comment on this change because we believe it may be the best and most representative technical approach for the future in the context of the engine/emission control sy stem/fuel sy stem design and performance and fuel quality . Overall, we believe this change to the certification test fuel for HDGVs would provide equivalent or better emissions control for the regulated pollutants as compared to current certification test fuel, in terms of the impact of fuel quality on emission control sy stem designs and in

- use performance, and may also simplify manufacturers’ testing operations b y providing for a single test fuel. We are also seeking comment on putting this requireme nt in place in the 2020

- 2022 MY time frame. Consistent with the approach proposed in Section IV.D.4 for light

- and heav y - dut y vehicles, we are committed to the principle of ensuring that any change in test fuel for heav y - duty engines would not affect the stringency of either the fuel consumption or GHG emissions standards. As part of the separate rulemaking discussed in Section IV.D.4, we would expect to establish the appropriate test procedure adjustment for HD engine fuel consumption standards and to de termine the need for an y test procedure adjustment for GHG emissions standards based on the change in certification test fuels.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 188 of 888 Third, to simplify

the evaporative emission regulations for HDGVs and to bring them more in line with the current structure of the product offerings in this sector, we are proposing to permit evaporative emissions certification by engineering anal ys is for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR (instead of above 26,000 lbs GVWR as is permitted in the current regulations). These HDGVs woul d remain subject to the emission standards when tested using the specified procedures. This is the same cut point allowed by CARB and would allow for one certification method. Furthermore, for HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR, w e request comment on taking an ad ditional step to rel y even further on design parameters and engineering anal ys is. Under this approach, manufacturers would need to demonstrate that the design of their purge strategy , canister capacity , and overall control s ys tem would control emissions t o the same degree as similar (or comparable) Class 2b or Class 3 vehicles that meet emission standards when tested over the established measurement procedures. The standard would be a performance standard in that the manufacturer could use any design that met the criteria of controlling emissions to the same degree that occurs in vehicles that meet the emissions standard. However, unlike the proposed approach, compliance with the standard would be based solely on an engineering review of the design. Comp liance would not be determined by measuring performance on the emissions test. This would take into account the limitations in managing any significant degree of testing with these over

- size vehicles. In particular, we request comment on the enforceabil ity of taking the approach of a design standard. Fourth, we are proposing a revised description of evaporative emission families that does not reference sealing methods for carburetors or air cleaners as this technology is now obsolete for heav y - dut y gasol ine engines
. Fifth, we also seek comment on the implications on these evaporative emission standards were we to require the certification test fuel to be 10 psi RVP E10 as discussed below in Section IV.D.1. Sixth , we are proposing to clarify how evaporative emission standards affect engine manufacturers and proposing more descriptive provisions related to certifying vehicles above 26,000 lbs GVWR using engineering anal ys is. These improved descriptive provisions would apply to vehicles above 14,00 0 GVWR lbs if the proposed change in GVWR cut point for engineering anal ys is certification is finalized. Finally , EPA is asking for comment on several other provisions related to the heavier HDGVs (over 14,000 lbs GVWR). First, if we do not include these heavier HDGVs in the Tier 3 final rule requirements, we are asking comment on whether manufacturers should be able to voluntarily certify an y HDGVs not covered b y the rule to the same requirements as being proposed for Class 2b/3 HDGVs, and through this ac tion earn allowances and credits for use within the Tier 3 program as discussed above for other vehicles. This would include both evaporative and refueling emissions standards. Second, EPA also asks comment on whether there should be a provision to permit HDGVs over 14,000 lbs GVWR to be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 1 89 of 888 grouped with those between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR for purposes of complying with evaporative and refueling emission control standards and related provisions. In these cases, we would expect these HDGVs to meet all th e requirements applicable to the group in which they are being included (e.g., useful life, OBD, etc
. ). 4. Test Procedures and Certification Test Fuel
a. Review and Update of Testing Requirements EPA adopted the current test requirements for controlling evapor ative emissions in 1993. 301 Those changes included: (1) diurnal testing based on heating and cooling the ambient air in the SHED 302 instead of forcing fuel temperatures through a specified temperature excursion; (2) repeated 24

- hour diurnal measurements to ca

pture both permeation and diurnal emissions; (3) high

temperature hot soak testing; (4) high

- temperature running

- loss measurements with a separate standard, including controlled fuel temperatures according to a fuel

temperature profile developed for the ve hicle; and (5) canister preconditioning to ensure that vehicles could effectivel y create canister capacit y to prepare for several day s of non

- driving. These test procedures are generall y referred to as “enhanced evap” testing. EPA adopted these “enhanced evap” test procedures in coordination with CARB. The test requirements include two separate test sequences to demonstrate the effectiveness of evaporative emission controls. The “two

- diurnal sequence” involves canister loading to two

- gram breakthrough, f ollowed by

driving for the exhaust test (about 31 minutes), a hot soak test, and two days of cycled ambient temperatures. The “three

- day sequence” involves canister loading with 50 percent more vapor than needed to reach breakthrough, followed by driving for the exhaust test, driving for the running loss test (about 97 minutes total), a high

- temperature hot

- soak test, and three day s of cycled ambient temperature. The 2

- day

sequence was intended primaril y to insure a purge strategy which would create enough canister capacity to capture two day s of diurnal emissions after limited driving. The two

- day measurement period was effective for requiring control of permeation and other fugitive emissions. The 3

- day sequence was intended to establish a design benchm ark for achieving adequate canister storage capacity to allow for several day s of parking on hot summer day s, in addition to requiring vehicle designs that prevent emissions during high

- temperature driving and shutdown conditions.

301 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993)
. 302 SHED is the Federal Register acronym for sealed housing for evaporative determination. The SHED is the enclosure in which the evaporative emissions are captured before me asurement.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 190 of 888 After adopting these evaporative test procedures, we set new standards for refueling emissions control which called for onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR). 303 Manufacturers have t ypicall y designed their ORVR systems to be integrated with their evaporative controls, using a sin gle canister and purge strategy to manage all fuel vapors vented from the fuel tank. Due to the magnitude of the refueling emission load and the manner in which the load rates affect activated carbon capture efficiency, it has become clear that ORVR testi ng with these integrated s ys tems serves as the benchmark for achieving adequate canister storage capacity
. In the nearly

20 years since adopting these test procedures, manufacturers have made great strides in developing designs and technologies to manage canister loading and purging and to reduce permeation emissions. Except as discussed below, we are not proposing to change the test procedures for demonstrating compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described above, we are proposing to adopt a new standard based on measured values over a “canister bleed test,” which is intended to measure only fuel vapors which diffuse from the evaporative canister. CARB developed this procedure as a means of setting a standard that would not be affe cted b y nonfuel background emissions. This procedure is a variation of the established two

- day test sequence. The canister is preconditioned b y purging and loading to breakthrough, then attached to an appropriate test vehicle for driving over the duty cycle for the exhaust test. The canister is then attached to a fuel tank for measurement. After a stabilization period, the tank and canister undergo two days of temperature cycling. Canister emissions are measured using a flame ionization detector (FID), either using a conventional SHED approach or b y collecting emissions in a bag and measuring the mass. Rather than repeating CARB’s regulations, we are proposing to incorporate those regulations by reference into the CFR. This will avoid the possibility of complications related to minor differences that may occur with separate test procedures. CARB also adopted a fuel sy stem “rig test” as an optional approach to demonstrate control of evaporative emissions without the effects of the nonfuel hydrocarbon em issions that are seen in testing the whole vehicle in the SHED. We generall y expect manufacturers to compl y with the proposed EPA requirements which include the canister bleed test and emission standard instead of CARB Option 1 which includes the rig test and emission standard. However, since we are proposing to accept CARB Option 1 certifications for the 2017 through 2019 model ye ars, we are also proposing to incorporate by reference CARB’s rig test into the CFR to accommodate those manufacturers that do in fact rel y on this approach.

303 59 FR 16262 (April 6, 1994).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 191 of 888 Also , as discussed further below, we are proposing to adopt a new leak test procedure which would be used to measure leak rates for the proposed leak emission standard. The leak test standard test procedure is contained in the proposed regulatory

text. Furth er detail can be found in the draft Regulatory Impact Analy sis (Appendix to Chapter 1)
. Manufacturers have raised a pair of related concerns regarding the current test procedures. First, h ybrid vehicles and new engine designs for meeting fuel econom y stan dards and CO 2 emission standards increase the challenge of maintaining an adequate purge volume to prepare vehicles for the diurnal test. For hy brid vehicles this is related to the amount of time the engine is running. For other technologies this is related to the trend toward decreasing available vacuum in the intake manifold, which is the principal means of drawing purge air through the canister. Second, preconditioning the canister b y l oading to breakthrough serves as a disincentive for some control s trategies that might otherwise be effective at reducing emissions, such as designs involving greater canister capacit y or better containment of fuel vapors inside the fuel tank. In addition, we have learned from studying in

- use emissions and in

- use drivin g behaviors and usage patterns that it is not uncommon for vehicles to go for an extended period with little or no oppo rtunity

to purge the canister. We request comment on an optional adjustment to the test procedure intended to address these three concern s. In this alternative, for designs involving pressurized tanks, manufacturers would determine an alternative vapor load to precondition the canister before the exhaust test. If, for example, a fuel sy stem is designed to stay

sealed up to 1 psi and to ve nt vapors to the canister if rising temperatures trigger a pressure

- relief valve, the manufacturer could quantify the actual vapor load to the canister during three consecutive day s of cycling through diurnal test temperatures. This three

- day vapor load w ould be the amount of fuel vapor used to precondition the canister (loaded at the established rate of 15 grams per hour). This canister loading may also involve butane instead of fuel vapor, but we would likely

require a greater mass of butane to account for the fact that it is easier to remove the butane from the activated carbon in the canister. This approach would be flexible to accommodate an y design target for pressurizing fuel tanks. Canister preconditioning for the ORVR test (for integrated and no nintegrated s ys tems) would remain unchanged. b. Test Fuel EPA is proposing to change the certification test fuel specifications as described in Section IV.D. Here we discuss some implications for evaporative and refueling emissions testing. We are proposi ng to revise the certification test fuel specification (including durability fuel) in conjunction with the proposed Tier 3 standards, principall y to include ethanol and reduce sulfur such that the test fuel better aligns with the current and projected in

- u se fuel. Any Tier 3 evaporative emission certification would have to use Tier 3 certification test fuel and test procedures. This could be done as earl y as the 2015 MY and would be required for***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 192 of 888 all vehicle models b y the 2020 MY. We are further proposing to appl y the new test fuel at the same time to ORVR testing. Therefore, beginning in the 2017 MY if manufacturers do an y new testing to demonstrate compliance with the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, they would need to submit test data to demonstrate compliance with the refueling emission standards using the new certification test fuel as well as the leak (when applicable), refueling, canister bleed, and high altitude testing requirements and emission standards. We are also proposing that an y family that is not yet captured within the Tier 3 phase

- in percentage may

remain on current certification fuel or, as discussed below, California certification test fuel and test procedures through the 2019 MY. By the 2020 MY all evaporative and ref ueling emission certifications would have to be on EPA test procedures and certification fuels. It is useful to clarify that any confirmatory

or in

- use testing for these families would be done on the fuel on which they were originally

certified. However, by

the 2020 MY all vehicles must be certified with Tier 3 certification test fuel and that test fuel would have to be used in confirmatory

and in

- use testing. Finally , we are proposing that any vehicle certified to the refueling spit back standard separat el y (mostly incomplete HDGVs) may continue to do so using current certification fuel until the 2022 MY even if it’s evaporative and/or refueling emissions are certified on Tier 3 certification fuel. This is reasonable since the fill quality of the vehicle and eliminating spit back are not necessaril y related to the ethanol or sulfur content of the gasoline. There are two main fuel properties that influence evaporative emissions: ethanol content and vapor pressure. Current requirements specify an emiss ion test fuel with no ethanol for emissions testing; however, the current regulation specifies that manufacturers must perform service accumulation (durability) using fuel with, at a minimum, the highest concentration of ethanol permissible under federal l aw for in

- use gasoline and that is commerciall y available in at least one state. In this case, this provision has the effect of insuring that manufacturers would design their fuel sy stems to account for the effect of ethanol on permeation emissions. Even without ethanol in the test fuel, the extended operation with gasoline

- ethanol blends for service accumulation would effectivel y force the manufacturers to design sy stems which effectively control emissions from the blended fuel. By regulation manufactur ers must use a 10 percent ethanol fuel in current evaporative emissions durability work. As a result, adding ethanol to the test fuel for Tier 3 evaporative and refueling emission testing should pose no new or greater challenge for manufacturers. A second issue related to adding ethanol to the certification test fuel relates to the emission measurement in the SHED. Emissions are detected by flame ionization detectors (FID), which are less responsive to ethanol than gasoline. This effect causes under

- repo rting from the ethanol portion of the fuel vapor . Fuel

related emissions from the vehicle may be slightl y more weighted toward ethanol than gasoline, depending on how the different fuel constituents permeate through various fuel

- sy stem materials, how the y evaporate from the bulk fuel in the tank at varying temperatures, and how they adsorb onto and desorb from the activated carbon in the canister. We are proposing to address this issue by the use of a***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 193 of 888 prescribed scaling factor. Under this approach manuf acturers would simply multiply their SHED measurement results by a fixed value to adjust upward for the difference in the FID response to ethanol. Data available to EPA suggest that a scaling value of approximately 1.1 would be appropriate for E15. 304 This means that the value measured in the SHED would be multiplied by 1.10 to account for a difference in the FID response. This was determined using data which indicates that from a near worst case perspective the term within the bracket { } below equals 1.1
. M HC adj = [ ( P B Vn/ T ) (.000297)(ppm Cfid )*{1+((1

- ra ) (reth ))/ 1+((reth )(ra ))}] This adjustment would apply to hot soak plus diurnal, refueling, canister bleed, and spitback emission standards testing. For higher ethanol blends (such as E85), the regulation already specifies measurement and calculation procedures to adjust for this effect. We are not proposing an y changes to these procedures.
c. Vehicle Preconditioning for Nonfuel Hydrocarbon Emissions for the Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards Th e proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal, leak, and canister bleed emission standards taken together are expected to bring about the widespread use of technology

which effectively

eliminates fuel vapor emissions. The canister bleed and leak emission standards are not influenced b y non fuel h ydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle. Nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions from the vehicle are measured as part of SHED emission testing, and are indistinguishable for fuel hydrocarbons when a FID is used to measure the conc entration. The level of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions vary by vehicle and component design and material. These emissions arise from paint, adhesives, plastics, fuel/vapor lines, tires, and other rubber or pol ym er components and are generall y greater with larger size vehicles. These nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions are usually highest with newl y manufactured vehicles and decrease relatively quickl y over time. Currently , manufacturers often conduct some preconditioning to reduce or eliminate the effects of these nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions on evaporative emissions measurements in the SHED. In the past, this practice has not been addressed through regulatory provisions. However, given the stringent level of the proposed Tier 3 hot soak plus diurnal e vaporative emission standards, and that nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions are expected to be a significant portion of the hydrocarbon emissions measured in the SHED, EPA believes that some sort of preconditioning before certification testing is appropriate and that a regulatory provision addressing this practice may be warranted. Providing some recognition of and allowance for this practice would help to create the proper balance between necessary and proper preconditioning to address high nonfuel hydrocarbon

304 Moulis, C. ( 2012, January). SHED FID Responses for Ethanol. Memorandum to the docket.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 194 of 888 emissions and excessive preconditioning which could undermine the intent of the proposed hot soak plus diurnal emission standard (~ 50 mg or less of fuel evaporative emissions). EPA believes the goal of evaporative emissions preconditioning should be to g et nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions to what we call vehicle background levels. A working definition of vehicle background level might be the level which would occur naturall y twelve months after production. A provision in the regulations which addresses prec onditioning reduces ambiguity for the manufacturers and could reduce or eliminate any uncertaint y in the true meaning of certification test results. Manufacturer activity

with regard to preconditioning often involves two practices. First, manufacturers i n some cases “bake” their test vehicles at temperatures of 50 ° C or higher for periods of up to ten or more day s to accelerate the off

- gassing of these nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions before testing is conducted. While this practice is common, there is no s tandardized method or protocol for this preconditioning prior to new vehicle certification testing. For example, some manufacturers bake for a set period of time in a climate chamber while others bake in the climate chamber and periodicall y measure nonfue l background in a SHED until an acceptable or stable level of nonfuel hydrocarbon emissions is achieved. Second, manufacturers often remove, modify , or clean certain components which are the largest source of nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions. Preconditionin g could also include measures to eliminate minor fuel drips, spills, or other fuel remnants which occur as a result of vehicle preparation for testing. We are not proposing to specify standardized preconditioning practices or protocols with regard to addre ssing nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions before evaporative emission certification testing. However, we are proposing general provisions in four areas. First, we would specify in the regulations that preconditioning for the purpose of addressing nonfuel hydro carbon emissions is permitted. Second, we would specify that an y preconditioning is voluntary. Third, we would specify

that if preconditioning is conducted, the details must be specified to EPA before certification testing, (i.e., at the time of the pre

- c ertification planning meeting). The goal of this preconditioning should be to get nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions to what we would term vehicle background levels as discussed above. Th e specifics to be discussed with EPA could include details on vehicle baking practices such the temperature and time duration in the climate chamber and practices conducted as an alternative or complement to vehicle baking such as installing used tires (drive and spare) on certification vehicles, and allowing the windshield was her tank to be filled only with water. In seeking to understand this issue, we ask for comment on which components are the largest sources of these nonfuel h ydrocarbons and of these which are practical to modify or remove for the evaporative emissions tes t. Fourth, as part of these considerations we would specificall y propose that no preconditioning be permitted for testing of an y vehicle aged more than twelve months from its date of manufacture. The onl y exception we would consider is the use of an age d spare tire in lieu of the spare tire on the test vehicle. For these***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 195 of 888 vehicles, nonfuel h ydrocarbon emissions would presumabl y be reduced to a stable level due to natural off gassing which begins after the vehicle is manufactured. Emissions from any

repla cement parts or other vehicle maintenance would presumabl y be encompassed within the margin below the standard created by this natural off

- gassing. EPA asks comment on how to address testing of vehicles with relativel y new drive tires and whether used dri ve tires should be allowed in these circumstances. Data available to EPA indicates that the background emission rate stabilizes to about two

- thirds of the level of the standard after about twelve months. These levels are adequately below the proposed Ti er 3 evaporative emission standards so that nonfuel background would not unduly influence test pass/fail outcomes and are within the range of values EPA expects to be accommodated within the proposed evaporative emission standard. This proposed restrictio n for vehicles older than 12 months would include certification, confirmatory and in

- use testing for an y vehicle certified to the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. We request manufacturer data related to the change in nonfuel hydrocarbon emi ssion rates over time and on the best method to consider these emissions as part of preconditioning before evaporative emission testing. d. Reciprocit y with CARB Over the past 15 ye ars EPA’s “enhanced evap” test procedures have been based on testing with 9 p ound per square inch (psi) RVP gasoline with test temperatures representing a summer day with peak temperatures of about 96 °F. CARB adopted the same basic procedures, but specified that testing should occur with 7 psi RVP gasoline at temperatures of up t o 105 °F. EPA and CARB agreed that certification could be based on testing with either EPA or CARB conditions and that these provided equivalent stringency for purposes of evaporative control sy stem design. However, the provision allowing for this equiva lence of test data preserved EPA’s ability

to also test with either EPA or CARB temperature conditions. CARB alway s specified EPA test conditions for refueling as they were deemed worst case. CARB recently moved to change their certification test fuel to a 7 RVP gasoline with 10 percent ethanol and as discussed in Section IV.D , we are now proposing to change the Federal certification test fuel specification to a 9 RVP gasoline with 15 percent ethanol. During the development of this proposal we carefully considered the practice of CARB/EPA reciprocit y with regard to certification test fuels, hot soak plus diurnal test procedures, and emission test results when it comes to evaporative emissions certification. With this notice we are proposing a revised ap proach to the CARB/EPA reciprocity

with regard to evaporative and refueling emissions. A uniform national certification test fuel is important to the design of fuel/evaporative sy stems which will operate effectivel y across the U.S. Consistent with our de sire to have a national program with vehicles designed for E15 as discussed in Section IV .D, and consistent with our treatment of exhaust emission standards, we are proposing a 9 RVP test fuel with 15 percent ethanol for all evaporative (hot soak plus diur nal, canister bleed, and leak emission standards) and refueling emissions testing. Thus, after the evaporative emissions fuel phase

- in discussed above***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 196 of 888 (ending after the 2019 MY), EPA will no longer accept test data on CARB test fuel and diurnal test tempe ratures. However, CARB has agreed to accept emission test data on EPA test fuel and temperature conditions for certification such that a uniform national program could still exist. This approach applies to all evaporative and refueling emission standards
. Generally , any

vehicle family

counted in the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards phase

- in must be certified on Tier 3 certification test fuel using EPA test procedures. However, EPA recognizes that the California and federal evaporative emission stand ard programs would be starting from different bases and that the transition provisions are different in some way s. For example, the proposed EPA program starts in the 2017 MY but after that has the same basic program construct as CARB in 2018. However, prior to the 2017 MY, CARB has a ZEV program provision which will continue to bring zero evap technology into the fleet before 2017. To capitalize on this technology and to facilitate transition, we are proposing that any CARB evaporative emission test data from MYs 2015 and 2016 certification s could be used in federal certification for those evaporative/refueling families through the 2019 MY. Assuming these vehicle families meet Tier 3 evaporative emission standards and they are sold nationwide they cou ld be included in the percentage phase

- in calculations as Tier 3 vehicles. A good example of these would be vehicles meeting CARB Option 1 standards discussed above. If the vehicles do not meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements manufacturers could potentially

sell them nationwide, but they would not be included as compliant vehicles in the percentage phase

- in calculation. EPA propose s a similar provision for a manufacturer which elects to use the CARB test procedures and test fuels to meet th e refueling emission standard. That is, if a manufacturer uses evaporative emission test data from 2015 or 2016 model year CARB certifications to meet the Federal requirements in 2017

- 2019 model years, it may also use CARB refueling emission test data fro m model year 2015 and 2016 certification s for federal certification for th e refueling requirements for those evaporative/refueling families through the 2019 MY. Any in

- use testing on vehicle families certified on this data would be conducted using the CARB temperature conditions and test fuel and the CARB ethanol SHED adjustment value of 1
. 08 for 10 percent ethanol. However, by the 2020 MY all vehicles would have to be certified using EPA certification test fuel and test procedures. Inthe interim, the equivalency and acceptance by EPA of certification on California test fuels is dependent on our proposed 9 psi RVP level for the certification test fuel. Were we to require the more stringent level of 10 psi RVP more ty

pical of E10 as discussed in section I V.D.1, testing using California test fuels and conditions would no longer be equivalent
. e. Evaporative and Refueling Emission Standards for Various Fuels The evaporative and refueling emission standards today apply in different way s to different fuels. In the case of gasoline, all the standards appl y and testing is required for certifying all vehicles. Evaporative emission standards do not apply for diesel

- fueled vehicles; the refueling standards apply to diesel

- fueled vehicles, but manufacturers can get EPA approval to omit testing for certification. For other***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 197 of 888 fuels, there is a mix of standards appl yi ng or not applying, and if standards apply , testing is either required or not required. The statutory provisions in this regard are straightforward: Clean Air Act section 202(k) specifies that gasoline

- fueled vehicles must be certified to evaporative emission standards, and section 202(a)(6) specifies that all motor vehicles be certified to refueling emission standards. This raises two questions. First, we request comment on using this rulemaking as the proper context for applying the refueling standards to vehicles powered by every kind of fuel. Where standards do not apply today (natural gas, fuel cells, electric, etc.), we would expect to waive test req uirements for certification, so this would not be any substantial burden. Dedicated ethanol

- fueled vehicles would face a new requirement, but we are not aware that there are any such vehicles today
. Second, we have the discretion to apply evaporative em ission standards to vehicles powered b y fuels other than gasoline. The standards expressl y do not apply for diesel fuel. By

omission, the standards do not apply for dedicated ethanol

- fueled vehicles, fuel

- cell vehicles, and electric vehicles. The standards apply for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas even though these are sealed sy stems with no emission control sy stems for controlling evaporative emissions. We request comment on adjusting the regulations such that evaporative emission standards app ly

onl y to volatile liquid fuels, which is the approach we have taken for nonroad applications (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.801). Under this approach, diesel fuel would continue to be excluded from standards because it is nonvolatile. This approach wou ld also exclude natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas because they

are not liquid fuels at atmospheric pressure. 5. Improvements to In
- Use Performance of Fuel Vapor Control Sy stems
a. Background on Data Related to In

- Use Performance As part of the Compliance Assistance Program (CAP 2000) in

- use verification program (IUVP) 305 the manufacturers began testing the evaporative emissions performance of small samples of in

- use vehicles owned and used by the public. These regulations can be found at 40 CFR 8 6 1845
- 01, and 1845

- 04. In 2000, EPA extended this requirement to cover chassis

- certified HDVs, which for these purposes are basically all HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. 306 The in

- use testing for evaporative emissions started in 2004 for 2001 MY LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs and in 2008 for 2007 MY chassis certified HDGVs. Current IUVP data for evaporative emissions covers about 1800 vehicle tests. This data shows that when evaluated in the laboratory using certification test procedures, the vast majority (over 95 p ercent) of the vehicles pass the evaporative emission standards to which they were certified. While this information is indicative of good in

- use performance, it has limitations. First, the test results are for small sample sizes. For

305 64 FR 23906 (May 4, 1999). 306 65 FR 59922
- 59924 (October 6, 2000).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 198 of 888 the approximately

1 50 million LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and chassis

- certified HDGVs produced between 2001 (the start of the IUVP program) and 2010 (latest available data), onl y about 0.001 percent of vehicles were tested. Second, the IUVP regulations place limits on the age/mileag e for vehicle testing. Each model year is tested in two “batches,” nominally at the one and four year age points. One year old vehicles must have at least 10,000 miles and four y ear old vehicles must have at least 50,000 miles with at least one within the higher mileage group having an odometer reading of at least 75 percent of useful life (90,000 miles for most Tier 2 vehicles). The useful life period for LDVs and LDT1s/LDT2s is 10 y ears/120,000 miles, for LDT3s/LDT4s/MDPVs and complete HDGVs it is 11 ye ars/120,000 miles. Thus, few firm conclusions can be drawn about full useful life emissions performance. Recent evaporative emission testing conducted b y EPA and others evaluated in

- use LDVs and LDTs certified to meet the enhanced evaporative emission st andards implemented for 1996 and later model years 307 as well as Tier 2 standards implemented for 2004 and later model year vehicles. Three Coordinating Research Council (CRC) programs (E

- 77
- 2/2b/2c), tested evaporative emission levels of vehicles with varyi ng amounts of ethanol and levels of RVP in the gasoline test fuel. 308 These programs were unique in that a subset of the vehicle SHED tests were of vehicles with implanted leaks at the nominal minimal level of detection for OBD s ys tems (0.020 inch) in three different locations in the fuel/evaporative control sy stem. These tests showed hydrocarbon emission rates 2

- 10 times greater than for the same vehicles tested in the SHED without the leaks and showed an order of magnitude of difference depending on where the leak was introduced. Furthermore, the CRC E

- 77
- 2 evaporative emissions test programs which looked at permeation in aged vehicles meeting EPA’s enhanced evaporative emission control standards, introduced a new Static Test Procedure which pressurized th e vapor space and activated the fuel pump during different portions of the SHED test, while the vent from the vehicle canister was routed to a trap canister outside of the SHED. By pressurizing the vapor space it was possible to determine if there was a v apor leak in the sy stem by looking for a slope change in the vapor concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation alone. Similarly , by activating the fuel pump it was possible to determine if there was a liquid leak in the sy stem by

looking fo r a slope change in the vapor concentration in the SHED over time relative to permeation alone. Out of the 15 randoml y recruited vehicles in the program, seven of them displayed vapor and/or liquid leaks on one or more fuel

307 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993). 308 CRC E
- 77 reports: Haskew, H ., Liberty, T
. (2008)
. Vehicle Evaporative Emission Mechanisms: A Pilot Study, CRC Project E

- 77 ; Haskew, H ., Liberty, T
. (2010)
. Enhanced Evaporative Emission Vehicles (CRC E

- 77
- 2) ; Haskew , H ., Liberty, T
. (2010)
. Evaporative Emissions from In

- Use Vehicles: Test Fleet Expansion (CRC E

- 77
- 2b) ; Haskew, H ., Liberty, T
. (2010)
. Study to Determine Evaporative Emission Breakdown, Including Permeation Effects and Diurnal Emissions Using E20 Fuels on Aging Enhanced Evaporative Emissions Certified Vehicles, CRC E
- 77
- 2c
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 199 of 888 ethanol/RVP combination (4 of these 7 were Tier 2 vehicles). A closer look at the data indicates that over the course of the study, which covered a two to four year period depending on the vehicle, the magnitude of the leaks increased with time. These studies taken together were of conc ern to EPA with regard to the in

use performance of evaporative emission control sy stems because they indicated that leaks could be a large portion of the evaporative emissions inventory if they occurred in even a relatively small fraction of the in

- use fl eet. The key missing piece of information was how often the leaks of 0.020 inches or larger occur in the fleet. To help us better understand this concern, EPA partnered with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and with CRC as an advisor for a pilot field study in Denver in the summer of 2008 to assess the frequency of high evaporative emissions vehicles in the fleet. The project identified high evaporative emission emitters through an innovative screening tool known as a remo te sensing device (RSD). The vehicles were identified at the entrance to the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) station as high evaporative emission emitters. The operators of these vehicles were asked to participate in further evaluation using a Portable Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination (PSHED) in addition to a modified California method test procedure to locate the source of the high emissions indicated by

the PSHED level. 309 The CDPHE continued to collect the same ty pe of data in different loc ations in the Denver area for the next two summers. Of the 5830 vehicles which came through the Ken Caryl I/M station in 2009, 601 were identified as potentially high evaporative emitters using the RSD tool. 310 Of these, 84 vehicle owners agreed to be inclu ded in the PSHED evaluation that summer. Furthermore, 110 additional vehicles were recruited which were potentially

low to marginally

high evaporative emitters. 311 The study was structured to recruit higher evaporative emitting vehicles more heavil y than lower emitting vehicles
. Afterwards the percentages were adjusted to represent the actual mix in the fleet of light duty

vehicles. Thus, i t was determined that 1 0 percent of the fleet had evaporative emissions which exceeded a cut point reflecting an in

- use evaporative emission rate of about 1 gram of total HC over 15 minutes (see Table 5

- 9 in the 2012 DeFries report reference d above ) . This value is approximately the

309 DeFries, T., Lindner, J., Kishan, S., Palacios, C. (2011). Investigation of Techniques for High Evaporative Emissions Vehicle Detection: Denver Summer 2008 Pilot Study at Lipan Street Station, 310 DeFries, T; Palacios, C., Kishan, S. (2012) , Estimated Summer Hot Soak Distributions for the Denver’s Ken Caryl IM Station Fleet. 311 A selection bin structure was used based on indicated evaporative emissions levels recruitment heavier at the higher emission end. Thus, there was a gradation even in the lower level bins where many of the vehicles would be considered marginal and not passing the evaporative emission standard even if they were not considered higher than the 1 g/15 minutes which our study found to be the lower range detectable by the RSD from the 2010 Ken Caryl report cited above.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 200 of 888 emission rate that would be expected from a leak of 0.020 inches which is the detection standard for OBD II s ys tems
. 312 An examination of the test data reveals two additional significant points. First, the data indicates a trend for greater frequency of leaks in older vehicles. This is not unexpected given the manner in which factors such as vibration, fuel quality , weather elements, corrosion, maintenance, and other operating conditions affect the durability of s ys tem components, fittings, and connect ions over time. Second, there were relativel y few newer model year vehicles in the population survey ed. This is expected and almost unavoidable since the Colorado I/M program generally exempts vehicles which are four years old or newer. While it is reas onable to expect there to be a lower prevalence of leaks in newer vehicles, the lack of data for newer vehicles does not necessarily indicate that no problems exist in newer model ye ar vehicles or that problems will not occur in the future with Tier 3 vehi cles. Since many

of the vehicles in the sample group met OBD requirements for evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring, it was deemed useful to examine whether the OBD s ys tem identified the leak. As mentioned above, approximately 1 0 percent of the vehicles in the “adjusted fleet” had vapor leaks which were of the magnitude expected from a 0.020 inch or larger leak. Over the three ye ars of study , there were a total of 180 SHED tests (either PSHED or laboratory SHED) on vehicles with OBD data collected in the I/M program. Of these 180 vehicles, 171 had the evaporative OBD monitors ready. Of these, 171 vehicles, 2 0 were found to have emission rates of 1 g/15 min in the PSHED (the emission rate linked to a 0.020” leak). O f these 2 0 vehicles only 3 came into the I/M test with an OBD diagnostic trouble code (DTC) set indicating an evaporative sy stem problem. 313 , 314 A closer look, including field inspection comments, of the 2 0 vehicles shows that half were not expected to diagnose the problem because it was outside of the OBD s ystem design capabilities. Of the vehicles which potentially should have set an evap orative DTC , at least 50 percent and perhaps as much as 70 percent of codes were not set on high evap emissions vehicles. The lack of codes being set for these vehicl es may reflect OBD performance issues or allowances (known as enable criteria) in the OBD regulations regarding when the OBD evaporative emission leak monitoring sy stem is not required to operate or situations when the monitor is otherwise not ready for what may

be allowable reasons such as an allowable def i ciency
.

312 Com pare the first 15 minutes of hot soak data from the field studies with implanted leaks in E

- 77
- 2 studies. 313 In the E

- 77
- 2 programs the 0 .02 inch leaks implanted near the top of the tank and at the canister connection had hot soak measurements which averaged approximately 1 g/15 minutes PSHED measurement. This also happens to be the lower end of the detectable range of evaporative emission s by the RSD. Since the OBD monitor is expected to detect a .020” leak w herever it is located, the DTC should be set
. 314 Palacios, C ., Weatherby, M ., DeFries, T ., Lindner, J ., Kishan, S
. (2012)
. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of On

- Board Diagnostic (OBD) S ystems in Identifying Fuel Vapor Losses from Light

Duty Vehicles
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 201 of 888 To better understand this issue EPA has examined evaporative emission sy stem DTC and monitor ready information from I/M programs from Texas and California. 315 Since the data was gathered b y the states under different protocols and time periods, the content of the data sets are not identical. To provide some degree of uniformit y in our anal ys is, we examined the data for five MY (2000

- 2004) but within each stat e we onl y looked at calendar years of data beginning after the initial state I/M exemption period (2

- 4 calendar years depending on the state) had passed. Thus the analy sis focused on I/M OBD information for calendar years 200 4
- 2010. Examined together, the data generall y indicates the following:

 Depending on age, 0.3

- 2.5 percent of vehicles with evaporative monitors ready came into the I/M stations with evaporative related MIL or DTCs set
.
 The percent of vehicles with evaporative emission related MILs set i ncreased b y a factor of 2
- 4 over about 5 ye ars .
 Evaporative emission monitors were not ready for 3
- 16 percent of vehicles when arriving at the I/M station.

 The percent of vehicles with monitors ready at the I/M station generally decreased b y 3 to 7 per centage points over about 5

- 6 ye ars; decrease was less for model year vehicles less than five ye ars old.

 While it varies by

age, 60
- 80 percent of evaporative sy stem DTCs are leak related. There is no question of the value of OBD leak monitoring for evaporative sy stems, especiall y when owners complete needed repairs. Undoubtedly these percentages and thus in

- use leak values would be higher without OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring. However, this data suggests that EPA OBD regulations in place for 2000

- 2004 MY vehicles would not alone be sufficient to address concerns regarding the emission effects of vapor leaks from the fuel and evaporative control sy stems. 316 In summary , information gathered from evaporative emissions testing conducted in the IUVP progr am indicates that relatively low mileage/ newer

315 Fulper, C. (201 3 , February). Preliminary Analysis of OBD Evaporative System Information from I/M Stations

- California and Texas , Memorandum to the docket. 316 For further information see CARB reports “Technical Status and Proposed Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 1994 and Subsequent Model

- Year Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks, and Medium

- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II)” October, 1994 and “T echnical Status and Revisions to Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model Year Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks, and Medium

- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD II) March 2002.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 202 of 888 vehicles perform well when evaluated under laboratory conditions. However, data gathered from in

- use testing conducted by EPA, Colorado, and others indicates that as vehicles age some vehicles have a propens ity to develop leaks in the fuel/evaporative s ys tem and that these leaks increase in size as the vehicles age. Be yond this, a review of OBD evaporative s ys tem leak monitor data from the I/M programs of two states revealed four important trends: (1) even wh en the OBD sy stem identifies leaks owners do not alway s respond by getting the needed repair completed, (2) the fraction of vehicles with leaks identified by OBD increases as vehicles age, (3) vehicles sometimes are operating in conditions in which the OBD leak monitor is not ready to identify a potential problem , and (4) evaporative sy stem leaks are the dominant DTC for vehicles with monitors ready and evaporative sy stem DTC set. The propensit y for leaks in the vehicle fleet has the potential to reduce the benefits of the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards substantially . I f on any given day , as few as five percent of Tier 3 vehicles had a leak(s) of 0.020 inches or greater this would cause in

- use emissions equivalent to all of the projected emission re ductions from the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards on that day
. 317 Thus, EPA is proposing three measures to address this issue: (1) an emission standard focused on reducing fuel/evaporative s ys tem vapor leaks over the vehicle useful life, (2) an upgrade to OBD emissions monitoring requirements to improve their role in identifyi ng problems and improving in

- use emissions performance, and (3) additions to the IUVP program focused on testing a broader sample of fuel/evaporative s ys tem leaks in IUVP than is done for evaporative emission standards alone. b. Proposed Leak Emission Stand ard The evaporative emission standards in this proposal will help to promote widespread use of improved technology and materials which will reduce evaporative emissions in

- use. The proposed new requirement for a leak emission standard and procedure will he lp to ensure the durability of Tier 3 evaporative emission control sy stems nationwide. Based on the information described above concerning evaporative emissions in

- use, we believe a leak emission standard is necessary to meet our goal that vehicles meeting Tier 3 evaporative emission requirements not have fuel/evaporative s ys tem vapor leaks. Toward that end, we are proposing a leak

317 This is based on five percent of vehicles and 4

- 5 trips (hot soaks) per day at 1 g/hot soak. Five percent is a reasonable value for this illustration since as mentioned above 0.3

- 2.5 percent of vehicles come in to I/M stations with evaporative system MILs or DTCs and 60

- 80 percent of these were leak

- related DTCs
. Thus, it is reasonable to project that the fleet average is higher since vehicle repair just before I/M is common, evaporative emission monitors were not ready on 3
- 16 percent of vehicles, and 18 states do not have any form of I/M at all and repair rates in response to a MIL may be lower .***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 203 of 888 emission standard that would have to be met both at new vehicle certification and in use. The leak emission standard would app ly beginning in the 2018 MY to any vehicle certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards or a CARB carryover vehicle counted toward the sales percentage phase

- in requirements , including LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. The emission standard would be applicable for the same useful life period as for the evaporative emission standards that appl y to the vehicle. The standard would apply to vehicles using volatile fuel (e.g., gasoline, FFV, and methanol fuel vehicles, but n ot diesel or CNG vehicles). To be compatible with CARB OBD requirements being met b y most manufacturers and the OBD requirements included in this notice, we are proposing that the leak emission standard be expressed in the form of a cumulative equivalent o rifice diameter. We are proposing a value of 0.02 inches. 318 The standard basically requires that the cumulative equivalent diameter of any orifices or “leaks” in the sy stem not exceed 0.02 inches. This is consistent with California OBD requirements (and those being proposed in this rule as well) that the OBD system be capable of identifying leaks in the fuel/evaporative sy stem of a cumulative equivalent diameter of 0.020 inches EPA believes an emission standard at this level is feasible since earlier tes ting programs identified vehicles with essentially no leaks and it is essentially

equivalent to that required for CARB OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring. As discussed in the technological feasibility section above, the actions manufacturers will have to take to meet the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards are expected to do more to address potential leak points and thus in a broader sense to improve in

- use durability for evaporative control s ys tems compared to vehicles meeting earlier or current evaporative emission standards. The proposed leak emission standard would provide added assurance that as the manufacturers design for “zero evap” standards they also design the s ys tems to avoid leaks over the full useful life. We are proposing a l eak emission standard of 0.02 inches which with rounding is a bit less stringent than the 0.020 inch OBD fuel/evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring requirement. EPA believes this level of precision is sufficient to accomplish the air quality objective and ye t provides some compliance margin between the emission standard and the monitor requirement which is reflected through multipliers for the exhaust emission standards monitored through OBD. EPA asks for comment and rationale on setting the standard at 0.02 inches equivalent diameter or the more stringent 0.020 inch equivalent diameter specified for OBD evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring. If finalized as proposed, the emission standard would be specified to one significant digit (e.g., 0.02 inches) but woul d have to be measured and reported to at least two significant digits.

318 Current OBD regulations specify that if the fuel tank volume exceeds 25 gallons then the manufacturer may seek a larger leak detection orifice value. If a manufacturer seeks and is granted a larger value for OBD leak detection purposes, then that same numerical value becomes the leak emission standard value. We would not expect this value to exceed 0.040 inches.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 204 of 888 The proposed leak emission standard would appl y at the time of certification as well as during confirmatory and in

- use verification program testing. We do not expect that new vehicles being certified would have a leak problem, and since a vehicle with a leak would likely fail the evaporative emissions SHED test, there is little value in mandating a leak test at certification. Thus, EPA proposes to allow manufacturers to attest to comp liance with the leak emission standard at certification. To implement the proposed leak emission standard within the current regulatory

structure a few minor changes are needed. First, current EPA regulations such as those at §86.098

- 24, specify criteria for evaporative/refueling emission families. EPA believes this basic structure is appropriate for the leak emission standard, with the additional criteria that vehicles in the same evaporative/refueling family must use the same basic approach to OBD leak detection. Significantly different volume fuel tanks would likely also be a family

determinant, but we believe this is already covered b y the evaporative/refueling family criteria. Second, since the leak emission standard is a pass/fail requirement and not an emission rate, there is no requirement for the application of a deterioration factor. Third, EPA proposes to require that the manufacturers recommend one or more leak entry test points for each family . This point should be outside of the gas cap/fillpipe area, since our experience indicates that testing could alway s be done through that point of entry to the fuel/evaporative s ys tem. EPA asks for comment on the timing, form and level of the proposed emission standard. EPA believes that linking the ti ming of the proposed leak emission standard to the implementation of proposed Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in 2018 provides adequate lead time and is consistent with the technical rationale supporting the feasibility of the Tier 3 evaporative emis sion standard.
c. Proposed Leak Emission Standard Test Procedure Inorder to implement a new leak emission standard, a leak test procedure is required. The fundamental concepts underl yi ng fuel/evaporative s ys tem leak test are not new to the manufacturer s. There is already a simple leak check in 40 CFR 86.608
- 98(a) (xii)(A) and in the past at least three states included a fuel/evaporative sy stem pressure leak test in I/M programs. More importantly , all LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs and HDGVs manufactured today hav e the onboard capability to run a pressure or vacuum leak based check on the vehicle’s evaporative emission sy stem as part of OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring. These s ys tems employ either positive or negative pressure leak detection pumps or operate based on natural vacuum for negative pressure leak detection. EPA is proposing a test based on a similar concept of placing the s ys tem under a slight positive pressure (but from an external source), measuring the flow needed to maintain that pressure in the fuel/evaporative control sy stem, and converting that flow rate to an equivalent orifice diameter. With regards to the test procedure we will first discuss where the leak test could occur in the FTP test sequence. We will then discuss how the test is proposed to be conducted.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 205 of 888 First with regard to when the test would be conducted within the current FTP sequence we are proposing that it be inserted immediately following the first two preconditioning steps within the FTP sequence (see Figure B96

- 10 in 4 0 CFR 86.130
- 96). Thus, the vehicle preconditioning steps for the leak test would be: (1) fill the vehicle fuel tank to 40 percent of capacity using the appropriate certification test fuel and then (2) let the vehicle soak for a minimum of a six hour peri od at a temperature in the range of 68

- 86 °F. EPA proposes that the test be conducted with 9 RVP E15 test fuel for both certification and IUVP. This is the same preconditioning that is called for today in 40 CFR 86 subpart B for exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions testing. After preconditioning is complete, the leak test would be conducted and the test sequence could then proceed as prescribed in subpart B or testing terminated if the purpose was only to conduct leak testing. EPA believes this modest level of preconditioning is sufficient to create standard conditions which enable repeatable and reliable measurement results. Preconditioning could not include an y prescreening for leaks nor would any tightening of fittings or connections be permi tted. After preconditioning is complete, manufacturers would then run the leak test. Each complete test would involve running the test procedure at one entry point in the sy stem. Presumably this would be either near the back of the fuel s ystem (perhaps near the gas cap) or near the front of the fuel sy stem on the pressure side of the locations near where the s ys tem is sealed (perhaps at the canister vent). If the fuel/evaporative s ys tem has an imbedded evaporative sy stem test port then that point could be use d. Alternativel y, manufacturers could also develop a test rig such as a “fill pipe extension” which would screw into the fill pipe opening using cap threads at one end and on the other end have threads to screw the fill pipe vehicle cap in place. Within this extension there would be an access port for the leak test equipment to be attached. Thus, the full sy stem could be tested without any direct intrusion or the need for a separate gas cap assessment. The manufacturer would have to specify

the test poi nt at the time of the pre

- certification meeting. If the manufacturer selected an entry point which required the fuel cap to be removed, then the cap would have to undergo a separate test as is now done in man y I/M stations. 319 Inthis case, tests from both points combined must pass the proposed emission standard. The procedure would be conducted as follows:

 Calibrate the testing apparatus and otherwise verify testing apparatus is ready and able to complete the procedure

 Seal fuel s ys tem so as to pressure t est entire s ys tem (purge valve, cap, etc.)

319 For related information see “IM240 & Evap Technical Guidance”, EPA 420

- R
- 00
- 007, April, 2000.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 206 of 888  Attach test apparatus to vehicle’s fuel sy stem at selected test point

 Pressurize fuel sy stem with nitrogen or another inert gas to at least 2.4 kilopascals (kPa)

 Allow flow and pressure to stabilize in accordan ce with specification provided in the proposed regulatory text

 Calculate effective leak orifice diameter from measured output flow rate and temperature and pressure data or use apparatus with built in computer providing an equivalent digital readout. Cal culate to the nearest 0.01 inch.

 Calculated effective orifice diameter must be less than or equal to the standard

 If leak test is conducted at the fuel cap then manufacturer must also show evidence that the vehicle’s fuel cap is performing properly
. 320

 EP A is seeking comment on requiring two separate test points one near the evaporative canister and the other near the fuel cap. Furthermore, we are specificall y proposing that in some cases two separate test points in the locations mentioned above would be required. This would especiall y be important if the fuel cap/fill neck area is isolated from the rest of the fuel/evaporative sy stem as a result of the 40 percent fill or if dual tanks are not otherwise connected through vapor lines. Of course, dual tank, dual canister systems would have to be evaluated as separate sy stems. Tests could be void if the test apparatus fails, becomes disconnected, fails to maintain a stable flow rate or pressure, or the test was stopped before completion due to safet y considerations or some other relevant vehicle issue. The test procedure presented above is based on current fuel s ys tem designs. In the future, it is reasonable to expect changes in designs of the fuel s ys tems such that the procedure above may need adjustment. EPA would, of course, monitor these fuel s ys tem changes and modify the test procedure provisions as needed. Furthermore, current EPA regulations (see §1065.10(c)) contain provisions which provide the opportunity

for manufacturers to seek approval for spe cial or alternate test procedures if from a practical perspective their sy stems cannot be evaluated under EPA requirements or they have an approach deemed equivalent or better.

320 Such te sts are done routinely in I/M stations using a commercially available apparatus. The gas cap leak rate may be determined by pressure loss measurement, direct flow measurement, or flow comparison methods and shall be compared to a pass/fail flow rate standard of 60 cubic centimeters per minute of air at 30 inches of water column. The flow rate methods are referenced to standard conditions of 70 °F and 1 atm.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 207 of 888 EPA would make such provisions for the leak emission standard testing requirem ent. An y such special or alternative procedures would have to be reported under §86.004

- 21(b)(9). 321 d. Proposed Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) Sy stem Regulation Changes EPA has its own OBD regulations which are similar but not identical to CARB’s. EPA first adopt ed OBD requirements for 1994 and later model year LDVs and LDTs. While EPA has extended its requirements from LDVs and LDTs to larger and heavier vehicles, 322 EPA’s last broad upgrade to its basic OBD regulation was in the 2005 timeframe. Since that time, CARB has adopted and the manufacturers have implemented a number of provisions to enhance the effectiveness of their OBD programs. These provisions include new requirements for OBD evaporative s ys tem leak detection as well as provisions to help insure that sy stems are built and operate as designed over their full useful life, give reliable results (find and signal only true deficiencies), and operate frequently during in use operation. It is permitted in current EPA regulations and common practice for the industry to certify their OBD s ys tems with CARB and for EPA to accept CARB OBD certifications as satisfying EPA requirements. EPA is proposing to continue that practice but to upgrade our regulations to be consistent with the latest CARB regulations. EPA h as reviewed the current CARB regulatory requirements related to OBD (see California Code of Regulations (CCR) §1968.2 dated May 18, 2010) and, as discussed below we are proposing to adopt most of these provisions with the Tier 3 program. We are proposing this for two basic reasons. First, this is consistent with the goal of a national program and one vehicle technology for all 50 states. Second, implementation of these requirements is now demonstrated technology and compliance with these requirements is c ommon within the industry today . Thus, the added burden is minimal. Furthermore, OBD has the advantage of running frequentl y on in

- use vehicles to identify potential exhaust and evaporative sy stem performance problems, so adopting these provisions would c reate the opportunity for OBD to serve a more prominent role in ensuring the proposed Tier 3 emission standards are met in

- use. There is an important link between OBD provisions related to evaporative emission control sy stem leak monitoring and the p roposed leak test emission standard. They

each provide an important incentive to design fuel/evaporative sy stems with fewer propensities to develop leaks in use but each addresses the issue from a different perspective. The distinction is that the proposed leak emission

321 For example, MAHLE Powertrain has piece of equipment known as a Mahle Leak Tester which is now use d in assembly plants and may be adaptable to this requirement. 322 EPA’s OBD regulations for LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs, are found at 40 CFR 86.1806

- 05. EPA has also adopted OBD requirements for incompletes and heavier vehicles (greater than 14,000 lbs GVWR) (see 74 FR 8324, February 24, 2009 and 40 CFR 86.010

- 18).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 208 of 888 standards prohibits leaks of greater than 0.02 inches cumulative equivalent diameter, while the proposed OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring provision would require that the OBD s ys tem find leaks larger than 0.020 inches cumulative equiva lent orifice diameter and notify the owner, but with no inherent obligation to repair the problem. Thus adopting a 0.020 inch cumulative equivalent orifice diameter would align these two programs and, as will be discussed below, creates the potential for an optional leak detection test procedure for in

- use testing. To be more specific, we are proposing to update our OBD regulations to be consistent with current California OBD requirements add two new requirements and retain three minor exceptions. These ch anges would be fully effective in the 2017MY, but EPA asks comment on whether the requirement should be linked to be effective with certification to any of the Tier 3 emission standards (either exhaust or evaporative) or phased in for the 2017 model ye ar f or LDVs and LLDTs and the 2018 MY for the HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR. 323 EPA would continue to accept certifications with CARB OBD requirements as satisfying EPA OBD requirements. We are proposing to incorporate b y reference section 196 8.2 of the California Code of Regulations as discussed below. This would include paragraphs (c) through (j) in their entirety. These paragraphs are entitled: (c) Definitions, (d) General requirements, (e) Monitoring requirements for gasoline/spark ignited engines, (f) Monitoring requirements for diesel/compression ignition engines, (g) Standardization requirements, (h) Monitoring s ys tem demonstration requirements for certification, (i) Certification documentation, (j) Production vehicle evaluation testing. The substance of many of these provisions is already contained in current EPA OBD requirements for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and complete HDGVs less than 14,000 lbs GVWR. 324 The most noteworthy

changes we are proposing are summarized below. The CCR below is the California Code of Regulations cite for each pertinent provision.

 EPA proposes to add a 0.020 inches leak detection monitoring threshold upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR ex cept for those with fuel tanks larger than 25 gallons capacity (see CCR 1968.2(e)). OBD leak monitoring s ystems would have to identify , store, and if required signal an y leak(s) equal to or greater than 0.020 inches cumulative equivalent diameter. This w ould thus include diagnostic trouble codes (DTC) P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455 , P0456 , and P0457
.

323 We are not proposing to change the requirement for incompletes and vehicles with a GVWR above 14,000 lbs. 324 MDVs in the CARB regulations basically incorporate MDPVs and complete HDGV less than 14 ,000 lbs GVWR as defined by EPA.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 209 of 888  EPA proposes to incorporate b y reference the full array of rate based monitoring requirements (see CCR1968.2 (d)). Meeting the rate based monitoring requirements will help to insure that, even with enable criteria, the exhaust and evaporative s ys tem monitors run frequently enough that on average a problem would be identified and signaled to the owner in operation within two weeks. This will help to improve the fra ction of time monitors are ready to find a potential problem.

 EPA proposes to incorporate b y reference provisions regarding monitoring sy stem demonstration requirements for certification. We are proposing to incorporate by reference CARB provisions in this area and to accept submissions to CARB for purposes of compliance demonstration (see CCR 1968.2(h)). Adopting current CARB monitoring sy stem demonstration requirements assures that monitoring sy stems operate as designed when installed on certification ve hicles. We also propose that this certification include a requirement for manufacturers to demonstrate the ability of the OBD leak monitoring sy stem to detect a 0.020 inch leak. Current CARB protocols do not require that manufacturers demonstrate that the certification vehicle can find a vapor leak in the fuel/evaporative s ys tem. We are proposing to add a requirement that manufacturers must demonstrate for certification that the OBD s ys tem can find and report the implanted leak would help to ensure the OBD sy stem’s capability to function as designed and for the OBD

- based leak based evaporative s ys tem leak to be used as an optional test procedure for in

- use testing for the proposed leak emission standard. We are proposing that this be added for the same vehi cles now required for monitoring system demonstration requirements for certification under CARB OBD regulations. Since the CARB regulation requires onl y a relative few vehicle models each year per manufacturer, we propose that manufacturers be given the o ption to either test the remainder for an implanted leak in the fuel/evaporative sy stem or certify by attestation that each of their remaining families meets the requirement based on development and other information.

 EPA proposes to incorporate b y refere nce the CARB production vehicle evaluation data program. This program requires manufacturers to demonstrate that the OBD sy stem functions as designed and certified when installed on production vehicles. (see CCR 1968.2(j))

 For the OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring requirement, EPA proposes a scan readable function (a new PID in Service $01 of SAE J1979) which could be used to indicate or ascertain the distance traveled since the OBD leak monitoring diagnostic was last completed successfull y and if th e s ystem passed or failed (identified any leak above 0.020 inches) during that monitoring event (unless it is otherwise already required in other OBD s ystem modes). Updating this PID this would be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 210 of 88 8 based on SAE J1979 mode 6 ($06) test results: “Request On

- b oard Monitoring Test Results for Specific Monitored Systems.” With this proposed requirement, the PID distance would be initialized to maximum range of NV RAM initialization (such as battery disconnect or controller reprogramming) and code clear As a res ult, in the event that a vehicle had a memory clear event in the past, but has not had sufficient operation for the evaporative s ys tem to be evaluated, the scan readable mileage function would indicate that the sy stem had not completed a full leak detectio n of the evaporative control sy stem within the last 750 miles (1200km). OBD s ys tems already maintain information for active, pending, historic and permanent codes. This would be a modest upgrade to this requirement which would enable the use of the OBD
- ba sed evaporative sy stem leak monitor with the IUVP program as discussed below. See CCR 1968.2 (g) for information related to code storage. EPA seeks comment on alternative equivalent approaches (e.g., a scan readable mileage stamp or flag traceable to mileage indicating when the full OBD leak monitoring protocol was last completed successfull y and the result (p/f)) which accomplish the same objective and whether this capability should be optional for the 2017 MY since this requirement is designed to enable the use of OBD in leak emission standard testing and that standard is proposed to begin in the 2018 MY
.
 The minor exceptions which are contained in EPA’s current OBD regulations are proposed to be continued. Compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection is not required. Also, the deficiency

provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) would not be adopted. In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, would apply onl y to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. For all model y ears, the deficiency

provisions of paragraph (i) of the current regulations apply only to alternative fuel vehicle/engine manufacturers se lecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance. If adopted, these proposed changes, taken together would improve the performance, reliability , general utility , and effectiveness of OBD s ys tems for Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission controls. Furthermore, if adopted, these changes create the opportunity for OBD evaporative sy stem leak monitoring sy stems to serve a more prominent role in ensuring compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA believes that they could be implemented for minimal co st since most manufacturers are meeting them today and will have to for LEV III vehicles. However, EPA requests comment on applying the proposed new OBD requirements to small business vehicle manufacturers and independent commercial importers. As discussed below, the proposed OBD requirements would apply to small entities and independent commercial importers (ICI) in the 2022 MY
. Small***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 211 of 888 alternative fuel converters would still be able to meet the OBD requirements using the provisions of 40 CFR 85 Subpart F. Finally , it should be noted that as CARB updates its OBD regulations in the future EPA would consider these changes and propose to adopt them or incorporate them by reference, if appropriate. In fact, CARB is currentl y proposing some changes to i ts OBD program in response to the LEV III program exhaust emission standards. 325 We request comment on incorporating these changes into this rule or other rules in the future
. W e also would generall y expect to continue the current practice allowed b y EPA regulations which is for EPA to accept CARB OBD certifications as satisfying EPA requirements provided that they include at least all of the requirements covered by the EPA regulations.
e. In
- Use Verification Program (IUVP) Requirements for the Leak Emissio n Standard i. Introduction We believe it is important to identify leaks since vehicles with leaks would be expected to have daily emission rates above the proposed Tier 3 evaporative emissions standards and the Colorado data suggests a propensit y for the diameter of vehicle leak orifice to get larger over time and thus to have even higher emissions. This is also important because evaporative leak emissions occur virtually every day whether the vehicle is driven or not. Thus identifying potential leak problems will be important to capturing the emission benefits of the proposed evaporative emission requirements. Toward that end, EPA is proposing to include assessment of compliance with the leak emission standard within the IUVP program. We considered expanding the evaporative emission testing portion of the IUVP program as a means to assess leaks, but we decided to focus on the leak emission standard because it is less burdensome and is cost effective for accomplishing the objective. EPA believes adding a leak test requirement does not create an unreasonable burden. The draft test procedure described above is simple to run, inexpensive to conduct in terms of equipment and labor, and can be completed relativel y quickly compared to an evaporative emissions test. However, we are retaining the evaporative emissions testing requirements currently in IUVP to monitor broader evaporative control s ys tem effectiveness (e.g., purge, canister control efficiency , permeation).

325 CARB has recently proposed some minor OBD program modifications in their recent LEVIII ISOR, and EPA asks for comment on including those provisions within the proposed EPA OBD program. See pages 61
- 72 of the CARB Staff Report at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levisor.pdf and pages A11

- A125 of the regulatory text at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levappa.pdf.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 212 of 888 ii. IUVP Test Requirements We are proposing that the leak emission test be conducted for each and every vehicle assessed in IUVP for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR 86.1845.04. This would begin for 2018 MY certifications for vehicle families meeting the proposed new leak emission standard. This would include the low and high mileage tests for an y exhaust vehicle evaluated for exhaust emissions plus a requirement that there be at least one representative of each evaporative/refueling/leak family evaluated at each year point. We are proposing this approach to implementing IUVP for the leak emission standard in lieu of creating a new set of requirements which would require yet another set of vehicles to be procured for testing. We are not proposing to include the leak test with any evaporative emissions test in IUVP, since a leak would be evident in the results of the evaporative emissions test. The current IUVP regulations at §86.1845

- 04, Table S04

- 07, call for test sample sizes on a sliding scale based on annual vehicle sales b y test group. This can vary fro m zero for very

small sales test groups to six vehicles for test groups with sales exceeding 250,000. There are more exhaust emission test groups than there are evaporative/refueling/leak test families and exhaust emission test groups may cover one or mor e of the same evaporative/refueling/leak families, so we would expect to receive multiple leak emission test results for most evaporative/refueling/leak families. This will expand the amount of IUVP data we receive in this important area and improve our a bility to assess the overall leak performance for a given evaporative/refueling/leak family and the fleet as a whole. As discussed above, EPA believes that the fuel and evaporative control sy stem leaks are heavil y influenced b y age as well as design and o ther factors. EPA would consider extending the age point for leak emission testing for IUVP bey ond the four ye ar point to better assess this effect. However, in the past, manufacturers have expressed concern about the implications of testing older vehicle s and about finding vehicles still within their warranty and recall liability

periods. EPA asks comment on the viability of extending leak emission IUVP testing beyond the nominal four year point, (e.g., six to eight years). We recognize that there are co st and vehicle procurement issues, but the Colorado data strongly suggests a relationship between vehicle age and the propensity for the development of leaks. iii. Assessment of IUVP Leak Emission Standard Test Results The current regulations contain provisions addressing follow

- on testing requirements for exhaust emissions for vehicles which fail to meet various performance thresholds within IUVP (see 40 CFR 86.1846

- 01). As mentioned above, we expect that it will be common to get more than one leak emission tes t result over the course of each model ye ar’s mileage testing point for each evaporative/refueling/leak family as a result of the requirement to assess leaks with each exhaust IUVP test. However, the proposed leak emission standard is basically pass/fail at 0.02 inches and it is difficult to establish a threshold criteria for a***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 213 of 888 pass/fail standard such as has been done for exhaust emissions where there is a multiplier applied to the level of the individual exhaust emission standard. Given the importance of the leak emission standard in assuring in

- use evaporative emissions control, we are proposing a set of criteria for assessing leak emission standard results from IUVP. These criteria can be summarized as follows for each low and high mileage test point for each model year tested:

 lf 50 percent or more of all vehicles evaluated in an evaporative/refueling/leak emission family for any given model year pass the leak emission standard, testing is complete. This applies to cumulative testing for that family throughout the model year for that mileage group. This is consistent with the exhaust emission requirements for IUVP and EPA believes it is reasonable since vehicles are tested in the “as received” condition from consumers.

 If only

one representative of th e evaporative/refueling/leak family is tested in a mileage group for that model year’s vehicles and it passes the leak emission standard testing is complete. If that vehicle does not pass the leak emission standard a manufacturer may test an additional veh icle to achieve the 50 percent rate.

 If an evaporative/refueling/leak emission family fails to achieve the 50 percent rate, it is presumed that the famil y will enter into In - Use Confirmatory

Testing Program (IUCP). Before IUCP begins, the manufacturer may ask for engineering anal ys is discussions with EPA to evaluate and understand the technical reasons for the testing outcomes and the implications for the broader fleet. Technical information for these discussions could include but would not be limited to d etailed sy stem design, calibration, and operating information, technical explanations as to why the individual vehicles tested failed the leak emission standard, and comparisons to other similar families from the same manufacturer. Relevant information fro m the manufacturer such as data or other information on owner complaints, technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special policy warranty programs, warrant y repair data, state I/M data, and data available from other manufacturer specific programs o r initiatives could help inform understanding of implications for the broader fleet. As part of this process a manufacturer could elect to provide evaporative emissions SHED test data on the individual vehicle(s) that did not pass the leak emission standard during IUVP. With an adequate technical basis, the outcome of this engineering anal ys is discussion could result in an EPA decision not to require IUCP testing. We would propose to operate within the basic structure of the IUCP program in the current regulations. Prior to commencing IUCP testing the manufacturer, after consultation with EPA submits a written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and testing procedures. This plan***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 214 of 888 could include inclusion of a hot soak plus diurnal SHED test to supplement leak emission test results. We propose that EPA must approve this plan before testing begins. As prescribed now in the IUCP regulations for exhaust, if five vehicles were tested and all passed the leak emission standard the n testing would be complete. If all five vehicles did not pass, then five more would be tested. More vehicles could be tested at the manufacturer’s discretion but all testing would have to be completed within the time period specified in the regulations today . EPA and the manufacturer would then enter into discussions regarding interpretation, technical understanding, and compliance/enforcement implications of the test results, if an y.

iv. Proposed Optional Test Procedure Approach for IUVP/IUCP Assuming i mplementation of the OBD regulation changes proposed in Section IV.C.5.d, above, EPA is proposing an optional approach to a portion of the leak emission test procedure discussed in Section IV.C.5.c . This optional t esting approach would be included in the proposed IUVP/IUCP testing program for the leak emission standard, but would not be used for certification testing for the leak emission standard. It would be considered an approach which could be used by the manuf acturers to assess compliance with the leak emission standard. EPA could also use this procedure for conducting assessments and asks for comment on using this procedure for compliance purposes with a 0.02 inch cumulative equivalent diameter orifice standard. Under this optional approach manufacturers would be able to rel y upon the operation of their OBD evaporative s ys tem leak detection hardware and operating protocols in lieu of running the stand alone in

- use leak test to check for the presence of a 0.02 inch leak in the fuel/evaporative s ys tem. This approach relies on the leak emission standard equivalent orifice diameter being established at the same level as proposed for OBD (0.020 inches). Thus, the IUVP/IUCP protocol would be modified and simplified to expedite completion of testing and reduce costs. Quite simply , if a vehicle is brought in for IUVP or IUCP testing and a scan tool query

of the onboard computer indicates that the vehicle had successfully completed a full OBD

- based evaporative s ys tem le ak monitoring check within the last 750 miles and no evaporative s ys tem leak problems for an y diameter above 0.020 inches was indicated (diagnostic trouble codes P0440, P0442, P0446, P0455 , P0456 , and P0457 ), the vehicle would be been deemed to have met an d passed the leak emission standard test requirement. However, if the sy stem had not successfull y completed a full OBD

- based evaporative sy stem leak check within 750 miles with no problem indicated then the manufacturer would have the option to run its OBD

- based evaporative sy stem leak check in the laboratory after prescribed preconditioning. This OBD

- based approach is sometimes used in auto manufacturer dealerships and repair facilities to diagnose and fix evaporative sy stem leaks found by

the OBD sy stem. If the vehicle completes the full OBD

based leak test in the laboratory then the vehicle’s pass/fail results for the 0.02 inch cumulative equivalent diameter orifice would be based on the OBD test result. This***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 215 of 888 optional protocol could apply to every leak emission standard test after certification unless not approved b y EPA for IUCP under 40 CFR 1846.01(i). Replicate tests would not be required or allowed but void tests could be repeated. Furthermore, EPA proposes to allow the manufacturer to run the sta nd alone EPA leak test in several situations. First, manufacturers could conduct the stand alone test to confirm that a problem identified b y the OBD

- based evaporative sy stem monitoring leak check was a leak and not a problem with the OBD leak monitor itse lf. Second, a manufacturer could run the stand alone EPA leak test to confirm that the leak value identified b y the OBD system was trul y above the level of the proposed leak emission standard. Third, it could be used for vehicles which had not successful ly

completed a full OBD

- based evaporative s ys tem leak monitoring check within the last 750 miles. Fourth, it could be used to confirm that a DTC set within the last 750 miles actually indicated the presence of a leak(s) greater than the proposed standard. However, if a manufacturer elected to use only OBD
- based evaporative sy stem leak based monitoring in its IUVP testing; these results would be the basis for decisions regarding IUCP. As is required in the current IUVP regulations, all test data whether OB D based or based on EPA’s stand alone test procedure would have to be reported to EPA. There could be some advantages to this option since it employs a pressure/vacuum approach manufacturers understand and creates positive/negative pressures manufacturers have accommodated within their fuel/evaporative sy stem. One potential downside is that under current designs vehicle engines would have to be operating to create the pressure or vacuum and because the engine is operating this would require the OBD

- based l eak test to be stand alone after the preconditioning sequence is complete. This would be more challenging for natural vacuum leak detection s ystems unless extended driving was involved to create the fuel sy stem heat needed for a natural vacuum event or th is was done through a climate chamber or SHED based diurnal heat build. Allowing for this approach raises at least two implementation questions. The first is related to the value of conducting the OBD

- based test for a vehicle with an active or pending leak DTC already s et in the computer and/or an MIL indicated. In this case , EPA would permit the manufacturer to run the OBD

- based leak test and/or the stand alone EPA leak test or concede that the vehicle would not pass the leak emission standard and count the result. Second is the question of gas caps. This is among the most common codes found in OBD records and is often related to operator error such as not tightening the gas cap properly . Codes of this nature have no value in this leak emission assessment, so a manufacturer would be permitted to correct the problem before te sting and clear this OBD code before testing or run the stand alone EPA leak test.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 216 of 888 6. Other Initiatives This proposal includes consideration of several amendments or clarifications to existing requirements related to evaporative emissions. As part of this process, the following provisions warrant adjustment, clarification, or correction:

 Even though the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 appl y to the same engines and vehicles that must meet exhaust emission standards, we require a separate certificate for complying with evaporative and refueling emission standards. An important related point to note is that the evaporative and refueling emission standards alway s appl y to the vehicle, while the exhaust emission standards may apply to either the engine or the vehicle. Since we plan to apply evaporative/refueling/leak emission standards and the recently adopted greenhouse gas standards to vehicle manufacturers, we believe it would be advantageous to have the regulations related to their certi fication requirements written together as much as possible to reduce burden and increase efficiency . We are therefore proposing to move the emission standards and certification requirements from 40 CFR part 86 to the new 40 CFR part 1037, which was origin ally used for greenhouse gas standards for heav y - dut y highway vehicles. This is not intended to change the requirements that apply to these vehicles, except as noted in this section. We propose to make the provisions in part 1037 effective with model year 2014.

 As described in Section VI.C.3, we are proposing to allow for certifying vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR based on an engineering anal ys is instead of new testing (as is currentl y allowed for vehicles at or above 26,000 lbs GVWR). We are also proposi ng to clarify the provisions describing how the certification process play s out for these vehicles.

 Section 86.1810

- 01 contains specifications addressing whether diesel fuel vehicles can be waived from demonstrating compliance with the refueling emission standard through testing. In the current regulation the potential for a waiver from testing depends on the diesel fuel having an RVP equal to or less than 1psi and the fuel tank having a temperature which does not exceed 130°F. We have examined this provis ion and are proposing to withdraw the fuel temperature limit specification. Short of fuel spillage in the SHED, EPA sees no likelihood that a diesel fueled vehicle with RVP less than 1 psi could fail the refueling emission standard even at fuel tank temperatures above 130°F. This is due to the inherently

low vapor pressure of diesel at these temperatures and the likelihood that vapor shrinkage conditions will occur in the fuel tank during refueling since the dispensed fuel will be cooler than the tank fuel.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 217 of 888  When adopting the most recent evaporative emission change we did not carry through the changes to the regulatory text applying evaporative emission standards for methanol

- fueled compression

- ignition engines. The proposed regulations correct this oversight.

 We are proposing provisions to address which standards appl y when an auxiliary (nonroad) engine is installed in a motor vehicle, which is currentl y not directly addressed in the highway regulation. The proposed approach would require testing complete vehicles with an y auxiliary engines (and the corresponding fuel

- sy stem components). In complete vehicles would be tested without the auxiliary engines, but any such engines and the corresponding fuel

- sy stem components would need to meet the standards that apply under our nonroad program as specified in 40 CFR part 1060.

 We are proposing to remove the option for secondary vehicle manufacturers to use a larger fuel tank capacity than is specified b y the certifying manufacturer without re

- certifying the vehicl e. Secondary vehicle manufacturers needing a greater fuel tank capacity would need to either work with the certifying manufacturer to include the larger tank, or go through the effort to re

- certify the vehicle itself. Our understanding is that this provi sion has not been used and would be better handled as part of certification rather than managing a separate process. We are proposing corresponding changes to the emission control information label.

 Since we adopted evaporative emission standards for gase ous - fuel vehicles, we have developed new approaches for design

- based certification (see, for example, 40 CFR 1060.240). We request comment on changing the requirements related to certifying gaseous

- fuel vehicles to design

- based certification. This would allow for a simpler assessment for certifying these vehicles without changing the standards that appl y.

 With regard to OBD, we note also that under §86.1806

- 01(b)(4) OBD sy stems must have the ability to detect absence of purge air flow from a complete evap orative emission control sy stem. This is clearly important because the proper operation of an integrated evaporative/refueling emission control sy stem depends on purge. Similarly , evaporative/refueling s ys tem operation depends on the presence, proper adso rption/desorption performance, and sustained working capacity of the activated carbon canister. It is thus curious to observe that the current OBD provisions do not directly address the activated carbon canister in an y wa y. The absence of the canister wo uld likely be noted as a gross leak and/or a problem with purge. Nonetheless, we are seeking comment on a provision which would require the OBD s ys tem to sense for evidence of ongoing adsorption and desorption of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 218 of 888 hydrocarbon vapors. These could both be s ensed by changes in canister carbon bed temperature or perhaps for the presence of vapor in the fuel going to the intake manifold after a cold start or refueling event. In some cases, EPA believes these parameters could be monitored by hardware and sensor s now on most vehicles and thus this might be primarily an OBD software change. Similarly , we are seeking comment on whether the operation of a vacuum pump or similar device used to assist or supplement vehicle engine vacuum purge or an y device otherwise used to enhance or control purge flows, rates, or schedules should be required to be monitored as part of OBD.

 With future technology , we anticipate a trend toward the implementation of fuel tanks with higher operating pressures and in some cases fuel tank s which are sealed to the atmosphere during normal operation . Data available to EPA indicates that a leak in such a s ys tem will result in substantial emissions relative to very low pressure sy stems which employ running loss control strategies and an activ ated carbon canister as part of the methodology to control vapor emissions. 326 Based on this concern, we are seeking comment on the feasibility and cost of requiring the OBD leak detection monitoring sy stem to detect and signal the presence of a smaller diameter orifice than proposed for non

- pressurized sy stems (~ 0.0 1 0 inch ) upstream of the purge valve for all 4 vehicle categories LDV, LDT, MDPV, and complete HDGVs up to 14,000 lbs GVWR
. This would apply to an y vehicle with a designed in

- use oper ating pressure in excess of 0. 36 psi (10 inches water)
. As a means to prevent a sealed fuel tank from venting leaks directly to atmosphere, we ask for comment on an added requirement that the fuel vapor vent valve be set to the open position at key off (an d vent to the canister) if the OBD s ys tem detected a leak and triggered an MIL related to an y leak greater than a pre - established threshold. The vent open at key off concept for pressurized fuel sy stems would not be intended to disenable the OBD s ys tem fro m conducting its normal evaporative s ys tem check during operation. Furthermore, a s discussed above, we are proposing a 0.020” leak detection threshold for all s ys tems. However, we are asking for comment on setting the threshold in the 0.010”

- 0.015”range fo r pressurized sy stems. In the context of this request for comment, we ask for input regarding the feasibility of the smaller threshold, the effects of the vent valve open requirement on ORVR , and the repairability of leaks of less than 0.020”

326 Passavant, G. (February 2013). Presentation on Evaporative Emission System L eaks for a Fuel Tank Under Pressure . Memorandum to the docket.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 219 of 888 **D. Emissions Te**  **st Fuel** 1. Proposed Changes to Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel In
- use gasoline has changed considerably since EPA’s fuel specifications for emissions testing of light

- and heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles were first set and last revised. Gasoline sulfur and benzen e have been reduced and, perhaps most importantly , gasoline containing 10 percent ethanol by volume (E10) has replaced clear gasoline (E0) across the country . This has had second

- order effects on other gasoline properties. In

- use fuel is projected to continue to change with the implementation of the RFS2 program (e.g., the expansion of the number of retailers that offer E15) as well as today ’s proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. As a result, we are proposing to update our federal emission test fuel specifications not only to better match today ’s in

- use fuel but also to be forward looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content. 327 The revised test fuel specifications would apply for exhaust emissions testing, fuel economy /greenhouse gas test ing, and emissions testing for non

- exhaust emissions (evaporative, refueling, and leak detection testing). The proposed gasoline specifications, found at §1065.710, would apply

to emissions testing of light

- duty cars and trucks as well as heavy

- dut y gasol ine vehicles certified on the chassis test, those subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. 328 We are not proposing changes to the exhaust or evaporative durability fuel requirements outlined in the provisions of §86.113

- 04(a)(3), except to remove the minimum sulfur content (15 ppm) currently specified at §86.113

- 04(a)(3)(i). Those

327 EPA’s motor vehicle emissions standards typically require a level of performance over a specified test procedure, with emissions measured while the engine or the vehicle is operated using the specified test fuel and operated in a specified manner. The te st fuel specifications typically apply for all emissions testing used to determine compliance with the standard, including emissions testing to obtain a certificate of conformity, as well as compliance testing for newly produced or in

- use engines or vehicl es. While this test fuel is commonly referred to as “certification fuel,” the test fuel specifications proposed today are not limited to certification related emissions testing, but also apply to compliance related emissions testing after the certificate of conformity has been issued. The certification process also typically involves a process to ensure that the emissions controls system is durable over the regulatory useful life of the vehicle or engine. This can involve long

- term or accelerated aging o f a vehicle or engine prior to emissions testing. The fuel used for such aging is commonly referred to as service accumulation or durability fuel, and in many cases is specified as commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail outlet s (§86.113

- 04(a)(3)), or in some cases may be specified as gasoline which contains ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is commercially available in any state in the United States, such as for durability aging of evaporative emissions system (§86.1824

- 08(f)). EPA is not proposing changes to the specifications for fuel used during durability related aging that is part of the certification process. The proposed changes only apply to the test fuel used during emissions testing, both for purposes of certification and for later compliance related testing. 328 As discussed in Section IV.C, we are also seeking comment on requiring the proposed Tier 3 test fuel in conducting exhaust, evaporative, and refue ling emissions testing of heavy

- duty gasoline engines certified on an engine dynamometer. These could include engines installed in incomplete Class 2b and Class 3 vehicles and engines used in vehicles above 14,000 lb GVWR.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 220 of 888 provisions require that “Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, unleaded gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail outlets must be used in service accumulation.” We would expect that manufacturers would use service accumulation fuels which are generall y representative of the national average in

- use fuels (or worst case for durability) during the model ye ar which is bein g certified, including, for example, the ethanol content (for exhaust emissions), sulfur level, and fuel additive package. For exhaust emission bench aging durability programs as allowed under the provisions of §86.1823
- 08(d) and (e), the bench aging program should be designed using good engineering judgment to account for the effects of in

- use fuels on exhaust emissions, including the effects of future in

- use fuels on catal yt ic converters, oxygen sensors, fuel injectors, and other emission

- related compone nts. For evaporative emissions, durability fuel requirements are the same as for exhaust emissions (as outlined above), plus an additional requirement in the provisions of §86.1824

- 08(f), that the service accumulation fuel “contains ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under federal law and that is commercially

available in any

state in the United States. Unless otherwise approved b y the Administrator, the manufacturer must determine the appropriate ethanol concentratio n by

selecting the highest legal concentration commercially available during the calendar year before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage accumulation.” Thus, as E15 in

- use fuel becomes progressivel y more available, we would expect that E 15 service accumulation fuel would be used for whole vehicle evaporative durability programs. Similarly , evaporative bench aging durability programs allowed under the provisions of §86.1824

- 08(d) and (e), should be designed using good engineering judgment to account for the durability effects of in

- use fuels on evaporative emissions, bleed emissions, and leakage emissions. Where possible, we are proposing changes consistent with the CARB’s planned LEV III gasoline test fuel specifications. 329 Below is an overview of some of the key changes. A summary

of the proposed test fuel specifications is provided in Table IV
- 21 . For more information on how we arrived at the proposed test fuel propert y ranges and ASTM test metho ds, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.

 Ethanol

- adding a 15 volume percent ethanol specification to be forward

- looking with respect to the maximum gasoline ethanol concentration Tier 3 vehicles could expect to encounter. EPA recently issued a waiver un der section 211(f)(4) of the CAA permitting E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY2001 and newer light

- dut y motor vehicles. 330 While E15 is only commercially available at a limited number of fuel retailers , EPA believes it could become a major

329 The LEV III program as approve d by the California Air Resources Board, January 2012 330 On Nov. 4 2010, EPA issued a partial waiver for MY2007 and newer light

- duty motor vehicles (75 FR 68094). On January 26, 2011, EPA extended the waiver to MY 2001

- 2006 light

- duty motor vehicles (76 FR 4662).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 221 of 888 gasoline blend over the next 10

- 15 years given instability in crude oil pricing and growing RFS2 renewable fuel requirements. The use of E15 as the emission test fuel will help ensure that all future vehicles are capable of meeting Tier 3 emission standards while operating on E15
.
 Octane
- lowering gasoline octane to around 87 (R+M)/2 to be representative of in

- use fuel, i.e., regular

- grade gasoline. Manufacturers could continue to use high

- octane gasoline for testing of premium

required 331 vehicles and engines as well as for testing unrelated to exhaust emissions. Historically , the high octane rating of test fuel has not had an y real emissions implications. However, as manufacturers begin introducing new advanced vehicle technologies (e.g., turbocharg ed downsized), this may no longer be the case. For those vehicles where operation on high

- octane gasoline is required by the manufacturer, we would allow the manufacturer to test on a fuel with a minimum octane rating of 91 (R+M)/2 (in lieu of the propose d 87 (R+M)/2 general test fuel). According to the proposed regulations found at §1065.710(d), vehicles or engines are considered to require premium fuel if they

are designed specificall y for operation on high

- octane fuel and the manufacturer requires the use of premium gasoline as part of their warrant y as indicated in the owner’s manual. Cases where premium gasoline is not required but is recommended to improve performance would not qualify as a vehicle or engine that requires the use of premium fuel. F or qualifying vehicles and engines, all emission tests must use the specified high

- octane fuel. For vehicles and engines certified on high

- octane gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in

- use testing would also be conducted on high

- octane gasoline. All other test fuel specifications would be the same as those proposed in Table IV
- 21
. We seek comment on the need for limiting the maximum octane of gasoline used in the certification of premium

- required engines and vehicles.

 Distillation Temperatures

- adjusting gasoline distillation temperatures to better reflect today ’s in

- use gasoline/E10. This includes minor T10, T90 and FBP adjustments based on AAM in

- use fuel survey s and refinery batch test data, with additional adju stments to reflect future E15 performance (significantly lower T50 range). We seek comment on the appropriateness of the proposed distillation temperatures including the proposed 170

- 190 °F T50 range for an E15 fuel . For more information on how we arrive d at the proposed distillation temperatures in Table IV
- 21 , refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.

331 Premium

- required defined at §1065.710(d).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 222 of 888  Sulfur

- lowering the sulfur content of test fuel to 8

- 11 ppm to be consistent with our proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards. The proposed 10

- ppm annual average sulfur standard is expected to result in two - thirds less sulfur nationwide so it is appropriate to lower the gasoline test fuel specification in concert.

 Benzene
- setting a benzene test fuel specification of 0.6
- 0.8 volume percent to represent in

- use fuel under our new MSAT2 regulations. 332 The MSAT2 standards, which took effect January 1, 2011, limit the gasoline pool to 0.62 volume percent benzene on average. Beginning July 1, 2012, no refinery

may produce gasoline above 1.3 volume percent benzene on average.

 Total Aromatics

- lowering the aromatics content of test fuel to better match today ’s in

- use gasoline/E10 and accommodate E15. According to AAM fuel survey s, the average aromatics content in gasoline has dropped 16 percent over the past decade due to ethanol blending. 333 Additional ethanol blending to produce E15 is expected to result in even greater aromatics reductions. Accordingl y, we believe the proposed 19.5
- 24.5 volume percent test fuel specific ation is appropriate.

 Distribution of Aromatics

– in addition to total aromatics and benzene, we are proposing regulations that would require a distribution of aromatics (i.e., a certain amount of C7, C8, C9, and C10+ hydrocarbons) to ensure that test fu el is more representative of in

- use gasoline. Heavier aromatics in gasoline are believed to contribute to vehicle PM emissions, so it is important that vehicles are designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 emission standards on fuel with a distribution of aro matic compounds representative of in

- use gasoline. We also seek comment on the need for a multi

- substituted alkyl aromatics (MSAA) specification, as has been proposed b y CARB. For more information on our proposed aromatics specifications, refer to Chapte r 3 of the draft RIA.

 Olefins

- adjusting the olefins specification to better match today ’s in

use gasoline/E10 according to AAM fuel survey s. Not only is the proposed 4.5

- 11.5 mass percent range (approximately 4
- 6 volume percent) more representative of in

- use fuel, the narrower test fuel range would result in more consistent vehicle test results.

 Other Specifications

- adding distillation residue, total content of oxygenates other than ethanol, copper corrosion, solvent

- washed gum, and oxidation stab ility

specifications to better control other performance

332 72 FR 8434 (February 26, 2007). 333 For more information on current aromatics levels, refer to Chapter 3 of the draft RIA.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 223 of 888 properties of test fuel. These proposed specifications are consistent with ASTM’s D4814 gasoline specifications and CARB’s LEV III test fuel requirements.

 Updates to Gasoline Test Methods

– updating some of the gasoline test methods currentl y specified in §86.113 with more appropriate, easier to use, or more precise test methods for ethanol

- blended gasoline. Key changes include replacement of ASTM D323 with ASTM D5191 for measuring vapor p ressure; replacement of ASTM D1319 with ASTM D5769 for measuring aromatics and benzene; and replacement of ASTM D1266 with three alternative ASTM test methods (D2622, D5453 or D7039) for measuring sulfur. We request comment on the use of three different t est methods for the measurement of sulfur content.

 Consolidation of Test Fuels

- consolidation of all gasoline exhaust and evaporative emission test fuels into a single general test fuel. This would be used for all on

- highway vehicle testing with the ex ception of cold CO vehicle testing (which would use higher volatility test fuel) and high

- altitude testing (which would be permitted to use lower volatility fuel). As discussed above, commercial gasoline would continue to be used for service accumulation (durability fuel). This is consistent with CARB’s LEV III approach and should help limit the total number of test fuels that automakers need to manage. **Table IV**  **- 21**  **Proposed Gasoline Emissions Test Fuel**

Property Unit SPECIFICATION AS TM Reference Procedure General Testing Low
Temperature Testing High Altitude

Testing Antiknock Index (R+M)/2 - 87.0
- 88.4 87.0 Minimum D2699
- 11 and D2700

- 11 Sensitivity (R

- M)

- 7.5 Minimum Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (

DVPE) kPa (psi) 60.0
- 63.4 (8.7

- 9.2) 77.2
- 81.4

(11.2

- 11.8) 52.4
- 55.2

(7.6

- 8.0) D5191
- 10b Distillation 10% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 49
- 60 (120

- 140) 43
- 54

(110

- 130) 49
- 60

(120

- 140)

D86
- 10a 50% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 77
- 88 (170

- 190) 90% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 154
- 166 (310

- 330) Evaporated final boiling

point ° C ( ° F) 193
- 216 (380

- 420) Residue M illiliter 2.0 Maximum Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons vol. % 19.5
- 24.5 D5769
- 10 C6 Aromatics (benzene) vol. % 0.6
- 0.8 C7 Aromatics (toluene) vol. % 4.4
- 5.5***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 224 of 888 C8 Aromatics vol. % 5.5
- 6.9 C9 Aromatics vol. % 5.0
- 6.2 C10+ Aromatics vol. % 4.0
- 5.0 Olefins ma ss % 4.5
- 11.5 D6550
- 10 Ethanol vol. % 14.6
- 15.0 D5599
- 00 (Reapproved 2010) Total Content of Oxygenates Other than Ethanol vol. % 0.1 Maximum Sulfur mg/kg 8.0
- 11.0 D2622
- 10, D5453
- 09 or D7039
- 07 Lead g/liter 0.0026 Maximum D3237
- 06 Phosphorus g/liter 0.0013 Maximum D3231
- 11 Copper Corrosion

- No. 1 Maximum D130
- 10 Solvent

- Washed Gum Content mg/100 ml 3.0 Maximum D381
- 09 Oxidation Stability M inute 1,000 Minimum D525
- 05

EPA seeks comment on the appropriateness of the proposed forward

looking E15 test fuel for light

- and heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles. While we believe we have discretion under the statute to transition from E0 to E15 test fuel, we acknowledge that vehicle m anufacturers will need to calibrate their vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards on fuel containing 15 percent ethanol b y volume. Our anal ys is of the proposed Tier 3 standards (emission control technology , feasibility , cost, etc.) assumes the use of the proposed E15 test fuel. We anticipate that vehicle electronic control sy stems will be fully capable of adjusting to maintain emission performance when operating on E10 (or any remaining E0), but if E15 were not to enter the gasoline pool in signifi cant quantities, it may be more appropriate to require that vehicles be calibrated for and tested on E10. We are seeking comment on various alternative approaches, e.g., starting with E10 as the test fuel and transitioning to E15 as the market further tr ansition s to E15 in use. This could include a market review in 2014 or 2015 followed by regulatory

action to implement the change from E10 to E15 test fuel, if warranted. Or, it could include the establishment of a “trigger point” (e.g., 30 percent of ga soline is E15) in the Tier 3 final rule to prompt an automatic move to E15 after a certain period of time, e.g., two or three ye ars. Or, we could simply set a future date (e.g., 2020) with sufficient time for transitioning to E15 test fuel. These transit ion approaches would give vehicle manufacturers additional lead time to prepare for higher ethanol concentrations in test fuel. We seek comment on the various transition approaches, their timing, and the appropriate specifications for an E10 test fuel to be used in the interim.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 225 of 888 While the volatility

(i.e., RVP) of CARB’s E10 test fuel is 7.0 psi to be representative of in

- use gasoline in California during summer months, conventional E10 in the rest of the country is currentl y around 10 psi. Thus, should we finalize E10 instead of E15, in the absence of an y standard to reduce the in

- use RVP of E10 to 9.0 psi or lower, we would also have to consider raising the RVP of certification test fuel to 10 psi to reflect the RVP level of the current in

- use fuel. We re we to raise the volatility

to 10 psi RVP, EPA believes that the proposed evaporative emission standards would be feasible, but this would increase the stringency of the proposed evaporative emission standards (see S ection IV.C). Changing certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP would increase vapor generation rates during the refueling test b y about 10 percent and during the hot soak, diurnal, canister bleed, and running loss tests by as much as 25 percent in total . To the extent that the refueling test dictates the size of the canister, the increased vapor generation would necessitate increases in the volume of activated carbon used in the vehicle’s onboard canister b y about 10 percent. Perhaps more importantly, manufacturer’s vehicle purge strategies and technologies would likely have to be modified to removing the larger vapor loads from the canister during vehicle operation. Some vehicles have adequate engine vacuum available to provide the increased purge, while others may

require new or innovative approaches to increase purge volume or canister purge efficiency

as discussed in the evaporative emissions technology discussion. While we have not performed a detailed anal ys is, EPA estimates that on average the evaporative standard compliance costs coul d be about $10

- 15 per vehicle higher at 10 psi RVP compared to 9 psi RVP for canister and purge upgrades. With respect to lead time, EPA’s current proposal calls for either 40 percent of light

- dut y vehicles to meet the Tier 3 evaporative emission standard s in 2017 MY (percentage option) or for a manufacturer to sell only zero evap PZEVs nationwide (PZEV only

option). This basic approach for 2017 could still be feasible depending on the resolution of the test procedure issues and proposed flexibilities in p hase

- in schemes. Raising the certification test fuel to 10 psi RVP would also impact the equivalency

of CARB and EPA refueling and hot soak plus diurnal evaporative emission test procedure s . These potential impacts would have to be addressed to maintain CARB/EPA evaporative emissions test reciprocit y . Furthermore, there may be test procedure options for minimizing the burden of changing certification test fuel RVP while maintaining the needed in

- use control. EPA does not believe that a 10 psi certificat ion test fuel would impact the feasibility or cost of the proposed leak emission standard or the proposed change in the OBD evaporative s ys tem leak detection requirements, since these are based on orifice diameter. Nor , do we believe that it would have an y negative impact on permeation emissions or exhaust emissions. As mentioned above, EPA issued a waiver allowing E15 to be introduced into commerce for use in MY 2001 and newer light

- duty motor vehicles. On July 25, 2011, EPA finalized regulations to miti gate the potential for misfueling of vehicles, engines, and equipment not covered b y the E15 waiver, i.e., MY 2000 and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 226 of 888 older light

- dut y motor vehicles, all heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles and engines, motorcycles, and all gasoline

- powered nonroad products (wh ich includes boats). 334 Two of the required mitigation measures are a label for fuel pumps that dispense E15 to alert consumers to the appropriate and lawful use of the fuel and a prohibition on the use of E15 by consumers in vehicles not covered by the wai ver, excluding flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs). If, as discussed in this proposed rule, an y class of new heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles or engines begin testing on E15 for certification, EPA would not need to issue a waiver under section 211(f)(4) to allow introduction of E15 into commerce for use in these vehicles certified on E15 test fuel. However, EPA acknowledges that changes to the gasoline pump label and prohibitions finalized in the E15 Misfueling Mitigation Measures Rule would have to be made before E15 could lawfully be sold for use in these heavy

- duty vehicles. This would be addressed in a future action. As discussed above in Sections IV.A.7.c (tailpipe emission testing) and IV .C.4.b (evaporative emission testing), we are proposing to require cer tification of all Tier 3 light

- dut y and chassis

- certified heavy

- duty gasoline vehicles on E15 test fuel. As described in those sections, we are proposing that EPA still accept testing for certification on CARB’s E10 test fuel during the phase

- in periods f or the respective proposed Tier 3 vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards and, if certified on CARB’s E10 test fuel, that EPA would not perform or require in

- use exhaust or evaporative testing on E15 test fuel. As mentioned earlier, we plan to continue to allow manufacturers to test vehicles on premium

- grade gasoline should the vehicles require it. Since we cannot predict all future changes in gasoline vehicle technologies and in

- use fuels, we are proposing to allow vehicle manufacturers to sp ecify an alternative test fuel under certain situations. Under this proposal, i f manufacturers were to design vehicles that required operation on a higher octane, higher ethanol content gasoline (e.g., dedicated E30 vehicles or FFVs optimized to run on E3 0 or higher ethanol blends), under 40 CFR 1065.701(c), they could petition the Administrator for approval of a higher octane, higher ethanol content test fuel if they could demonstrate that such a fuel would be used b y the operator and would be readil y ava ilable nationwide, vehicles would not operate appropriately on other available fuels, and such a fuel would result in equivalent emissions performance. For vehicles certified on high

octane, high

- ethanol gasoline, all EPA confirmatory and in

- use testing w ould also be conducted on high

- octane, high

- ethanol gasoline. This could help manufacturers who wish to raise compression ratios to improve vehicle efficiency as a step toward complying with the 2017 and later light

- dut y greenhouse gas and CAFE standards. This in turn could help provide a market incentive to increase ethanol use beyond E10 and enhance the environmental performance of ethanol as a transportation fuel by using it to enable more fuel efficient engines. We seek comment on the appropriateness of the alternative test fuel provisions at §1065.701(c) and the need

334 76 FR 44406 (July 25, 2011).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 227 of 888 to specify more precisel y the makeup of such a fuel (ethanol content, as well as other fuel parameters) in the regulations at this time. We are also seeking comment on whether there are other aspects of today ’s proposed standards that might need to be modified to provide an incentive for, or remove obstacles to, the development of highl y efficient vehicles optimized for use on higher level ethanol blends. 2. Proposed Flexible Fuel Vehicle T est Fuel While the Agency

has for some time had testing requirements for flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) on E85 fuel blends, EPA currently has no regulatory specifications for the test fuel itself. Historicall y, our laboratory practice has been to blend in dolene (E0) with neat ethanol and normal butane to produce an FFV test fuel with 83 volume percent ethanol and an RVP from 6.0 to 6.5 psi. However, the lack of E85 test fuel specifications has caused confusion and inconsistency among FFV manufacturers in carrying out their certification requirements. Similar to the previous discussion regarding gasoline test fuels, we believe it is important that the fuel used to test FFVs reflect the composition of actual in

- use E85. This may

become increasingl y import ant if E85 usage in FFVs increases to help satisfy

the growing RFS2 renewable fuel requirements. The term “E85” has historically been used to describe an ethanol blend with a maximum ethanol content of 83 volume percent and specified minimum ethanol conte nt for use in FFVs. In the recentl y updated ASTM International specification, the minimum ethanol concentration was reduced from 68 to 51 volume percent. 335 As part of the updated specification, ASTM retired the name E85 because it has caused confusion re garding the necessary variability

in the ethanol content of the blend depending upon seasonal climactic conditions. The official name in the new ASTM specification is “ethanol fuel blends for flexible

- fuel automotive spark

ignition engines .” For the sake of brevit y, we shall refer to this fuel as E51

- 83. Consistent with our current policy regarding the formulation of FFV test fuel, we believe that the ethanol content should be at or near the maximum ethanol level on which the vehicles were designed to o perate to ensure that the testing reflects the full range of in

- use formulations and emissions performance. To provide adequate flexibility for test fuel manufacturers, we are proposing that the ethanol content must be from 80 to 83 volume percent. Rathe r than specify ranges for the other fuel parameters as we have done for gasoline test fuel in Table IV
- 21 , we are proposing that the FFV test fuel would be defined based on the results from blending the proposed E15 standard gasoline test fuel with ethanol. We propose

335 ASTM International D5798

- 11, “Standard Specification for Ethanol Fuel Blends for Flexible

Fuel Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engines”.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 228 of 888 that denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that meets the proposed specifications would be used to i ncrease the ethanol content to 80 to 83 volume percent. 336 It is important to ensure that the volatility of FFV test fuel meets minimum volatility specifications to provide adequate startability and for safet y reasons. The ASTM minimum RVP specification that conforms to the specified temperature at which FFV emission testing takes place (68 to 86 °F) is 5.5 psi. EPA conducted discussions with vehicle and test fuel manufacturers to arrive at the current guidance that the RVP of the finished test fuel shoul d be between 6.0 and 6.5 psi. We propose to formalize the current guidance in the regulatory requirements for FFV test fuel. We propose that commercial grade normal butane could be added to trim the RVP of the finished test fuel to meet the proposed spec ifications. 337 A 6.0 to 6.5 range in RVP has historically provided test fuel manufacturers adequate flexibility in formulating test fuels. L imiting the amount of butane that is added to formulate FFV test fuels is important because if excessive volumes of butane were used it could inappropriately reduce the stringency

of emissions testing. As an alternative to the use of DFE to manufacture FFV test fuel, we propose that neat (undenatured) fuel grade ethanol could be used. We also propose that as an altern ative to using a finished E15 standard gasoline test fuel in the manufacture of FFV test fuel that the gasoline blendstock used to produce a compliant E15 test fuel could be used to manufacture the FFV test fuel. This would allow ethanol to be blended onl y once to produce FFV test fuel. The test fuel manufacturer would be required to test a sample of the subject gasoline blendstock after the addition of ethanol to produce a finished standard E15 gasoline test fuel and demonstrate that the blend meets all of the proposed requirements for standard gasoline test fuel described in Section IV.D.1
. We propose that the above FFV emissions test fuel specifications would become applicable on the same schedule as the proposed E15 standard gasoline test fuel specifications become applicable for light

- and heav y - dut y gasoline vehicles (described below in Section IV.D.3 ). We believe that the proposed requirements would ensure that FFV tes t fuel reflects the composition of in

- use ethanol fuel blends for flexible

- fuel automotive spark

- ignition engines while minimizing the burden on the industry

with respect to test fuel formulation and the number of test fuel blend components that must be st ored. Under the Tier 2 program, FFVs utilize a test fuel containing 10 percent ethanol with an RVP of approximately 10 psi for evaporative emission testing. The proposed E15 certification fuel for non

- FFVs is a 9 psi E15 fuel. We seek comment on whether the new E15 evaporative emissions test fuel for FFVs should continue

336 The proposed requirements for DFE are contained in Section V.C of today’s preamble. 337 The specifications for commercial gr ade butane are contained in 40 CFR 80.82.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 229 of 888 to have an RVP of 10 psi to maintain the level of performance established under the Tier 2 program . 3. Proposed Implementation Schedule As described earlier in Section IV.C, we are proposing Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards with today ’s notice. The proposed changes in the specifications for test fuel would apply to vehicles certified to these new standards. We are proposing to transition to the new test fuel during the first few ye ars that the Tier 3 standards are phasing in. As described in Sections IV.A and IV.B, testing with the new fuel would start with light

- duty vehic les certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 70, and heav y - duty vehicles certified to Tier 3 bin standards at or below Bin 250 (for Class 2b) and Bin 300 (for Class 3). Starting with model years 2020 for light

- dut y and 2022 for heav y - dut y, we wo uld require that all manufacturers use the new test fuel for all exhaust emission testing (with the exception of Small Volume Manufacturers and small businesses, which could delay using the new test fuel until model year 2022). Manufacturers would also ne ed to comply with cold temperature CO and NMHC standards using the new test fuel for any models that use E15 test fuel for meeting the light

- dut y Tier 3 exhaust emission standards. These same tests would also provide the basis for meeting GHG requirements under 40 CFR part 86 and fuel economy requirements under 40 CFR part 600, as described in the following section. We are proposing to require evaporative emission testing with the new test fuel for an y models that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative e mission standards. To the extent that these models are different than those used for exhaust emission testing with the new test fuel, manufacturers would need to do additional testing to demonstrate compliance with all applicable standards. They may alte rnatively

use the new test fuel earlier than the regulations specify to avoid additional testing. We further propose to require that manufacturers submit certification data based on the new test fuel to demonstrate compliance with refueling emission stand ards for an y vehicles that are certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. 4. Potential Implications on CAFE Standards, GHG Standards, and Fuel Economy L abels EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) recentl y finalized a joint greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel econom y (CAFE) standards for MY 2017

- 2025 light

- duty vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and medium

- dut y passenger vehicles. 338 These GHG and CAFE standards build upon the National Program that was f irst announced by

the President in May 2009 and which allows manufacturers to build a single fleet of light vehicles that can satisfy

all federal and state requirements for GHG emissions and fuel economy
.

338 77 FR 62623 (October 15, 2012).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 230 of 888 The first round of standards by EPA and NHTSA unde r the National Program cover MY 2012
- 2016. 339 The recent ly

finalized MY 2017
- 2025 GHG and CAFE standards affect essentially

the same vehicle classes over the same timeframe as this proposal for non - GHG emissions standards and gasoline fuel quality . Accordi ngl y, EPA believes it is important for the two rulemakings to be coordinated so that manufacturers can develop future product development plans with a full understanding of the major regulatory requirements they

would be facing over the MY 2017
- 2025 time f

rame. The Agency

would like to highlight two important issues of overlap between these two rulemakings: Test fuel and useful life. As explained above, today ’s action proposes to update EPA’s test fuel to better match in

- use fuels, with the change in test fuel phased

- in from MY 2017

- 2020 for light

- dut y exhaust emission compliance. The proposal involves several changes to the emissions test fuel specifications, including, notably , a 15 percent by volume ethanol content. The current emissions test fuel contains zero ethanol. Regarding useful life, we are proposing a longer useful life for some vehicles, as described in Section IV.A.7.b, from the current 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles.
a. Test Fuel The proposed change in test fuel, if finalized, could have imp lications for both the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs, as well as the fuel econom y labeling program. EPA is committed to the principle of ensuring that the proposed change in test fuel would not affect the stringency of either the CAFE or GHG emissions standards, and that the labeling calculations would be updated to reflect the change in test fuel. While NHTSA establishes the fuel econom y standards for the CAFE program, EPA is responsible for vehicle testing and calculation of fuel economy values used b y manufacturer for compliance with the CAFE standards . Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), limitations are placed on the test procedures used to measure fuel econom y for passenger cars. For passenger automob iles, EPA has to use the same procedures used for model ye ar 1975 automobiles, or procedures that give comparable results. 340 When EPA has made changes to the FTP or HFET, we have evaluated whether it is appropriate to provide for an adjustment to the measured fuel econom y results, to comply with the EPCA requirement for passenger cars that the test procedures produce results comparable to the 1975 test procedures. These adjustments are ty pically referred to as a CAFE or fuel economy

test procedure adjustme nt or adjustment factor.

339 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 340 49 U.S.C. 32904(c).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 231 of 888 Because ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline, i.e., fewer British thermal units (Btus) or joules per gallon, 341 and fuel econom y is defined in terms of miles per gallon of fuel, it is almost certain that the same vehicl e tested on a test fuel with 15 percent ethanol content will yield a lower fuel econom y value relative to the value if it were tested on the current test fuel with zero ethanol content. For CAFE purposes, the existing fuel econom y equation for gasoline th at has been in use for man y ye ars already contains an adjustment for the energy content of the test fuel to calculate fuel economy equivalent to what would have been determined using the 1975 baseline test fuel. 342 Therefore, it is not clear that an y furthe r action is necessary

to account for the proposed change in certification test fuel. Within this equation, however, is a so

- called “R

- factor” to account for the fact that the change in fuel econom y is not directly proportional to the change in energy cont ent of the test fuel
. Although an R

- factor of 0.6 has been used since 198 8 , manufacturers have suggested that a higher value may be more appropriate. We discuss this issue in a memo to the docket. 343 This is a technical issue with the fuel econom y equatio n that has been raised in the context of the proposed certification test fuel change , but technically it is distinct from the proposed change in test fuel. EPA will continue to investigate this issue and if necessary address it as part of a future action. EPA is also committed to retaining equivalent stringency for GHG emissions compliance associated with the proposed test fuel change
. T he proposed change s in test fuel properties in this rule do not have an y appreciable impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile levels. This is supported by data from the EPAct study , which show that the change in the test fuel have both positive and negative impacts that offset each other and that there is no net impact on carbon dioxide grams per mile levels. This is discussed in a memo to the docket
. 344 We seek comment on the impact of this proposal on CO 2 emissions
. Should action to adjust the compliance calculation for the light

- dut y GHG standards become warranted, we would include such changes as a part of a future action. EPA expects that there may be a potential impact on manufacturer’s fuel econom y and greenhouse gas testing burden during the Tier 3 phase

- in years. Currently , for example, manufacturers carry over a considerable am ount of previous model year data in support of their F ue l Econom y Labeling and CAFE/Greenhouse Gas programs. We are proposing that Tier 3 compliant vehicles would be required to test on E15 test fuel, and thus, manufacturers would normally not be allowed to carry over previous model year data from vehicles tested on E0 test fuel. EPA

341 EPA estimates that, on average, E85 fuel contains 25

- 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline with zero ethanol. 342 40 CF R 600.113
- 12(h)(1). 343 Butler, A. (February 2013) Analysis of the Effects of Changing Fuel Properties on the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and R

- Factor. Memorandum to the docket. 344 Butler , A. (February 2013) Analysis of the Effects of Changing Fuel Properties o n the EPA Fuel Economy Equation and R

- Factor. Memorandum to the docket.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 232 of 888 anticipates that such carryover requests could be handled during the Tier 3 phase

- in ye ars with modifications to EPA’s current policy for the use of anal yt icall y derived data (see EPA’s fuel economy , CO 2 , and carbon

- related exhaust emissions testing regulations at 40 CFR 600.006

- 08(e) and EPA guidance letter CD
- 12
- 03 (February 27, 2012) and CCD
- 04
- 06, ( March 11, 2004 345 ) ). EPA requests comments on whether there is a need for further reductions in fuel econom y/ greenhouse gas testing burden beyond that allowed by the above EPA guidance letter s . Any comments supporting the need to reduce fuel economy /greenhouse gas testing burden (beyond that allowed by EPA’s policy

for the use of analy

tically derived data) should describe one or more specific methods of reducing such testing burden. Finally , EPA will need to update the fuel econom y labeling calculations in 40 CFR Part 600 to reflect the proposed E15 test fuel. The current method ology , which took effect with the 2008 model year, contains equations that, when applied to test results using current fuel (zero alcohol), adjust for an average national impact of ethanol in fuel on fuel econom y. These equations would need to be revised such that the adjustment remains consistent with the actual national use of ethanol in fuel. b. Useful L ife for GHG Standards As stated above, EPA is committed to retaining equivalent stringency for GHG emissions compliance beginning in MY 2017. In contra st to the proposed Tier 3 test fuel, for which we are uncertain as to the effects on GHG emissions, we believe that certifying a vehicle to a longer useful life for any emission constituent would have onl y a beneficial effect on emissions. To address pote ntial concerns about changes in the stringency of the GHG standards resulting from a longer useful life, we are not proposing to require a longer useful life for GHG emission standards. As this approach may result in additional testing burden, we are prop osing that manufacturers could optionall y certify GHG emissions to a 150,000 mile, 15 year useful life. 5. Consideration of Nonroad, Motorcycle, and Heavy

- Duty Engine Emissions Test Fuel As described earlier in Section IV.D.1 ., we are proposing new specifications for the gasoline emissions test fuel used for testing highway vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. In developing today ’s proposal, EPA also considered proposing the change in test fuel specifications fo r other categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel sy stem components that use gasoline. This would include a wide range of applications, including small nonroad engines used in lawn

345 EPA Guidance Letter s CD
- 12
- 03 (Analytically Derived CO 2 and Carbon

- Related Exhaust Emissions (CREE) for Light

- Duty Vehicles) and CCD
- 04
- 06 (Updated Analytically Derived Fuel Economy (ADFE) Policy for 2005 MY and Later), March 11, 2004, is available through the EPA Transportation and Air Quality Document Index System at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 233 of 888 and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on

- highway motorcycles, and larger heavy

- dut y gasoline engines. While engines in some of these categories employ advanced technologies similar to light

- dut y vehicles and trucks, the vast majority of these en gines employ

much simpler designs, with many of the engines being carbureted with no electronic controls. Because of lower level of technology , emissions from these engines are potentially much more sensitive to changes in fuel quality
. EPA is not proposi ng to apply the new emissions test fuel specifications to these other categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel s ys tem components. In discussing the potential change in test fuel specifications with the large number of businesses potentially

impacted b y such a change, man y companies supported such a change. However, a number of manufacturers raised concerns about the level of ethanol in the new fuel, the cost of recertifying emission families on the new fuel, the impact on nationwide product of ferings, and the cost impact of complying with the existing standards on the new test fuel. EPA believes it is important that the emissions test fuel for these other categories reflect real

- world fuel qualities but has elected to defer moving forward now pending additional anal ys is of the impacts of changing the test fuel specifications for the wide range of engines, vehicles, equipment and fuel s ys tem components that could be impacted. These impacts include the impact on the emissions standards, as well as the other issues raised b y the manufacturers. EPA plans to explore such a change in a separate future action. EPA requests comment on the implications of changing the test fuel for these other categories and whether a different test fuel would be more appropriate for these other categories. 6. Consideration of CNG and LPG Emissions Test Fuel There are currently

no sulfur specifications for the test fuel used for certifying natural gas vehicles. There is also no sulfur specification in §86.113 for the tes t fuel used for certifying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles. The corresponding LPG test fuel for heav y - dut y highway engines and for nonroad engines in §1065.720 includes an 80 ppm maximum sulfur specification
. We request comment on the appropriateness of changing §86.113 to reference 40 CFR part 1065 for both natural gas and LPG test fuels. We further request comment on amending these specification s to better reflect in

- use fuel characteristics, and in particul ar on the appropriateness of aligning the sulfur specifications with those that apply for gasoline test fuel. Changing the sulfur specifications would depend on establishing that the new specification is consistent with the range of properties expected from in

- use fuels. **E. Small**  **- Business Provisions**  As in previous vehicle rulemakings, our justification for including provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities generally have a greater degree of difficult y in complying with the standards comp ared to other entities.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 234 of 888 In developing the proposed Tier 3 vehicle program, we evaluated the environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of manufacturers and others to meet the standards as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is feasible and necessary

for the vast majority

of the program to be implemented in the established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as possible. Based on information available from small manufacturers and others, we believe that entiti es classified as small generall y face unique circumstances with regard to compliance with environmental programs, compared to larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are proposing several flexibility provisions for small businesses in the vehicle in dustry to reduce the burden that this program could have on them. These proposed provisions are based on the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel described in Section XIII.C of today ’s proposal and include a few additional pr ovisions. Small entities generally

lack the resources that are available to larger companies to carry

out necessary

research and development and to raise capital for investing in a new regulatory program. Small entities are also likel y to have more diffi culty in competing for any

needed engineering and construction resources and lower production volume over which to spread their compliance costs. Small entities also tend to have limited product lines , which limits their ability to take advantage of the p hase

- in and ABT flexibility provisions in the proposal. As such, we are proposing regulatory flexibility

provisions that would provide additional lead time and reduced testing burden for small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. This propo sed approach would allow the overall program to begin as earl y as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as soon as possible, while helping to ensure that small entities have adequate time to make an y necessary modifications to their p roduct lines. We believe that small business regulatory

flexibilities could provide these entities with additional help and/or time to take advantage of technological developments by other parties and to accumulate capital internall y or to secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the availability

of any needed engineering resources. We believe these provisions will also reduce their overall compliance burden and allow them to more easily transition to the new standards in a way that mat ches their business practices. The provisions described below would be available to all small businesses subject to the Tier 3 emission standards. The t ypes of companies subject to the Tier 3 emission standards include vehicle manufacturers, and two addi tional categories of businesses that are generall y referred to as independent commercial importers (I CI s) and alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, the proposed set of flexibilities would also be available to manufacturers in these thre e business categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per ye ar that are subject to the Tier 3 emission standards. 1. Lead Time for Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards As noted above, small businesses have limited resources available for developing n ew designs to comply with new emission standards. In addition, it is***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 235 of 888 often necessary

for these businesses to rel y on vendor companies for technology. Moreover, percentage phase

- in requirements and declining fleet average standards pose a dilemma for a sm all manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g., the manufacturer certifies vehicles in only one or two test groups). Thus, similar to the flexibility provisions implemented in previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small busi nesses the following flexibility option for meeting the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. EPA is proposing that small businesses (and small volume manufacturers, as discussed below) be given additional lead time to comply with the proposed Tier 3 exhaus t and evaporative emission standards. Specificall y, we propose to allow small manufacturers to postpone compliance with the standards and other Tier 3 requirements, including use of the proposed new certification test fuel, until model ye ar 2022. For mod el ye ar 2022 and later, small manufacturers would be subject to the same Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative requirements as other manufacturers, including moving to the declining FTP fleet average NMOG+NO X curve and complying with the full y phased

- in standard of 30 mg/mi, as well as certifying on E15 test fuel. (This approach is similar to that in the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase

- in to compl y with the Tier 2 standards.) As described earlier in this secti on, the proposed Tier 3 rule has several different phase

- in schedules; with the final dates varying from model ye ar 2021 for the new light

- duty exhaust PM standards to model year 2025 for the new light

- dut y exhaust gaseous pollutant standards. Requiring a ll small businesses to comply

with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the technology

changes needed to comply with the Tier 3 standards. During the SBAR Panel process, one small entit y representative (SER) recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust emission averaging program being proposed by EPA would allow large manufacturers that have m any engine families to certify their small, niche products at emission levels numerically higher than the standards. Small manufacturers that ty picall y do not have more than one or two emission families generally

cannot use averaging to the same extent be cause of their limited product offerings. The SER was concerned that the high

- performance vehicles produced b y large manufacturers which they compete against would be able to certify at numericall y higher levels at less cost than the SER would incur. The SER
- recommended relaxed NMOG+NO X standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 125 mg/mi in model year 2020 and 70 mg/mi in model year 2025. This is the same general approach that the CARB Board approved for small volume manufacturers in LEV III ( a relaxed standard NMOG+NO X of 125 mg/mi followed b y a full y phased

- in standard of 70 mg/mi in model year 2025 ), except that the CARB program introduces the relaxed standard and the change in test fuel in model year 2022. As described above, although we ar e proposing a delay in the Tier 3 requirements, EPA is not proposing to relax the fully phased

- in standards for the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 236 of 888 small entities. We believe that these standards are technologicall y feasible and can be readil y achieved with the additional lead time we a re proposing as the technology

would have already

been demonstrated by

other manufacturers, in some cases on the very

same engines used b y the small manufacturers. In addition, the compliance costs for many of these vehicles, even if higher on an absolute basis, may still be lower on a relative basis given the higher average cost of the vehicles. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to allow manufacturers to appl y for hardship relief (discussed below) on a case

- by

- case basis. EPA requests comment on our propose d approach and whether there is an additional need for the final rule to allow small manufacturers to meet relaxed NMOG+NO X exhaust emission standards on the FTP over the long term, as suggested b y the SER and as reflected in action by CARB
. In light of the CARB Board

- approved implementation schedule for small manufacturers described above, we also request comment on an option that would not provide a permanent relaxed standard for small manufacturers, but would provide a temporary

relaxed standard matchi ng the California standard from model ye ar 2022 through 2024. This option would apply to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards starting in 2022, except that a relaxed NMOG+NO X standard of 125 mg/mi would apply

in model years 2020
- 2024 for FTP testing. F or model years 2025 and later, the standard would be the same as for all other manufacturers, or 30 mg/mi. Under this option, small manufacturers would have to take some action to reduce emissions in 2022 and could postpone meeting full y phased

- in Tier 3 standards until 2025. 2. Assigned Deterioration Factors Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their vehicles compl y with the emission standards throughout the “useful life” period. This is generall y done b y testing vehicles at low

- m ileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission levels. The deterioration factors are determined b y aging new emission control sy stems and then testing the aged sy stems again to determine how much deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce the testing burden in previous rulemaking, EPA has allowed small manufacturers to use deterioration factor values assigned b y EPA instead of performing the extended testing. A manufacturer would apply the assigned deterioration factor s to its low

- mileage emission level to demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards. With today ’s proposal, EPA proposes that small businesses be allowed the option to use EPA

- developed assigned deterioration factors in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned deterioration factors for small manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a s imilar procedure to determine the assigned deterioration factors for the Tier 3 standards once large manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in model year***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 237 of 888 2017, EP A should have a significant set of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned deterioration factors for small businesses within the first few ye ars of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned deterioration factors need to be dete rmined well in advance of model year 2022 in order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or not to use the assigned deterioration factors for certification purposes. 3. Reduced Testing Burden Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must perform in

- use testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in

- use vehicles comply with the emission standards. The current in

- use testing regulations provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, including no testing in some case s. EPA is proposing to continue the reduced levels of testing for small businesses under the Tier 3 program. Under the reduced testing provisions, manufacturers that sell less than 5,000 units per y ear would not be required to do any testing under the in

- use program. Manufacturers that sell between 5,001 and 15,000 units per year would be required to test two vehicles per test group, but only under the high

- mileage conditions specified in the in

- use program. Under current regulations, manufacturers may w aive testing for PM emissions for light

- dut y vehicles and trucks, except for diesel

- fueled vehicles. Manufacturers are still subject to the standards and must make a statement of compliance with the PM standards. As described in Section IV.A, EPA is prop osing new PM standards and will require manufacturers to test for PM emissions for all fuels. Because PM testing requires additional test equipment and facilities, the costs incurred for PM testing can be substantial, especiall y for a compan y selling smal l numbers of vehicles. Therefore, EPA is proposing to continue the waiver for PM testing in the Tier 3 timeframe for small businesses. Small businesses will not be required to measure PM emissions when they certify to the Tier 3 emission standards. In l ieu of testing, small businesses will be required to make a statement of compliance with the Tier 3 PM standards. We would retain the ability

to determine the PM emissions results in confirmatory or in

- use testing. As described in Section IV.C, EPA is pro posing new OBD requirements for vehicles certifying to the Tier 3 standards. The proposed OBD requirements are the same as CARB’s existing OBD requirements. The proposed OBD provisions require additional amounts of testing and information that can add si gnificant cost for manufacturers if they

are not already meeting the CARB OBD requirements. Small business vehicle manufacturers tend to comply with the CARB OBD requirements because they want to sell in the California market. On the other hand, alternat ive

- fuel converters do not generall y certify with CARB because of the significant cost burden of complying with the CARB OBD requirements. We are therefore proposing that small business alternative

- fuel converters may continue to comply with EPA’s existin g OBD requirements (see 40 CFR 86.1806

- 05) when the Tier 3 standards become effective. However, the proposed upgraded OBD requirements would have to be met by small entities and ICI’s b y the 2022 MY.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 238 of 888 Alternative

- fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs do not have SFTP emissions requirements under the current regulations. As described in Section IV .A, EPA is proposing to apply the Tier 3 SFTP standards to all vehicles, including alternative

- fueled vehicles, MDPVs, FFVs, and HDVs. Because SFTP testing includes emission measurement over the SC03 test cycle, which requires additional test facilities beyond those needed to run the FTP, the costs incurred for SC03 testing can be substantial, especiall y for companies like alternative fuel converters that sell ve ry

low numbers of converted vehicles. We are proposing that for the categories of vehicles newl y subject to the SFTP standards, including alternative

- fueled vehicles, manufacturers have the option to substitute the FTP emissions levels for the SC03 emissi ons results for purposes of compliance when calculating the SFTP emissions. However, we would retain the ability to determine the composite emissions using SC03 test results in confirmatory or in

- use testing. Because the vehicles being converted to an al ternative fuel will likely have been tested for SFTP compliance, we expect the SFTP emissions should be similarly low, and therefore the added SC03 testing burden is unnecessary
. During the SBAR process, one SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the eva porative emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief that some of the tests may be duplicative. While EPA understands the reasons behind the SER’s suggestion, we believe it may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given the potential impact of the CO 2 emission standards on engine and fuel sy stem development. Currently , it is generall y understood that the 2

- day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative control sy stems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the 3

- day test, drive the capacity

requirement of evaporative canisters. Prospectively , due to expected changes in engine and fuel sy stem designs in response to upcoming CO 2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the case. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test procedures. Itcan be noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 2

- day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829

- 01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2

- day diurnal test as part of the in

- use testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845
- 04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. In general, EPA is open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes like those suggested b y the SER in the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer. Therefore, EPA requests comment on streaml ining the current test procedures for small businesses in way s that would still maintain the overall effectiveness of the tests. 4. Hardship EPA is proposing hardship provisions for small businesses subject to the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission stand ards. Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to appl y for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase

- in requirements for exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 239 of 888 relief would need to be made in writing and must be submitted well before the earliest date of potential noncompliance. The request would need to identify how much time is being requested. It must also include evidence that the n oncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to comply , and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would be faced b y the compan y if the relief is not granted. The hardship provision should effectively provide the opportuni ty for small businesses to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 standards. The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that can be requested to 1 y ear, but we are proposing that such a limit is not needed as part of the Tier 3 hardship provisions. 5. Applicability

of Flexibilities Under EPA’s Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of flexibilities for small volume manufacturers (SVMs) . The criteria for determining if a company is a “small volume manufacturer” is based on the annual pro duction level of vehicles and is based on whether the compan y produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year. Unlike EPA’s current small volume manufacturer criteria, the Small Business Administration (SBA) defines which manufacturers are small businesses ba sed on the number of emplo ye es for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for I CI s and alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines a small business vehicle manufacturer as those who have less than 1,000 employees. With today ’s notice, EPA pro poses that all small businesses that are subject to the Tier 3 standards and that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities described above. Unless otherwise noted, the proposed flexibilities would be available to all small business vehicle manufacturers, I CI s, and alternative fuel converters subject to the Tier 3 standards. In addition, EPA is proposing that manufacturers subject to the Tier 3 standards which meet a specified sales

- based criterion be eligible for the flexibilities described above. It is relativel y easy for a manufacturer to project and ultimately determine sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employees is less straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light

- dut y vehicle and truck CO 2 emission st andards, EPA adopted provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 vehicles per ye ar as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is used in the Tier 2 program. EPA proposes that the small volume manufacturer definition be based on the 5,000 vehicle per ye ar level for the Tier 3 program. For purposes of the Tier 3 rule, the 5,000 limit would be based on a running three

- ye ar average of the number of light

duty vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, medium

- duty passenger vehicles, and compl ete heav y - dut y trucks below 14,000 lbs GVWR. EPA believes the 5,000 unit cut

- off for small volume manufacturers would include all of the vehicle manufacturers, IC Is, and alternative fuel converters that currently meet the applicable SBA definition as well as a few additional companies that have similar concerns to small businesses. EPA requests comment on the issue of extending eligibility for the Tier 3 small volume manufacturer provisions to very small manufacturers that are owned***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 240 of 888 by large manufacturers but are able to establish that they are operationally independent. EPA has established such a provision in the light

- duty greenhouse gas (GHG) program. 346 EPA requests comment specifically on whether a manufacturer who meets the criteria for establishing operational independence under 86.183 8
- 01(d) for eligibility

for SVM provisions under the GHG program should be considered to be operationally independent and similarly eligible for SVM provisions under the Tier 3 program. **F. Compliance Provisions**  1. Exhaust Emi ssion Test Procedures We are proposing technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1066 as part of the effort to migrate test requirements from 40 CFR part 86 for light

- dut y vehicles and measurement of criteria pollutants. The proposed procedures in part 1066 ref erence large portions of part 1065 to align test specifications that apply equally to engine

based and vehicle

- based testing, such as CVS and anal yz er specifications, calibrations, test fuels, calculations, and definitions of many terms. The proposed part 1066, as amended, also incorporates most of the detailed part 86 procedures. Current testing requirements related to chassis dynamometers rel y on a combination of regulatory provisions, EPA guidance documents, and extensive learning from industry

experien ce that has led to a good understanding of best practices for operating a vehicle in the laboratory to measure emissions. This proposal attempts to capture this range of material, integrating and organizing these specifications and procedures to include a complete set of provisions to ensure that emission measurements are accurate and repeatable. We request comment on the range of proposed requirements related to these chassis test procedures. Proposed revisions to part 1066, and adjustments from part 86, include the following:

 Clarification of regulatory requirements.

 Correction of t ypographical errors.

 Migration of mass

- based emission calculations from part 86 to part 1066.

 Introduction of a new NMOG calculation.

 Revision of 40 CFR 1066, subpart B, to i ncrease the specificit y with which part 1065 references are made as they pertain to testing equipment, test fluids, test gases, and calibration standards.

346 See 77 FR 62793
- 62794 and 40 CFR 86.1838
- 01(d)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 241 of 888  Addition of coastdown procedures for light

- dut y vehicles.

 Reordering of the test sequence with respe ct to vehicle preparation and running a test.

 Specifying part 1065 procedures for PM measurement, including certain deviations from part 1065 for chassis testing.

 Insertion of detailed test specifications for vehicles certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. We are proposing the use of part 1065 for PM measurement with slight adjustments to the dilution air temperature, minimum dilution ratio, and background measurement requirements. By controlling the parameters that affect PM formation (dilution air te mperature, dilution factor , sample residence time, filter face temperature, and filter face velocity), the proposed procedures include improvements that will reduce lab

- to - lab and test

- to - test variability
. We are proposing to eliminate separate sampling of Bag 2 of the FTP test cycle to allow for an increase in sampled PM mass. The proposed alternative approach is to sample Bags 1 and 2 of the FTP on a single filter, and sample Bags 2 and 3 of the FTP onto a second filter. This will generall y involve simu ltaneous sampling of Phase 2 onto two separate filters. As an additional alternative, manufacturers may

run cold and hot UDDSs without simultaneous sampling of the cold UDDS Phase 2 , or to sample Bag 1, Bag 2, and Bag 3 on a single filter
. Manufacturers choosing any of these option s must still run a separate three

- bag test for evaporative emission testing. We request comment on continuing to allow sampling under the traditional FTP methodology of a bag or filter per test phase (3 phases in total) instead of these proposed new methods. We also request comment on the appropriate transition to using the new sampling and calculation methods. We are proposing to revise the chassis dynamometer specifications in part 1066 by removing the maximum roll diameter and by requiring speed and force measurements at a minimum frequency of 10 hertz (Hz). Some manufacturers may be interested in testing with nonstandard dy namometer configurations, such as new flat

- track dyn amometers or old twin

- roll dy namometers. We may

a pprove the use of these and other nonstandard dynamometer configurations as alternative procedures under 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7). P art 1066 relies extensively on calculations involving phy sical parameters to calculate emission rates and perform various calibr ations and verifications. As reflected in the current version of part 1066, manufacturers have used a variety of units to perform these calculations. We would expect that dynamometers and other laboratory

equipment are all capable of operating in SIunit s even if current practice in some laboratories is to use other units. Moving toward standardized units for calculations would allow us to more carefull y and appropriatel y specify precision values for various measured and calculated parameters. This woul d also simplify***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 242 of 888 calculations, facilitate review of results from different laboratories, and help with communications regarding an y round

- robin testing that might occur. Note that we are not contemplating converting emission standards to SIunits. We requ est comment on completing the migration toward SI units in part 1066. Inparticular, we request comment on adding vehicle speed specifications in meters per second in addition to the current specification in miles per hour (or kilometers per hour for moto rcycles)
. S pecifying vehicle speeds to the nearest 0.01 m/s would allow for equivalent vehicle operation relative to current drive schedules . The cycle validation criteria would be based on a speed tolerance of ±1.0 m/s rather than ±2 mph (or rather than the proposed change to a ± 2.0 mph tolerance) . This is not a direct unit conversion, but is calculated based on the stated precision and rounding allowance to provide a comparable degree of variability in vehicle speeds. We are proposing to phase in the requirements to use part 1066 test procedures for certifying all sizes of chassis

- tested vehicles. For this phase

- in approach, all aspects of part 1066 related to PM testing must be met at the start of MY 2017 for vehicles certifying to the PM standards. All other aspects of part 1066 must be met starting with the certification of all MY 2022 vehicles. As described in Section IV.D , we are proposing new test fuel specifications for E15 gasoline test fuel in 40 CFR p art 1065. The test fuels specified for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, while not used for very man y engine families, are currentl y following different specifications under 40 CFR part 86 and part 1065. We request comment on further revising 40 C FR part 86 to refer to the test fuel specifications in part 1065 for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas. The proposal also includes various technical amendments to 40 CFR part 1065. The proposed technical amendments have no effect on the stringency of the regulations. These revisions include several minor changes to clarify regulatory requirements, align with chassis

- testing procedures where appropriate, and correct ty pographical errors. 2. Reduced Test Burden We are proposing to update the regulatory provisions that allow manufacturers to omit testing for certification, in

- use testing, and selective enforcement audits in certain circumstances. Sections IV.A.3, IV.B.6, and IV.E.3 describe how this applies for demonstrating that vehicles meet the Tier 3 PM standards. We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to omit PM measurements for fuel econom y and GHG emissions testing that goes beyond the testing needed for certifying vehicles to the Tier 3 standards. Requiring such measurement would add a si gnificant burden with very limited additional assurance that vehicles adequatel y control PM. We are also proposing to allow manufacturers to ask us to omit PM and formaldehyde measurement for selective enforcement audits. If there is a concern that an y t ype of vehicle would not meet the Tier 3 PM or formaldeh yde standards, we would not approve a manufacturer’s request to omit measurement of these emissions during a selective enforcement audit.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 243 of 888 The regulations currentl y allow for waived formaldehyde testin g for gasoline

- and diesel

- fueled vehicles. The Tier 3 NMOG+NO X emission standards are stringent enough that it is unlikely that vehicles would comply with the NMOG+NO X standards while exceeding the formaldeh yde standards. We are therefore proposing to c ontinue this waiver practice, such that manufacturers of Tier 3 vehicles do not need to submit formaldehyde data for certification. We are also requesting comment on rearranging the default testing specification for certifying vehicles to evaporative emission standards, as described in Section IV.C. This would involve requiring manufacturers to perform testing with the two

- day

test sequence, while making the three

- day test sequence optional. 3. Miscellaneous Provisions The following additional certificat ion and compliance provisions are included in the proposed rule:

 The certification practice for assigned deterioration factors which are available for both small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups has matured significantly since it was first adopted. We are proposing to revise §86.1826 to more carefull y reflect the current practice. For example, the regulations specify that manufacturers with sales volumes between 300 and 15,000 units per year should propose their own deterioration factors based on engineering anal ys is of emission data from other families. We believe it is best for EPA to develop a set of assigned deterioration factors that can appl y to all small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups.

 The regulations in 40 CFR p art 86 rel y on rounding procedures specified in ASTM E29. This standard is revised periodically . The newer versions are not likel y to change in a way that affects the regulation, but the updates make it difficult to maintain a coordinated reference to th e current protocol. We are proposing to address this by specifying that the rounding protocol described in 40 CFR 1065.20(e) applies, unless specified otherwise. We are not proposing to change all the references in part 86; rather, we are proposing to de fine “round” in subparts A and S to have the meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065 so that all new regulatory

text would rely

on this new description. The rounding specifications in 40 CFR part 1065 are intended to be identical to those in the latest versions of ASTM E29 and NI ST SP811. For example, this now includes procedures for nonstandard rounding, such as rounding to the nearest 25 units, or the nearest 0.05, where that is appropriate.

 Independent Commercial Importers (ICIs) are companies that import spe cialized vehicles into the U.S. and are subject to EPA requirements specified in Part 85, Subpart P. The standards which apply to the vehicles imported depend, in part, on the model year of the vehicle being***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 244 of 888 imported. Therefore, vehicles imported by I CI s in the future could be subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards and the proposed regulations reflect the application of the Tier 3 standards to I CI s. Because all existing I CI s are small

- volume manufacturers, the Tier 3 standards would not apply

until 202 2 at the earliest. In addition, the certification practices for ICIs have matured significantl y since they were first adopted. EPA is proposing two changes to update the regulations affecting IC Is. First, the proposed provisions would require ICIs to us e electric dyn amometers when running exhaust emission tests. Electric dy namometers have been required for man y ye ars for vehicle manufacturers and EPA believes it is time to require such test equipment for ICIs in the future. In cases where an ICI can de monstrate that they will incur a substantial increase in compliance costs, the proposed regulations include a provision that allows EPA to approve requests, on a case - by

- case basis, to allow testing on other t ypes of dynamometers until the I CIis able to c omply with the proposed electric dy namometer requirements. Second, we are proposing to incorporate into regulation that I CI s be allowed to use a specific set of reduced testing requirements for up to 300 units each year that have been modified to a U.S.

- c ertified configuration. This has been allowed for ICIs since 1999 and was approved under EPA’s authority to establish equivalent alternate test procedures. 347 In stead of running a full set of emission tests, the reduced testing requirements would allow I C Is to run an FTP for exhaust emissions, a highway

fuel economy

test, and a shortened one

- hour evaporative emission tests for hot

- soak and diurnal emissions that applied prior to the current enhanced evaporative emission test procedures. We do not believe the proposed changes should have an y significant cost impacts on I CI s. Most of the I CI s have electric dy namometers or can upgrade them for a relatively small cost. The reduced testing burden provisions keep the cost of testing low, compared to the cost o f running a full set of emission tests that otherwise could be required.

 We are proposing to adopt CARB’s onboard diagnostic requirements for all light

- duty

vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and heavy

- dut y vehicles, as described in Section IV.C.5.d. We currently allow for this as an option, but almost all manufacturers do this already to avoid certifying multiple sy stems. Now that we are adopting evaporative provisions that depend on California’s regulatory specifications and we are making efforts to adopt a single, national regulatory program, we believe this is an appropriate step. This proposal includes heav y - duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, though these vehicles would not need to meet the new requirements related to leak testing. These changes would appl y

347 See 40 CFR 86.106
- 96(a) and Enclosure 2 to EPA Guidance letter CCD

- 02
- 04, February 6, 2002.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 245 of 888 starting in model ye ar 2017 for vehicles subject to Tier 3 standards. The changes appl y directl y for heav y - dut y vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR, since all those vehicles are already certified based on CARB’s regulations. In the case of alternative f uel conversions, we are proposing to continue to apply

the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1806
- 05. 4. Manufacturer In

- Use Verification Testing (IUVP) Requirements The fuel on which a vehicle will be operated in

- use and tested is considered an integral part of the vehicle emission control system design. The Tier 2 program recognized that to achieve the desired emission reductions, vehicles must operate on the same fuel that the emission control sy stem was originall y designed to encounter in

- use and during testing. Inthe Tier 2 program, we acknowledged that during the transition of the in

- use fuel from sulfur levels of 300 ppm to the required 30 ppm average level, vehicles designed for 30 ppm could encounter in

- use sulfur levels well above the level for which their emission control sy stems were designed. To address this issue, we allowed manufacturers , with agency approval, to perform specific preconditioning test procedures during the IUVP testing to ensure that potential exposure to high sulfur fuel in

- use would not impact the emission test results. These procedures included specific drive cycles or maneuvers not regularl y encountered during normal in

- use operation that would result in removal of sulfur contamination from the emission control sy stem. Consistent with the Tier 2 program, EPA continues to recognize the importance of the fuel to the emission control sy stem design, particularl y on Tier 3 vehicles designed to meet the most stringent emission levels of the program (i.e., Bin 70 and cleaner). Under EPA’ s proposal, in

- use fuel would transition from an average sulfur level of 30 ppm required b y Tier 2 to a new average level of 10 ppm under Tier 3. The proposed sulfur requirements would be average standards. Thus, even after the transition to the 10 pm av erage sulfur level, vehicles might still encounter sulfur levels during in

- use operation above 10 ppm and as high as the 95 ppm cap, which could adversel y impact the emission control system. Tier 3 vehicles tested b y manufacturers in IUVP that have been e xposed to such sulfur levels could experience sulfur

- related impacts , which in turn could cause the vehicle to temporarily

exceed emission standards. To address the potential emission impact on Tier 3 vehicles from exposure to higher sulfur levels, we are proposing some modifications to the IUVP testing process based in part on what was allowed under the Tier 2 program. Tier 3 vehicles tested in the IUVP would be tested initially without allowing any

sulfur cleanout procedure, such as a US06 test run pri or to the FTP or Highway Fuel Economy (HFET) tests. If a vehicle failed the NMOG+NO X standard for the FTP or HFET cycle during the initial round of testing, manufacturers would be allowed to perform a sulfur cleanout procedure before repeating the FTP or HFET. For the sulfur cleanout, manufacture r s would be allowed to perform up to two US06 cycles. The measured US06 cycle and a preconditioning US06 cycle, if performed as part of the initial measured tests would serve as the cleanout procedure and therefo re no***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 246 of 888 additional US06 cycles would be allowed. Alternative sulfur cleanout procedures would require approval by EPA. Following the sulfur cleanout procedure, the manufacturer would prep and soak the vehicles and then repeat the FTP and HFET tests. I f a m anufacturer chose to perform the sulfur cleanout procedure, it would be required to submit evidence that the vehicle encountered high sulfur levels in the fuel just prior to emission testing. This would include an anal ys is of a fuel sample from the vehicl e fuel s ys tem as received from in

- use operation just prior to testing. If the fuel sample indicated that the vehicle was operating on fuel containing 15 ppm or higher sulfur levels in the recent past, onl y the emission results of the tests following the c leanout procedure would be used for purposes of determining emission compliance and whether to enter the in

- use compliance program (IUCP). The proposed rule includes the changes to the IUVP testing described above for light

- dut y vehicles and MDPVs. The changes to IUVP testing are not applicable to heav y - dut y vehicles tested in the IUVP program. Also, as described in Section IV.D, we are proposing to incorporate leak testing into the IUVP test protocol. We are not proposing additional changes to the ove rall IUVP test program. 

## V. **Proposed Fuel Program** Under today ’s Tier 3 program, we are proposing reductions in gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. These standards would help prevent the significant impairment of the emission control sy stems expected to be us ed in Tier 3 technology , significantly

improve the efficiency

of emissions control sy stems currentl y in use, and continue prevention of the substantial adverse effects of sulfur levels on the performance of vehicle emissions control sy stems. Section V.A provides an overview of the fuel program and how we arrived at the proposed gasoline sulfur standards. Section V. B presents our assessment of the impacts the proposed fuel pr ogram would have on stationary source permitting and our conclusion that the proposed refinery lead time is adequate. Section V.C contains our proposed standards for denatured fuel ethanol. In Section V.D , we introduce and seek comment on possible options for regulating gasoline

- ethanol blends intended for flexible fuel vehicles. Section V.E presents the proposed program flexibilities including the averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program as well as small refiner and small volume refinery provisions. Section V.F lay s out the compliance provisions for the proposed Tier 3 gasoline program. Finally , Section V.G presents our statutory authorities for lowering gasoline sul fur. As a result of these proposals, we have to amend certain existing provisions in the current Tier 2 requirements at 40 CFR part 80. We are not reopening Tier 2 and our proposed amendments should not be construed as a reopener.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 247 of 888 **A. Proposed Tier 3 Gasolin**  **e Sulfur Standards** 1. Overview
a. History

of Sulfur Control Sulfur is naturally

occurring in crude oil. Crude oil containing higher concentrations of sulfur (i.e., greater than 0.5 percent) is called “sour” and crude containing lower sulfur concentrations (e.g., West Texas Intermediate) is referred to as “sweet.” Regardless of the concentration, because sulfur is naturall y occurring in crude oil, it is also naturally occurring in gasoline. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, sulfur impairs the performance of today ’ s vehicle emission control technologies (i.e., precious metal catalytic converters), reducing the emission benefits of current and advanced vehicles. As explained below, in 2000 EPA took action to reduce gasoline sulfur levels under what is known as the T ier 2 Program 348 and is proposing to take further action under the proposed Tier 3 Program. Tier 2 was a major, comprehensive program designed to reduce emissions from passenger cars, light trucks, and large passenger vehicles (including sport utility vehicl es, minivans, vans, and pick

- up trucks) and the sulfur content of gasoline. Under this program, automakers were required to manufacture low

emission vehicles when operated on low

- sulfur gasoline, and refiners were required to produce low

- sulfur gasoline n ationwide. Required reductions in gasoline sulfur began in 2004 with refinery and importer caps of 300 ppm and a corporate average cap of 120 ppm. For most refiners and importers, compliance with the final sulfur standards (30

- ppm annual average and 80

- ppm per gallon cap) was required beginning in 2006. Due to extensions provided for some refineries under the ultra

- low sulfur diesel program, final compliance for all U.S. refineries was January 1, 2011. The Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program also had an A BT program that allowed companies to generate credits for implementing the required changes earlier than required and allowed ongoing flexibility

to meet the 30

- ppm average sulfur standard. At full implementation, the Tier 2 program (treating vehicles and fuels as a sy stem) required passenger vehicles to be over 77 percent cleaner and gasoline sulfur to be reduced b y up to 90 percent from pre

- program levels. b. Need for Additional Gasoline Sulfur Control We are proposing to lower today ’s gasoline sulfur standards under Clean Air Act section 211(c)(1). This is because emission products of gasoline with current levels of sulfur cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare and impair to a significant degree

348 67 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 248 of 888 the emissions control device or s ys tems on the vehicles subject to the proposed Tier 3 standards. For more on our legal authority to set gasoline sulfur standards, refer to Section V.G. As explained in Section IV.A.6, robust data from many source s shows that gasoline sulfur at current levels (i.e., around 30 ppm on average) continues to degrade vehicle catal yt ic converter performance during normal operation. The most significant problem is for NO X . Today ’s proposed NMOG+NO X vehicle emission stan dards, an 80 percent reduction from current Tier 2 standards, would not be possible without the gasoline sulfur controls we are proposing today . Tier 3 vehicles must achieve essentially zero warmed

- up NO X emissions to comply and maintain this performance for up to 150,000 miles. An increase in emissions of only a few milligrams per mile due to sulfur could make compliance impossible for some vehicles. The standards are projected to be especiall y challenging for larger SUVs and pick

- up trucks. Reducing gasoline sulfur would also help reduce emissions of pollutants that endanger public health and welfare from vehicles already on the road today. For the Tier 2 rule, we had data that showed benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur, but little to no data existe d for sulfur levels below 30 ppm that we could use to project continued emission reductions. Since then, we have tested a wide range of Tier 2 vehicles to better understand the impact that even lower gasoline sulfur could have on emissions. Our test data showed significant NO X and VOC reductions when vehicles were tested on ultra

- low sulfur gasoline. As explained in more detail in Section III.B, lowering average gasoline sulfur from 30 to 10 ppm would result in approximately

280,000 less tons of NO X and 40,000 less tons of VOC. The projected in

- use emission benefits would occur almost immediately in 2017 when the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards take effect.
c. Summary

of Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Program Under today ’s Tier 3 fuel program, we are proposing that gasoline and any ethanol

- gasoline blend contain no more than 10 ppm sulfur on an annual average basis beginning January

1, 2017. Similar to the Tier 2 gasoline program, the proposed Tier 3 program would apply to gasoline in the United States and the U.S
. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, excluding California. The program, when finalized, would result in gasoline that contains an average of two

thirds less sulfur than it does today . We are proposing a three

- ye ar delay for small refiners and small volume refineries. Eligible small refining entities, described in more detail in Section V.E.2, would have until January 1, 2020 to comply

with the new sulfur standards. We are proposing an ABT program that would allow refiners to optimize their investment strategies to enable reduction in capital and compliance costs. Refiners and importers overcompl yi ng with the 10

- ppm standard beginning January 1, 2017 could generate standard credits that could be used internall y, banked, or traded to oth er companies. We are also proposing an earl y credit program that***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 249 of 888 would allow refiners and importers to spread out their investments over time to allow for an orderl y transition. Starting January 1, 2014, refiners and importers taking steps to reduce gaso line sulfur below the current 30

- ppm standard could generate earl y credits that could be used to postpone final investments for up to three ye ars. For a more detailed discussion of the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. As a result of the earl y credit program and notwithstanding the proposed delay

offered to small refiners and small volume refineries, we anticipate considerable reductions in gasoline sulfur levels prior to 2017, with final refinery steps to get to 10 ppm occurring on or before January 1, 2020. We are proposing to either maintain the current 80

- ppm refinery gate per gallon cap and 95

- ppm downstream per

- gallon cap or lower them to 50 and 65 ppm, respectivel y. We also evaluated and are seeking comment on the potential of lowering these caps to 20 ppm and 25 ppm, respectively . There are advantages and disadvantages associated with the various sulfur cap options (explained in more detail in Section V.A.3 ), but under all the proposed options, we believe that the stringency

of the 10

- ppm annual average standard would result in reduced gasoline sulfur levels nationwide. A summary

of the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards is presented below in Table V
- 1 . Domestic refiners and gasoline importers would be subject to both the 10

- ppm annual average sulfur standard and the refinery gate per - gallon cap, when finalized. Gasoline in the distribution sy stem (i.e., at terminals, retail stations, etc.) would be s ubject to the downstream per

- gallon cap. For more information on how we arrived at the proposed sulfur standards, refer to Sections V.A.2 and V.A.3
.

**Table V**  **- 1**  **Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Standards**

Cap Option 1 Cap Option 2 Limit Effective Limit Effective Refinery annual average standard 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a 10 ppm January 1, 2017 a Refinery gate per - gallon cap 80 ppm Already 50 ppm January 1, 2020 Downstream per
- gallon cap 95 ppm Already 65 ppm March 1, 2020

a Effective January 1, 2020 for eligible small refiners and small volume refineries. d. Refinery

Feasibility While evaluating the merits of a national gasoline sulfur program to reduce emissions and enable future vehicle technologies, we also considered the refining industry ’s abilit y to reduce sulfur to 10 ppm on average b y J anuary 1, 2017 and the associated cos ts (for more on fuel costs, refer to Section VII.A). Based on information gathered from numerous stakeholder meetings, discussions with vendor companies that provide the gasoline desulfurization technologies, as well as the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 250 of 888 results from our refinery

- by

- re finery modeling, we believe it is technologically feasible at a reasonable cost for refiners to meet the proposed sulfur standards in the lead time provided. A summary of our feasibility

anal ys is is presented below. For more on our fuels feasibility asse ssment and refinery

modeling, refer to Chapters 4 and 5 of the draft RIA. Gasoline desulfurization technologies are well known and readily available. Many technologies were demonstrated under Tier 2 and have been further demonstrated b y current fuel pro grams in California, Japan, and Europe. Under California’s Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline program (CaRFG3), gasoline sulfur is limited to 15 ppm on average with a 20

- ppm per - gallon cap. 349 California reduced their per

- gallon cap in phases from 60 ppm effect ive December 31, 2003, to 30 ppm effective December 31, 2005, to 20 ppm effective December 31, 2011. Actual in

use gasoline sulfur levels, however, have been largel y constrained b y the Predictive Model that California refiners are using to demonstrate compliance. As a result, gasoline sulfur levels are lower than the CaRFG3 limits. Based on the Predictive Model, California gasoline contained approximately 10 ppm sulfur on average in 2010 (9 ppm in the summer and 11 ppm in the winter). Japan currentl y has a 10
- ppm gasoline sulfur cap that took effect in January 2008. Europe also has a 10

- ppm sulfur cap that has been adopted b y the 30 Member States that comprise the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as well as Albania and B osnia

- Herzegovina. 350 Beijing, China also recentl y introduce d a 10
- ppm sulfur limit for gasoline. 351 We note, however, that man y oil refineries outside of the United States operate differently from their U.S. counterparts. U.S. refiners have invested more h eavily in fluidized catal yt ic cracker (FCC) units than the rest of the world in order to maximize gasoline production. Because the FCC unit is responsible for nearly all the sulfur that ends up in gasoline, many U.S. refineries face a bigger challenge in achieving 10
- ppm gasoline sulfur levels. Nevertheless, these international fuel programs (along with California) provide evidence that advanced gasoline desulfurization technologies have been deployed and are readil y available to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. When considering the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refineries can be grouped into three general categories based on their current post

- Tier 2 refinery configurations: those without an FCC unit, those hydrotreating the gasoline stre am

349 California Air Resources Board. (2008, August 29). The California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations , Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250

- 2273.5. Retrieved from http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/082908CaRFG_regs.pdf. 350 Hart Energy Consulting. (2011). International Fuel Quality Center: 2011 Worldwide Fuel Specifications 351 Article from Chi na.org.cn entitled “ Beijing to implement stricter fuel standards ”, May 19, 2012, retrieved from http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2012

- 05/19/content_25422404.htm***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 251 of 888 coming from their FCC unit (i.e., postreating) 352 , and those hydrotreating their FCC feed (i.e., pretreating). Most refineries without FCC units would not need to do any thing to meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. Refineries equipped with FCC uni ts that invested in an FCC postreater under Tier 2 would likel y just need to revamp (i.e., renovate) their existing unit for a modest cost. Refineries that only have an FCC pretreater would meet the Tier 3 sulfur standards b y either revamping their existi ng pretreaters (perhaps also cutting the heav y portion of FCC naphtha into the diesel pool) or invest in a grassroots FCC postreater. Our refinery

- by

refinery modeling suggests that 29 refineries would not need to make an y capital changes , 66 would need t o revamp their existing FCC postreaters, and 16 would need to add grassroots postreaters (we did not model any undercutting of heavy FCC naphtha into the distillate pool)
. 353 Refiners that need to install a new postreater would have to make the largest desu lfurization investments under Tier 3, ty pical of many

of the refinery

investments made under Tier 2. For more on our estimated sulfur control costs, refer to Section VII.B. We believe that the choice of technology for each refinery

is fairl y insensitive to capital cost assumptions. Revamping an existing FCC postreater will almost alway s be the preferred compliance path if it is available. The majority of refineries only

have an existing FCC postreater, so revamping it will be the preferred choice, give n the much higher capital costs associated with adding grassroots FCC pre or postreaters. The 16 refineries we project would add grassroots postreaters do not have existing postreaters that could be revamped. As a result, their choices are limited t o revamping their existing pretreater or installing a grassroots postreater. We believe based on conversations with industry technology vendors and engineering firms that installing a grassroots postreater would be more likely for these refineries, becaus e revamping their pretreater would still incur a significant capital cost and would reduce compliance flexibility . Thus, in the refinery

- by

- refinery

analy sis performed by

EPA for this proposal, higher capital costs (either directly

or thru a higher ROI) w ould be unlikely to alter the selection of pretreater v ersu s postreater control technology . Higher capital costs would likely impact both technology

options proportionally

with no overall effect. We have built in a number of flexibilities that will reduce the compliance burden for refiners. In particular, coupling the proposed 10

- ppm annual average sulfur standard with refinery gate and downstream per

- gallon caps should continue to allow for batch

- to - batch variability , refinery upsets, and turnarounds whil e still maintaining the overall air quality benefits of the program. For more information on the applicable per

- gallon sulfur caps, refer to Section V.A.3
.

352 Some of them may also have an FCC pretreater. 353 Our in

- house refinery modeling considers 1 11 operational refineries producing non

- California gasoline.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 252 of 888 We are also proposing an ABT program that would allow re finers to spread out their investments over time and achieve compliance in the most cost

- effective manner. If some refineries either compl y with the 10

- ppm standard earlier than required, or reduce sulfur partway toward 10 ppm earl y, this would allow othe r refineries to delay

compliance for a finite period through the use of earl y credits. The ABT program would also allow for ongoing company averaging. This would allow some refineries to stay slightly above the standard at the expense of other refineries over complying, resulting in the most cost

- effective mechanism for meeting the 10

- ppm annual average standard. For more information on the proposed ABT program, refer to Section V.E.1. Finally , our Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, when final, would allow three ye ars of additional lead time for small refiners and small volume refineries (i.e., refineries processing less than or equal to 75,000 net barrels per day of crude oil). As a group, we believe that these refineries are disproportionall y impacted wh en it comes to their cost of compliance and ability to rationalize investment costs in today ’s gasoline market. Giving these refineries additional lead time would allow them more time to invest in desulfurization technology , take advantage of advancements in technology , develop confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as a means of compliance, and avoid competition for capital, engineering, and construction resources with the larger refineries. For more on the proposed provisions for small refiners and small volume refineries, refer to Section V.E.2. The proposed Tier 3 rulemaking should not adversely affect the suppl y of gasoline in the U.S. This judgment is based on a review of both gasoline and diesel fuel supply

when the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur and ultr a - low sulfur highway and nonroad diesel rules were phasing in between 2003 and 2011. At the end of this time period, the U.S. gasoline and diesel fuel markets were increasingl y being supplied by

U.S. refiners, instead of by imports, compared to the beginn ing of this time period. Most striking is that the more stringent ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel standards showed the largest shift as U.S. refiners not only began to suppl y more of the U.S. diesel fuel market, but became net exporters of diesel fuel. For more on our fuel suppl y assessment, refer to Section 5.3 of the draft RIA. 2. Proposed Annual Average Sulfur Standard In the subsections that follow, we lay out our rationale for proposing a 10

- ppm average standard, our assessment of how the proposed ABT program would help with compliance, and our conclusion that the proposed lead time is adequate. In the following section, we explain our rationale behind the proposed sulfur caps and seek comment on potential alternatives.
a. Appropriateness of Proposed 10

- p pm Sulfur Standard As explained in Section IV.A.6, sulfur in fuel oxidizes in the exhaust and coats the sites where chemical reactions can take place on the precious metal catal ys ts used in vehicles to reduce emissions of VOC, NO X , PM, CO, and toxics. Accordingl y, an y sulfur in gasoline causes vehicle emissions to increase. Sulfur***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 2 53 of 888 can be burned off the cataly st during high

- temperature, rich operation of the vehicle (i.e., aggressive driving conditions), but as long as there is any sulfur in the fuel, exhaust emissions will increase. Because an y amount of sulfur in the fuel can have this effect, the lower the sulfur the better. Refiners experience the same phenomenon with precious metal cataly sts used in the reformer and isomerization units at their refineries. 354 To protect the precious metal catal ys ts in these units, refiners reduce the sulfur in the feed to these units to 1 ppm or below. Thus, it is technically possible for refiners to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels to virtually zero. While refiners did not have reason to reduce the sulfur in FCC gasoline until Tier 2 required such reductions, some refiners have achieved reductions in this stream at some of their refineries for other reasons such as (1) protecting the FCC c atal ys t from the contaminants in the gas oil feed, (2) reducing stack emissions from the regenerator of the FCC unit, and most importantly

(3) increasing gasoline yi elds from the FCC unit. For most refineries, FCC gasoline accounts for about one

- third of gasoline and before Tier 2 was the source of over 95 percent of the sulfur in gasoline. Under Tier 2, most refiners significantl y desulfurized FCC gasoline to around 70 to 80 ppm, y et FCC gasoline continues to contribute the majority of sulfur in gasoline today
. While further reducing sulfur in gasoline will continue to reduce vehicle emissions, our emissions anal ys is shows that a 10

- ppm annual average is sufficient to enable vehicles to reach the proposed Tier 3 standards. Moreover, for the following r easons, reducing sulfur further below 10 ppm becomes increasingl y difficult and costly . First, FCC naphtha is very rich in high

- octane olefins. As the severit y of desulfurization increases, more olefins are saturated, further sacrificing the octane value of this stream and further increasing h ydrogen consumption. Making up for this lost octane represents a significant portion of the sulfur control costs. Second, as desulfurization severity increases, there is an increase in the amount of sulfur removed (in the form of h ydrogen sulfide) which recombines with the olefins in the FCC naphtha, thus offsetting the principal desulfurization reactions. There are means to deal with the recombination reactions, but they result in even greater capital investments. Third, while FCC gasoline contributes the majority of sulfur to the finished gasoline, as the sulfur level drops below 10 ppm, the sulfur level of the various other gasoline streams within the refinery also become important. An y necessary treatment of these additional streams increases both capital and operating costs. U.S. refineries are currently in different positions, both technicall y and financiall y. In general, they are configured to handle the different crude oils they process and turn it into a widely varying product slate to match available markets. Those processing heavier, sour crudes would have a more challenging time

354 Together, the streams from the reformer and isomerization units account for approximately one

third of gasoline.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 254 of 888 reducing gasoline sulfur under the proposed Tier 3 program. As explained earlier, refineries have different sulfur levels in their non

- FCC streams based on their feedstocks and configurations. Those with higher sulfur levels in other refinery streams would have a more difficult time desulfurizing gasoline. Perhaps most important, U.S. refineries vary greatly in size (atmosp heric crude capacities range from less than 5,000 to more than 500,000 barrels per day) and thus have different economies of scale for adding capital to their refineries. As such, it can be less costly per gallon for some larger refineries to get down to 1 0 ppm than for smaller refineries, as discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. As a result, under a 10

- ppm average standard, the flexibility afforded by

the ABT program helps those refineries with very high costs. They

have the option of stayingabove 10 ppm if they can acquire credits from other refineries that were able to lower their sulfur level below 10 ppm. However, if the gasoline sulfur standard were to be 5 ppm, this would essentially

end the ability of refiners to average sulfur reductions acro ss their refineries. There simply

would not be enough opportunity to generate credits below 5 ppm. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA, to estimate the costs for a 10

- ppm annual average standard where some refineries stay above 10 ppm, we also est imated the costs for refineries to get down to 5 ppm. To do so, we estimated that sulfur control costs would increase by at least 50 percent compared to the proposed 10
- ppm standard, which is over two times more costly per ppm - gallon of gasoline sulfur re duced. This 5

- ppm cost assessment is reasonable for those refineries that would likely

generate credits under a 10

- ppm average standard as these refineries are most likely

in the best position for achieving such low sulfur levels. However, were we to actually

assess the costs of a 5

- ppm standard, at least some of these refineries would likely

have additional costs for controlling the sulfur in other gasoline blendstocks, and we would likely appl y a higher overdesign factor to account for industry

- wide compliance at 5 ppm. More detailed refinery information may be needed for such an anal ys is but, for the more challenged refineries, a 5

- ppm standard could potentially be cost prohibitive. A 5

- ppm standard would also introduce further costs to address the co ntribution to gasoline sulfur from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and contamination in the distribution sy stem. Therefore, a 10

- ppm annual average standard appears to be the point which properl y balances feasibility with costs. Also, for these reasons, EPA believes that a viable ABT program is important to the success of the proposed Tier 3 fuels program (explained in more detail in Section V.A.2.b ). Finally , as discussed in Section IV.A.6, redu cing sulfur below 10 ppm would further reduce vehicle emissions and allow the proposed Tier 3 vehicle standards to be achieved more easil y. However, we believe that a 10

- ppm average standard will be sufficient to allow vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards. The level of the Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10

- ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. If we were to consider lowering sulfur further, we would then also have to consider reducing the vehicle standards further. Given the ch allenges associated with sulfur reductions below 10 ppm as discussed above, we do not believe this would be appropriate.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 255 of 888 b. How Would the Proposed ABT Program Assist with Compliance? As described more full y in Section V.E.1, we are proposing an ABT program that would reduce the average compliance burden for gasoline producers and importers. This program would permit the generation of credits b y refineries that reduce their annual average sulfur level below 10 ppm, and transfer of these credits to other refi neries to reduce or eliminate their need to make capital investments to meet the 10

- ppm standard. The ABT program would thus provide refiners with multiple approaches to compliance, and each could choose the approach that minimizes their costs. We modeled an ABT program to estimate how it would affect compliance. As described in more detail in Section VII.B.4, our modeling determined the lowest cost approach on a refinery

- by

- refinery basis under two scenarios: an idealized scenario in which every

refinery has the opportunity to make credit transfers with every other refinery

in the nation, and a more limited scenario in which credit transfers would only

occur within companies that own more than one refinery
. Today a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur c redits are transferred within companies, but there is still a considerable amount of inter

- compan y trading occurring. 355 Thus, assuming no trading between companies is a conservative assumption and the real impact is likely to be somewhere in between the tw o scenarios. Table V
- 2 describes how compliance would be affected under these two scenarios. **Table V**  **- 2**  **Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program on Compliance** ABT with nationwide credit transfers ABT with intra

compan y credit transfers Number of refineries that generate credits 46 18 Number of refineries that consume credits 25 8 Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits 40 85 Total modeled refin eries 111 111 Based on our ABT modeling, we believe that a significant number of refineries would take advantage of the opportunity to generate or use credits, thus lowering their compliance burden under the proposed 10

- ppm annual average

355 Based on Tier 2 sulfur compliance data, of the 26 companies that obtained s ulfur credits in 2010, eight obtained credits only from their own company, and another five obtained credits both from their own company and from other companies. The remainder obtained credits only from other companies.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 256 of 888 standard. For a more complete discussion of our anal ys is of the proposed ABT program, refer to Chapter 5 of the draft RIA.
c. Adequacy

of Proposed Refinery

L ead Time Given the complexity

of gasoline refining, numerous planning and action steps would be required for refiners to complete the refinery changes needed to comply with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards. The steps required to implement these changes include: the completion of scoping studies, financing, process design for new or revamped refinery units or subunit s, permitting, detailed engineering based upon the process design, field construction of the gasoline sulfur reduction facilities, and start

- up and shakedown of the newly installed desulfurization equipment. We conducted a thorough lead time anal ys is in wh ich we sequenced the estimated time to complete scoping studies, process design, permitting, detailed engineering, field construction, and start

- up and shakedown in advance of production based upon the methodology used in our recent gasoline and diesel rul es. For the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we estimated refinery lead times step - by

- step for the construction of new grassroots FCC postreaters and the revamp of existing pre and postreaters. For each refinery project t ype, we estimated lead ti mes for scoping studies, process design, permitting, detailed engineering, field construction, and start

- up and shakedown. Estimated required lead times for scoping studies are six months. Process design ranged from six months for desulfurization equipme nt revamping to nine months for a grassroots postreater. It is during the process of performing their scoping studies and process design anal ys is that refiners would complete their permit applications. Based on discussions with refiners, a review of the permitting experience for Tier 2 and our current analy sis, we estimated that permitting for desulfurization equipment revamping and the construction of a grassroots postreater would take 9 months. However, we estimated the overall lead

- times for Tier

- 3
- related revamps to be considerabl y shorter, as described below. The estimates for permitting time are consistent with those of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and our regional offices, both of which have engaged in extensive dia log with potentially

affected parties. A discussion of the permitting implications of Tier 3 is contained in Section V.B of the preamble. Detailed engineering efforts were estimated to require six months for desulfurization equipment revamping and nine months for grassroots postreaters. Field construction was estimated to require six months for revamped pre

- and postreaters and 12 months for grassroots postreaters. Start
- up and shakedown processe s were estimated to require six months for revamped FCC treaters and 9 months for grassroots postreaters. There is some degree of overlap among each of these steps as shown in Table V

- 3.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 257 of 888 To allow refiners to complete all these different steps and compl y w ith the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, assuming the Tier 3 proposal were to be finalized by

the end of 2013, we would be providing three years of lead time. In addition to the three years of lead time, the proposed rulemaking also provides addit ional flexibility

provided by

the ABT program, small refinery delay s, and hardship provisions. To support this timeline, we conducted several anal ys es of the expected refinery

lead time requirements associated with the proposed Tier 3 standards and found that refinery operators would have more than adequate time to implement the required refinery charges. A justification for proposed timeline appears below. Complying with Tier 3 is expected to involve some grassroots FCC postreaters, but mostly

we believe that refiners will revamp existing FCC postreaters. Revamping of existing FCC postreaters can be accomplished in approximately

2 years, or less (See Table V

- 3). Grassroots FCC postreaters are expected to require on average about three

- ye ars to install and start

- up (See Table V
- 3). In comparision to FCC pretreaters, h ydrocrackers and distillate hydrotreaters, FCC postreaters are much less costly , low pressure units that take less time to scope out, require shorter lead times for ordering the equipment, and less time to install. Furthermore, the grassroots FCC postreaters to be installed for Tier 3 are expected to be in a moderate to light desulfurization service because the refineries they will be installed in will already be complying with Tier 2 using an FCC pretreater. FCC naphtha from a refinery

with an FCC pretreater is expected to only contain about 100 ppm sulfur. To comply with Tier 3, refiners installing these grassroots FCC postreaters would onl y need to desulfurize the FCC naphtha down to 25 ppm (about a 75% reduction). In comparison, a single

- stage FCC postreaters would have to desulfurze FCC naphtha from as high as 2400 ppm sulfur down to 25 ppm, a 99% sulfur reduction. The more moderate desulfurization service of the grassroots FCC postre aters needed to comply with Tier 3 would be expected to streamline the scoping and design work.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 258 of 888 **Table V**  **- 3**  **Anticipated Compliance Timelines** Months 0
- 3 3
- 6 6
- 9 9
- 12 12
- 15 15
- 18 18
- 21 21
- 24 24
- 27 27
- 30 30
- 33 33
- 36 36
- 39 39
- 42 42
- 45RevampPre-&Postreaters Scoping Studies Process Design Permitting Detailed Engineering Field Construction Start
- up / ShakedownGrassrootsPostreater Scoping Studies Process Design Permitting Detailed Engineering Field Construction Start
- up / Shakedown It is useful to compare the proposed lead time for Tier 3 to what was provided for Tier 2. In the case of the Tier 2 standard, we provided a three

- ye ar lead time along with an ABT program and other flexibilities to ease compliance. Refiners, though, comm ented that the three ye ar timeline that we provided was not enough time. For the Tier 2 anal ys is, we assumed that refiners would solely install low

- pressure FCC postreaters, which we believe could be scoped out, designed, installed and started up within a 3 year time period. However, many refiners complied with Tier 2 b y installing high

- pressure FCC pretreaters which require long lead times for the procurement of the required equipment. Furthermore, those refiners that did not install high

- pressure FCC p retreaters instead installed grassroots FCC postreaters, many of which were designed for severe desulfurization service. An additional difference between Tier 3 and Tier 2 is that for Tier 3 we expect the installation of only 16 grassroots units, along wi th many revamps, but for Tier 2 virtually

all refiners installed both grassroots FCC pretreaters and postreaters. The demands on the desulfurization vendors for scoping studies, and on the E & C industry for design and construction, and on the refiners to train their operations staff and start up the new units, was a lot greater for Tier 2 than what we would expect for Tier 3. The total estimated investment cost for Tier 2 versus Tier 3 also highlights the difference in investment demands***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 259 of 888 The total inves tment for Tier

- 2 desulfurization processing units was estimated to be about $6.1 billion, while the total investment for Tier

- 3 desulfurization processing units is estimated to be about $2.1 billion. This simple comparison helps to illustrate that the pro posed Tier 3 would be easier for refineries to obtain necessary

permits, secure engineering and construction (E&C) resources, install new desulfurization equipment and make all necessary retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur standards. We assessed the pe rmitting situation in more detail working in conjunction with the Office of Air Quality , Planning and Standards (OAQPS). Since the permitting process has little impact on the overall cost of compliance with Tier 3, it is an issue primarily

in terms of its potential impact on the time needed to complete the necessary

refinery modifications. On a refinery

- by

- refinery basis, we provided OAQPS estimates of the additional heating demands for the new and revamped units per the desulfurization vendor submissions . OAQPS was able to project which refineries would likely trigger NOx, particulate matter and greenhouse gas emission permitting limits, which would likely lengthen the permitting process as refiners would need to offset the projected emission increases. As it turns out, only 2 of the 16 refineries which are projected to install grassroots units were projected to exceed particular permitting limits, and these solely did so based on the most conservative assumption that each would produce all the additional hydrogen on site using hydrogen plants (as opposed to using existing reforming capacity) and produce the electricit y on site, to satisfy the needs of the new desulfurization equipment. When we provided a second heat demand estimate to OAQPS which assumes that refiners purchase their h ydrogen and electricit y from third parties, none of the refineries which we projected would install grassroots units was projected to have emission increases which would require offsets. Thus, many of the grassroots units that we project would be installed may end up with a streamlined permitting process. We seek comment on our estimates of the number of refineries that may

trigger the need for new permits and the length of time necessary to obtain the various ty

pes of permits that may

be required once the refiner applies for them
. The various flexibilities that the proposed Tier 3 rule provides to refiners provide refiners additional time for compl yi ng. These flexibilities include the ABT program, the small refiner delay provisions and the hardsh ip provisions. The ABT program allows a refiner, either within its own company or by purchasing credits on the open market, to delay higher investment cost investments, such as the investments in grassroots FCC postreaters, which would provide additional lead time for installing these units. This would occur if refiners would reduce the sulfur levels of their gasoline through operational changes or revamps of their existing FCC pretreaters and postreaters when the ABT Program begins in 2014. Potentially every refinery with either an FCC pretreater or an FCC postreater may be capable of generating earl y credits. Furthermore, we project that 66 refineries would revamp their existing FCC postreaters to compl y with Tier 3. Since revamps can be completed within two years or less, these refiners could potentially begin generating earl y credits during 2016, or before if refiners begin each of these revamps in earl y***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 260 of 888 2014. During the period between 2014 and 2017, these refineries which reduce their gasoline sulf

ur levels below that required b y Tier 2 would generate credits. R efinerie s with higher cost capital investments, such as the grassroots FCC postreaters, could then delay making those investments through the purchase of credits. We estimate that sufficient credits could be genereated early to allow many of these refinerie s to delay compliance until as late as 2020. The quantitative earl y credit anal ys is that we conducted showed that if refiners with an existing pretreater or postreater would generate earl y credits by lowering their gasoline sulfur down to 20 ppm starting in 2014 and if revamps were started up in 2016, one y ear before the program start date, that almost 6 times more credits would be available to offset the earl y credit demand b y the refiner s installing grassroots postreater units, assuming that they start up those units in 2018. Even if all grassroots postreaters were assumed to not start up until 2020, there would be almost 4 times more early credits available to those refiners installing grassroots postreaters assuming that the same earl y credit generation scenario would occur. Additional flexibility

is also provided by

the small refineries provisions which delay s compliance by the refineries that refiner less than a net of 75,000 barrels of crude oil per day until 2020. Three of the 16 FCC postreater grassroots units that we project will be installed would be b y small refinerie s. However, small refinerie s could also decide to comply earl y and generate credits starting as earl y as 2014. As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions to accommodate a refiner’s inability to comply

with the proposed standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during th e program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and non

- small, though relief would be granted on a case

- by

- case basis following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that any hardship waiver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a hardship waiver would be short

- term relief that would allow a refiner facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to comply. This hardship provision would allow a refiner to seek a delay in the case that there was insufficient time to comply
. Finally , we believe that in reality , less leadtime than shown in Table V

- 3 would actuall y be necessary. We held discussions with many refiners during 2011, and so they

have been well aware of Tier 3 and are familiar with the likel y requirements. During our subsequent discussions with technology vendors and engineering firms, th ey

explained to us that many refiners have already initiated, and by now, likely

completed their scoping studies. Thus, actual time needed for designing, installing and starting of new desulfurization equipment for Tier 3 times would be even less than what we projected because many refineries may

have already completed required scoping studies in anticipation of the Tier

- 3 standards. Moreover, lead times for those refineries that have yet to start the scoping process can also be expected to decrease, since fewer refineries will be competing for the services of the desulfurization vendors. We request comment on the amount of lead***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 261 of 888 time that we are providing refiners to scope, design, permit, construct and startup a grassroots desulfurization unit, considerin g all the proposed flexibilities which allow refiners to stagger their capital investments and ease compliance. As in prior rules, we also evaluated the capability of E&C industries to design and build gasoline hydrotreaters as well as performing routine maintenance. Two areas where it is important to consider the impact of the fuel proposed sulfur standards are: (1) refiners’ ability to procure design and construction services and (2) refiners’ ability

to obtain the capital necessary for the construction of new equipment required to meet the new gasoline quality specification. We evaluated the requirement for engineering design and construction personnel in a manner consistent with the Tier 2 anal ys is, particularl y for three t ypes of workers needed to implement the refinery

changes: front

- end designers, detailed designers, and construction workers. We developed estimates of the maximum number of each of these ty pes of workers needed throughout the design and construction process and compared those figure s to the number of personnel currentl y emplo yed in these areas. The number of job hours necessary to design and build individual pieces of refinery equipment and the job hours per piece of equipment were taken from Moncrief and Ragsdale. 356 Their paper summarizes anal ys es performed in support of a National Petroleum Council study of gasoline desulfurization, as well as other potential fuel quality

changes. The design and construction factors for desulfurization equipment are summarized in Table V
- 4
.

**Table V**  **- 4**  **Design and Construction Factors** Gasoline Refiners Number of New Pieces of Equipment per Refinery 60 Number of Revamped Pieces of Equipment per Refinery 15 Job Hours Per Piece of New Equipment a Front End Design 300 Detailed Design 1,200 Direct and Indirect Construction 9,150

a Revamped equipment estimated to require half as many hours per piece of equipment

356 Moncrief, Philip & Ragsdale, Ralp h. (2000). Can the U.S. E&C Industry Meet the EPA’s Low Sulfur Timetable? Paper presented at NPRA Annual Meeting, March 26

- 28, 2000. Paper No. AM
00
- 57.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 262 of 888 Refinery projects will differ in complexity and scope. Even if all refiners desired to complete their project b y the same date, their projects would inevitably begin over a range of months. Thus, two projects scheduled to start up at exactly the same tim e are not likely to proceed through each step of the design and construction process at the same time. Second, the design and construction industries will likely

provide refiners with economic incentives to avoid temporary peaks in the demand for personne l. Applying the above factors, we projected the maximum number of personnel needed in an y given month for each ty pe of job. The results are shown in Table V
- 5 . In addition to total personnel required, the percenta ge of the U.S. workforce in these areas is also shown, assuming that half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast

**Table V**  **- 5**  **Maximum Monthly Demand for Personnel**

Front
- End Design Detailed

Engineering Constru ction Tier 3 Gasoline Sulfur Program Number of Workers 202 809 6,012 Percentage of Current Workforce a 11% 9% 4%

a Based on current employment in the U.S. Gulf Coast assuming half of all projects occur in the Gulf Coast To meet the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately 1,000 front

- end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction jobs. The number of estimated jobs required is sm all relative to overall number available in the U.S. job market. As such, we believe that three ye ars , plus the additional flexibilities provided, is adequate lead time for refineries to obtain necessary permits, secure E&C resources, install new desulfurization equipment, and make all necessary retrofits to meet the proposed sulfur standards. For an in depth assessment of stationary source implications, refer to Section V.B . For more on our E&C assessment, refer to Section 4.5 of the draft RIA. 3. Per
- Gallon Sulfur Caps In much of Europe and Japan, the gasoline sulfur level is capped at 10 ppm. We, however, are not considering a 10

- ppm cap for the U.S. The U.S. gasoline distribution sy stem poses contamination challenges that make it difficult to set and enforce such a tight downstream per

- gallon sulfur standard. In Europe, Japan, and California, finished petroleum products are generally shipped short distances directly from the refinery to the terminal with li mited susceptibility to contamination. The U.S. has the longest and most complex gasoline distribution sy stem in the world, making it harder to control sulfur contamination than in other countries. Petroleum products are shipped long distances through mu lti

- product***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 263 of 888 pipelines. Further, gasoline goes through the same pipelines and terminals back

- to back with jet fuel (containing up to 3,000 ppm sulfur). Products are often in the custody of a number of separate companies before reaching the terminal. This sy stem is very

effective at delivering petroleum products to the bulk of the country , but pipeline transport inevitably introduces the potential for sulfur contamination of the gasoline being shipped through pipelines. Additionally , gasoline additives ne eded to provide critical fuel performance characteristics (e.g., corrosion control, demulsifiers) also contain varying levels of sulfur which contribute to the overall sulfur content of gasoline. Therefore, we are proposing a 10

- ppm refinery average sulfur standard (discussed in Section V.A.2 ) with higher per gallon caps at both the refinery gate and at all points downstream, which is similar to what currently exists under the Tier 2 program. We believe this is the most prudent approach for lowering in

- use sulfur while maintaining flexibility considering cost and other factors. These per

- gallon caps are important in the context of an average sulfur standard to provide an upper limit on the sulfur concentration that vehicles must be designed to tolerate. Since there are man y opportunities for sulfur to be introduced into gasoline downstream of the refinery , these caps also limit downstream sulfur contamination and enable the enforcement of the gasoline sulfur standa rd in

- use. We are proposing two options for the per

- gallon sulfur caps. Under the first option, we are proposing to maintain both the current 80

- ppm refinery gate sulfur cap and 95

- ppm downstream sulfur cap. 357 Because this represents no change from current requirements, we believe there would be no additional costs to refiners and downstream parties associated with satisfying these caps on gasoline sulfur content beyond those that were already incurred under the Tier 2 program. Compliance for downstream parties could be even easier given that the average refinery gate level would be lower. However, the high level of the caps means that vehicles still have to be designed to operate on high sulfur fuel, and the re will be less attention paid to limiting contamination downstream of the refinery gate. Under the second approach, we are proposing that the refinery gate cap would be reduced to 50 ppm and the downstream cap would be reduced to 65 ppm, in other words, a 30
- ppm reduction in the caps to go along with a 20

- ppm drop in the average standard. We are proposing that the 50

- ppm refinery gate cap would take effect on January

1, 2020 when the small refiner, small volume refinery , and earl y credit use provisions would expire. The reason for the delay in the more stringent cap until 2020 is to avoid forcing additional refinery investments during the earl y credit usage period. A more stringent per

- gallon cap would also be very difficult to enforce prior to the sma ll refiner and small volume refinery provisions t aking effect. Until that time, the current 80

- ppm refinery gate sulfur cap would apply . Additional time beyond when the 50

- ppm refinery gate sulfur cap is implemented would be allowed for gasoline produced to an 80
- ppm sulfur cap to clear the distribution s ys tem before the 65

- ppm downstream sulfur cap would

357 This approach is reflected in the draft regulatory text.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 264 of 888 replace the current 95

- ppm downstream sulfur cap. Beginning February 1, 2020, a 65
- ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply at all locations downstream of the refinery and importer gate with the exception of retail and wholesale

- purchaser

consumer facilities. Beginning March 1, 2020, a 65

- ppm downstream sulfur cap would apply

at all locations in the gasoline distribution sy stem downstream of the refinery and importer gate. We note that the additional time for parties to comply with a more stringent downstream sulfur cap mirrors the schedule for compliance under the Tier 2 program. As discussed previousl y in Sections III and IV of today’s preamble, the vehi cle emissions benefits associated with today ’s proposal are driven b y the proposed reduction in the average sulfur content of gasoline from 30 to 10 ppm. However, vehicle manufacturers have expressed concerns about the potential impacts on emissions perfo rmance if individual vehicles are exposed to gasoline above the proposed 10

- ppm refinery average. 358 As discussed in Section V.A.2.b , our anal ys is of the potential response to the proposed ABT provisions assessed thr ee options for refineries: remaining at their current sulfur levels and using credits, reducing sulfur levels to 10 ppm and neither generating or using credits, or reducing sulfur levels to 5 ppm and generating credits. We did not have available informati on that would enable us to assess refineries that might stay above 10 ppm and reduce their sulfur levels part way (e.g., reduce sulfur from 50 ppm today to 20 ppm under Tier 3). Nevertheless, we anticipate that in most cases refineries would respond b y making operational changes and/or minor investments in order to reduce their credit burden and reduce their compliance costs. This anticipation, along with the fact that a 10

- ppm average standard b y definition limits the amount of gasoline that can remain at higher sulfur levels, means that we anticipate most credit

- using refineries would still average less than 20 ppm in their phy sical gasoline production, and either all or virtually

all gasoline would be expected to average at or below 30 ppm. Therefore, we believe that a 50

- ppm per - gallon cap at the refinery gate would not impose any

additional cost or burden beyond the current 80

- ppm per - gallon cap. Our discussions with refiners indicate that a 50

- ppm sulfur cap would provide refiners with sufficient fl exibility to produce gasoline during temporary upsets and turnarounds through the use of credits without necessitating the installation of additional desulfurization equipment. 359 However, it would provide some additional assurance of in

- use gasoline qualit y and help to address vehicle manufacturer concerns. We also believe that implementing a 65

- ppm downstream sulfur cap would provide essentiall y the same flexibilities to downstream parties as the existing sulfur caps. We believe that maintaining a 15

- pp m differential between the proposed

358 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2011 , October 6). Letter to EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. 359 Refer to Section 4.2.4.1 of the draft RIA for a more detailed discussion of the impacts of low ering the refinery gate sulfur cap.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 265 of 888 refinery gate sulfur cap of 50 ppm and the proposed 65

- ppm downstream sulfur cap would provide pipeline operators, transmix processors, and gasoline additive users the same flexibility

as provided under the current 80/95 ppm sulfur caps. Pipeline operators are currentl y allowed to blend limited volumes of transmix into gasoline in their sy stems provided that the resulting gasoline meets all fuel quality

specifications and the endpoint of the blended gasoline does not e xceed 437 ° F. 360 This enables pipeline operators to avoid the installation of additional transmix storage and loading equipment at a number of remote locations to facilitate shipping small volumes of transmix to processing facilities by truck. We believe that a 65

- ppm sulfur cap would provide sufficient flexibility to allow pipeline operators to continue this practice. Currently transmix processors must produce gasoline sufficientl y below the 95
- ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate any downstream sulf

ur increases from the use of gasoline additives and contamination from further distribution. The sulfur content of the gasoline produced b y transmix processors is determined by the sulfur content of the transmix they receive, which in turn is primarily a function of the sulfur content of gasoline and jet fuel components in the transmix. 361 Transmix processors do not handle sufficient volumes to support the installation of currentl y available desulfurization units. 362 Data provided by the largest operator of transmix processing facilities indicates that relatively few batches of the gasoline they currently produce approach 80 ppm sulfur. Most batches are approximately 10 ppm above the current 30

- ppm refinery sulfur average. Therefore, we believe that under a 10
- ppm refinery

average standard and 50

- ppm refinery sulfur cap, transmix processors would be able to produce gasoline sufficiently under the proposed 65

- ppm downstream sulfur cap to accommodate the additional sulfur contribution from the use of additive s and contamination during further distribution. Since the 65

- ppm downstream cap would not take effect until 2020, while the 10

- ppm average standard would take effect in 2017, we would have three ye ars of experience with which to verify

this and take corr ective action if necessary
. In addition to proposing refinery gate and downstream per gallon sulfur caps of either 80 ppm and 95 ppm or 50 ppm and 65 ppm, we are also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as 25 ppm. This would further constrain

360 The requirements for transmix blenders are contained in 40 CFR 80.84(d). 437 °F is the maximum endpoint allowed for gasoline in ASTM D4814. 361 Transmix is a by

- product of the multi

- product pipeline distribution system. 40 CFR 80.84(a) defines transmix pipeline interface that does not meet the specifications for a fuel that can be used or sold, and that is composed solely of any combination of: previously certified gasoline (including previously certified gasoline blendstocks that become gasoline solely upon the addition of an oxygenate); distillate fuel; or gasoline blendstocks that are suitable for use as a blendstock without further processing. 362 Transmix processors produce ~0.1 percent of the gasoline consumed in the U.S.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 266 of 888 downstream contamination and limit the temporary exposure of vehicles in

- use to sulfur levels that would significantl y degrade their emission performance. This would ser ve to provide added assurance that all parts of the country would receive the full emission benefits of gasoline sulfur control. However, we are onl y seeking comment on it and not proposing it due to the potential cost increases resulting from further con straints on refinery and distribution sy stem operations. While a 50

- ppm refinery gate cap may

not impact refinery

costs, in order to meet a 20

- ppm refinery gate cap and downstream standard of 25 ppm we expect that essentially all refineries would need to invest to meet the 10

- ppm annual average standard. Our modeling of a non

- ABT scenario, discussed in Section VII.B, shows that the sulfur control costs would increase b y almost 10 percent, with no net change in average in

- use sulfur levels. Similarly , whi le a 65

- ppm downstream cap may have little or no impact on downstream operations, a 25

- ppm downstream sulfur cap would likely require changes in pipeline operations, treatment of gasoline transmix, and formulation and use of sulfur containing gasoline addi tives (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, and demulsifiers) that could further increase the costs of the standard. The extent of such impacts and associated costs, however, are difficult to quantify
. Consequently

we seek comment on the appropriateness, impacts, and costs of lowering the per

- gallon caps to 20 ppm at the refinery gate, and 25 ppm downstream. Further, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the downstream cap and prevent the potential dumping of high sulfur materials into gasoline under the guise of adding gasoline additives, we are proposing additional requirements to clarify the treatment of gasoline additives. Parties that introduce additives to gasoline at over 1.0 volume percent are required to satisfy all of the obligations of a fuel manufa cturer including demonstration that the finished blend meets the applicable sulfur specification. A party other than a fuel refiner or importer who adds a quantity of additive(s) amounting to less than 1.0 percent b y volume of the resultant additive(s)/fu el mixture is not considered a fuel manufacturer. 363 Thus, the addition of sulfur to finished gasoline from additives used at less than 1.0 volume percent is simply limited by

the current 95

- ppm downstream sulfur cap. We are proposing to limit the sulfur c ontribution from the use of a gasoline additive added downstream of the refinery

at less than 1.0 volume percent to 3 ppm when added at the maximum recommended treatment rate. We believe that this limitation would not constrain the use of gasoline additiv es or result in significant additional costs to gasoline additive manufacturers. This is because information received from additive producers indicates that all current gasoline additives contribute less than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished fu el when used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. The maximum treatment rate is already stated on product transfer document or packaging for the additive. We are proposing a requirement that additive manufacturers maintain records of their additive production quality

control activities, which demonstrate that the sulfur content of

363 40 CFR 79.2(d)(1)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 267 of 888 additive production batches complies with the proposed sulfur requirement, for five ye ars and to make these available to EPA upon request. **B. Refinery Air Permitting Interac**  **tions** It is important to the success of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program that refineries are able to obtain air permits , if needed, in time to complete the modifications necessary

to comply

with the proposed gasoline sulfur program. Accordingl y, we have c onsidered the implications of permitting requirements with respect to the implementation of the proposed gasoline sulfur program. This section provides information on this topic. In summary , we believe that onl y a small percentage of refineries would lik ely need to make modifications that will trigger a requirement to appl y for air permits, and we anticipate that these permit applications would be processed quickl y enough that air permitting will not be a significant obstacle to timely compliance with the gasoline sulfur program. In contrast to the Tier 2 program, where EPA expected the need for NAAQS

- related New Source Review (NSR) permits might be widespread among refineries, we believe that under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard at most onl y about 19 refineries would need NSR or Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD ) permits. This number

- which equates to approximately 17 percent of the 111 refineries projected to be affected b y the proposed Tier 3 standards

- could be even lower if refineries appl y emission controls to reduce emissions increases below the significance level or if they “net out” of NSR. If our final assessment of permitting prospects following anal ys is of comments indicates it would be appropriate, we would form a sp ecial team to monitor for permitting delay s and assist in resolving associated problems. We also anticipate that other new requirements applicable to refineries that are being proposed for implementation in approximately the same period as the gasoline su lfur program would not interfere with the modifications needed to meet the new sulfur limits and would not create a competition for air permitting agency resources. We invite public comment on air permitting issues, and on possible actions we might be ab le to take to help make sure refineries can obtain needed permits expeditiously
. As described in further detail in Sections V.B.4 and V.B.6, a number of mechanisms and resources are already available to help mitigate and streamline NSR permitting requireme nts associated with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. For example, EPA has issued guidance on Best Available Control Technology (BACT) anal ys is for GHG emissions, including a white paper that identifies specific technologies available for refinery process units. As explained in greater detail below, we expect that the ty pes of equipment and process technologies that refiners would select to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards would generall y be consistent with BACT for GHG emissions in terms of achievable, c ost - effective, and energy

efficient design even absent the requirement to obtain a permit, meaning that such a requirement would not necessitate a shift in project design or increase costs.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 268 of 888 1. Background on New Source Review Programs The New Source Review (N SR) program, as it applies to existing major sources of air pollution, requires that a permit be issued before a source begins construction of an y project to modify the source that would result in a significant emissions increase and a significant net emis sions increase of a pollutant regulated under this program. 364 The phy sical modifications and operational changes that we expect refineries would make to comply with the proposed gasoline sulfur standards (described in Section V.A.1.d) could result in emissions increases in one or more pollutants that may

trigger NSR requirements for preconstruction air permits. NSR permits specify

what emission limits must be met by the new and modified equipment that is part of the proposed project . They may contain conditions to make sure that the modifications being made match parameters in the application that the permit

- issuing agency relied on in its analy sis. Permits contain emission limitations for new and modified units an d also ty pically specify some aspects of how , consistent with the permit application, the project elements must be constructed and operated. For example, the permit may identify important design and operational parameters that are consistent with the esta blished control technology

determination(s) and help assure compliance with associated emission limitations. To assure that sources follow the permit requirements, permits also contain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. NSR permits ar e issued by a state or local air pollution control agency if it has its own permit program that has been approved b y EPA in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) or if it has been delegated the authority to issue federal Prevention of Significant Deteriorati on (PSD) permits on behalf of EPA. An EPA Regional Office issues the permit in other cases. There are two separate sets of major source permit requirements that may apply to modifications at a refinery depending on the attainment status of the area in which a refinery

is located. Each set of requirements is applied on a pollutant

specific basis, so that in some cases both permit programs may appl y to the same modification project. The PSD permit program applies to any major modification at a source loc ated in a designated attainment or unclassifiable area for a ny NAAQS

364 General ly , a source is a major source if its “potential to emit” a regulated NSR pollutant is greater than either 100 or 250 tons/year depending on the industrial type of the source and whether the area is designated nonattainment for the particular pollutant. A ll refineries in the U.S. are major sources for purposes of NSR. A major modification is a physical change or a change in the method of operation that causes a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant regula ted under the NSR program. (A net emissions increase differs from an emissions increase in that a net increase takes into account contemporaneous emissions changes from other projects at the source.) Significant emission rates vary depending on the pollutant and range from 0.6 to 100 tons/year for criteria (NAAQS) pollutants and their precursors. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). For GHGs, modifications of existing sources trigger NSR permitting requirements when there is an increase of GHG emissions of at least 75,000 tons/year of CO 2 equivalent, as well as any increase of GHG emissions on a mass basis. At the time refineries are required to comply with the proposed fuel sulfur program, the GHG threshold may be different, but will not be low er than 50,000 tons/ye ar.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 269 of 888 pollutant. 365 PSD requires compliance with emission limitations achievable through installation of BACT, an air quality anal ys is to show that the modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or applicable PSD increment, 366 an assessment of impact on visibility and other conditions in national parks and similar federal lands, an additional impacts anal ys is, and an opportunity for public involvement. The second set of requirements is known as the Nonattainment NSR program because it applies to major modifications at sources located in areas designated as nonattainment for a specific NAAQS pollutant. 367 The Nonattainment NSR requirements include, among other things, that a proposed major modification meet the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) for each triggering nonattainment pollutant for which the source is major and for which there will be a significant emissions increase, obtain emission offsets for those nonatta inment pollutants, and provide an opportunity for public involvement. LAER is generall y a more stringent emission limitation than BACT. LAER is derived from either the most stringent emission limitation contained in the implementation plan of any state f or the same ty

pe of source or the most stringent emission limitation achieved in practice. Emission offsets are emissions reductions, generall y obtained from other existing stationary sources located in the vicinity of a proposed source. Such offsets mus t be equal to or larger than the emissions increase resulting from the modification to ensure that the growth being allowed to occur does not interfere with the ability of an area to continue making reasonable further progress towards attainment of the NAA QS. As described previousl y in Section V.A.1.d , there are several t ypes of process changes refineries could make to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur levels. To different degrees, all these technologies involve pro cess heat from fuel combustion and, thus, have the potential to increase emissions of pollutants associated with combustion that are regulated under NSR 368 , such as NO X , VOCs, PM 2.5 , PM 10 , CO, SO 2 , and GHGs. The addition of certain technologies could also r esult in equipment leaks of petroleum compounds, which could increase emissions of VOCs and other pollutants. It is also possible that the removal of more sulfur

365 The PSD program stems from part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The implementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. 366 A system of “increments” is the mechanism used in the PSD program to define significant deterioration of ambi ent air quality for a pollutant. An increment is the maximum allowable increase in ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area relative to a specified baseline. Increases above that level are considered to significantly deteriorate air quality and cannot be allowed. 367 The Nonattainment NSR program stems from part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. The im plementing regulations are contained in 40 CFR 51.165 and 50 CFR part 51 appendix S. Under Nonattainment NSR, a major source is generally any source wi th a potential to emit of 100 tons/year or more of the nonattainment pollutant, regardless of industrial type (lower thresholds apply for some pollutants/classifications). The thresholds for a significant emissions increase under Nonattainment NSR are gen erally the same as under PSD but lower for certain pollutants/classifications. 368 Toxic air pollutants are excluded from the PSD program. 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(6); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(v).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 270 of 888 from the gasoline stream could require increased capacity or increased utilization of other r efinery

processes, such as hydrogen plants and sulfur recovery units (SRUs), which are sources of air emissions. The emissions increases associated with a desulfurization project would vary from refinery

to refinery , depending on a number of refinery

- spec ific factors, such as the refinery output volume, refinery configuration, feedstocks, choice of desulfurization technology , and t ype of fuel used to operate affected process heaters. As described in more detail in Section V.B.4 , we anticipate that the t ypes of changes that would occur at most refineries would not result in sufficient emissions increases to require major NSR permits as a prerequisite for completing the needed changes. The major NSR permitting requir ements would not be triggered for several reasons: because the emissions increase or the net emissions increase is naturally less than the significant level, because the refinery installs control technologies on project

- affected units to further limit the emissions increase, and/or because the refinery

“nets out” all or part of the emissions increase. However, we anticipate that some refineries have the potential to experience significant emissions increases and significant net emissions increases as a res ult of process changes necessary to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur standard and, therefore, may

trigger major NSR (Nonattainment NSR and/or PSD). These facilities would have to obtain a major NSR preconstruction permit prior to making these necessary

p rocess changes. For an y required major NSR permits, the associated control technology requirements (BACT and/or LAER) would apply only to new or modified units associated with the project and not to units at the refinery that are not affected by

the proje ct. We do not anticipate that the time frames required for the small number of affected refineries to obtain any needed NSR and/or PSD permits will present an obstacle to timely compliance with the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur requirements. We are pro posing approximately 3 ye ars of lead time. However, as discussed in section V.E., this is extended to up to 6 years of lead time for all small refineries, as well as for all other refineries if they take advantage of the flexibility of the early

credit pr ovisions. In comparison, as discussed in section V.A.2.c, 95 of the 111 refineries are anticipated to be able to comply within 2 years, and the remaining 16 within 3 y ears. For the 16 that may require up to 3 ye ars to comply due to the construction of gr assroots h ydrotreaters, only 2 of these are projected to potentially trigger the need for new permits, and even then onl y for PSD for greenhouse gases, and only if they choose to produce their own h ydrogen. As a result, only two refineries may actuall y re quire the full 3 ye ars to compl y. For facilities subject to major NSR, the timing of permit issuance could vary depending on a number of factors, including the clarity and completeness of the application, the complexity of process changes, the ty pe of perm it required, air quality impact, control technology reviews, and the permitting agency ’s overall permit workload. The time spent preparing a permit application is under the control of the applicant. Once a permit application is complete, permitting autho rities operating under approved SIPs should be able to issue a permit within 9 to 12***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 271 of 888 months if the permit applies to NAAQS pollutants. Because EPA

- issued permits and permits issued by

states operating under a delegation from EPA are subject to additional anal ys is and interagency consultation steps specified in federal law, it can take a few more months if, for example, there are endangered species or historical preservation issues. 369 For permits that apply onl y to GHGs, we anticipate that less time will be necessary both to prepare the application and for the permitting authorit y to approve the permit
. The CAA requires that EPA take final action on a PSD permit within one y ear of the filing with the agency of a complete application. 42 U.S.C. 7475(c). Ref ineries that are able to avoid major NSR may be required to obtain a state

- issued minor NSR permit. Generally , minor NSR permits involve less extensive and/or stringent requirements and have shorter processing times than major NSR permits. 2. Background on N SR Experience Under the Tier 2 Fuel Program Many of the modifications that refineries are projected to make in order to comply with the proposed Tier 3 fuel program are similar in ty pe, although not necessarily

in number or magnitude, to the changes that w ere needed to comply with the Tier 2 fuel program finalized in 2000. Therefore, information on the Tier 2 experience may

assist the public in understanding the permitting issues for the Tier 3 fuel program and in providing comment on possible actions we m ight undertake to help refineries expeditiously obtain needed permits. The Tier 2 program was designed to reduce the average sulfur content of gasoline from about 300 ppm to 30 ppm, a reduction of about 90 percent. Anticipating that man y refineries would have to make modifications that might trigger the need for NSR permits, we addressed the permitting issue in the proposal for the Tier 2 program, in the final rule, and during implementation. At proposal, we provided background information on the NSR program and its relationship to the ty pes of changes likely

to be required at refineries. We had not estimated the number of refineries that might trigger NSR, but we stated that the number could be substantial. We invited comment on a number of actions that EPA, states, and/or refineries could pursue in order to help refineries avoid the need for NSR permits or to obtain permits more expeditiously than might otherwise be the case. These actions included the following:

 Use of plantwide applicability limits, possibly

facilitated by

new EPA guidance or rules addressing issues specific to refineries.

369 These processing time periods assume that the refinery can successfully show that the emission increases associated with the modifications will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or increment (under PSD) or can obtain needed emissions off sets for the emission increases (under Nonattainment NSR).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 272 of 888  Issuance of new federal guidance on streamlining certain major NSR permitting requirements such as control technology and compliance parameters.

 Use of emissions re ductions resulting from vehicles operating on lower sulfur gasoline as offsets for refineries seeking Nonattainment NSR permits.

 Use of model permits and permit applications.

 EPA refinery

permitting teams. The Tier 2 proposal also addressed issues related to the Title V permitting program 370 , and requested comments on possible approaches b y which refineries might satisfy

some NSR and Title V requirements at the same time. We received comments on refinery permitting issues from the refining industry , the autom obile manufacturing industry , state and local agencies that administer air permitting programs, and environmental and community groups. Based on these comments and statutory constraints , we decided that it was not necessary or appropriate to exempt Tier 2 projects from the normall y applicable preconstruction review process. We also decided not to pursue the development of guidance on plantwide applicability limits for refineries based on comments suggesting this would be an unproductive effort because of the complexity of refineries. Nonetheless, we concluded that it was useful to add certainty to the anticipated permitting actions and schedules, and to minimize the possibility of delay
. Accordingly , EPA took two ty pes of actions to promote these objecti ves. First, as we are now proposing for Tier 3 (see proposed program flexibilities discussion in V.E.1.

- 3.), we structured the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program to allow additional lead time for many refineries (i.e., certain refineries would be able to make desulfurization changes later than the otherwise applicable compliance date to meet Tier 2 requirements). This approach was expected to help address the concerns over the availability of necessary

new equipment and permitting backlogs caused b y man y refin eries acting to obtain permits and order equipment within the same time period. Second, we stated our intention to take several actions during implementation of the Tier 2 rule to expedite and impart greater certainty in

370 Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments requires all major sources and some minor sources of air pollution to obtain an operating permit. A Title V permit contains all air pollution requirements that apply to the source, including emissions limits and monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements. It also requires that the source report its compliance status to the permitting authority annually. All existing refineries potentially affected by the proposed Tier 3 fuel standards have Title V permits and, because Title V permits by themselves generally do not establish new applicable requirements, the only implication of the proposed Tier 3 fuel standards would be the “roll

- in” of any new NSR permit requirements into existing refinery Title V permits. Permitting agencies have efficient processes to accomplish this that do not delay construction of proposed projects
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 273 of 888 obtaining necessary

major NSR permit s (described in more detail below). We also stated our intention to assist s tates and refiners on a case

- by

- case basis in their efforts to address an y unique permitting problems that might arise and, thus, remedy potential problems that could cause unanti cipated delay s. We committed to work with refiners and the state/local permitting agencies on a case

- by

- case basis, where a refinery

had unique circumstances that necessitated unique treatment. We clarified that, in our efforts to provide greater certainty and to facilitate more expeditious permitting, we were in no way shortcutting existing opportunities for public participation in making permitting decisions. We encouraged refineries to begin discussions with permitting authorities and to submit permit applications as earl y as possible. The final Tier 2 rule identified three key actions that we intended to take (and subsequentl y took) to provide assistance that would be useful toward helping states issue timely

permits to refineries. The first such ac tion was to organize a special EPA team, comprised of Headquarters and Regional Office experts, to track the overall progress in permit issuance and to be available to assist state and local permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request t o resolve site

- specific permitting issues. The team made special efforts to be aware of state and local permitting actions that were underway during the time between the finalization of the Tier 2 program and the compliance time frame. Experience during this period suggested that state and local permitting agencies, as predicted in their comments on the proposed Tier 2 program, were able to process permit applications in a timely manner, without much need for special troubleshooting help from the EPA team . In man y cases, the modifications to allow compliance with Tier 2 requirements were subject to only minor NSR permitting requirements rather than major NSR, or those modifications were rolled into another permitting action that was needed for other modif ications or expansions due to other technical or market developments. We believe it is reasonable to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not needing major NSR permits) would result in connection with air permitting for the modifications refineries wo uld need to make under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. The second action we took was to develop new guidance on emission control technology

requirements to meet BACT and LAER. We issued this guidance in 2001. It addressed the levels of contr ol that could be reasonably anticipated to represent BACT or LAER under the major NSR requirements. Our general experience following the release of this BACT/LAER guidance was that it did not play

a substantial role in the permitting of refinery projects for Tier 2. That is, due to their own expertise and the need to consider refinery

- specific factors, state and local permitting authorities generall y did not find it necessary to rely on our guidance in their own permitting processes for refineries making changes to meet the Tier 2 requirements. In addition, many of the refinery

projects were able to avoid major NSR, so BACT and LAER were not requirements that had to be met. Again, we believe it is reasonable to expect that similar outcomes (refineries not needing major NSR permits) would result in connection with air permitting for the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 274 of 88 8 modifications refineries would need to make to meet the proposed gasoline sulfur standard. The third action we took was a fast

- track effort to develop new guidance on the use of emissions reductions resulting from vehicles operating on lower sulfur gasoline as emission offsets for refineries seeking Nonattainment NSR permits. We invited comment on a draft version of this guidance five months after the final Tier 2 rule. The draft guidance discussed in depth how the use of such offsets could be made consistent with seven criteria given in the C AA for such offsets. We received many comments from state and local air agencies and community groups opposing the proposed offset guidance on legal, fairness, and environmental justice grounds. One refiner recommended that EPA set aside a portion of the Tier 2 reductions in each state as offsets, rather than leaving this decision to each state. We did not finalize the draft guidance, and no state further pursued a s ys tem under which vehicle emissions reductions were made available to refineries as offsets for Nonattainment NSR permits. 3. Changes in the NSR Permitting Program since Tier 2 Final Rule The Tier 2 fuel program was promulgated in earl y 2000, and most refiners were required to comply

with those requirements by 2006. During and since that period, there have been a number of changes to the major NSR programs. These changes are summarized he re to facilitate public comment as to how these changes may affect whether refinery

modifications undertaken as a result of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program would trigger NSR and/or the requirements that refiners and permitting authorities would have to me et. In 2002, we issued a final rule known as the NSR Reform Rule. 371 This rule revised the EPA

- administered NSR programs and changed the minimum approvals required for SIP
- approved NSR programs for NSR applicability . Some of the provisions of the 2002 fin al rule have been vacated by the Court, subsequently amended b y EPA, or are currentl y under reconsideration. Two key components of the NSR Reform Rule that remain in place are a new applicability test for projects involving existing emissions units (the “ actual

- to - projected

- actual” applicability test) and provisions that allow for the establishment of plantwide applicability limits (PAL s). The change in the applicability test since the Tier 2 experience means that fewer modifications may be found to have emissions increases that are above the significant emission levels, in which case fewer major NSR permits may need to be issued. The PALprovisions offer a voluntary alternative for determining major NSR applicability

that can provide sources with signifi cant flexibility to manage facility

- wide air emissions without triggering major NSR permitting. Refineries that have established PALs or will establish one or more PALs prior to or as part of

371 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 275 of 888 permitting associated with the Tier 3 fuel program will be far less likel y to trigger major NSR permitting requirements. We have also taken a series of actions that have had the effect of making emissions of GHGs a factor in determining whether a PSD permit is required for a refinery modification. Under the applicabl e PSD provisions in the CAA, GHGs became regulated under the PSD program on January 2, 2011 after EPA adopted tailpipe emissions standards for these pollutants under Title II of the CAA. Because the incorporation of GHGs into the PSD program had the potential to significantly expand the number of sources required to obtain PSD permits, EPA adopted the 2010 Tailoring Rule to phase in the PSD permitting requirements according to a series of steps based on different GHG emission thresholds. 372 At this time the Tailoring Rule requires that an y modification at an existing refinery that increases GHG emissions by

75,000 tons per year or more of CO 2 equivalent and also produces an y m ass increase in GHG emissions would trigger the need for a PSD permit that addresse s GHG emissions. 373 Because there are no NAAQS for GHGs and, therefore no nonattainment areas, onl y PSD could potentially appl y to a refinery modification with respect to increases in GHG emissions. The analy sis (described in Section V.B.4 ) indicates that only a small number of large refineries would be affected. For the sources that would need a PSD permit for GHGs, the main substantive requirement for obtaining the permit is to apply BACT for GHG emissions from the new or modified unit(s) because an air quality anal ys is is not required
. Another development since 2000 has been the establishment of several new and revised NAAQS and the designation of nonattainment areas under some of these NAAQS. At the time of th e final Tier 2 rule, the NAAQS of most relevance to Nonattainment NSR permitting for refineries were the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS, the PM 10 NAAQS, and the SO 2 NAAQS, because these NAAQS accounted for the vast majority of the existing nonattainment areas. The de signation of new nonattainment areas under the 1997 NAAQS for 8

- hour ozone became effective in 2004. Designations under the 1997 NAAQS for PM 2.5 became effective in 2005. In 2008, we again revised the ozone NAAQS and designations under that standard became effective in July

2012. 374 In2006, we revised the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS and in 2009 (2011 for a few areas) we designated areas under the 2006 PM 2.5 standard. 375 InDecember 2012 we revised the primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and designations associated with that revised standard are expected to become effective in 2015. 376 One effect of this evolution of the NAAQS and associated attainment status for areas is that it has become more common over time for sources to be

372 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 373 77 FR 41051 (Ju ly

12, 2012). 374 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) 375 Listings of areas currently designated nonattainment for all the NAAQS are available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html. 376 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 276 of 888 located in ozone or PM 2.5 nonattainment areas and thus subject to Nonattainment NSR rather than to PSD for their VOC, NO X , and PM 2.5 emissions increases. However, over the same time period, some areas currentl y designated as nonattainment for ozone and/or PM 2.5 are expected to be redesignated to atta inment. Therefore, we do not expect a dramatic shift on a national basis in one direction or the other. In 2008, we issued a final rule specifying in detail how NSR applies to PM 2.5 . 377 Inaddition, in 2010 we supplemented this rule with additional provisions for the PSD program specificall y. 378 The latest rule , among other things, established PM 2.5 increments, and a s of October 20, 2011, sources that trigger PSD for PM 2.5 are required t o show compliance with the applicable increment, in addition to showing that they do not cause or contribute to a violation of any of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. In 2010, EPA finalized new NAAQS for 1

- hour NO 2 and 1

- hour SO 2 . 379 EPA has completed the initial round of mandatory designations for the 1

- hour NO 2 NAAQS and all areas have been designated unclassifiable/attainment. 380 The first round of designations for the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS will be made in June 2013, thus we do expect there to be nonattainment areas for th e 1
- hour SO 2 NAAQS by the time that refineries might need to seek NSR permits to make the required facility modifications for the Tier 3 program. However, we expect that no refinery would have increases in SO 2 emissions that are large enough to trigger ma jor NSR, so any change in attainment status for the SO 2 NAAQS should have no effect on permitting issues. In areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the 1

- hour NO 2 or 1
- hour SO 2 NAAQS, the air quality impacts assessment required to obtain a PSD permit can present new challenges for permit applicants. This is because demonstrating that a modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of these 1
- hour standards may

require more refined and data

- intensive air quality modeling approaches than has previously been required to make this demonstration with

377 73 FR 28321 (May 18, 2008). On January 4, 2013,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , No. 08
- 1250, 2013 WL 45653 (filed July 15, 2008, consolidated with 09

- 1102, 11
- 1430), issued a judgment that remanded EPA’s 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule and ordered the EPA to repromulgate the rule “pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.” Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas. EPA is evaluating the impa ct of the court decision on the provisions of the 2008 rule. 378 75 FR 64864 (October 20, 2010). On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA , No. 10
- 1413 (filed Dec. 17. 2010), issued a judgment that vacated and remanded the provisions at 40 C.F.R.51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) (concerning im plementation of the PM2.5 SILs) and vacated the provisions at 40 C.F.R. 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) (adding the PM2.5 SMC) that were promulgated as part of the rule. 379 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010) and 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). 380 77 FR 9532 (February 17, 2012).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 277 of 888 respect to the pre

- existing NAAQS for NO 2 and SO 2 . To assist permit applicants in performing the required anal ys is of 1

- hour NO 2 and SO 2 air quality impacts, we have issued several guidance memos that describe available alternative approaches and flexibilities. 381 Inaddition, EPA provides technical assistance with modeling issues upon request. 4. Assessment of Tier 3 Refinery Changes and Permitting Implications EPA has performed a refinery

- by

- r efinery assessment of the phy sical and operational changes that are likel y to be needed to allow each active refinery in the U.S. to produce gasoline that complies with the proposed Tier 3 fuel specifications. We have also assessed the likely effects of th ose changes on refinery emissions. This assessment is described in more detail in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. Using this assessment, we were able to gain a reasonable understanding of the potential scope of NSR permitting requirements refiners might fa ce under the proposed Tier 3 program. In general, our assessment indicates that only a small number of refineries will likely

need to make modifications of a ty pe and size that would trigger the need for a PSD or Nonattainment NSR permit. The assessment and this conclusion take into account the changes in the NSR program and its context since 2000 described in Section V.B.3
. A technical memorandum describing in detail our anal ys is and results is in the public dock et for this proposal. 382 In our anal ys is, we started with the estimates we have made regarding the phy sical and operational changes that would be required at each refinery (described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA). The modifications at a given refinery could include revamps to existing FCC pre

- or post - treatment unit(s) or the installation of a new grassroots post - treatment unit for sulfur reduction. Based on the projected refinery

- specific changes, we estimated the increased demand for energy (i.e., fue l to generate process heat, steam and electricity), hydrogen, and sulfur recovery associated with meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. We selected representative industry emission factors for NAAQS pollutants, their precursors, and GHGs for each emitting process and combined them with estimates of incremental activity to estimate the emissions changes at each equipment unit (or group of similar units) at each refinery
. To determine upper and lower bounds for emissions increases resulting from changes ne cessary

to meet the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur specification, we evaluated two scenarios, a no ABT scenario (assuming no trading of sulfur credits) and the primary

ABT scenario described in Section 5.4 of the draft RIA. We did not have sufficient det ailed information to predict which refineries would find it

381 These memos are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_clarificationmemos.htm, http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appw so2.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf. 382 Keller, P. ( February 2013 ). New Source Review Permitting Impact Analysis for Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline Program. Memorandum to the docket.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 278 of 888 most profitable to generate additional electrical power, hydrogen and high octane blendstocks internally

on site rather than purchasing these inputs from external suppliers. If a refinery

generat es these additional inputs internally on site, the additional emissions would count towards the significant emissions rates and could affect the need for a major NSR permit. To account for these variables, we evaluated a high and a low case for each ident ified scenario. Under the high case, we assumed 100 percent internal generation of the additional electrical power, hydrogen, and high octane blendstocks and under the low case, 100 percent external generation of the same. We expect refineries to actuall y be somewhere between these two extreme cases in the future. For the identified scenarios and cases, we compared the emissions increase for each pollutant at each refinery to the significant emissions increase threshold for that pollutant, taking into co nsideration the current attainment status for each pollutant where the refinery is located. We found that the no ABT scenario, low case had the lowest number of refineries estimated to trigger major NSR and the primary ABT scenario, high case had the high est, although the overall numbers did not vary greatl y. An important aspect of our anal ys is is that we assumed that refineries would not install new emission controls on affected units for the purpose of staying below the significant emissions increase thr eshold and thereb y not triggering major NSR. In particular, we did not assume that selective cataly tic reduction (SCR) to control NO X emissions would be applied to new or modified fuel combustion units. This is an important assumption that tends to resul t in overestimates of the number of major NSR permits needed for NAAQS

- related pollutants. In reality , applyingnew emission controls would be an option that refineries may employ to legally avoid major NSR permitting. We also did not assume that refineries would “net out” of NSR by taking credit for any

emissions reductions occurring within a contemporaneous timeframe, including an y new emissions reduction projects initiated specificall y for the purpose of “netting out.” This anal ys is resulted in a pred iction of whether a PSD and/or a Nonattainment NSR permit would be needed for each refinery

and the pollutants that would have to be addressed in those permits, under each of the two scenarios. Onl y the results for the primary ABT scenario, high case are presented here. The results for the no ABT scenario, which are not greatl y different, are described in the previously referenced technical memo found in the docket for this rulemaking. We found that under the primary ABT scenario, high case, 19 refineries appeared likel y to have significant emissions increases for one or more pollutants and thus would trigger major NSR. 383 This equates to approximately 17 percent of the 111 refineries projected to be affected b y the proposed Tier 3 standards. Of these 19 refineries, we predicted that 1 3 refineries would need permits for NAAQS

-

383 Because state requirements regarding minor NSR permitting vary and we do not expect minor NSR permitting programs to be a significant challenge for refinery modification projects, we did not attempt to estimate how

many of the remaining refineries might need to obtain minor NSR permits.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 279 of 888 related pollutants and their precursors (PSD and/or Nonattainment NSR) and for GHGs (results for GHG are discussed below). Thus, compared to the Tier 2 program where EPA expected the need for NAAQS

- related NSR permits might be widespread among refineries, we believe that under the pro posed Tier 3 program only about 13 refineries would need major NSR air permits t o address NAAQS pollutants. This number could be lower if thos e refineries appl y pollution controls, such as SCR for NO X , to sufficiently reduce the emissions increases to levels that are below the applicable pollutant significance level, or if the refineries can achieve emissions reductions elsewhere at the facility to “net out” of major NSR. For refineries that are required to obtain a major NSR permit for NAAQS pollutants, the permitting process is expected to normall y take about 9 to 12 months once the permitting authorit y has received a complete application. All 13 refineries just described as potentiall y needing NSR permits for NAAQS pollutants are also projected to need PSD permits for GHGs. In addition to these 13 refineries, we estimated that 6 other refineries may require a PSD permit addressing onl y GHG em issions from new or modified equipment that is part of the project . For these refineries, BACT must be applied for GHG emissions, which we expect in most cases would mean that new or modified fuel

- burning equipment would have to be designed for good energ y efficiency. We expect that the ty pes of equipment and process technologies that refiners would modify or add to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards would generall y be consistent with BACT for GHG emissions in terms of achievable, cost

- effective, and ener gy - efficient design even absent the requirement to obtain a permit, meaning that such a requirement would not necessitate an y shift in project design or increase costs. This expectation is based on the fact that there are strong economic incentives for re finers to design and purchase the most energy

- efficient process equipment to minimize the cost of production. For example, most of the new or modified units expected to be involved in refinery

projects designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards are fu el combustion units (e.g., process heaters). Because fuel cost (direct cost in the case of purchased natural gas and opportunity cost in the case of refinery

- generated fuel gas) represents a significant component of total operating cost for such units, re fineries will strive to maximize energy efficiency

based on available technologies as part of their project design. EPA requests comment on the likelihood that refineries ’ cost s for equipment and process technology for compliance with Tier 3 would include an y associated costs of compliance with NSR. In 2010, EPA issued a white paper on available and emerging technologies for reducing GHGs from the petroleum refining industry
. 384 This white paper addresses the t yp es of equipment expected to be involved in p rojects designed to meet the proposed Tier 3 fuel standards, including process heaters/boilers, hydrogen

384 See “Avai lable and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining Industry,” October 2010, available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 280 of 888 plants, and sulfur recovery units. The identified GHG control technologies for these ty pes of units predominately involve opportunities for energy eff iciency
. Consistent with the findings reported in the white paper, our experience to date with GHG permitting at refineries and other similar sources supports the application of energy efficient design and operation of affected units as BACT, and we do no t expect that in the time frame associated with Tier 3

- related projects, add

- on controls would be required. For EPA
- issued permits and permits issued by state or local agencies under delegation, consultation with other federal agencies under the Endangere d Species Act and consideration of environmental justice would also be required. Significantl y, no air quality modeling of GHGs would be required, and thus there would be no need to obtain extensive input information on meteorology and emissions from othe r nearby sources. Given these differences, we expect that the timeline for obtaining a permit only for GHG emissions should be shorter by several months than the timeline for a permit that addresses NAAQS pollutants. We invite public comment on our anal ys is including way s in which we might improve the assessment between now and the final rule. 5. New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refineries In addition to the proposed Tier 3 rulemaking, we are also conducting other rulemaking s to set new and revised limits for direct emissions from refineries of NAAQS
- related pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). This section provides summary

information on th ese rulemaking effort s , so that comments on the proposed Tier 3 program can be more full y informed. We first regulated petroleum refineries in 1974 when the agency issued the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to control NAAQS

- related air pollutants. The NSPS applies to refinery process units that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after June 11, 1973, but before May 14, 2007. On June 24, 2008, we amended the NSPS and issued new standards for most process units constructed, reconstructed, or modifie d after May 14, 2007 and for flares which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction after June 24, 2008. We were petitioned to reconsider these final rules and on September 12 , 2012, EPA finalized amendments and technical corrections to addre ss issues related to flares and process heaters. There are two existing Maximum Achievable Control Technology

( MACT ) standards to control HAPs that apply specifically

to petroleum refineries. 385 These standards are referred to as MACT 1 and 2 and were

385 These are codified in 40 CFR 63, Subpart CC (National Emission Standards fo r Hazardous Air Pollutants From Petroleum refineries) and 40 CFR 63, Subpart UUU (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Petroleum Refineries: Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalytic Reforming Units, and Sulfur Recovery Units).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 281 of 888 issue d in 1995 and 2002, respectivel y. EPA is required to perform risk and technology

reviews (RTR) to assess residual risk for MACT standards for HAPs within eight years of the promulgation of the original MACT standards. In addition, EPA is required to perf orm a technology

review of advancement in processes, practices and control requirements every eight years after promulgation of the MACT. EPA is planning to issue a single rulemaking that will address the RTR analy ses for both MACT 1 and 2. Finally , on March 21, 2011 EPA published MACT standards for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters and on January 31, 2013 EPA finalized revisions to those standards based on reconsideration. 386 These standards appl y to boilers and process heaters at refineries. Because an y changes that are made to meet new requirements of these rulemakings would likel y reduce rather than increase refinery emissions, we do not expect these modifications to trigger NSR unless a refinery chooses to increase the capacity of one or more of its units at the same time. 387 This means that we expect the final rules would not themselves increase the major NSR workload for refinery environmental permitting staffs or for permitting agencies in the same period that these organizations need to prepare and process permit applications related to the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. (Minor NSR permitting workload may be affected.) 6. Steps for Streamlining the Permitting Process As we did for Tier 2, we could organize a Headquarters - Regional response team to monitor and address an y delays in permitting by facilitating coordination among organizations where needed to resolve permitting issues. The mission of this team would also include tracking the overall progress in permit is suance and assisting state and local permitting authorities, refineries, and the public upon request to resolve site

- specific permitting issues. The team would be comprised of EPA staff knowledgeable about permitting programs and refinery operations, so the team could provide expert assistance and troubleshoot permitting issues in a timely fashion. We invite comment from refineries, permitting authorities, and others regarding the usefulness of such a team. We will continue to maintain and refine the tools and resources that have proven useful to permit applicants and permitting authorities, such as the RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse, the Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, and our web

- based res ources on GHG permitting. These GHG permitting resources include various materials on the topic of BACT for

386 76 FR 15451 (March 21, 2011) and 78 FR 7138 (January 31, 2013). 387 Some approaches for controlling NAAQS

- related pollutants do require additional electrical power or otherwise may increase GHG emissions. Conversely, some approaches to increasing energy ef ficiency (and thereby reducing GHG emissions) can increase emissions of NAAQS

- related pollutants if compensating changes are not made in downstream emission control devices, for example increases in NOx emissions from higher combustion temperatures.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 282 of 888 GHG, including white papers and copies of our comments on recent draft permits proposed b y state and local permitting agencies. 388 One of the white papers, described previously

in Section V.B.4, addresses petroleum refining, and provides information on control techniques and measures that are available to mitigate GHG emissions in order to assist states and local air pollution control agencies, tribal authorities, and regulated entities in implementing technologies or measures to reduce GHGs under the CAA, particularl y in permitting under the PSD program and the assessment of BACT. We believe the guidance we provided on BACT and LAER for NO X and VOC shortly

after the final Tier 2 rule was not widely utilized by

either refineries or permitting authorities. Nevertheless, we invite comment on whether additional guidance on BACT and LAER for these and other NAAQS

- related pollutants would be use ful to support permitting for Tier 3

- related modifications as well as the appropriate scope and substance of such guidance. We anticipate that if we do develop an y new BACT/LAER guidance, we would provide an opportunity for public comment on the draft gui dance before finalizing it. For Tier 3

- related NSR permit applications submitted to EPA Regional Offices, we will assist members of the local communities in understanding the applications and our proposed permits, in offering comment, and participating in our decisions. We also encourage similar assistance efforts b y the state and local permitting authorities, and we invite comment on the specific forms that our and their support should take. EPA received comments during the Tier 2 rulemaking that vehicle emissions reductions should be allowed to be used as part of “netting out” of NSR. This concept is now relevant to GHG emissions, in addition to the NAAQS

- related pollutants to which it was relevant at the time of the Tier 2 rulemaking. At that time we r esponded to the comments by saying that the use of vehicle emissions reductions for netting purposes was not permitted by the NSR regulations, since the creditable emissions reductions used for netting purposes must result from reductions occurring at the modified source. We noted, for example, that the definition of net emissions increase in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(i) includes onl y increases and decreases occurring “at the source”. We believe this provision in the NSR rules is well founded in the C AA . Settin g aside the issue of whether we have authority to change this provision, the potential consequences of changing it to allow the use of non

- source emissions reductions in “netting out” of NSR would be far reaching. We are not proposing such a change as par t of this rulemaking, and we believe that an y proposal for such a change should be based on a much better assessment of its possible implications than can be accomplished as part of this

388 See “PSD and Title V Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases,” March 2011 and “Available and Emerging Technologies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Petroleum Refining Industry,” October 2010, both available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermittin g.html
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 283 of 888 rulemaking. We also note that “netting out” of NSR could be a comple x and often time

- consuming process because all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases within the refinery must be properly

accounted for, so the ability to use vehicle emissions reductions in the netting anal ys is would not automatically make “ne tting out” a time

- saving shortcut around the permitting process that would otherwise appl y. Nevertheless, we invite comment regarding how critical such a change may

be to successful permitting of the modifications needed to comply with the proposed Tier 3 program, possible legal rationales for such a change, and the possible implications beyond the Tier 3 rule including way s to limit such implications by

making the change specific to vehicle emissions reductions that are closely linked to changes in fuel pr operties that result from the refinery modifications. Finally , we invite comment on issues related to state and local minor source NSR programs and how they may relate to implementation of the proposed Tier 3 fuel program. EPA rules give states wide latitude in the design and operation of their minor source programs, and we do not routinely require states to report their minor source permitting activity to us. Therefore, focused comments on this issue would be helpful. **C. Standards for Denatured Fuel Ethano**  **l and Other Oxygenates** Current gasoline requirements include the prohibition on blending gasoline with denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) that has sulfur content higher than 30 ppm. 389 This requirement reflects the current 30

- ppm refinery average sulfur requireme nt. Consistent with this requirement and our proposed introduction of a 10

- ppm refinery average sulfur standard, we propose that manufacturers of DFE for use by oxygenate blenders would be required to meet a 10

- ppm sulfur cap. California’s requirements fo r DFE, which became effective in December 2003, are as follows: maximum 10 ppm sulfur, maximum 0.06 volume percent benzene, maximum 0.5 volume percent olefins, and maximum 1.7 volume percent aromatics. 390 Denaturants used to manufacture DFE must also meet m aximum benzene , olefins, and ar omatics specifications that are based on the anticipated dilution ratio when blended with ethanol. 391 Additionally , in July 2002, the Renewable Fuel Association (RFA) recommended that all ethanol produced for use in the U.S. s hould be manufactured in accordance with the California specifications

389 40 CFR 80.385(e). 390 California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2262.9, “Requirements Regarding Denatured Ethanol Intended For Use as a Blend Component in California Gasoline”. 391 The current California requirements which are based on a maximum 5 percent denaturant level in DFE are as follows: maximum 1.1 volume percent benzene, maximum 10 volume percent olefins, and maximum 35 volume percent aromatics. ASTM International Standard D4806

- 11(a), “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Eth anol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark

Ignition Engine Fuel” requires that the maximum denaturant concentration in DFE is 5 volume percent.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 284 of 888 primarily because of logistical difficulties in segregating ethanol destined for California from other destinations. 392 RFA recentl y i ndicated that all ethanol producers are adhering to this recommendation. Some DFE marketers have also adopted California’s DFE requirements as part of their specifications. 393 Consequently , we believe that the implementation of a 10

- ppm sulfur cap for DFE would not result in increased burden to ethanol prod ucers. We are proposing it to reduce emissions from motor vehicles, the same reason we are proposing a more stringent sulfur standard for gasoline into which it is blended. Further, the ASTM International specification for DFE allows onl y natural gasoline , gasoline blendstocks, and gasoline as denaturants. 394 Similar to the ASTM specifications, we are proposing to require that only natural gasoline, gasoline, and gasoline blendstocks for ox ygenate blending (BOB) be used as ethanol denaturants. We believe that this limitation is needed to prevent the use of other denaturants that might adversel y impact vehicle emissions performance. We believe that the ASTM specifications are already in use by industry and, therefore, EPA’s adoption of the same specificatio ns would not result in an increased burden to DFE producers. We further believe that limiting the t ype of gasoline blendstocks that can be used as denaturant to BOBs would not impose a new burden on DFE producers since other gasoline blendstocks would not ty picall y be available to DFE producers. We request comment on whether there should be an allowance for other gasoline blendst ocks to be used as ethanol denaturants
. With regard to benzene, olefins, and aromatics, we believe that these proposed requireme nts along with Internal Revenue Service ethanol denaturant requirements would limit benzene, olefins, and aromatics content of DFE to very low levels. Therefore, we are not proposing an y limits on these parameters in DFE. Nevertheless, we are requesting comments on whether we should adopt the State of California’s benzene, olefin, and aromatics specifications for DFE. We are also proposing to limit the maximum concentration of denaturant that can be used in DFE to 2 volume percent. Under the RFS2 regul ations, if the denaturant level is 2 volume percent or less (effectivel y less than 2.5 volume percent considering rounding) the entire volume of denatured fuel ethanol can be used for determining compliance with the RFS2 renewable fuel volume requirements
. 395 We also request comment on whether to require manufacturers of denaturants for use in DFE to register with EPA, and demonstrate compliance with the maximum sulfur, benzene, olefins, and aromatics specifications enforced in the

392 RFA publication entitled “Fuel Ethanol, Industry Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures ,” 2011. 393 For example, Aventine Renewable Energy Fuel

- Grade Ethanol specifications at http://www.aventinerei.com/pdfs/fuel_grade_spec.pdf 394 ASTM International D4806

- 11(a), “Standard Specification for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use a s Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel”. 395 See the definition of Renewable Fuel in 40 CFR 80.1401.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 285 of 888 State of California based on the anticipated dilution with ethanol. We believe that such additional requirements on the denaturants used to manufacture DFE would not be necessary

given that DFE producers would be required to meet the proposed specifications and the proposed requir ement that denaturant concentration in DFE be limited to a maximum of 2 volume percent. We propose that producers of DFE would be required to meet the proposed fuel quality

requirements for their product and provide batch reports to EPA. This is similar t o the requirements for gasoline refiners. This approach would provide an appropriate level of assurance on the quality of DFE which has become such a large component in the gasoline fuel pool. We believe that this approach would not result in additional burden to ethanol producers beyond the annual batch reports that they would need to submit to EPA and the information they provide on product transfer documents (PTDs). Currently , under the fuel and fuel additives registration requirements at 40 CFR part 79, manufacturers of DFE are required to register their products with EPA prior to introducing DFE into commerce. Also, DFE producers currentl y test each batch of their product in order to provide assurance to blenders that it meets the current fuel quali ty requirements. This information is critical to ethanol blenders to avoid testing each batch of an ethanol blend that they manufacture. The proposed requirements would facilitate unfettered downstream ethanol blending. We are also proposing that the proposed fuel quality specifications and requirements for DFE (except those related to the use of denaturants) would apply to other ox ygenates used in gasoline. We are proposing that the ox ygenate quality requirements would become effective for ox ygenate producers/importers on January 1, 2017. We are proposing that oxygenate producers and importers would be required to register b y December 1, 2016, or 30 days prior to the date when they produce/import ox ygenate (which ever date is later). Registration un der the RFS program would be sufficient to fulfill this proposed requirement. We are proposing that oxygenate blenders be required to begin using ox ygenates that comply with the proposed requirements beginning March 1, 2017. We also seek comment on the a bility of these blenders to comply with the proposed requirements earlier, and appropriateness of such an earlier compliance date. **D. Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible Fueled Vehicles**  FFVs are vehicles that are capable of operating on both gasoline and gas oline blends containing up to 85 volume percent denatured ethanol. Whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or an y level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission performance the vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality specif ications, such as the 10

- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard proposed today . We anticipate that the volume of higher level ethanol blends used in FFVs may

increase substantially

as the volume requirements of the RFS program***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 286 of 888 increase. Significant public and private initiatives are also currently underway

to expand the use of ethanol blender pumps that dispense a variet y of ethanol blends for use in FFVs. 396 Therefore it is becoming increasingl y important that all fuels used in FFVs, not just gasoline, meet fuel quality standards. A lack of clarity regarding the standards that apply to fuels used in FFVs could act to impede the further expansion of ethanol blended fuels, which is important to satisfying the requirements of the RFS program. For these reason s, we believe it is important that our gasoline quality

standards for not just sulfur, but also benzene, Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), detergency , and compliance with the interpretive rule defining the phrase “substantiall y similar” in CAA section 211(f)(1) 397 (i.e., contain only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur) appl y to any fuel used in an FFV. At the same time, it is not necessarily clear how we should implement such standards within the context of our existing regulations. For this reason we are seeking comment on appropriate regulatory mechanisms for doing so. The following sections discuss potential approaches for gasoline

- ethanol blends both above and below 50 percent ethanol. We have also developed a possible approach, along with draft r egulations, that are included in the docket on which we specificall y s eek comment. 398 1. Standards for E51

- 83 Historically , “E85” has been used to describe fuel blends containing gasoline and ethanol with a minimum and maximum ethanol content of 68 volume pe rcent and 83 volume percent, respectively . The recent update to the ASTM International specification for “E85” included a reduction in the minimum ethanol concentration to 51 volume percent. 399 As part of the updated specification, ASTM retired the name “E 85” in favor of “ethanol fuel blends for flexible

- fuel automotive spark

- ignition engines.” ASTM took this action because the term “E85” has caused confusion regarding the variability in the ethanol content depending upon seasonal climactic conditions and regional gasoline volatility specifications. For the purposes of this discussion, “E51

- 83” refers to the fuel which meets the new ASTM D5798
- 11 specifications. Currently , onl y reformulated gasoline blendstocks for ox ygenate blending (RBOBs) and gasoline that has previousl y been demonstrated to comply with applicable EPA specifications (reformulated gasoline (RFG) and conventional

396 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a program to assist in the funding for the installation of as many as 10,000 ethanol blender pumps over the next 15 years in rural areas. Grow th Energy has a “Blend Your Own Ethanol” program to encourage the installation of ethanol blender pumps. 397 73 FR 22277, 22281 (April 25, 2008). 398 Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible

- Fuel Automotive Spark

- Ignition Vehicles (FFVs), Memorandum to the docket
. 399 ASTM International D5798

- 11, “Standard Specification for Flexible

- Fuel Automotive Spark

Ignition Engines”.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 287 of 888 gasoline (CG)) are used to manufacture E51

- 83. 400 The Agency believes that the use of these blendstocks prevents inappropriate bl ending components (e.g., chemical wastes) from being used in the production of E51

- 83. Use of these blendstocks would also help ensure that E51

- 83 meets the necessary sulfur levels we are proposing today . We note, however, that use of only these blendsto cks is interfering with expansion of E51

- 83 into the marketplace b y preventing blends at the upper range of the allowed ethanol content. At higher ethanol concentrations, blenders often cannot meet the minimum volatility specifications set b y AS TM for col d start performance when using onl y BOBs and gasoline. Prior to the recent update of the ASTM specifications, it was frequently not possible to manufacture “E85” that met both the ASTM minimum volatility specification and the EPA requirements regarding th e blendstocks that can be used. As a result, some marketers discontinued distributing “E85.” Although the ASTM update provided a compliance method for manufacturing E51

- 83, the result is that less ethanol can be used in FFVs, because the ethanol concentr ation is forced down from 83 percent toward the 51 percent minimum. To address this situation, we believe that we need to prescribe requirements for E51

- 83 that would enable the continued expansion into the marketplace. We believe that such requirements c ould focus more on the product and less on how it is made. We also believe that E51

- 83 should meet the same sulfur, RVP, and benzene standards otherwise applicable to gasoline as well as the “substantially similar” requirements. We are therefore seeking comments on whether we could extend these requirements to E51

- 83. We note that establishing such requirements could allow the use of butane and natural gasoline liquids (NGL ) to manufacture E51
- 83 with sufficient volatility to meet the ASTM specifications . Butane is commonly

blended into gasoline and NGL is the denaturant specified by ASTM for the manufacture of DFE. 401 Additionally , because NGLand butane are less expensive than gasoline or BOBs, we anticipate that such a change could help to reduce the p rice of E51

- 83 relative to finished gasoline. 402 Further, we note that requiring E51

- 83 to meet the same standards as gasoline would subject E51

- 83 manufacturers to all the sampling, testing, and reporting obligations of refiners. While this would provide m aximum blending flexibility , it could also limit the parties that might choose to blend E51

- 83. Currently oxygenate blenders are exempt from much of this regulatory burden. For this reason, we are also seeking comments on whether we could establish requ irements that would allow producers of E51

- 83 to avoid the compliance burdens of a refiner . We are seeking comments on one such approach that would

400 Letter to Robert Sydney, Division of Energy Resources, Boston, MA, from James Caldwell, U.S. EPA, February 15, 2006. 401 ASTM International D4806

- 11(a), “Standard Specification for Denatured Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel”. 402 In August of 2011 the retail price of E85 was approximately 60 cents per gallon more than gasoline on an energy content adjusted basis.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 288 of 888 require the use of onl y blendstocks that meet certain specifications to produce E51

- 83. We believe that us e of only blendstocks (including butane and NGL) that meet these specifications would ensure the final blend would alway s meet the standards. These approaches are discussed in greater detail in the docket for this rulemaking. 403 We seek comment on these ap proaches, and an y other approaches that could be used to remove hurdles for blending of E51

- 83 while still ensuring the product meets the fuel quality requirements needed to maintain vehicle emission performance. 2. Standards for Mid

- Level Ethanol Blends (E16

- 50) As discussed earlier, whether FFVs are operating on clear gasoline (E0), E85, or an y level of ethanol in between, to maintain emission performance these vehicles still need the fuel to meet certain quality s pecifications. For this reason, we believe it is important that higher ethanol blends also meet the same standards that apply to gasoline. Our various standards for gasoline already appl y to any fuel sold for use in motor vehicles, which is commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline. In the fuel and fuel additive registration program, the gasoline family includes fuels composed of at least 50 percent clear gasoline b y volume. 404 As a result, our gasoline standards already appl y to E16
- 50 ethanol blends. And y et, such fuels currentl y can on ly be used in FFVs. Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on the need to have E16

- 50 blends comply with the gasoline sulfur, benzene, and RVP standards, we also seek comment on the means of doing so. For example, can and should the Agency simply treat E16
- 50 as gasoline under our regulations and clarify

that gasoline means any

fuel that contains 50 percent or more gasoline? Alternatively , should the Agency treat E16
- 50 as an alternative fuel used in FFVs? In which case we seek comment on whether we should take the same approach for E16

- 50 as discussed above for E51

- 83 with respect to sulfur, benzene, RVP standards, and substantially similar requirements under section 211(f). In the context of considering whether and how to apply gasoline standards and requirements to E16

- 50 we also seek comment on whether it might be an appropriate reading of our regulatory and statutory authority to allow E16 to E50 blends to have higher RVP levels than otherwise required b y our regulations for gasoline. As the e thanol level increases, the volatility increase caused by

blending ethanol with gasoline begins to decline, such that at E30 there is onl y about a 0.5

- psi RVP increase. While still an increase compared to the standards that apply to gasoline other than E9

- 10, it is considerably less than the full 1

- psi RVP increase that results at E10. The evaporative emission increase caused b y E30 would then be less than for E10. Thus, we seek comment on whether it would be an appropriate

403 Herzog, J. (January 2012). Possible Approach to Fuel Quality Standards for Fuel Used in Flexible

- Fuel Automotive Spark

- Ignition Vehicles (F FVs), Memorandum to the docket
. 404 40 CFR 79.56(e)(1)(i).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 289 of 888 reading of our regulatory and statutory authority to allow higher RVP levels for such blends, at least in some limited situations and time frames (e.g., using existing regulatory

research exemptions for demonstration programs) where new efforts are being made to introduce such blends into the market. We further seek comment on data that might help quantify both the evaporative and exhaust emission impacts necessary to support an y such action. **E. Proposed Program Flexibilities**  1. Averaging, Banking, and Trading Program As mentioned in Sect ion V.A.2.b, we are proposing an ABT program which reduces the cost and promotes the feasibility of the program b y allowing refiners and importers to choose the most economical compliance strategy (investment in technology , credits, or both) to meet the pr oposed Tier 3 average gasoline sulfur standard. The program allows refiners and importers to generate standard credits for overcompliance with the 10

- ppm sulfur standard beginning in 2017. These credits could be generated indefinitely and banked or trans ferred to others for compliance with the average sulfur standard. The proposed program also permits refiners and importers to generate earl y credits for overcompliance with today’s 30

- ppm average sulfur standard from 2014 to 2016. Earl y credits may be us ed towards compliance with the 10

- ppm standard beginning in 2017, banked for use through 2019, and/or transferred to other refiners or importers subject to the sulfur standard.
a. Eligibility Under the ABT program, we are proposing that U.S. refiners who produce gasoline b y processing crude oil and/or intermediate feedstocks through refinery processing units are eligible to generate both early credits (2014

- 2016) and standard credits (2017 and later). As proposed, importers are also eligible to generate both earl y and standard sulfur credits on gasoline imported into the United States. We are proposing that sulfur credits may onl y be generated for gasoline that is subject to the proposed sulf ur requirements as described at §80.1603. This excludes gasoline designated for export. It also excludes California gasoline (gasoline produced or imported for use in California) but includes gasoline produced b y California refineries for use outside the state. Although California gasoline is not covered by our proposed sulfur program, we seek comment on whether to include California gasoline in the ongoing ABT program under Tier 3 (not the earl y credit program). The result would be a national 10

- ppm av erage gasoline sulfur standard. This approach could provide some additional compliance flexibility to refiners, but it would also require reporting of batch data to EPA for California gasoline. We have received inquiries whether fuel ethanol producers or blenders should be eligible to generate credits under the proposed gasoline sulfur program. Denatured fuel ethanol currentl y contains around 9 ppm sulfur on average, ranging***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 290 of 888 any where from 2 to almost 30 ppm. 405 While certain batches of ethanol could theoret icall y be low enough in sulfur to generate credits, it is our desire to limit credit generation to companies required to comply with the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards, i.e., refiners and importers. Experience in the unleaded gasoline program suggests w idespread abuse and fraud when credits have been allowed to be generated or sold b y non - obligated parties. Thus, in order to allow ethanol producers (or blenders) to generate sulfur credits under Tier 3, they would need to be treated as refiners and subje ct to our batch testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for the finished gasoline they produce. 406 Currentl y, downstream blenders are exempt from these regulations because the certification and compliance burden is being borne b y the upstream ref iners. 407 Furthermore, since many refiners currentl y comply with our standards taking into consideration the fuel propert y changes expected as a result of downstream ethanol blending, providing ethanol blenders with sulfur credit would result in double counting the effects of ethanol. To avoid this, we would need to restructure our gasoline regulations to shift the point of compliance to the man y terminals and bulk plants where ethanol is blended and finished gasoline is produced instead of the refinery gat e. While possible, this would significantly expand the amount of sampling, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting required to demonstrate compliance with our gasoline standards. It would also considerabl y expand the amount of sampling, testing, recordkeep ing, and reporting required of ethanol blenders. As discussed in Section V.C, we are proposing a cap of 10 ppm on the sulfur content of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE). Over compliance with the per

- gallon cap would not be a valid basis for credit generation , as you would expect that in all cases the DFE would be below the cap. To allow credit generation, we would need to propose an additional annual average sulfur standard for DFE at some level below 10 ppm, and allow credits to be generated for over compli ance with that standard. Accordingl y, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow ethanol producers or blenders to generate sulfur credits under the proposed gasoline sulfur program. b. Standard Credit Generation Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposi ng standard credit generation provisions similar to those offered under Tier 2 as well as the MSAT2 gasoline benzene program. We are proposing an ongoing sulfur credit program that would allow refiners and importers to average within and across companies to meet the new 10
- ppm average sulfur standard in the most cost

- effective manner possible. Refiners and importers could generate standard credits for overcomplying with the

405 Report on Ethanol Producers Survey, Presented at the California Phase 3 Reformulated Gasoline Regulation Workshop, June 15, 2000, Carl Reeder, Archer Daniels Midland 406 40 CFR 80.330, 80.335, 80.365, and 80.370. 407 Under the proposed Tier 3 program, as explained in Section V.C, we are requiring fuel ethanol producers to comply with the 10

- ppm standard. However, for the reasons discussed above, w e still do not believe it is appropriate to allow them to generate sulfur credits under the proposed ABT program.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 291 of 888 10
- ppm standard on a volume

- weighted annual average basis beginning January 1, 201 7. Standard credit generation periods would be 12 months long and sy nchronized with compliance demonstration periods. We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries could generate standard credits beginning with the start of their program on January 1, 2020. Eligible small refining entities could also generate standard credits for over compliance with the 10

- ppm standard from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 by voluntaril y opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program during a time per iod when it would otherwise not apply . Regardless of whether they were generated earl y or not, all standard credits generated b y small refiners and small volume refineries would be subject to the credit life provisions described in Section V.E.1.d . For a summary

of the small refiner and small volume refinery ABT provisions, refer to Section V.E.1.f
. c. Earl y Credit Generation To encourage earl y gasoline desulfurization and give the refining industry flexibility to stagger their investments over time, we are proposing that refiners and importers co uld also generate earl y credits for overcomplying with today ’s 30
- ppm gasoline sulfur standard on a volume

- weighted annual average basis from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Under the ABT program, we are proposing that refiners and importers wo uld not need to establish a gasoline sulfur baseline or meet a trigger point in order to generate earl y credits. They would simply need to demonstrate that their average U.S. gasoline sulfur levels are below today ’s 30
- ppm Tier 2 standard during the earl y credit generation period. We believe this simple earl y credit approach is possible because U.S. gasoline is currentl y averaging around 30 ppm today

based on compliance data. Since during the proposed earl y credit generation period refiners and importers would need to continue to comply with the existing Tier 2 sulfur standards, absent Tier 3, they would need to maintain this level of performance on an industry average basis. Accordingl y, an y additional gasoline sulfur reductions beyond 30 ppm could thus be attributed to the proposed Tier 3 program. Refiners and importers supplying gasoline containing less than 30 ppm sulfur from January

1, 2014 through December 31, 2016 could choose from generating either standard credits under the existing Tier 2 program or early credits under the proposed Tier 3 program, but not both (at least not for the same volume of gasoline). Sulfur credits would be generated on an annual average basis. Refiners and importers could make the decision at the end of the year whether credits generated in 2014, 2015 or 2016 would be more valuable used/traded to comply with the Tier 2 program or banked for the Tier 3 program. Some year - end credits could be designated as Tier 2 and some designated as Tier 3 provided the same volume of g asoline was only used to generate one ty

pe of credit. We believe that the proposed earl y credit program structure is the simplest approach to giving refiners and importers incentive for doing more sulfur control earlier than required and providing additio nal lead time to meet the Tier 3 annual average standard. We***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 292 of 888 seek comments on alternative way s to structure the earl y credit program to help ease the transition from Tier 2 to Tier 3. Under past fuel programs (e.g., MSAT2), we precluded importers from gen erating earl y credits under the premise that they did not need additional lead time to comply

with our fuel standards because, most likely , they would not be investing in new refining technologies. We also thought it would be difficult for them to establi sh representative baselines from which earl y credits could be generated. Since we are not proposing earl y credit baselines under Tier 3, as discussed above, we are proposing to allow importers to generate earl y credits for sending over

- compliant gasoline to the United States prior to the start of the program, but seek comment on the appropriateness of doing so. d. Credit L ife Provisions Under the Tier 3 ABT program, we are proposing that earl y credits must be used towards compliance within three years from the start of the program; otherwise they

would expire and become invalid. In other words, earl y credits must be applied towards the 2017, 2018 or 2019 compliance ye ars. After February 29, 2020, all earl y credits would expire and become invalid. The propo sed three

- year earl y credit life provision would offer considerable flexibility to refiners phasing in Tier 3 gasoline sulfur controls while still placing a 2020 end date at which point the intended sulfur program is fully implemented and enforceable. It would provide a date certain b y when auto manufacturers could have confidence for the design of their vehicles that all vehicles in

- use are running on 10 ppm average fuel. Otherwise, it is possible that the greater ease of generating earl y credits relativ e to 30 ppm sulfur (as opposed to 10 ppm in 2017 and beyond) could allow higher sulfur levels to continue well beyond 2019. Refiners that are able to generate early credits may choose to hold onto them for later use, rather than trade them to other refine rs who may need them sooner. The proposed three

- year earl y credit life provision would also be consistent with the duration of the small volume refinery provisions described below. We seek comment on the lifetime of earl y credits and the implications on i n - use sulfur levels beyond 2019 should we allow them to have a longer credit life. We are proposing that standard credits must be used within five years from the year they

were generated (regardless of when/if they are traded); otherwise they would expire and become invalid. For example, standard credits generated in 2017 could be applied towards 2018

- 2022 compliance, as well as 2017 compliance. After February

28, 2023, standard credits generated in 2017 would expire and become invalid. Similarly, standard credits generated in 2018 could be applied towards 2019

- 2023 compliance, as well as 2018 compliance. After February 29, 2024, standard credits generated in 2018 would expire, and so on and so forth. We believe the five

- ye ar standard credit life provisi on, when final, would give refiners and importers sufficient time to use credits generated in previous years while still placing limitations on credit life that would help with enforcement. Five***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 293 of 888 ye ars is consistent with the proposed recordkeeping and repo rting requirements (described in more detail in Section V.F.1 ) as well as the current Tier 2 and MSAT2 standard credit life provisions.
e. Credit Trading Provisions It is possible that sulfur credits could be generated by one part y, subsequently

transferred or used in good faith by another, and later found to have been calculated or created improperly or otherwise determined to be invalid. If this occurs, as in past fuel programs, we are proposing that both the seller and purchaser would have to adjust their sulfur calculations to reflect the proper credits and either party (or both) could be determined to be in violation of the standards and other requirements if the adjusted calculations demonstrate noncompliance with the 10

- ppm standard. Under the proposed Tier 3 ABT program, sulfur credits must be transferred directly from the refiner or importer generating them to the part y using them for compliance purposes. This ensures that the parties purchasing them are better able to assess the likelihood that the credits are valid. An exception exists where a credit generator transfers credits to a refiner or importer who inadvertentl y cannot use all the credits. In this case, the credits could be transferred a second time to another refiner or importer. After the second trade, the credits must be used or they would be terminated. Allowing a maximum of two trades is consistent with other recent fuel programs and we believe it is sufficiently flexible while still preserving adequate means for enforcement. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the need for allowing more than two trades for sulfur credits under the proposed Tier 3 program. There are currently

no prohibitions against brokers facilitating the transfer of credits from one part y to another. An y person can act as a credit broker, regardless of whether such person is a refiner or importer, as long as the title to the credits is transferred directly from the generating refiner or importer to the using refiner or importer. This prohibition on outside parties taking ownership of credits was promulgated in response to problems encountered during the unleaded gasoline program and has since appeared in subsequent fuels rulemakings. Maintaining this prohibition would allow for maximum program enforceability and consistency

with all of our other ABT programs for mobile sources and their fuels. Nonetheless, we seek comment on the need for this restriction under the proposed Tier 3 program. f. Summary

of ABT Provisions for Small Ref iners and Small Volume Refineries We are proposing that small refiners and small volume refineries would have an additional three years to compl y with the 10

- ppm annual average standard, or until January

1, 2020. This is the primary form of relief offered to small refining entities under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program. The proposed credit provisions are similar to those offered to non

- small refiners. Eligible small refiners and small volume refineries would be able to generate earl y credits for***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 294 of 888 overcompl yi ng with the 30

- ppm Tier 2 standard from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. Like non

- small refiners, they would need to make the decision whether these credits would be more valuable under the Tier 2 program or the proposed Tier 3 pr ogram. While early credits could help postpone investments by up to three years, they could not be used by small refiner s or small refineries to postpone sulfur investments beyond their January 1, 2020 start date. However, earl y credits generated by smal l entities from 2014

- 2016 could be traded/sold to non - small refiners subject to the January 1, 2017 standard and the credit revenues could be used to help offset their Tier 3 investments. As explained above, small refiners and small volume refineries could generate standard credits relative to the 10

- ppm standard beginning with the start of their program on January 1, 2020. Eligible small refining entities could also generate standard credits for over compliance with the 10

- ppm standard from January 1, 201 7 through December 31, 2019 by voluntarily

opting in to the Tier 3 sulfur program earlier than required. Regulatory flexibility

provisions offered to small refiners and small volume refineries are described in more detail below. 2. Regulatory

Flexibility

Pro visions
a. Small Business Regulatory Flexibility

Provisions As in previous fuel rulemakings, our justification for including provisions specific to small businesses is that these entities generall y have a greater degree of difficulty in compl yi ng with the standards compared to other entities. In developing the proposed Tier 3 gasoline sulfur program, we evaluated the environmental need as well as the technical and financial ability of refiners and others in the fuel industry to meet the sulfur standards as expeditiously as possible. We believe it is feasible and necessary for the vast majority

of the program to be implemented in the established time frame to achieve the air quality benefits as soon as possible. Based on information available from small ref iners and others, we believe that entities classified as small generally face unique circumstances with regard to compliance with environmental programs, compared to larger entities. Thus, as discussed below, we are proposing several regulatory flexibility provisions for small entities in the fuels industry to reduce the burden that our proposed program could have on them. Small entities generally

lack the resources that are available to larger companies, including those large companies that own small

- capa city refineries, to raise capital for investing in a new regulatory program, such as shifting of internal funds, securing of financing, or selling of assets. Small entities are also likely to have more difficulty

in competing for any

needed engineering an d construction resources. As such, we are proposing provisions that would provide assistance for small entities in meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards. This proposed approach would allow the overall program to begin as earl y as possible; achieving the air quality benefits of the program as soon as possible, while helping to ensure that***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 295 of 888 small entities have adequate time to raise capital for new fuel desulfurization equipment or to make any other needed changes. We believe that small business regulatory flexibilities could provide these entities with additional help and/or time to accumulate capital internall y or to secure capital financing from lenders, and could spread out the availability of any needed engineering and construction resources. i. Delayed Standards for Small Refiners As explained in Sections V.A.1.c and V.E.1.f , we are proposing an option that would allow small refiners to postpone compliance with the Tier 3 program for up to three years. This delayed compliance schedule for small refiners is not intended as an opportunity for those refiners to greatly expand their production of >10 ppm sulfur gasoline, but rather would help small refiners with compliance with the program. Since the compliance costs f or their competitors would rise during these three ye ars and since their gasoline would be sold into the same fungible market, this delay

would not only

provide them more lead time, but also financial support towards later compliance. Small refiners choos ing this option would have from January

1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Compliance with the 10

- ppm sulfur standard would begin on January 1, 2020. Any

small refiner choosing this option would be allowed to continue using Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through December 31, 2019 to meet their refinery average 30
- ppm sulfur standard (however, these credits may not be used for compliance with the proposed Tier 3 10

- ppm average sulfur standard).

ii. Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps During the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel process, small refiners raised the concern that a refinery gate cap of 20 ppm could cause pr oblems during a refinery turnaround or an upset because a cap of this level could result in a refiner not being able to produce saleable gasoline. The Panel likewise had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm may cause problems for small downstream enti ties such as transmix processors because, as they noted in their comments during the Panel process, transmix processors may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level. Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on r etaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, respectivel y, to help provide maximum flexibility

and avoid sy stem upsets for the entire refining and distribution sy stem. Further, the Small Business Administration (SBA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Panel members recommended that EPA propose retaining the 80

- ppm and 95

- ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that, if EPA were to propose caps lower than 80 and 95 ppm, the Agency request comment on additional refinery gate and downstream caps that are above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 296 of 888 As discussed in Section XI.C, we are proposing to either maintain the current 80/95 ppm caps or to lower them to 50/65 ppm. Should we lower the caps to 50/65 ppm, given the stringenc y of the 10

- ppm average standard, we anticipate that they would provide the same level of flexibility for refiners, pipelines, terminals, transmix processors, and gasoline additive manufacturers as the current 80/95 ppm caps. Should we lower the caps to 5 0/65, we are proposing to allow the current Tier 2 80

- ppm refinery gate cap to remain in place through December 31, 2019. Compliance with the 50

- ppm refinery gate cap would begin on January 1, 2020, when the 10

- ppm average sulfur standard is required for all refiners. Similarly , we are proposing to allow the Tier 2 95

- ppm downstream cap to remain in effect through February 29, 2020. Compliance with the 65

- ppm downstream cap would begin on March 1, 2020. For more information on the proposed cap provision s, refer to Section V.A.3.

iii. Credit

- related Flexibilities As described above in Section V.E.1 , we are proposing an ABT program. Refiners and importers would be able to generate earl y sulfur credits from January 1, 20 14 through December 31, 2016 relative to the current 30

- ppm Tier 2 average sulfur standard (i.e., credits may be generated for any

reductions below 30 ppm prior to the start of the general Tier 3 program). Beginning January 1, 2017 standard credits may

be generated for overcompliance with the proposed 10

- ppm Tier 3 sulfur standard. In addition, small refiners and small volume refineries would be able to generate standard credits from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 for reductions below 10 ppm prior to their proposed program start date of January 1, 2020. During the SBREFA Panel process, one Small Entity Representative (SER) commented that importers should be allowed to participate in the credit program. In previous EPA fuel programs, importers h ave generall y been treated as refiners, except for the purposes of earl y credit generation. Refiners have historically been required to establish a baseline in order to generate earl y credits. Importers generall y do not have a specific baseline or amount of fuel that they import in a given ye ar, so participation in the earl y credit market would not have been feasible under those programs. However, under the proposed Tier 3 sulfur program, refiners and importers are not required to establish baselines; th e existing 30

- ppm Tier 2 standard serves as the “baseline.” Therefore, as discussed above in Section V.E.1.c , we are proposing to allow importers to participate in the earl y credit program as well as the ongoing st andard credit program.

iv. Gasoline Additive Manufacturers During the SBREFA Panel process, some gasoline additive manufacturing SERs raised the concern that they would have difficulty

meeting a 25

- ppm per gallon sulfur cap, and the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on whether or not gasoline additives should be allowed to remain at levels above 25 ppm sulfur, and on potential methods for ensuring that bulk additives do not***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 297 of 888 increase the sulfur level of the resultant fuel blend. However, as discussed a bove and in Section V.A.3, we are proposing to either retain the current 80/95 ppm caps or only go to 50/65 ppm. Both of these options would have the same 15

- ppm differential between the refinery gate and downstream caps, thus we are not proposing an y add itional provisions for gasoline additives beyond what already exists under the current Tier 2 program. b. Small Volume Refinery Provisions During the development of this proposal and throughout the SBREFA process, it became evident that some refineries may e xperience higher compliance costs on a per - gallon basis than other refineries, and in some cases considerably higher. It also became apparent that in man y of these cases it was not necessarily a refinery owned by

a refiner/compan y that would meet the SBA definition of a small business (however, these refineries tend to be small volume refineries). In an oversupplied gasoline market, these refineries may have difficulty justifying capital investments to comply

with the proposed sulfur standard. In recogni tion of this concern under the RFS program, Congress granted all small refineries with a crude oil throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 barrels per calendar day (bpcd) additional time to comply. As such, we are also proposing delay ed Tier 3 sulfur s tandards for approved small volume refineries. Overall, we believe that these small refineries are disproportionally impacted when it comes to their cost of compliance and ability

to rationalize the investment costs in today ’s gasoline market. Giving the se refineries additional lead time would allow them more time to invest in desulfurization technology , take advantage of advancements in technology , develop confidence in a Tier 3 credit market as a means of compliance, and avoid competition for capital, e ngineering, and construction resources with the larger refineries. We are proposing that approved small volume refineries would receive a three

- ye ar delay (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019) in meeting the 10

- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, similar to the small refiner delay
. Credit generation opportunities for approved small volume refineries would be identical to those proposed for small refiners as described in Section V.E.1.f
. A refiner would ne ed to apply and be approved for small volume refinery status. We are proposing a small volume refinery net crude throughput of less than or equal to 75,000 bpcd, and we request comment on whether or not a different crude throughput would be more appropriate. To determine compliance with this threshold, we propose to base the crude throughput on the highest crude throughput for either the 2010 or 2011 calendar years. 3. Provisions for Refiners Facing Hardship Situations As in previous fuel programs, we are proposing hardship provisions to accommodate a refiner’s inability to comply

with the proposed standard at the start of the Tier 3 program, and to deal with unforeseen circumstances that may occur at any point during the program. These provisions would be available to all refiners, small and non

- small, though relief would be granted on a case

- by

- case basis***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 298 of 888 following a showing of certain requirements; primarily that compliance through the use of credits was not feasible. We are proposing that any hardship wa iver would not be a total waiver of compliance; rather, a hardship waiver would be short

- term relief that would allow a refiner facing a hardship situation to, for example, receive additional time to comply. EPA would determine appropriate hardship relief based on the nature and degree of the hardship, as presented by the refiner in their hardship application, and on our assessment of the credit market. In addition to the unforeseen circumstances and extreme hardship circumstances waivers being proposed to day and discussed in more detail below, the Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on the concept of long

term cap relief should we lower the sulfur caps below the current 80/95

- ppm level if the circumstances both warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. Such a provision may

require segregation of their fuel through to the retail station in order for it not to preclude enforcement on the gasoline supplied by other refiners serving the area. Therefore, in providing comment on suc h a hardship provision, please also comment on potential compliance and enforcement mechanisms to account for such longer

- term relief, e.g., fuel segregation, tracking, reporting and recordkeeping, etc.
a. Temporary

Waivers Based on Unforeseen Circumstances W e are proposing a provision which, at our discretion, would permit any refiner to seek a temporary waiver from the Tier 3 sulfur standards under certain rare circumstances. This waiver provision is similar to provisions in existing fuel regulations. It i s intended to provide refiners relief in unanticipated circumstances

- such as a refinery

fire or a natural disaster (i.e., force majeure )

- that cannot be reasonabl y foreseen now or in the near future. Under this provision, a refiner could seek a hardshi p waiver for relief if it could demonstrate that the magnitude of the impact was so severe as to require such an extension. We are proposing that the refiner would be required to show that: (1) the waiver would be in the public interest; (2) the nonconfor mity was unavoidable; (3) it would meet the proposed Tier 3 standards as expeditiously as possible; (4) it would make up the air quality detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where practicable; and (5) it would pay

to the U.S. Treasury

an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity

less the amount expended to make up the air quality detriment. These conditions are similar to those in previous fuels regulations, and are necessary and appropriate to ensure that any waivers grant ed would be limited in scope. As discussed, such a request would be based on the refiner’s inability to produce compliant gasoline at the affected facility due to extreme and unusual circumstances outside the refiner’s control that could not have been avoi ded through the exercise of due diligence. The hardship request would also need to show that other avenues for mitigating the problem, such as the purchase of credits toward compliance under the proposed credit provisions, had been pursued and y et***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 299 of 888 were ins ufficient or unavailable. In light of the proposed flexibilities including the ABT program, we expect that the need for such requests would be rare. b. Temporary

Waivers Based on Extreme Hardship Circumstances In addition to the provision for short

- term reli ef in extreme unforeseen circumstances, we are also proposing a hardship provision where a refiner could receive a hardship waiver based on severe economic or phy sical lead time limitations of the refinery to compl y with the Tier 3 standards at the start o f the program. A refiner seeking such hardship relief under this proposed rule would have to demonstrate that these criteria were met. In addition to showing that unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship in meeting the proposed standards, the refiner would have to show that: (1) it has made best efforts to comply , including through the purchase of credits; (2) the relief granted under this provision would be in the public interest; (3) the environmental impact would be acceptable; and (4) it has active plans to meet the requirements as expeditiously as possible. We expect that hardship relief requests under this provision would mostly be applicable at the beginning of the Tier 3 program, when refiners are making their investments to comply . If hardship relief under these circumstances was approved, we would expect to impose appropriate conditions to ensure that the refiner was making best efforts to achieve compliance offsetting an y loss of emission control from the program. We believe th at providing short

- term relief to those refiners that need additional time due to hardship circumstances would help to facilitate the adoption of the overall Tier 3 program for the majority of the industry . However, we do not intend for hardship waiver provisions to encourage refiners to delay planning and investments they would otherwise make. Again, because of the flexibilities of the proposed overall program, we expect that the need for additional relief would be rare. **F. Compliance Provisions**  For the most part, the proposed Tier 3 sulfur standards simply reflect a lowering of the current Tier 2 sulfur standards. Thus, we are proposing to retain most of the same compliance provisions as the current Tier 2 program, with exceptions as noted. However, we are also proposing and seeking comment on several fuel program regulatory streamlining measures, including a broader program redesign to streamline the reformulated gasoline and anti

- dumping regulations. 408 Some of these streamlining measures, if adopted, may also impact the Tier 3 sulfur compliance provisions proposed below.

408 For more information on Part 80 regulatory streamlining options, refer to Section VI.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 300 of 888 1. Registration, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements Registration, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to track compliance with the Tier 3 standards and the ABT program. This section describes the proposed compliance provisions of today ’s program.
a. Registration Requirements We are proposing that refiners, importers, and an yone acting as a refiner (e.g., a terminal with blending or other refining operations) who expects to p roduce or import gasoline would be required to register each of its facilities with EPA by June 1, 2016, or six months prior to producing gasoline meeting the Tier 3 standards and/or participating in the credit program. After the program begins on January 1, 2017, an y non - registered parties must register at least three months prior to producing gasoline or participating in the credit market under the Tier 3 program. Most refiners, importers, and ethanol producers are currently registered with EPA under other 40 CFR part 80 fuels programs. We are proposing that those who are already registered would not have to register again. For registration, we are proposing to use the same basic forms that previous fuels programs have used. These forms are well known in the regulated community and are simple to fill out. Upon receipt of a completed registration form, EPA would issue a unique 4

- digit company identification number and a unique 5

- digit facility identification number. As with existing fuels programs, the se numbers would be required for all reports sent to EPA and for PTDs. Registrations would not expire and would not have to be renewed; however, we are proposing that registered parties would be responsible for notifying us of any change to their compan y o r facilit y information. An entity ’s registration must include a corporate name and address (including the name, telephone number, and e

- mail address of a corporate contact); and, for each facility

operated by

the entit y:

 Ty pe of facility

(e.g., refinery , i mport facilit y, pipeline, terminal, transmix facility , etc.)

 Facilit y name

 Phy sical location

 Contact name, telephone number, and e

- mail address b. Reporting Requirements We are proposing to require refiners and importers to submit annual reports demonstrating their compliance with the Tier 3 standards and on the generation, use, and transfer of sulfur credits at each of its refineries or import facilities.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 301 of 888 Similar to our other sulfur programs, we are also proposing to require refiners and importers to submit data on individual batches of gasoline (including batch volume and sulfur content). Based on our experience with existing gasoline and sulfur

based programs, we believe that requiring annual reports and individual sulfur batch data would provide an effect ive means of monitoring compliance with the standards and the credit program. We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates would be required to submit an annual report that includes the total volume of DFE/ox ygenate produced and an att estation that all batches met the proposed fuel quality requirements: sulfur content, composition (i.e., composed onl y of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur), and denaturant concentration as applicable. We are proposing that reports would be due annually on March 31.
c. Recordkeeping Requirements Similar to current EPA fuels programs, we are proposing that refiners and importers would be required to retain all records that demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 program, including ABT program info rmation. We are proposing that manufacturers of DFE and other oxygenates would be required to keep records on individual batches of DFE/ox ygenate (including batch volume, sulfur content, and denaturant concentration as applicable). All parties in the g asoline production and distribution sy stem subject to today ’s proposed rule would also be required to keep records of all PTDs and records of an y qualit y assurance programs. Records would need to be retained for five years. For credit transactions, recor ds would need to be retained for five years from the usage date. Records would need to be made available to EPA on request. We are also proposing that if electronic records are kept, hard copies should be made available upon request. We are proposing to allow parties to claim information submitted to EPA as confidential business information (CBI). Parties making such a claim would be required to follow all reporting guidance and clearly mark the information being claimed as proprietary . EPA would treat information covered b y such a claim in accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 2 and other Agency procedures for handling proprietary

information. 2. Sampling and Testing Requirements Under the Tier 2 program, a sulfur concentration must be determined for every batch of gasoline. We are proposing to retain that requirement under Tier 3. As with the Tier 2 program, this every batch testing requirement would be required to occur prior to the batch leaving the refinery . We are proposing to retain the current sampling, testing, and sample retention requirements. However, as***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 302 of 888 discussed below in Section VI.A.3, we are proposing performance based measurement standards that would allow refiners to use alternate test methods for measuring sulfur. We are propos ing that manufacturers of DFE would be required to test each individual batch of DFE for its sulfur content. We request comment on these elements related to sampling and testing, as well as the sampling and testing requirements in the proposed regulation s. 3. Small Refiner Compliance To qualify

for small refiner status under the Tier 3 program, we are proposing that a refiner must apply by July 1, 2013. As with our other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to continue using the Small Business Administratio n definition of a small refiner: 1,500 employees (company

- wide). To qualify for small refiner status under Tier 3, we are also proposing that a small refiner must meet the following additional criteria:

 The refiner must have produced gasoline from crude oil during the 2011 calendar year.

 The refiner must have owned and operated the refinery during the period from January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. New owners that purchased a refinery

after that date would do so with full knowledge of the proposed regulations, and should have planned to comply along with their purchase decisions. As with existing fuel programs, we are proposing that a refiner that restarts a refinery in the future may

be eligible for small refiner status. Thus, a refiner restarti ng a refinery that was shut down or non

- operational during calendar year 2011 could apply for small refiner status. In such cases, we would judge eligibility under the emplo ym ent and crude oil capacit y criteria based on the most recent 12 consecutive months prior to the application, unless we conclude from data provided by the refiner that another period of time is more appropriate. However, we propose to limit this to a company that owned the refinery

at the time that it was shut down. New purchasers wo uld not be eligible for small refiner status for the same reasons described above.

 The refiner must have had 1,500 employees or less based on the average number of emplo ye es for all pay periods from January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 for all subsidi aries, parent companies (i.e., an y compan y or companies with controlling interest), and joint ventures.

 The refiner must have had a crude oil capacity less than or equal to 155,000 bpcd during the 2011 calendar year.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 303 of 888 A refiner appl yi ng for status as a smal l refiner would be required to apply and provide EPA with several t ypes of information, as specified in the regulations, by July 1, 2013. All refiners seeking small refiner status under this program would need to appl y for small refiner status, regardless of whether or not the refiner had been approved for small refiner status under another fuel program. As with applications for relief under other rules, applications for small refiner status under this proposed rule that are later found to contain false o r inaccurate information would be void ab initio
. Requirements for small refiner status applications:

 The total crude oil capacity as reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the most recent 12 months of operation. This would include the capacit y of all refineries controlled by a refiner and b y all subsidiaries and parent companies and joint ventures. We would presume that the information submitted to EIA is correct. (In cases where a company disagr eed with this information, the company could petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the compan y submitted its application for small refiner status. EPA could accept such alternate data at its discretion.)

 The name and address of eac h location where employees worked during the 2011 calendar ye ar ; and the number of employees at each location during this time period. This would include the employees of the refiner and all subsidiaries and parent companies and joint ventures.

 In the cas e of a refiner who reactivates a refinery that was either shutdown or non

- operational from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, the name and address of each location where emplo ye es worked since the refiner reactivated the refinery and the average number of employees at each location for each calendar year since the refiner reactivated the refinery
.
 The ty

pe of business activities carried out at each location.

 Contact information for a corporate contact person, including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, e

- mail address.

 A letter signed b y the president, chief operating officer, or chief executive officer of the company (or a designee) stating that the information contained in the application was true to the best of his/her knowledge and th at the company owned the refinery

as of January

1, 2011. We are proposing that an approved small refiner that exceeds the emplo ye e count or crude capacit y criteria due to merger with, acquisition by, or the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 304 of 888 acquisition of another entity will lose its small refiner status. In situations where a small refiner loses its small refiner status due to merger with a non

- small refiner, acquisition of another refiner, or acquisition by another refiner, we are proposing provisions which are similar to those in our ex isting fuels programs to allow an additional 30 months of lead time to comply with the Tier 3 program after the disqualifying event. 409 The proposed 30 months of additional lead time would only appl y to refineries that had previousl y been subject to small refiner relief, as we believe there would be no adverse environmental impact because of the pre

existing relief provisions that applied to the small refiner. We are also proposing that a refiner would lose its small refiner status if it ceases to process crude oil. Our intent has been, and continues to be, limiting the small refiner relief provisions to a small subset of refiners that are challenged, as discussed above. However, it is also our intent to avoid stifling normal business growth. Therefore, we are proposing that an approved small refiner who exceeds the emplo yee count or crude oil capacit y criteria through normal business practices, may retain its small refiner status. Further, in the sole case of a merger between two approved small refiners we are proposing to allow such refiners to retain their small refiner status. Additional financial resources would not typicall y be provided in the case of a merger between two small refiners. Small refiner status for the two entities of the merger woul d not be affected; hence the original compliance plans of the two refiners should not be impacted. Moreover, no environmental detriment would result from the two small refiners maintaining their small refiner status within the merged entit y as they would have likely maintained their small refiner status had the merger not occurred. We request comment on whether or not these provisions remain appropriate. 4. Small Volume Refinery Compliance In the case of small volume refineries, the application process for qualification is similar to that of a small refiner. A refiner that is both a small refiner and owns a small volume refinery need not apply

for small volume refinery status; the small refiner application is all that is needed. We are proposing a net crud e throughput threshold of no more than 75,000 bpcd based on the highest throughput in calendar years 2010 or 2011 as the basis for receiving small volume refinery status. We request comment on whether or not another threshold would be more appropriate. We are proposing that refiners would need to include the following in their applications:

409 See, for example, 69 FR 39051 (June 29, 2004).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 305 of 888  Proof that the refiner produced gasoline from crude oil during the 2011 calendar year.

 Proof that the refiner owned and operated the refinery during the period from January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011.

 The refinery ’s total crude throughput as reported to EIA for each of calendar years 2010 and 2011. Again, we would presume that the information submitted to EIA is correct. In cases where a refiner disagrees with this information, the refiner could petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the refiner submits its application for small volume refinery status. EPA could accept such alternate data at its discretion.

 Contact information for a corpor ate contact person, including: name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, e

- mail address.

 A letter signed b y the president, chief operating officer, or chief executive officer of the company (or a designee) stating that the information contained in the application was true to the best of his/her knowledge and that the company owned the refinery

as of January

1, 2011. 5. Attest Engagements, Violations, and Penalties We are proposing to retain the Tier 2 requirements for attest engagements for generation of b oth early and standard credits, use of credits, and compliance with the proposed program, using the procedures used in other EPA fuels programs for attest engagements. The violation and penalty provisions applicable to today ’s proposed program would be ve ry similar to the provisions currently in effect in other gasoline programs as well. We request comment on the need for additional attest engagement, violation, penalty , or any other compliance and enforcement related provisions specific to the proposed T ier 3 program. 6. Special Fuel Provisions and Exemptions The following paragraphs discuss several provisions and exemptions for gasoline that we are proposing would appl y in special circumstances.
a. Gasoline Used in Military Applications In our diesel fuel program, we provided an exemption for diesel fuel used in tactical military

vehicles and nonroad engines and equipment with a national securit y exemption (NSE) from the vehicle and engine emissions standards. Due to national securit y co nsiderations, some of EPA’s existing regulations allow the military to request and receive NSEs for vehicles, engines, and equipment from emissions regulations if the operational requirements for such vehicles, engines, or***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 306 of 888 equipment warrant such an exempti on. Fuel used in these applications would also be exempt if it is used in tactical military vehicles, engines, or equipment that are not covered b y an NSE but, for national security reasons (such as the need to be ready for immediate deploy ment overseas), these applications need to be fueled on the same fuel as those with an NSE. We are proposing this exemption under the proposed Tier 3 gasoline program. b. Gasoline Used in Researc h, Development, and Testing Similar to other EPA fuels programs, we are proposing to allow requests for an exemption from the Tier 3 standards for gasoline used for research, development, and testing purposes (“R & D exemption”). We recognize that there m ay be legitimate research programs that require the use of gasoline with sulfur levels greater than those allowed under the proposed Tier 3 program. Thus, we are proposing provisions for obtaining an exemption from the prohibition against persons producin g, distributing, transporting, storing, selling, or dispensing gasoline that does not meet the Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standards, where such fuel is necessary to conduct a research, development, or testing program. Parties seeking an R & D exemption would b e required to submit an application for exemption to EPA that describes the purpose and scope of the program, and the reasons why the noncompliant gasoline is necessary . Upon presentation of the required information, an exemption could be granted at the d iscretion of EPA, with the condition that EPA could withdraw the exemption in the event the Agency

determines the exemption is not justified. In addition, an exemption based on false or inaccurate information would be considered void ab initio . Gasoline subject to an exemption would be exempt from certain provisions of this rule, including the sulfur standards, provided certain requirements are met. These requirements include the segregation of the exempt gasoline from non

exempt gasoline, identification of the exempt gasoline on PTDs, and pump labeling.
c. Gasoline for Export Gasoline produced for export, and that is actuall y exported for use in a foreign country , would be considered exempt from the fuel content standards and other requirements of this prop osed rule. Such gasoline would be considered as intended for use in the U.S. and subject to the proposed standards unless it is designated b y the refiner and the PTD states that the gasoline is for “export only”. Gasoline intended for export would be req uired to be segregated from all gasoline intended for use in the U.S. Distributing or dispensing such fuel for domestic use would be illegal. d. Other Special Provisions and Potential Exemptions We are proposing provisions for Alaska that would allow the ref inery gate and downstream caps to remain at the current Tier 2 80

- ppm and 95

- ppm levels, respectivel y, should the caps be lowered to 50 and 65 ppm (per Section V.A.3).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 307 of 888 Additionally , in previous fuels programs we have included exemptions for racing fuel and for fuel used in the U.S. territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. We request comment on whether or not such exemptions would be needed for this program. **G. Statutory Authority for Proposed Tier 3 Fuel Controls**  We are proposing gasoline sulfur controls under our authority in section 211(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act. This section gives us the authority to “control or prohibit the manufacture, introduction into commerce, offering for sale, or sale” of any fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle (1) whose emission products, in the judgment of the Administrator, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare [section 211(c)(1)(A)] or (2) whose emission products will impair to a significant degree the performance of any emission control device or sy stem which is in general use, or which the Administrator finds has been developed to a point where in a re asonable time it would be in general use were the fuel control or prohibition adopted [section 211(c)(1)(B)]. We are proposing controls on gasoline sulfur levels based on both of the Clean Air Act criteria, as described in more detail below. 1. Section 211(c )(1)(A) Under the first criterion, we believe that emission products of gasoline with current levels of sulfur contribute to ambient levels of ozone, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and carbon monoxide (CO), which are all pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These pollutants are linked with respiratory and/or cardiovascular problems and other adverse health impacts leading to increased medication use, hospital admissi ons, emergency department visits, and premature mortality . Approximately 159 million people currently live in counties exceeding a NAAQS. 410 Motor vehicles also emit air toxics, and the majority of Americans continue to be exposed to ambient concentration s of air toxics at levels which have the potential to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, immune sy stem damage, and neurological, reproductive, developmental, respiratory , and other health problems. 411 A more detailed discussion of the health an d environmental effects of these pollutants is included in Section II.B. As discussed in this section, emissions of these pollutants cause or contribute to ambient levels of air pollution that are reasonabl y anticipated to endanger public health and welfa re. Control of gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm will lead to significant, cost

- effective reductions in

410 Data come from Summary Nonatt ainment Area Population Exposure Report, current as of July 20, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/popexp.html and contained in Docket EPA

- HQ
OAR
- 20 11
- 0 135. 411 U.S. EPA. (2011) Summary of Results for the 2005 National

- Scale Assessment. www.epa.g ov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 308 of 888 emissions of these pollutants, with the benefits to public health and welfare significantl y outweighing the costs. EPA has evaluated the technical feasibility of achieving these sulfur levels, including the cost of the reductions and the impact on fuel supply . As discussed in Section V.A, we have concluded that these reductions are feasible in the lead time provided and should not have an adverse impact on th e adequacy of gasoline fuel supply to meet demand. For more on the feasibility of the proposed fuel program, refer to Chapter 4 of the draft RIA. As discussed in Section III, EPA also evaluated the emissions reductions from pre

- Tier 3 vehicles that would be achieved by controlling gasoline sulfur levels. These reductions are significant and contribute to the total monetized health benefits. EPA also evaluated the cost per ton of emissions reduced for the proposed program, of which the 10

- ppm sulfur stand ard is a part. As can be seen in Section VII.D, the program is very cost

- effective in 2030. Even in 2017, when the emission reductions are almost entirely due to the sulfur standards (and the costs are attributed to both the fuel and vehicle standards), the cost

- effectiveness of the program is reasonable. In sum, EPA concludes that the entire body of evidence strongl y supports the view that controlling gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm is quite reasonable in light of the emissions reductions and benefits achieve d, taking costs into consideration. For more detail on the costs and benefits of the proposed standards, refer to Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. The control of gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm provides significant reductions in harmful emissions. The fuel p rogram is cost

- effective and produces benefits to public health and welfare whose value significantl y outweighs the costs. These reductions can be achieved in a manner that is technologicall y feasible, and will not disrupt fuel supply
. Section 211(c)(2)(A ) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel control based on a finding that the fuel’s emission products contribute to air pollution that can reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, EPA must consider “all relevant medical and scientif ic evidence available, including consideration of other technologicall y or economicall y feasible means of achieving emission standards under [section 202 of the Act].” EPA’s anal ys is of the medical and scientific evidence relating to the emissions impact from motor vehicle engines, which are impacted b y gasoline sulfur, is described in more detail in Chapter 6 of the draft RIA. EPA has also satisfied the statutory requirement to consider “other technologicall y or economically feasible means of achieving e mission standards under section [202 of the Act].” This provision has been interpreted as requiring consideration of establishing emission standards under section 202 prior to establishing controls or prohibitions on fuels or fuel additives under section 211(c)(1)(A). See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA , 541 F.2d. 1, 31

- 32 (D.C. Cir. 1976). In Ethyl , the court stated that section 211(c)(2)(A) calls for good faith consideration of the evidence and options, not for mandatory deference to regulation under section 202 compared to fuel controls. Id . at 32, n.66. EPA is also proposing Tier 3***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 309 of 888 emissions standards for motor vehicles under section 202. In order to meet these more stringent standards, the program requires a reduction in the sulfur content of gasoline to the 10

- ppm annual average. 2. Section 211(c)(1)(B) Under the second criterion, we believe th at sulfur in gasoline will significantl y impair the emission

- control sy stems expected to be in general use in motor vehicle engines designed to meet the Tier 3 emission standards proposed in this rule. EPA is proposing to restrict gasoline sulfur content to an annual average of 10 ppm beginning in 2017, to enable compliance with new emission standards based on the use of advanced emission control technology that will be available to Tier 3 engines and California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV III) program. Section IV describes the substantial adverse effect of high gasoline sulfur levels on the emission

- control devices or s ys tems for Tier 3 vehicles and engines meeting the proposed emission standards. As discussed in Section IV.A.6, modern three

- way catal yt ic exhaust sy stems utilize platinum group metals (PGM), metal oxides, and other active materials to selectivel y oxidize organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the exhaust gases. These sy stems simultaneously reduce nitrogen oxides when air

- to - fuel ratio control operates in a condition of relatively low amplitude/high frequency oscillation about the stoichiometric point. Sulfur is a well

- known cataly st poison. There is a large body of work demonstrating sulfur inhibition of the emissions control performa nce of PGM three

- way

exhaust catal ys t sy stems. The nature of sulfur interactions with washcoat materials, active catal yt ic materials and catal ys t substrates is complex and varies with cataly st composition and exhaust gas composition and exhaust temperatur e. The variation of these interactions with exhaust gas composition and temperature means that the operational history

of a vehicle is an important factor; continuous light

- load operation, throttle tip

- in events and enrichment under high

- load conditions c an all impact sulfur interactions with the catal ys t. Operating the catal ys t at a sufficientl y high temperature under net reducing conditions (e.g., air

- to - fuel equivalence that is net fuel

- rich of stoichiometry) can effectivel y release the sulfur oxides from the catalyst components. Thus, regular operation at sufficiently

high temperatures at rich air

- to - fuel ratios can minimize the effects of fuel sulfur levels on cataly st active materials and cataly st efficiency
. However, it cannot completely eliminat e the effects of sulfur poisoning. A study of Tier 2 vehicles in the in

- use fleet recentl y completed by EPA shows that emission levels immediately

following high speed/load operation is still a function of fuel sulfur level, suggesting that lower fuel sul fur levels will bring emission benefits unachievable b y catal ys t regeneration procedures alone. Furthermore, regular operation at these temperatures and at rich air

- to - fuel ratios is not desirable, for several reasons. The temperatures necessary to relea se sulfur oxides are high enough to lead to thermal degradation of the catalyst over time via thermal sintering of active materials. Sintering reduces the surface area available to participate in reactions. Additionall y, it is not always possible to maintain these catal ys t***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 310 of 888 temperatures (because of cold weather, idle conditions, light load operation) and the rich air

- to - fuel ratios necessary can result in increased PM, NMOG and CO emissions. Thus, reducing fuel sulfur levels has been the primary regulatory mechanism to minimize sulfur contamination of the catal ys t and ensure optimum emissions performance over the useful life of a vehicle. The impact of gasoline sulfur has become even more important as vehicle emission standards have become more stringent. Some studies have suggested an increase in catal ys t sensitivity to sulfur (in terms of percent conversion efficiency) when standards increase in stringency and emissions levels decrease. Emission standards under the programs that preceded the Tier 2 pro gram (Tier 0, Tier 1 and National LEV, or NLEV) were high enough that the impact of sulfur was considered negligible. The Tier 2 program recognized the importance of sulfur and reduced the sulfur levels in the fuel from around 300 ppm to 30 ppm in conjunc tion with the new emission standards. At that time, very little work had been done to evaluate the effect of further reductions in fuel sulfur

– especially on in

- use vehicles that may have some degree of catal ys t deterioration due to real

- world operation. In 2005, EPA and several automakers jointly conducted a program that examined the effects of sulfur and other gasoline properties, benzene, and volatility on emissions from a fleet of nine Tier 2 compliant vehicles. Subsequentl y, EPA conducted a much mor e extensive study of the effects of sulfur on emissions from Tier 2 vehicles. These studies demonstrate that emissions from Tier 2 vehicles continue to be very

sensitive to gasoline sulfur levels below the current 30

- ppm average standard. For more on the estimated emission impacts, refer to Section III.B. Furthermore, vehicles already capable of meeting the proposed Tier 3 standards have been found to be extremely sensitive to the effects of sulfur. A Chevy Malibu was tested and found to be able to mee t the proposed Tier 3 standards on low

- sulfur gasoline, but following operation on higher

- sulfur gasoline, its emission levels exceeded the standard. As explained in Section IV.A, following operation over 2 FTP cycles on 33 ppm sulfur fuel, NO X emissions alone were more than double the proposed Tier 3 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X standard. Overall, the Tier 3 Program would reduce fleet average NMOG+NO X emissions by

over 80 percent. The feasibility of the proposed 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X fleet average standard depends on a degree of emissions control from exhaust cataly st sy stems that will require gasoline at 10 ppm sulfur or lower. The most likely

control strategies would involve using exhaust cataly st technologies and powertrain calibration primarily focused on reducin g cold

- start emissions of NMOG and on both cold

- start and warmed

- up (running) emissions of NO X . An important part of this strategy , particularl y for larger vehicles having greater difficulty achieving cold

- start NMOG emissions control, will be to reduce N O X emissions to near

- zero levels. This would allow sufficient NMOG compliance margin to allow vehicles to meet the combined NMOG+NO X emissions standards for the full useful life.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 311 of 888 Achieving the proposed Tier 3 emission standards would require very careful control of the exhaust chemistry and exhaust temperatures to ensure high catal ys t efficiency . The impact of sulfur on ox ygen storage components in the catal ys t makes this a challe nge even at relativel y l ow (10 ppm) gasoline sulfur levels. The negative impact of gasoline sulfur on NO X , NMOG and air toxic emissions occurs across all vehicle categories. However, the impact of gasoline sulfur on NO X emissions control of cataly sts in the fully

- warmed

- up condition is particularl y of concern for larger vehicles. Manufacturers face the most significant challenges in reducing cold

- start NMOG emissions for these vehicles. Because of the need to reach near

- zero NO X levels, any significant degradation in NO X emissions control over the useful life of the vehicle would likely prevent some if not most larger vehicles from reaching a combined NMOG+NO X low enough to comply with the 30 mg/mi fleet

- average standard. These vehicles represent a suf ficiently large segment of light

- dut y vehicle sales now and in the foreseeable future that their emissions could not be offset (and thus the fleet

- average standard achieved) b y certifying vehicles to bins below the fleet average. Any degradation in catal y st performance due to gasoline sulfur would reduce or eliminate the margin necessary to ensure in

- use compliance with the proposed Tier 3 emissions standards. Certifying to a useful life of 150,000 miles vs. the current 120,000 miles would further add to manufacturers’ compliance challenge for Tier 3 large light trucks (r efer to Section IV.7.b for more on the useful life requirements )
. The impact of gasoline sulfur poisoning on exhaust cataly st performance and the relative stringency of the Tier 3 standards, particularl y for larger vehicles and trucks, when considered together make a compelling argument for the virtual elimination of sulfur from gasoline. As discussed in Section V.A.2, the proposed 10
- ppm standard for sulfur in gasoline represents the low est practical limit from a standpoint of fuel production, handling and transport. While lowering gasoline sulfur to levels below 10 ppm would help ensure in

- use vehicle compliance with the Tier 3 standards, the Agency believes that a gasoline sulfur standard of 10 ppm would allow compliance with a national fleet average of 30 mg/mi NMOG+NO X . The level of the Tier 3 standards was considered in light of a 10

- ppm average sulfur level for gasoline. Not only should a 10

- ppm sulfur standard enable vehicle manuf acturers to certify

their entire product line of vehicles to the Tier 3 fleet average standards, but based on the results of testing both Tier 2 vehicles and SULEV vehicles as discussed above, reducing gasoline sulfur to 10 ppm should enable these vehicles to maintain their emission performance in

- use over their full useful life. Section 211(c)(2)(B) requires that, prior to adopting a fuel control based on a significant impairment to vehicle emission

- control sy stems, EPA consider available scientific and ec onomic data, including a cost benefit anal ys is comparing emission

- control devices or sy stems which are or will be in general use that require the proposed fuel control with such devices or s ys tems which are or will be in general use that do not require the proposed fuel control. As described below, we***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 312 of 888 conclude that the emissions control technology expected to be used to meet Tier 3 standards would be significantly impaired by

operation on gasoline with annual average sulfur levels greater than 10 ppm. Our analy sis of the available scientific and economic data can be found elsewhere in this document. The draft RIA includes a detailed anal ysis of the environmental benefits of the emission standards (Chapters 6 and 8), an analy sis of the technological feasib ility and cost of controlling sulfur to the levels established in the final rule (Chapters 4 and 5), and a cost - effectiveness anal ys is of the sulfur control and motor vehicle and engine emission standards (Chapter 9). Under section 211(c)(2)(B), as just n oted, EPA is also required to compare the costs and benefits of achieving emission standards through emission

- control sy stems that would not be sulfur

- sensitive, if an y such sy stems are or will be in general use. We have determined that there are not (and will not be in the foreseeable future) emission control devices available for general use in motor vehicles that can meet the emission standards and would not be significantl y impaired b y gasoline with current gasoline sulfur levels. Emissions cannot be reduced any

where near the magnitude contemplated by the proposed emission standards without the application of the kind of emissions control technology

discussed in this proposal. Section 211(c)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act requires that prior to prohibiting a fuel or fuel additive, EPA establish that such prohibition will not cause the use of another fuel or fuel additive “which will produce emissions which endanger the public health or welfare to the same or greater degree” than the prohibited fuel or addit ive. This finding is required b y the Act onl y prior to prohibiting a fuel or additive, not prior to controlling a fuel or additive. Since EPA is not prohibiting use of gasoline sulfur, but rather is controlling the level of sulfur in these fuels, this fi nding is not required for this rulemaking. However, EPA does not believe that the proposed gasoline sulfur controls will result in the use of an y other fuel or additive that will produce emissions that will endanger public health or welfare to the same or greater degree as the emissions produced by gasoline with current sulfur levels. Unlike the case of unleaded gasoline in the past, where lead performed a primary function by

providing the necessary

octane for the vehicles to function properly , sulfur doe s not serve an y useful function in gasoline. It is not added to gasoline, but occurs naturally

in the crude oil into which gasoline is processed. Were it not for the expense of sulfur removal, it would likely have been removed from gasoline ye ars ago in order to improve the maintenance and durability characteristics of motor vehicle engines. We are also adopting the various controls for DFE, other ox ygenates, butane blended into gasoline, and gasoline additives, under our authority in section 211(c)(1). As explained above, these controls are necessary to prevent emissions products that may

endanger the public health or welfare or impair to a significant degree the performance of an y emission control device or s ys tem. The proposal basically extends vari ous controls on gasoline to DFE, other ox ygenates, butane, and gasoline additives. The reasons for adopting the controls for gasoline apply as well to adopt the controls for DFE, other ox ygenates, butane, and gasoline additives.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 313 of 888 

## VI. **Te chnical**  **Amendments and R egulatory S** **trea mlining**  In addition to proposing new Tier 3 vehicle standards and new gasoline sulfur standards, we are also proposing and seeking comment on a number of technical amendments and regulatory streamlining actions as part of the Regulatory Revi ew initiative. Some of these may have some bearing on implementation of the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel standards, while others deal with other aspects of EPA’s existing vehicle and fuel regulations. EPA is also proposing to sy nchronize a number of d ifferent reporting deadlines under various regulations affecting transportation and motor vehicle fuels and fuel additives. This action would reduce regulatory burdens by

aligning reporting deadlines across several programs and would lay the foundation for the overall goal of combining various fuels reports together into a single, simplified electronic format. **A. Am**  **endments to 40 CFR Part s 79 and**  **80** The following sections discuss our proposed changes to regulations in 40 CFR part 79 and part 80. Some of thes e changes are technical amendments to correct minor errors or inconsistencies in the regulations; others are to address areas in the regulations that could benefit from clarification and/or streamlining. With regard to regulatory streamlining, the majori ty of these items involve clarifying vague or inconsistent language, removal or updating of outdated provisions, and decreasing the frequency and/or volume of reporting burden where data is either no longer needed or is redundant in light of other EPA fuel s programs. In general, we believe that these changes would reduce burden on industry with no expected environmental impact. We believe that the regulatory streamlining items that we are proposing are changes that are straightforward and that should be m ade quickly . There are also additional items that would need further consideration and discussion, such as a new fuels program compliance structure, as discussed below in Section VI .A.1.b. We are also requesting comment on expanding the downstream butane blending provisions to allow for pentane blending, as discussed in Section VI .A.4. 1. Regulatory

Streamlining
a. Summary

of Proposed Amendments Below is a table listing the provisions that we are proposing to amend in today ’s action. We have provided additiona l explanation for those amendments that warrant additional explanation below. **Table VI**  **- 1**  **Summary of Proposed Regulatory Streamlining and Technical Am**  **endments** Section Description***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 314 of 888 Varied Various sections amended to update references to test methods (see Section Section VI.A.1.a.iii ). 79.5 Revises periodic reporting requirements. 80.2 Revises and adds definitions. 80.8 Amended to update sampling test methods, and to state to which fuels §80.8 applies. 80.10 Added to allow for de minimis changes in compliance reports that would not require a resubmission of compliance reports when a minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. 80.46 Revises measurement of RFG fuel parameters. 80.47 Revises Performance - Based Test Method Approach. 80.65 Amended to reduce complex model test parameters and reporting. 80.65(f)(5) Added to allow for designation of an alternative lab. 80.75 Revises RFG reporting requirements. 80.82 Amended to appl y butane blending provisions to entire p art 80 and to revise RVP test method. 80.101 Revises measurement of conventional gasoline fuel parameters. 80.105 Amended to require identification of test methods used and revises reporting requirements
. 80.161(b)( 1)(ii)(A)( 2 ) Amended to allow an alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 3 ) Added to allow an alternative detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(2) Amended to address the submission of gasoline detergent samples under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(3)(ii)(C) Amended to reflect that documentation of the fuel injector deposit demonstration test would be required under the alternative detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(3)(v) Am ended to state that the results of the intake valve and fuel injector deposit demonstration test must be submitted to EPA as part of the certification letter under the alternative detergent certification option. 80.161(b)(3)(viii) Amended to change “PFID test” to “fuel injector test”. 80.161(d)(1) Amended to reflect the availability of the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.163(a)(1)(iii) Amended to allow use of the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.164(a) Amended to reference the test fuel requirements under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.165 Amended the introductory paragraph to accommodate the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 315 of 888 alternative deposit control test procedures and standards under the alternative gas oline detergent certification option. 80.167(a) Amended the introductory paragraph to specify how confirmatory

testing would be conducted for additives certified under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.176 Added to specify the c ertification test procedures and standards under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.177 Added to specify the certification test fuels under the alternative gasoline detergent certification option. 80.178 In corporates standards an d test methods by reference. 80.330 Revises sampling and testing requirements. 80.370 Amended to require identification of test method used and revises reporting requirements
. 80.511 Revises per

- gallon and marker requirements. 80.572 Revises labeling requirements. 80.573 Revises labeling requirements. 80.574 Revises labeling requirements. 80.580 In corporates test methods by reference. 80.585 Revises test method approval process. 80.604 Revises reporting requirements. 80.1235(a)(6), Amended to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock into previously certified gasoline ( PCG) an alternative to directly

test the blendstock for benzene. 80.1235(a)(5) Amended to clarify that refiners and importers may use either approach f

or blendstocks that are blended into either conventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline. 80.1235(b)(2) Amended to clarify EPA’s intent (per §80.1238(b)) to allow refiners and importers to include ox ygenate blended downstream of a refinery or import fac ility in their annual average benzene calculation, and to make the section consistent with §80.1238(b). 80.1238 Revises benzene determination. 80.1347(a)(5) Amended to require that a negative annual average must be reported as zero, and that a refiner must comply with §80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and §80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline. 80.1347(a)(6) Added to allow refiners and importers who are blending blendstock into previously certified gasoline ( PCG) an alternative to direc tly

test the blendstock for benzene. 80.1348 Revises sample retention requirements. 80.1349 Added to allow importers who import gasoline into the U.S. by truck to use the sampling and testing requirements in 40 CFR part 80 subpart E as an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in subpart L.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 316 of 888 80.1354 Revises reporting requirements for gasoline benzene program. 80.1451 Revises RFS reporting requirements.

i. Amendments Related to Reduction of Testing for Complex Model Fuel Parameters In §§80.65 and 80.75, we are proposing to streamline and reduce the RFG and CG testing and reporting burden of gasoline refiners and importers b y reducing the testing and reporting requirements of certain fuel parameters associated with the complex model. Currently , for RFG, every parameter listed in §80.65 must be tested for every

batch and each parameter must be reported for every batch. No monthly compositing of batch samples is allowed for any parameter. For conventional gasoline, monthly compositing and batch reporting based on those monthly composit e s is allowed for all parameters except sulfur an d benzene. However, with the phasing out of complex model standards, reduced testing and reporting is appropriate, particularl y for RFG. Incases where a refiner is subject to only benzene, RVP, and sulfur standards, certain parameters no longer need to be tested and reported on an every

- batch basis. However, the full slate of complex model parameters will still be needed in some cases. Specificall y, refiners producing RFG during the summer VOC control season will still need to use the complex model to determine VOC performance, and thus must still measure and report the relevant complex model fuel parameters. In addition, small refine rs that are subject to the delayed compliance option for the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard will have to use the complex model until 2015 for CG MSAT1 compliance. 412 Currently , there are 17 complex model parameters on the RFG/anti

dumping batch report. We are proposing to eliminate reporting for American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity . In addition, oxygenates need not be reported unless the refiner’s gasoline includes ox ygenates or the refiner is including downstream added ox ygenate in its complian ce calculations. Apart from being necessary for use in the complex model, these parameters have little use for program compliance. In addition, we are proposing to reduce testing and reporting as follows: For both RFG and conventional gasoline we prop ose to eliminate the requirement to test and report APIgravit y for batch certification purposes. For winter RFG, we propose to eliminate the requirement to test and report the following parameters on an every batch basis and instead allow testing and rep orting of monthly

composites: aromatics, distillations and olefins. Winter sulfur and benzene would continue to be tested and reported on an every batch basis. All summer complex model parameters would still be required to be tested and reported on an e very

batch basis. For conventional gasoline, since the regulations already allow for testing and reporting most parameters on a monthly composite basis, the only significant change would be to eliminate the batch certification testing and reporting for AP I gravit y. Only benzene, sulfur, and any

oxygenates that are

412 61 FR 17230 (March 29, 2001).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 3 17 of 888 actuall y included in the gasoline batch must be tested and reported on an every

batch basis (except for refiners that are still subject to a complex model toxics standard ; they

must test all par ameters but may use monthly

composite testing and reporting except for sulfur and benzene, and ox ygenate, where applicable). The values for aromatics, olefins, and distillation terms may continue to be determined from monthly

composites. These changes wo uld substantially reduce the testing and reporting associated with each batch. We request comment on this reduced testing scheme
.

ii. Amendments Related to Reporting EPA is proposing to amend various provisions in 40 CFR parts 79 and 80 to reduce the number o f different reporting deadlines that regulated parties must meet and to enable the future use of a unified and simplified reporting form. EPA’s goal is to simplify

reporting and reduce the number of hours parties spend preparing and submitting reports. Th is overall effort responds to Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, which direct government agencies to simplify rules and to achieve reductions in paperwork and reporting burdens, and is part of EPA’s agency

- wide effort to streamline regulatory reporting requ irements. Currently under 40 CFR parts 79 and 80, there are ten separate cyclical reporting dates each ye ar (eleven in a leap ye ar). This proposal would amend these deadlines so that all affected programs use the same four dates. Programs that would be af

fected b y this proposal include the fuels and fuel additives registration program (40 CFR part 79, subpart A), the Reformulated Gasoline and Anti

Dumping program (40 CFR part 80, subparts D and E), the Gasoline Sulfur program (40 CFR part 80 subpart H), th e Motor Vehicle, Nonroad, Locomotive, and Marine Diesel program (40 CFR part 80 subpart I), the Gasoline Benzene program (40 CFR part 80 subpart L), and the Renewable Fuel Standard program (40 CFR part 80 subparts K and M). We are proposing that reportin g deadlines would be standardized as follows: June 1, for all reports covering quarter 1 of the compliance ye ar; September 1, for quarter 2; December 1, for quarter 3; and March 31 for quarter 4. End of year compliance reports would also be due on March 31
. These proposed changes would either delay or maintain current deadlines for nearly all required reports. Deadlines for all other annual reports would either be maintained if they

matched the new quarterl y deadline, or extended to match the new quarterl y deadline. These proposed changes would not include “Attest Engagements” or reporting related to specific events under the Fuels Program, such as trading Renewable Identification Numbers (RINS) in EPA’s Moderated Transaction Sy stem (EMTS). All reporting de adlines for Attest Engagements and reporting specific events would remain the same. Respondents would still have the option to report earlier than an y given deadline. Additionally , these deadline changes would allow EPA to develop a***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 318 of 888 single electronic form at that would collect all required data and maximize the capability of electronic reporting with data reuse, no duplicate fields, and a user

friendl y interface. We would also be correct ing a t ypographical error in 40 CFR 80.1451(f)(2) and clarifying that r eports are to be signed b y the “responsible corporate officer.” Additionally , we would remove an incorrect reference under 79.5(a)(2).

iii. Amendments to Update Test Methods Refiners, importers and ox ygen ate blenders producing gasoline and diesel motor vehicle fuel are required to test RFG, CG and diesel fuel for various fuel parameters including aromatics, benzene, distillation, olefins, ox ygenate content, RVP, and sulfur. A number of relevant regulatory provisions currentl y have references to test methods th at have since been revised and updated. We are proposing to update those test methods to reflect current test methods in order to ensure that all test methods are readil y available to the regulated community. ASTM International (ASTM) test method D2622 i s currentl y the designated test method for measuring sulfur (§§80.46(a)(1), 80.580(b)(2)), in gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard. ASTM test methods D5453, D6920, D3120 and D7039 are currentl y alternative test methods for measuring sul fur (§§80.46(a)(3)(i), 80.46(a)(3)(ii), 80.46(a)(3)(iii), 80.46(a)(3)(iv)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5453 is also alternative test method for measuring sulfur (§80.580(c)(2)) in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard, as well as ASTM test method D4294. ASTM test method D6667 is currently the designated test method for measuring sulfur (§80.46 (a)(2)) in butane. ASTM test methods D4468 and D3246 are currently

alternative test methods for measuring the sulfur (§80.46(a)(4)(i), 80.46(a)(4)(ii)) content in butane. ASTM D1319 is currently the designated test method for measuring olefins (§80.46(b)) in gasoline and aromatics (§80.2(z)) in diesel fuel and is also allowed as an alternative test method for measuring aromatics (§80.46(f)(3)) in gasoline. ASTM D6550 is currently an alternative test method for measuring olefins (§80.46(b)(2)(i)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5599 is currently the designated test method for measuring oxygenates (§80.46(g)(1)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D4815 is current ly an alternative test method for measuring ox ygenates (§80.46(g)(2)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D5769 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring aromatics (§80.46(f)(1)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D3606 is currently the designated test method for measuring benzene (§80.46(e)) in gasoline. ASTM test method D86 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring the distillation (§80.46(d)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D5191 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring the RV P (§80.46(c)) of gasoline. ASTM test method D976 is currentl y the designated test method for measuring the Cetane Index (§80.2(w)) of diesel fuel. ASTM standard practice D4057 is currently the manual sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (§80.8(a)). ASTM standard practice D4177 is currently the automatic sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (§80.8(b)). ASTM standard practice D5842 is currently the RVP sampling standard practice for fuels (§80.8(c)). ASTM standard practice***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 319 of 888 D5854 is currentl y the composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products (§80.8(a)). Table VI
- 2 lists the designated anal yt ical test methods and alternative anal yt ical test methods for RFG, CG and diesel fuel that we are proposing to update in today ’s action. The Agency has reviewed these updated ASTM test methods and believes that the revisions contained in them will result in improvements in the utilization of these test methods for the regulated industry . We also believe that our proposal to revise these test methods would not result in significant changes that would cause a user of an older version of the same method to incur increased compliance costs. Moreover, all of the revisions were deemed necessary by ASTM International so that improvements in the test method’s procedures would ensure better operation for the user of the test method. Thus, EPA is proposing today to update the regulations for the following ASTM test methods: (1) ASTM D2622

- 10, the designated test method for measuring sulfur in RFG, CG, and alternative test method for diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (2) ASTM D3120

- 08, alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline, ASTM D4294

- 10, alternative test method for sulfur in diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (3) ASTM D5453

- 09, alternative test method for sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel at the 500 ppm sulfur standard; (4) ASTM D6667

- 10, designated test method for sulfur in butane; (5) ASTM D4468

- 85(2006), alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (6) ASTM D3246
- 11, alternative test method for sulfur in butane; (7) ASTM D1319

- 10, designated test method for measuring olefins in gasoline and aromatics in diesel fuel, as well as the alternative test method for measuring aromatics in gasoline; (8) ASTM D6550
- 10, alternative test method for measuring olefin content in gasoline; (9) ASTM D4815

- 09, alternat ive test method for measuring oxygenate content in gasoline; (10) ASTM D5599

- 00(2010), the designated test method for measuring oxygen content in gasoline; (11) ASTM D5769

- 10, the designated test method for measuring aromatics in gasoline; (12) ASTM D3606

- 10, the designated test method for measuring benzene in gasoline; (13) ASTM D86

- 11a, the designated test method for measuring distillation properties of gasoline; (14) ASTM D5191

- 10b, the designated test method for measuring the RVP of gasoline; (15) ASTM D976
- 06(2011), the designated test method for measuring the Cetane Index of diesel fuel; (16) ASTM D4057

- 06(2011), the manual sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products; (17) ASTM D4177

- 95(2010), the automatic sampling standard practic e for petroleum and petroleum products; (18) ASTM D5842

- 04(2009), the sampling standard practice for RVP of fuels; and (19) ASTM D5854

- 96(2010), the composite sampling standard practice for petroleum and petroleum products. **Table VI**  **- 2**  **Proposed Designated & Alternative ASTM International Analytical Test Methods Under RFG, CG & Diesel Motor Vehicle Fuel Programs**  Fuel Parameter ASTM Analy tical Test Method Sulfur (gasoline) ASTM D2622
- 10, entitled “Standard Test M ethod for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 320 of 888 Sulfur (500 ppm diesel) ASTM D2622
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry” Sulfur (gasoline) ASTM D5453
- 09, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in L ight Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil b y Ultraviolet Fluorescence” Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel) ASTM D 5453
- 09, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in L ight Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil b y Ultraviolet Fluorescence” Sulfur (gasoline) ASTM D3120
- 08, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in L ight Petroleum Hydrocarbons by

Oxidative Microcoulometry” Sulfur (500 ppm sulfur diesel) ASTM D4294
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive Xray Fluorescence Spectrometry” Sulfur (butane) ASTM D6667
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Gases b y Ultraviolet Fluorescence” Sulfur (butane) ASTM D4468
- 85(2006), entitled, “Standard Test M ethod for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels b y H ydrogenolysis and Rateometric Colorimetry” Sulfur (butane) ASTM D3246
- 11, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry” Ox ygen content (gasoline) ASTM D5599
- 00(2010), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline b y Gas Chromatograph y and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection” Ox ygen content (gasoline) ASTM D4815
- 09, entitled “Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary

Amyl Alcohol and C 1 to C 4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatograph y” Olefins (gasoline) ASTM D1319
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty

pes in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption” Olefins (gasoline) ASTM D6550
- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for the Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical

- Fluid Chromatograph y” Aromatics (gasoline and diesel) ASTM D1319
- 10, entitled “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty

pes in Li quid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Absorption,” for diesel fuel, this method is the designated test method; for gasoline, this method is an alternative test method and if used as an alternative method, its results must be correlated to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 321 of 888 ASTM D 5769 **.** Aromatics (gasoline) ASTM D5769
- 10, entitled, “ Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines b y Gas Chromatograph y/Mass Spectrometry” Benzene (gasoline) ASTM D3606
- 10 , entitled, “Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography” Distillation (gasoline) ASTM D86
- 11a, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure” Reid Vap or Pressure (gasoline) ASTM D5191
- 10b, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini

- Method)” Cetane Index (diesel) ASTM D976
- 06(2011), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels” Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products ASTM D4057
- 06(Reapproved 2011), entitled, “Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products” Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products ASTM D4177
- 95(Reapproved 2010) , entitled, “Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products” RVP Sampling for Fuels ASTM D5842
- 04(Reapproved 2009), entitled, “Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility Measurement” Composite Sampli ng of Petroleum and Petroleum Products ASTM D5854
- 96(Reapproved 2010), entitled, “Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of L iquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products”

iv. Amendments Related to Downstream Blending Today ’s proposed rule also clarifies the list of products that are not to be included in a refinery ’s or importer’s compliance determination under §80.1240. Refiners and importers are currently required under §80.1235(b)(2) to exclude oxygenate added to f

inished gasoline, RBOB or CBOB downstream of either the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility where the gasoline was imported. This conflicts with EPA’s intended approach in §80.1238(b), which allows refiners and importers to include oxygenate blended downstream of a refinery or import facility

in their annual average benzene calculation, provided the refiner or importer meets certain requirements. We are proposing changes that would allow refiners and importers to include ox ygen ate b lended downstream of their facility

and that would make these related sections consistent.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 322 of 888 v. Amendments for Previously Certified Gasoline For benzene, we would also provide flexibility for refiners and importers by providing an alternative allowing them to directly sample and test each batch of blendstock, and treat the blendstock as the produced batch for blendstock that is blended into previously

certified gasoline (PCG). We are proposing to add §80.1347(a)(6) to reflect this alternative. This practice is already allowed under the Tier 2 sulfur program (at §80.340(a)(2)). Refiners and importers are currently required to test the PCG for benzene before addition of blendstock, test the combined blend of PCG and blendstock for benzene, and calculate the prop erties of the blendstock by

treating the PCG as a negative volume batch and treating the blended product as a positive batch. Due to variability in the benzene test method, the PCG approach can sometimes result in calculated blendstock benzene concentrati ons that are negative, which is ph ys ically impossible. We are proposing to amend the regulations at §80.1235(a)(6) (and add §80.1347(a)(6), as mentioned) to allow refiners and importers that blend blendstock into PCG an alternative to directly test the bl endstock for benzene. We expect that this would ensure a positive benzene test result. Also, today ’s proposal would clarify that regardless of the approach used, a negative sulfur or benzene result cannot be reported; rather, any negative result must be rounded to zero. Similarly , no negative annual average result can be reported. We are also proposing to amend the regulations at §80.1235(a)(5) to clarify

that refiners and importers may use either approach for blendstocks that are blended into either co nventional gasoline or reformulated gasoline. Lastl y, we are proposing to allow importers who import gasoline into the United States by

truck to use the sampling and testing requirements in subpart E for truck importers as an alternative to the sampling an d testing requirements in subpart L. EPA provided these alternative requirements in subpart E to eliminate the need to test every

truckload of imported conventional gasoline for all complex model parameters, including benzene. 413 Since Subpart L also requi res importers to test every truckload of imported gasoline for benzene, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow truck importers of gasoline to use the sampling and testing requirements in subpart E as an alternative. Today ’s rule proposes to amend the regulations to provide this alternative by adding a new §80.1349.

vi. Amendments Related to Designation of an Alternative Lab Refiners have indicated to EPA that significant problems are created when a facility ’s designated lab is nonoperational and testing canno t be performed at the lab during that time period. We are thus proposing (at §80.65(f)(5)) that a facility have the abilit y to designate a back

- up or alternative lab for testing during such times. In no case could this alternative lab be used to select the best test result,

413 70 FR 74561 (December 15, 2005).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 323 of 888 rather it could onl y be used on those occasions where operational necessit y causes a need for it (e.g., the normal lab is closed, the apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent lab personnel are not available).

vii. Amendme nts Related to De Minimis Reporting Changes We are proposing for the correction of batch volume reports to allow for de minimis changes in reporting compliance that would not require a complete resubmission of compliance reports when a minor discrepancy of a few barrels is uncovered. This allowance for the correction of batch volume reports would apply to reporting for: RFG, anti

- dumping, gasoline and diesel sulfur, MSAT2 and the RFS renewable volume obligation (RVO) (for RFS, this would only appl y to the volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a RVO for obligated parties). We are proposing a new section 80.10 to define de minimis, for the purpose of this allowance, as no more than 500 gallons or b y no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume in gallons, whichever value is less. We request comment on whether or not a different amount would be more appropriate.

viii. Amendments Related to RFS2 Annual Report Date Currently , the RFS2 final reporting date (last day of February) coincides with the RFG and Anti

- dumping compliance deadline, which creates a staffing problem for regulated entities because the regulatory requirements are often handled b y the same personnel. It was reported to EPA that this also creates an issue when small discrepancies in gasoline production or import volumes are realized, and can potentially trigger an increased RFS RVO and an ensuing scramble to obtain the necessary Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) in real time. Delaying the RFS reporting date until after volumetric auditing would address this situation and would have no impact on emissions, air quality or compliance with the standard. As such, we are proposing to change the RFS2 reporting date in §80.1451 to March 31. EPA is also seeking comment on whether the a bility to transfer RINs in EMTS for satisfying RVOs under the previous compliance ye ar should be extended from the last day of February

to March 31 as well. ix. Acceptance of Alternate Test Data Under the Gasoline Deposit

Control Program The “Top Tier” deposit control gasoline standards developed b y four major automakers are based on the premise that a more robust level of the control of vehicle engine and fuel systems beyond that provided by the EPA deposit control requirements is desirable. 414 Several major ga soline marketers have adopted Top

414 The industry established “Top Tier” deposit control standards can be found at http://www.toptiergas.com/deposit_control.html. EPA’s deposit control requirements are contained in §§80.140 through 80.174.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 324 of 888 Tier for their gasoline. It is widely accepted that conformance with the Top Tier intake valve deposit (IV D) and fuel injector deposit (FID) control testing requirements is more challenging than compl yi ng with the EPA IVD and FID testing requirements. Yet additive packages must still be certified to EPA’s less stringent standards on older test procedures. We believe that EPA could accept IV D/FID test data that complies with the Top Tier requirements in place of IV D/FID d ata that complies with the current EPA testing requirements without jeopardizing the emissions benefits from EPA’s deposit control program. We are proposing that test data that complies with the Top Tier IVD performance standards at section 1.3.1 could be used to satisfy EPA’s IV D control requirements. We are also proposing that test data that complies with the Top Tier FID performance testing standards at section 1.3.3 could be used to satisfy EPA’s FID control requirements. We believe that this allowan ce would provide significant saving to industry from reduced deposit control testing while maintaining the emissions benefits of EPA’s gasoline deposit control program. These changes are being proposed in the regulations at §§80.161(b), 80.163(a)(1)(iii), 80.164(a), 80.165, 80.167(a), 80.176, and 80.177. b. Broader Regulatory

Streamlining Through Program Restructuring The current set of fuel regulations is the result of programs that have been established over the ye ars to reduce emissions from mobile sources . These programs include gasoline volatility (RVP), reformulated gasoline and anti

dumping, sulfur control (which the Tier 3 program proposed today would revise), mobile source air toxics (MSAT1), benzene control (MSAT2), and the renewable fuel standards (RFS). Most of these regulations have been amended numerous times. The RFG and anti

- dumping regulations in particular contain some of the more burdensome requirements on sampling, testing, and reporting. They also have some of the more stringent restrict ions on gasoline use (e.g., restricting where fuel produced can be sold, what it may be commingled with, etc.). EPA used the RFG and anti

- dumping rules as the foundation for many aspects of subsequently developed fuel regulatory programs. However, the su bsequent rules, considered as a whole, have supplanted most of the RFG and anti

- dumping standards. For this reason, we are proposing to streamline the regulations in several places as described above. Initial discussions with fuel industry representative s have indicated that a comprehensive review of the complete set of fuel regulations contained in Parts 79 and 80 (“Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives” and “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives ,” respectively) of the Code of Federal Regulations cou ld lead to further streamlining of the regulations beyond the streamlining provisions proposed today
. EPA expects that streamlining would result in more efficient and less costl y compliance determinations for affected parties while maintaining the envir onmental benefits of the programs. Since such changes could require not just the removal or streamlining of existing provisions but also the replacement of several provisions***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 325 of 888 with new, less onerous ones, we are not proposing such changes today . However, E PA requests comments on potential areas in the fuel regulations that may benefit from such a more comprehensive streamlining effort. For example, it may be possible for the RFG VOC standard to be met if a sufficiently stringent RVP level is attained. Und er this scenario, sampling and testing requirements at the refinery would be reduced. Another potential scenario could involve consolidation of some RFG and anti

- dumping rules; for example, a single set of rules governing the treatment of downstream ethan ol blending and in

- use survey s could provide greater efficiency and flexibility

regarding fuel distribution. 2. Subpart ITechnical Amendments **Table VI**  **- 3**  **40 CFR Part 80 Subpart I (Diesel Fuel) Technical Amendment s**  Section Description 80.572(a) Amended to remove the requirement for 15 ppm highway diesel fuel pump labels beginning November 30, 201 4 , and to amend the title to reflect that the section includes labeling requirements for dispensers of motor vehicle diesel fuel. 80.584(b)(3)(i) Amended to correct t ypographical error (“notc” to “not”). We are proposing to remove the requirement for diesel fuel pump labels for 15 ppm highway

diesel fuel. Beginning December 1, 2010, all highway diesel fuel was require d to be 15 ppm or less; thus, highway diesel fuel labels are no longer needed to distinguish it from 500 ppm highway diesel fuel. However, we do recognize that it may

confuse consumers who are accustomed to seeing the highway diesel fuel pump labels if th ose labels were to disappear, so we are also requesting comment on the removal of this labeling requirement. Note that if highway diesel fuel pump labels are no longer required b y the regulations, retail and wholesale purchaser

- consumer facilities would b e free to continue labeling to eliminate confusion if they

so choose. 3. Performance

- Based Measurement Sy stems (PBMS) **Table VI**  **- 4**  **PBMS -**  **Related Technical Amendments** Section Description 80.46 Amended to allow for performance

- based approaches for measuring gasoline parameters. 80.47 Added to extend the performance

- based approach to other parameters besides diesel sulfur. 80.101(i)(1)(i)(A), (i)(3)(i)(C), (i)(3)(ii)(C) Amended to allow for performance

- based approac hes for measuring gasoline parameters. 80.330(c)(1), (d)(1), (d)(2) Amended to allow for performance

- based approaches for sampling and testing. 80.370(a)(7)(iv) Amended to require identification of the test method***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 326 of 888 used to measure the sulfur content of a batch. 80.585(a) and (d)(4) Amended to state the process for approval of test methods prior to and after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs. 80.1348 Amended to state the sample retention requirements prior to and after adoption of PBMS for all fuel programs. 80.1354(b)(2) Amended to require identification of the test method used to measure the benzene concentration of a batch. Consistent with EPA’s performance

- based measurement s ys tem (PBMS) initiative (as discussed below), today we are proposing a PBMS for those chemical and phy sical properties of motor vehicle fuels regulated by EPA’s motor vehicle fuel programs. Specifically , these are gasoline properties at §80.46, gasoline sulfur at § § 80.195 and 80.1603 , and diesel fuel properties at §80.2(z). This PBMS sets forth procedures and criteria b y which laboratories making measurements to demonstrate compliance with fuels regulations may qualify alternative analy

tical test methods to those required in the regulations . It also sets minimum statistica l quality control (SQC) requirements, following standard industry practices, by

which laboratories must maintain and document the precision and accuracy of analy tical methods used in the context of these programs. EPA envisions that the proposed PBMS woul d provide additional flexibility to the regulated industry in choosing test methods and foster innovation and improvement in the precision and accuracy of the measurement of motor fuel properties while not making an y reductions in the emission benefits that result from motor fuel programs. It should also provide cost savings to the regulated industry by providing rapid access to newl y - developed test methods with speed and ease of anal ys is. Some of these newer methods use smaller quantities of consumables and less

- expensive instrumentation that are easier to automate, thus reducing both operating costs and environmental impact.
a. Background Refiners, importers and ox ygen ate blenders producing RFG, conventional gasoline and diesel fuel are required to test the se fuels to determine the levels of various specified parameters. A designated test method is associated with each parameter to be tested (except for sulfur concentration in ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel, which must meet performance

- based requirements 415 ) in 40 CFR part 80. Table VI
- 5 lists the parameters/fuels and their corresponding designated test methods that we are proposing to update. **Table VI**  **- 5**  **Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel** Fuel Parameter Designated Analy tical Method Sulfur in gasoline ASTM D 2622
- 10

415 See §§80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 327 of 888 Sulfur in butane ASTM D 6667
- 10 500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel ASTM D 2622
- 10 Olefins in gasoline ASTM 1319
- 10 Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline ASTM D 5191
- 10b, with the following correlation equation: RVP psi = (0.956 * X)

- 0.347 RVP kPa = (0.956 * X)

- 2.39 where: X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa. Distillation in gasoline ASTM D86
- 11a Benzene in gasoline ASTM D 3606
- 10, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and methanol peaks. Aromatics in gasoline ASTM D 5769
- 10, except that sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard are optional. Ox ygen and ox ygenate content in gasoline ASTM D 5599
- 00(2010) Aromatics in diesel fuel ASTM D1319
- 10 In addition to the designated anal yt ic methods for the parameters mentioned above, EPA has specified alternative test methods for some parameters. These alternative test methods may be used in lieu of the corresponding designated test methods, provided that all test results are correlated to the appropriate designated test methods. Altern ative test methods have not been established for all regulated motor vehicle fuel parameters, however. Specifically , alternative test methods have been established for measuring the gasoline properties of aromatic content, 416 oxygenate content, 417 olefin cont ent, 418 and sulfur content419 as well as sulfur in butane 420 . Currently , if a regulated part y wishes to use an alternative test method that is not already approved, it must petition the Agency, and EPA must approve the use of this alternative method through a rulemaking process that on average, may take more than a year to complete. Approving new methods through rulemaking has been identified as a barrier to the use of innovative analy tical test methods. In order to address these concerns and similar ones in o ther media areas, the Agency ’s Environmental Monitoring

416 ASTM D 1319
- 03 ε1 (see §80.46(f)(3)). 417 ASTM D 4815
- 04 (see §80.46(g)(2)). 418 ASTM D 6550
- 05 (see §80.46(b)(2)(i)). 419 ASTM methods D 5453

- 08a, D 6920
- 07, D 3120
- 06 ε1 , and D 7039

- 07 (see §§80.46(a)(3)(i) through 80.46(a)(3)(iv)). 420 ASTM D 4468
- 85 (reapproved 2000) and AST M D 3246
- 96 (see §§80.46(a)(4)(i) and 80.46(a)(4)(ii)).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 328 of 888 Management Council established a workgroup of scientists representing EPA’s Headquarters and Regional offices to consider establishing a performance

- based approach to specifying analy tical testing requirements. On the recommendations of the workgroup, the Agency decided to incorporate the PBMS approach into its programs, to the extent feasible. EPA’s practice, in recent rulemaking activities, of aligning its prescribed methods with those published by Voluntary Consensus
- based Standards Bodies (VCSBs) 421 is almost consistent with the PBMS policy and with the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). 422 For example, in the nonroad diesel rulemaking, which controlled the sulfur content of die sel fuel, 423 EPA required onl y that laboratories demonstrate their test methods’ ability to meet a set performance criteria rather than prescribing that a single specific method be used. Today ’s proposal extends the diesel sulfur qualification approach to the chemical/ph ys ical properties measured in other motor vehicle fuel programs, with modifications appropriate to accommodate the differences among the fuel parameters. b. Overview of Proposed Program Requirements In a June 29, 2004 rulemaking, EPA specified a performance

- based approach to measuring diesel sulfur at 15 ppm and 500 ppm and removed the previous requirement of particular designated and alternative methods for 15 ppm diesel sulfur. 424 We decided, in that rulemaking, to offer users two approaches to selecting test methods for diesel sulfur at the 500 ppm level. The first of these was to use either the designated test method or specific alternative test methods. 425 The second option was to meet performance based requirements similar to those adopted fo r 15 ppm diesel sulfur. 426 We are proposing today to extend the performance

based approach to method selection and qualification to other parameters besides diesel sulfur, with modifications appropriate to accommodate the differences among the fuel paramete rs. Specificall y, we are proposing requirements that laboratories would be required to demonstrate the precision 427 and accuracy 428 of chosen fuel parameter

421 ASTM International (ASTM) is one such organization. 422 Public Law 104

- 113, 104 th Congress, March 7, 1996, H.R. 2196. 423 69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004 **.** This rulemaking used standard materials with known chemical composition to evaluate the accuracy of candidate test methods. 424 See §§80.584 and 80.545. 425 See §80.580(c)(2). 426 See §§80.584(a)(2), 80.584(b)(2)(i) through 80.584(b)(2)(iii), and 80.585. 427 Precision

– the amount of consistency in a set of measur ements performed on the same material. ASTM repeatability and reproducibility are examples of measures of precision. ASTM Repeatability (“r”)

– the difference between successive test results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus under con stant operating conditions on identical test material. ASTM***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 329 of 888 measurement methods. Once implemented, this proposal would: (1) require individual laboratories to dem onstrate adequate measurement quality , (2) allow laboratories to choose methods that meet their own needs, provided they can meet prescribed criteria rather than specific methods, 429 and (3) require all laboratories making regulatory

measurements to establis h and maintain a statistical quality control program. EPA intends that the measurement sy stem resulting from this proposal would make no compromises on precision or accuracy relative to the sy stem that exists under current regulations. We intend to incor porate the standards and practices of Voluntary Consensus Standards Body ( VCSB) organizations wherever feasible. Today ’s PBMS approach applies to the qualification of anal yt ical test instrumentation and methods used to measure various characteristics of in dividual fuel samples. It does not apply to sampling methods or in

- line blending methods. While in

- line blending certainly includes the use of anal yt ical measurements, it is broader in scope than this proposal. Including in

- line blending methodologies i n this proposed rulemaking would raise issues that could not be adequatel y addressed in the context of this proposed rulemaking. Furthermore, in

- line blending already has a certification process, as specified in regulations at §80.65(f), that sets forth qualification criteria that take into account the unique combinations of sampling, control, and anal ys is that are involved with in

- line blending. However, we seek comment on potentially

expanding our PBMS to include sampling or in

- line blending methods.
c. Ho w Can We Establish the Accuracy of the Measurement Sy stem (All Qualified Methods/Installations) For Each Parameter? We are proposing to group the gasoline and diesel fuel parameters that must be measured (e.g., aromatics, sulfur, etc.), into two categories . These categories depend on whether it is feasible to construct and use gravimetric standards 430 for defining the parameter and thus determining the accuracy of a measurement method. For some parameters it is difficult or perhaps impossible to make gravim etric standards. This is particularly true where the parameter is actually a class of chemical compounds (themselves containing multiple chemical compounds) that may

have a very

large number of members (e.g. , aromatics in

Reproducibility (“R”)

– the difference between two single and independent test results obtained by different operators working in different laboratories on identical test material using the same method. 428 Accuracy

– the closeness of a single measurement to its true value of what is being measured. 429 For some parameters the criteria will be based on the laboratory’s chosen method’s ability to closely predict the measurements made by EPA’s chosen or “designated” method. This approach is made necessary by the “method

- dependent” definition of some of the parameters to be measured. 430 Gravimetric standards are test materials made by adding a carefully weighed (hence “gravimetric”) quantity of the analyte of interest to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain any of the analyte. The result is a solution with a very accurately known concentration of the analyte. The accuracy of gravimetric standard reference materials can be closely controlled and is not dependent on an analytical test method.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 330 of 888 gasoline). Use of gravimetric st andards for establishing accuracy may also be hindered if man y of the potential measurement methods are sensitive to the chemical composition of the material that the analy te is added (often called the “matrix”) and are thus prone to being “confused” into giving inaccurate answers. Where these two problems are not present, the use of gravimetric standards is the ideal way to establish the accuracy of the analy

tical test method. We will describe these as “absolute” parameters. The accuracy qualification t est for a method measuring such parameters should center upon its being able to get the “right” answer for one or more gravimetric standards. To establish the accuracy of methods measuring each parameter where gravimetric standards hindered, we are proposi ng to retain an EPA

- prescribed reference method or “designated method” that would, in effect, define the parameter as “parameter X is, for federal regulatory purposes, whatever method Z measures.” Parameters that require such treatment will be described a s “method

- defined” parameters. Establishing the accuracy of a method intended to measure such a parameter would be accomplished by relating its measurements on a particular set of test fuels to measurements made on the same fuels by a laboratory

operating the designated method. This approach is often referred to as correlating the new method with the designated method. In other words, measurements from the new method (the “candidate” for qualification) would be used to predict the measurements that the d esignated method would get on the same fuels (with, perhaps, some offset or adjustment equation applied) and then these predictions would be compared with the actual measurements made from those fuels by the designated method. If the predictions are consi stently close to the designated method measurements and evenl y distributed above and below these reference values, then the laboratory and the method it proposes to use would have a good case for qualification with regard to accuracy . Such a correlative a pproach to qualification is dependent for its workability upon the test fuels used to establish the correlation. Such fuels must be sufficiently varied along all important dimensions so that day

- to - day

production laboratory

operations are very

unlikely to turn up some unusual fuels (or a new class of fuels produced, say , by some new refining process) for which the correlation equation derived earlier is not accurate and where the predictions of the designated method’s results are quite erratic and inaccurate. In addition to the dependence of the method

- defined approach upon the choice of fuels for establishing the correlation to the designated method, this approach also greatly

elevates the importance of the designated method that is used. An increasingl y obsolete designated method might need to be changed for practical reasons, but adoption of a new designated method could bring about a de facto change in the standard for the parameter in the absence of a prescribed correction equation designed to align the new designated method with the old. While the gravimetric approach to measurement has its own problems, it is free of the difficulties associated with any particular method. Our classification of parameters into the absolute or method

- defined categori es is not entirely

straightforward. Of the parameters subject to this***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 331 of 888 proposal, only

those with sulfur as the analy te fall into the absolute category
. Sulfur is a single element rather than a compound (or, worse, a class of compounds with numerous member s) and thus lends itself to the construction of gravimetric standards. The methods that are currentl y used to measure sulfur in gasoline and diesel fuel have been subject to intensive recent development work and are largel y free of matrix effects. Sulfur in butane is even more amenable to the absolute approach, since butane is a single compound rather than a constantl y varyi ng mixture of man y compounds. We also note, as mentioned before, that the diesel sulfur rule used the absolute approach. For these reasons we are proposing to treat gasoline sulfur and sulfur in butane as absolute parameters. Be yond these two sulfur parameters, classification becomes more difficult. Where the anal yt e is a class of compounds, like aromatics, the construction of a gr avimetric standard would have to be done b y use of an agreed

- upon conventional recipe that includes some group of the compounds in the class in proportions that approximate to what is found in the actual fuels that a method will measure. If the class has relatively

few compounds and they are all available in reasonably pure form, then they

could all be included in the standard, leaving only the issues of their respective concentrations (likely to vary among real fuels) and the question of “matrix effects” as discussed above. Where the class of compounds has many members and not all could be included in an artificially constructed standard, we are left with the question of which ones can be omitted on grounds that they are likely to occur only

in very small concentrations and/or are not particularl y important in emission formation. The result of these exclusions, for certain parameters, would likely

be a directional bias toward underestimating the prevalence of the target class of compounds. The likely siz e of the bias will vary among parameters and among fuels on which measurements are made. Use of a complex recipe for such standards, where possible, may minimize the bias, but may add to the costs and difficulty of formulating a standard representative of all fuels. The distillation parameters (T50 and T90) seem to be largel y resistant to a gravimetric approach that relies on pure compounds instead of the smooth curve that results from simple distillation of complex mixtures like gasoline and diesel fuel
. S uch gravimetric standards, incorporating only a very limited number of compounds out of practical necessit y, would be likely to yi eld a kind of stair

- step curve. Given these logical and practical difficulties with using a gravimetric approach to qualifyin g methods for parameters other than sulfur, EPA is today proposing that the method

- defined or correlative approach be used for all parameters other than sulfur. We are especially interested in receiving comment on our categorization of fuel parameters as either absolute or method defined.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 332 of 888 d. How Would Analy

tic Methods be Evaluated for Qualification? i. General Provisions: To Which Methods and Which Parties do the Proposed Requirements Apply? As discussed above, EPA believes that the interests of measurement qu ality are best served b y evaluating most method installations for qualification at the level of individual laboratories instead of individual instruments. This approach was used in regulating diesel sulfur. We are proposing to require laboratories to qua lify all methods that will be used to make measurements for regulatory purposes. EPA does not believe that a relatively simple qualification test will ensure continued measurement quality , but rather that this will greatly reduce the likelihood of a labor atory

undertaking important measurements without some assurance that the instrument is in working order, that at least one operator431 in the laboratory understands the method for its use, and that it can be made to perform to meet acceptable criteria. We s eek comment on requiring laboratories to qualify all methods used to take measurements for regulatory purposes.

ii. How W

ould Laboratories Demonstrate the Precision and Accuracy of Methods for Measuring “Absolute” Parameters and Thus Qualify the Methods for Us e? We are proposing to require a separate qualification for test methods used to measure gasoline sulfur. As mentioned previously, the Agency has successfully implemented performance based requirements for sulfur in diesel fuel. The test methods ty

picall y used for gasoline sulfur (one of the two parameters we are proposing to consider absolute, as discussed above) are also frequentl y used for diesel sulfur and the ASTM test method designations for both are the same. However, examination of test method de scriptions points toward substantial differences in how the test methods are used in the different matrices. One example is a requirement for recalibration when matrices shift. While we considered the possibility

of allowing the diesel sulfur qualificati ons to be used also for gasoline sulfur, we believe the differences between a diesel fuel matrix and gasoline fuel matrix may

be too great to permit such a sweeping exemption from qualification requirements. The process of reworking the test methods to me asure gasoline sulfur will, in many

cases, generate most of the data needed for qualification, and thus will not represent a major additional effort. So, despite the fact that ASTM test methods are the same for gasoline and diesel , we are proposing to req uire separate qualification for test methods used in measuring gasoline sulfur.

431 The intent behind the qualification p rocess is to demonstrate the facility’s capability with the method. Accordingly we are not proposing that each instrument used to implement a particular method be required to qualify (some labs may have several instruments implementing a single method) or that each operator be so required. We recommend, but are not proposing to require, that a laboratory rotate operators during the testing required for qualification, thereby both improving and testing the skills of all operators for a given method and str engthening its quality program.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 333 of 888 Operational Description. We are proposing to require applications for qualification to include a complete operational description of the test method in question. A VCSB publ ication would satisfy this requirement for methods published by

such organizations as ASTM. The description must include the scope of the test method, a summary , discussion of any interferences that are expected, apparatus needed, reagents, sampling and s pecimen preparation, calibration, test method procedure, calculations, and any test method

- specific quality control. Precision Qualification. We are proposing requirements for precision qualification that are similar to requirements set forth in the no nroad diesel sulfur rule. That rule imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation 432 of a series of at least 20 measurements over at least 20 day s on a single fuel under site precision conditions. Specificall y, the diesel rule used 1.5 times the repeatability standard deviation (ASTM “r”/2.77) of what was the least precise of the then

allowed methods. The factor of 1.5, expands the allowable variability from that of back

- to - back tests (as in ASTM’s definition of repeatability) to account for the sourc es of greater variability that find their way

into a longer series of tests on the same material. In the qualification process for ultra

- low sulfur diesel testing, the factor of 1.5 proved to be neither so tight that most laboratories were unable to meet it, nor so loose as to not be challenging at all. Thus we consider it to be reasonable on its face, as well as having proven to be workable in practice, and we have therefore retained it in this proposal. We request comments on the selection of a test me thod’s repeatability to use as the basis of the qualification. Gasoline Sulfur Criterion. We are proposing to use the ASTM repeatability standard deviation factor as discussed above from ASTM D7039

- 07 to set the precision criteria for gasoline sulfur. We note that there is a designated test method and four alternative test methods for gasoline sulfur. The larger repeatability among the test methods currentl y allowed for sulfur in gasoline is for ASTM D6920
- 07. This was obtained only when the substant ially

more variable of the two instrument models included in a small inter

- laboratory study was included. Since the most variable instrument model had a repeatability of nearly twice that of the other test methods and over four times that of the other ins trument model for the same method, we believe that ASTM D6920

- 07 should be represented, for this purpose, b y the instrument model yielding the better performance of the two. Given that decision, ASTM D7039

- 07 is left with the largest repeatability of thes e test methods. And we are proposing to use its repeatability (1.76 ppm at 10 ppm) to set the precision criterion for this parameter. Thus the maximum allowable standard deviation of the twent y test results on a 10 ppm gasoline would be 0.95 ppm 433

.

432 Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of the population (formula uses “N

- 1” in the denominator). 433 This number was determined by using the repeatability equation for “r” from ASTM D7039

- 07 for a 10 ppm su lfur gasoline to get 1.76 ppm, dividing the “r” in ppm by 2.77 to obtain the underlying standard deviation of 1.39 ppm, and multiplying the result by 1.5 (criterion used in diesel sulfur rule) to get 0.95 ppm.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 334 of 888 Since we do not propose to prescribe the parameter level for the fuel used for these precision tests, this maximum limit will vary depending upon the repeatability number that the ASTM D7039

- 07 test method’s repeatability formula yi elds, given the parameter value of the test fuel chosen. If a laboratory selected a 5 ppm fuel to test instead of a 10 ppm fuel, the maximum limit for the standard deviation would be 0.67 ppm. Sulfur in Butane Precision Criteria. There are three test methods currently allowed for me asuring the sulfur content of butane for blending into gasoline. A new designated test method was adopted for this parameter (ASTM D6667

- 10) 434 because the previous primary test method, D3246

- 11, had become somewhat obsolete. Given that D3246

- 11 is no long er widely available, 435 though still an allowed alternative test method, and that the range of D4468

- 85 (reapproved 2006) extends only

to 20 ppm, we are proposing a precision criterion based on the repeatability

of D6667

- 10. This test method’s repeatability at the 10 ppm level is 1.15 ppm, so the calculations used above with gasoline sulfur yield an upper limit for the standard deviation of the 20 tests for sulfur in butane of 0.62 ppm. Temporal Distribution of Precision Tests. With regard to spacing of th e 20 precision tests, we are proposing 7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day . We believe this would prevent weekend testing while also precluding practices such as conducting one test on the first day and 19 tests on the 20 th day . We beli eve that adequate spacing of testing is necessary if we are to have a meaningful standard for the longer

- term stability of a particular test method in a particul ar laboratory installation. We are also taking comments on the following two options: (1) a r equirement that 23 or more hours must elapse between tests (this option requires either testing on weekends or an extension of the 20 day s); and (2) tests arranged into no fewer than five batches of five or fewer tests each, with only on e such batch allowe d per day
. Accuracy Qualification. We are proposing accuracy criteria for absolute fuel parameters that are similar to the criteria for sulfur in diesel fuel. Applicants for qualification would be required to select two commercially available gravimetric standard reference materials and then to show that their laboratory and method are capable of getting an average of ten consecutive results that are very close to the Accepted Reference Value or ARV for each. How close to the ARV these averages must be is the stringency part, and we propose to use 0.75 times the precision criterion described above, which is the same value as the diesel rules. In the case of gasoline sulfur, for a gravimetric standard with ARV = 10 ppm, this would be 0.75 times 0.95 ppm or 0.71 ppm. The corresponding numbers for sulfur in butane at the 10 ppm level would be 0.75 times 1.15 or 0.47 ppm. We are proposing that for other parameter that might come to fall into the absolute

434 71 FR 16492 (April 3, 2006). 435 See EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0048
- 0002.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 335 of 888 category , the precision and accuracy criteria would be determined as a function of the ASTM repeatability

of one of the methods (selected by EPA) available for measuring that parameter. 436

iii. How W

ould Laboratories Demonstrate The Precision and Accuracy of Methods for Measuring “Method

-Defined” Parameters and Q ualify the Methods for Use? Operational Description. For method

- defined parameters we are proposing the same operational description as that for absolute parameters. The operational description of a proposed test method must be very complete. We consider publication of a test method by a VCSB organization such as ASTM to meet this criterion. For non
- VCSB test methods this description must meet very high standards for completeness and clarit y. Since non

- VCSB test methods have not been full y vetted b y a VCSB, a non
- VCSB test method would require additional information. In particular, the underl yi ng scientific measurement principles must be thoroughly

explained and the apparatus described well enough that a trained outsider could successfully implement th e non - VCSB test method and replicate the applicant’s results. Precision Qualification Specifics. We are proposing the same precision qualification criteria as absolute parameters. For those method

- defined parameters with alternative test methods that have been identified by regulations, preference will be given to the least precise of the allowed test methods. For reference installations we propose the additional requirements that the instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided for in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 (and the SQC procedures to be discussed below); and that the applicant must submit control charts showing a record of in

- control operation for at least five months. While these requirements would likely result in a delay

between instrum ent setup and the ability to qualify

it as a reference installation, we believe that the delay is necessary to demonstrate the stability of these criticall y important installations. Considering the number of long

- established installations of these designated test methods, EPA expects no lack of laboratories capable of meeting these standards and able to provide this service commerciall y to an y party interested in qualifying a new installation of an alternative test method for a method

- defined parameter. Table VI
- 6 sets out our proposed precision criteria for the various method

- defined fuel parameters with no alternative test method.

436 It is important to understand that the numerical examples presented in the text are entirely hypothetical, since use of precision testing material or gravimetric standards at levels other than those used in the examples would change all of the numbers. Use of a gasoline sulfur gravimetric standard at 5 ppm (instead of the 10 ppm used in the example) would require computing the repeatability of the method at 5 ppm using the equation given in the method description, dividing it by 2.77, m

ultiplying the result by 1.5, and then multiplying that result by 0.75. As a short

- cut, the accuracy criterion could be determined by multiplying the ASTM repeatability of the method at the level in question by 0.4061.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 336 of 888 Olefins in Gasol ine Criterion. The designated method for this parameter, ASTM D 1319
- 10, is also the less precise of the two methods currently allowed. As such, its repeatabilit y statistics are proposed as the basis for precision qualification. Thus for a test fuel with olefins at, say , 9 volume percent, the repeatability is 0.972, and the underl yi ng standard deviation is 0.972/2.77=0.351, and the precision criterion is 1.5 times that, or 0.53 volume percent. A laboratory ’s standard deviation for the 20 tests could no t exceed that value and still qualify for precision. Aromatics in Gasoline Criterion. We are proposing to use the repeatability standard deviation for D1319
- 10 to set the precision criteria for aromatics in gasoline. (e.g., 1.3 volume percent for a fuel with 32 volume percent aromatics). The cut off point for the 20

- test standard deviation using the test fuel would then be 0.70 volume percent. We note that D5769

- 10 is the current designated test method but that D1319

- 10 is still widely used. We also not e that while not as precise as D5769
- 10, D1319
- 10 is the designated method for olefins, and has precision sufficiently

close to that of the more modern designated method to make it still viable. Ox ygen and Ox ygenates in Gasoline Criterion. The two test methods allowed for ox ygen are very close together in precision, at least for total oxygen content. The designated method, D5599

- 00(2010) is slightly less precise, leading us to propose that its repeatability be used to determine the criterion. So for a test gasoline with 3 mass percent total oxygen, the repeatability would be 0.083 mass percent and the criterion for precision in this example comes out to 0.045 mass percent. **Table VI**  **- 6**  **Method -**  **Defined Precisio n Criterion for Fuel Parameters with no** 

**Alternatives to the Designated Test Method** Fuel Parameter Example of fuel parameter level for demonstrating precision Proposed Precision Criterion437 RVP in gasoline RVP sample of gasoline equals 6.8 psi 0.11 psi Di stillation in gasoline Gasoline sample with initial boiling point (IBP) of 20 ° C and 90 percent evaporated (E90) temperature of 110 ° C IBP = 1.54 ° C E10 = 0.72 ° C E50 = 0.40 ° C E90 = 0.97 ° C FBP = 1.80 ° C Benzene in gasoline Gasoline sample containing 1 volume percent benzene 0.02 volume percent benzene Aromatics in diesel fuel Diesel sample containing 35 0.70 volume percent

437 Where maximum allowable standard d eviation (SD) of 20 tests is less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability (r) of the designated test method divided by 2.77 (SD of 20 tests ≤ 1.5 X (r/2.77)).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 337 of 888 volume percent aromatics Accuracy Qualification. Test methods used to measure method

- defined parameters can be grouped into three ty pes : reference installations of designated methods intended for use in qualifying alternative methods; designated method installations intended for ordinary production measurements; and non

- designated methods. Since these reference installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other test methods and to evaluate whether the need for the establishment of a correlation equation. We are proposing that such reference instruments must be shown to be near the middle of the distribution of the industry monthly inter

laboratory

crosscheck program for at least five months prior to application. 438 We are proposing that laboratories would specifically compute the difference between either the instrument's average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable standards or to the average value for the fuel t ype in the complex model and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non

- outlier labs in the program. We are proposing that the differences would then be standardized b y expressing it in robust standard deviation units. This standardized i nter - laboratory cross check (IL CC) differences would be put into a moving average with a span of, for example, five months. We are also proposing to set the standard such that the instrument's moving average w ould be within the central 50 percent of the distribution of participating designated method labs. Because a robust standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this percentage will have to be approximate. Such lab

specific qualification would be outs ide of the normal qualification of a lab for making regulatory

measurements for certifying fuel and would pertain onl y to use of the instrument in certifying other methods. EPA requests comment on the nature and stringency

of this proposed requirement. S pecifically , we request comment as to whether this is a reasonable requirement that is likely to be met b y instruments in the best qualified laboratories. Could the “middle 50 percent” requirement be further tightened without severel y restricting the supp ly of potential reference installations? Are there computationally simpler way s to accomplish the general purpose of this requirement?

(1) Role of Voluntary Consensus Bodies in Qualifying Alternative Analytical Test Methods In February

1996, Section 12(d) of Public Law 104

- 113, Congress passed the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995” (NTTAA), in order to establish the policies of the existing OMB Circular A

- 119 in law. 439 The

438 An alternative to this measure can be to use the D6299

- 10 e1 calculations. This would requ ire statistical quality control (SQC) so that the instrument would have an acceptable quality of performance. This could reduce the burden of calculations and align this requirement better with the NTTAA. 439 See 142 Cong. Rec. H1264
- 1267 (daily ed. February 27, 1996) (statement Rep. Morella);142 Cong. Rec. S1078
- 1082 (daily ed. February 7, 1996)(statement Cong. Rockefeller); 141 Cong. Rec. H14333
- 34 (daily ed. December 12, 1995)(statements of Reps. Brown and Morella).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 338 of 88 8 purposes of Section 12(d) of Public Law 104

- 113 are: (1) To direc t “federal agencies to focus upon increasing their use of [voluntary consensus] standards 440 whenever possible,” thus reducing federal procurement and operating costs; and (2) to authorize the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NI ST) as the “fed eral coordinator for government entities responsible for the development of technical standards and conformity assessment activities,” thus eliminating “unnecessary

duplication of conformit y assessment activities.” 441 Section 21(d) of Public L aw 104
- 113 als o gives agencies the discretion to use other standards in lieu of voluntary

consensus standards where use of the latter would be “inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.” However, in such cases, the head of an agency or department must send to OMB, through NI ST, “an explanation of the reasons for using such standards.” The final revision of Circular A

- 119 defines Voluntary Consensus Standards as “standards developed or adopted b y voluntary consensus bodies, both domestic and internationa l”, and defines VCSB as “domestic or international organizations which plan, develop, establish, or coordinate voluntary consensus standards using agreed

- upon procedures and which possess the attributes of openness, balance of interest, due process, an app eals process, and consensus.” Finall y, Circular A

- 119 indicates that consensus means “general agreement, but not necessaril y unanimity , and includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fa irl y considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why , and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments.” 442 The Agency

believes that VCSBs can pl ay a valuable role in developing statistical tools for analy

tical test methodology

description and evaluation, developing and describing new anal yt ical test methodologies and organizing test programs to evaluate methodologies and assist laboratories to mai ntain quality measurement s ys tems. EPA has frequently

selected VCSB

- developed methods as its designated methods for fuels programs. However, it has only adopted a particular version of each such method by

incorporating it by

reference in the Federal Regis ter. In each case the Agency

was endorsing and adopting test methods that were completely known and available for examination, rather than the unknown result of some future VCSB action. To simply say that any method approved by

a VCSB is acceptable for a ll purposes, including compliance demonstrations would seem to invite such difficulties as: (1) multiple methods for a parameter, developed b y different VCSB’s and not correlated adequatel y with each other, or (2) methods that change

440 This use of the word “standards” refe rs to test methods, calibration materials, etc. 441 See Cong. Rec. H1262 (daily ed. February 27, 1996)(statements of Rep. Morella). 442 63 FR 8546 (February 19, 1998).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 339 of 888 over time (b y public ation of new versions, for example) in such a way that the definition of what is being measured changes and no longer corresponds to what was used in setting compliance to the environmental standard(s).

(2) Use of Reference Materials in Qualifying and Maintain ing Alternative Analytical Techniques Depending on the qualification process chosen b y the Agency , discussed in more detail below, the protocol proposed here for the qualification and maintenance of alternative test methods stops short of automatic accepta nce of VCSB decisions and methods, but goes as far in that direction as we believe is consistent with the Agency ’s mission of ensuring compliance with motor vehicle fuel programs. It gives some preference to VCSB

- approved methods because of our greater co nfidence that such methods have been positively evaluated by

a broad user community

rather than by

a narrower array

of users. We are propos ing today to also make substantial use of VCSB

- developed statistical protocols for comparing methods and for use b y particular laboratories in keeping anal yt ic methods under adequate statistical quality control. We consider Reference materials to be samples of the ty pe of material to be tested (gasoline or diesel fuel in this case) that are known or thought to have a particular concentration of the substance to be measured. Laboratories may use these materials to calibrate and evaluate the performance of measurement sy stems. EPA is proposing the following three t ypes of reference materials that would be used in establishing and maintaining the accuracy of both designated and alternative anal yt ical test methods: ( 1) gravimetric standards, (2) consensus

- named fuels (gasoline or diesel fuel), and (3) locally

- named standards. Additionally , some combinations of parameters and test methods limit the availability

of some kinds of reference materials. This complicates th e task of developing a methodology for qualifying alternative test methods. EPA recognizes the technical complexity

and the likelihood that new anal yt ical testing methods may emerge. Therefore, the Agency is also proposing to offer substantial flexibility in the choice of standard reference materials and the manner of their use, so long as they ensure accuracy

and preserve the integrit y of applicable fuel standards. Gravimetric Reference Standards. Gravimetric standards are test materials made b y adding a carefully measured quantit y of the anal yt e of interest to a measured quantity

of another substance known not to contain any of the analy

te. The result is a solution with a very accurately

known concentration of the analy te. The accuracy

of gravimetric standard reference materials can be closel y controlled and is not dependent on an anal yt ical test method. They do present certain practical problems in use. First, gravimetric reference materials cannot be made for all of the parameters under the RFG, CG and diesel fuel programs (e.g., distillation points and olefins). Second, there are “matrix effects.” As earlier explained, matrix effects are where components in real

- world gasoline or diesel fuel other than the anal yt e of interest confuse the instrument and cause it to measure the anal yt e***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 340 of 888 differentl y than it would when measuring the same concentration of the analyte in a gravimetric standard built in a matrix where the instrument is not sensitive. Matrix effects are problematic for certain anal yt ical m ethods, whose underl yi ng scientific operating principles make the anal yt ical method unable to utilize gravimetric standards for calibration when other t ypes of materials (gasoline or diesel fuel) will have to be measured accuratel y. The approach taken in this proposal, where the gravimetric standard reference materials would be used in establishing the accuracy of a reference implementation of the designated method, is an approach that should minimize matrix effect problems. This is because the designated methods were selected, among other criteria, for their relative freedom from matrix effects. Thus, EPA believes that such materials, offer the best tools for establishing the accuracy of anal yt ical test methods. When feasible, EPA believes that gravimetric reference standard materials should form the basis for establishing accuracy through correlation with designated anal yt ical test methods calibrated with gravimetric standards. Consensus
- named Fuels. These are homogeneous quantities of fuel that have b een anal yz ed b y a number of different laboratories (b y sending around small samples). The average concentration of some parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the “consensus name” for that material. There are certai n parameters that the Agency does not believe that gravimetric standard reference materials can be prepared. Aromatics are a class of numerous compounds that are produced b y refinery processes in a mixture that is most likely

impossible to duplicate in th e laboratory with any consistency

for all fuel because not all refiners have the same configuration. For such parameters, it is therefore necessary

to use consensus - named gasolines to control accuracy because they are the onl y reliable ty

pe of standard re ference material that is available. The use of consensus

- named gasolines may minimize matrix

- related effects where they are used to establish the accuracy of different designated method implementations, though they

may be less useful in evaluating alternative methods that have been adapted to measure a certain fuel matrix, but not sensitive enough to measure all fuel matrices the test method may encounter in use, otherwise known as “adaptive learning” technologies. The nominal concentrations in consensus

- named gasolines can onl y be as accurate as the designated analytical test method used in the VCSB round robin study

that named them. Consensus

- named gasolines will also be costly and time

- consuming to produce and will need to be periodicall y replaced (i.e ., when the supply

is exhausted or the shelf life expires) through either a new round robin study or some approach using overlapped testing of the old standard reference material with a new batch (which will not, of course, have exactl y the same concentrat ion of anal yt es). Locally Named Reference Materials. These materials are also sometimes referred to as quality

control samples (e.g., octane testing reference fuel). These are gasoline or diesel fuels that usually come from the regular production of the facility
. These reference materials are used in laboratory quality control efforts and have been analyzed using the designated method (either by the facility ’s lab or by

a***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 341 of 888 referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration. The fuels are then sto red carefully by the lab to slow their deterioration. The advantage to these is that since a refinery may already have such fuels on site for octane or cetane testing purposes, these materials may

be relatively

inexpensive. Another advantage is that, sin ce a refiner would produce these fuels at the same site where the alternative method will be qualified, their use should minimize any difficulties associated with matrix effects. These locally

named reference fuels are not as accurate as the VCSB round ro bin process and are not assured b y gravimetric standard reference material construction. Thus, a refiner could only use them for relating an alternative method to a carefull y calibrated installation of the designated method whose accuracy has been establi shed and controlled by other means. We request comment on the appropriateness of using the three types of standard reference materials for accuracy that have been discussed and on their applicability

in the qualification process and statistical quality control process of anal yt ical test methods.

(3) Qualification Criteria of Alternative Analytical Test Methods We are also proposing two options for refiners that wish to qualify an alternative test method as discussed in further detail in Sections VI .A.3.g.i and VI .A.3.g.ii of this proposal. For both of the proposed options the candidate test method must have precision at least equal to that of the designated anal yt ical test method (though not defined in precisel y the same way). And the alternative test method must be capable of correlation with the designated test method for the parameter such that the refiner may use the alternative test method results to produce predicted design ated test method results that it can subsequentl y use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel composition or performance standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 342 of 888 (4) Statistical Quality Control Program An important element of today ’s proposed approach for the qualification of alternative anal yt ical test methods is the description of a statistical quality control (SQC) program that may

be applied to any

anal yt ical test method used in the regulatory

programs covered b y this proposal. We are proposing to require a SQC program as described below. EPA’s objective with statistical quality control is not to impose a complete new sy stem of quality control measures, but rather to adopt a subset of SQC procedures that are already widely in use. We anticipate that the measures we have selected would not require the generation of much additional data b y the laboratories that elect to emplo y them and that the SQC program would improve the quality

of measurement among those labs that adopt such measures.
e. Qualification Criteria for Designated Method Installations Used to Qualify Method

- Defined Parameter Instruments. Designated test method installations that will be used to qualify method

defined parameter instruments are reference installations. Since reference installations will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations, EPA believes that these reference installations should be held to higher standards. First, we are proposing that reference instruments meet precision qualif ication requirements that are similar to the criteria set forth in the nonroad diesel sulfur rule. As explained earlier, that rule imposed a maximum value for the standard deviation 443 of a series of at least 20 measurements over at least 20 day s on a singl e fuel under site precision conditions. Specifically , the diesel rule used 1.5 times the repeatabilit y standard deviation (ASTM “r”/2.77) of what was the least precise of the then

- allowed methods. For those “method

- defined” parameters from Table VI
- 1 above that do not currentl y have alternatives test methods the precision criteria is based on the fuel parameter’s designated test method. In each case the precision criterion is determined by (“r”/2.77) X 1.5 where “r” is the ASTM repeatability

determined for the particular fuel that is being used for the purpose of demonstrating the test method’s precision. Second, we are proposing that such reference instruments must be shown to be near the middle of the distribution o f the industry monthly inter

- laboratory crosscheck (ILCC) program for at least the five months prior to application. 444 We are also proposing that laboratories would specifically compute the difference between the instrument's average measurement of the fue l closest to the applicable

443 Where the standard deviation is estimated from a sample of the population (formula uses “N

- 1” in the denominator). 444 An alternative to this measure can be to use the ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 calculations. This would require SQC so that the instrument would have an acceptable quality of performance. This could reduce the burden of calculations and align this requirement better with the NTTAA***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 343 of 888 standards (or to the average value for the fuel t ype in the complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained by all of the non

- outlier labs in the program. And then standardize this difference b y expressing it in robus t standard deviation units. These standardized inter

- laboratory cross check differences would be put into a moving average with a span of, for example, five months. We are proposing to set the standard such that the instrument's moving average would be within the central 50 percent of the distribution of participating designated method labs. Because a robust standard deviation is used by the ILCC program, this percentage will have to be approximate. Such lab

- specific qualification would be outside of the normal qualification of a lab for making regulatory measurements for certifying fuel and would pertain only to use of the instrument in certifying other me thods. In essence, these designated method installations will serve as surrogates for the gravimetric standards that cannot be used in qualifying alternative methods for method

- defined parameters. Finally , for reference installations we propose that the reference instrument must be shown to be in statistical control, as provided for in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 (and the SQC procedures to be discussed below); and that the applicant must maintain control charts showing a record of in

- control operation for at least five months. While these requirements would likely impose a delay

between instrument setup and the ability

to qualify

it as a reference installation, we believe that the delay is necessary

to demonstrate the stability of these critically

important instal lations. Considering the number of long

- established installations of these designated methods, EPA expects no lack of facilities capable of meeting these standards and able to provide this service commercially to an y part y interested in qualifying a new i nstallation for a method

- defined parameter. f. Qualification Criteria for Designated Test Method Installations that are “Method

- Defined” Parameters Instruments and Not Used to Qualify Other “Method

- Defined” Methods Refiners, importers and ox ygen ate blenders producing gasoline and diesel fuel are required to test these fuels to determine the levels of various specified parameters. A designated test method is associated with each parameter to be tested (except for sulfur concentration in ultra

- low sulfur dies el fuel, which must meet performance

- based requirements 445 ) in 40 CFR Part 80. Table VI
- 5 of this preamble lists the fuel parameters and their corresponding designated test methods. We are proposing today

that installat ions of designated methods must maintain records they

meet statistical quality

control requirements as detailed below in this preamble. Requiring all installations of all methods, including existing designated method installations, to implement statistica l quality control, as we are

445 See §§80.580, 80.584 and 80.585.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 344 of 888 proposing today , would likely suffice to homogenize and improve measurement quality in these already - stable and standardized methods. g. Qualification Criteria for Method Defined Parameter Instruments Other Than Designated Test M ethods As discussed above, the Agency is also proposing to have two options for refiners to qualify

an alternative test method that is a method

- defined fuel parameter. The first option would allow for qualifying methods that have been sponsored and publis hed by a VCSB, such as ASTM (the VCSB approach). The second way

involves qualification for a laboratory that has developed its own anal yt ical test method but has decided not to offer it for evaluation and establishment through a VCSB

- based organizational process (the non

- VCSB approach). Both options require the candidate method to have precision at least equal to that of the designated anal yt ical test method (though not defined in precisel y the same way). The alternative method must also be capable of cl ose correlation with the designated method for the parameter such that the refiner may use the alternative method results to produce predicted designated method results that it can subsequentl y use in demonstrating compliance with the applicable fuel compo sition or performance standards. The proposed criteria for both the VCSB and non

- VCSB approaches to qualify method

- defined instruments are discussed in further detail below.

i. Qualification Criteria for VCSB Method

-Defined Parameter Test Methods The first of these approaches to qualifying alternative methods applies only to methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB, such as ASTM. We are proposing that the VCSB must have full y described the anal yt ical test method, so that it is replicable in different laboratories and understood by any technician. We would consider publication of a method by a VCSB organization such as ASTM to meet this criterion. The VCSB must have tested the candidate method in a round robin program against the designated method, must have published a determination that the method meets the criteria specified in the discussion below, and must have published the information necessary to correlate the alternative method to the designated method. 446 We are also proposing that an alternative anal yt ical test method need not be qualified separatel y in each laboratory that adopts it. This is because b y the time such a test method has been through the extensive development process ty pically required b y a VCSB, the method’s procedures would have been exhaustively described. At this point there will be little uncertainty about how the anal yt ical test

446 This first approach assumes that a single such equation can be used for all labs using the method, an assumption that may not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches that follows this introduction explores this problem.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 345 of 888 method is to be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variety of different laboratories and used on a variet y of different type s of fuels. Therefore the VCSB

based process gives EPA some confidence that the anal yt ical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be implemented with very little ambiguity

regarding instrumentation, materials, and procedures. Moreover, VCSB me thod evaluation protocols have been established; including a protocol for comparing methods provide means for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method’s precision parity with the designated method for the parameter and for determining whether the al ternative method can be adequatel y correlated with the designated method. 447 EPA is also proposing that VCSB method

- defined test methods utilize ASTM D6708 to determine if a correlation equation is necessary
.

ii. Qualification Criteria for non

- VCSB Method

-Defin ed Parameter Test Methods The second way

a candidate alternative method may qualify does not involve the process b y which a VCSB evaluates and officiall y establish methods through publication. EPA is proposing that a candidate method that follows the non - VCSB
- based route for qualification must be qualified independentl y by each anal yt ical laboratory

that wishes to adopt the method. This is because such a method has not been shown to be capable of accuratel y measuring the parameter in different laboratorie s and across a variet y of fuel matrices. The following is a discussion of the qualification criteria for non

- VCSB method

- defined parameter test methods. First, the Agency proposes to require a complete operational description of the non

- VCSB test method, as described above in Section VI .A.3.d.ii and VI .A.3.d.iii of this preamble. The operational description must be thorough enough that a person lacking expertise in the operation of the test instrument would be able to replicate its results. Second, the Agency

proposes that the candidate non

- VCSB test method be tested on a range of fuels 448 and by a qualified reference installation of the applicable designated test method. Thir d, the Agency

proposes that the specific laboratory using the candidate non - VCSB test method must statistically establish through application of ASTM D6708
- 08 that the candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as the applicable designated test m ethod.

447 ASTM D 6708
- 08, entitled, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expecte d Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material. 448 Fuels, either consensus named fuels or locally named reference materials, used must be typical of those to be analyzed by the facility in practice and must meet the data requirements (variability, etc.) of ASTM D6708

- 08.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 346 of 888 Fourth, the Agency

is proposing to disqualify non - VCSB test methods with important sample

- specific biases (matrix effects) that cannot be considered as random as determined b y ASTM D6708
- 08. It is possible a situation may arise where a non

- VCSB tes t method suspected by the applicant of being highl y matrix

sensitive may

be qualified on a narrowly circumscribed range of fuels (which must meet the D6708

- 08 statistical variability criteria). In this situation, the ty pes of fuels on which qualification was achieved and for which the method is to be approved must be specified in the method description. Fuels outside of this scope would have to be anal yz ed for regulatory purposes by

some other method that was not this limited. The Agency believes that an y restriction on the scope of fuels for which the method is to be qualified must be accompanied by a discussion of how the applicant plans to screen samples for conformity to the scope. Fifth, the Agency

proposes that precision qualification be conducted i n the form of cross

- method reproducibility449 of the candidate and applicable designated test method, where the cross

- method reproducibility must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method. T he Agency

believes, that when ASTM D6708

- 08 is used in this manner (without joint round robin data) the cross

- method reproducibility (Rcm) output by the program is not really

a reproducibility

in the usual sense, but rather indicates the expected value with uncertainty of the differences between the designated method and qualification candidate method. We believe that when used this way , Rcm from ASTM D6708

- 08 is more analogous to a site precision than to an inter

laboratory

reproducibility
. As described, this measure can reasonabl y be expected to fall between the published reproducibility (R) and repeatability (r) of the designated test method. Because qualified alternative test methods should be able to generall y do as well as the designated test method Rcm be less than or equal to “R”. Since “R” is ty picall y established when the test method is first developed, and laboratory experience with it is limited, the real reproducibility for a method long in service is likely to be smaller than “R.” Moreover, as mentioned above, Rcm is more like a site precision number, for a well

- run installation, that must be smaller than “R” since the sy stematic component of the differences between the instruments has been adjusted out and the “within

- method

- interlaboratory” component of variance is not present. On the other end of the space between “r” and “R,” the published repeatability has far fewer sources of variability than any other measure of its kind, suggesting that the cut

- point should be closer to “R” than to “r ”. The proposed 70 percent fraction

449 Cross
- method reproducibility is a quantitative expression of the random error associated with the difference between two results obtained by different operators using different apparatus and ap plying the two methods X and Y, respectively, each obtaining a single result on a identical test sample, when the methods have been assessed and an appropriate bias

- correction has been applied. It is defined as the 95 percent confidence limit for the diff erence between two such single and independent results.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 347 of 888 of published reproducibility was selected because there is some evidence to suggest that site precisions for various methods/parameters tend to average around that fraction of the same method’s published reproducibility . We are also requesting comment on the appropriate percentage of “R” that the “cross

- method reproducibility” should be equal to or less than. Sixth, the Agency

proposes that the applicant demonstrate, through the use of ASTM D6708

- 08, whether a correlati on to the designated test method is necessary . ASTM D6708
- 08 can also be used to determine whether the candidate method ’ s results are null compared to the designated test method and thus needs no adjustment or correlation, or whether some correction or co rrelation equation is required so the candidate method may predict designated method results. We are proposing the use of ASTM 6708

- 08 for corrections, if it is determined through the use of ASTM D6708

- 08 that the candidate method requires such a correcti on to predict designated test method results. The Agency proposes that the correction would be applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurements results for regulatory

purposes. Finally , we are proposing to require that applicants for non

- VCSB test method s secure an independent third part y oversight and audit review of the data generated and used to qualify non - VCSB test methods. We are proposing that the independent third part y would provide an overall assessment of the analy tical techni que and methodology and discuss any

limitations in the scope of the method, as well as attest that all the requirements for non

- VCSB test method qualification have been satisfied. The Agency believes this requirement would provide additional assurance that a non - VCSB test method is found to be adequate in use for compliance. We seek comments on all aspects of today ’s proposal. Additionally , the Agency is particularl y interested in comments on the appropriateness of the qualification criteria for candidate method

- defined parameter non

- VCSB test methods. h. Statistical Quality

Control: How Can We Ensure that Test Methods Continue to Deliver Quality Measurement in Practice? As discussed previousl y, an important element of today’s proposal is a statistical quality control program that may be applied to any

anal yt ical test method used in the regulatory

programs covered by

this proposal. Today , the Agency is proposing that every

laboratory

using test instruments to measure fuel parameters must implement and maintain a basic SQC program in order to satisfy EPA’s reporting or recordkeeping requirements. We are proposing that every laboratory have a separate SQC program for each instrument used to make measurements for***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 348 of 888 reporting or recordkeeping purposes. 450 This is unl ike the qualification criteria requirements, where onl y one of a set of essentially identical instruments implementing the same method in a laboratory must qualify
. We are proposing that implementation of a SQC program b y a laboratory would be a defense in any subsequent enforcement actions where the measurements are in use. We are proposing to adopt a subset of SQC procedures that are already widely in use from ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 . We anticipate that the measures we are proposing would not require the generation of much additional data by the laboratory

that employ s them and that the SQC program would improve the quality of measurement among those labs that adopt such measures. These SQC procedures used b y laboratories would ensure that the test methods they have qualified and the instruments on which the methods are run are yi elding results with appropriate accuracy

and precision, e.g., that the results from a particular instrument does not “drift” over time to yield unacceptable values. The proposed minimum specific SQC requirements for laboratories that measures absolute parameters, and both VCSB and non

- VCSB methods used to measure method

- defined parameters, are discussed in further detail below.

i. Statistical Quality Control for Absolute Parameters We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for each instrument used to measure absolute parameters in the laboratory. We are proposing that every

instrument would test a quality control (“QC”) material 451 either of: once per 20 production tests or on ce per week and maintain both an “I” chart 452 and an “MR” chart 453 . We are proposing that any violations of the control limit(s) would be investigated by laboratory

personnel, corrective action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period of 5 years. We are also proposing to follow the procedures of ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 for making transition from one batch of QC material to another. We are a also proposing the use of Annex A1.9, entitled “Q

- Procedure ,” of ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 for validating new QC material. We are proposing that when QC material is soon

- to - be

- depleted, that a new batch of QC material is prepared and its value compared to the old QC material on a chart. The new batch of QC material would be tested concurrentl y with the

450 Such SQC programs are already an established part of VCSB protocols for analytical laboratory operation (as indicated by such practices as ASTM’s D6299

- 10 e1 ) and are likely to be part of most laboratories ”standard operating procedures.” Thus, such a requirement very likely adds little or nothing in the way of burden for most laboratories. Laboratories that lack such programs and w ould have to expend significant effort to create them are those most at risk for poor measurements and for which the effort is most easily justified. 451 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, storage and use of reference material samples. 452 See AS TM D6299
- 10 e1 , section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 453 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section A1.5.2 for chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should be inv estigated.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 349 of 888 soon - to - be

- d epleted old QC material. T he results would be plotted from the “old” and “new” QC materials on its respective chart, and if no special

- cause signals are noted, then the result for the new material would be considered valid. 454 We are proposing to require th at every instrument tests a commerciall y available gravimetric standard reference material (SRM) (“check standard” as defined in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 ) on a quarterl y basis. The absolute difference between the mean of multiple back

- to - back tests of the SRM and ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y laboratory personnel, appropriate action taken, and records kept of the incident and investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM me asurements and investigations into an y exceedances of these proposed criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. Additionally, we are proposing to require laboratories to pre

- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 te sting occasions, 455 construct “MR” and “I” charts 456 with control lines, and maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting the underlying causes of an y control limit violations as discussed in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 . We are proposing that records of such incidents and the underlying control charts must be kept by the facilit y for a period of 5 ye ars. ii. Statistical Quality Control for VCSB

- Approved Methods Used to Measure Method

-Defined Parameters We are proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for every instrument used in VCSB

- approved methods to measure method

- defined parameters in the laboratory . With regard to precision, we are proposing the same SQC for instruments used for absolute parameters. We are proposing that every instrument tes t a quality

control QC material 457 once every 20 production tests or once per week whichever is more frequent
. We are also proposing the maintenance of an “I” chart 458 and a “MR” chart 459 . We are proposing that violations of the control limit(s) in these charts would be investigated , corrective action taken as required, and records kept of the incident for a period of 5 years. We are also

454 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Annex A1.9 Q
- Procedure. Procedures differ depending whether an I

chart, MR chart, EWMA chart, Q

- chart or a combination of these charts are utilized by the laboratory. 455 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or multiple check standards must be used. 456 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections for chart constru ction and guidance. 457 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition and Section 6 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, storage and use of reference material samples. 458 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 459 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section A1.5.2 for chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit should be investigated.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 350 of 888 proposing that laboratories follow the procedures of ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 for making the transition from one batch of QC material to the next. With regard to accuracy

we are proposing that each laboratory perform a check standard 460 for each instrument as defined in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 for each instrument on a quarterl y basis. We propose that check standards for “method

defined” paramete rs must be ordinary fuels with levels of the parameter of interest close to either regulatory

standards or to the average level of use. We also propose that ARVs of such standards must be determined through consensus methods 461 on designated method instrume nts. The absolute difference between the mean of multiple back

- to - back tests of the SRM and ARV of the SRM greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated, appropriate action taken by laboratory

personnel, and records kept of the incident and investigation. We are proposing that records of the SRM measurements and investigations into an y exceedance of the criteria must be kept for a period of 5 ye ars. Additionall y, we are proposing that laboratories must pre

- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions 462 , construct “MR” and “I” charts 463 with control lines, and maintain control charts, logging, investigating, and correcting the underl yi ng causes of an y control limit violations as discussed in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 . We are proposing that records of such incidents and the underlying control charts must be kept by the laboratory

for a period of 5 ye ars.

iii. Statistical Quality Control for Non

- VCSB Methods Used To Measure Method

-Defined Parameters We are also proposing precision and accuracy SQC requirements for instrument s used in non

- VCSB methods to measure method

- defined parameters in the laboratory . We are proposing precision requirements for instruments used in these ty pes of test method s that are the same as th ose proposed for absolute parameters. We are proposing that every instrument be tested on a qualit y control “QC” material 464 once per 20 production tests or once per week , whichever is more

460 As defined in ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 , Section 3, 2,3, and further discussed in Section 6.2. Optimum use of materials that are consensus

- named by a number of laboratories may be possible only if these materials are distributed in sufficient quantity that they may be used as check standards after their co nsensus - determined ARV is known by all laboratories. As mentioned in the text, only measurements made on the designated method for the parameter in question may be used in determining the ARV for this purpose. 461 Following the guidelines of ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 , Section 6.2.2. 462 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.2 (pretreatment) and Section 8.4 (assessment). Procedures differ depending upon whether a single check standard is used for multiple testing occasions or multiple check standards must be used. 463 See ASTM D 6299
- 10 e1 , Section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections for chart construction and guidance. 464 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , paragraph 3.2.3 for a definition and Section 6.1 for guidance, selection, construction, handling, storage and use of quality control samples.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 351 of 888 frequent . We are also propo sing the maintenance of an “I” chart 465 and a “MR” chart 466 . We are proposing that violations of the control limit(s) in these charts should be investigated, corrective action taken as required, and that records of the incident must be kept for a period of 5 ye ars. We are propos ing that laboratories follow the procedures of ASTM D6299

- 10 e1 for transitioning from one batch of QC material to the next. The proposed accuracy

requirement depends on whether the method

- defined parameter test method has minimal matri x interferences or whether the method

defined parameter test method is highly sensitive to matrix composition. The Agency believes that non

- VCSB test methods are expected to vary considerably to the extent that their results are sensitive to fuel characte ristics other than the level of the anal yt e of interest. For methods judged b y their operators to be relatively insensitive to such matrix effects, EPA believes that the same SQC accuracy approach used with VCSB

- approved methods measuring “method

- defined” parameters is appropriate. Where this is the case, a statement to this effect must be included in the application for qualification. Any decision to abandon this approach to SQC accuracy

must be reported to EPA along with the data and reasoning that led to the conclusion. For non
- VCSB methods used to measure method

- defined parameters that are highl y sensitive to matrix composition, we are proposing the same accuracy requirements that must be maintained as for other methods for method

- defined parameters, except that the check standards will consist of production fuels, representative of those production fuels routinely anal yz ed b y the laboratory, that have been submitted to a reference installation of the designated test method. We are proposing that the designated test method measurements should be replicated and the average of these results used as the ARV for the check standard. Additionally , we are proposing that the laboratory operating the alternative method is responsible for the qualification status and current stability of the reference method installation (for example, documentation on the identity of the reference installation and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the laboratory

that is using the alternative test method). Also for non

- VCSB methods, the Agency is proposing external checks on the accuracy

of matrix

- sensitive methods. L aboratories that have qualified such a method would be required to send a sample of each 20 th production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA’s Ann Arbor laboratory , along with the lab’s measurement results using the alternative method (the result used to certify the batch). The EPA lab may return such a sample on a blind basis for a required reanal ys is by

the originating laboratory at an y time up to two months from EPA’s

465 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , section 7 and Section A1.5.1 for chart construction and usage, including criteria for deciding upon corrective action. 466 See ASTM D6299
- 10 e1 , Section A1.5.2 for chart construction and usage. Any exceedance of the control limit shoul d be investigated.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 352 of 888 receipt of the sample. This external control is an additional check on both the site precision of the alternative method and its accuracy . We request comments on all aspects of our proposal. i. Agency

Approval Options We are proposing to require qualification of onl y non - VCSB test methods for fuel parameters. We are also seeking comment on whether we should require qualification of all test methods for fuel parameters. We are also proposing a requirement for regulated part ies to identify the test method used for each compliance measurement as part of the applicable record keeping and reporting. The following section contains a discussion of our proposal We believe that the proposed approach to performance

- based qualificat ion of test methods goes considerabl y be yond the minimum requirements of the NTTAA in providing flexibility of method choice, and accomplish performance

based qualification without compromising measurement quality . We also believe that the primary

tools f or achieving the latter objective are lab

- specific qualification of method installations and a requirement for across

- the

- board SQC. While EPA would benefit from finalizing today ’s proposal by no longer having to evaluate new alternative measurement metho dologies, this benefit is not likely to offset the substantial and unpredictable resource costs involved in administering a qualification process and providing infrastructural support for laboratories’ SQC programs.

i. Agency Approval of Only Non

- VCSB Metho ds We are proposing that only non - VCSB test methods for fuel parameters would need to be qualified. We are proposing to exclude designated test methods that have been in operation 6 months prior to finalizing this rule, as discussed below, as well as test methods that are developed by VCSBs, like ASTM International or the International Organization for Standards (ISO). A laboratory that has developed a test method but has decided not to offer it for evaluation and establishment through a VCSB

- based organi zational process would be required to qualify the test methods using the process discussed earlier. 467 We are proposing that such test methods must be qualified independently by each anal yt ical laboratory

that wishes to adopt the test method. This is becau se such a test method has not been shown to be capable of accurately measuring the parameter in different laboratories and across a variet y of fuel matrices. The precision for the candidate anal yt ical test method must be established by a medium

- term series of

467 Reasons for not submitting a local method for VCSB evaluation may include the proprietary nature of software or apparatus or the fact that the method is highly matrix

- sensitive and not likely to perform consistently when used to analyz e fuels with widely varying properties. EPA recognizes that matrix sensitivities may be subtle and methods with such characteristics may have been sponsored and published by VCSB’s.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 353 of 888 measurements on production fuels, the workability of the test method must be verified b y at least one other laboratory , and its accuracy must be demonstrated by direct correlation to the designated anal yt ical test method for the particular fuel paramet er. We are proposing the following requirements for test methods that have been sponsored and published by a VCSB such as ASTM or I SO. The test method must be fully

described so that it is replicable in many different laboratories and so that its operat ion may

be understood by

a technician. The VCSB must have tested the candidate test method in a round robin program against the designated test method, must have published a determination that the test method meets the performance criteria as discussed, and must have published the information necessary to correlate the alternative test method to the designated test method. 468 We are proposing a s ys tem of self

- qualification for VCSB

- based alternative test methods. Thus, we are also proposing that a VCSB

- base d candidate alternative test method need not be qualified separatel y in each laboratory that adopts it. This is because b y the time a VCSB

- based candidate alternative test method has been through the extensive development process typically required b y a V CSB, the test method’s procedures will have been exhaustively described. At this point there will be little uncertaint y about how the anal yt ical test method is to be applied, and it will have been implemented in a variet y of different laboratories and use d on a variet y of different ty

pes of fuels. Therefore, the VCSB

- based process gives EPA some confidence that the analytical test method is likely to be stable in use and can be implemented with very

little ambiguity

regarding instrumentation, materials, and procedures. VCSB method evaluation protocols have been established, including a recentl y developed protocol for comparing methods, which provide means for establishing a proposed VCSB alternative method’s precision parity with the designated method fo r the parameter469 and for determining whether the alternative test method can be adequately correlated with the designated test method. 470 We also recognize that imposing this qualification requirement on existing test methods developed by a VCSB without a dequate lead time may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give methods published and in operation when this

468 This first approach assumes that a single such equation can be used fo r all labs using the method, an assumption that may not always hold. The more detailed discussion of the two approaches that follows this introduction explores this problem. 469 ASTM D 6708
- 08, entitled, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Impr ovement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material. 470 ASTM D 6708
- 08, entitled, Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Pur port to Measure the Same Property of a Material.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 354 of 888 proposal is published a grace period of one year from the effective date of a final rule before they

meet these proposed requirements. We are also proposing to exempt existing (i.e., in use for six months prior to publication of this proposal) installations of designated test methods that are method

- defined parameters from the qualification requirement. We presume these to be stable and capable methods in relatively experienced hands. Because they are already being used to certify fuels, requiring their qualification could be disruptive and burdensome to both their operators and to whoever manages the qualification process. Such installations would not benefit tangibly from this rule (as by obtaining access to a desired new method), but would nevertheless bear a newly

imposed burden. We are also proposing to require record keeping and retention requirements for both VCSB alternative and non

- VCS B test methods. Parties would need to maintain qualification records for demonstrating compliance for a period of 5 years after they cease use of the particular test method. Parties must also maintain a complete description of the test method and data wi th statistical analy sis that supports its qualification. We are also seeking comment on whether the Agency should require qualification of all anal yt ical test methods for the fuel parameters at 40 CFR 80. This would include each designated test method , all alternative test methods currentl y allowed b y our regulations, as well as any other anal yt ical test method regardless of whether the test method was developed by a voluntary

consensus standards based organization, like ASTM, or if it is a proprietary anal yt ical test method, that is, non

- VCSB test method. We recognize that imposing the qualification requirement on existing and operational installations of all methods without adequate lead time may be problematic. We are thus proposing to give such lab oratories (i.e., those in operation when this proposal is published) a grace period of one ye ar from the effective date of the final rule before they must have qualified if they wish to continue in operation. We believe that a ye ar should be enough time t o determine whether an existing test method is likely to qualify

or to adopt and qualify

a replacement test method if it should fall short. New installations of previously accepted methods, including alternatives, would be required to qualify their laboratory

before being put into service just like all other installations of new test methods in a laboratory
. 4. Downstream Pentane Blending The current regulations at 40 CFR 80.82 reduce the burden of compliance with EPA gasoline quality requirements for partie s that blend butane into conventional gasoline, reformulated gasoline (RFG), or reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending (RBOB) downstream of a crude oil refinery . Parties that conduct such butane blending are considered a refiner, however, they are not***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 355 of 888 subject to sampling testing requirements that would otherwise appl y to a refiner provided they

use butane of known quality and meet certain other requirements. Butane blending is not allo wed into RFG or RBOB from April 1 through September 30 or into any

RFG or RBOB that is designated as VOC

- controlled. Butane blenders must test to ensure that the volatility requirements of the final gasoline blend are met. Testing to demonstrate compliance with other gasoline compositional requirements is not requir ed provided that the b lender has docume nts from the supplier demonstrating the butane is “commercial grade” . Commercial grade butane is currently

defined as butane for which test re sults demonstrate that it is 95 percent pure and has the following propert ies: sulfur <= 30 ppm, benzene <= 0.03 volume percent , olefins <= 1.0 volume percent , and aromatics <= 2.0 volume percent . Documents from the supplier demonstrating the butane is “non

commercial grade” may

also be used to demonstrate compliance with gasol ine quality requirements other than volatility provided the blender conducts a quality assurance program on the butane they blend. Non

- commercial grade butane is currentl y d efined as follows: sulfur <= 30 ppm, benzene <= 0.03 volume percent , olefins <= 1 0.0 volume percent , and aromatics <= 2.0 volume percent . Today ’s action is proposing to amend these butane specifications to replace the current 30 ppm sulfur cap with a 10 ppm cap consistent with today ’s proposed 10 ppm refinery average sulfur standard. Butane blenders stated that broadening the downstream butane blending provisions to include pentane would help to increase the domestic supply of gasoline b y providing a market for the pentane fraction of natural gasoline liquids. A substantial incr ease in the production of natural gasoline liquids is occurring as a by

- product of increased domestic natural gas and crude oil production in the U.S. Given the lower volatility of pentane compared to butane, a greater volume of such domestically

- availabl e feedstocks could be blended into gasoline downstream of the refinery while still maintaining the gasoline quality specifications including RVP. We request comment on whether the provisions for butane blending might also be applied to pentane blending , i ncluding the specifications for the fuel qualities noted above . Specific comment is requested on the potential vehicle emissions and operability

effects from such pentane blending. To the extent that pentane blending might displace butane blending, there may be some decrease in evaporative emissions due to pentane’s lower boiling point compared to butane. Therefore, we anticipate that allowing downstream blending of pentane would have a neutral or marginally

beneficial effect on vehicle emissions. If we were to extend the downstream butane blending provisions to pentane, we also seek comment on whether an y additional pentane qualit y specifications or blending requirements would be necessary

to protect vehicle emissions and operability performance. **B. Eng**  **ine, Vehicle and Equipment Programs** We are proposing several technical amendments to existing regulatory requirements for motor vehicles and other ty pes of vehicles and engines. These changes are intended to align with the Tier 3 standards proposed in th is rule and to make various adjustments and corrections to the regulations. We are also proposing***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 356 of 888 to remove large portions of obsolete regulatory text and update cross references accordingl y. We request comment on all these amendments. However, we are n ot requesting comment on the underl yi ng regulatory requirements except as specificall y described in this section. 1. Fuel Econom y Labeling EPA adopted updated fuel econom y labeling requirements in 40 CFR part 600 on July

6, 2011. 471 The label display s a smog rating based on relative emission rates for certified vehicles. With new Tier 3 standards, this rating scale becomes less useful, since the Tier 3 standards would disallow certification to half of the existing smog ratings. We are therefore propos ing a new smog rating scale starting in model year 2018. M anufacturers choosing to transition to the Tier 3 NMOG+NO X standards based on a percentage phase

- in could continue to meet Tier 2 standards for the “phase

- out” fraction of the fleet through model year 2020 , but would use a new smog rating scale that lines up, to the extent possible, the Tier 2 standards with the new Tier 3 scale . We believe it is appropriate to shift to the new scale in model year 2018 to reflect the start of Tier 3 program for the majority of vehicles. The smog rating scale ranges from 1 to 10 . T he f ederal Tier 3 program comprises seven different NMOG+NO X emission certification levels. In addition, the California ZEV program for 2018 and later model y ears includes a unique TZEV category , which falls between a ZEV (Bin 0) and a SULEV20 (Bin 20), resulting in a total of eight emission standards. 472 We propose to omit rankings 2 and 4, r anking the eight emission levels in order over the remaining ratings. Omitting ratings 2 and 4 h elps convey the larger absolute differences in the g/mile standards between Bins 70 and 125 and Bins 125 and 160. We also propose to adjust the scale again in model year 2025 so that, consistent with the fuel economy and greenhouse gas rating, the middle of the scale (a smog rating of 5 or 6) is equivalent to the fleet average standard of 0.030 g/mile for NMOG + NOx. Using this approach, we would apply a smog rating of 8 for TZEVs and omit 9 from the smog ratings . We request comment on applying smog rati ngs to TZEV vehicles; in particular, we request comment on any appropriate differentiation of TZEV vehicles, such as assigning different smog ratings based on the particular SULEV exhaust emission standards or the allowance value for different all

- electric range values. We request comment on these and other alternative approach es to revising the specifications for the smog rating on the fuel economy label. We also request comment on whether one or more transition rating scales would be appropriate to

471 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011). 472 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/zev2012/fro2rev.pdf***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 357 of 888 gradu all y adjust the smog rating scale as the fleet average standards become more stringent. 2. Removing Obsolete Regulatory Text EPA regulations for highway and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment in many cases appl y for a range of model years before being replaced by a new set of standards, requirements, and other provisions for implementing a program that changes to reflect technological innovation, changing environmental needs, new business dy

namics, and other factors. We are proposing to take steps in this rulemaking to remove substantial portions of regulatory

text that no longer have an y regulatory significance, generall y because they

have been superseded by newer provisions. In many cases, this simply

involves removing paragraphs or sections related to certifying products that no longer appl y to 2004 or newer model years. In other cases, we can remove whole subparts that apply only to engines and vehicles that have reached the end of their useful lives for the purpose of regulation. For example, th e in

- use regulations from 40 CFR part 86, subpart H, applied onl y for 1993 through 2003 model year light

- duty vehicles, light

- duty

trucks, and medium

- duty passenger vehicles. Also, the National LEV standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart R (and in Appendix X III through XVIII of part 86), applied only for 1999 through 2003 model y ears. These subparts, and references to that content, can be removed from the CFR. Similarly , the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, applied to light

- duty vehicles only

through model year 2000 for light

- duty vehicles and model year 2004 for light

- dut y trucks and chassis

- certified heavy

- duty vehicles. Much of that subpart continues to apply for heavy

- dut y engines, so the obsolete portions must be removed more selectively. The p roposal includes removal of substantial portions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart A, to omit text that applies only for light

- dut y vehicles or light

- duty trucks, and additional portions that do not apply for any 2004 or newer model years. There are also instan ces where we are proposing to streamline the organization of regulatory sections in 40 CFR part 86. For those places where there is a new section for a given model year where all the old provisions continue to apply , and the new section introduces a narro w additional provision, we are proposing to cop y the new paragraph into the section for the older model

- year provisions, with descriptive language in place to say when the new provision applies. This consolidation would allow us to take out numerous secti ons that can lead to confusion for the reader. The following sections describe additional changes to remove material.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 358 of 888 a. Certification Short Test and I/M Provisions Inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs have been implemented by state and local government s for many years. These programs have been effective at identifying vehicles that need some kind of repair to restore vehicles’ emission control sy stems. In that context, they have also provided useful information to facilitate warrant y coverage where de fective components or sy stems were still covered b y the manufacturer’s warrant y, as required by section 207 of the Clean Air Act. In 1993, EPA adopted a requirement for the certification short test (“CST” or “cert short test”). 473 The purpose of the cert s hort test was to correlate the vehicle manufacturer’s certification and I/M testing. Under this approach, the vehicle manufacturer certifies that a properly maintained and operated vehicle will pass I /M testing. When such a vehicle fails I/M during the warranty period, the manufacturer is responsible for the cost of repairs necessary to correct the problem so the vehicle can pass the I/M test. EPA adopted requirements in 1993 for manufacturers to design and build their vehicles with OBD, which provide s pe rformance feedback for evaluating whether emission control sy stems are functioning properl y. This rule, combined with fleet turnover, has resulted in vehicles subject to I /M being equipped with OBD. The standard protocol for I/M programs now depends on th e OBD sy stem instead of tailpipe tests to determine which vehicles need maintenance. Since vehicle manufacturers have to certify the performance of OBD s ys tems as part of the certification process, the use of OBD for I/M testing also provides a basis for determining that emission repairs are covered b y the manufacturer’s warranty, when necessary . For man y ye ars, manufacturers have submitted a compliance statement for certification instead of submitting data to demonstrate that they meet the standards asso ciated with the cert short test. Since emission measurements are no longer part of an y standardized I/M testing, it has become clear that OBD sy stems have completel y replaced the cert short test as the means of making warranty determinations for I/M testi ng. We are therefore proposing in this rule to entirely remove the cert short test standards and test procedures from 40 CFR part 86, subparts O and S, and to similarly remove the emission measurement procedures from 40 CFR part 85, subpart W. The remaini ng regulatory text in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W, relates onl y to the role of OBD testing in the determination of manufacturers’ warranty obligations resulting from I/M testing. In addition to removing material that no longer applies based on model years, we are proposing to update this remaining text in two way s. First, we are expanding the scope to include medium

- duty passenger vehicles since these vehicles are now subject to both OBD certification requirements and I/M testing. Second, we are replacing all citations to SAE reference procedures with a cross - reference to 40 CFR 86.1806, where we already specify all the relevant OBD

473 58 FR 58382 ( November 1, 1993)***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 359 of 888 reference procedures. This avoids the possibility of changing the certification procedures in a way

that departs from the I/M and warranty provisions. Since these programs are paired, there would never be a need to specify different reference procedures for the two programs. b. Testing for Heav y - Dut y Highway Engines We recentl y completed the migration of test procedures for heav y - dut y highway engines from 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, to 40 CFR part 1065. Now that these manufacturers are all relying the new test procedures, we are proposing to eliminate the regulatory

provisions that no longer apply . This involves large portions of text in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, that have been superseded b y analogous material in 40 CFR part 1065, such as analyzer specification s , calibration procedures, calculation methods, and fuel specifications. The obsolete text also included several referenc es to 40 CFR part 86, subpart D, which we are also proposing to no longer print in the CFR. We are keeping regulatory provisions in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, that serve as the “standard

- setting part” for matters related to testing, such as the duty cycl es and not - to - exceed test procedures. These provisions are unique to heav y duty highway engines and are therefore not suitable for the general test specifications in 40 CFR part 1065. In the case of testing in

- use engines that were originally certified us ing the procedures in 40 CFR part 86, subpart N, we are including a regulatory provision that would allow EPA and manufacturers to continue to use the original certification procedures as a pre

- approved alternate procedure.
c. Testing for Heav y - Dut y Highway V ehicles The regulations at 40 CFR part 85, subpart M, describe how to test heav y duty vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR to demonstrate compliance with evaporative emission standards. Most of these provisions are identical to those that apply under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B. This can better be accomplished with appropriate references to the procedures in subpart B instead of repeating text. Relying on references to subpart B would eliminate many pages of unnecessary

printing, but it would also make it easier for us to maintain a consistent set of requirements. Changing a provision in subpart B would automatically apply for evaporative testing of heav y - dut y vehicles without making that duplicate change in subpart M. In addition, as noted in Section IV.C, we are proposing to allow manufacturers of these vehicles to rely

on an engineering anal ys is instead of performing new tests. This would further reduce the need to have separate requirements spelled out for these vehicles. The revised regulations preserve p rovisions that are specific to heav y - dut y vehicle testing. In particular, the heavy

- dut y procedure involves testing with a different driving schedule and wider speed tolerances, testing does not involve ethanol

- blended test fuel, and exhaust emissions are not measured during the drive preceding the two - day diurnal emission test.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 360 of 888 In some cases, the current regulations in subparts B and M include differences in test provisions that we are not preserving. Some of these differences arose from changes to subpart B that were inadvertently not carried over to subpart M. In other cases, there may have been an intentional distinction that no longer applies (such as provisions related to slippage on twin

- roll dy namometers. Perhaps the most important of these include procedures for determining road load settings and for operating manual or automatic transmissions. Additional differences we are not preserving include gas divider specifications, SHED and dy namometer calibration procedures, and some provisions fo r alternative canister loading and vehicle preconditioning. We are also restoring paragraphs §86.1235(b) through (i) related to dynamometer operating procedures, which were inadvertently removed in an earlier rulemaking. This leaner approach for vehicles above 14,000 lbs GVWR is also consistent with our proposed change to waive evaporative testing requirements for certifying these vehicles. d. Service Information Requirements for Light

- Dut y Vehicles The service information regulations were originally adopted for light

- dut y motor vehicles 40 CFR 86.038

- 96. These requirements applied for 1996 and later model year vehicles. Starting with the 2001 model year, these same requirements were copied into §86.1808

- 01. These two sets of requirements are identical exc ept for the model ye ar applicability and a variet y of very minor stylistic differences. We are proposing to revise the service information regulations in §86.1808

- 01 to apply also to 1996 through 2000 model y ear vehicles, and to correct several ty pographi cal and formatting errors. These changes should have no practical significance, since the requirements are the same in both regulatory sections. 3. Motorcycle Driving Schedules The CFR includes two separate driving schedules for motorcycles. The first , for motorcycles at or above 170 cubic centimeters (cc) , is identical to that used for light

- dut y vehicles except that the speeds are converted to kilometers per hour. The second driving schedule, for smaller motorcycles , is also identical except for a period of about three minutes of reduced

- speed operation. To simplify this arrangement, and to make room for the new LA

- 92 driving schedule described in Section IV.B for heav y - duty vehicles, and also to allow for reference to m/s values as described above for li ght

- dut y vehicles, we are proposing to eliminate the identical portions of these drive schedules. This revised approach involves referencing the driving schedule for light

- dut y vehicles with instructions to convert to kilometers per hour and round the res ulting speeds to the nearest 0.1 kilomete r s per hour, instead of repeating the driving schedule just to publish the same speed trace in different units. The unique portion of the driving schedule is laid out, with reference to the light

- duty driving sched

ule for the portions that are unchanged. This is not intended to cause an y change in the current requirements or practices for certifying motorcycles.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 361 of 888 4. Updating Reference Procedures The regulations in 40 CFR part 1065 depend on a large number of reference procedures and technical standards from ASTM, SAE International, and ISO, among others. These reference procedures and technical standards are updated periodicall y to keep them current with ongoing developments in the field. Many times these changes include only minor corrections or clarifications. In other cases the updates incorporate new test methods, accommodate changing engine technologies, or other more substantive changes. Whether the updated reference documents involve major changes or not, it i s important for the regulations to rely on documents that are readily available. Toward that end, we plan to update §1065.1010 with the latest versions of all the reference procedures and technical standards that we identify. In areas of the regulations other than part 1065, we intend to rel y on the latest reference documents where we are changing or adding a provision that depends on one of these reference documents, but we do not plan in this rulemaking to make broad or universal changes to these refer ences. One particular area of interest relates to rounding. As described in Section IV .F.3, w e are proposing to define “round” for 40 CFR part 86 to have the meaning we give in 40 CFR 1065 .20 , which spells out a detailed rounding protocol that is consistent with ASTM E29 and NIST SP811. The proposed definition of “round” will defer to existing references in part 86 so that the part 1065 protocol will apply only where we do not specificall y re fer to ASTM E29. This is not intended to change the policy

for calculating or reporting numerical quantities, but rather to clarify the protocol and avoid the administrative complication of referencing multiple versions of the ASTM document. 

## VII. **What ar e th**  **e Cost Impacts of the Pr oposed Rule?**  We have estimated the costs for both the proposed vehicle standards described in Section IV and the proposed fuel standards described in Section V. This section summarizes these costs, while further information on the methodology we used to develop these costs can be found in Chapters 2 and 5 of the draft RIA. Section VII.C provides a summary of total costs for the proposed vehicle and fuel programs together. We have also compared the proposed program costs to the proj ected emission reductions in Section VII.D and compared these cost

effectiveness estimates to those for other programs. For a comparison of the program costs to the monetized health and welfare benefits, see Section VIII. **A. Estimated Costs of the Vehicle St**  **andards** To determine the cost for vehicles, we first determined which technologies were most likel y to be applied by vehicle manufacturers to meet the proposed standards assuming gasoline sulfur levels were reduced to a 10 ppm average. These***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 362 of 888 technologies were then combined into technology packages which reflected vehicle design attributes that directly contribute to a vehicle’s emissions performance. The attributes considered included vehicle t ype (car or truck), number of cylinders, engine displacement, and the ty pe of fuel used (gasoline or diesel). We also created separate packages for light

- duty and heav y - dut y trucks and vans. In estimating both cost and technology

application, we have relied on publicly available information (such as that developed by California), confidential information supplied by individual manufacturers and suppliers, and the results of our own in

- house testing. The technology

packages that we developed represent what we consider to be the most likely

average emissions control solution for each vehicle t ype. In general, we expect that the majority of vehicles would be able to compl y with the Tier 3 standards which we are proposing through refinements of current emissions control components and sy stems. Some vehicles may require additional emission controls, such as large trucks with large displacement engines (in particular, LDT3s and LDT4s). Overall, smaller, lighter

- weight vehicles will require less extensive improvements than larger vehicles and trucks. Specifically , we ant icipate a combination of technology upgrades including:

 Cataly st Platinum Group Metal (PGM) Loading. Increased catal ys t application of precious metals.

 Optimized Close

- coupled catal ys t: Improvements to the catal ys t sy stem design, structure, and packaging to reduce light

- off time.

 Optimized Thermal Management: Overall thermal management of the emissions control sy stem to improve to shorten the time it takes for the catal ys t to light

- off.

 Secondary

Air Injection: Increased application of secondary air inj ection for some 6

- cylinder and larger engines.

 Engine Calibration: Engine control and calibration modifications to improve air and fuel mixtures, particularl y at cold start and/or to control secondary air and hydrocarbon adsorbers.

 Hydrocarbon Adsorber: Limited application of h ydrocarbon adsorbers to trap hydrocarbons during cold start and release the hydrocarbons after the catal ys t lights off.

 Evaporative Emissions Controls: Improved evaporative emissions sy stems, including canister scrubbers, more perm eation

- resistant materials, and improved sy stem integration. As stated above, we have developed our costs with respect to a given vehicle t ype and the type of engine with which it is equipped. Although the cost of achieving the proposed Tier 3 standards w ill increase with the size of the vehicle***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 363 of 888 and the displacement of the engine, we have concluded that the cost for each engine ty pe is independent of the ty pe of vehicle in which it is equipped. For example, we estimate that the cost of cataly st loading fo r an in

- line 4

- cylinder (I4) engine will be the same whether the engine is in a car or a truck. The final cost per vehicle is the result of not only

the cost per technology , but also the application rate of that technology

for each vehicle ty

pe. For example, while the $199 (2010$) cost of secondary air injection is the same for both a 6

- cylinder (V6) and 8

- cylinder (V8) application, we anticipate that only 25 percent of the V6 applications will require this technology , while 75 percent of the V8 applicati ons will require it. Table VII
- 1 below shows our estimate of the cost of each of the emission control technologies for the gasoline vehicles affected by this proposed rule. Table VI I
- 2 provides the anticipated application rate of the technology by vehicle t ype. Note that all of the costs shown in this section are in 2010 dollars, are applicable for the 2017 MY and are marked

- up by

an Indirect Cost Multiplier (I CM) so they include both direct and indirect costs. (For details of regarding IC Ms and their application refer to Chapter 2 of the draft RIA .) **Table VII**  **- 1**  **2017MY Technology Costs by Gasoline Engine Type (2010$)** Technology Gasoline Engine Ty pe a I4 V6 V8 HD c V8 Cataly st Loading $72 $95 $119 $60 Optimized Close

- coupled Cataly st $24 $48 $72 $72 Optimized Thermal Management $36 $36 $36 $36 Secondary

Air Injection N/R b $119 $119 N/R Engine Calibration $2 $2 $2 $2 Hydrocarbon Adsorber N/R N/R $201 N/R Evaporative Emissions Controls $20 $20 $20 $20

a I4

– In
- line 4

- cylinder, V6: 6

- cylinder, V8: 8

- cylinder b N/R

– Not Required c Heavy
- duty***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 364 of 888 **Table VII**  **- 2**  **Technology Application Rates for Gasoline Vehicles** Technology **Technology Application Rate by Vehicle Type**

I4 LDV V6 LDV V8

LDV I4 LDT V6 LDT V8 LDT HD V8 Cataly st Loading 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Optimized Close

coupled Cataly st 50% 60% 75% 50% 60% 75% 0%
Optimized Thermal Management 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Secondary Air Injection N/R 25% 75% 0% 25% 75% N/R Engine Calibration 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Hydrocarbon Adsorber N/R N/R 15% 0% 0% 15% N/R Evaporative Emissions Controls 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Medium Duty

Passenger Vehicles (MDPVs) were included in the light

- dut y fleet as part of Tier 2. Given their current certification requirements for criteria pollutants, we have included the costs for MDPVs to meet the Tier 3 standards with the LDT4 cost estimates. We do not expect that the technologies required to meet the Tier 3 standards for MDPVs will be different from those applied to LDT4s, as in many cases identical powertrains and chassis exist between the LDT4 and MDPV platforms. We also expect that manufacturers will continue to build and sell light

- duty d iesel vehicles and certify those vehicles to Tier 3. All light

- duty diesel vehicles currentl y being sold in the federal fleet are equipped with some means of controlling NO X emissions, either a Lean NO X Trap (LNT) or SCR sy stem. As these sy stems are alre ad y very effective in controlling NO X emissions, we expect that they will remain the primary

emissions control sy stems to meet Tier 3. Similar to gasoline engines, diesel powertrains may be required to improve the effectiveness of their emission control sy stems during cold start. Therefore, we have developed our costs for diesels with the expectation that the incremental costs will be realized to improve LNT and SCR sy stems during cold start. The improvements have been categorized as general SCR optimiz ation, which include packaging changes to the SCR sy stem to allow faster light off; Optimized Thermal Management, to reduce the thermal mass of the s ystem and allow more of the combustion heat to reach the SCR sy stem sooner; and the calibration work***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 365 of 888 associ ated with both of these changes. Table VII
- 3 below describes both the cost of the technologies as well as their anticipated application rates. **Table VII**  **- 3**  **2017MY Technology Costs and Application Rates for Diesel Engines (2010$)**  Technology Diesel Engine Costs (all ty pes) Li ght

- dut y and

Heav y - dut y Application Rate Optimized Thermal Management $36 25% Engine Calibration $2 100% SCR Optimization $60 100% Costs have also been estimated for HDVs between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs GVWR. Vehicles in this range are often referred to as Class 2b (8,5001

- 10,000 lbs) and Class 3 (10,001

- 14,000 lbs) vehicles and are ty pically full

- size pickup truck and work vans. We ap plied the same process to the heavy

- duty vehicles as we did to the light

- dut y vehicles. Heav y - dut y costs and application rates may be found in Table VII
- 1 , Table VII
- 2 , and Table VI I
- 3 above. We have also considered the impacts of manufacturer learning on the technology

cost estimates. We reflect the phenomenon of volume

- based learning curve cost reductions in our model ing using two algorithms, depending on where in the learning cycle (i.e., on what portion of the learning curve) we consider a technology

to be: the “steep” portion of the curve for newer technologies and “flat” portion of the curve for more mature technol ogies. The observed phenomenon in the economic literature which supports manufacturer learning cost reductions are based on reductions in costs as production volumes increase with the highest absolute cost reduction occurring with the first doubling of production. For additional information on technology learning refer to Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. Learning impacts have been considered on all of the technologies expected to be used with the assumption that all technologies are on the flat portion of th e learning curve. We did not consider an y of the technologies to be on the steep portion of the learning curve because none are being used for the first time in the 2017

- 2025 timeframe. Finally , we have prepared our cost estimates for meeting the Tier 3 standards using a baseline of Tier 2 Bin 5 technologies for all LDVs, LDTs, and MDPVs. The baseline fleet used for these cost estimates is the MY 2016 light

- dut y fleet predicted b y the 2012

- 2016 GHG Rule. The 2012 GHG Rule provides us with the clearest picture of what the light

- dut y fleet m ay look like in MY 2017. Additional details on how the 2017 MY fleet (i.e., the reference case fleet for this proposal) was developed can be found in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. In short, the 2012
- 2016 GHG final rule is expected to result in considerable downsize of engines along with turbocharging to maintain performance. Since engines are expected to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 366 of 888 be downsized, the estimated Tier 3 costs are impacted since smaller engines are expected to incur lower costs as sho wn in Table VII
- 1
. Since GHG standards for the 2017

- 2025 fleet have just recentl y been finalized, we were not able to reflect their potential impacts on the baseline fleet in this proposal. We do not expect the MYs 20 17
- 2025 GHG standards will change the technologies that we project will be used to comply with the proposed Tier 3 standards. However, some of the changes to the vehicle fleet expected to result from the MYs 2017
- 2025 GHG standards, such as a greater pene tration of downsized engines, could lower the cost of complying with Tier 3 standards. The final Tier 3 rule will include the changes to the fleet associated with the GHG standards and the resulting impacts on cost. The evaporative emissions standards that we are proposing for LDVs, LDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs are feasible with relatively small cost impacts. We estimate the cost of s ys tem improvements, including indirect cost markups, to be about $20 (2010$) per vehicle, for all car classes. This incremental cost reflects the cost of moving to low permeability materials, reduced number of fuel

- sy stem connections, longer contiguous lengths of plumbing, and low

- permeation connectors. We believe that learning is also appropriate for evaporative emissions contro l sy stems as described above and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. We request comment on this detailed anal ys is. In particular, we request comment on the completeness of the list of emission control components needed for meeting the Tier 3 ev aporative emission standards, especially regarding purge and purge

assist technologies. We have used the individual technology costs discussed briefl y here and in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA to estimate package costs for each of the different gasoline and diesel engine ty pes in the fleet (i.e., I4 passenger car, V6 passenger car, etc.). We have then multiplied these package costs b y the project sales estimates for the ye ars 2017 and later. The projected sales estimates used, as noted earlier , represent the reference case fleet mix rather than today ’s fleet mix. That fleet mix is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2 of the draft RIA. With these total annual costs, we then determined the sales weighted average cost increase for all passenger cars, light trucks and heav y - dut y vehicles. Table VII
- 4 below provides our estimates of the incremental cost per vehicle (both light

- duty and class 2 b and 3 vehicles) b y model year for both tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards. These values reflect the total direct and indirect manufacturing costs as well as the appropriate learning rates. As stated above, a large portion of the cost is incur red in the initial model years due to the adoption of the LEV III declining fleet average. Costs then continue to rise as the percentage of vehicles compl yi ng with the proposed standards increases through the 2025 MY. We have estimated costs consistent with the fact that manufacturers would be required to start the phase

- in of Tier 3 standards in MY 2017 for vehicles under 6 , 000 lbs GVWR and MY 2018 for vehicles greater than 6 , 000 lbs GVWR. Based on the declining fleet averages for cars and trucks, we h ave apportioned our***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 367 of 888 estimates for full compliance across the phase

- in years as a percentage of the final standard. Manufacturers would be required to move from a Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average in the 2017 MY (for vehicles <6 , 000 lbs GVW). This results in a s ignificant step in stringency . As a result, a large portion of the costs are expected to be incurred in the initial model years. It is also important to note that while we are aligned with CARB on the individual cost of each technology and their applicat ion rates, our costs are different from California’s LEV III costs due to the fact that the California fleet is currently meeting slightly

more stringent standards than the federal fleet. Thus, the incremental cost for California is less. Finally , manufac turers would have the opportunity in 2015 and 2016 MY to earn Tier 3 credits b y producing a fleet that is cleaner than the current Tier 2 requirements. While we expect that most manufacturers would earn credits, either b y selling California vehicles as 50 state vehicles or b y certifyingexisting vehicles to lower Tier 2 bins, we have not reflected these credits in our cost anal ys is. In that way , we believe that our cost estimates are conservative.

**Table VII**  **- 4**  **Per Vehicle Costs by Model Year a**  **Model Year 2017**  **2018 2019**  **2020 2021**  **2022 2023**  **2024 2025**  $/car $78 $87 $92 $99 $103 $112 $111 $115 $118 $/truck $0 $105 $114 $127 $136 $150 $151 $159 $165 Li ght

- dut y Combined $50 $94 $100 $109 $115 $125 $124 $130 $134 $/2b (Truck or Van) $0 $43 $50 $58 $64 $73 $69 $68 $66 $/3 (Truck or Van) $0 $38 $46 $55 $63 $73 $69 $68 $66

a Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California. Total annual costs are shown below in Table VI I
- 5 . This table includes all costs associated with the proposed T ier 3 vehicle standards, i.e., both e xhaust and evaporative emission standards, for both light

- duty vehicles and 2b and 3 heavy

duty pickup trucks and vans. Also included are facility related costs associated with the proposed requirements to conduct more PM testing on gasoline vehicles. (Ad ditional detail regarding the PM facility costs are described below.) We show the facility

costs in the year 2016 even though the program does not begin until 2017. These costs represent the construction cost that would have to be done in advance of the f

irst year of the standards in preparation for the testing efforts that would be required. The annual costs shown for each cost element are undiscounted***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 368 of 888 annual costs for the ye ars 2016 through 2025, then 2030, 2040 and 2050. The present values shown are f or the ye ars 2012
- 2050 at both the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. We have shown present values in 2012 for comparison to EPA’s 2012
- 2016 GHG final rule and the recent MYs 2017
- 2025 GHG rule and to more closel y estimate the costs of the program to day
. **Table VII**  **- 5**  **Undiscounted Annual Costs & Costs of the Vehicle Program Discounted back to 2012 at 3% and 7% Discount Rates (Millions of 2010**  **Dollars) a** 

Year Exhaust Evap Facilities Li ght

- dut y 2b/3 All Li ght

- dut y 2b/3 All All Total
2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22.5 $22.5 2017 $634 $0 $634 $71.4 $0 $71.4 $3.75 $709 2018 $1,150 $23.1 $1,170 $167 $3.86 $171 $3.75 $1,340 2019 $1,240 $28.6 $1,270 $159 $3.76 $162 $3.75 $1,440 2020 $1,350 $34.2 $1,380 $216 $5.22 $221 $3.75 $1,600 2021 $1,470 $40.0 $1,510 $208 $5.09 $213 $3.75 $1,730 2022 $1,580 $46.5 $1,630 $264 $6.52 $271 $3.75 $1,900 2023 $1,610 $44.8 $1,660 $253 $6.27 $259 $3.75 $1,920 2024 $1,720 $44.8 $1,770 $257 $6.38 $263 $3.75 $2,040 2025 $1,830 $44.9 $1,870 $246 $6.12 $253 $3.75 $2,130 2030 $1,750 $46.5 $1,790 $246 $6.74 $253 $3.75 $2,050 2040 $1,750 $51.9 $1,800 $246 $7.52 $254 $3.75 $2,060 2050 $1,750 $58.6 $1,810 $246 $8.49 $255 $3.75 $2,070 NPV, 3% $29,900 $814 $30,700 $4,250 $116 $4,360 $89.1 $35,100 NPV, 7% $14,700 $384 $15,100 $2,090 $55.0 $2,150 $52.2 $17,300 a Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California. In addition to considering the costs associated with improving the emission control sy stems on vehicles, we also expect that manufacturers may need to improve their capability

to measure PM at the levels we are proposing. For additional information on the test procedure changes we are proposing, reference Section IV.F. We have used two sources of information to determine the appropriate costs for upgrading test facilities for PM measurement. The first was EPA’s own cost to upgrade its PM measurement equip ment; the second was information provided by vehicle manufacturers. The cost estimates ranged from $250,000 to $500,000 per PM test site. We recognize that the number of sites that a manufacturer would require is dependent on the number of vehicle model s it expects to develop and certify in a given model ye ar. As stated in Section IV.A, we have limited the number of certifications required per model year to 25 percent of the represented durability***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 369 of 888 groups, thereb y potentially reducing the number of test sites that require upgrade. We believe that manufacturers with annual sales of one million units or less would require two facility

upgrades at an average cost of $375,000. For manufacturers with greater than one million units per year annual sales we be lieve that four facilit y upgrades may

be required to meet the Tier 3 requirements. In addition to facility upgrades some manufacturers may require an additional employee for PM weigh room operation and/or PM data management. Therefore we have added the c ost of 1 additional full time employee for all manufacturers. Our estimated costs for each manufacturer are show below in Table VII
- 6
.

**Table VII**  **- 6**  **PM Facility Costs (2010 dollars)** Annual Volume # of PM Sites

to be upgraded Cost per site Total Facilit y Cost (one

- time, upfront cost) Additional FTE

(annual, ongoing cost) ≤1 million 2 $375,000 $750,000 1 @ $150,000 per year > 1 million 4 $1,500,000 Total $22,500,000 $3,750,000 a FTE

– Full Time Employee **B. Estimated Costs of the Fuel Program**  1. Overview The sulfur control program we are proposing today is expected to result in many refiners further investing in sulfur control hardware and changing the operations in their refineries to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels. The proposed sulfur control program requires refiners and importers to reduce their gasoline sulfur levels on average down to 10 p pm. The ABT provisions being proposed along with the 10

- ppm average sulfur control standard would allow refiners that reduce their gasoline sulfur levels below 10 ppm to earn credits and transfer those credits to other refiners who would find it more expe nsive to reduce their sulfur levels down to the average standard. The ABT program would allow refiners to optimize their investments, which we believe would result in achieving the average sulfur control standard nationwide at lower costs. We are also proposing to either maintain the current 80

- ppm sulfur cap at the refinery gate, or to lower it only

as far as 50 ppm. We have modeled the impacts of the 80

- ppm cap, but believe that the results for a 50

- ppm cap would be comparable due to the limits on cred its resulting from the 10

- ppm average. We estimate that the national average refinery costs incurred to compl y with the fully phased

- in Tier 3 sulfur control program with ABT program would be 0.89 cents per gallon, averaged over all gasoline. This estimate includes the capital costs, which are amortized over the volume of gasoline produced. In this section we summarize the methodology used to estimate the costs of Tier 3 sulfur control and our estimated costs for the program. A detailed discussion***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 370 of 888 of a ll of these anal ys es is found in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA. We request comment on all aspects of the methodology described in Chapter 5 of the draft RIA used for estimating the cost of the program using the refinery

- by

- refinery cost model . In particular , we request comment on: the methodology for estimating the sulfur content of the FCC naphtha ; how FCC naphtha sulfur levels are impacted by both an FCC pretreater and an FCC unit ; to what extent desulfurization costs for complying with Tier 3 vary due to the sulfur level entering the existing FCC postreater s installed for Tier 2 ; the estimated level of hydrotreating of light straight run (L SR) naphtha and natural gas liquids (NGL) occurring today ; the level of hydrotreating of LSR and NGL s expected to occur under this program and the magnitude of permitting

- related costs in comparison to the overall project costs. 2. Methodology
a. Overview of the Sulfur Program Cost Methodology The basic methodology

we used to estimate the cost of sulfur control for the propose d rule is similar to that for other rulemakings. Using a refinery

- by

- refinery cost model that we developed for this rulemaking, we projected the sulfur control technology

expected to be used by

each refinery , and the cost of each refinery ’s sulfur control step, to estimate compliance with the proposed sulfur control program. We aggregated the individual refinery costs to develop a national average cost estimate for the proposed sulfur control program. Based on the flexibilities offered b y the ABT program , refiners are expected to come very close to achieving the 10

- ppm sulfur standard on average. Linear Programming Cost Model We considered performing our cost assessments using a linear programming (LP) cost model. LP cost models are based on a set of c omplex mathematical representations of refineries which, for national analy ses, are usually conducted on a regional basis. This t ype of refining cost model has been used b y the government and the refining industry

for many years for estimating the cost an d other implications of changes to fuel quality
. The design of LP models lends itself to modeling situations where every refinery in a region is expected to use the same control strategy and/or has the same process capabilities. As we began to develop a gasoline sulfur control program with an ABT program, it became clear that LP modeling was not well suited for evaluating such a program. Because refineries have different equipment, process different crude oils and produce different products, refiners wil l choose different technologies and run those technologies differently for controlling gasoline sulfur. In addition, because of the flexibility afforded by

the nationwide ABT program, we initiated development of a more appropriate refinery

- by

- refinery cos t model, as described below. However, the LP model remained important for providing many of the inputs into the refinery

- by

- refinery cost model developed for this rulemaking.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 371 of 888 b. Refinery

- by

- Refinery

Cost Model In contrast to LP models, refinery

- by

- refinery cost models are useful when individual refineries are expected to respond to program requirements in different way s and/or have significantly different process capabilities. Furthermore, as is the case with sulfur control, such approaches are possible whe n the refinery changes required are primarily

“add on” not impacting the fundamental operation at the refinery . Thus, in the case of modeling potential gasoline sulfur control programs, we needed a model that could accuratel y simulate the variet y of decis ions refiners will make at different refineries, especially in the context of a nationwide ABT program. For this and other related reasons, we developed a refinery

- by

- refinery cost model, built off the model developed for the MSAT2 rulemaking b y Mathpro, specificall y to evaluate the costs and other impacts of the proposed sulfur control program. Our refinery

- by

- refinery

sulfur cost model incorporates the capacities of all the major units in each refinery in the country , as reported by the Energy In formatio n Administration and in the Oil and Gas Journal. Regarding operational information, we know less about how specific refineries use the various units to produce gasoline and about such factors as octane and hydrogen costs for individual refineries. We use d previous LP modeling work as the basis for estimating these factors on a regional basis, and we applied the average regional result to each refinery in that region (Petroleum Administration for Defense District; PADD). We compared the gasoline volumes e stimated by the model for each individual refinery to the 2009 gasoline volumes from the RFG data base, which was the most recent ye ar for which data was available, and we were satisfied with the model’s volumetric estimates. 474 Refinery

- by

- refinery

cost mod els have been used in the past by both EPA and the oil industry

for such programs as the MSAT2 gasoline benzene control, highway and nonroad diesel fuel sulfur standards, and they are a proven means for estimating the cost of compliance for fuel control programs. While they will never precisel y model and predict individual refinery operations and impacts, they provide both a better assessment of the overall market impacts than the LP model and of the variation of impacts across the refineries. For this re finery

- by

- refinery sulfur cost model, we conducted a peer review process, and have received some

474 Our refinery

- by

- refinery analysis is better able to model the impacts of gasoline sulfur control than the refinery LP, yet, it is still limited by the lack of specific information on each refinery. Despite our commitment to accurately model the baseline operations of each refinery, we recognize that without detailed refinery

- specific operations information at our disposal, actual individual refinery changes will vary from our predictions. Particular refineries may choose a different sulfur control path than that estimated by our analysis for a number of reasons, including differences in the baseline and our lack of knowledge for investment and ABT program use preferences for each refiner. We believe, though, that overall our refinery cost model captures the strategies and costs for complying with the sulfur control program.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 372 of 888 comments on the design of our model. These comments are contained in the peer review reports placed in the docket. We intend on addressing the peer review co mments, as well as an y public comments that we receive on our cost analysis for the proposal, when we conduct the cost anal ys is for the final rule. 475 The oil industry has also conducted a similar anal ys is using a refinery

- by

- refinery cost model, and we d iscuss the results of their anal ys is at the end of this chapter. The refinery

unit responsible for the greatest contribution of sulfur to gasoline is the fluidized cataly tic cracker unit (FCC). The FCC processes a very heav y feedstock which contains high levels of sulfur. 476 When the FCC cracks this heav y, sour feedstoc k, a portion of the sulfur in the feed to the FCC ends up in the FCC naphtha, an important gasoline blendstock stream. 477 Before the Tier 2 sulfur control program was implemented, FCC naphtha contributed over 95 percent of the sulfur to a refinery ’s gasolin e, and now that Tier 2 has been full y implemented it still contributes roughl y 80 to 90 percent for those refineries with FCC units. To comply with the Tier 2 sulfur control program, most refiners installed FCC naphtha hydrotreaters (FCC postreaters) and some refiners installed FCC feed h ydrotreaters (FCC pretreater) to reduce that unit’s sulfur contribution to their gasoline pool. The technologies installed include Axxens Prime G+, E xx on - Mobil Scanfining, CDTech’s CDHydro and CDHDS, Phillips S

- Zorb and U OP’s ISAL (UOP now offers a postreating technology named Selectfining). Despite the much lower sulfur contribution to the gasoline pool by the FCC after complying with Tier 2, the vendors which supplied sulfur control technology for compl yi ng with Tier 2 sulfur control program have informed us that to comply with a more stringent sulfur standard refiners are expected to further reduce the sulfur in the FCC naphtha. We contacted each of those technology vendors and some of them provided information that we used to estimate the cost of lowering the sulfur in the FCC naphtha to allow each refinery

to reduce the sulfur in its gasoline to 10 ppm. We also reviewed literature that is available on the Web to further educate ourselves of what would be involved to achieve a 10

- ppm sulfur standard using postreating. Gasoline desulfurization vendors were pessimistic that the operations of FCC pretreaters could be adjusted to enable those refineries wh ich relied on those units to comply

with the Tier 2 sulfur standar d to meet a 10

- ppm sulfur standard. For the refineries solel y relying on FCC pretreaters to comply with Tier 2, desulfurization vendors project that most refineries in this situation will put in

475 Our review of most of the suggested changes recommended by the peer reviewers suggested that there would be little to no change in our desulfurization cost estimate (some of the chan ges would increase the estimated costs, while others would reduce the estimated costs). Also, we anticipate making other improvements to the cost analysis conducted for the final rule, which would necessitate a second round of peer review
. 476 A hydrocarb on stream which contains large amounts of sulfur is also referred to as being sour. In general, the heavier the hydrocarbon portion of crude oil, the higher the natural sulfur content. 477 On average, the fluidized catalytic cracker supplies about 35 percent of a refiner’s gasoline output.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 373 of 888 grassroots FCC postreaters to allow those refineries to comp ly with a 10

- ppm gasoline sulfur standard. However, since adding grassroots FCC postreaters is expensive for the amount of sulfur reduction obtained, the ABT anal ys is we conducted avoided man y of these t ypes of investments. Instead refineries with both pre - and postreaters today are quite able to achieve further gasoline sulfur reductions less than 10 ppm at a relativel y low incremental cost and selling the credits to those refineries who would otherwise be faced with grassroots FCC postreater investment s. In addition to addressing the sulfur in the FCC naphtha, we believe that some refineries may

need to reduce the sulfur in at least a couple of other gasoline blendstocks to ensure that it would be able to comply with a 10

- ppm sulfur standard. One such gasoline blendstock is light straight run (LSR) naphtha. Most refiners h ydrotreat the LSR before sending that stream to an isomerization unit and therefore that stream is very low in sulfur. However, some refineries don’t have isomerization units and pro bably do not hydrotreat the L SR. If LSR is not hydrotreated, we estimate that L SR could contain any where between 25 to 500 ppm sulfur. We believe that refiners that do not currently desulfurize their LSR could do so by either feeding it to their FCC postreater or their naphtha h ydrotreater (the hydrotreater which desulfurizes the feed to the isomerization and reformer units). Because this stream does not contain any olefins, it is an eas y stream to h ydrotreat and actuall y improves the hydrotreating condi tions within the FCC naphtha hydrotreater. The second stream that may have to be hydrotreated is butane. Butane is removed from the incoming crude oil and FCC naphtha and some of it is blended back into gasoline in the summertime to bring the gasoline po ol up to the RVP limit. However, much of the butane is transported to storage for subsequent blending into the wintertime gasoline pool. We estimate that butane can range from 1 ppm to 140 ppm sulfur, but the ty pical sulfur level for butane is likel y aro und 10 ppm. Because butane can be high in sulfur, we project that some refiners may add relativel y inexpensive caustic extraction processes which can remove the types of sulfur present in the butane pool. However, addressing butane sulfur may only be nec essary for those refineries that are reducing their gasoline sulfur levels down to 5 ppm to generate credits for sale to refiners seeking to purchase credits. The nationwide ABT program is intended to optimize sulfur reduction by allowing each refinery

t o individually

choose the most cost

- effective means of complying with the program. To model this phenomenon, we first establish an estimated cost for each refinery for reducing its gasoline sulfur down to 10 ppm and to 5 ppm. Next we ranked the sulfur co ntrol strategies for all the refineries in order from lowest to highest sulfur control cost per gallon of gasoline and estimated the impact of their projected sulfur control strategies on refinery sulfur levels. The model then follows this ranking, starti ng with the lowest

- cost refineries, and adds refineries and their associated control technologies one

- by

- one until the projected national average gasoline sulfur level reaches 10 ppm. This modeling strategy projects the sulfur control technology that will be used by

each refinery , as well as identifies those refineries that are expected to generate credits and those that are expected to use credits in lieu of investing in sulfur control. The sum of the costs of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 374 of 888 the refineries expected to invest in further sulfur control provides the projected overall cost of the program. 3. Summary

of Costs without ABT Program
a. Nationwide Costs of the Proposed Sulfur Control Program We used a refinery

- by

- refinery cost model to estimate the costs of the sulfur control program being proposed today . In general, the cost model indicates that further desulfurizing the FCC naphtha will be the most cost

- effective means for achieving sulfur control. We accounted for additional costs to refiners for desulfurizing their light straight run naphtha, in the case where we estimate that the light straight run naphtha is not being desulfurized today
. Based on the results of our cost anal ys is, we estimate that for each refinery to get to a 10
- ppm average level, (without the benefit of tra ding) the proposed sulfur control program would cost 0.97 cents per gallon when it is fully phased

- in, assuming that capital investments are amortized at a seven percent return on investment before taxes and expressed in 2010 dollars. Refiners would be expected to make $2,527 million in capital investments to achieve this sulfur reduction. We also estimated annual aggregate costs, including the amortized capital costs, associated with the new fuel standard. When the 10

- ppm gasoline sulfur standard wou ld take effect in 2017, we estimate that the sulfur standard would cost $580 million per year. b. Distribution of Refinery Costs The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated costs vary significantl y refinery

- by

- refinery
. Figure VII
- 1 summarizes the estimated per

gallon costs for compl yi ng with the sulfur control standard if no ABT program were implemented.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 375 of 888 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0. 00 0. 50 1. 00 1. 50 2. 00 2. 50 3. 00 3. 50 4. 00 4. 50 5. 00 5. 50 6. 00 6. 50**N u** **m b** **e r** **o f** **r e** **f i** **n e** **r i** **e s** 

**cents/gallon Figure**  **VII -**  **1 Projected Refinery**  **- by**  **- Refinery**  **Sulfur Control Costs for the Proposed Sulfur Control Program Assuming No ABT Program** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 376 of 888 Figure VI I
- 1 shows that the sulfur control costs would vary from no cost to almost 6.5 cents per gallon. Some refineries have no FCC unit and thus, their gasoline is naturally

low in sulfur and these refineries will not reduce their gasoline sulfur levels and not inc ur a sulfur control cost. 4. Summary

of Costs with ABT Program The estimated costs described in Section VII.B.3 above assume that every individual refinery

must achieve the proposed 10

- ppm sulfur standard on an annual average basis. However, as described i n Section V.A.4, we are also proposing an ABT program that is designed to ease the overall burden on the industry while still achieving the 10

- ppm annual average sulfur standard for the nation as a whole. Under the proposed ABT program, refineries that ca n reduce sulfur below 10 ppm at a relativel y low cost can generate credits which can then be obtained b y refiners for whom the cost of attaining the 10

- ppm sulfur standard would be relatively high. The net effect of this credit trading would be to reduce the overall cost of the program. To estimate the impact that the ABT program could have on nationwide average fuel costs, we began with the refinery

- by

- refinery costs described in Section VII.B.2.b for sulfur reductions down to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm. We then determined the lowest cost option among three alternatives for each refinery: 1. The refinery

reduces its sulfur to 10 ppm. 2. The refinery

reduces its sulfur to 5 ppm and generates credits for the increment between 10 ppm and 5 ppm. 3. The refinery does not lower sulfur, but instead relies on the purchase of credits to comply

with the 10

- ppm standard. A fourth category

applied to refineries whose average gasoline sulfur levels are already below 10 ppm (there refineries don’t have FCC units). All s uch refineries were assumed to generate credits for the increment between 10 ppm and their current sulfur level. To simplify

the modeling of how an ABT program might operate, we focused on the circumstances that refineries would face in the longer term, sp ecificall y after 2020. This approach meant that the ABT program modeling did not consider the impact on gasoline sulfur levels of delayed compliance for small refiners and small volume refineries, nor did it consider the generation and use of any earl y su lfur credits. Moreover, our ABT modeling considered onl y gasoline sold for use outside of California, and onl y gasoline produced b y domestic refineries (not importers). To optimize the nationwide average costs under an ABT program, we determined the credi t price at which the total number of credits generated was equal***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 377 of 888 to the total number of credits consumed. For an idealized scenario in which every refinery has the opportunity

to make credit trades with every other refinery

in the nation, we determined th at more than 60 percent of refineries would be involved in either generating or consuming credits. The nationwide average cost of compliance with the 10

- ppm sulfur standard would be reduced from 0.97 cents per gallon to 0.79 cents per gallon. Such perfect nationwide trading, however, is not realistic. Under Tier 2 today , a significant fraction of Tier 2 sulfur credits are bought and sold within companies, but there is still a considerable amount of inter

- compan y trading occurring. Under Tier 3, it would be more difficult to generate credits, and also more difficult to make up for deficits, consequently , we also investigated how more limited credit trading might affect the average cost of compliance with the 10

- ppm sulfur standard. For instanc e, to address unplanned equipment downtime or other circumstances that could make future compliance more difficult, individual companies might decide to bank credits for their own use, declining to make credits that they generate at one of their facilities available to other companies. To evaluate such a scenario, we modeled a situation wherein credit trading would only occur within companies that own more than one refinery . Of the 21 refining companies in this position, we estimated that credit generatio n and use would reduce compliance costs at six of them, with 18 refineries generating credits and 8 consuming credits. Under this scenario, total capital costs would be $2,203 million and the nationwide average cost of compliance with the 10

- ppm sulfur st andard would be 0.89 cents per gallon. We have chosen to utilize the costs from this intra

compan y trading analysis for the proposal. However, in reality, we expect that some inter

- compan y credit transfers would still occur due to the financial incentive the highest cost refineries would provide. To the extent that some inter

- company credit transfers do occur, our cost estimates can be viewed as somewhat conservative. A summary

of the ABT results assuming nationwide credit transfers and intra

- compan y cr edit transfers (costs used in the proposal) is shown in Table VII
- 7
.

**Table VII**  **- 7**  **Impacts of Nationwide ABT Program** 

No ABT ABT with intra

compan y credit transfers (proposed rule costs) ABT with

nationwide credit transfers Average fuel cost (¢/gal) 0.97 0.89 0.79 Total capital cost ($million) 2,527 2,203 1,760 Number of refineries that generate credits 0 18 46 Number of refineries that consume credits 0 8 25***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 378 of 888 Number of refineries that neither generate nor consume credits 111 85 40

The cost information available for this NPRM was limited to the costs of reducing sulfur to either 10 ppm or 5 ppm, and thus we were not able to estimate refinery

- specific costs of reducing sulfur to other levels. As a result, our ABT modeling could not account for scenarios in which a refinery makes some capital investments to lower sulfur to some interim level, such as 2 0 ppm, and then purchases credits in order to demonstrate compliance with the 10

- ppm standard. Our ABT anal ys is also could not account for credit generation at sulfur levels other than 5 ppm. Our ABT analy sis, then, most likely underestimates the cost savings that could occur due to ABT since the greatest efficiencies are achieved when every refinery has the option of using any combination of capital investments and credits generation or use. For the final rule, we may investigate methods for expanding o ur ABT anal ys is to examine these ty pes of scenarios.
a. Distribution of Refinery Costs The sulfur reductions estimated by the cost model and associated costs vary significantl y refinery

- by

- refinery
. Figure VII
- 2 summarizes the estimated per

gallon costs for compl yi ng with the sulfur control standard under an ABT program with intra

- compan y credit transfers.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 379 of 888 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

- 0. 5 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 2 2. 5 3 3. 5 4 4. 5 5 5. 5 6 6. 5**N u** **m b** **e r** **o f** **r e** **f i** **n e** **r i** **e s** 

**cents/ga llon**  **Figure VII**  **- 2**  **Projected Refinery -**  **by -**  **Refinery Sulfur Control Costs for the Proposed Sulfur Control Program with ABT and Intra**  **- Company Credit**  **Transfers******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 380 of 888 While the distribution of costs shifts slightly under an ABT program with intra

- compan y trading in co mparison to no ABT program, Figure VII
- 2 shows that the sulfur control costs would continue to vary from no cost to nearl y 6.5 cents per gallon. b. D istribution of Refinery Sulfur L evels We estimate that 85 out of 111 refineries would meet the 10

- ppm sulfur standard without the use of credits under the intra

- compan y trading scenario. As a result, only

about 5 percent of gasoline would continue to have an annual average sulfur level above 10 ppm. These refineries tend to be smaller than average. The distribution of sulfur levels under this scenario is shown in Figure VI I
- 3
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 3 81 of 888 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5 10 12. 5 15 17. 5 20 22. 5 25 27. 5 30 32. 5 35 37. 5 40 42. 5**N u** **m b** **e r** **o f** **r e** **f i** **n e** **r i** **e s** 

**Sul fur**  **(ppm) Figure**  **VII -**  **3 Projected Refinery**  **- by**  **- Refinery Sulfur Levels for the Proposed**  **Sulfur Control Program with ABT and Intra -**  **Company Credit Transfers******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 382 of 888 5. Other Cost Estimates Three other cost studies were recently conducted to estimate the cost of additional reduction in gasoline sulfur. All of these studies show average costs of less than 2 cents per gallon. One of these studies was conducted in October 2011 by the Internat ional Council for Clean Transportation (I CCT). 478 IC CT retained Mathpro for this anal ys is. I CCT had Mathpro anal yz e a 10
- ppm average gasoline sulfur standard in PADDs 1

– 4 (generall y speaking, PADDs 1

– 4 represents the part of the U.S. east of, and including, the Rocky Mountain states). The cost presented by I CCT is that complying with a 10

- ppm average sulfur standard would cost refiners on average 0.8 cents per gallon. This cost was calculated based on a before

- tax 7 percent return on investment, the same capital amortization basis that we use for our cost anal ys is. The cost of a 10

- ppm average gasoline sulfur control standard estimated b y ICCT is very close to our cost estimate. APIretained Baker and O’Brien to study the cost of additional sulfur c ontrol using a refinery

- by

- refinery cost approach with Baker and O’Brien’s Prism model. 479 API studied a 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard, however, API included a very stringent 20 ppm cap standard which did not allow for an ABT program to optimize refinery investments and minimize overall costs. APImade a series of conclusions based on the study . Perhaps the most important conclusion is that no refinery would shut down as a result of the proposed 10 ppm gasoline sulfur control standard, even thou gh API did not study the flexibilities of an ABT program and used excessively high capital costs for a grassroots FCC postreater (see below). API did not report average costs, but reported the marginal costs for the cost study . Marginal costs reflect the cost of the program to the refinery

or refineries which would incur the highest costs, assuming that the highest cost refineries would set the price (or in this case, the price increase) of gasoline. The report concluded that marginal costs after the imp osition of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur program would increase the price of gasoline by 6 to 9 cents per gallon in most markets. API did not define how its statement “in most markets” would appl y to the U
. S
. gasoline suppl y. APIalso did not provide any just ification why

it assumed that the refineries that would experience the highest

478 Mathpro (October 2011). Refining Economics of a National Low Sulfur, Low RVP Gasoline Standard, Performed for The International Council for Clean Transportation, Available at: http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/ publications/ICCT04_Tier3_Report_Final_v4_All.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2011. 479 Baker and O’Brien , Addendum to Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP Gasoline; prepared for The American Petroleum Institute. March 2012. Available at: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/110715_Low erSulfur_LowerRVP_Final.pdf.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 383 of 888 desulfurization cost under Tier 3 would also be the same refineries which sets the gasoline price in the gasoline market today
. Although API did not provide an average gasoline desulfurization cost in its report, we could calculate an average cost based on the gasoline volume and total annual costs provided. The total cost reported in the report for the 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard is $2390MM/y r and the non

- Californi a gasoline volume is 7343 thousand barrels per day . This results in an average per

- gallon desulfurization cost of $0.89/bbl or 2.12 c/gal. The difference between the average cost and marginal cost (price increase) that API is projecting is profit. Thus, API ’s anal ys is would suggest that the oil industry would profit from 10 ppm low sulfur standard b y roughl y 4 to 7 cents per gallon , or roughly $4 to $8 billion dollars per year as a result of gasoline sulfur control
. The average cost of the 10 ppm aver age gasoline sulfur standard described above was calculated using API’s methodology for amortizing capital investments. To assess the costs consistent with OMB’s guidance for our rulemakings and to allow a direct comparison between the API cost study and our cost study , we adjusted the API costs to be on a similar basis as our costs. We adjusted the API costs to reflect a before

- tax 7 percent return on investment (ROI) for capital invested for the h ydrotreaters and h ydrogen plants instead of the after

- tax 10 percent ROI used b y AP I. This lowered the API estimated costs from 2.12 c/gal to 1.58 c/gal. API’s 1.58 cents per gallon cost is still higher than our 0.89 c/gal cost with an ABT program that assumes intercompan y trading of credits, and higher than o ur 0.97 c/gal for the case which assumes no ABT program. T he remaining difference between our estimated costs and those by API are driven by

API’s assumptions for the capital costs that would be incurred for adding grassroots FCC postreaters, or revamping existing ones
. While little detail is provided by API about what hardware comprises their desulfurization units, the inside battery limits (I SBL) and total capital costs for the FCC postreaters and FCC pretreaters are provided in API ’s report. API’s FC C pretreaters capital costs are consistent with the capital costs that we have used for this unit. However, the FCC postreater costs used by API are much higher than what we used and have been used in the past b y others. API’s capital cost for a grassroo ts FCC postreater is $228 million for a 35,000 bbl/day unit, or $6540 per/bbl per day . API’s capital cost includes the outside battery limit (OSBL) costs. In contrast, the ISBL capital cost that we used for a grassroots FCC postreater is $1500/bbl

- day

fo r a 30,000 bbl/day

grassroots unit, which increases to $1875/bbl/day

when the offsite costs are added on. Thus, the APIcapital costs are about 3 1⁄2 times higher than the capital costs that we are using for a grassroots FCC postreater. To check our capita l costs, we found other capital cost estimates to which we could compare our costs, including the capital costs used b y the National Petroleum Council when it studied the cost of gasoline desulfurization prior to Tier 2. Compared to the average of the res t of the capital cost estimates, the API capital cost for FCC postreater is about four times higher. Compared to the next highest cost estimate, which is the FCC postreater capital cost from the Jacobs data base in***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 384 of 888 the Haverl y refinery

cost model that we use, 480 the APIcapital costs are almost two times higher. An important distinction must be made with respect to the severity of desulfurization for the capital cost comparison made for compl yi ng with Tier 2 versus Tier 3. For complying with the Tier 2 ga soline sulfur standard (Jacobs and NPC costs), a ty

pical refinery

would have installed an FCC postreater to desulfurize the FCC naphtha from about 800 ppm down to about 75 ppm, a 725 ppm, or a 91 percent sulfur reduction. In the case of a grassroots postr eater that would be installed for Tier 3, the postreater would treat FCC naphtha already low in sulfur due to the pretreater installed before the FCC unit (these refineries are currently complying with Tier 2 using an FCC pretreater). Thus, the new grassro ots FCC postreater would only

have to reduce the FCC naphtha from 100 ppm to 25 ppm, a much smaller 75 ppm or 75 percent sulfur reduction. A grassroots FCC postreater installed for Tier 2 would ty picall y remove 10 times more sulfur than one installed for Tier 3. This is important because a significant portion of the FCC postreater capital cost is devoted to avoiding the recombination reactions which occur when hydrogen sulfide concentrations are high and react with the olefins contained in the FCC naphtha . Thus, a grassroots FCC postreater installed for Tier 3 would be expected to be significantly lower in capital cost compared to a Tier 2 FCC postreater . When API presented the costs , they stated that their grassroots capital costs were based on an actua l installation for the Tier 2 program. This could be one reason wh y the capital costs used by API for its cost study of the Tier 3 program are so high. Another way

to assess the API capital cost for the FCC postreaters is to compare it to the FCC pretreater cost that API is using. FCC pretreaters are much higher pressure units and use more expensive metallurgy than FCC postreaters and, for these two reasons, are much more expensive than FCC postreaters on a per

barrel basis. However, API ’s FCC postreate r capital costs are about 50 percent more expensive than its own FCC pretreater capital costs, which is inconsistent with the design requirements of the units. API ’s estimated range of capital cost for revamping an FCC postreater is also higher than our range of capital cost for revamping an FCC postreater, when assessing the revamped costs as a percentage of the capital cost for a grassroots unit. APIestimates that revamping an FCC postreater would cost 30 to 70 percent of the capital cost for a grassroots FCC unit. Our capital cost estimate for revamping an FCC naphtha postreaters from 17 to 50 percent of the capital cost for a grassroots FCC postreater, however, most of the revamps are estimated to cost at the lower end of that range. Were we to adj ust the API study capital costs, the projected costs would fall right in line with the other studies.

480 The installed capital cost for an FCC postreater from the Jacobs data base was adjusted to current year dollars. This estimated installed capital cost is several years old an d may not represent Jacobs current cost estimate for a FCC postreater.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 385 of 888 Our assessment of the APIstudy is supported b y work performed b y The Emissions Control Technology Association (ECTA) which retained personnel within Navigant Economics . That study assessed the costs of a 10 ppm average gasoline sulfur standard and also evaluated the ICCT and APIcost studies. 481 The authors made a number of conclusions. After reviewing both the IC CT and API studies, the authors found that a primary difference in estimated costs between the two studies was the capital costs. The authors contacted vendor companies that license FCC postreater technologies and survey ed the companies to find out what the capital costs are for a FCC postreater. As a result of the survey , the report authors concluded that API ’s capital costs were too high, and those used in the ICCT study were about right. The authors found that Baker and O’Brien has a history of exaggerating the economic impacts of EPA rul es, citing the costs and other impacts of its anal ysis of the 2007 on

- highway heavy

- dut y proposed rulemaking. The authors concluded that the impact of a 10 ppm gasoline sulfur standard on the average refining cost would likely be closer to the 1 cent per gallon estimate by

the IC CT study . Furthermore, the report’s authors also pointed out that the marginal cost analy sis conducted by API did not consider the proposed averaging banking and trading (ABT) program that we were expected to propose, which would r educe the marginal costs of the Tier 3 proposed rule. **C. Summary of Proposed Program Costs**  While the estimated costs for the separate proposed vehicle and proposed fuel programs are presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B , respectivel y, it is useful to present the combined cost estimates representing our full proposal. Such combined costs are also necessary

in calculating the cost

- effectiveness of the standards in today 's proposal as described more full y in Section VII.D below. We have chosen to use an annual, nationwide cost format to represent the combined vehicle and program costs because this approach provides the most straightforward me ans for comparing vehicle costs to fuel costs, and for demonstrating the total cost impact of our proposed program. This approach to combined costs also provides a basis for comparing the program costs to the projected benefits as described more fully in Section VIII. Table VII
- 8 below shows our estimated program costs by year. Complete details of this analy sis can be found in the draft RIA. **Table VII**  **- 8**  **Total Annual Vehicle and Control Costs, 2010$ a**  Year Vehicle Exhaust Emission Control Costs Vehicle Evaporative

Emission Control Costs Facilit y Costs

($Million) Fuel Sulfur

Control Costs ($Million) Total

Proposed Program Costs

481 Schink, George R., Singer, Hal J., Economic Analysis of the Implications of Implementing EPA’s Tier 3 Rules, prepared for the Emissions Control Technology Association, June 14, 2012.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 386 of 888 ($Million) ($Million) ($Million) 2016 $0 $0 $22.5 $322 $345 2017 $634 $71.4 $3.75 $1,289 $1,998 2018 $1,170 $171 $3.75 $1,288 $2,628 2019 $1,270 $162 $3.75 $1,285 $2,725 2020 $1,380 $221 $3.75 $1,284 $2,884 2021 $1,510 $213 $3.75 $1,287 $3,017 2022 $1,630 $271 $3.75 $ 1,289 $3,189 2023 $1,660 $259 $3.75 $1,288 $3,208 2024 $1,770 $263 $3.75 $1,289 $3,329 2025 $1,870 $253 $3.75 $1,291 $3,421 2030 $1,790 $253 $3.75 $1,320 $3,370

a Costs shown include costs for the proposed Tier 3 standards on vehicles sold in all states except California.

**D. Cost per Ton of Emissions Reduced**  This section summarizes the cost per ton analy sis conducted by EPA and its results. The emission reductions used to calculate the costs per ton reported here are consistent with those reductions presented as part of our inventory impacts anal ys is as described in Section III.B. The costs used to calculate the costs per ton are consistent with the vehicle and fuel control costs presented in Sections VII.A and VII.B , respectivel y. We have calculated the aggregate costs per ton which uses the co sts and emission reductions for calendar ye ars 2017 and 2030, consistent with the years that we evaluated for air quality anal ys is. For more information on how the cost per ton was calculated please refer to Section 8.2 of the draft RIA. Note that, even though we are setting new standards for PM, we believe that those standards would be met in complying with the NMOG+NO X standards with additional care being given to proper engineering/calibration, so there is no cost associated with the new PM standard and therefore no separate cost per ton anal ys is for PM. L ikewise, as described more fully in Sections IV.A and IV.B, while we are also proposing new standards for CO and formaldehyde, we are not attributing any of the control costs to these pollutants since the technologies emplo yed to meet the NO X+NMOG standards would also allow the CO and formaldeh yd e standards to be met. The total program costs, the NO X+VOC reductions, and results of our cost per ton anal ys is are provided in T able VII
- 9 . The costs of the proposed program would be higher immediately after it is implemented than they would be after several ye ars, since both vehicle manufacturers and refi ners can take advantage of decreasing capital and operating costs over time. In addition, the reductions in NO X and VOC emissions would become greater as a larger percentage of the fleet contains the technologies required to meet the proposed standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 387 of 888 **T able**  **VII -**  **9 Costs per Ton of Emissions Reduced**  **in 2017 and 2030 a**  Total Proposed Program Cost ($Million, 2010$) Total NO X + VOC Reductions (tons) Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) 2017 $ 1,999 329,162 $6, 072 2030 $ 3,367 750,818 $4, 484

a Costs shown include costs associated with the proposed Tier 3 vehicle and fuel in all states except California. 

## VIII. **What ar e the Estimated Benefits of the Pr**  **oposed Rule?**  This section presents EPA’s anal ys is of the criteria pollutant

- related health and environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed Tier 3 standards. The vehicles and fuels subject to the proposed standards are significant sources of mobile source air pollution such as direct PM, NO X , SO X , VOCs and air toxics. The standards would affect exhaust and evaporative emissions of these pollutants from vehicles. Emissions of NO X (a precursor to ozone formation and secondaril y - formed PM 2.5 ), SO X (a precursor to secondaril y - formed PM 2.5 ), VOCs (a pr ecursor to ozone formation and, to a lesser degree, secondaril y - formed PM 2.5 ) and directl y - emitted PM 2.5 contribute to ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 and ozone. Exposure to ozone, PM 2.5 , and air toxics is linked to adverse human health impacts such as pr emature deaths as well as other important public health and environmental effects. For the proposal, we have estimated the health and environmental impacts in 2030, representing impacts associated with a ye ar when the program is fully implemented and when most of the fleet is turned over . Overall, we estimate that the proposed standards would lead to a net decrease in PM 2.5 - and ozone

- related health impacts. The decrease in population

- weighted national average PM 2.5 exposure results in a net decrease in adverse PM

- related human health impacts (the decrease in national population

- weighted annual average PM 2.5 is 0.05 μg/m 3 in 2030). The decrease in population

- weighted national average ozone exposure results in a net decrease in ozone

- related health impacts (population

- weighted maximum 8

- hour average ozone decreases b y 0.52 ppb in 2030). 482 Using the lower end of EPA’s range of preferred premature mortality estimates (Pope et al., 2002 for PM 2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 fo r ozone), 483 , 484 we

482 Note that the national, population

- weighted PM 2.5 and ozone air quality metrics presented in this Section represent an average for the entire, gridded U.S. CMAQ domain. These are different than the population

- weighted PM 2.5 and ozone design value metric s presented in Chapter 7, which represent the average for areas with a current air quality monitor. 483 Pope, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, and G.D. Thurston. (2002). Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long

- te rm Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 1132
- 1141.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 388 of 888 estimate that by

2030, implementation of the proposed standards would reduce approximately

970 premature mortalities annuall y and yield approximately $9.5 billion in total annual benefits. The upper end of the range of avoided premature mo rtality estimates associated with the proposed standards (based on Laden et al., 2006 for PM 2.5 and Lev y et al., 2005 for ozone) 485 , 486 results in approximately 2,800 premature mortalities avoided in 2030 and yields approximately $27 billion in total benefits. Thus, even using the lower end of the range of premature mortality estimates , the health impacts of the proposed standards presented in this rule would clearl y be substantial. We note that of necessit y decisions on the e missions and other elements used i n the air qualit y modeling were made earl y i n the anal yt ical process for this proposal . For this reason, the Tier 3 emission control scenario used in the ai r quality and benefits modeling include s emission reductions from Tier 3 across the nation, assumin g no reductions associated with California's LEV III program (as opposed to including California’s LEV III program and its associated emission reductions in the baseline scenario). This was because EPA had not granted California a waiver of preemption un der CAA section 209 for the LEV III program at the time EPA conducted the air quality modeling. EPA did include California’s fuel program, which independent of LEV III was already resulting in average gasoline sulfur levels of 10 ppm, in the baseline scen ario. Since then, EPA granted a waiver for California's LEV III program (78 FR 2112, January 9, 2013) and ten states have adopted the LEV III program under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act
. Based on this change in circumstances, we will conduct new air quality modeling for the final rule that will include emission reductions from California’s LEV III program , both in California and in states that by that time have adopted the LEV III program, in the baseline scenario. Had we modeled the Califor nia LEV III emission impacts in the Tier 3 air quality baseline, we estimate that benefits would decrease by approximately

12
- 16 percent, depending on the particular health impact functions used to characterize both PM

- and ozone

- related premature mortality. 487 As a result, we estimate that in 2030, using the lower end of EPA’s range of preferred premature mortality estimates (Pope et al., 2002 for PM 2.5 and Bell et al., 2004 for ozone), the proposed standards w ould reduce approximately 820 premature mortali ties annuall y and yield

484 Bell, M.L., et al. (2004). Ozone and short

- term mortality in 95 U
. S
. urban communities, 1987

- 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association , 2 92(19) , 2372
- 2378. 485 Laden, F., J. Schwartz, F.E. Speizer, and D.W. Dockery. (2006). Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
. 173 , 667
- 672. 486 Levy, J.I., S.M. Chemerynski, an d J.A. Sarnat. (2005). Ozone exposure and mortality: an empiric bayes metaregression analysis. Epidemiology. 16(4) , 458
- 68. 487 To conduct this sensitivity analysis, we simply assumed no air quality change in the California portion of the CMAQ domain. We then exported the reference and control air quality surfaces to be used as inputs to BenMAP. Note that this simple approach is unable to account for legitimate emissions impacts related to cross

- state transport of pollution.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 389 of 888 approximately

$8.0 billion in total annual benefits. The upper end of the range of avoided premature mortality estimates associated with the proposed standards (based on Laden et al., 2006 for PM 2.5 and Lev y et al., 2005 for ozone) results in approximately

2,400 premature mortalities avoided in 2030 and yield s approximately

$ 23 billion in total benefits. These are rough estimates since, without new photochemical air quality modeling to reflect the revised baseline and control scenarios, we are unable to account for cro ss - state transport of pollution into or out of California or Section 177 states . However, we believe this is a reasonable characterization of the small reduction in benefits had we modeled the emission reductions of the LEV III program in California and other state that adopt the LEV III program in the baseline. We believe o ur overall cost

- benefit conclusions do not materially

change with or without the inclusion of emission reductions from California and in other states that adopt the LEV III program in our anal ys is. W e will conduct new air quality modeling for the final rule that will include emission reductions from the LEV III program in California, and in states that have adopted the program, in the baseline scenario
. The rest of this section presents benefits that include emission reductions from the LEV III program . **A. Overview**  We base our analy sis of the program’s impact on human health on peer

reviewed studies of air quality and human health effects. 488 , 489 These methods are described in more detail in the draft RIA that accompanies this action. Our benefits methods are also consistent with rulemaking anal yses such as the final 2012

- 2016 MY L ight

- Dut y Vehicle Rule, 490 the final Portland Cement Nat ional Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) RIA, 491 the final 2014

- 2018 MY Heav y - Duty

Vehicle Rule , 492 and the final 2017

- 2025 MY L ight

- Dut y Vehicle

488 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html 489 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Final Ozone NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis . Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html 490 U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency. (2010). Final Rulemaking to Establish Light

-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis , Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation an d Air Quality, EPA

- 420
- R
- 10
- 009, April 2010. Available on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf 491 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010). Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. Augues. Available on the Internet at < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/portlandcementfinalria.pdf >. EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2009
- 0472
- 0241 492 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium

- and Heavy

-Duty Engines and Vehicles: Regulatory Impact Analysis , Assessm ent and Standards Division, Office of Transportation***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 390 of 888 Rule. 493 To model the ozone and PM air qualit y impacts of the proposed standards, we used th e Community

Multiscale Air Quality

(CMAQ) model (see Chapter 7.2.2 of the draft RIA that accompanies this preamble). The modeled ambient air quality data serves as an input to the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Anal ys is Program version 4.0 (BenMAP). 494 BenMAP is a computer program developed by the U.S. EPA that integrates a number of the modeling elements used in previous anal ys es (e.g., interpolation functions, population projections, health impact functions, valuation functions, analy sis and pooling m ethods) to translate modeled air concentration estimates into health effects incidence estimates and monetized benefits estimates. The range of total monetized ozone

- and PM

- related health impacts in 2030 is presented in Table VIII
- 1 . We present total benefits based on the PM

- and ozone - related premature mortality function used. The benefits ranges therefore reflect the addition of each estimate of ozo ne - related premature mortality (each with its own row in Table VIII
- 1 ) to estimates of PM

- related premature mortality
. The anal ys is of the proposed standards reflects EPA’s work to characterize benefits prior to the most recent PM NAAQS
. 495 EPA will update its benefits anal ys is, and related uncertaint y analysis, to be consistent with the final PM NAAQS for the final Tier 3 regulatory

impact anal ys is
. **Table VIII**  **- 1**  **Estimated 2030 Monetized PM -**  **and Ozone -**  **Related Health Benefits**  **a ,b**  2030 Total Ozone and PM Benefits

– PM Mortality Derived from American Cancer Society Analysis and Six

- Cities Analysis b Premature Ozone Mortality Function Reference Total Benefits (Billions, 2010$, 3% Discount Rate) c , d Total Benefits (Billions, 2010$, 7% Discount Rate) c , d Multi

- city analyses Bell et al., 2004 Total: $9.5

- $21 PM: $7.7

- $19 Ozone: $1.8 Total: $8.7

- $19 PM: $7.0

- $17 Ozone: $1.8 Huang et al., 2005 Total: $10

- $21 PM: $7.7

- $19 Ozone: $2.6 Total: $9.5

- $20 PM: $7.0

- $17 Ozone: $2.6 Schwartz, 2005 Total: $10

- $22 PM: $7.7

- $19 Total: $9.6

- $20 PM: $7.0

- $17

and Air Quality, EPA

- 420
- R
- 11
- 901, August, 2011. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/documents/420r11901.pdf. 493 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012 ). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017

- 2025 Li

ght

-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas E mission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards , Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportati on and Air Quality, EPA

- 420
- R
- 12
- 016, August 2012 . Available on the internet: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12016.pdf 494 Information on BenMAP, including downloads of the software, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ benmodels.html. 495 U
. S
. EPA (2012). National Ambient Ai r Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. http://www.epa.gov/PM/2012/finalrule.pdf***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 391 of 888

Ozone: $2.7 Ozone: $2.7 Meta
- analyses Bell et al., 2005 Total: $13

- $24 PM: $7.7

- $19 Ozone: $5.5 Total: $12

- $23 PM: $7.0

- $17 Ozone: $5.5 Ito et al., 2005 Total: $15

- $26 PM: $7.7

- $19 Ozone: $7.5 Total: $15

- $25 PM: $7.0

- $17 Ozone: $7.5 Levy et al., 2005 Total: $15

- $27 PM: $7.7

- $19 Ozone: $7.7 Total: $15

- $25 PM: $7.0

- $17 Ozone: $7.7 a Benefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. Had we modeled the California LEV III emission impacts in the Tier 3 air quality baseline, w e esti mate that benefits would decrease by approximately 12

- 16 percent, depending on the particular health impact functions used to characterize both PM

- and ozone

- related premature mortality. We will account for emissions in states that have adopted California’ s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Total includes premature mortality

- related and morbidity

- related ozone and PM2.5 benefits. Range wa s developed by adding the estimate from the ozone premature mortality function to the estimate of PM2.5
- related premature mortality derived from either the ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) or the Six

Cities study (Laden et al., 2006). c Note that total benefits presented here do not include a number of unquantified benefits categories. A detailed listing of unquantified health and welfare effects is provided in Table VIII

- 2. d Results reflect the use of both a 3 and 7 percent discount rate, as recommended by EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses and OMB Circular A

- 4. Results are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. Totals may not sum due to rounding. The benefits in Table VIII
- 1 include all of the human health impacts we are able to quantify

and monetize at this time. Howev er, the full complement of human health and welfare effects associated with PM and ozone remain unquantified because of current limitations in methods and/or available data. We have not quantified a number of known or suspected health effects linked with ozone and PM for which appropriate health impact functions are not available or which do not provide easil y interpretable outcomes (e.g., changes in heart rate variability). Additionally , we are unable to quantify a number of known welfare effects, includ ing reduced acid and particulate deposition damage to cultural monuments and other materials, and environmental benefits due to reductions of impacts of eutrophication in coastal areas. These are listed in Table VIII
- 2 . As a result, the health benefits quantified in this section are likely underestimates of the total benefits attributable to the proposed standards. **Table VIII**  **- 2**  **Unquantified and Non -**  **Monetized Potential Effects** Pollutant/Effects Effects Not Included in Analysis

- Changes in: Ozone Health a Chronic respiratory damage b

Premature aging of the lungs b Non
- asthma respiratory emergency room v isits Exposure to UVb (+/

- ) e Ozone Welfare Yields for

- commercial forests

- som e fruits and vegetables

- non - commercial crops Damage to urban ornamental plants***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 392 of 888 Impacts on recreational demand from damaged forest aesthetics Ecosystem functions Exposure to UVb (+/

- ) e PM Health c Premature mortality

- short term exposures d

Low birth weight Pulmonary function Chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic bronchitis Non
- asthma respiratory emergency room visits Exposure to UVb (+/

- ) e PM Welfare Residential and recreational visibility in non

- Class I areas

Soiling and materials damage Damage to ecosystem functions Exposure to UVb (+/

- ) e Nitrogen and Sulfate Deposition Welfare Commercial forests due to acidic sulfate and nitrate deposition

Commercial freshwater f

ishing due to acidic deposition Recreation in terrestrial ecosystems due to acidic deposition Existence values for currently healthy ecosystems Commercial fishing, agriculture, and forests due to nitrogen deposition Recreation in estuarine ecosystems due to nitrogen deposition Ecosystem functions Passive fertilization CO Health Behavioral effects HC/Toxics Health f Cancer (benzene, 1,3

-butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde)

Anemia (benzene) Disruption of production of blood components (benzene) Reduction in the number of blood platelets (benzene) Excessive bone marrow formation (benzene) Depression of lymphocyte counts (benzene) Reproductive and developmental effects (1,3

-butadiene) Irritation of eyes and mucus membranes (formaldehyde) Respiratory irri tation (formaldehyde) Asthma attacks in asthmatics (formaldehyde) Asthma

- like symptoms in non

- asthmatics (formaldehyde) Irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract (acetaldehyde) Upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion (acrolein) HC/Toxics Welfare Direct toxic effects to animals

Bioaccumulation in the food chain Damage to ecosystem function Odor a The public health impact of biological responses such as increased airway responsiveness to stimuli, inflammation in the lung, acute in flammation and respiratory cell damage, and increased susceptibility to respiratory infection are likely partially represented by our quantified endpoints. b The public health impact of effects such as chronic respiratory damage and premature aging of the lungs may be partially represented by quantified endpoints such as hospital admissions or premature mo rtality, but a number of other related health impacts, such as doctor visits and decreased athletic performance, remain unquantified. c In addition to pri mary economic endpoints, there are a number of biological responses that have been associated with PM health effects including morphological changes and altered host defense mechanisms. The public health impact of these biological responses may be partly represented by our quantified endpoints.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 393 of 888 d While some of the effects of short

- term exposures are likely to be captured in the estimates, there may be premature mortality due to short

- term exposure to PM not captured in the cohort studies used in this analy sis. However, the PM mortality results derived from the expert elicitation do take into account premature mortality effects of short term exposures. e May result in benefits or disbenefits. f Many of the key hydrocarbons related to this action are also hazardous air pollutants listed in the CAA. While there would be impacts associated with air toxic pollutant emission changes that result from the proposed standards, we do not attempt to monetize those impacts (Section III presents the estimated emission r eductions associated with the proposal). This is primarily because currently

available tools and methods to assess air toxics risk from mobile sources at the national scale are not adequate for extrapolation to incidence estimations or benefits assessment . The best suite of tools and methods currently available for assessment at the national scale are those used in the National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). The EPA Science Advisory Board specifically

commented in their review of the 1996 NATA that these tools were not yet ready for use in a national

- scale benefits analy sis, because they did not consider the full distribution of exposure and risk, or address sub

chronic health effects. 496 While EPA has since improved these tools, there remain critical limitations for estimating incidence and assessing benefits of reducing mobile source air toxics. As part of the second prospective anal ys is of the benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act, 497 EPA conducted a case study analysis of the health effects assoc iated with reducing exposure to benzene in Houston from implementation of the Clean Air Act. While reviewing the draft report, EPA’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analy sis concluded that “the challenges for assessing progress in health improvem ent as a result of reductions in emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are daunting...due to a lack of exposure

- response functions, uncertainties in emissions inventories and background levels, the difficulty of extrapolating risk estimates to low d oses and the challenges of tracking health progress for diseases, such as cancer, that have long latency periods.” 498 EPA continues to work to address these limitations; however, we did not have the

496 Science Advisory Board. (2001). NATA

– Evaluating the National

- Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996

– an SAB Advisory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/sab/sabrev.html. 497 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2011). The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 . Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. March. Available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/feb11/fullreport.pdf >. 498 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

— Science Advisory Board (U.S. EPA

- SAB). (2008). Benefits of Reducing Benzene Emissions in Houston, 1990

–2020 . EPA
- COUNCIL
- 08
- 001. July. Available at <http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/D4D7EC9DAEDA8A54852574 8600728A83/$File/EP A
- COUNCIL
- 08
- 001
- unsigned.pdf>.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 394 of 888 methods and tools available for national

- scale application in time for the analy sis of the proposed standards. 499 **B. Quantified Human Health Impacts**  Table VIII
- 3 and Table VIII
- 4 present the core estimates of annual PM 2.5 and ozone health impacts, respectivel y, in the 48 contiguous U.S. states associated with the proposed standards for 2030. For each endpoint presented in Table VIII
- 3 and Table VI II
- 4 , we provide both the mean estimate and the 90 percent confidence interval. Using EPA’s preferred estimates, based on the American Cancer So ciet y (ACS) and Six

- Cities studies and no threshold assumption in the model of mortality , we estimate that the proposed standards would result in between 800 and 2,100 cases of avoided PM 2.5 - related premature mortalities annually in 2030. A sensitivity

an al ys is was also conducted to understand the impact of alternative concentration response functions suggested b y experts in the field . When the range of expert opinion is used, we estimate between 270 and 2,700 fewer premature mortalities in 2030 (see Tabl e 8.8 in the RIA that accompanies this action). For ozone - related premature mortality in 2030, we estimate a range of between 170 to 770 fewer premature mortalities.

**Table VIII**  **- 3**  **Estimated PM 2.5**  **- Related Heal**  **th Impacts a**  **,b** Health Effect 2030 Annual Reduction in Incidence (5 th %
- 95 th %ile) Premature Mortality

– Derived from epidemiology literature c Adult, age 30+, ACS Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) Adult, age 25+, Six

- Cities Study (Laden et al., 2006) Infant, age <1 year (Woodruff et al., 1997) 800 (310

– 1,300) 2,100 (1,100

– 3,000) 3 (0

– 8) Chronic bronchitis (adult, age 26 and over) 560 (100

– 1,000) Non
- fatal myocardial infarction (adult, age 18 and over) 980 (360

– 1,600)

499 In April, 2009, EPA hosted a workshop on estimating the benefits or reducing hazardous air pollutants. This workshop built upon the work accomplished in the June 2000 Science Advisory Board/EPA Workshop on the Benefits of Reductions in Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants, which generated thoughtful discussion on approaches to estimating human health benefits from reductions in air toxics exposure, but no consensus was reached on methods that could be im plemented in the near term for a broad selection of air toxics. Please visit http://epa.gov/air/toxicair/2009workshop.html for more information about the workshop and its associated materials.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 395 of 888 Hospital admissions

- respiratory (all ages) d 160 (77

– 230) Hospital admissions

- cardiovascular (adults, age >18) e 380 (270

– 440) Emergency room visits for asthma (age 18 years and younger) 600 (350

– 850) Ac ute bronchitis, (children, age 8

- 12) 1,300 (0

– 2,500) Lo wer respiratory symptoms (children, age 7

- 14) 16,000 (7,700

– 24,000) Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children, age 9

- 18) 12,000 (3,800

– 20,000) Asthma exacerbation (asthmatic children, age 6

- 18) 27,000 (3,000

– 74,000) Work loss days 100,000 (88,000

– 110,000) Minor restricted activity days (adults age 18

- 65) 600,000 (500,000

– 690,000) a Benefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in states that have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Incidence is rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous United States. c PM
- related adult mortality based upon the American Cancer Society (ACS) Cohort Study (Pope et al., 2002) and the Six

- Cities Study (Laden et al., 2006). Note that these are two alternative estimates of adult mortality and should not be summed. PM

- related infant mortality based upon a study by Woodruff, Grillo, and Schoendorf, (1997). 500 d Respiratory hospital admissions for PM include admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia and asthma. e Cardiovascular hospital admissions for PM include total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias, and heart failure.
**Table VIII**  **- 4**  **Estimated Ozone -**  **Related Health Impacts a**  **,b** Health Effect 2030 Annual Reduction in Incidence (5th%

- 95th%ile) Premature Mortality, All ages c Multi

- City Analyses Bell et al. (2004)

– Non
- accidental Huang et al. (2005)

– Cardiopulmonary Schwartz (2005)

– Non
- accidental Meta
- analyses: Bell et al. (2005)

– All cause 170 (73

– 260) 250 (120

– 380) 260 (110

– 410) 540 (300

– 780)

500 Woodruff, T.J., J. Grillo, and K.C. Schoendorf. (1997). The Relationship Between Selected Causes of Postneonatal Infant Mortality and Particulate Air Pollution in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 105(6):608

- 612.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 396 of 888 Ito et al. (2005)

– Non
- accidental Levy et al. (2005)

– All cause 750 (500

– 1,000) 770 (560

– 970) Hospital admissions

- respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) d 1,200 (160

– 2,200) Hospital admissions

- respiratory causes (children, under 2) 550 (290

– 810) Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) 580 (0

– 1,500) Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18

- 65) 970,000 (490,000

– 1,500,000) School absence days 350,000 (150,000

– 490,000) a Benefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in states that have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Incidence i s rounded to two significant digits. Estimates represent incidence within the 48 contiguous U.S. c Estimates of ozone

- related premature mortality are based upon incidence estimates derived from several alternative studies: Bell et al. (2004); Huang et al. (2005); Schwartz (2005) ; Bell et al. (2005); Ito et al. (2005); Levy et al. (2005). The estimates of ozone

- related premature mo rtality should therefore not be summed. d Respiratory hospital admissions for ozone include admissions for all respiratory cau ses and subcategories for COPD and pneumonia. **C. Monetized Benefits**  Table VIII
- 5 presents the estimated monetary value of changes in the incidence of oz one and PM 2.5 - related health effects. All monetized estimates are stated in 2010$. These estimates account for growth in real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between the present and 2030. Our estimate of total monetized benefits in 2030 for the program, using the ACS and Six

- Cities PM mortality studies and the range of ozone mortality assumptions, is $9.5 and $27 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $8.7 and $25 billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. This represents the health benefits of the Tier 3 program anticipated to occur annually when the program is fully implemented and most of the fleet turned over. **Table VIII**  **- 5**  **Estimated Monetary Value of Changes in Incidence of Hea lth** 

**and Welfare Effects in 2030 (Millions of 2010$) a,b**  **HEALTH ENDPOINTS 2030**  **(5 TH**  **AND 95 TH**  **PERCENTILE) PM**  **2.5 -**  **Related Health Effects** Premature Mortality

– Derived from Epidemiology Studies c,d Adult, age 30+

- ACS study (Pope et al., 2002) 3% discount rate 7% discount rate $7,200 ($920

– $18,000) $6,500 ($830

- $17,000) Adult, age 25+

- Six

- Cities study***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 397 of 888 (Laden et al., 2006) 3% discount rate 7% discount rate $18,000 ($2,600

- $45,000) $17,000 ($2,300

- $41,000) Infant Mortality, <1 year

– (Woodruff et al. 1997) $27 ($0

- $100) Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over) $310 ($25

- $1,000) Non
- fatal acute myocardial infarctions 3% discount rate 7% discount rate $110 ($24

- $260) $90 ($19

- $210) Hospital admissions for respiratory causes $2.5 ($1.2

– $3.6) Hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes $5.5 ($1.2

- $10) Emergency room visits for asthma $0.24 ($0.13

- $0.36) Ac ute bronchitis (children, age 8

– 12) $0.61 ($0.00

- $1.5) Lo wer respiratory symptoms (children, 7

– 14) $0.34 ($0.13

- $0.63) Upper respiratory symptoms (asthma, 9

– 11) $0.40 ($0.12

- $0.89) Asthma exacerbations $1.6 ($0.17

- $4.4) Work loss days $16 ($14

- $19) Minor restricted

- activity days (MRADs) $41 ($24

- $59) **Ozone -**  **Related Health Effects** Premature Mortality, All ages

– Derived from Multi

- city analyses Bell et al., 2004 $1,700 ($220

- $4,200) Huang et al., 2005 $2,500 ($340

- $6,200) Schwartz, 2005 $2,600 ($330

- $6,500) Premature Mortality, All ages

– Derived from Meta

- analyses Bell et al., 2005 $5,400 ($760

- $13,000) Ito et al., 2005 $7,400 ($1,100

- $18,000) Levy et al., 2005 $7,600 ($1,100

- $18,000) Hospital admissions

- respiratory causes (adult, 65 and older) $32 ($4.2

- $56) Hospital admissions

- respiratory causes (children, under 2) $6.0 ($3.1

- $8.9) Emergency room visit for asthma (all ages) $0.23 ($0.0

- $0.57) Minor restricted activity days (adults, age 18

- 65) $67 ($31

- $110) School absence days $34***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 398 of 888 ($15

- $48) a Benefits presented in this table include California emission reductions from the LEV III program. We will account for emissions in states that have adopted California’s LEV III program in the baseline air quality modeling for the final rule. b Monetary benefits are rounded to two significant digits for ease of presentation and computation. PM and ozone benefits are nationwide. c Monetary benefits adjusted to account for growth in real GDP per capita between 1990 and the analysis year (2030 )
. d Valuation assumes discounting over the SAB recommended 20 year segmented lag structure. Results reflect the use of 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates consistent with EPA and OMB guidelines for preparing economic analyses. **D. What are the Limitation**  **s of the Benefits Analysis?** Every benefit

- cost analy sis examining the potential effects of a change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as geographic coverage), and uncert ainties in the underl yi ng scientific and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. L imitations of the scientific literature often result in the inability to estimate quantitative changes in health and environmental effects, such as p otential decreases in premature mortality associated with decreased exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. These general uncertainties in the underl yi ng scientific and economics literature, which can lead to valuations that are higher or lower, are discussed in detail in the draft RIA and its supporting references. Key uncertainties that have a bearing on the results of the benefit

- cost analy sis of the proposed standards include the following:

 The exclusion of potentially significant and unquantified benefit categories (such as health, odor, and ecological benefits of reduction in air toxics, ozone, and PM);

 Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as population growth;

 Uncertainties in the estimation of future ye ar emissions inventories and air quality

(including future year climate uncertainty);

 Uncertaint y in the estimated relations hips of health and welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations including the shape of the concentration

- response function, the size of the effect estimates, and the relative toxicity

of the many

components of the PM mixture;

 Uncertainties in exposure estimation; and

 Uncertainties associated with the effect of potential future actions to limit emissions.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 399 of 888 As Table VIII
- 5 indicates, total benefits are driven primarily by the reduction in premature mortalities each ye ar. Some key assumptions underlyingthe premature mortality

estimates include the following, which may also contribute to uncertaint y:

 Inhalation of fine particles is causally associated with premature death at concentrations near those experienced b y most Americans on a daily basis. Although biological mechanisms for this effect have not yet been completely

established, the weight of the available epidemiological, toxicological, and experimental evidence supports an assumption of causality . The impacts of including a probabilistic representation of causality were explored in the expert elicitatio n - based results of the PM NAAQS RIA. 501

 All fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equall y potent in causing premature mortality . This is an important assumption, because PM produced via transported precursors emitted from vehicle e ngines may

differ significantly

from PM precursors released from electric generating units and other industrial sources. However, no clear scientific grounds exist for supporting differential effects estimates b y particle t ype.

 The C

- R function for fine p articles is approximately linear within the range of ambient concentrations under consideration. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM, including both regions that may be in atta inment with PM 2.5 standards and those that are at risk of not meeting the standards.

 There is uncertaint y in the magnitude of the association between ozone and premature mortality . The range of ozone benefits associated with the coordinated strategy

is es timated based on the risk of several sources of ozone

- related mortality effect estimates. In a report on the estimation of ozone

- related premature mortality published by the National Research Council, a panel of experts and reviewers concluded that short

- term exposure to ambient ozone is likely to contribute to premature deaths and that ozone

- related mortality should be included in estimates of the health benefits of reducing ozone exposure. 502 EPA has requested advice from the National Academ y of Sciences on how best to quantify

501 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation. Retrieved March, 26, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html 502 National Research Council (NRC), (2008). Estimating Morta lity Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 400 of 888 uncertaint y in the relationship between ozone exposure and premature mortality in the context of quantifying benefits. Despite the uncertainties described above, we believe this anal ys is provides a conservative estimate of the estim ated criteria pollutant

- related health and environmental benefits of the standards in future years because of the exclusion of potentially

significant benefit categories that are not quantifiable at this time. Acknowledging benefits omissions and uncertai nties, we present a best estimate of the total benefits based on our interpretation of the best available scientific literature and methods supported by EPA’s technical peer review panel, the Science Advisory Board’s Health Effects Subcommittee (SAB

- HES). The National Academies of Science (NRC, 2002) has also reviewed EPA’s methodology for anal yz ing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air pollution. EPA addressed many of these comments in the analy sis of the final PM NAAQS. 503 , 504 This analy sis i ncorporates this work to the extent possible. **E. Illustrative Analysis of Monetized Impacts Associated with the Proposal in**  **2017** For illustrative purposes, this section presents the total estimated monetized benefits associated with the proposed standards i n 2017. As presented in Section III.B, the emissions impacts of the proposed standards in 2017 are primarily due to the effects of sulfur on the existing (pre

- Tier 3) fleet. For reasons explained in Chapter 7.1.3.2.2 of the draft RIA, our anal ys is of the air quality impacts in 2017 reflects an increase in direct PM emissions from vehicles (along with reductions in NO X , VOCs and other pollutants). This emissions increase results from a series of conservative assumptions and uncertainties related to fuel p arameters in 2017, and is not expected to occur in reality . Because our air quality modeling assumes this increase, as well as increased direct PM emissions due to an emissions processing error (see Chapter 7.2.1.1.2 of the draft RIA), our illustrative be nefits anal ys is in 2017 overestimates ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 and underestimates the benefits of the proposed Tier 3 standards. Table VIII
- 6 p resents total aggregate monetized benefits of the program in 2017, which includes the modeled direct PM increase described above. Monetized estimates are presented in 2010$. Our estimate of total monetized benefits associated with the proposed standard s in 2017, using the ACS and Six

- Cities PM mortality studies and the range of ozone mortalit y assumptions, is between $1.0 and $3.4 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between $1.0 and $3.3 billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Had our ambient air quality modeling of PM 2.5

503 National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. The Nati onal Academies Press: Washington, D.C. 504 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter . Prepared by: Office of Air and Radiation. Avai lable at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 401 of 888 not included the increase in direct PM emissions, we estimate that benefits would increase b y a range of $400 to $970 million (assuming a 3 percent discount rate) or increase b y a range of $360 to $880 million (assumin g a 7 percent discount rate), using current EPA benefit

- per - ton estimates for direct PM. 505 For a more detailed presentation of the quantified and monetized impacts of the proposal in 2017, please refer to Chapter 8 of the RIA that accompanies this preamble. **Table VIII**  **- 6**  **Total Monetized Ozone and PM -**  **related Benefits**

**Associated with the Proposed Program in 2017 Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)** 

**– PM Mortality Derived from**  **the ACS and Six -**  **Cities Studies**  **3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate**  Ozone Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Ozone

Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Multi

- city Bell et al.,

2004 $1.0

- $1.8 Multi

- city Bell et al., 2004 $0.96

- $1.7 Huang et al., 2005 $1.2

- $1.9 Huang et al., 2005 $1.2

- $1.9 Schwartz, 2005 $1.3

- $2.0 Schwartz, 2005 $1.2

- $1.9 Meta
- analysis Bell et al.,

2005 $2.1

- $2.8 Meta
- analysis Bell et al., 2005 $2.0

- $2.7 Ito et al., 2005 $2.6

- $3.4 Ito et al., 2005 $2.6

- $3.3 Levy et al., 2005 $2.7

- $3.4 Levy et al., 2005 $2.6

- $3.3 **Total Ozone and PM Benefits (billions, 2010$)**

**– PM Mortality Derived from**  **Expert Elicitation (Lowest and Highest Estimate) 3% Discount Rate**  **7% Discount Rate** Ozone Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Ozone

Mortality Function Reference Mean Total Benefits Multi

- city Bell et al.,

2004 $0.68

- $3.8 Multi

- city Bell et al., 2004 $0.67

- $2.0 Huang et al., 2005 $0.89

- $2.4 Huang et al., 2005 $0.87

- $2.2

505 The PM 2.5 - related benefit

- per - ton estimates provide the total monetized human health benefits (the sum of premature mortality and premature morbidity) of reducing one ton of directly emitted PM 2.5 . The benefit per

- ton technique has been used in previous analyses, including the 2012

- 2016 Light

- Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (U.S. EPA, 2010. Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Rulemaking to Establish Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. April. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf. EPA

- 420
- R
- 10
- 009). The benefits

- per ton values are available at http://www.epa.gov/oaqps00 1/benmap/bpt.html . Note that the values on the website are presented in year 2006$; the values underlying the estimates here have been adjusted to 2010$ using the CPI

- U “all” index.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 402 of 88 8 Schwartz, 2005 $0.93

- $2.4 Schwartz, 2005 $0.91

- $2.3 Meta
- analysis Bell et al.,

2005 $1.7

- $3.2 Meta
- analysis Bell et al., 2005 $1.7

- $3.1 Ito et al., 2005 $2.3

- $3.8 Ito et al., 2005 $2.3

- $3.6 Levy et al., 2005 $2.3

- $3.8 Levy et al., 2005 $2.3

- $3.7



## IX. **Alternatives Analysis**  As described throughout this preamble, we have considered a number of regulatory

alternatives in the development of this proposal, including alternatives related to timing and stringency of the proposed standards, as well as program design (e.g., averaging , banking, and trading). This section summarizes the alternatives considered for both vehicle emission and fuel standards. **A. Vehicle Emission Standards**  The federal vehicle emission standards we are proposing are the most stringent feasible considering anti cipated developments in motor vehicle emissions control technology . As we considered options for these vehicle standards, one of the important factors we considered was harmonization with the CARB LEV III program. As a result, consideration of alternativ es focused less on the level of the per - vehicle standards themselves and more on the phase

- in schedule for the standards, which can have an important influence on the cost of the standards. Phase

- in schedules directly impact costs depending on how they ar e aligned with other light

- dut y rules and product design cycles. In addition, phase

- in schedules can impact the cost of available resources, specifically design, development and testing resources within vehicle manufacturers and emission control suppliers
. 1. Shorter NMOG+NO X Standard Phase

- in We originall y considered requiring full implementation of the final NMOG+NO X final fleet average standard by MY 2022. However, we determined that this would have disrupted the manufacturer’s normal product design cyc les, 506 and it would not have allowed manufacturers to use a consistent product design cycle for both the Tier 3 standards and the 2017 LD GHG standards, which reach full implementation in MY 2025. We are proposing to extend the phase

- in schedule to MY 202 5 in order to allow vehicle manufacturers to better integrate the compliance with Tier 3 into their product design cycles, as well as take advantage of additional learning to reduce costs. We believe this implementation schedule for

506 A light

- duty

vehicle product design cycle is the number of years betwee n major redesigns of a vehicle. Typically, major redesigns are completed every 5 to 6 years.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 403 of 888 the Tier 3 NMOG+NO X st andards would allow us to achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary cost and burden on the industry
. 2. Longer NMOG+NO X Standards Phase

- in Due to Early Credits In an effort to facilitate the step

- down in fleet average stringency in the initial model years of the Tier 3 program, we considered allowing manufacturers to earn credits against the current Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average and use earned early credits without an y limits for the first five ye ars of the Tier 3 program. CARB, along with some vehicle manufacturers, noted that if a manufacturer were to substantially

over comply

with the Tier 2 Bin 5 fleet average, these earl y credits might not only

delay achievement of the Tier 3 emission levels, but also delay harmonization between the T ier 3 and LEV III programs for man y ye ars. To address this potential misalignment, we are proposing that the application of the earl y credits be capped starting in MY 2018 at a manufacturer’s LEV III credits adjusted by

the ratio of California and Section 177 state sales to federal sales. (See Section IV.A.7.a for more details.) This proposed approach would balance the need for some transition flexibility to avoid unnecessary

costs, while still ensuring expeditious harmonization with LEV III and achievem ent of the environmental benefits of the Tier 3 standards. 3. Shorter PM Standards Phase

- in As we considered potential PM phase

- in schedules, we gave strong consideration to manufacturers’ PM testing capabilities and product design cycles. We considered requ iring manufacturers to certify 25 percent of their fleet to the Tier 3 PM standards in MY 2017, ramping up to 100 percent b y MY 2020. We initially believed that this schedule would allow manufacturers to focus engineering resources on ensuring their new p roducts meet the proposed Tier 3 standards while other product lines, which we expect would be phased out due to the 2017 LD GHG standards, expire. However, based on further discussions with the vehicle manufacturers, we recognized that they need time to improve and expand their facilities to measure PM, not only for compliance determination but also for product development work prior to production. As a result, we are proposing a phase

- in schedule for meeting the proposed Tier 3 PM standards that starts with 20 percent of the vehicles at or below 6000 lbs GVWR in MY 2017 and ramps up to 100 percent of the light

- dut y fleet in MY 2021. As with the NMOG+ NO X phase

- in discussed above, we believe this proposed phase

- in schedule for the Tier 3 PM standards wou ld allow us to achieve the environmental objectives without imposing unnecessary

cost and burden on the industry
. 4. NMOG+NO X Standards We believe that the fleet

- average NMOG+NO X standards that we are proposing reflect the greatest degree of emission reductio n achievable considering cost and technology , assuming that gasoline sulfur levels are reduced to the proposed 10

- ppm average. We also believe the proposed implementation schedule***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 404 of 888 for the NMOG+ NO X standards is as short as practicable, as explained above. As a result, we believe more stringent standards would not be justified based on the information currently

available to EPA. Therefore, given our goal to harmonize our program with CARB’s at the 30 mg/mi level, we did not conduct an y detailed anal ys is of a less stringent fleet average standard. Based on the work done to quantify the impacts of the 30 mg/mi standard, however, we can say that a fleet

average standard of 50 mg/mi of NMOG+NO X would result in NMOG+NO X emissions in 2030 that are about 100,00 0 tons higher than the standards we are proposing. While costs would be lower because the emissions controls discussed in Section VII.A would be applied at a lower rate, such a standard would also not be harmonized with CARB LEV III standards. 5. PM Standards The FTP PM standards that we are proposing are the most stringent technicall y feasible standards within the implementation timeframe of this proposal. Although CARB has finalized a 1 mg/mi standard which will begin phasing in with MY 2025, they acknowledge that there is a need for continuing PM measurement method development prior to implementing this standard. 507 The EPA believes that in order to propose a federal PM standard at this level, there should be established methods to reliably

and cons istently

measure PM at levels at and below that standard that would be needed for ensuring compliance. **B. Fuel Sulfur Standards**  As explained in Section V.A.2., we believe that a 10

- ppm annual average standard is sufficient to enable the vehicle fleet to mee t the proposed Tier 3 standards and appropriately balances feasibility

with costs. Other countries and California have also reduced the sulfur content of their gasoline; California’s gasoline is already meeting our proposed 10

- ppm average sulfur level, an d Europe and Japan have a cap on the sulfur content of gasoline at 10 ppm. Because vehicle emission performance improves as sulfur is reduced, we considered imposing a 10

- ppm cap (i.e., no averaging, banking and trading), as well as lowering gasoline sulf ur content below the 10

- ppm average (see Section V.A.6). We considered expressing the standard as a cap similar to the standard in Europe and Japan. However, b y allowing averaging to meet 10 ppm, we believe that the most challenged refiners would be abl e to avoid what could be cost

prohibitive investments, while still meeting 10 ppm across the fuel pool. As discussed in Section VII.B., we estimate that allowing averaging would reduce nationwide control costs by nearl y 10 percent, and would still be suff icient to enable vehicles to meet the proposed Tier 3 standards.

507 California Air Resources Board (CARB) Initial Statement of Reasons, Public Hearing to Consider LEV III, December 7, 2011***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 405 of 888 We also considered an even lower sulfur standard of 5 ppm. Based upon the results of our test programs and associated modeling, a sulfur standard of 5 ppm could reduce VOC+NO X emissions from the existing fleet by an additional 80,000 tons in 2017. However, we believe a 5 ppm standard would significantly increase both capital and operating costs. Such a standard would require: (1) more severe treatment of FCC gasoline; (2) more overcapacity and storage for reprocessing of off

- specification product; (3) treatment of additional (non

- FCC) gasoline blendstocks; (4) essentially all refineries to reduce sulfur to 5 ppm, thereby eliminating much of the benefit of the ABT provisions, and (5) controll ing the contribution to gasoline sulfur from gasoline additives, transmix, ethanol denaturants, and contamination in the distribution sy stem. In our anal ys is of the 10

- ppm average standard and refineries that might reduce sulfur to 5 ppm in order to generate credits, we estimated that the sulfur control costs to achieve 5 ppm would be more than 50 percent greater than for our proposed 10

- ppm standard. This is more than twice as high on a cost per ppm

gallon basis. Additionally , as explained earlier, a 5 pp m standard would likely result in the elimination of the ability for refineries to trade credits. Without a viable trading program it could become prohibitivel y expensive for the more challenged refineries to comply , creating a financial hardship situatio n. Because the costs and other economic impacts rise dramaticall y as sulfur is reduced below 10 ppm, we believe that a 10

- ppm sulfur standard is the most stringent feasible standard considering technology

and cost. In addition to lower average sulfur stand ards, we are also considering lower per - gallon cap standards, which are currently set under the Tier 2 program at 80 ppm sulfur at the refinery gate and 95 ppm sulfur downstream. As discussed in Section V.A.3., in addition to proposing that these cap stan dards be maintained, we are co - proposing lowering them to 50 ppm and 65 ppm respectivel y. Given the stringency

of the 10

- ppm average standard, we do not anticipate that this would have a meaningful impact on either program costs or emission reductions. H owever, it would provide added assurance that individual vehicles would not be exposed to higher sulfur levels and the resulting impacts on emissions. Vehicle manufacturers have expressed concern that such exposure could impact not only individual vehicle emissions, but also vehicle operation, due to interference with sensors and feedback controls. To further address concerns of vehicle manufacturers, we are also requesting comment on the potential implementation of a refinery gate sulfur cap as low as 20 ppm and a downstream sulfur cap as low as 25 ppm. This would further constrain downstream contamination and limit the temporary

exposure of vehicles in

- use to sulfur levels that would significantly degrade their emission performance.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 406 of 888 

## X. **Econom ic**  **Im pact**  **An alysis**  **A. Introduction**  The proposed rule would affect two sectors directly : vehicle manufacturing and petroleum refining. For these two regulated sectors, the economic impact anal ys is discusses the market impacts from the proposed rule, the changes in price and quantity

sold. In addition, although anal ys is of employ ment impacts is not part of a benefit

- cost analy sis (except to the extent that labor costs contribute to costs), employ ment impacts of federal rules are of particular concern in the current econom ic climate of sizeable unemploy ment. The recentl y issued Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (January

18, 2011), states, “ Our regulatory

s ys tem must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promotin g economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation ” (emphasis added). For this reason, we are examining the effects of this proposal on employment in the regulated sectors. **B. Vehicle Sales Impacts**  This rule takes effect from MY 2017

- 2025. In the intervening ye ars, it is possible that the assumptions underlying a quantitative anal ys is, as well as market conditions, might change. For this reason, we present a qualitative discussion of the effects on vehicle sales of the proposed standards at th e aggregate market level. Vehicle manufacturers are expected to compl y with the proposed standards primarily through technological changes to vehicles. These changes to vehicle design and manufacturing are expected to increase manufacturers’ costs of veh icle production. Section VII.A estimates the increase in vehicle costs due to the proposed standards. These costs differ across ye ars and range from $7 1 to $1 02 for cars, $ 93 to $15 0 for trucks and $3 6 to $ 59 for Class 2b/3 vehicles (see Section VII.A). These costs are small relative to the cost of a vehicle. In a fully competitive industry , these costs would be entirel y passed through to consumers. However in an oligopolistic industry

such as the automotiv e sector, these increases in cost may not fully pass through to the purchase price, and the consumers may face an increase in price that is less than the increased manufacturers’ costs of vehicle production. 508 We do not quantify the expected level of cost pass - through or the ultimate vehicle price increase consumers are expected to face, apart from noting

508 See, for instance, Gron, A., and Swen son, D. (2000). Cost Pass

- Through in the U.S. Automobile Market. Review of Economics and Statistics 82, 316
- 324 () who found significantly less than full

cost pass - through using data from 1984

- 1994. Using full

- cost pass - through overstates costs and thus contributes to lower vehicle sales than using a lower estimate. To the extent that the auto industry has become more competitive over time, full

- cost pass - through may be more appropriate than a result based on this older study.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 407 of 888 that prices are expected to increase b y an amount up to the increased manufacturers’ costs. This increase in price is expected to lower the quantity of ve hicles sold. Given that we expect that vehicle prices will not change b y more than the cost increase, we expect that the decrease in vehicle sales will be negligible. The effect of this rule on the use and scrappage of older vehicles would be related to i ts effects on new vehicle prices and the total sales of new vehicles. The increase in price is likel y to cause the “turnover” of the vehicle fleet (i.e., the retirement of used vehicles and their replacement by new models) to slow slightly , thus reducing the anticipated effect of the rule on fleet

- wide emissions. Because we do not estimate the effect of the rule on new vehicle price changes nor do we have a good estimate of the effect of new vehicle price changes on vehicle turnover, we have not attempted to estimate explicitly the effects of the rule on scrappage of older vehicles and the turnover of the vehicle fleet. **C. Impacts on Petroleum Refinery Sector Production**  The key change for refiners from the proposed standards would be more stringent sulfur r equirements. This change to fuels is expected to increase manufacturers’ costs of gasoline production by about 0.9 cents per gallon (see Section VII.B). In a perfectl y competitive industry , this cost would be passed along completely

to consumers. In an i mperfectl y competitive industry , as noted above, full cost pass

- through is not necessary : firms may choose to reduce impacts on sales by not passing along full costs. In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission reported that “concentration for most levels of the petroleum industry has remained low to moderate.” 509 Thus the assumption of competitive markets has some foundation in this industry. We do not estimate the price increase that consumers are likel y to face, though we note that it should be positive and up to the increase in manufacturers’ costs of gasoline production. The effect of higher gasoline prices on gasoline sales is expected to be different over the short and long term. In the long run, in response to the increase in fuel costs, consumers can more easil y change their driving habits, including where they live or what vehicles they use. Because of this, we expect that gasoline sales will decrease more in the long run compared to the short run as a result of the price increase due to the propos ed rule. However, because manufacturers’ costs are expected to increase less than one cent per gallon, we expect that the decrease in gasoline sales will be negligible over all time horizons.

509 Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics. (2004). The Petroleum Industry: Mergers, Structural Change, and Antitrust Enforcement . Retrieved August 16, 2011from Federal Trade Commission website: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/08/040813mergersinpetrolberpt.pdf .***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 408 of 888 **D. Employment Impacts**  This section discusses changes in employ me nt due to the proposed rule. We focus on the auto manufacturing sector and the refinery sector because they are directly regulated, and because they are likel y to bear a substantial share of changes in employ ment due to this proposed rule. We partially quantify impacts in the auto sector, providing a mix of qualitative and quantitative discussion, following the methods used in the Final Rulemaking for 2017

–2025 Model Year Li ght

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Econom y Stand ards. 510 For the refinery sector we provide a qualitative anal ys is. We also include discussion of effects on the motor vehicle parts manufacturing sector because the auto manufacturing sector can either produce parts internall y or buy them from an external supplier, and we do not have estimates of the likel y breakdown of effort between the two sectors. For the same reasons, we discuss effects on producers of equipment that refiners would use to comply with the proposed standards. When the econom y is at ful l employ ment, an environmental regulation is unlikely to have much impact on net overall U.S. employ ment; instead, labor would primarily be shifted from one sector to another. These shifts in employ ment impose an opportunity

cost on society , approximated b y the wages of the emplo ye es, as regulation diverts workers from other activities in the econom y. In this situation, any effects on net employ

ment are likel y to be transitory as workers change jobs (e.g., some workers may

need to be retrained or require time to search for new jobs, while shortages in some sectors or regions could bid up wages to attract workers). On the other hand, if a regulation comes into effect during a period of high unemploy ment, a change in labor demand due to regulation may affe ct net overall U.S. employ

ment because the labor market is not in equilibrium. Schmalansee and Stavins point out that net positive employ ment effects are possible in the near term when the economy

is at less than full employ ment due to the potential hiring of idle labor resources b y the regulated sector to meet new requirements (e.g., to install new equipment) and new economic activity in sectors related to the regulated sector. 511 Inthe longer run, the net effect on employment is more difficult to predict and will depend on the way in which the related industries respond to the regulatory

requirements. As Schmalansee and Stavins note, it is possible that the magnitude of the effect on employ ment could vary

over time, region, and sector, and positive effects on employ ment in some regions or sectors could be offset by negative effects in other regions or sectors. For this reason, they urge caution in reporting partial emplo yment effects since it can “paint an inaccurate picture of net employ ment impacts if no t placed in the broader economic context.”

510 7 7 FR 62623 ( Oc tober 1 5 , 201 2 )
. 511 Schmalensee, R., & Stavins, R. (2011). A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis of EPA’s Transport Rule ” White paper commissioned by Excelon Corporation ().***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 409 of 888 We follow the theoretical structure proposed in a study by Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002) 512 of the impacts of regulation in employ ment in the regulated sectors. In particular, Morgenstern et al. (2002) identi fy three separate way s that employ

ment levels may

change in the regulated industry in response to a new or more stringent regulation.

 Demand effect: higher production costs due to the regulation will lead to higher market prices; higher prices in turn re duce demand for the good, reducing the demand for labor to make that good. In the authors’ words, the “extent of this effect depends on the cost increase passed on to consumers as well as the demand elasticity of industry

output.”

 Cost effect: as costs g o up, plants add more capital and labor (holding other factors constant), with potentially positive effects on employ ment; in the authors’ words, as “production costs rise, more inputs, including labor, are used to produce the same amount of output.”

 Fact or - shift effect: post

- regulation production technologies may be more or less labor

- intensive (i.e., more/less labor is required per dollar of output). In the authors’ words, “environmental activities may be more labor intensive than conventional producti on,” meaning that “the amount of labor per dollar of output will rise,” though it is also possible that “cleaner operations could involve automation and less employ ment, for example.” The authors note that the demand effect is expected to have a negative e ffect on employ

ment, the cost effect to have a positive effect on employ ment, and the factor

- shift effect to have an ambiguous effect on employ ment. Morgenstern et al. (2002) estimated the effects on employ ment of spending on pollution abatement for four highl y polluting/regulated industries (pulp and paper, plastics, steel, and petroleum refining) using data for six y ears between 1979 and 1991. They

concluded that increased abatement expenditures generally have not caused a significant change in emplo ym ent in those sectors. More specifically , their results showed that, on average across the industries studied, each additional $1 million (1987$) spent on pollution abatement resulted in a (statistically insignificant) net increase of 1.5 jobs. In the petr oleum refining industry in particular, they

found statistically

significant and positive cost and factor shift effects and an insignificant demand effect, for a net (statistically significant) increase of 2.17 jobs per $1 million (1987$).

512 Morgenstern, R., Pizer, W., & Shih, J. (2002). Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry

- Level Perspective. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43, 412
- 436.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 410 of 888 1. Employ

ment Impact s in the Auto Sector Following the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework, we consider three effects for the auto sector: the demand effect, the cost effect, and the factor shift effect.
a. The Demand Effect The demand effect depends on the effects of this prop osal on vehicle sales. If vehicle sales decrease, employ ment associated with these activities would decrease. As discussed in Section X.B, we do not make a quantitative estimate on the effect of the proposed rule on vehicle sales but we note that the dec rease in vehicle sales is expected to be negligible. Thus we expect an y decrease in employ ment in the auto sector through the demand effect to be small as well. b. The Cost Effect The demand effect, above, measures the effect due to new vehicle sales only
. The cost effect measures the impacts due to the changes in technologies for vehicles that would have been sold in the absence of the rule. We estimate the cost effect b y multiplying the ratio of workers to each $1 million of expenditures in the auto secto r b y the cost estimates for complying with the rule. Some of the costs of this proposal would be spent directly in the auto manufacturing sector, but it is also likely that some of the costs would be spent in the auto parts manufacturing sector. We sepa rately present the ratios for both the auto manufacturing sector and the auto parts manufacturing sector. There are several public sources for estimates of employ ment per $1 million expenditures. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides its Empl oy ment Requirements Matrix (ERM), 513 which provides direct estimates of the employ ment per $1 million in sales of goods in 202 sectors. The values considered here are for Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 3361) and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 3363). The Census Bureau provides both the Annual Survey of Manufactures 514 (ASM) and the Economic Census. The ASM is a subset of the Economic Census, based on a sample of establishments; though the Census itself is more complete, it is conducted only

every 5 years, while the ASM is annual. Both include more sectoral detail than the BLS ERM: for instance, while the ERM includes the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing sector, the ASM and Economic Census have detail at the 6

-

513 Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Requirements Matrix. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_data_emp_requirements.htm 514 U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Survey of Manufactures. http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 411 of 888 digit NAICS code level (e.g., light truc k and utility vehicle manufacturing). While the ERM provides direct estimates of employ ees/$1 million in expenditures, the ASM and Economic Census separatel y provide number of emplo ye es and value of shipments; the direct employ ment estimates here are the ratio of those values. The values reported are for Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (NAICS 3361), Automobile and L ight Dut y Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (NAI CS 33611), and Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 3363). For the cost effect, we use estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau of the number of workers per $1 million of expenditures in the sectors. The use of these ratios has both advantages and limitations. It is often possible to estimate these ratios for quite specifi c sectors of the econom y: for instance, it is possible to estimate the average number of workers in the light

- duty vehicle manufacturing sector per $1 million spent in the sector, rather than use the ratio from another, more aggregated sector, such as mot or vehicle manufacturing. As a result, it is not necessary to extrapolate employ

ment ratios from possibly unrelated sectors. On the other hand, these estimates are averages for the sectors, covering all the activities in those sectors; they may not be representative of the labor required when expenditures are required on specific activities, as the factor

shift effect indicates. For instance, the ratio for the motor vehicle manufacturing sector represents the ratio for all vehicle manufacturing, not just for emissions reductions. In addition, these estimates do not include changes in sectors that supply these sectors, such as steel or electronics producers. They thus may best be viewed as the effects on employ ment in the specific sectors due to the chan ges in expenditures in those sectors, rather than as an assessment of all employ ment changes due to these changes in expenditures. The values used here are adjusted to remove the employ ment effects of imports through use of a ratio of domestic production t o domestic sales of 0.667. 515 As discussed in the draft RIA, trends in the BLS ERM are used to estimate productivity

improvements over time that are used to adjust these ratios over time. Table X
- 1 provides estimates of the cost effect of this rule on employ ment. Chapter 2.1 of the draft RIA discusses the vehicle cost estimates developed for this rule, discussed in Section VII.A, prese nted in the second column. The maximum value for employ

ment impacts per $1 million (before adjustments for changes in productivity , after accounting for the share of domestic production) is 1
. 8 09 if all the additional costs are in the parts sector; the mi nimum value is 0.402, if all the additional costs are in the light

- duty vehicle manufacturing sector. Increased costs of vehicles and parts would, by itself, be expected to increase employ ment between 2017 and 2025 by

somewhere between a few hundred to a few thousand jobs.

515 To estimate the proportion of domestic production affected by the change in sales, we use data from Ward’s Automotive Group for total car and truck production in the U.S. compared to total car and truck sales in the U.S. For the period 2001

- 2010, the proportion is 66.7 percent.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 412 of 888 While we estimate employment impacts, measured in job

- ye ars, beginning with program implementation, some of these employ ment gains may

occur earlier as auto manufacturers and parts suppliers hire staff in anticipation of compliance with the standard. A job

- ye ar is a way to calculate the amount of work needed to complete a specific task. For example, a job

- ye ar is one year of work for one person. **Table X**  **- 1**  **Employment Effects due to Increa sed Costs of Vehicles and Parts**  **, in job**  **- years**  Year Costs (Millions of 2010$) Maximum Employ ment Effect (if all expenditures are in the Parts Sector) Minimum Employ ment Effect (if all expenditures are in the Li ght Dut y Vehicle Mfg Sector) 2016 $ 23 0 0 2017 $ 709 + 900 + 200 2018 $ 1,340 + 1,700 + 400 2019 $ 1,440 + 1,800 + 400 2020 $ 1,600 + 1,900 + 400 2021 $ 1,730 + 2,000 + 400 2022 $ 1,900 + 2,100 + 400 2023 $ 1,920 + 2,000 + 400 2024 $ 2,040 + 2,100 + 400 2025 $ 2,130 + 2,100 + 400
c. The Factor Shift Effect The factor shift effect looks at the changes in labor intensity associated with a regulation. As noted above, the estimates of the cost effect assume constant labor per $1 million in expenditures, though the new technologies may be either more or less lab or - intensive than the existing ones. We have no evidence on the factor shift effect for the compliance technologies and therefore do not quantify it. An estimate of the factor shift effect would either increase or decrease the estimate used for the cost effect

. d. Summary

of Employ

ment Effects in the Auto Sector The overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector employ ment depends on the relative magnitude of the cost effect, the demand effect and the factor shift effect. Because we do not have quantitative estimates of the demand and factor shift effects we cannot reach a quantitative estimate of the overall emplo ym ent effects of the proposed rule on auto sector employment or even whether the total effect would be positive or negative. However, given that the expected increase in production costs to the auto manufacturers is relatively small, we expect that the magnitudes of all these effects will be small as well. Additionally , the cost and demand effects are expected to work in opposite directions. T hus while we do not***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 413 of 888 have an estimate of the direction of the overall effect of the proposed rule on auto sector emplo ym ent, we expect it will be imperceptible. Additionally , the proposed rule is not expected to provide incentives for manufacturers to shift employ ment between domestic and foreign production. This is because the increased standards of the proposed rule would appl y to vehicles sold in the U.S. regardless of where they are produced. If foreign manufacturers already have increased expertise in s atisfying the requirements of the proposal, there may be some initial incentive for foreign production, but the opportunity for the U.S. to sell in other markets might increase. To the extent that the requirements of this proposal might lead to installati on and use of technologies that other countries may seek now or in the future, developing this capacity for domestic production now may provide some additional ability to serve those markets. This potential benefit would not apply

if other countries are n ot likely to have similar standards. 2. Refinery

Employ ment Impacts The Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework of demand effects, cost effects and factor shift effects can also be applied to the impact of the proposed rule on employ ment in the refinery

sector. Here we use a fully qualitative approach. A qualitative discussion allows for a wider incorporation of additional considerations, such as timing of impacts and the effects of the rule on imports and exports. Because the discussion is qualitative, we do n ot sum the net effects on employ ment. The demand effect on refining sector employ ment is expected to be negative. The discussion in Section X.C a bove suggested that the proposed rule would cause a small decrease in the quantity of gasoline demanded due to higher production costs being passed through to consumers. This slightly reduced level of sales would likely have a negative impact on employ ment in the refining sector. While we do not quantify

the level of job losses that could be expected here, recall that the quantity of gasoline sold as a result of the standards proposed here is expected to decrease b y onl y a very small amount over an y time horizon. The cost effect of the proposed rule on emplo ym ent in the refining sector is expected to be positive as usual in the Morgenstern et al. (2002) framework. In order to satisfy

the requirements of the proposed rule, firms in the refining industry are expected to need to perform additional work that will require hiring more employees, especiall y perhaps in the short run. Section V.A.2.c discusses the expected employ

ment needed to reduce the sulfur content of fuels; as noted there, to meet the propo sed Tier 3 sulfur standards, refiners are expected to invest $2.2 billion between 2014 and 2019 and utilize approximately 1,000 front

- end design and engineering jobs and 6,000 construction jobs. As the petroleum sector employed approximately

65,000 worker s in 2009, this temporary increase in employ ment would be comparable to an increase of over 10 percent when compared to 2009 levels. As with our anal ys is of the vehicle manufacturing sector, we do not have information on the direction the factor shift effe ct might take. It is unclear whether***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 414 of 888 the refining industry

would become more or less capital intensive as a result of the proposed rule. Thus the direction of the factor shift effect is ambiguous. This rule is not expected to provide incentives to shif t employ ment between domestic and foreign production. First, the proposed standards would apply to gasoline sold in the U.S. regardless of where it has been produced. U.S. gasoline demand is projected to continue to decline for the foreseeable future in r esponse to higher gasoline prices, more stringent vehicle and engine greenhouse gas and fuel econom y standards as well as increased use of renewable fuels. As a result, this anal ys is of incentives to shift employ ment between domestic and foreign productio n focuses on investments for existing capacity instead of expanding capacity
. 516 Inthis case, what is relevant is whether the necessary modifications to comply with Tier 3 would be significantly cheaper overseas than in the U.S. The main impacts on capit al and operating costs to comply with Tier 3 associated with adding hydrotreating capacity are likely to be similar overseas as in the U.S. This is particularly true when anal yz ing likely sources of U.S. imports. The majority

of gasoline imported to the U.S. today comes into the East Coast and is sourced out of either Europe or refineries in Canada or the Caribbean that exist almost solely

to supply the U.S. market. These Canadian and Caribbean refineries, by virtue of their focus on the U.S. market, are very similar to U.S. based refineries and would be expected to have to incur similar capital and operating costs as their U.S. based competitors meeting the 10 ppm standard. Furthermore, the European refineries are already producing gasoline to a 10 ppm sulfur cap for Europe. To the extent they

have refinery

streams that are more difficult to hydrotreat, the U.S. market currentl y serves as an outlet for their higher sulfur gasoline streams. As a result, they

may incur capital and operating costs on a p er gallon basis at least as high as for their U.S. based competitors for these remaining higher sulfur gasoline streams. Alternativel y, they may instead choose to find markets outside the U.S., opening the way

for increased U.S. based refinery demand. Finally , despite refining industry projections that previously imposed diesel rules would lead to greater U.S. reliance on imports through major negative impacts on domestic refining, the reverse has actuall y occurred. Over the last 8 ye ars, imports of ga soline and diesel fuel have continued to be the marginal suppl y, and have even dropped precipitously so that the U.S. is now a net exporter of diesel fuel and is importing half the gasoline that it did at its peak in 2006. With the projected decline in future gasoline demand in the U.S. as vehicle fuel efficiency improves, gasoline imports are expected to continue to decline. Thus it is expected that for the refining sector, the demand effect would lower emplo ym ent, the cost effect would raise employ ment, and the factor shift

516 While refinery capacity has been increasing around the world in recent years, it has been designed primarily to supply foreign markets other than the U.S. (e.g., increas ing demand in China and India).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 415 of 888 effect would have an ambiguous effect on employment. As a whole then, it is not evident whether the proposed rule would increase or decrease employ ment in the refining sector. However, given the small anticipated reduction in quantity sold, it appears that the rule would not have major employ ment consequences for this sector. The petroleum industry is one of the four industries studied by Morgenstern et al. (2002) when they

look at the effect of environmental expenditures on employ m ent. They

found a small but statistically significant increase in employ ment in this sector (2.17 jobs per million dollars of expenditures, using 1987$). Using this factor (adjusted to 2010$), the estimated sulfur fuel control costs in 2017 of $1,289 mi llion would imply an increase of approximately 1,600 jobs in the refinery

sector. We note that the regulations that this estimate is derived from are not directl y comparable to the current proposed rule; it is based on the costs of reductions in refinery emissions instead of changing fuel properties, and therefore may

not be applicable for the standards proposed here. Section 5.3 of the draft RIA contains some historical discussion regarding the impact on refineries and refining capacit y of earlier rules which resulted in higher costs for refiners. Over the period 2003

- 2011, when a number of rules were being implemented, EIA data show a net of two net refinery closures on its website. Meanwhile, over this same period the average size of U.S. refineries in creased from 113,000 barrels per day

to 123,000 barrels per day, and total U.S. refining capacit y increased b y six percent. Thus, historically during a time when rules with much larger expected impacts were being implemented (the 2003 ultra

- low sulfur nonroad diesel proposal alone was expected to have a cost impact on refineries more than five times greater than the current proposed rule), U.S. refining capacity increased even as the number of U.S. refineries slightly fell. While closing refineries has a n egative effect on industry emplo ym ent, it is likely that the increased refining capacity at many of the remaining plants had a positive effect on industry employ ment. The proposed rule is also likely to have a positive impact on employ ment among producers of equipment that refiners will use to comply with the standards. Section V.A.2.c notes that some refiners are expected to need to revamp their current treatment units, and others will need to add additional treatment units. Producers of this equipment w ould be expected to hire additional labor to meet this increased demand. We also note that the employment effects may be different in the immediate implementation phase than in the ongoing compliance phase. Itis expected that the employment increases through the cost effect from revamping old equipment and installing additional equipment should occur in the near term, when current unemploy

ment levels are high, and the opportunity cost of workers is relativel y low. Meanwhile, the employment decreases in the refining sector from the demand effect would not start until 2017, when compliance would be required, and when unemplo ym ent is expected to be reduced; in a time of full employ ment, any changes in employ

ment levels in the regulated sector are mostly expe cted to be offset b y changes in employ ment in other sectors.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 416 of 888 

## XI **. Public Participation**  We request comment on all aspects of this proposal. This section describes how you can participate in this process. **A. How Do I Submit Comments?**  EPA has announce d the comment period and the public hearing dates for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register Notice. We will accept comments during the period indicated in the supplemental notice . If you have an interest in the proposed program described in this document, we encourage yo u to comment on any aspect of this rulemaking. We also request comment on specific topics identified throughout this proposal. Your comments will be most useful if you include appropriate and detailed supporting rationale, data, and anal ys is. Commenters are especiall y encouraged to provide specific suggestions for an y changes to any aspect of the regulations that they believe need to be modified or improved. You should send all comments, except those containing proprietary i nformation, to our Air Docket (see ADDRESSES in the first part of this proposal) before the end of the comment period. You may

submit comments electronicall y, b y mail, or through hand delivery /courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify

the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “ late. ” E PA is not required to consider these late comments. I f you wish to submit Confidential Business Information (CBI) or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Section XI.B. **B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?**  Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronicall y through the electronic public docket, www.regulations.gov, or b y e - mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI onl y to the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, Assessment and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, Attention Docket ID EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135. You may

claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking an y part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD

–ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD

–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically

within the disk or CD

–ROM the specific information that is CBI). In formation so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth i n 40 CFR part 2.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 417 of 888 In addition to one complete version of the comments that include any information claimed as CBI, a cop y of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If yo u subm it the cop y that does not contain CBI on disk or CD

–ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD

–ROM clearl y that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket without prior notice. If you have an y questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. **C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?**  You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

 Explain your views as clearl y as possible.

 Describe an y assumptions that you used.

 Provide an y technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

 If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

 Prov ide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

 Offer alternatives.

 Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

 To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify

the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and **Federal Register** citation related to your comments. **D. Will There Be a Public Hearing?**  EPA will announce the public hearing dates for this proposal in a supplemental Federal Register Notice
. If you would like to present testimony at the public hearing, we ask that yo u notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the first part of this proposal at least seven day s before the hearing. Once EPA learns how many people have registered to speak at the public hearing, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for lunch and necessary

breaks throughout the day . For planning purposes, each***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 418 of 888 speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to adjust the time for each speaker if there is a large turnout. We suggest that yo u bring copies of your statement or other material for the EPA panel and the audience. Itwould also be helpful if you send us a copy of your statement or other materials before the hearing. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer th at speakers not use technological aids (e.g., audio

- visuals, computer slideshows). However, if you plan to do so, you must notify the contact persons in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the supplemental hearing notice . You also must make arrangements to provide your presentation or any other aids to EPA in advance of the hearing in order to facilitate set

- up. We will make a tentative schedule for the order of testimony based on the notifications we receive. This schedule will be available on the morning of the hearing. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for an yone else in the audience who wants to give testimony
. The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations s uch as sign language interpreters should contact the persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in the supplemental hearing notice seven day s before the date of the hearing. We will conduct the hearing informall y, and technical rules of e vidence will not apply . We will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 day s to allow you to submit supplementary

information. You may

make arrangements for copies of the transcript directly with the court reporter. 

## XII. **St atutory and Executive Order Reviews**  **A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive**  **Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review** Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically significant regulatory

action” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingl y, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and an y changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, EPA prepared an anal ys is of the potential costs and benefits assoc iated with this action. This analy sis is contained in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. A cop y of the anal ys is is available in the docket for this action.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 419 of 888 **B. Paperwork Reduction Act**  The information collection requirem ents in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The Information Collection Request (ICR) document s prepared b y EPA have been assigned EPA ICR number 0783.63 for the vehicles provisions and EPA I CR 2482.01 and I CR 2459.01 for the fuels provisions
. This proposed rule contains reporting and recordkeeping requirement within the context of EPA’s motor vehicle certification progr am and the manufacturers’ in

use testing program (IUVP). Current regulations require manufacturers to submit emissions information to EPA in conjunction with these two programs (Information Collections). Manufacturers must submit an application for emiss ion certification prior to production. The application describes the major aspects of the proposed product line, technical details of the emission control sy stems, and the results of tests to indicate compliance with the emissions and, greenhouse gases, a nd fuel econom y limitations. The application and supporting test results are reviewed and, if appropriate, a certificate of conformity is issued. Subsequently , low

- and high

mileage vehicles in use are tested for emissions by manufacturers and the result s of those tests reported to EPA. EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be 55, the total burden hours to be 73,567 and the total cost to respondents to be $ 7,690,934
. This proposed rule also contains reporting and recordkeeping requirements for refiners and importers of motor vehicle gasoline. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for these entities under the proposed Tier 3 program are the same requirements that exist under the Tier 2 sulfur program. 517 The recordkeeping and Product Trans fer Document (PTD) requirements for gasoline additive producers and PTD requirements for downstream parties under the proposed Tier 3 program are new but should be minimal since we expect that they are already followed as part of normal business practices. Finally , there are new recordkeeping and PTD requirements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol under the proposed Tier 3 program. EPA estimates the total number of respondents to be 1,500 , the total burden hours to be 76,743 and the total cost to res pondents to be $ 5,908,504
. Finally , this proposed rule also contains provisions for qualifications of laboratories on test methods. We have proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements that would apply to fuel testing laboratories. The collected dat a will permit EPA to: (1) Qualify laboratories to use test methods based upon accuracy and precision criteria supported by industry ; and (2) Ensure that various fuels meet the standards required under the regulations at 40 CFR part 80 and that the associat ed benefits to human health and the environment are realized. We estimate

517 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000 ; OMB Control Number: 2060

- 0437; EPA ICR 1907.05***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 420 of 888 that 750 laboratories may be subject to the proposed information collection. This estimate is based upon our experience with qualification of laboratories under the existing diesel sulfur program. We estimate an annual reporting burden of 95 hours per respondent and an annual recordkeeping burden of 104 hours, yielding a total of 199 hours. For those laboratories that elect to be reference installations, the annual reporting burde n would be 95 hours and the annual recordkeeping burden would be 128 hours. Supporting statements for all 3 I CRs can be found in Docket ID number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135
. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it display s a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on the Agency ’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and an y suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which includes th ese ICR numbers , under Docket ID number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135. See the ‘ **ADDRESSES** ’ section at the beginning of this notice for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 day s after [ **Insert date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER**  ], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it b y [ **Insert date 30 days afte r**  **publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER** ]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. **C. Regulatory Flexibility Act**  1. Overview The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act (RFA) generall y re quires an agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility

anal ys is of an y rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or an y other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today 's rule on small entities, small entity is defin ed as: (1) a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 (see table below); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, count y, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 421 of 888 organization that is any

not - for

- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected b y this regulation: **Industry NAICS**  **a Code (2007)**  **Defined as small entity by SBA**

**if less than or equal to:** Gasoline fuel refiners and importers 324110 1,500 employees Ethanol producers 325193 1,000 employees Gasoline additive manufacturers 325199, 325998, 424690 1,000 employees

500 employees 100 employees Transmix processors Varied 1,500 employees Petroleum bulk stations and terminals 424710 100 employees Other warehousing and storage

bulk petroleum storage 493190 $25.5 million (annual receipts) Li ght

- dut y vehicle and light

- dut y truck manufacturers 336111, 336112 1,000 employees Independent commercial importers 811111, 811112, 811198 $7 million (annual receipts)
Alternative fuel converters 335312, 336312, 336322, 336399, 811198 1,000 employees

750 employees ” ” $7 million (annual receipts) On
- highway

heavy

- dut y engine & vehicle (>8,500 lbs GVWR) manufacturers 333618, 336120, 336211, 336312 1,000 employees

” ” 750 employees Note: a North American Industrial Classification System 2. Background EPA’s Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program, which was finalized in February 2000, took a s ystems - based approach to motor vehicle pollution by setting standards for both passenger vehicles an d their fuel (gasoline). The program set stricter tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards for criteria pollutants from vehicles beginning with model year (MY) 2004 and phasing in through 2009. The program also lowered the sulfur content of gasoline, to a 30
- ppm refinery average, 80
- ppm per - gallon cap, and 95

- ppm downstream cap; beginning in 2004 and phasing in through 2008. The potential to extend the phase

- in for small refiners and approved Gasoline Phase

- In Area (GPA) refiners through the end of 2 010 was***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 422 of 888 provided in the Highway

Diesel Rule 518 in exchange for early compliance with the diesel program. Similar to the Tier 2 rule, the Tier 3 rule being proposed today is a comprehensive, s ys tems - based approach to address the impact of light

- dut y vehicles and certain heavy

- dut y vehicles on air quality and health. Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility anal ys is (IRFA) that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternative s that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for review in the rulemaking docket (in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA) and is summarized below. As required b y s ection 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also conducted outreach to small entit ies and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small entities that potentially

would be subject to the rule’s requirements. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evalu ated the assembled materials and small

- entity comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. A cop y of the Panel Report is included in the docket for this proposed rule, and a summary

of the Panel process, and subsequent Panel recommendations, is summarized below. 3. Reason for Today ’s Proposed Rule This rule proposes to establish more stringent vehicle emissions standards and reduce the sulfur content of gasoline beginning in 2017, as part of a s ys tems approach in addressing the impacts of motor vehicles and fuels on air quality and public health. The proposed gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control sy stems more effective and enable more stringent vehicle emissions standards, and the proposed vehicle standards would reduce vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions. This would result in significant reductions in pollutants such as ozone, particulate matter, and air toxics. For a more detailed discussion of the reasoning for today ’s proposed rule, please see Sections II and III of th is preamble. The proposed vehicle and fuel programs are further discussed in Sections IV and V, respectivel y. 4. Legal Basis for Agency Action The Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to establish emissions standards for motor vehicles to address air pollution that may reasonabl y be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. EPA also has authority to establish fuel controls to address such air pollution. The authority for the proposed vehicle emission standards comes from CAA section 202(a), S ection 20 2(k) provides EPA with authority to issue and revise regulations applicable to evaporative emissions of

518 66 FR 5136 (January 18, 2001).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 423 of 888 hydrocarbons from gasoline

- fueled motor vehicles, and section 206(d) authorizes EPA to establish methods and procedures for testing whether a motor vehi cle or motor vehicle engine conforms with section 202 requirements. The authority for the proposed fuel standards comes from section 211(c). For more detailed information on our legal authority for today ’s proposal, please see Sections II.A and V.G of thi s preamble. 5. Summary

of Potentiall y Affected Small Entities The table above lists industries/sectors potentially affected b y the proposed rule. For businesses potentially impacted b y the Tier 3 vehicle standards, this includes vehicle manufacturers, altern ative fuel converters, and independent commercial importers. For businesses potentially impacted by

the Tier 3 fuel standards, this includes gasoline refiners and importers, distributors, fuel additive manufacturers, transmix producers, and ethanol produc ers. EPA used a variety

of sources to identify

which entities are appropriatel y considered “small.” EPA used the criteria for small entities developed b y the Small Business Administration under the North American Industry Classification Sy stem (NAICS) as a guide. Information about these entities comes from sources including the Energy

Information Administration (EIA) within the U.S. Department of Energy , oil industry

literature, EPA’s certification data, and previous rulemakings that have affected these i ndustries. EPA then found employ ment information for these companies using the business information database Hoover’s Online (a subsidiary

of Dun and Bradstreet). These entities fall under the categories listed in the table. To gauge the impact of the proposed standards on small businesses, EPA employed a cost

- to - sales ratio test to estimate the number of small businesses that would be impacted b y less than one percent, between one and three percent, and above three percent. Overall, EPA projects that 13 small businesses will be impacted b y less than one percent, 13 small businesses will be impacted b y one to three percent, and 5 small businesses will be impacted b y more than three percent. A more detailed description of the inputs used for each affected industry sector and the methodology

used to develop the estimated impact on small businesses in each industry sector is included in the IRFA as presented in Chapter 10 of the draft RIA for this rulemaking. 6. Potential Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Complianc e For an y emission control program, EPA must have assurances that the regulated products will meet the standards. The program that EPA is considering for manufacturers subject to this proposal will include testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements for manufacturers of vehicles covered b y the proposed Tier 3 regulations. Testing requirements for these manufacturers could include certification emission (including deterioration factor) testing, in

- use testing, and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 424 of 888 production line testing. Reportin g requirements would likely include emission test data and technical data on the vehicles. Manufacturers would have to keep records of this information. For an y fuel control program, EPA must have assurance that fuel produced, distributed, sold and used m eets the applicable standard. EPA expects that the recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance provisions of the proposed rule would be fairl y consistent with those in place today for other fuel programs. Further, we expect to use existing registration and reporting s ystems that parties in the fuel production and distribution industry are already familiar with. 7. Related Federal Rules The primary

federal rules that are related to the proposed Tier 3 rule under consideration are: the Tier 2 Vehicle/Gasoline Sul fur rulemaking (65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), the 2017 Li ght

- dut y Greenhouse Gas (GHG) rule (77 FR 62623) , and the Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards rule (RTR/NSPS ; 77 FR 41051 ). The 2017 LD GHG ru le is a coordinated effort by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) taking steps to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles, though reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on

- road vehicles an d engines. The rules to address Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review (RTR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) focus on developing updated emissions standards for petroleum refineries for multiple pollutants, including GHGs. The ru les are based on results of the RTR analy ses for both Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards (MACT 1 and 2). The technology

review would be conducted to identify any new practices, processes, or control technologies for the industry and cost

- effe ctive emission control options. EPA is developing uniform standards for some emission sources in the petroleum refining sector that may

serve as the basis for these technology reviews. The rules also review the standards and rule provisions to determine whether other changes may be needed during periods of start

- up, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure the standards are consistent with recent court opinions and other CAA programs. With regard to NSPS, the rules address remaining NSPS issues under reconsid eration from the promulgation of existing NSPS and other NSPS rules affecting the refining sector, and include the regulation of GHGs and the development of emission guidelines for existing sources. 8. Summary

of SBREFA Panel Process and Panel Outreach
a. Signif icant Panel Findings The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel, or the Panel) considered regulatory

options and flexibilities to help mitigate potential adverse***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 425 of 888 effects on small businesses as a result of this rule. During the SBREFA Panel proce ss, the Panel sought out and received comments on the regulatory options and flexibilities that were presented to SERs and Panel members. The recommendations of the Panel are described below and are also located in Section 9 of the SBREFA Final Panel Repo rt, which is available in the public docket. b. Panel Process As required b y s ection 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, we also conducted outreach to small entities and convened an SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of th e small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule’s requirements. On August 4, 2011, EPA’s Small Business Advocacy

Chairperson convened a Panel under Section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Division Di rector of the Assessment and Standards Division of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality , the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Off ice of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with representatives of small businesses that would potentially be affected b y the proposed rulemaking. We met with these Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries. We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, and possible rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met with SERs from the industries that would be directly affected b y the Tier 3 rule on August 18, 2011 to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the outreach packet (the Panel also met with SERs on June 28, 2011 for an initial outreach meeting). The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting in response to discussions had at the meeting and the questions posed to the SERs b y the Agency . The SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the rule’s impact on small businesses. The Panel’s findings and discussions were based on the information that was available during th e term of the Panel and issues that were raised b y the SERs during the outreach meetings and in their comments. It was agreed that EPA should consider the issues raised by the SERs and discussions had by the Panel itself, and that EPA should consider comm ents on flexibility alternatives that would help to mitigate negative impacts on small businesses to the extent legall y allowable by the Clean Air Act. Alternatives discussed throughout the Panel process included those offered in previous or current EPA r ulemakings, as well as alternatives suggested by SERs and Panel members. A summary of these recommendations is detailed below, and a full discussion of the regulatory alternatives and hardship provisions discussed and recommended by the Panel can be found in the SBREFA Final Panel Report. A complete discussion of the provisions for which we are requesting comment and/or proposing in this action can be found in Sections IV.E and V.D of this preamble. Also, the Panel Report includes all comments received f rom SERs***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 426 of 888 (Appendix B of the Report) and summaries of the two outreach meetings that were held with the SERs. In accordance with the RFA/ SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the aforementioned materials and SER comments on issues related to the IRFA. The Panel’s recommendations from the Final Panel Report are discussed below. It should be noted that during the Panel process, two additional issues were discussed with SERs that were under consideration by the Agency

for the Tier 3 proposal. As noted in Section IV.D.5, EPA was considering extending the new certification fuel specifications to all regulatory categories of engines, vehicles, equipment, and fuel s ys tem components that use gasoline. This would have included a wide range of additional applic ations, including small nonroad engines used in lawn and garden applications, recreational vehicles such as ATVs and snowmobiles, recreational marine applications, on

- highway motorcycles, and heav y - dut y gasoline engines. In addition, EPA considered new vo latility (Reid Vapor Pressure, or RVP) standards for in

- use gasoline. Neither of these issues is being proposed in today ’s notice. Therefore, the following discussion of the Panel recommendations does not address these issues. The reader is directed to the Panel Report, located in the rulemaking docket, for more information on both of these issues.
c. Panel Recommendations

i. Tier 3 Fuels The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility

alternatives with SERs for small businesses in the gasoline production and distribution, fuel additive manufacturing, and ethanol production industries subject to the proposed fuel requirements. Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below.

(1) Lead Time

—Sulfur The Panel recommended that EPA propose a delay option, similar to previous fuels rulemakings, in the Tier 3 proposed rule. The Panel recommended that EPA allow small refiners to postpone their compliance with the Tier 3 program for up to three ye ars. Small refiners choosing this flexibility option wo uld have from January

1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 to continue production of gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm (per the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur program). Compliance with the 10

- ppm sulfur standard would begin on January 1, 2020. Any

sma ll refiner choosing this proposed option would be allowed to continue use of their Tier 2 gasoline sulfur credits through December 31, 2019 to meet the refiner average 30

- ppm sulfur standard. The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on case

- by

- c ase hardship provisions that would provide additional relief for an y refiner experiencing extreme difficulty

in compliance with the Tier 3 requirements, as discussed below in Section XII.C.6.c.i.(6).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 427 of 888 (2) Provisions for Additive Manufacturers The Panel recommen ded that EPA provide flexibilities for gasoline additive manufacturers. Following discussion with EPA, the Panel suggested that EPA propose the following flexibilities:

 For additives used downstream of the refiner: Differentiating bulk additives based on whether they meet a 20
- or 25
- ppm sulfur standard.

 For aftermarket consumer additives: Allow for aftermarket additives to meet either a 20

- ppm or 25
- ppm sulfur cap.

 For additives not meeting a 10

- , 20
- , or 25
- ppm sulfur limit: Allow for the use of volume a ccounting reconciliation (VAR) records for additives that would not be able to meet a 25

- ppm sulfur cap to show that use of the additive would not cause the sulfur level of the finished fuel to exceed 10 ppm (similar to the Nonroad Diesel Rulemaking, 69 FR 39088, June 29, 2004), and require product labeling for aftermarket additives. (3) Refinery Gate and Downstream Caps With regard to the 20

- ppm refinery gate cap discussed in Section 3 of the Panel Report, the Panel had concerns that such a standard could caus e operational problems for small refiners during a refinery turnaround or an upset, because a cap of this level could result in a refiner not being able to produce gasoline (as noted in their comments in Section 8 of the Panel Report). The Panel likewise had concerns that a downstream cap of 25 ppm could cause problems for small downstream entities, such as transmix processors, because they may not be able to reprocess finished gasoline down to this level (also noted in their comments in Section 8 of the P anel Report). Thus, the Panel recommended that EPA assess and request comment on retaining the current Tier 2 refinery gate and downstream caps of 80 and 95 ppm, respectivel y, to help provide maximum flexibility and avoid s ys tem upsets for the entire refin ing and distribution sy stem. Thus, the SBA and OMB Panel members recommend that EPA propose retaining the 80

- ppm and 95

- ppm caps. The Panel also recommended that EPA request comment on additional refinery gate and downstream caps above 20/25 ppm but below 80/95 ppm. Additionally , the Panel recommended that EPA allow the current Tier 2 80

- ppm sulfur refinery

gate cap and 95

- ppm sulfur downstream cap in Alaska to remain at these levels indefinitel y.

(4) Hardship Provisions During the Panel process, EPA stated i ts intent to propose hardship provisions (for all gasoline refiners and importers) similar to those in prior EPA***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 428 of 888 fuels programs: (a) the extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship provision, and (b) the extreme hardship provision. A hardship based on extre me unforeseen circumstances is intended to provide short term relief due to unanticipated circumstances beyond the control of the refiner, such as a natural disaster or a refinery fire. An extreme hardship is intended to provide short

- term relief based on extreme circumstances (e.g., extreme financial problems, extreme operational or technical problems, etc.) that impose extreme hardship and thus significantly affect a refiner's ability

to comply

with the program requirements by the applicable dates. In the context of the proposal, the Panel agrees that such relief could consider long

term relief on the sulfur cap (similar to that for Alaska) if the circumstances both warrant it and can be structured in a way to allow for it. The Panel agrees with the prop osal of such provisions and recommended that EPA include them in the Tier 3 proposed rulemaking.

ii. Tier 3 Vehicles As discussed in Section 5 of the Panel Report, in addition to vehicle manufacturers, two distinct categories of businesses relating to highway light

- duty vehicles and heav y - dut y trucks would be covered by the new vehicle standards: independent commercial importers (ICIs), and alternative fuel vehicle converters. As discussed below, EPA’s expectation at the time of the Panel process was to propos e a set of flexibilities that would be available to all small entities in these three business categories as well as an y businesses in these categories that sell less than 5,000 vehicles per year. The Panel identified a number of entities covered b y the v ehicle standards that qualify as small businesses under the SBA definition. Six of these companies participated as SERs. The Panel discussed several regulatory flexibility

alternatives with SERs for small businesses that certify vehicles subject to the pr oposed Tier 3 emission standards. As described in Appendix A (and similar to provisions in the Tier 2 rule), EPA sought comment from the SERs on allowing small entities to simply comply with the proposed emission standards with 100 percent of their vehicl es during the last ye ar of the phase

- in period. In addition, EPA sought comment on the following flexibilities: (1) a hardship provision that would allow these businesses to apply

for additional time to meet any of the 100 percent phase

- in requirements, (2) use of assigned deterioration factors for certification purposes, and (3) reduction in the number of tests required in the manufacturer in

- use verification testing program (see 40 CFR 86.1845

- 04). SERs were generally supportive of these flexibility pr ovisions. However, one SER requested that EPA consider providing relaxed standards for exhaust emissions in addition to the delay and another SER requested that we consider eliminating some of the evaporative emission testing requirements. Panel recommendations on these approaches are discussed below. (1) Exhaust Emission Standards and Lead time***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 429 of 888 In the t yp es of businesses subject to the potential Tier 3 standards, small businesses have limited resources available for developing new designs to comply with new em ission standards. In addition, it is often necessary for these businesses to rely on vendor companies for technology . Moreover, percentage phase

- in requirements pose a dilemma for a small manufacturer that has a limited product line (e.g., the manufactur er certifies vehicles in only one or two test groups). Thus, similar to the flexibility

provisions implemented in previous vehicle rules, the Panel recommended that EPA allow small businesses the following flexibility options for meeting the potential Tie r 3 exhaust emissions standards. The Panel recommended that small businesses be given additional lead time to comply

with the potential Tier 3 exhaust standards and allow small businesses to comply with the standards with 100 percent of their vehicles star ting in model year 2022. (This is similar to the Tier 2 rule where EPA allowed small manufacturers to wait until the end of the phase

- in to compl y with the Tier 2 standards.) During the Panel process, the proposed Tier 3 rule was expected to have several different phase

- in schedules; with the final dates varying from model year 2021 for the new exhaust PM standards and use of the new E15 certification fuel, to model year 2022 for the new evaporative emission standards, to model y ear 2025 for the new exhau st gaseous pollutant standards. The Panel noted that requiring all small businesses to comply with the full slate of Tier 3 requirements in model year 2022 should provide sufficient lead time for manufacturers to plan for and implement the technology chan ges needed to comply with the Tier 3 standards. One of the SERs recommended that EPA adopt relaxed exhaust standards for small manufacturers. The SER noted that the exhaust emission averaging program being proposed by EPA would allow large manufacturers that have many engine families to certify their small, niche products at levels numericall y higher than the standards. Small manufacturers that typically do not have more than one or two emission families generall y cannot use averaging to the same extent b ecause of their limited product offerings. The SER’s concern was that the high

- performance vehicles produced b y large manufacturers which they compete against would be able to certify

at numerically

higher levels at less cost than the SER would incur. Wh ile EPA was planning to propose the same standards for all manufacturers, the Panel recommended that EPA request comment on allowing small manufacturers to meet relaxed exhaust emission standards. This could also be included as part of the hardship provis ion discussed below. The Panel recommended that EPA request comment on the relaxed standards recommended by the SER. The SER

recommended relaxed NMOG+NO X standards over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are 0.125 grams/mile in model year 2020 and 0.070 gr ams/mile in model ye ar 2025. In addition, the Supplemental FTP standards would be the standards for the corresponding bins which the manufacturer selected for compl yi ng with the FTP standards. For example, if the manufacturer certified to the proposed Ti er 3 Bin 125 standards over the FTP, the manufacturer would have to comply with the corresponding Tier 3 Bin 125 standards for the Supplemental FTP.

(2) Evaporative Emission Standards and Lead time***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 430 of 888 The Panel recommended that small businesses comply with the Ti er 3 evaporative emission standards, including the leak standard, with 100 percent of their vehicles starting in model year 2022. For evaporative emissions, where the Tier 3 standards could begin as earl y as 2017 and phase

- in through 2022, this provision would allow small businesses and SVMs to wait until the last y ear of the Tier 3 phase

- in period for evaporative emission standards for all of their vehicles. This start date is consistent with the start date described above for the Tier 3 exhaust emission requirements being recommended by the Panel for small businesses.

(3) Assigned Deterioration Factors Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must demonstrate that their vehicles compl y with the emission standards throughout the “useful life” period. This is g enerall y done b y testing vehicles at low

- mileage and then applying a deterioration factor to these emission levels. The deterioration factors are determined b y aging new emission control sy stems and then testing the aged sy stems again to determine how muc h deterioration in emissions has occurred. In order to reduce the testing burden on small manufacturers, EPA suggested that small manufacturers could use deterioration factor values assigned b y EPA instead of performing the extended testing. A manufactur er would appl y the assigned deterioration factors to its low

- mileage emission level to demonstrate whether it complied with the Tier 3 emission standards. EPA currentl y allows this flexibility for small manufacturers. The Panel recommended that EPA propo se that small businesses be allowed the option to use EPA

- developed assigned deterioration factors in demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards. In the past, EPA has relied on deterioration factor data from large manufacturers to develop the assigned DFs for small manufacturers. EPA would expect to follow a similar procedure to determine the assigned DFs for the Tier 3 standards once large manufacturers start certifying their Tier 3 designs. Given that larger manufacturers would begin phasing in to the Tier 3 standards in model year 2017, EPA should have a significant set of emissions deterioration data upon which to base the assigned DFs for small businesses within the first few years of the Tier 3 program. EPA recognizes that assigned DFs need to be determined well in advance of model year 2022 in order to provide sufficient time for small businesses to decide whether or not to use the assigned DFs for certification purposes. (4) Reduced Testing Burden Under EPA’s regulations, manufacturers must perform in

- use testing on their vehicles and demonstrate their in

- use vehicles comply with the emission standards. The current in

- use testing regulations provide for reduced levels of testing for small manufacturers, including no testing in some cases. EPA suggested that these provisions should continue for small manufacturers with the Tier 3 program. The Panel recommended that EPA propose that small businesses be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 431 of 888 allowed to have reduced burden under the in

- use testing program for Tier 3 vehicles. One SER requested that EPA eliminate some of the evaporative emission testing requirements for small businesses based on its belief that some of the tests may be duplicative. While EPA noted (during the Panel process) that it understood the reasons behind the manufacturer’s suggestion, EPA believed it may be premature to consider such an option in the Tier 3 rule given the impact of the CO 2 emission standards on engine and fuel s ys tem development. Currently , it is gen erall y understood that the 2

- day diurnal test drives the purge characteristics of evaporative control s ys tems, while the refueling test, and to a lesser degree the 3

- day test, drive the capacity

requirement of evaporative canisters. Prospectively , due to expected changes in engine and fuel s ys tem designs in response to upcoming CO 2 emission standard requirements, this may not be the case. Therefore, at the time of the Panel process, EPA noted its belief that it is appropriate to retain all of the evaporative test procedures. It can be noted that under current regulations, EPA does allow manufacturers to waive 2

- day diurnal testing for certification purposes (see 40 CFR 86.1829

- 01(b)(2)(iii)) and perform only the 2

- day diurnal test as part of the in

- use t esting program (see 40 CFR 86.1845

- 04(c)(5)(ii)). These provisions would continue in the Tier 3 program. In general, EPA noted that it is open to changes that reduce test burden while maintaining the environmental effectiveness of its programs and could consider changes like those suggested b y the SER in the future as the impacts of the future regulations on engine and vehicle design become clearer. EPA also stated that it intends to request comment in the Tier 3 proposal on streamlining the current test procedures for small businesses in way s that would still maintain the overall stringency of the tests. (5) Hardship Provisions The Panel recommended that hardship provisions be provided to small businesses for the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission stand ards. Under the hardship provisions, small businesses would be allowed to appl y for additional time to meet the 100 percent phase

- in requirements for exhaust and evaporative emissions. All hardship requests would be subject to EPA review and approval. Appeals for such hardship relief would be required to be made in writing and submitted well before the earliest date of noncompliance. The request should identify how much time is being requested. Itmust also include evidence that the noncompliance would occur despite the manufacturer's best efforts to comply , and must contain evidence that severe economic hardship would be faced b y the compan y if the relief is not granted. The above provision should effectively provide the opportunity

for small business es to obtain more time to comply with the new Tier 3 standards. (The existing hardship provisions limit the extra time that can be requested to 1 ye ar, but such a limit may or may not be included in the proposed Tier 3 hardship provisions.)

(6) Applicability***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 432 of 888 Under EPA’s current Tier 2 regulations, EPA provides a number of flexibilities for small volume manufacturers. The criteria for determining if a compan y is a small volume manufacturer is based on the annual production level of vehicles and is based on whe ther the compan y produces less than 15,000 vehicles per year. Unlike EPA’s small volume manufacturer criteria noted above, SBA defines which manufacturers are small businesses (and therefore should be considered under the SBAR Panel process) based on the number of emplo yees for vehicle manufacturers and annual revenues for ICIs and alternative fuel converters. For example, SBA defines small business vehicle manufacturers as those who have less than 1,000 employ ees. Similarly , SBA defines small business I CI s as those who have annual revenues of less than $8 million per year. The Panel recommended that EPA propose to allow all small businesses that meet the SBA criteria be eligible for the flexibilities described above. In addition, in the Panel Report, EP A stated that it is expecting to propose that manufacturers that meet a specified sales

- based criterion to be eligible for the flexibilities described above. It is relatively eas y for a manufacturer to project and ultimately determine sales. Determining the annual revenues or number of employ ees is less straightforward. In the recent rule setting the first light

- duty vehicle and truck CO 2 emission standards, EPA adopted provisions for small manufacturers based on a sales cutoff of 5,000 vehicles per ye ar as opposed to the 15,000 level noted earlier that is used in the Tier 2 program. In the Panel Report, EPA noted that it expects to propose a small volume manufacturer definition based on the 5,000 vehicle per year level for the Tier 3 program. EPA belie ves the 5,000 unit cut

- off for small volume manufacturers would include all of the small business vehicle manufacturers, I CI s, and alternative fuel converters that meet the applicable SBA definition as well as some additional companies that have similar co ncerns to small businesses. L astl y, EPA noted in the Panel Report that it expects to propose the flexibilities described above to be available to any manufacturer that meets either the SBA small business criteria or the sales

- based criteria. EPA invites c omment on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts on small entities. **D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act**  Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531
- 1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited b y law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate , or the private sector in an y one year. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generall y must prepare a written statement, including a cost

- benefit anal ys is, for proposed and final rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result in expenditures to State, loc al, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in an y one ye ar. Accordingl y, EPA has prepared a statement of the cost

benefit anal ys is as required by section 202 of the UMRA; this statement can be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 433 of 888 found in Sections VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory

a lternatives and adopt the least costly , most cost - effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they

are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly , most cost - effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requi rements that may

significantl y or uniquely

affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentiall y affected small governme nts, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timel y input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compli ance with the regulatory requirements. Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives. These alternatives are described above in Sections IV, V, and IX of this preamble. This rule is not subj ect to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory

requirements that might significantl y or uniquely affect small governments. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on an y State, local or tribal governments. EPA has determine d that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantl y or uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this proposal contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the private se ctor in an y one year, however EPA believes that the proposal represents the least costly , and most cost

effective approach to achieve the statutory requirements of the rule. The costs and benefits associated with the proposal are discussed above in Sectio ns VII and VIII of this preamble, and in Chapter 8 of the draft RIA, as required b y section 202 of the UMRA. **E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism**  This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local governments in developing this rule. EPA has also consulted with representatives from the National Associatio n of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA, representing state and local air pollution officials), Northeast***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 434 of 888 States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM, the Clean Air Association of the Northeast States), and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC, a multi

- state organization created under the CAA responsible for advising EPA on transport issues and for developing and implementing regional solutions to the ground

- level ozone problem in the Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic regions). In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specificall y solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. **F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with India**  **n Tribal Governments**  This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed rule would be implemented at the Federal level and would impose compliance costs only on those in the gasoline production, distribution, and additive industry and in the highway and nonroad engine, vehicle, and equipment industries. Tribal governments would be affected onl y to the extent they purchase and use regulated fuels, vehicles, and equipment. Thu s, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 does not appl y t o this action, EPA specificall y solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials. **G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children**  **from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks**  This action is subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is an economicall y significant regulatory action as defined b y EO 12866, and EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. Accordingl y, we have evaluated the environmental health or safet y effects of air pollutants affected b y the proposed standards on children. The results of this evaluation are contained in Section II.B and associated references. Children are more susceptible than adults to many air pollutants because of differences in ph ys iology, higher per body weight breathing rates and consumption, rapid development of the brain and bodily s ys te ms, and behaviors that increase chances for exposure. Even before birth, the developing fetus may be exposed to air pollutants through the mother that affect development and permanently harm the individual. In fants and children breathe at much higher rate s per body weight than adults, with infants under one year of age having a breathing rate up to five times***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 435 of 888 that of adults. 519 Inaddition, children breathe through their mouths more than adults and their nasal passages are less effective at removing polluta nts, which leads to a higher deposition fraction in their lungs. 520 Certain motor vehicle emissions present greater risks to children as well. For example, mutagenic carcinogens such as benzene and 1,3

- butadiene have a larger impact during young life stages , given the rapid development of the corporal sy stems. 521 Exposure at a young age to these carcinogens could lead to a higher risk of developing cancer later in life. The adverse effects of individual air pollutants may be more severe for children, particu larl y the youngest age groups, than adults. The Integrated Science Assessments and Criteria Documents for a number of pollutants affected b y this rule, including those for NO 2 , PM, ozone and CO, describe children as a group with greater susceptibility . Sec tion II.B.5 discusses a number of childhood health outcomes associated with proximity to roadway s, including evidence for exacerbation of asthma symptoms and suggestive evidence for new onset asthma. In general, these studies do not identify the specific contaminants associated with adverse effects, instead addressing the near

- roadway environment as one containing numerous exposures potentially associated with adverse health effects. In addition to their underlying biological susceptibility , as discussed in Section II.B.1, children may be more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution because of their high levels of outdoor activity . As discussed in that section, greater impacts of ozone have been reported among children who are more active outdoors. Sec tion III.C describes the ambient air quality changes resulting from the proposed standards, which represent levels to which the general population is exposed. Children are not expected to experience greater ambient concentrations of air pollutants than th e general population. However, because of their greater susceptibility

to air pollution and their increased time spent outdoors, it is likely that the proposed standards would have particular benefits for children’s health. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer - reviewed studies and data that assess effects of earl y life exposure to the air pollutants affected by the proposed standards.

519 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ( 2009 ) . Metabolically

- derived ventilation rates: a revised approach b ased upon oxygen consumption rates. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R

– 06/129F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=202543. 520 Foos, B.; Marty, M.; Schwartz, J.; Bennet, W.; Moya, J.; Jarabek, A.M.; Salmon, A.G. (2 008) Focusing on children’s inhalation dosimetry and health effects for risk assessment: an introduction. J Toxicol Environ Health 71A: 149

– 165. 521 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ( 2005 ) . Supplemental guidance for assessing susceptibility from early

- life exposure to carcinogens. Washington, DC: Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/ R
- 03/003F. http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/childrens_supplement_final.pdf***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 436 of 888 **H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That**  **Significant ly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use**  Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantl y Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001 ) ), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effec ts to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions identified as “significant energy actions.” Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy actions” as “an y action by an agency (normall y published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry , advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rule making: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or an y successor order, and (ii) is likel y to have a significant adverse effect on the supply , distribution, or use of energy ; or (2) that is designated b y the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.” Given the flexibilities being proposed for entities in the gasoline production and distribution sy stem, we believe that these mitigate an y potential adverse effects on g asoline supply and distribution. Although EPA does not expect this rule to have significant adverse effects on the supply or distribution of gasoline, we have prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this action as follows. This proposal’s potential eff ects on energy

supply , distribution, or use have been analyzed and are further discussed above in:

 Section V

— fuel provisions of the proposed rule and flexibilities, including hardship provisions.

 Section V.2.c

— discussion on proposed refinery lead time.

 Sec tion X

—

proposed economic impacts (specifically , Section X.C for fuel economic impacts, and Section X.D on employment impacts).

 Section VII.B

— estimated costs of the proposed fuel program. Given the estimated costs and impacts of the proposed rule, as discus sed in these areas of this preamble, we do not expect this rule to have any adverse effect on the supply

or distribution of gasoline. Further, we do not believe that there are any reasonable alternatives to the control of sulfur in gasoline which would provide the level of reduction of emissions, considering cost

- benefit anal ys es, given by the reduction in sulfur being proposed in this rule. **I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act**  Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement A ct of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104

- 113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 437 of 888 use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA is proposing to update a number of regulations which already contain voluntary consensus standards to mor e recent versions of these standards. EPA is proposing to use the ASTM International (ASTM) standards listed in Table XII
- 1 below. The standards may be obtained through the ASTM Web site (www.astm.org) or by calling ASTM at (610) 832

– 9585. This proposed rulemaking also involves environmental monitoring or measurement. Consistent with the Agency ’s Performance Based Measurement Sy stem (“PBMS”), EPA prop oses not to require the use of specific, prescribed anal yt ic methods. Rather, the Agency plans to allow the use of an y m ethod that meets the prescribed performance criteria. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost

- effective for the regulated community ; it is also intended to encourage innovation in anal yt ical technology and improved data qualit y. EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performanc e criteria specified. **Table XII**  **- 1**  **Designated Analytical Test Methods for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel** Fuel Parameter Designated Analy tical Method Sulfur in gasoline ASTM D 2622
- 05 Sulfur in butane ASTM D 6667
- 01 500 ppm Sulfur Diesel Fuel ASTM D 2622
- 05 Olefins in gasoline ASTM 1319
- 03 ε1 Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in gasoline ASTM D 5191
- 07, with the following correlation equation: RVP psi = (0.956 * X)

- 0.347 RVP kPa = (0.956 * X)

- 2.39 where: X = total measured vapor pressure in psi or kPa. Distillation in gasoline ASTM D86
- 07b Benzene in gasoline ASTM D 3606
- 07, except that instrument parameters shall be adjusted to ensure complete resolution of benzene, ethanol, and methanol peaks. Aromatics in gaso line ASTM D 5769
- 04, except that sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard are optional.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 438 of 888 Ox ygen and ox ygenate content in gasoline ASTM D 5599
- 00(2005) Aromatics in diesel fuel ASTM D1319
- 03 ε1 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specificall y, invites the public to identify potentially

- applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. **J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmenta**  **l Justice in Minority Populations and Low**  **- Income Populations**  Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy

on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practic able and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

income populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not have disproportionately

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low

- income populations because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having an y disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minorit y or low

- income population. This proposed rule would reduce emissions from all vehicles across the nation, both new vehicles (beginning in model ye ar 2017, when the vehicle standards start to appl y) and existing vehicles (as soon as the lower

- sulfur gasoline becomes available in 2017 or earlier). As such, this pro posal would increase the level of environmental protection for all populations. As discussed in Section III.B.7, there is evidence that minority populations and low

- income populations live disproportionately

near high

- traffic roadway s, where concentration s of many air pollutants are elevated. We expect this proposed rule to increase the level of environmental protection for these populations. Thus, this proposed rule would not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effect on minority or low

- income populations. 

## XIII. **St atutory Pr**  **ovisions and Legal Authority**  Statutory authorit y for this action comes from sections 202, 203

- 209, 211, 213, 216, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7414, 7521, 7522
- 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7545 , 7547, 7550, and 7601. Additional support for the procedural and compliance related aspects of this proposal, including the proposed recordkeeping requirements, comes from sections 114, 208, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7414, 7542, and 7601(a).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 439 of 888 **List of Subjects** 40 CFR Part 79 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Diesel fuel, Energy , Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 80 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Diesel fuel, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Imports, Incorporation by refe rence, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties, Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 85 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Information, Imports, In corporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 86 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential Business Info rmation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Part 600 Administrative practice and procedure, Electric power, Fuel economy , In corporation by

reference, Labeling , Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Parts 1036 and 1037 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Incorporation b y reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warranties. 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, In corporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 440 of 888 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: **Part 79 -**  **REGISTRATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES** 1. The authorit y citation for part 79 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 USC 7414, 7524, 7545, and 7601 2. Section 79.5 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (a). b. Revising the paragraph (b) introductory text
. **§ 79.5 Periodic reporting requirements .**  (a) Fuel manufacturers. (1) For each calendar quarter (January through March, April through June, July

through September, October through December) commencing after the date prescribed for a particular fuel in subpart D, fuel manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report for each registered fuel showing the range of concentration of each additive reported under §79.11(a) and the volume of such fuel produced in the quarter. Reports shall be submitted by the required deadline as shown in Table 1 to §79.5 on forms supplied by

the Administrator upon request. **Table 1 to §79.5**  **: Quarterly Reporting Deadlines Calendar Quarter**  **Time Period Covered Quarterly Report**  **Deadline** Quarter One January 1

– March 31 June 1 Quarter Two April 1

– June 30 September 1 Quarter Three July 1

– September 30 December 1 Quarter Four October 1

– December 31 March 31 (2) Fuel manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report annuall y for each registered fuel providing additional data and information as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in the designation of the fuel in subpart D. Reports shall be submitted by

March 31 for the preceding year , or part thereof , on forms supplied by

the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for a particular fuel in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D , or the later registration of a fuel is between October 1 and December 31, no report will be required for the period to the end of that year. (b) Additive manufacturers . Additive manufacturers shall submit to the Administrator a report annually

for each regis tered additive providing additional data and information as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section in the designation of the additive in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D. Additive manufacturers shall also report annually the volume of each additive p roduced. Reports shall be submitted by March 31 for the preceding year , or part thereof

, on forms supplied by

the Administrator upon request. If the date prescribed for a particular additive in 40 CFR part 80 subpart D , or the later registration of an addi tive is between October 1 and December 31, no report will be required for the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 441 of 888 period to the end of that year. These periodic reports shall not, however, be required for any additive that is:
* * * * * **Part 80 -**  **REGULATION OF FUEL AND FUEL ADDITIVES** 3
. The authorit y citation for part 80 is revised to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C., 7414, 7521(l), 7545, and 7601(a). 4
. Section 80.2 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (d). b. Revising paragraph (w). c. Revising paragraph (z). d. Adding paragraphs (vvv), (www), (xxx), (yyy), (zzz), and (aaaa). **§ 80.2 Definitions.** 
* * * * * (d) Previously

certified gasoline , or PCG , means gasoline, RBOB or CBOB that previously

has been included in a batch of gasoline for purposes of compl ying with the standards of 40 CFR p art 80 that apply to refiners and importers.
* * * * * (w) Cetane i ndex or “Calculated cetane index” is a number representing the ignition properties of diesel fuel oils from API gravity and mid

- boiling point, as determined b y ASTM International standard method D976

- 06(2011), entitled, “Standard Test Method for Calculated Cetane Index of Distillate Fuels”, approved October 1, 2011. ASTM International test method D976

- 06(2011) is incorporated b y reference. This incorporation b y reference was approved b y the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_feder al_regulations/ibr_locations.html
. * * * * * (z) Aromatic content is the aromatic hydrocarbon content in volume percent as determined b y ASTM International standard test method D1319

- 10, entitled, “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty pes in L iquid Petr oleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption”, approved May 1, 2010. ASTM International test method D1319

- 10 is incorporated b y reference. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S .C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 442 of 888 Copies may

be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959. Copies may be inspected at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability

of this material at NARA, call 202

- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
. * * * * * (vvv) Denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) means an alcohol of the chemical formula C 2 H 6 O which contains a denaturant to make it unfit for human consumption , that is used as an additive in gasoline , and that meets the requirements of § 80.1610
. (www) Ox ygenate manufacturer means an y person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an oxygenate production facility
. (xxx) Ox ygen ate production f acility means any

facility where ox ygenate is produced. (yyy) CBOB means gasoline blendstock that becomes conventional gasoline solely upon the addition of oxygenate. (zzz) Natural gas liquids (NGL) means the components of natural gas (primarily propane, butane, pentane, hexane, and heptane ) that are separated from the gas state in the form of liquids in a natural gas production facility , in a gas processing plant, or in a natural gas pipeline. NGL is sometimes also referred to as “ natural gasoline ”
. (aaaa) Natural gas means a mixture of h ydrocarbon gases that occurs with petroleum deposits, principally methane together with varying quantities of ethane, propane, butane, and other gases. 5
. Section 80.8 is revised to read as follows: **§80.8 Sampling methods for**  **gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel additives, and renewable fuels.**  The sampling methods specified in this section shall be used to collect samples of gasoline, diesel, fuel additives and renewable fuels for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this part. (a) Manual sampling. Manual sampling of tanks and pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM International (ASTM) standard practice D4057 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this se ction). (b) Automatic sampling. Automatic sampling of petroleum products in pipelines shall be performed according to the applicable procedures specified in ASTM***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 443 of 888 International (ASTM) standard practice D4177 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this section). (c) Sampling and sample handling for volatility measurement. Samples to be anal yz ed for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) shall be collected and handled according to the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5842 (incorporated b y ref erence, see paragraph (e) of this section). (d) Sample compositing. Composite samples shall be prepared using the applicable procedures in ASTM standard practice D5854 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (e) of this section). (e) Materials incorp orated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Doc ket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.htm l . For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency

at 734
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purc hase copies of these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959, or by

contacting ASTM International customer service at 10

- 832
- 9585, or by contacting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard practice D4057

- 06 (Reapproved 2011) (“ASTM International D4057”), Standard practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved June 1, 2011. (ii) ASTM International standard practice D4177

- 95 (Reapproved 2010) (“ASTM International D4177”), Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2 010. (iii) ASTM International standard practice D5842

- 04 (Reapproved 2009) (“ASTM International D5842”), Standard Practice for Sampling and Handling of Fuels for Volatility

Measurement, approved June 1, 2009. (iv) ASTM International standard practice D5854
- 96 (Reapproved 2010) (“ASTM International D5854”), Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, approved May 1, 2010.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 444 of 888 (2) [Reserved] 6
. A new section 80.10 is added to subpart A to read as follows: **§ 80.10 Correction of batch volume reports.**  For purposes of compliance with the reporting requirements of this part , parties required to submit batch reports are not required to correct unintentional errors in reporting batch volume on previously submitted batch reports where all of the following circumstances appl y: (a) The reporting violation pertains solely to the volume of the batch. (b) The volume of the batch is incorrect b y no more than 500 gallons or b y no more than 1 percent of the true batch volume, in gallons, whichever value (in gallons) is less. (c) Reporting the true volumes of all the batches for the reporting period would not result in a higher annual average sulfur or benzene value than reported using the incorrect values after roundin g to the applicable digit for reporting. (d) Reporting the true value for an y batch would not result in a reduced number of gallons for a violation of any per - gallon standard or a violation of an y other requirement of the Clean Air Act. (e) The reportin g part y certifies that the conditions in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section have been met. (f) For subpart M of this part , this section applies only to the volume of fuels produced or exported that result in a renewable volume obligation under sub part M of this part for obligated parties.
7
. Section 80.46 is amended by : a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4). b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2)(i) introductory text
. c. Revising paragraph (c). d. Revising paragraph (d). e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), and adding a new paragraph (e)(3). f. Revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3)(i). g. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i). h
. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text and paragraph (h)(1). **§80.46 Measurement of r**  **eformulated gasoline and conventional gasoline**  **fuel parameters.** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 4 45 of 888 (a) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2014 , the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined b y ASTM International standard method D2622 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this s ection) or b y one of the alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. Beginning November 30, 2014 , the sulfur content of gasoline must be determined by a test method approved under §80.47. (2) Through November 29, 2014 , the sulfur content of butane must be determined by ASTM International standard method D6667 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) or by one of the alternative test methods specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. (3) Thr ough November 29, 2014 , any refiner or importer may

use an y of the following methods for determining the sulfur content of gasoline provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section :( i) ASTM International standard test method D5453 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (ii) ASTM International standard test method D6920 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (iii) ASTM International standard test method D3120 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (iv) ASTM International standard test method D7039 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (4) Beginning November 30, 2014 , the sulfur cont ent of butane must be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. Through November 29, 2014 , any refiner or importer may

determine the sulfur content of butane using any one of the following methods; provided the refiner or importer test result is correlated with the method specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section: (i) ASTM International standard method D4468 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). (ii) ASTM International standard method D3246 (incorporated by referenc e, see paragraph (h) of this section). (b) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2014 , olefin content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 446 of 888 this section). Beginning November 30, 2014 , the olefin content of gasoline may be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. (2)(i) Through November 29, 2014 , an y refiner or importer may determine olefin content using ASTM International standard method ASTM D6550 (incorporated b y reference , see paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeting an y t esting requirements involving olefin content, provided that:
* * * * * (c) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). Through November 29, 2014 , Reid Vapor Pressure must be determined using ASTM Internat ional standard method D5191 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except the following correction equation must be used: RVP psi = (0.956 * X)

– 0.347 RVP kPa = 0.956 * X)

– 2.39 Where: X = Total measured vapor pressure, in psi or kPa. Beginning November 30, 2014 , RVP may be determined by

a test method approved under §80.47. (d) Distillation. Through November 29, 2014 , distillation parameters must be determined using ASTM International standard method D86 ((incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 30, 2014 , the distillation parameters may

be determined by

a test method approved under §80.47. (e) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2014 , benzene content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D3606 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section), except that: (2) Instrument parameters shall be adj usted to ensure complete resolution of the benzene, ethanol and methanol peaks because ethanol and methanol may cause interference with ASTM International D3606 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) when present. (3) Beginning Nov ember 30, 2014 , the benzene content may be determined by

a test method approved under §80.47. (f)(1) Through November 29, 2014 , aromatic content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5769 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h ) of this section), except the sample chilling requirements in section 8 of this standard***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 447 of 888 method are optional. Beginning November 30, 2014 , the aromatic content may be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. (2) * * * (3) (i) Through November 29, 2014 an y refiner or importer may determine aromatics content using ASTM International standard method D1319 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for the purposes of meeting any test requirement involving aromatic content; provided that:
* * * * * (g) * * * (1) Through November 29, 2014 , oxygen and ox ygenate content must be determined using ASTM International standard method D5599 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section). Beginning November 30, 2014 , oxygen and oxygenate content may

be determined b y a test method approved under §80.47. (2)(i) Through November 29, 2014 , when ox ygenates present are limited to MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary

- amyl alcohol and C1 to C4 alcohols, any refiner, importer, or ox ygenate blender may determine oxygen and oxygen content using ASTM International standard method D4815 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (h) of this section) for purposes of meeting an y testing requirement; provided that:
* * * * * (h) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. An yone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Do cket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Ai r Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741

- 6030 or go to: http://www .archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.htm l . For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency

at 734
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purchase copie s of these materials from the ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959, or by

contacting ASTM International customer service at 10

- 832
- 9585, or by contacting the email address of serv ice@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 448 of 888 (i) ASTM International standard method D3606

- 10 (“ASTM International D3606”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in F inished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography , approved October 1, 2010. (ii) ASTM International standard method D1319

- 10 (“ASTM International D1319”), “Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty pes in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Ind icator Absorption”, approved May 1, 2010. (iii) ASTM International standard method D6550

- 10 (“ASTM International D6550”), “Standard Test Method for the Determination of Olefin Content of Gasolines by Supercritical

- Fluid Chromatograph y”, approved October 1 , 2010. (iv) ASTM International standard method D4815

- 09 (“ASTM International D4815”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary

- Am ylAlcohol and C 1 to C 4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatograph y”, approved October 1, 2 009. (v) ASTM International standard method D2622

- 10 (“ASTM International D2622”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X

- Ray

Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (vi) ASTM International stand ard method D2622

- 10 (“ASTM International D2622”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X

- Ray

Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (vii) ASTM International standard method D3246

- 11 (“ASTM Intern ational D3246”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by Oxidative Microcoulometry”, approved June 1, 2011. (viii) ASTM International standard method D5599

- 00(2010) (“ASTM International D5599”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Ox yg enates in Gasoline b y Gas Chromatograph y and Ox ygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection”, approved October 1, 2010. (ix) ASTM International standard method D5769

- 10 (“ASTM International D5769”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Ox ygenates in Ga soline by Gas Chromatograph y and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection”, approved October 1, 2010. (x) ASTM International standard method D86

- 11a (“ASTM International D86”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Petroleum Products at Atmospheri c Pressure”, approved July

1, 2011. (xi) ASTM International standard method D5453

- 09 (“ASTM International D5453”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in L ight***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 449 of 888 Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oi l by Ultraviolet Fluorescence”, approved June 15, 2009. (xii) ASTM International standard method D6920

– 07 (“ASTM D6920”), Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Naphthas, Distillates, Reformulated Gasolines, Diesels, Biodiesels, and Motor Fuels b y Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection, approved December 1, 2007. (xiii) ASTM International standard method D3120

- 08 (“ASTM International D3120”), “Standard Test Method for Trace Quantities of Sulfur in L ight Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Oxidative Microcoulometry”, approved December 15, 2008. (xiv) ASTM International standard method D7039

– 07 (“ASTM D7039”), Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X

- ray Fluorescence Spectrometry , a pproved May

1, 2007. (xv) ASTM International standard method D6667

- 10 (“ASTM International D6667”), “Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Gases b y Ultraviolet Fluorescence”, approv ed October 1, 2010. (xvi) ASTM International standard method D4468

- 85(2006) (“ASTM International D4468”), “Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels b y Hydrogenol ys is and Rateometric Colorimetry”, approved June 1, 2006.
* * * * * 8
. Sectio n 80.47 is revised to read as follows: **§ 80.47**  **Performance -**  **Based Analytical Test Method Approach**  **.** All sample handling, testing procedures and tests must be conducted using good laboratory

practices. (a) Definitions
. As used in this subpart: ( 1 ) Perf ormance - based Analy

tical Test Method Approach means a measurement sy stem based upon established performance criteria for accuracy and precision with use of anal yt ical test methods. As used in this subpart, a measurement sy stem used by laboratories to demo nstrate that a particular anal yt ical test method is acceptable for demonstrating compliance. ( 2 ) Accuracy means the closeness of agreement between an observed value from a single test measurement and an accepted reference value.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 450 of 888 ( 3 ) Precision means the degree of agreement in a set of measurements performed on the same property

of identical test material. (4) Absolute fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which a gravimetric standard is practical to construct and use. Sulfur content of gasoline, butane, or diesel fuel are examples of an absolute fuel parameter. (5) Gravimetric standard means a test material made by adding a carefully weighed quantit y of the analyte to a measured quantity of another substance known not to contain an y of the anal yt e, resulting in a solution with an accuratel y known concentrate of the anal yt e. (6) Conse nsus named fuels are homogeneous quantities of fuel that have been anal yz ed b y a number of different laboratories (by sending around small samples). The average concentration of some parameter of interest across all of the different laboratories is then used as the “consensus name” for that material. (7) Locall y - named reference materials are gasoline or diesel fuels that are usually from the regular production of the facility where they

are used in laboratory

qualit y control efforts and have been analyze d using the designated method (either by the facility ’s lab or by

a referee lab) to obtain an estimate of their concentration. (8) Method

- defined fuel parameter means a fuel parameter for which an EPA

prescribed primary

test method or designated method de fines the regulatory standard. Examples of method

- defined fuel parameters include olefin content in gasoline, Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of gasoline, distillation parameters of gasoline, benzene content of gasoline, aromatic content of gasoline and diesel fuel, and ox ygen/ox ygenates content of gasoline. (9) Reference Installations are designated test method installations that are used to qualify the accuracy

of other method

- defined parameter instruments. Reference installations of the designated test m ethod will be used to evaluate the accuracy of other method

- defined alternative test methods and to establish correlation equations if necessary . (10) Correlation equation is a correction equation as determined b y the use of ASTM International standard pr actice D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). This standard practice determines whether the comparison between the alternative test method and the designated test method is a null result. If the comparison is not null, then the standard practice provides for a correlation equation that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method

- defined alternative test method. (11) Statistical quality

control (SQC) means a planned sy stem of activities whose purpose is to provide a level of quality that meets the needs of compliance with the standards of this part . This subpart prescribes specific SQC requirements for both***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 451 of 888 absolute and method driven fuel parameters for both VCSB and non

- VCSB regulated parties. (12 ) Voluntary

consensus - based standards body (VCSB) means a domestic or international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using agreed

- upon procedures and which possesses the attributes of openness, ba lance of interest, due process, and consensus, as explained in OMB Circular A
- 119 and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, P.L . 104
- 113, sec. 12(d). (13) Non
- Voluntary

consensus - based standards body (non

- VCSB) means a domestic or international regulated part y who has developed a proprietary analytical test method that has not been adopted b y a VCSB organization. (b) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval for the absolute fuel parameter of gasoline sulfur. (1) Precision. Be ginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at §80. 195 and §80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by 2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D7039

- 07 (Example: A 10ppm sulfur gasoline sample: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.75ppm/2.77)=0.95 ppm). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analy sis and no emis sions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) Accuracy . Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline sulfur standard at § § 80. 195 and 80.1603: (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laborat ory

practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1

- 10 ppm shall not differ from the accepted reference value (ARV) of the standard b y more than 0.71 ppm sulfur; (ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory

practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10

- 20 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of the standard by more than 1.00 ppm sulfur; and (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for an y known chemical interferences using good laboratory

practices.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 452 of 888 (3) The test method specified at §80.46(a)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. (c) Precision and accuracy criteria for approval of the absolute fuel parameter of sulfur in butane. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for butane subject to the butane sulfur stan dard at §§80.82, 80.195, 80.340(b), and 80.1603, the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practic es taken from a single homogeneous commercially available butane must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D6667

- 10 (Example: A 10 ppm sulfur butane sample: maximum allowa ble standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.15ppm/2.77)=0.62 ppm). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analy sis and no emissions. A laboratory

facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) Accuracy
. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for butane subject to the butane sulfur standard at §§80.82 and 80.1603: (i) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory

practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 1

- 10 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of the standard b y mor e than 0.47 ppm sulfur; (ii) The arithmetic average of a continuous series of at least 10 tests performed using good laboratory

practices on a commercially available gravimetric sulfur standard in the range of 10

- 20 ppm shall not differ from the ARV of th e standard by more than 0.94 ppm sulfur; and (iii) In applying the tests of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, individual test results shall be compensated for an y known chemical interferences using good laboratory

practices. (3) The test method specified at §80.46(a)(2) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. (d) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of olefins in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part , the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 453 of 888 over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319

- 10 (Example: A gasoline containing 9Vol% olefins: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.972Vol%/2.77)=0.53Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analy sis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test me thod specified at §80.46(b)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in gasoline
. (1) Precision. Beginn ing November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part , the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests pe r week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeata bility of ASTM D1319

- 10 (Example: A gasoline containing 32Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol%). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analy sis and no emissions. A lab oratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(f)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this section. (f) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of oxygen and ox ygenate content in gas oline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part , the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made ove r 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, whe re “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5599

- 00(2010) (Example: A gasoline containing 3Mass% total ox ygen: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.083Mass%/2.77)=0.045Mass%). The 20 results must be a series of tests***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 454 of 888 with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory

practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The t est method specified at §80.46(g )(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph ( f )(1) of this section. (g) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part and the volatility standards at §80.27 , the maximum allowable standard deviatio n computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 days (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commercially available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability

“r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM 5191
- 10b (Example: A gasoline having a RVP of 6.8psi: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.21psi/2.77)=0.11psi). The 20 results mu st be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory

practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46( c )(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph ( g )(1) of this section. (h) Precision criteria for approval of the m ethod defined fuel parameter of gasoline distillation. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part , the maximum allowable standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D86

- 11a for the initial boiling point, E10, E50, E90 and final boiling point. (Example: A gasoline having an initial boiling point of 20 0 C and a final boiling point of 110 0 C: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for initial boiling point≤1.5*(2.84 0 C/2.77)=1.54 0 C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E10 ≤1.5*(1.33 0 C/2.77)=0.72 0 C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E50 ≤1.5*(0.74 0 C/2.77)=0.40 0 C, maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for E90t≤1.5*(1.79 0 C/2.77)=0.97 0 C, and maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests for final boiling point≤1.5*(3.33 0 C/2.77)=1.80 0 C ). The 20 results must be a series of test s with a sequential record of analy sis and no***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 455 of 888 emissions. A laboratory

facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintains records regarding the sample and test res ults and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(d)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section. (i) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel par ameter of benzene in gasoline. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle gasoline and gasoline fuel additives subject to the gasoline standards of this part and the MSAT2 standards at § §80. 41, 80. 101, and 80. 1230, the maximum allowab le standard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D3606

- 10 (Example: A gasoline having a 1Vol% benzene: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(0.04Vol%/2.77)=0.02Vol %). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of anal ys is and no emissions. A laboratory

facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintai ns records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(e)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (i)(1) of this section. (j) Precision criteria for approval of the method defined fuel parameter of aromatics in diesel. (1) Precision. Beginning November 30, 2014 , for motor vehicle diesel and diesel fuel additives subject to the motor vehicle diesel standards at §80. 520, the maximum allowable stan dard deviation computed from the results of a minimum of 20 tests made over 20 day s (7 or fewer tests per week and 2 or fewer tests per day) on samples using good laboratory

practices taken from a single homogeneous commerciall y available gasoline must be less than or equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” divided by

2.77, where “r” equals the ASTM repeatability of ASTM D1319

- 10 (Example: A diesel fuel containing 35Vol% aromatics: maximum allowable standard deviation of 20 tests ≤1.5*(1.3Vol%/2.77)=0.70Vol %). The 20 results must be a series of tests with a sequential record of analy sis and no emissions. A laboratory facility may exclude a given sample or test result only if the exclusion is for a valid reason under good laboratory practices and it maintai ns records regarding the sample and test results and the reason for excluding them. (2) The test method specified at §80.46(j)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2014 is exempt from the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 456 of 888 (k) Criteria for designated test method reference installations used to qualify the accuracy of other method

- defined parameter instruments. (1) Beginning November 30, 2014 , the reference installation of the method

defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test meth od must have precision equal to 1.5 times the repeatability “r” of the method

- defined fuel parameter’s designated test method, where “r” is the repeatability of the designated test method. (i) Olefins in gasoline see paragraph (d)(1) of this section
. (i i) Aromatics in gasoline see paragraph (e)(1) of this section
. (iii) Ox ygen and Ox ygenate content of gasoline see paragraph (f)(1) of this section
. (iv) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline see paragraph (g)(1) of this section
. (v) Gasoline Distillation see paragraph (h)(1) of this section
. (vi) Benzene in Gasoline see paragraph (i)(1) of this section. (vii) Aromatics in Diesel see paragraph (j)(1) of this section
. (2) The reference installation of the method

- defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be near the middle distribution of an industry monthly inter

- laboratory

crosscheck program for at least a period of five months using good laboratory

practices. Specificall y, compute the dif ference between the instrument’s average measurement of the fuel closest to the applicable fuel standard (or to the average value for the fuel parameter in the complex model) and the robust mean for that fuel obtained b y all of the non

- outlier labs in the monthly inter

- laboratory

crosscheck program. Standardize this difference b y expressing it in robust standard deviation units. These standardized inter

- laboratory crosscheck differences should be placed in a moving average with a minimum span of five months. The instrument’s moving average in robust standard deviation units cannot be outside the central 50% of the distribution of all laboratories that participated in the inter

- laboratory crosscheck program. (3) The reference installation of the method

- defined fuel parameter for the applicable designated test method must be shown to be in statistical quality control as specified in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) for a minimum period of five months using good laboratory practices. (l) Qualification criteria for Voluntary Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method

- Defined Parameter Test Methods.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 457 of 888 (1) Beginning November 30, 2014 , include full test method documentation by the Voluntary

Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) organization, including a description of the technology

and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional. (2) Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision inform ation for the method

- defined fuel parameter as described in this section. (3) Include information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method has been evaluated using ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) and whether the comparison is a “null” result or whether a correlation equation needs to be applied that predicts designated test method results from the applicable method

- defined alternative test method. (4) The test meth ods specified at §§ 80.2(w) and 80.46(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1), and (g)(1) and in use prior to May 30, 2013 are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section. (m) Qualification criteria for Non

- Voluntary Consen sus Standard Based (non

VCSB) Method

- Defined Parameter Test Methods
. For a non
- VCSB method to be approved , the following information must be submitted to the Administrator by each test facility for each method that it wishes to have approved. (1) Beginni ng November 30, 2014 , full and thorough test method documentation, including a description of the technology and/or instrumentation that makes the method functional so a person lacking experience with the test instrument would be able to replicate its resu lts. (2) Information reported in the test method that demonstrates the test method meets the applicable precision information using good laboratory practices for the method

- defined fuel parameter as described in this section. (3) Both the candidate metho d

- defined Non

- VCSB test method and its respective designated test method must be tested on a range of consensus named fuels or locally

named reference materials that are t ypical of those anal yz ed b y the facility in practice using good laboratory

practices and must meet the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). (4) The facility

using the candidate method

- defined non

- VCSB test method must statistically

establi sh through application of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) that the candidate method measures the same aspect of samples as applicable to its respective designated test method using good laboratory practices.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 458 of 888 (5) I f the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) reveals that the candidate method

- defined non

- VCSB test method has sample

- specific biases due to matrix effects that cannot be determined as random the method is disqual ified. If however, it is determined that the candidate method

- defined non - VCSB test method can be qualified on a narrow circumscribed range of fuels while still meeting the data requirements for variability as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorpo rated by

reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) (see paragraph (m)(3) of this section), then the ty pes of fuels on which the qualification was achieved and for which the method is to be approved must be specified in the candidate method

defined non

- VCSB test method description. If there is any restriction on the scope of fuels for which the candidate method

- defined non

- VCSB test method is to be qualified, the applicant must include a discussion of how the facility plans to screen sample for conformi ty

to the scope. If the candidate method

- defined test method is found to have minimal matrix effects, a statement to this effect must be included by the applicant in its application. (6) The candidate method

- defined non

- VCSB test method precision qualifi cation must be conducted in the form of “cross

- method reproducibility” (Rcm) of the candidate method and applicable designated test method as required in ASTM International D6708 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section), where the Rcm must be equal to or less than 70 percent of the published reproducibility of the applicable designated test method using good laboratory practices. (7) The applicant of the candidate method

- defined non

- VCSB test method must demonstrate through the use of ASTM D6708 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) whether a correlation to applicable designated test method is necessary . If it is determined through the use of this practice that the candidate method

defined non

- VCSB test method requires a correlation equation in order to predict designated test method results, then this correlation equation must be applied to the candidate instruments output to obtain measurement results for regulatory purposes using good laboratory

practices. (8) An y additional information requested b y the Administrator and necessary to render a decision as to approval of the test method. (9) Samples used for precision and accuracy determination must be retained for 90 day s. (10) EPA approval. Within 90 day s of the receipt of materials required to be submitted under paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, the Administrator shall determine whether the test method is approved under this section. (11) If the Administrator denies approval of the test meth od, within 90 day s of receipt of all materials required to be submitted in paragraphs (m)(1) through ( 9 ) of this section, the Administrator will notify the applicant of the reasons for not approving the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 459 of 888 method. If the Administrator does not notify the app licant within 90 day s of receipt of the application, then the test method shall be deemed approved. (12) The Administrator may revoke approval of a test method under this section for cause, including, but not limited to, a determination by the Administrat or that the approved test method has proved to be inadequate in practice. (13) An independent third

- part y scientific review and written report and verification of the information provided pursuant to paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section. The rep ort and verification shall be based upon a site visit and review of relevant documents and shall separatel y identify each item required b y paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this section, describe how the independent third

- part y evaluated the accuracy of the information provided, state whether the independent third

- party agrees with the information provided, and identify an y exceptions between the independent third

- part y’s findings and the information provided. (i) The information required under this sectio n to be provided b y an independent third party

must be conducted by

both a professional chemist and professional statistician as specified in paragraph (m)(13)(i)(A) of this section. The verifying chemist and statistician must be: (A) For a refiner, imp orter, ox ygenate producer, and ox ygen ate blender, a chemist and statistician who has received at least a bachelor’s degree in science from an accredited college in the United States, with professional work experience in the petroleum or ox ygenate field. (B) [Reserved] (ii) To be considered an independent third

- part y under this paragraph (m)(13): (A) The third

- part y shall not be employed b y the refiner, importer, ox ygenate producer, or ox ygenate blender, or an y subsidiary or employee of the refiner, import facility , oxygenate producing facility , or oxygenate blender. (B) The third part y shall be free from an y interest in the refiner’s, importer’s, oxygenate producer’s, or oxygenate blender’s business. (C) The refiner, importer, oxygenate producer, o r oxygenate blender shall be free from an y interest in the third

- part y’s business. (D) Use of a third

- part y that is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment pursuant to the Government

- wide Debarment and Suspension regulations, 40 CFR part 32, or the Debarment, Suspension and Ineligibility provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 48 CFR part 9 subpart 9.4, shall be deemed in noncompliance with the requirements of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 460 of 888 (iii) The independent third

- part y shall retain all records p ertaining to the verification required under this section for a period of five ye ars from the date of creation and shall deliver such records to the Administrator upon request. (iv) The third

- part y must provide to EPA documentation of his or her qualific ations as part of the scientific review, including proof of appropriate college degree. (14) If the Administrator finds that an individual test facility has provided false or inaccurate information under this section, upon notice from the Administrator the approval shall be void ab initio
. (n) Accuracy

and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Absolute Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014 , a test shall not be considered a test using an approved test method unless the following quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument used to make measurements: (1) Accuracy

SQC. Every

facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a commerciall y available gravimetric reference material, or check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (r) of this sect ion) on at least a quarterl y basis using good laboratory practices. The facility

must pre - treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facilit y mus t construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back

- to - back tests of the standard referen ce material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y the facility. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as w ell as an y investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. (2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM Inter national D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must construct and maintain an “I” chart as described in section 7 and sect ion A1.5.1 and a “MR” chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility

and records kept for a period of 5 y ears. (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is maki ng a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the “Q

- Procedure” in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). In follow ing the Q

Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 461 of 888 shows no special

- cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the facility

for a period o f 5 years. (o) Accuracy

and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Voluntary

Consensus Standard Based (VCSB) Method

- Defined Fuel Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014 , a test shall not be considered a test using an approved te st method unless the following qualit y control procedures are performed separatel y for each instrument used to make measurements: (1) Accuracy

SQC. Every

facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a commerciall y available check standard as def ined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterl y basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parame ter of interest close to either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use for the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of the check standard must be determined b y the respective designated test method for the fuel parameter followin g the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299. The facility must pre - treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must co nstruct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back

- to - back tests of the standard reference m aterial and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y the facility. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as an y investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. (2)(i) Precision SQC. Every facility shall conduct tests of every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM Internati onal D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions tests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must construct and maintain an “I” chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a “MR” chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel of the facility

and records kept for a period of 5 y ears. (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the “Q

- Procedure” in Annex 1.9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). In following the Q

Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows no special

- cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the facility

for a period of 5 years. (p) Accuracy

and Precision Statistical Quality Control (SQC) Requirements for the Non

- Voluntary

Consensus Standard Based (Non

- VCSB) Method

- Defined Fuel***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 462 of 888 Parameters. Beginning November 30, 2014 , a test shall not be considered a test using an approve d test method unless the following quality control procedures are performed separately for each instrument used to make measurements: (1) Accuracy

SQC for Non

- VCSB Method

- Defined test methods with minimal matrix effects. Every

facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a commerciall y available check standard as defined in the ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) on at least a quarterl y basis using good laboratory practices. The check standard must be an ordinary fuel with levels of the fuel parameter of interest close to either the applicable regulatory standard or the average level of use for the facility. The Accepted Reference Value of th e check standard must be determined b y the respective designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM International standard practice D6299. The facility must pre - treat and assess results from the check standard testing afte r at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstanc es where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back

- to - back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility of the test method must be investigated b y the facility. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as an y investigations into any exceedance of these criteria must be kept for a period of 5 years. (2)(i) Accuracy

SQC for Non

- VCSB Method

- Defined test methods with high sensitivity

to matrix effects. Every

facility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a production fuel on at least a quarterl y basis using good laboratory practices. The production fuel must be representative of the productio n fuels that are routinely anal yz ed by the facility . The Accepted Reference Value of the production fuel must be determined by the respective reference installation of the designated test method for the fuel parameter following the guidelines of ASTM Inte rnational standard practice D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section). The facility must pre

- treat and assess results from the check standard testing after at least 15 testing occasions as described in section 8.2 of this standard practice. The facility must construct “MR” and “I” charts with control lines as described in section 8.4 and appropriate Annex sections of this standard practice. In circumstances where the absolute difference between the mean of multiple back

- to - back tests of the standard reference material and the accepted reference value of the standard reference material is greater than 0.75 times the published reproducibility

of the test method must be investigated by the facility . Documentation on the identity

o f the reference installation and its control status must be maintained on the premises of the method

- defined alternative test method. Records of the standard reference materials measurements as well as an y i nvestigations into an y exceedances of this crite rion must be kept for a period of 5 years. (ii) Each facility

is required to send every 20 th production batch of gasoline or diesel fuel to EPA’s laboratory , along with the facility ’s measurement result used to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 463 of 888 certify the batch using the respective metho d

- defined non

- VCSB test method. The EPA retains the right to return such sample on a blind basis for a required reanalysis on the respective method

- defined non

- VCSB test method within 180 day s upon receipt of such sample. (3) (i) Precision SQC. Every f acility shall conduct tests on every instrument with a quality control material as defined in paragraph 3.2.3 in ASTM International D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) either once per week or once per every 20 productions t ests, whichever is more frequent. The facility must construct and maintain an “I” chart as described in section 7 and section A1.5.1 and a “MR” chart as described in section A1.5.2. Any violations of control limit(s) should be investigated by personnel o f the facility

and records kept for a period of 5 y ears. (ii) Validation of New QC Material. When a test facility is making a transition from one batch of QC material to the next batch of QC material, the facility will follow the “Q

- Procedure” in Annex 1 .9 of ASTM International standard practice D6299 (incorporated b y reference, see paragraph (r) of this section) using good laboratory practices. In following the Q

- Procedure if the plot of results from the old and new QC materials on its respective chart shows no special

- cause signals, then the result of the new QC material will be considered valid. These records must be kept by the facility

for a period of 5 ye ars. (q) Record retention requirements for the test methods approved under this subpart. (1) Each individual test facility must retain records related to the establishment of accuracy and precision values, all test method documentation, and any statistical quality control testing and anal ysis under this section using good laboratory practices for a period for five ye ars. (2) [Reserved] (r) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. An yone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.htm l . For further information on these test methods, please contact the Environmental Protection Agency

at 734
- 214
- 4582.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 464 of 888 (1) A STM International material. An yone may purchase copies of these materials from the ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428
- 2959, or b y contacting ASTM International customer service at 10

- 832
- 9585, or by contacting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard practice D6708

- 08 (“ASTM International D6708”), “Standard Practice for Statistical Assessment and Improvement of Expected Agreement Between Two Test Methods that Purport to Measure the Same Property of a Material”, approved December 15, 2008. (ii) ASTM International standard practice D6299

- 10 ε1 (“ASTM Inte rnational D6708”), “Standard Practice for Appl yi ng Statistical Qualit y Assurance and Control Charting Techniques to Evaluate Anal yt ical Measurement Sy stem Performance”, approved March 1, 2010. (2) [Reserved] 7
. Section 80. 65 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (d)(1). b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(iv). c. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(2)(v)(E). d. Revising paragraph (d)(3). e. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(1)(i), and (e)(2) introductory

text. f. Adding paragraph s (e)(3) and (e)(4). g . Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(3)(iii)(A). h
. Adding a new paragraph (f)(5). i. Revising paragraph (i) introductory text. j. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii). k. Revising paragraphs (i)(4)(ii) introductory text and (i)(4)(ii)(A). l. Revising paragraph (i)(6)(i). **§80. 6**  **5 General requirements for refiners and importers.** 
* * * * * (d) * * * (1) All gasoline produced or imported shall be properly designated as reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB. (2) * * * (iv) [Reserved]***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 465 of 888 (v) * * * (E) [Reserved]
* * * * * (3) Every batch of reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline , RBOB , or CBOB produced or imported at each refinery or import facility

shall be assigned a number (the “batch number”), consisting of the EPA

- assigned refiner or importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the last two digits of the year in which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for th e first batch produced or imported each calendar ye ar and each subsequent batch during the calendar ye ar being assigned the next sequential number ( e.g. , 4321

– 54321

– 95

– 000001, 4321

– 543321

– 95

– 000002, etc.)
. (e) * * * (1) Except as provided in paragraph s (e) (3) and ( 4 ) of this section, each refiner or importer shall , for each batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported , determine the volume and the value of each of the properties specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, except that the value for RVP must be determined only in the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is VOC

- controlled. These determinations shall: (i) Be based on a representative sample of the reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is analyzed using the methodolog ies specified in §80.46 through November 29, 2014 , or, beginning November 30, 2014 , in §80.47 ;
* * * * * (2) In the event that the value of an y of these properties is determined b y the refiner or importer and by an independent laboratory in conformance w ith the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section:
* * * * * (3) Beginning January

1, 2013, APIGravit y is not required to be measured or reported for the purpose of batch certification. (4) For the purposes of meeting the requirements of this paragraph (e) for any winter fuel parameter except benzene, ox ygenate, RVP and sulfur, an y refiner or importer may , prior to anal ys is, combine samples of gasoline collected from more than one batch of gasoline or blendstock (“composite sample”), and treat such composite sample as one batch of gasoline or blendstock provided that the refiner or importer meets all of the following requirements :***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 466 of 88 8 (i) Samples must be from a single reporting ye ar, must be limited to non

- VOC gasoline, and must be of a single gra de of gasoline or of a single t ype of batch

- produced blendstock. (ii) Combines samples of gasoline that are produced or imported over a period no longer than one month. Blendstock samples of a single blendstock type obtained from continuous processes ove r a calendar month may be mixed together to form one blendstock sample and the sample subsequentl y analyzed for the required fuel parameters. (iii)(A) Samples shall have been collected and stored using good laboratory practices in order to prevent change in product composition with regard to baseline properties and to minimize loss of volatile fractions of the sample. (B) Properties of the retained samples shall be adjusted for loss of butane b y comparing the RVP measured immediatel y after blending with the RVP determined at the time that the supplemental properties are measured. (C) The volume of each batch or shipment sampled , to the nearest gallon, shall have been noted and the sum of the volumes , in gallons, calculated
. (iv) For each batch or shipment sampled, the ratio of its volume to the total volume determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iii)(C) of this section shall be determined to three decimal places. This shall be the volumetric fraction of the shipment in the mixture. (v) The total minimum volume r equired to perform duplicate anal ys es to obtain values of all of the required fuel parameters shall be determined. (vi) The volumetric fraction determined in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section for each batch or shipment shall be multiplied by the value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(v) of this section. (vii) The resulting value determined in paragraph (e)(4)(vi) of this section for each batch or shipment shall be the volume of each batch or shipment's sample to be added to the mixture. This volume shall be determined to the nearest milliliter. (viii) The appropriate volumes of each shipment's sample shall be thoroughly mixed and the solution analyzed per the methods required under §80.46 or § 80.47, as applicable. (ix) Uses the total of the volumes of the batches of gasoline that comprise the composite sample, and the results of the anal ys es of the composite sample, for purposes of compliance calculations under this paragraph (e)
. (f) * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 467 of 888 (1) * * * (i) Option 1. The refiner or importer shall, for each batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB that is produced or imported, have the value for each property specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section determined b y an independent laboratory that collects and anal yz e s a representative sample from the batch using the methodologies specified in §80.46 through November 29, 2014 , and the methodologies specified in §80.47 beginning November 30, 2014
. * * * * * (3) * * * (iii) * * * (A) A report for the period January through March shall be submitted by June 1 ; a report for the period April through June shall be submitted by September 1 ; a report for the period July

through September shall be submitted byDecember 1 ; and a report for the period October through December shall be submitted byMarch 31
. Beginning, January 1, 201 4 , a single annual report for calendar ye ar January through December may

be submitted by

the following March 31
. * * * * * (5) A refiner or importer may designate one alternate independent laborato ry , to be used onl y when the designated independent laboratory per paragraph (f)(2) of this section is unavailable and cannot perform testing required for compliance. (i) The alternate independent laboratory must meet all provisions of this section for de signated independent laboratories. (ii) An alternate independent laboratory may not be used to select a preferred test result. The alternate laboratory may onl y be used on those occasions where operational necessit y causes a need for it (e.g., the primary designated lab oratory is closed, the apparatus for certain test methods are down, or independent lab oratory personnel are not available).
* * * * * (i) Exclusion of previously certified gasoline. An y refiner who uses previously certified reformulated g asoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB must exclude the previously certified gasoline for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards under §80.41. This exclusion must be accomplished b y the refi ner as follows: (1) * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 468 of 888 (ii) Inthe case of previously certified reformulated gasoline or RBOB determine the emissions performances for toxics and NO X , except as provided in §80.41(e) and (f), and VOC for VOC

- controlled gasoline, and the designations for VOC control. (iii) Inthe case of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB, determine the exhaust toxics and NO X emissions performances, except as provided in § 80.101(c)(3) and (4).
* * * * * (4) * * * (ii) Where a refiner uses previousl y certified conventional gasoline or CBOB to produce reformulated gasoline or RBOB: (A) The refiner must include the volume and properties of any batch of previously certified conventional gasoline or CBOB as a negative batch in the refiner's anti

- dumping compliance calculations under §80.101(g) for the refinery , or where applicable, the refiner's aggregation under §80.101(h); and
* * * * * (6)(i) An y refiner may

use the procedures specified in this paragraph (i) to combine previousl y certified conventio nal gasoline or CBOB with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, to reclassify

conventional gasoline or CBOB into reformulated gasoline or RBOB, or to change the designations of reformulated gasoline or RBOB with regard to VOC control.
* * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 469 of 888 **Subpart D --**  **[Am ended]**  8. Section 80.75 is amended by :
a. Revising paragraph s (a)(1)(i) through (iv). b. By revising paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B). c. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(viii)(D). d. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(ix)(F). e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b). f. Revising paragraph (c)(1). g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text. h. Revising paragraph (d)(1). i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii). j. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text. k. Revising par agraph (e)(1). l. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text. m. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text. n. Revising paragraph (i). o. Removing and reserving paragraph (k). p. Revising paragraph (l). q. Revising paragraph (o) introductory text. **§ 80.75**  **Re porting Requirements** 
* * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (i) The first quarterl y report shall include information for reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from January 1 through March 31, and shall be submitted by June 1 of each year; (ii) The second quarterly

report shall include information for reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from April 1 through June 30, and shall be submitted by

September 1 of each ye ar; (iii) The third quarterly

report shall include information for reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from July 1 through September 30, and shall be submitted by

December 1 of each ye ar; and (iv) The fourth quarterl y report shall include information for reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported from Oct ober 1 through December 31, and shall be submitted by

March 31 of each ye ar.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 470 of 888 (2) * * * (v) * * * (B) The properties, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties, pursuant to §§80.65 and 80.66;
* * * * * (viii) * * * (D) The volume, properties (along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties), and designation of the batch. (ix) * * * (F) The properties of the butane batch, along with the identification of the test method used to measure those properties, specified by the butane supplier, or the properties specified in §80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate;
* * * * * (b) [Reserved] (c) * * * (1) An y refiner or importer that produced or imported an y reformulated gasoline or RBOB unde r the complex model that was to meet the VOC emissions performance standards on average (“averaged reformulated gasoline”) shall submit to the Administrator, with the third quarterl y report, a report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformul ated gasoline produced or imported during the previous VOC averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2014 , the information required b y this paragraph (c) shall be submitted with the annual report. This information shall be reported separately for the follow ing categories:
* * * * * (d) Benzene content averaging reports. Pursuant to §80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery or importer not subject to the applicable standards at §80.41(f)(1), the report required b y this paragraph (d) is not required beginning January 1, 2014 , or beginning January 1, 2016 for all other refiners
. (1) An y refiner or importer that produced or imported an y reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the benzene content standards on average (“averaged re formulated gasoline”) shall submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterl y***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 471 of 888 report, a report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period. Beginning January 1, 2014 , the information required b y this paragraph (d) shall be submitted with the annual report. (2) * * * (iii) The actual total content of benzene, along with identification of the test methods used to measure the content of benzene;
* * * * * (e) Toxics emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to §80.41(f)(3), for any refiner, refinery

or importer not subject to the applicable standards at §80.41(f)(1), the report required b y this paragraph ( e ) is not required beginning January 1, 2014 , or beginning January

1, 2016 for all other refiners
. (1) An y refiner or importer that produced or imported an y reformulated gasoline or RBOB that was to meet the toxics emissions performance standards on average (“averaged reformulated gasoline”) shall submit to the Administrator, with the fourth quarterl y report, a report for each refinery or importer for such averaged reformulated gasoline that was produced or imported during the previous toxics averaging period. Beginning January

1, 201 4 , the in formation required b y this paragraph ( e ) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * * ( g) NO X emissions performance averaging reports. Pursuant to §80.41(f)(2), for any refiner, refinery

or importer not subject to the applicable standards at §80.41(f)(1), the report required b y this paragraph (g) is not required beginning January 1, 201 2
. * * * * * (h) Credit transfer reports. As an additional part of the fourth quarterl y report required b y this section, any refiner or importer shall, for ea ch refinery or importer, supply the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this section for any benzene credits that are transferred from or to another refinery or importer. Beginning January 1, 2014 , the information required b y this paragraph (h) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * * (i) Covered areas of gasoline use report. An y refiner that produced an y reformulated gasoline that was to meet an y reformulated gasoline standard on average (“averaged reformulated gasoli ne”) shall, for each refinery at which such averaged reformulated gasoline was produced, submit to the Administrator, with the fourth***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 472 of 888 quarterl y report, a report that contains the identity of each covered area that was supplied with any averaged reformulate d gasoline produced at each refinery during the previous ye ar. Beginning January 1, 2014 , th e information required b y this paragraph (i) shall be submitted with the annual report.
* * * * * (k) [Reserved] ( l) Reports for per

- gallon compliance gasoline
. In the case of reformulated gasoline or RBOB for which compliance with each of the standards set forth in §80.41 is achieved on a per

- gallon basis, the refiner or importer shall submit to the Administrator, by March 1 of each y ear, a report of the volume of each designated reformulated gasoline or RBOB produced or imported during the previous calendar year for which compliance is achieved on a per

- gallon basis, and a statement that each gallon of this reformulated gasoline or RBOB met the applicable stand ards.
* * * * * (o) Additional reporting requirements for refiners that blend butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB. Fo r refiners that blend any butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB under §80.82, the refiner shall submit to the Administrator, by March 1 of each ye ar, a report for the refinery which includes the following information for the previous calendar ye ar: * * * * * 9
. Section 80. 82 is amended by : a. Revising the introductory text. b. Revising paragraphs (a) through ( d). c. Revising paragraph (e)(1). d. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). **§80.82 Butane blending.** A refiner for an y refinery that produces gasoline by blending butane with previously

certified gasoline may

meet the sampling and testing requirements for this part as follows: (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section, any refinery that blends butane for which the refinery has documents from the butane supplier which demonstrate that the butane is commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (c) of this sec tion, may

demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part based on the properties specified in paragraph (c) of this section, or the properties specified by the butane supplier. (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (i) of this section, any refiner that blends butane for which the refiner has documents from the butane supplier which***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 473 of 888 demonstrate that the butane is non

- commercial grade, as defined in paragraph (d) of this section, may

demonstrate compliance with the standards in this part ba sed on the properties specified in paragraph (d) of this section, or the properties specified by the butane supplier, provided that the refinery : (i) Conducts a quality

assurance program of sampling and testing the butane obtained from each separate butan e supplier which demonstrates that the butane has the properties specified in paragraph (d) of this section; and (ii) The frequency

of sampling and testing for the butane received from each butane supplier must be one sample for every 500,000 gallons of b utane received, or one sample every

three months, whichever is more frequent. (2) Where test results indicate the butane does not meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the refiner may : (i) Blend the butane with conventional gasoline, or reformulated gasoline that has been downgraded to conventional gasoline, provided that any applicable equivalent emissions performance standards of the butane batch, as determined using the provisions in §80.101(g)(3), meets the refinery 's standards un der §80.101 and the refiner meets all of the standards and requirements applicable to refiners of conventional gasoline under this part; (ii) Blend the butane with reformulated gasoline or RBOB, provided that the final batch of butane blended with reformulated gasoline or RBOB meets the per

- gallon standards in §80.41, as determined using the test methods in §80.46. (c) Commercial grade butane is defined as butane for which test results demonstrate that the butane is 95% pure and has all of the foll owing properties: (1) Olefins ≤1.0 vol%. (2) Aromatics ≤2.0 vol%. (3) Benzene ≤0.03 vol%. (4) Sulfur ≤30 ppm from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; ≤10 ppm beginning January

1, 2017 and thereafter. (d) Non

- commercial grade butane is defi ned as butane for which test results demonstrate the butane has all of the following properties: (1) Olefins ≤10.0 vol%. (2) Aromatics ≤2.0 vol%.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 474 of 888 (3) Benzene ≤0.03 vol%. (4) Sulfur ≤30 ppm beginning January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016; ≤10 p pm beginning January

1, 2017 and thereafter. (e)(1) When butane is blended with conventional gasoline under this section during the period May

1 through September 15, the refiner shall demonstrate through sampling and testing, using the test method for Re id vapor pressure in §80.47, that each batch of conventional gasoline blended with butane meets the volatility standards specified in §80.27.
* * * * * (i) A refiner who onl y blends commercial grade or non

- commercial grade butane into PCG may

meet the sampling and testing requirements of subpart O of this part by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (f) and (h)(3) of this section and all of the following additional requirements: (1) The per

- gallon sulfur content of every batch of butane must not exceed 10 ppm. (2) The refiner obtains test results from the butane supplier that demonstrate that the sulfur content of each load does not exceed the applicable per

- gallon sulfur standard under paragraph (i)(1) of this section through test results of samples of butane contained in the storage tank from which the butane blender is supplied. (i) Sampling and testing for the sulfur content of the buta ne b y the supplier must be subsequent to each receipt of butane into the supplier’s storage tank or the sampling and testing must be immediatel y before transfer of butane to the butane blender. (ii) The testing must be performed in accord with the provisi ons of §80.47. (iii) The butane blender must obtain a copy of the butane supplier’s test results at the time of each transfer of butane to the butane blender. (3) The sulfur content and volume of each batch of gasoline produced is that of the butane that the refiner blends into PCG for the purposes of calculating compliance with the 10 ppm per

- gallon sulfur standard. (4) The requirements of paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) of this section appl y regardless of whether the butane is commercial grade or noncomm ercial grade. (5) The qualit y assurance testing requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of this section applies regardless of whether the butane is commercial grade or noncommercial grade.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 475 of 888 (6) If an y of the requirements of this paragraph (i) are not met, in whol e or in part for an y butane blended into gasoline, that butane is deemed in violation of the gasoline standards in §80.1603(a). (j) The PCG procedures of §80.1640 may be used to meet the sampling and testing requirements of subpart O of this part
. 10. Section 80.101 is amended by :

a. Revising paragraph (i)(1)(i)(A). b. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(i)(C). c. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(ii)(C). **§80.101 Standards applicable to refiners and importers.**
* * * * * (i) * * * (1) * * * (i)(A) Through November 29, 2014 , determine the value of each of the properties required for determining compliance with the standards that are applicable to the refiner or importer, b y collecting and anal yz ing a representative sample of gasoline or blendstock from the batch, using methodologies specified in §80.46; beginning November 30, 2014 , determine the value of each of the properties required for determining compliance with the standards that are applicable to the refiner or importer, by collecting and analyzing a repres entative sample of gasoline or blendstock from the batch, using methodologies specified in §80.4 7; except that
* * * * * (3) * * * (i) * * * (C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified under §80.65(e)(2)(i), using either of the foll owing: ( 1 ) T he test methods specified under §80.46 , through November 29, 2014
. ( 2 ) The test methods specified under §80.4 7, beginning November 30, 2014
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 476 of 888 * * * * * (ii) * * * (C) The testing must be for each applicable parameter specified under §80.65(e)(2)(i), using the test methods specified under §80.46 through November 29, 2014 , or under §80.4 7 beginning November 30, 2014
. * * * * * **Subpart E --**  **[Amended]** 11. Section 80.105 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (a)(5)(v). b. Revising paragra

ph (a)(5)(vi)(D). c. Revising paragraphs (a)(5)(vii)(F) and (a)(5)(vii)(G). d. Revising paragraph (a)(7)(iii). e. Revising paragraph (d)(2). **§ 80.105 Reporting Requirements .**  (a) * * * (5) * * * (v) The properties, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties, pursuant to §80.101(i); (vi) * * * (D) The volume, properties, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties, and designation of the batch; (vii) * * * (F) The properties of the butane batch specified b y the butane supplier, along with identification of the test method used to measure those properties of the butane, or the properties specified in §80.82(c) or (d), as appropriate. (G) Where butane is blended with conventional gaso line during the period May 1 through September 15, the Reid vapor pressure, along with identification of the test method used to measure Reid vapor pressure using the appropriate test method at §80.46 through November 29 , 2014 **,** and at §80.47 beginning November 30, 2014 ; and
* * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 477 of 888 (7) * * * (iii) A statement that the gasoline produced using butane meets all applicable downstream standards that apply to conventional gasoline under Subpart E of this part , along with the test methods used to determine compliance with the downstream standards that apply to conventional gasoline under Subpart E of this part ; and
* * * * * (d) * * * (2) Submitted to EPA by

March 31 each ye ar for the prior calendar ye ar averaging period; and

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 12. Section 80.161 is amended by : a. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ) and adding paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)( 3 ). b. Revising paragraph (b)(2) introductory text. c. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(C), (b)(3)(v), and (b)(3)(viii). d. Revising paragraph (d)(1). **§ 80.161 D**  **etergent additive certification program.**
* * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (ii) * * * (A) * * * ( 2 ) In the case of the alternative national generic certification option pursuant to §80.163(a)(1)(iii), the minimum recommended concentratio n must equal or exceed the amount mixed into the associated test fuel specified in §80.177, which was shown to satisfy the fuel injector deposit control and intake valve deposit control performance tests and standards specified in §80.176. ( 3 ) In the cas e of an y other detergent certification option, the minimum recommended concentration must equal or exceed the amount mixed into the associated test fuel specified in §80.164, which was shown to satisfy the fuel injector deposit control and intake valve dep osit control performance tests and standards specified in §80.165.
* * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 478 of 888 (2) The detergent additive manufacturer (or other certifying part y) must submit to EPA a sample of the actual detergent additive package which was used in the certification test fuels specified in §80.164 or §80.177 or, if such sample is not available, then a sample which has the same composition as the package used in certification testing.
* * * * * (3) * * * (ii) * * * (C) Complete documentation of the test fuel formulation, IVD demonstration procedures, fuel injector deposit demonstration procedure if applicable, detergent performance test procedures, and test results are available for EPA's inspection upon request.
* * * * * (v) In the case of a national or PADD certification (pursuant to §80.163(a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii) , or (b)) for which the test fuel was speciall y formulated from refinery blend stocks, the results of the IVD demonstration test, pursuant to §80 .164(b)(3). In the case of an alternative national generic certification (pursuant to §80.163(a)(1)(iii)), the results of the IVD demonstration test and fuel injector deposit demonstration test (pursuant to §80.177).
* * * * * (viii) The test concentrat ion(s) of the subject detergent additive in each test fuel, and the corresponding test results (percent flow restriction demonstrated in the fuel injector test and milligrams of deposit per valve demonstrated in the IVD test).
* * * * * (d) * * * (1) If a detergent blender possesses deposit control performance test results as specified in §80.165, §80.166, or §80.176 which show that the minimum treat rate recommended b y the manufacturer of a detergent additive product exceeds the amount of that detergent actuall y required for effective deposit control, then, upon informing EPA in writing of these circumstances, the detergent blender may use the detergent at the lower concentration substantiated by these test results.
* * * * * 13. Section 80.163 is amended b y adding a new paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 479 of 888 **§ 80.163 Detergent certification options.**
* * * * * (a) * * * (1) * * * (iii ) Alternative national generic certification option. To be certified under this option, a candid ate detergent must meet the deposit control performance test requirements and standards speci fied in §80.176 using test fuels that conform to th e requirements in §80.177. A detergent certified under this option is eligible to be used at a conforming LAC i n an y grade of gasoline, with or without an oxygenate component.
* * * * * 14. Section 80.164 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.164 Certification test fuels.** (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for the test fuels required in conjunction with the certification options described in §80.163 (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) through (d) . For each such certification option, the associated test fuel must meet or exceed the levels of four basic fuel parameters (aromatics, fuel sulfur, olefins, and T

– 90) prescribed here and may also contain specified ox ygenate compounds. In addition, pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, some fuels must undergo an IVD demonstration test before they are eligibl e to be used as test fuels under this certification program. Test fuel characteristics must be reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant to §80.161(b)(3). The specifications for the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national generic certification option in §80.163 (a)(1)(iii) are contained in §80.177
. * * * * * 15. Section 80.165 is revised to read as follows: **§ 80.165 Certification**  **test procedures and standards.** This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent additives for use in unleaded gasoline, pursuant to §80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 3 ). These stan dards must be met in the context of the specific test procedures identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section. The testing must be conducted and the performance standards met when the subject de tergent additive is mixed in a test fuel meeting all relevant requirements of §80.164, including the deposit

- forming tendency***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 480 of 888 demonstration specified in §80.164(b)(3), if applicable. Complete test documentation must be submitted by

the certifying part y wi thin 30 day s of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records. The certification test procedures and standards associated with the alternative national generic certification option in §80.163 (a)(1)(iii) are contained in §80.176
. (a) Fuel injecto r deposit control testing. (1) The required test fuel must produce no more than 5% flow restriction in any one injector when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5598

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,” 1994, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. At the option of the certifier, fuel injector flow may be measured at intervals during the 10,000 mile test cycle described in ASTM D 5598

– 94, in addit ion to the flow measurements required at the completion of the test cycle, but not more than every 1,000 miles. (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel must produce the accumulation of less than 100 mg of intake valve deposits on average when tested in accordance with ASTM D 5500

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,” 1994, which is incorporated by reference pursuant to §80.178. (c) If conducted using test fuels meeting all relevant requirements of §80.164, and completed prior to September 3, 1996, then the PFID and IVD control test procedures required for detergent certification in California (specified in section 2257 of Title 13, C alifornia Code of Regulations) will also be considered acceptable. California Air Resources Board, “Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines”, March 1, 1991, and California Air Resources Board, “BMW

— 10,000 Miles Intak e Valve Test Procedure”, March 1, 1991, are incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. 16. Section 80.167 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.167 Confirmatory testing.**
* * * * * (a) Confirmatory

testing conducted to eva luate the validity of detergent certifications under the national, PADD, or fuel

- specific options under §80.163 (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (b) through (d) will generally entail a single vehicle test using the procedures detailed in §80.165. The tes t fuel(s) used in conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in §80.164, and will otherwise conform to the applicable certification test fuel specifications therein . Confirmatory testing conducted to evaluate the validity of detergent certifications under the alternative national generic certification option in § 80.163 (a)(1)(iii) will generall y entail a single test using the procedures detailed in***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 481 of 888 §80.177. The test fuel(s) used in conducting such confirmatory certification testing will contain the specified fuel parameters at or below the minimum levels specified in §80.177, and will otherwise conform to the applicable certification test fuel specifications therein.
* * * * * 17. A new section 80.175 is added to subpart G and reserved as follows: **§ 80.175 [Reserved]**  18. A new section 80.176 is added to subpart G to read as follows: **§ 80.176 Alternative certification test procedures and standards.**  This section specifies the deposit control test requirements and performance standards which must be met in order to certify detergent additives for use in unleaded gasoline pursuant to §80.161(b)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ). These standards must be met in the context of the specifi c test procedures identified in paragraphs ( a) and (b) of this section. T esting must be conducted and the performance standards met when the subject detergent additive is mixed in a test fuel s meeting all relevant requirements of §80.177
. Complete test do cumentation must be submitted by the certifyingpart y within 30 day s of receipt of a written request from EPA for such records. (a) Fuel injector deposit control testing. The required test fuel must produce no more than one inoperative injector when test ed in accordance with the fuel injector deposit test procedure specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Intake valve deposit control testing. The required test fuel must produce the accumulation of less than 50 mg of intake valve deposits on avera ge when tested in accordance with ASTM D6201

- 04(2009) , “ Standard Test Method for Dynamometer Evaluation of Unleaded Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation ”, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178
. (1) Tests conduct ed for the intake valve deposit demonstration test pursuant to §80.177 (b)(1)(iv ) and to demonstrate compliance with the intake valve deposit control standards in this section must be conducted using the same engine block and cylinder head. (2) All results must be derived from operationall y valid tests in accordance with the test validation criteria of ASTM D 6201

- 04(2009). (3) Test results shall be reported for individual intake valves and as an average of all intake valves. (c) Fuel injector deposit t est procedure.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 482 of 888 (1) Summary

of Test Procedure
. After flushing the vehicle fuel s ys tem with the fuel to be tested and installing new injectors, an automatic starter control s ystem starts the vehicle and lets it idle for five minutes. The engine is then shut off and allowed to soak for 25 minutes. This cycle is repeated for a total of 192 cycles (96 hours). During this time, the engine is kept at operating temperature with block heaters. After the 96 hours of start/soak cycles, the engine is allowed to h ot - soak for 48 hours, during which time the engine is not started but is maintained at operating temperature. At the end of the 48

- hour hot soak, the block heaters are turned off and the engine is allowed to cool naturall y to room temperature. At the end of this 48

- hour ambient temperature soak, an injector balance test is conducted to determine whether an y poppet nozzles are stuck closed. (2) Facilities and Equipment
. (i) Lo cation. A temperature
- controlled garage or large room is needed. A dy namomete r is not needed, since this test is an idle test. The room temperature shall be maintained in the range of 68

- 75°F. The room shall be equipped with an exhaust sy stem that connects to the vehicle tail pipe to remove the exhaust gases from the building. It is recommended that an interlock be provided so that if the building exhaust system fails, the vehicle test will shut down. (ii) Electrical Power. Two 110
- volt, 15

- amp circuits are needed (20

- amp circuits are recommended) to operate the four block heat ers and a battery charger. (iii) Fuel Drain Facility
. A facility is required to drain the fuel from the vehicle between tests. The fuel is drained from the service port on the fuel rail, near the back of the engine. A commercial cart equipped with a tank and a suction pump is recommended for this operation. (iv) Vehicle. A Chevrolet Astro or GMC Safari van, model y ear 1998
- 2001, shall be used for the test. Either two

- wheel drive or all

- wheel drive is satisfactory, although the former allows easier installation of the block heaters. (v) Injectors. New injectors, Genera l Motors part number 17091432, shall be used for each test. (vi) Block Heaters. Four block heaters, General Motors part number 12371293, are needed for each vehicle. Two heaters shall be installed on each side of the engine, in the freeze plug locations
. (vii) Battery

Charger. Because of the large number of starts and the very short engine running time, a battery charger is needed. It is recommended that the charger be installed permanentl y on the vehicle and remain plugged in while the test is in pro gress. (viii) Starter Controller. A sy stem is needed to start the engine automatically and then shut it off after exactly five minutes of running. A commercial after

- market remote***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 483 of 888 starting s ys tem connected to a timer or computer can be used, or a one

- of

- a - kind sy stem can be designed and built. (ix) Tech 2 Anal yz er. A General Motors Tech 2 analyzer, part number GM3000094, available from Kent

- Moore, shall be used to conduct the injector balance test. (x) Fuel Pressure Gauge. A fuel pressure gauge capab le of measuring fuel sy stem pressure to the nearest 1 psi over the range of 45 to 65 psi, shall be used with the Tech 2 anal yz er when conducting the injector balance test. A pressure transducer shall not be used. (xi) Gaskets. The upper intake manifold gasket and injector body gasket will need to be replaced from time to time as they crack, tear, or wear out from frequent handling during injector replacement. (3) Initial Vehicle Preparation
. (i) Diagnostics. To help determine whether a vehicle is satisfactory for use in this injector test procedure, a thorough inspection and engine diagnostic test shall be conducted as described in the service manual. Check the cooling s ys tem to be sure the coolant looks cl ean and there are no signs of rust. (ii) Block Heaters. Install four electric block heaters, General Motors part number 12371293, in the coolant passages of the engine block, two on each side of the block. The heaters will be plugged into a heater control unit. Two of the heaters will remain on at all times during the first 144 hours of the injector fouling test, while the other two heaters will be turned on and off b y the controller as needed to maintain an engine temperature of about 100

- 102°C during the soak periods of the test. (The temperature will drop while the engine is running, as the coolant from the radiator circulates through the engine. The temperature should recover to 100

- 102 ° C within about 20 minutes after the engine shuts off.) (iii) Thermocouples. Install a 1/16

- inch Ty pe K thermocouple in a threaded bolt hole on the rear of the right cylinder head. This thermocouple provides the feedback signal to the controller to turn two block heaters on and off. Install another thermocouple in the other hole near the first thermocouple. This second thermocouple provides a signal to an over - temperature safety shut

- off on the heater controller. If the engine temperature reaches the set point (110°C recommended), the heater controller will signal the starter controller to shut down the test. (iv) Fuel S ys tem Flush. Drain the fuel from the fuel sy stem through the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. Refuel with a non

- detergent gasoline containing between 5 and 10 percent eth anol. Drive the vehicle for approximately 100 miles to thoroughly

expose all parts of the fuel s ys tem to the fuel. The fuel pump and fuel filters should not be replaced unless there is a problem with them or if the vehicle***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 484 of 888 history suggests that replaceme nt would be prudent. I f replacement is necessary , the new parts should first be conditioned by recirculating a 10% ethanol

- gasoline blend (without deposit control additive) through them for one week. (v) Oil Change. Change the engine oil and oil filter, using oil that meets the manufacturer’s recommended service classification and viscosity grade. (vi) Battery

Charger. Install a battery charger in the vehicle so that it can be plugged in during the test and keep the battery at full charge. (vii) Radiator. Install cardboard or other suitable material on the front of the radiator to block the flow of air through the radiator while the engine is running. This will help minimize the drop in coolant temperature. (vi ii) Starter Controller. Make the necessary changes to the vehicle electrical sy stem so that the engine can be started and stopped automaticall y on a programmed schedule. Install a starter controller or computer and program it to do the following: (A) S tart the engine and let it run for 5 minutes, and then shut it off and let it hot

soak for 25 minutes. (B) Repeat the 5/25 cycle for a total of 192 cycles. (C) Allow a 48

- hr hot soak during which the engine is not run but the engine temperature is mainta ined at 100

- 102°C. (D) Turn off the heaters for 48 hours. (E) Continuously

count and display

the number of cycles that have been completed throughout the test. (4) Test Procedure. The steps described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) though (vi) of this section must be performed by the action described in paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section so that the new injectors are exposed onl y to the new test fuel. (i) Drain the fuel from the vehicle. (ii) Add approximately

2 gallons of the fuel to be tested. (iii) Dri ve the vehicle for approximately 20 miles at speeds up to approximately 50
- 60 mph. Approximately every 5 miles, stop the vehicle and moderately accelerate. If the radiator covering is still in place, watch the temperature gauge during the driving and avo id overheating the engine. This step not onl y flushes the fuel s ys tem but also helps remove carbon (if an y) from the spark plugs and water from the exhaust system.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 485 of 888 (iv) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 1 to 2 gallons of the fuel to b e tested. (v) Drive the vehicle for approximately 5 miles. Watch the temperature gauge and avoid overheating the engine. (vi) Drain the fuel from the vehicle and add approximately 10 gallons of the fuel to be tested. (The test consumes about 7.5 gallons of fuel.) (vii) Remove the fuel injectors and install new injectors. Run the engine for a few minutes to be sure it runs properl y. (viii) Park the vehicle in the location where the test will be run. (ix) Connect the vehicle tail pipe to the bu ilding exhaust sy stem. (x) Depending on the design of the starter control sy stem, remove fuses and relay s as necessary

and connect the wires from the controller to the vehicle fuse box. Close the hood. (xi) Turn on the vehicle ignition switch and the se curity by pass switch if so equipped. (xii) Turn on the heater controller and be sure that it is working. (xiii) Turn on the starter controller and the vehicle should start. (xiv) Monitor the engine temperature for the first few cycles to be sure it is i ncreasing. (xv) At the end of the 192

- hour (8

- day) test, turn off the ignition switch, starter controller, and heater controller. Return the fuses, relay s, and wires to their standard configuration for normal operation of the vehicle. (xvi) Connect the Tech 2 anal yz er to the ALDL connector under the instrument panel, and connect the fuel pressure gauge to the service port on the fuel rail at the back of the engine. (xvii) Conduct the injector balance test b y following the instructions on the Tech 2. Th e injector balance test checks each injector individually to determine whether the poppet nozzle is stuck closed. First, the Tech 2 turns on the fuel pump momentarily to pressurize the fuel s ys tem. Then it pulses the injector for a preset interval. If the injector and poppet nozzle are working properl y, the fuel system pressure will decrease gradually and smoothly

by about 8 to 10 psi during the pulsing. If the pressure does not decrease, or decreases very

suddenly but then stops decreasing before the p ulsing is done, the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 486 of 888 poppet is stuck closed. This procedure, beginning with pressurizing the fuel sy stem, is carried out for each injector. 19. A new section 80.177 is added to subpart G to read as follows: **§ 80.177 Certification test fuels for use with the alternative test procedures and**  **standards.** (a) General requirements. This section provides specifications for the test fuels required in conjunction with the alternative national generic certification option described in §80.163(a)(1)(iii). (1) The test fuel characteristics detailed in this section must be reported to EPA in the detergent certification letter required pursuant to §80.161(b)(3). (2) The levels of the basic fuel parameters specified in this section (ethanol, olefins, aromatics, sul fur, and 90% evaporation distillation temperature) must be measured in accordance with applicable procedures in §80.46. (3) No detergent

- active substance other than the detergent additive package undergoing testing may

be added to a certification test fue l. Ty pical nondetergent additives, such as antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, and metal deactivators, may be present in the test fuel at the discretion of the additive certifier. In addition, any nondetergent additives (other than ox ygenate compounds) whi ch are commonly blended into gasoline and which are known or suspected to affect IVD or PFID formation, or to reduce the ability

of the detergent in question to control such deposits, should be added to the test fuel for certification testing. (4) Certifi cation test requirements may be satisfied for a detergent additive using more than one batch of test fuel, provided that each batch satisfies all applicable test fuel requirements under this section. (5) Unless otherwise required by this section, finished test fuels must conform to the requirements for commercial gasoline described in ASTM D 4814

– 11, “Standard Specification for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel”, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. (b) Test fuel for intake valve deposit testing: This paragraph provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test procedure specified in §80.176(b). (1) The test fuel must contain levels of the specified parameters consistent with the requirements of this section. (i) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent and no more than 10.0 volume percent ethanol. Commercial fuel grade denatured fuel ethanol must be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 487 of 888 used that conforms to the requirement of §80.1610 and ASTM D4806
- 11a “ Standard Specificat ion for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel ”, which is incorporated b y reference pursuant to §80.178. (ii) The test fuel must contain no less than 8.0 volume percent olefins. At least 75 pe rcent of the olefins must be derived from fluid cataly tic cracker unit (FCC) gasoline. Such FCC gasoline can be full

- range FCC gasoline or a mixture of light and heavy FCC gasolines. Such FCC gasoline must be produced by a commercial gasoline refiner and meet the following criteria: (A) The FCC gasoline must be designated b y the commercial refiner as full range FCC gasoline or whole FCC gasoline, and must have a T90 distillation temperature greater than 300°F. (B) If a mixture of light and heav y FCC gaso line is used, heavy FCC gasoline must contribute at least 50 percent of the sulfur in the mixture. Heavy FCC gasoline must meet the following criteria: ( 1 ) The heav y FCC gasoline must be designated by the commercial refiner as heav y FCC gasoline. ( 2 ) The heav y FCC gasoline must have an API gravity less than 45 and a T90 distillation temperature greater than 325°F. (iii) The test fuel must contain no less than 28 volume percent aromatics. (iv) The test fuel must contain no less than 240 ppm sulfur. At least 60 percent of the sulfur must be derived from FCC gasoline that meets the specifications in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. (v) The test fuel must have a T90 distillation temperature of no less than 290°F. (v i ) The test fuel containing no d eposit control additives must produce no less than 500 mg averaged over all intake valves when subjected to the intake valve deposit test specified in §80.176(b). (v ii ) All gasoline blendstocks used to formulate the test fuel must be representative of nor

mal refinery

operations and shall be derived from conversion units downstream of distillation. Butanes and pentanes may be used for vapor pressure adjustment. The use of chemical grade streams is prohibited. (2) [Reserved] (c) Test fuel for fuel inject or deposit testing: This paragraph provides specifications for the test fuels required for use in the test procedure specified in***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 488 of 888 §80.176(c). The test fuel must conform to the specifications in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. The same base test fuel must be used for deposit demonstration testing and for demonstrating compliance with the fuel injector deposit control standards in §80.176(a). (1) Option 1 regarding the specifications for the test fuel used for fuel injector deposit t esting. (i) The test fuel must be a commercial full boiling range h ydrocarbon gasoline or gasoline blending component, without oxygenates. (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must produce at least 5 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the fuel injector deposit test specified in §80.176(c). (2) Option 2 regarding the specifications for the formulation of the test fuel used for fuel injector deposit testing. (i) The test fuel must meet the requirements for federal emission s test gasoline specified in §§80.113 and 80.112 into which 4

- methylbenzenethiol has been blended as a concentration of 56 mg/L. (ii) The test fuel containing no deposit control additives must produce at least 4 inoperable injectors valves when subjected to the fuel injector deposit test specified in §80.176(c). 20. A new section 80.178 is added to subpart G to read as follows: **§ 80.178**  **Incorporation by reference.** (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce an y edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability

of this material at NARA, call 202

– 741

– 6030 or go to: http://www/archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . This material is also available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2005

– 0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington D C. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

– 1742. Also, this material is available from the source listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C

– 700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvani a 19428 (1

– 800

–262

– 1373, www.astm.org ).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 489 of 888 (1) ASTM D 5598

– 94, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating Unleaded Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel for Electronic Port Fuel Injector Fouling,” 1994; IBR approved for §80.165. (2) ASTM D 5500

– 94, “Standard Tes t Method for Vehicle Evaluation of Unleaded Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation,” 1994; IBR approved for §80.165. (3) ASTM D6201
- 04(2009) (“ASTM D 6201”), Standard Test Method for Dy namometer Evaluation of Unleaded S park

- Ignition Engine Fuel for Intake Valve Deposit Formation; IBR approved for §80.176. (4) ASTM D 4814

– 11, “Standard Specification for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel”, IBR approved for §80.177. (5) ASTM D4806
- 11a “Standard Specification for De natured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasolines for Use as Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel”, IBR approved for §80.177. (c) California Air Resources Board, 1001 "I" Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812 (800) 242

- 4450, http://www.arb.ca.gov ). (1) California Air Resources Board, “Test Method for Evaluating Port Fuel Injector (PFI) Deposits in Vehicle Engines”, March 1, 1991; IBR approved for §80.165. (2) California Air Resources Board, “BMW

— 10,000 Miles Intake Valve Test Procedure”, March 1, 1991; IBR approved for §80.165. **Subpart H**

**— [Amended]**  21
. Section 80.330 is amended b y revising paragraphs (c)(1), (d)(1) , and (d)(2) to read as follows: **§ 80.330 What are the sampling and testing requirements for r efiners and**  **importers?**

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (c) * * * (1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall use the method provided in §80.46(a)(1) or one of the alternative test methods listed in §80.46(a)(3) to measure the sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import through N ovember 29, 2014 **.** Beginning November 30, 2014 **,** for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall use a method approved in §80.47.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 490 of 888 * * * * * (d) * * * (1) Refiners and importers shall use the method provided in §80.46(a)(2) to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane constitutes a batch of gasoline through November 29, 2014 **.** Beginning November 30, 2014 , refiners and importers shall use a method approved in §80.47 to measure the sulfur content of butane when the butane constitutes a batch of gasoline. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, any ASTM sulfur test method for gaseous fuels may be used for quality

assurance testing under §§80.340(b)(4) and 80.400, if the protocols of the ASTM method are followed and the alternative test method is correlated to the method provided in §80.46(a)(2) through November 29, 2014 **.** Beginning November 30, 2014 , except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, refiners and importers shall use a method app roved in §80.47 to measure the sulfur content of butane.
* * * * * 22. Section 80.370 is amended by : a. R evising paragraph (a)(7)(iv)
. b. Revising paragraph (d)(2). **§ 80.370 What are the sulfur reporting requirements?**

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (a) * * * (7) * * * (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, along with identification of the test method used to measure the sulfur content of the batch, as determined under §80.330; and
* * * * * (d) * * * (2) Submitted to EPA by

March 31 for the prior calendar year averaging period.
* * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 491 of 888 **Subpart I** 

**— [Amended]**  23
. Section 80.511 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(10) to read as follows: **§ 80.511 What are the per**  **- gallon and marker requirements that apply to**  **NRLM diesel fuel, ECA marine fuel, and heating oil downstream of the refiner or**  **importer?**
* * * * * (b) * * * (4) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) of this section, the per

gallon sulfur standard of §80.510(c) shall appl y to all NRLM d iesel fuel beginning August 1, 2014 for all downstream locations other than retail outlets or wholesale purchaser

- consumer facilities, shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning October 1, 2014 for retail outlets and wholesale purchaser

- consumer facilit ies, and shall apply to all NRLM diesel fuel beginning December 1, 2014 for all locations. This paragraph (b)(4) does not apply

to LM diesel fuel produced from transmix or interface fuel that is sold or intended for sale in areas other than those listed i n §80.510(g)(1) or (g)(2), as provided b y §80.513(f).
* * * * * (10) For the purposes of this subpart , on an y occasion where a distributor directl y dispenses fuel into vehicles or equipment from a mobile facility such as a tanker tr

uck, the distributor s hall be treated as a retailer, and the mobile facility shall be treated as a retail outlet
. 24
. Section 80.572 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.572 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and wholesale purchaser**  **** **consumers of Motor Vehicle,**  **NR , LM**  **and NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2010?** 
* * * * * (a) From June 1, 2010 through Nov ember 30 , 2014 , any retailer or wholesale pur chaser

- consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing, motor vehicle diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of §80.520(a)(1), must affix the following conspicuous and legible label, in block letters of no less than 24

- point bold ty pe, and printed in a color contrasting with the background, to each pump stand: UL TRA
- LOW SULFUR HIGHWAY DIESEL FUEL(15 ppm Sulfur Maximum) Required for use in all highway diesel vehicles and engines. Recommended for use in all diesel vehicles and engi nes.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 492 of 888 * * * * * 25
. Section 80.573 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 80.573 What labeling requirements apply to retailers and wholesale purchaser**  **** **consumers of NRLM diesel fuel and heating oil beginning June 1, 2012?**
* * * * * (a) From June 1, 2012 through September 30, 2014, for pumps dispensing NRLM diesel fuel subject to the 15 ppm sulfur standard of §80.510(c): UL TRA
- LOW SULFUR NON
- HI GHWAY DIESELFUEL (15 ppm Sulfur Maximum) Required for use in all model y ear 2011 and later nonroad diesel engines. Recommended for use in all other non

- highway diesel engines. WARNI NG Federal law prohibits use in highway vehicles or engines.
* * * * * 26
. Section 80.574 is revised to read as follows: **§ 80.574 What labeling requirements**  **apply to retailers and wholesale purchaser**   ** consumers of ECA marine fuel beginning June 1, 2014?** (a) An y retailer or wholesale purchaser

- consumer who sells, dispenses, or offers for sale or dispensing ECA marine fuel must prominently and conspicuously

disp lay in the immediate area of each pump stand from which ECA marine fuel is offered for sale or dispensing, one of the following legible labels, as applicable, in block letters of no less than 24

- point bold ty

pe, printed in a color contrasting with the back ground: (1) From June 1, 2014 and beyond, for pumps dispensing ECA marine fuel subject to the 1,000 ppm sulfur standard of §80.510(k): 1,000 ppm SULFUR ECA MARINE FUEL (1,000 ppm Sulfur Maximum). For use in Category

3 (C3) marine vessels only
. WARNI NG F ederal law prohibits use in any engine that is not installed on a C3 marine vessel; use of fuel oil with a sulfur content greater than 1,000 ppm in an ECA is prohibited except as allowed b y 40 CFR part 1043
. (2) The labels required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be placed on the vertical surface of each pump housing and on each side that has gallon and price meters. The labels shall be on the upper two

- thirds of the pump, in a location where they are clearl y visible.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 493 of 888 (b) Alternative labels to th ose specified in paragraph (a) of this section may be used as approved b y EPA. (1) For US Mail: U.S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier services: U. S. EPA, Attn: Diesel Sulfur Alternative Label Request, 6406J, 1310 LStreet, NW, 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. (202) 343

- 9038.
27
. Section 80.580 is amended b y : a. R evising paragraph (e) introductory text
. b. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text
. c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iv)
. **§ 80.580 What are the sampling and testing methods for sulfur?** 
* * * * * (e) Materials incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the documents listed in this section as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 51. An yone may inspect copies at the U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Cente r, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC, 20460, under EPA docket ID Number EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2011

– 0135 , or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The telephone number for the Air Docket Public Reading Ro om is (202) 566

- 1742. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

- 741
- 6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov//federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.htm l. For further information on these test methods, pleas e contact the Environmental Protection Agency

at 734
- 214
- 4582. (1) ASTM International material. An yone may purchase copies of these materials from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428

- 2959, or by contacting ASTM Internatio nal customer service at 610

- 832
- 9585, or by contacting the email address of service@astm.org from the ASTM International Web site of http://www.astm.org
. (i) ASTM International standard method D2622

- 10 (“ASTM Internatio nal D2622”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X

- Ray

Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (ii) [Reserved]***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 494 of 888 (iii) ASTM International standard method D4294

- 10 (“ASTM International D4294”), “St andard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Energy Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved February 15, 2010. (iv) ASTM International standard method D5453

- 09 (“ASTM International D5453”), “Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petro leum Products by Energy Dispersive X
- Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry”, approved June 15, 2009.
* * * * * 28
. Section 80.5 85 is amended b y revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows: **§80.585 What is the process for approval of a test method for**  **determining the sulfur content of diesel or ECA marine fuel?** 

* * * * * (d) * * * (4) The approval of an y test method under paragraph (b) of this section shall be valid for five ye ars from the date of approval b y the Administrator. After the five ye ar period has ceased, in order for the test method approval to remain valid, the test method must be resubmitted for approval with applicable precision and accuracy information contained in § 80.584 (a) and (b) . If, however, the test method is later approved b y a voluntary consensus - based standards body, the approval shall remain valid as long as the conditions of paragraph (a) of this section are met.
* * * * * 29 . Section 80.604 is amended b y revising paragraphs (f)(3) and (4) to read as follows: **§ 80.604 What are the annual reporting requirements for refiners and importers of**  **NRLM diesel fuel?**
* * * * * (f) * * * (3) Except for small refiners subject to §80.554(d), submitted to EPA by September 1 each ye ar for the prior annual compliance period. Small refiners subject to the provisions of §80.554(d), reports must be submitted by September 1 for the previous reporting period. (4) With the exception of reports required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, no reports will be required under this section after September 1, 2014
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 495 of 888 **Subpart L --**  **[Amended]** 30
. Section 80.1235 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(2) to read as follows: **§ 80.123 5**  **What gasoline is subject to the benzene requirements of this subpart ?**  ( a) * * * ( 6 ) Blendstock that is combined with PCG to produce gasoline must be sampled and tested in accordance with the provisions at §80.1347(a)(5) or (6). (b ) * * * (2 ) Ox ygenate added to PCG downstream of the refinery that produced the PCG, or downstream of the import facility where the PCG was imported , shall not be included in a refiner’s or importer’s compliance calculations unless the refiner or importer that produced or imported the PCG complies with the requirements of §80.1238(b). On an y occasion where an y person downstream of the refinery or importer that produced or imported PCG adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not include the volume and benzene content of the ox ygen ate in an y compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart.
* * * * * 31. Section 80.1238 is amended b y revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: **§80.1238 How is a refinery’s or importer’s average benzene concentration**  **determined?**
* * * * * (b) * * * (1) For oxygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB , the refiner or importer must comply

with the requirements of §80.101(d)(4)(ii) and the benzene content must be measured b y sampling the ethanol actually added to the conventional gasoline or CBOB and testing it for benzene content
. * * * * * 32
. Section 80.1347 is amended to read as follows: 1. By

revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(5).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 496 of 888 2. By

adding a new paragraph (a)(6). **§ 80.1347 What are the sampling and testing requirements for refiners and**  **importers?** ( a) * * * (3)(i) Each sample sh all be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at §80.46(e) through November 29 , 2014 , to determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Beginning November 30, 2014 , each sample shall be tested in accordance with the methodology specified at §80.46(e) or §80.47 to determine its benzene concentration for compliance with the requirements of this subpart. Any

negative test result must be reported as zero.
* * * * * (5) Exclusion of previously certif ied gasoline (PCG)
. (i) An y refiner who uses PCG to produce gasoline at a refinery , must exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene standards at §80.1230. (ii) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content of the PCG used at the refinery and the volume and benzene content of gasoline produced at the refinery , and use the compliance calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and (iv ) of this section. (iii) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the refiner must include the volume and benzene content of the PCG as a negative volume and a positive benzene content in the refiner’s compliance c alculations in accordance w ith the requirements at §80.1238. (iv ) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG and blendstock , the refiner must determine the volume and benzene content of the combined product and include each batch for purposes of benzene compliance in the refinery ’s compliance calculations at §80.1240 without regard to the p resence of previously certified gasoline in the batch. (v) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to §80.1240 as a component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner’s compliance calculations. (vi) An y negative annual average value must be reported as zero. (vii) The refiner must also comply with §80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and §80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 497 of 888 ( 6 ) As an alternative to the sampling and testing requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this section , a refiner who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into PCG may sample and test each batch of blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and benzene content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the benzene standards in §80.1230, and for benzene reporting.
* * * * * 33
. Section 80.1348 is revised to read as follows: **§80.1348 What gasoline sample retention requirements apply to refiners and**  **importers?** (a) Through November 29, 2014 , the gasoline sample retention requirements specified in subpart H for the gasoline sulfur provisions apply for the purpose of complying with the requirements of this subpart L , except that in addition to including the sulfur test result as provided by §80.335(a)(4)(ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory

shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene as conducted pursuant to §80.46(e). (b) Beginning November 30, 2014 , pursuant to §80.47, the gasoline sample ret ention requirements specified in subpart O of this part for the gasoline sulfur provisions apply

for the purpose of compl yi ng with the requirements of this subpart L , except that in addition to including the sulfur test result as provided b y §80.335(a)(4)( ii), the refiner, importer, or independent laboratory shall also include with the retained sample the test result for benzene as conducted pursuant to §80.46(e). 34
. A new § 80.1349 is added to subpart L to read as follows: **§ 80.1349 Alternative sampling and testing requirements for importers who import**  **gasoline into the United States by truck.** Importers who import conventional gasoline into the United States by truck may comply with the sampling and testing requirements in § 80.101(i)(3) instead of the requirements to sample and test every batch of gasoline und er §80.134 7. An importer that uses this approach must meet the 0.62 volume percent benzene standard on a per

gallon basis. 35. Section 80.1354 is amended b y : a. R evising paragraph (b)( 2)
. b . Revising paragraph (d)(2). **§80.1354 What are the reporting requirements for the gasoline benzene program?******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 498 of 888 * * * * * (b) * * * (2) (i) The annual average benzene concentration, along with identification of the test method(s) used to measure the annual average benzene concentration, per §80.1238. (ii) The maximum average benzene concentration, along with identification of the test method(s) used to measure the maximum average benzene concentration, per §80.1240(b).
* * * * * (d) * * * (2) Sub mitted to EPA by

March 31 each ye ar for the prior calendar ye ar averaging period.
* * * * *
36
. Section 80. 1451 is amended by : a. R evising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text. b. Revising paragraph (f)(2). **§ 80.1451**  **What are the reporting requirements under the RFS program?**  (a) * * * (1) Annual compliance reports for the previous compliance period shall be submitted by

March 31 of each ye ar and shall include all of the following information:
* * * * * (f) * * * (2) Quarterl y reports shall be submitted by the required deadline as shown in Table 1. An y reports generated b y EMTS must be reviewed, supplemented, and/or corrected if not complete and accurate, and verified by the owner or responsible corporate officer p rior to submittal.

**Table 1 to §80.1451**  **: Quarterly Reporting Deadlines Calendar Quarter**  **Time Period Covered Quarterly Report**  **Deadline** Quarter One January 1
- March31 June 1 Quarter Two April 1

– June 30 September 1***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 499 of 888 Quarter Three July 1

– September 30 December 1 Quarter Four October 1

– December 31 March 31

* * * * * 37. A new s ubpart O is added to part 80 to read as follows: **Subpart O**

**— Gasoline Sulfur**  §80.1600 Definitions for subpart O. §80.1601 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart. §80.1602 Implementation dates for refiners and importers. §80.1603 Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers. §80.1604 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for parties downstream of

refiners and importers. §80.1605 Deficit carry

- forward fo r refiners and importers. §80.1606 [Reserved] §80.1607 Gasoline sulfur standards and requirements for transmix processors and

transmix blenders. §80.1608 [Reserved] §80.1609 Blender requirements. §80.1610 Standards and requirements for producers of denatur ed fuel ethanol and

other ox ygenates for use by gasoline ox ygenate blenders. §80.1611

— 80.1612 [Reserved] §80.1613 Standards and other requirements for g asoline additive manufacturer s and

blenders
. §80.1614 [Reserved] §80.1615 Credit generation. §80.1616 Cr edit use and transfer. §80.1617

— 80.1619 [Reserved] §80.1620 Small refiner definition. §80.1621 Small volume refinery definition. §80.1622 Approval for small refiner and small volume refinery status. §80.1623

— 80.1624 [Reserved] §80.1625 Hardship provisions. §80.1626

— 80.1629 [Reserved] §80.1630 Sampling and testing requirements for refiners and importers
. §80.1631 Sample retention requirements. §80.1632

— 80.1639 [Reserved] §80.1640 Standards and requirements that apply to refiners producing gasoline by blendin g blendstocks into previously certified gasoline (PCG). §80.1641 Alternative sulfur standards and requirements that apply to importers who transport gasoline b y truck. §80.1642

— 80.1649 [Reserved] §80.1650 Registration. §80.1651 Product transfer document re quirements.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 500 of 888 §80.1652 Reporting requirements. §80.1653 Recordkeeping. §80.1654 California gasoline requirements. §80.1655 National securit y exemptions. §80.1656 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, or testing

purposes. §80.1657 [Reserved] §80.1658 Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. §80.1659 [Reserved] §80.1660 Prohibited acts. § 80.16 61 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the prohibitions and re quirements of this subpart and liability for violations of this subpart? § 80.16 62 Liability

for violations under subpart O
. §80.1663 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under subpart O. §80.1664 [Reserved] §80.1665 Penalties. §80.1666 Additional r equirements for foreign small refiners and foreign small

volume refineries. §80.1667 Attest engagement requirements. §80.1668

— 80.1674 [Reserved] §80.1675 In corporation by reference. **§80. 16**  **00 Additional d**  **efinitions for subpart O**  **.** The definitions of §80.2 and the following additional definitions apply to this subpart O : California gasoline means any gasoline designated by

a refiner or importer for use in California. Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(5). Foreign refiner is a person who meets the definition of refiner under §80.2(i) for a foreign refinery
. Foreign refinery means a refinery that is located outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (collectively referred to in this subpart as “the United States”). Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(6). Non
- Sulfur

- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(4).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 501 of 888 Sulfur

- FRGAS has the meaning given in §80.1666(a)(3)
. Transmix has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(2). Transmix gasoline product (TGP) has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(3). Transmix processing facility has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(4). Transmix processor has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(5). Transmix blender has the meaning given at §80.84(a)(7). **§80. 16**  **01 Fuels subject to the provisions of this subpart.**  (a) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are subject to the standards an d requirements of this subpart: (1) Reformulated and conventional gasoline and RBOB, and CBOB (collectively called “gasoline” unless otherwise specified). (2) An y blendstock (not including ox ygenates) blended with PCG, as defined in §80.2(d), subject to the provisions of §80.1640. (3) Ox ygenates blended with gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB. (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the following fuels are not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart: (1) Gasoline that is used to fuel aircraft, racing vehicles or racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events, provided that: (i) Product transfer documents associated with such gasoline, and an y pump stand from which such gasoline is dispensed, identify the gasoline either as gasoline that is restricted for use in aircraft, or as gasoline that is restricted for use in racing motor vehicles or racing boats that are used only in sanctioned racing events; (ii) The gasoline is completely segregated from all other gasoline throughout produ ction, distribution and sale to the ultimate consumer; and (iii) The gasoline is not made available for use as motor vehicle gasoline, or dispensed for use in motor vehicles, except for motor vehicles used onl y i n sanctioned racing events. (2) California gasoline as defined in §80.1600 subject to the provisions of §80.1654.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 502 of 888 (3) Gasoline that is exported for sale and use outside the U.S. (4) Exempt fuels under §§80.1655 (national security exemptions), 80.1656 (gasoline used for research, development, or testing purposes), and 80.1658 (gasoline used in American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands). **§80. 16**  **02 Implementation dates**  **for refiners and importers .**  (a) The standards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under this subpart O (at §80.1603) shall apply

to gasoline produced or imported by any refiner or importer beginning January

1, 2017, except as provided by the credit provisions of §§80.1615 and 80.1616, and the provisions applicable to small refiners and small volume refineries. (b) T he s tandards and requirements for gasoline sulfur under s ubpart H of this p art 80 shall continue to apply until the gasoline produced or imported b y any refiner or importer is required to comply with the standards and requirements under this subpart O. **§80. 1**  **6 03**  **Gasoline sulfur standards for refiners and importers.** (a) S ulfur s tandards. (1) Annual average standard
. (i) The refinery

or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is 10.00 parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), except as provided in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section. (ii) The averaging period is a calendar ye ar (January 1 through December 31). (iii) The refinery

or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard is the maximum average sulfur level allowed for ga soline produced at a refinery or imported by an importer during each calendar year beginning January 1, 2017, except as provided by the following: (A) The credit use provisions of §80.1616. (B) Beginning January

1, 2020, for small refiners and small volume refineries approved pursuant to the provisions of §80.1622. Small refiners and small volume refineries will continue to be subject to the provisions of subpart H through December 31, 2019 (or until compliance with this subpart O begins). (C) Fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart O as specified in §80.1601(b).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 503 of 888 (iv) The annual average sulfur level is calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Per
- gallon cap standard
. (i) T he refinery

or importer per - gallon cap standard is 80 ppm, on a per

- gallon basis except a s otherwise provided b y this section. (ii) The per

- gallon cap of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is the maximum sulfur level allowed for an y batch of gasoline produced at a refinery or i mported by an importer beginning January

1, 2017, except for fuels not subject to the standards and requirements of this subpart O as specified in §80.1601(b). (3) The refinery

or importer annual average gasoline sulfur standard may be met using credits a s provided under §80.1616. Credits cannot be used to meet the applicable per - gallon standard. (b) [Reserved] (c) Calculation of the annual average sulfur level
. (1) The annual refinery

or importer average gasoline sulfur level is calculated as follows:

Where: S a = The refinery

or importer annual average sulfur level, in ppm (mg/kg). V i = The volume of gasoline produced or imported in batch i, in gallons. S i = The sulfur content of batch i determined under §80.1630, in ppm (mg/kg). n = The number of batches of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period. i = Individual batch of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period. (2) The annual average sulfur level calculation in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be conducted to two decimal places using the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (d) A refiner or importer may include oxygenate added downstream from the refinery or import facility

when calculating the sulfur content, provided the following requirements are met: (1) For ox ygenate added to conventional gasoline or CBOB, the refiner or importer must comply

with the requirements of § 80.101(d)(4)(ii) , except that the sulfur***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 504 of 888 content and volume of the ox ygenate shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) o f this section. (2) For ox ygenate added to RBOB, the refiner or importer must comply with the requirements of §80.69(a), except that the sulfur content and volume of the oxygenate shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section. ( 3) Where ox ygenate added downstream from the refinery or import facility is included in calculating the sulfur content under this paragraph (d): (i) The refiner or importer must separatel y test an y RBOB or CBOB for sulfur content and use that test result in calculating the sulfur content of the RFG or conventional gasoline and calculate the effect of downstream added ethanol by using the assumptions in paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section. The reported volume of the batch is the combined volume of the RBOB or CBOB and the downstream added oxygenate. (ii) For RBOB, the sulfur test result obtained from testing a hand blend under the terms of §80.69(a) shall not be used for sulfur reporting purposes. (iii) The refiner or importer must use an assumed sulfur content of 10.00 ppm for the ox ygenate added downstream. (iv) For ethanol added downstream, the refiner or importer calculations shall assume that 10.00 volume percent ethanol is added to the RBOB unless some lesser amount of ethanol is actuall y blended
. (v) RBOB, CBOB, and conventional gasoline must meet the per

- gallon sulfur standard of §80.1603(a)(2) prior to calculating any dilution from the ox ygenate added downstream. (4) On an y occasion where an y person downstream of the refinery or impo rter that produced or imported previously certified gasoline, CBOB or RBOB adds oxygenate to such product, it shall not include the volume and sulfur content of the oxygenate in any compliance calculations or for credit generation under this subpart O. ( e) Refiners and importers must exclude from compliance calculations all of the following: (1) Gasoline that was not produced at the refinery or imported by

the importer. (2) In the case of an importer, gasoline that was imported as Certified Sulfur

FRGAS. (3) Blendstocks transferred to others, except RBOB and CBOB as provided in this subpart O.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 505 of 888 (4) PCG. (5) Gasoline exempted from standards under §80.1601(b). (f) Compliance calculation for the annual average sulfur standard
. (1) Compliance b y a refinery or importer with the gasoline sulfur annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is achieved if , for calendar ye ar y , C S V y≤ ( V y × 10 ) , as determined by the following equation: CSVy = (V y x S a) + D (y

- 1) – OC Where: CSVy = Compliance sulfur value for year y , in ppm - gallons
. V y = Total g asoline volume produced or imported in y ear y , in gallons
. S a = Annual average sulfur level calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section , in ppm (mg/kg). D (y

- 1) = Sulfur defi cit from the previous reporting period, per §80.1605 , in ppm

- gallons
. OC = Sulfur credits obtained by the refinery

or importer , in ppm

- gallons
. ( 2 ) Sulfur credits used in the calculation specified in paragraph ( f )(1) of this section must be used in accord ance with the requirements at §80. 1616
. ( 3 ) C ompliance with the gasoline sulfur annual average standard at paragraph (a)(1) of this section is not achieved , and a deficit is created per §80. 1605, if for calendar ye ar y , C S V y> ( V y × 10) . The deficit value t o be included in the following year's compliance calculation per paragraph ( f ) of this section is calculated as follows: D y = CSV y – (V y x 10 y) Where: D y = Sulfur deficit created in compliance period y , in ppm

- gallons
. **§80. 16**  **04 Gasoline s**  **ulfur standards and requirements for parties**  **downstream of refiners and importers.**  (a) The sulfur standard for gasoline at an y downstream location shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section. A downstream location is any point i n the gasoline distribution sy stem downstream from refineries and import facilities, including, but not limited to, facilities of an y of the following parties: (1) Distributors. (2) Carriers. (3) Ox ygenate blenders.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 506 of 888 (4) Retailers. (5) Wholesale purch aser - consumers. (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart O, the sulfur content of gasoline at an y downstream location shall not exceed 95 ppm, on a per

- gallon basis, beginning January 1, 2017. **§80. 1605 Deficit carry**  **- forward**  **for refiners and impo rters.**  (a) Deficit carry

- forward. (1) A refiner or importer may exceed the annual average sulfur standard for a given calendar ye ar, creating a compliance deficit, provided that the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section are met. (2) When a co mpliance deficit is created per paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in the calendar ye ar following the ye ar the standard is not met, the refinery or importer must: (i) Achieve compliance with the annual average sulfur standard in §80.1603(a)(1); and (ii) Use additional sulfur credits sufficient to offset the compliance deficit of the previous year. (b) The compliance deficit value shall be calculated in accordance with §80.1603(f)(3). **§80.1606 [Reserved]**  **§80. 16**  **07 Gasoline**  **sulfur standards and requirem ents**  **for t ransmix processor**  **s and**  **transmix blender s**  **.** Transmix processors and transmix blenders may comply with the following requirements instead of the requirements and standards otherwise applicable to a refiner under this subpart O. (a) An y transmix pr ocessor who recovers transmix gasoline product (TGP) from transmix through transmix processing under §80.84(c) must show through sampling and testing (using the methods in §80. 16 30 ) that the TGP meets the applicable sulfur standards under §80.1604(b), prio r to the TGP leaving the transmix processing facility
. (b) The sampling and testing required under paragraph (a) of this section shall be conducted following each occasion TGP is produced.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 507 of 888 (c) An y transmix processor who produces gasoline by adding blends tock to TGP must, for such blendstock, comply with all requirements and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart O, and must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under §80.1604 for the gasoline produced b y blending blendstock and TGP , prior to the gasoline leaving the transmix processing facilit y. (d) An y transmix processor who produces gasoline by blending blendstock into TGP must meet the sampling and testing requirements of this subpart O through either of the methods provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section or through the alternative method provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (1)(i) Sample and test the blendstock when received at the transmix processing facility , using the methods specified in §80.1630 , to determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each volume of blendstock that is blended into a volume of TGP as a separate batch for purposes of calculating and reporting compliance with the applicable annual average and per

- gallon cap sulfur standards in §80. 1603. (ii) Use sulfur test results of the blendstock supplier provided that all the following requirements are met: (A) Sampling and testing by the blendstock supplier is performed using the methods specified in §80.1630
. (B) Testing for the sulfur content of the blendstock in the supplier’s storage tank must be conducted following the last receipt of blendstock into the supplier's storage tank that supplies the transmix processor. (C) The transmix processor must obtain a copy of the blendstock supp lier’s test results, reflecting the sulfur content of each load of blendstock supplied to the transmix processor, at the time of each transfer of blendstock to the transmix processor. (D) The transmix processor must conduct a qualit y assurance program of sampling and testing for each blendstock supplier. The frequency of blendstock sampling and testing must be one sample for every 500,000 gallons of blendstock received or one sample every

3 months, whichever results in more frequent sampling. (iii) If an y of the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section are not met, in whole or in part, for any blendstock blended into TGP, that blendstock is deemed in violation of the gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O. (2) As an alternative to the sampling and testing procedures described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the following procedures may be used: (i) Sample and test each batch of TGP and determine the volume of the TGP.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 508 of 888 (ii) Sample and test the gasoline produced b y blending blendstoc k into TGP, and determine its volume. (iii) Calculate the sulfur content and the volume of the batch b y subtracting the volume and sulfur content of the TGP from the volume and sulfur content of the gasoline after blendstock blending. For purposes of compliance and reporting, the sulfur content shall be the calculated volume and sulfur content of the blendstock, and the applicable standards shall be the average and cap standards in §80.1603. The applicable cap standard of the gasoline blend shall be the cap standard under §80.1604. (iv) Tests shall be performed using the methods specified in §80.1630, to determine the sulfur content of the batch. (v) The sulfur content of each batch of gasoline produced b y blending blendstock into TGP must be no greate r than the downstream sulfur standard under §80.1604 applicable to the designation of the TGP. (e) An y transmix blender who produces gasoline by blending transmix, or mixtures of gasoline and distillate fuel described in §80.84(e), into previously certif ied gasoline under §80.84(d) must meet the applicable downstream sulfur standards under §80.1604 for the gasoline produced b y blending transmix and previously certified gasoline and the endpoint standard specified in §80.84. (f) An y transmix processor or transmix blender who adds any feedstock to its transmix other than gasoline, distillate fuel, or gasoline blendstocks from pipeline interface must meet all requirements and standards that apply to a refiner under this subpart O for all gasoline it produces during a compliance period. **§80.1608 [Reserved]**  **§80. 16**  **09 Oxygenate blender requirements.**  (a) O xygenate blenders who blend only oxygenate that complies with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section into gasoline downstream of the refinery that produced the gasoline or the import facility where the gasoline was imported are not subject to the refiner or importer requirements of this subpart for such gasoline
. Such oxygenate blenders are subject to th e requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the requirements and prohibitions applicable to downstream parties , the requirements of §80.1603(d)(4), and the prohibition specified in §80. 1660(e). (b) Beginning March 1, 2017, the DFE or other oxygenate used must comply with the requirements of §80.1610. Prior to March 1, 2017, DFE is subject to the sulfur requirements of §80.385(e). **§80. 16**  **10 S**  **tanda rds and requirements for producers of denatured fuel ethanol and**  **other oxygenates for use by gasoline ox ygenate blenders**  **.******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 5 09 of 888 Beginning January

1, 2017, producers of denatured fuel ethanol (DFE) or other oxygenates for use by

oxygenate blenders under § 80.1609 must comply with the following requirements: (a) Standards. (1) The sulfur content must not be greater than 10 ppm as determined in accordance with the test requirements of §80.1630. (2) The DFE or other oxygenate must be composed solely of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, ox ygen and sulfur. (3) In the case of DFE, only gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or natural gas liquids may be used as denaturants. (4) The concentration of all denaturants used in DFE is limited to a maximum of 2. volume percent. (b) Registration . Unless registered under § 80.1450, the producer of DFE or other oxygenate must register with E PA pursuant to the requirements of § 80.1650. ( c ) PTDs
. The producer of DFE or other oxygenate must initiate a PTD for each batch of DFE or other oxygenate that it ships from its facility which contains the statement in either paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, as applicable. (1) For DFE, “Meets EPA standards for denatured fuel ethanol for use in gasoline”; or (2) For ox ygenates other than DFE, “Meets EPA standards for motor fuel oxygenates for use in gasoline” (3) PTDs that are complaint with the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section must be transferred from each part y transferring ox ygen ate to each party that receives oxygenate through to the oxygenate blender. (d) Every batch of oxygenate produ ced or imported at oxygenate production or import facility

shall be assigned a number (the “batch number”), consis ting of the EPA

assigned ox ygenate producer or importer registration number, the EPA facility registration number, the last two digits of the ye ar i n which the batch was produced, and a unique number for the batch, beginning with the number one for the first batch produced or imported each calendar year and each subsequent batch during the calendar year being assigned the next sequential number ( e.g. , 4321

– 54321

– 95

– 000001, 4321

– 543321

– 95

– 000002, etc.) **§§80.1611**

**— 80.1612**  **[Reserved]******* E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 510 of 888 **§ 80.1613 Standards and other requirements for gasoline additive manufacturers**  **and blenders.** Gasoline additive manufacturers and blenders must meet the following requirements: (a) Gasoline additive manufacturers, as defined in §79.2(f), must meet the following requirements: (1)(i) Except as otherwise provided, this section applies to any additive, as defined in §79.2(e), manufactured for use in gasoline that is not an oxygenate compound, and that is sold for use at a concentration of less than 1.0% by volume. (ii) Ox ygenate compound additives subject to the 10 ppm per

- gallon sulfur standard and the requirements of §80.1610 are not subject to the provisions of this sec tion except for the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (2) The additive must contribute no more than 3 ppm on a per gallon basis to the sulfur content of gasoline when used at the maximum recommended treatment rate. (3) The additive manufac turer must maintain records of its additive production quality control activities which demonstrates that the sulfur content of additive production batches complies with the sulfur requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and make these records avai lable upon request. (4) The maximum treatment rate on the product transfer document for the additive must state all the following: (i) The maximum registered concentration. (ii) The maximum allowed treatment rate which corresponds to the maximum registered concentration. The maximum allowed concentration must comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (b) The following provisions apply to parties who are downstream of the gasoline refiner or importer and who blend additive s to gasoline, RBOB or CBOB and who are not refiners. (1) On an y occasion where the additive blender is solely acting as an oxygenate blender, as defined in §80.2(mm), it is subject to the prohibition in §80.1660(e) and the downstream gasoline sulfur stan dard of §80.1604(b). (2) On an y occasion where an additive blender blends an additive (subject to the requirements of §80.1613(a)) at a concentration of less than 1.0% b y volume, it is subject to the prohibition in §80.1660(f) and the downstream gasoline sulfur standard of §80.1604(b).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 511 of 888 (3) On an y occasion where an additive blender blends an additive at a concentration of 1.0% b y volume or greater, it is a fuel manufacturer as defined in §79.2(d), and is subject to all the provisions that apply to refiners under this subpart O. **§80.1614 [Reserved]**  **§ 80.16**  **15 Credit generation.**  (a) Who may

generate credits? Credits may be generated under this subpart O, as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, by the following entities: (1) U.S. refiners, including small refiners under §80.1620, and refiners owning small volume refineries under §80.1621. Foreign refiners may not generate credits. (2) Importers. (b) Earl y credit generation

—January

1, 2014 through December 31, 2016. (1 ) Earl y credits may

be generated for gasoline produced or imported from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2016, by a refiner, including small refiners and owners of small volume refineries approved pursuant to §80.1622, and importers. (2) A refiner or importer may generate earl y credits for gasoline it produces at a refinery or imports during an annual averaging period when its annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the provisions of 80.1603(c), is less than 30 ppm. (3)(i) The number of early credits generated shall be calculated annuall y for each applicable averaging period according to the following equation:
EC a = [V a x (30

- S a )]

- CR a Where: EC a = Early

credits generated during the annual averaging period, in ppm - gallons, for use pursuant to §80.1616. S a = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the provisions of 80.1603(c), in ppm. V a = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period , in gallons. CR a = Credits gen erated during the annual averaging period per §80.310, in ppm

gallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. (ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of EC a is positive. (iii) The value of EC a shall be rounded to the nearest ppm

- gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in §80.9.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 512 of 888 (4) A refiner or importer may include any

downstream added ox ygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under the provisions of §§80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respectively, for the purpose of ge nerating credits. (5) All, some, or no credits generated during the time period specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be designated as subject to the requirements of subpart H. An y remaining credits must be designated as subject to the requi rements of this subpart O. (c) Standard credit generation

— beginning January 1, 2017. (1) Refiners, including small refiners and owners of small volume refineries approved pursuant to §80.1622, and importers may generate standard credits for the gasoline produced at a refinery or imported during an annual averaging period when the annual average sulfur level of the refiner, refinery or importer, as applicable, and as calculated in accordance with the provisions of §80.1603(c), is less than 10 ppm. (2)i) T he number of standard credits generated shall be calculated annuall y for each applicable averaging period according to the following equation: SC a = [V a x (10

- S a )]

- CR a Where: SC a = Standard credits generated during the annual averaging period, in ppm

gallons, for use pursuant to §80.1616. S a = Annual average sulfur level, calculated in accordance with the provisions of §80.1603(c), in ppm. V a = Total volume of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period , in gallons. CRa = Credits generated during the annual averaging period per §80.310, in ppm

gallons, for use pursuant to subpart H. This term is applicable onl y to small refiners and small volume refineries per par agraph (c)(1) of this section, and only prior to January

1, 2020. Beginning January 1, 2020, the value of this term is zero. (ii) No credits shall be generated unless the value of SC a is positive. (iii) The value of SC a shall be rounded to the nearest ppm - gallon in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (3) A refiner or importer may include any

downstream added ox ygenates included in its RFG or conventional gasoline volume under the provisions of §§80.69 and 80.101(d)(4), respective ly , for the purpose of generating credits.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 513 of 888 (4) Prior to January

1, 2020, credits generated under this paragraph (c) by small refiners and owners of small volume refineries per paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be designated as subject to the requireme nts of subpart H. An y remaining credits must be designated as subject to the requirements of this subpart O.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 514 of 888 **§ 80.16**  **16 Credit use and transfer.**  (a) Credit use. (1) Credits may

be used to meet the applicable annual average sulfur standards of §80.1603(a)(1). (2) Credits must have been generated pursuant to the requirements of §80.1615. (3) Onl y obligated parties under this subpart O may generate, use, transfer or own credits generated under this subpart O. (4) Credit life

- Earl y Credits
. (i) Earl y credits generated under §80.1615(b) are valid for use for the 2017 through 2019 compliance years. All earl y credits will expire and become invalid after February 29, 2020, when the 2019 annual compliance report is due. (ii) Earl y credits may

b e used for compliance with the annual average sulfur standard of §80.1603(a)(1) by refiners and importers. (5) Credit life

– Standard Credits. (i) Standard credits generated under §80.1615(c) are valid for use for five (5) ye ars from the year in which th ey are generated. For example, standard credits generated in 2017 may

be used for compliance through the 2022 compliance period (they would expire and become invalid after February 28, 2023, the 2022 annual compliance report due date). (ii) Standard cred its may

be used for compliance with the annual average sulfur standard of §80.1603(a)(1) by refiners and importers. (6) A refiner or importer possessing credits must use all credits prior to falling into a compliance deficit. (7) In no case may

a credit be transferred more than twice before being used or terminated. (b) Credit transfers.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 515 of 888 (1) Credits obtained from other obligated parties may be used to meet the annual average standards of this subpart O, if all of the following conditions are met: (i) T he credits are generated and reported according to the requirements of this subpart O. (ii) The credits are used in compliance with the limitations regarding the appropriate periods for credit use pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. (iii) Any cred it transfer takes place no later than February 28 following the calendar year averaging period when the credits are used. (iv) The credit has not been transferred more than twice. The first transfer by the refiner or importer who generated the credit may only be made to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit; if the transferee cannot use the credit, it may make the second, and final, transfer only to a refiner or importer who intends to use the credit. (v) The credit transferor must apply an y credits necessary to meet the transferor's applicable average standard before transferring credits to any other refiner or importer. (vi) The credit transferor does not create a negative credit balance as a result of the credit transfer. (vii) Each transferor must supply to the transferee records indicating all of the following: (A) The ye ars the credits were generated. (B) The identity

of the refiner or importer who generated the credits. (C) The identity

of the transferring part y (if it is not the same part y that generated the credits). (2) In the case of credits that have been calculated or created improperly , or are otherwise determined to be invalid, all of the following provisions appl y: (i) Invalid credits cannot be used to achieve compliance with the transferee's averaging standard, regardless of the transferee's good faith belief that the credits were valid.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 516 of 888 (ii) The refiner or importer who used the credits, and any transferor of the credits, must adjust their credit records and reports and sulfur calculations as necessary to reflect the proper credits. (iii) Any properl y created credits existing in the transferor's credit balance after correcting the credit balance, and after the transferor applies credits as needed to meet the average standard at the end of the compliance ye ar, must first be applied to correct the invalid transfers before the transferor trades or banks the credits. **§ 80.16**  **20 Small refiner definition.**  (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline small refiner is d efined as any refiner who meets all of the following criteria and has been approved b y EP A as a small refiner per §80.1622: (1) Produces gasoline at its refineries b y processing crude oil through refinery processing units. (2) Employed an average of no more than 1,500 people, based on the average number of emplo ye es for all pay periods for calendar y ear 2011 for all subsidiary companies, all parent companies, all subsidiaries of the parent companies, and all joint venture partners. (3) Had a corporate

- average crude oil capacit y less than or equal to 155,000 barrels per calendar day

(bpcd) for 2011. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “refiner” shall include foreign refiners. (c) The number of employees and crude oil capacity under paragraph (a) of this section shall be determined as follows: (1) The refiner shall include the emplo yees and crude oil capacity of an y subsidiary

companies, any

parent company

and subsidiaries of the parent company in which the parent has 50 percent or greater own ership, and an y joint venture partners. (2) For an y refiner owned by a governmental entity, the number of emplo yees and total crude oil capacity as specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall include all employees and crude oil production of the gove rnment to which the governmental entity is a part.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 517 of 888 (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) of this section, a refiner that acquires or reactivates a refinery that was shut down or non

- operational during calendar ye ar 2011, may appl y for small refiner status under this subpart O. (e) The following are ineligible for small refiner provisions under this subpart: (1) Refiners with refineries built or started up on or after January 1, 2011. (2) Persons who exceed the employee or crude oil capacity criteria under this section on January

1, 2011, but who meet these criteria after that date, regardless of whether the reduction in employees or crude oil capacit y is due to operational changes at the refinery

or a company

sale or reorganizat ion. (3) Importers. (4) Refiners who produce gasoline other than b y processing crude oil through refinery processing units. (f)(1) A refiner approved as a small refiner under §80.1622 who subsequently ceases production of gasoline from processing crude oil through refinery processing units, employ s more than 1,500 people, or exceeds the 155,000 bpcd crude oil capacit y limit after January

1 , 2011 as a result of merger with or acquisition of or b y another entity , is disqualified as a small refiner, except as provided for under paragraph (f)(4) of this section. I f such disqualification occurs, the refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 day s following the disqualifying event. (2) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(3) of this section, any r efiner whose status changes under this paragraph shall meet the applicable standards of §80.1603 within a period of up to 30 months from the disqualifying event for an y of its refineries that were previously

subject to the small refiner standards of §80.16 23. (3) A refiner may

appl y to EPA for up to an additional six months to comply with the standards of §80.1603 if more than 30 months would be required for the necessary engineering, permitting, construction, and start

- up work to be completed. Such applications must include detailed technical information supporting the need for additional time. EPA will base a decision to approve additional time on information provided b y the refiner and on other relevant information. (4) Disqualification under thi s paragraph (f) of this section shall not apply in the case of a merger between two previously approved small refiners.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 518 of 888 (5) If a refiner receives a delay per paragraphs (f)(2) and/or (f)(3) of this section, the refiner may

not generate gasoline sulfur cre dits under this subpart O during that 30 or 36 month period. (6) All written notifications to EPA should be submitted to the addresses listed in §80.1622. **§80.1621 Small**  **volume refiner** **y definition.**  (a) For the purposes of this subpart O, a gasoline smal l volume refinery is defined as an y refinery that meets all of the following criteria, and has been approved by EPA as a small volume refinery

per §80.1622: (1) Produces gasoline b y processing crude oil through refinery processing units. (2) T he average aggregate daily crude oil throu ghput, including feedstocks derived from crude oil, for the calendar ye ar 2011 (as determined b y dividing the aggregate throughput for the calendar ye ar b y the number of days in the calendar ye ar) does not exceed 75,000 barre ls
. Throughput means the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery

less volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery

processing. (b) The following are ineligible for the small volume refinery provisions under this subpart: (1) Refin eries built or started up on or after January 1, 2012. (2) Persons who exceed the crude oil throughput under this section for calendar ye ar 2011 but who meet these criteria after that date, regardless of whether the reduction in crude oil capacit y is due to operational changes at the refinery or a company

sale or reorganization. (3) Importers. (4) Refineries that produce gasoline other than b y processing crude oil through refinery processing units. **§80.1622 A pproval**  **for small refiner a**  **nd small volume refinery**  **status.** (a) Applications for small refiner or small volume refinery status under this subpart must be submitted to EPA by March 31, 201 4
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 519 of 888 (b) To qualify

for small refiner status under this subpart a refiner must submit an applicati on to EPA containing all of the following information for the refiner and for all subsidiary

companies, all parent companies, all subsidiaries of the parent companies, and all joint venture partners: (1)(i) A listing of the name and address of all company locations for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. (ii) The average number of employees at each location, based on the number of employees for each pay

period for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. (iii) The ty

pe of b usiness activities carried out at each location. (iv) For joint ventures, the total number of emplo yees includes the combined employee count of all corporate entities in the venture. (v) For government

- owned refiners, the total employee count includes al l government emplo yees. (2)(i) The total corporate crude oil capacit y of each refinery as reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for the period January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. The inform ation submitted to EIA is presumed to be correct. In cases where a company disagrees with this information, the company may petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the compan y submits its application. (ii) Foreign small refiners ap plying for approval under this section must send the total corporate crude oil capacity of each refinery

for the period January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section. (3) The application must be signed b y the president, chief operating or chief executive officer of the company , or his/her designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her knowledge, and that the company owned the refinery

as of December 31, 2011. (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and e

- mail address of a corporate contact person.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 520 of 888 (c) To qualify

for small volume refinery status under this subpart, a refiner must submit an application to EPA containing all of the following information for the ref inery , or refineries, for which the refiner is appl yi ng for small volume refinery status: (1) A listing of the name and address of each small volume refinery owned by

the compan y. (2)(i) The total crude throughput of each small volume refinery , defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less the volumes injected into the crude oil supply after refinery

processing, as reported to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), for the period January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011. The information submitted to EIA is presumed to be correct. In cases where a compan y disagrees with this information, the compan y ma y petition EPA with appropriate data to correct the record when the company submits i ts application. (ii) Foreign refiners applyingfor small volume refinery approval under this section must send the total crude throughput of each small volume refinery, defined as the total crude oil feedstock input into the refinery less the volumes inje cted into the crude oil supply

after refinery

processing of each refinery for the period January

1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section. (3) The application must be signed b y the president, chief operating or chief executive officer of the company , or his/her designee, stating that the information is true to the best of his/her knowledge, and that the company owned the refinery

as of December 31, 2011. (4) Name, address, phone number, facsimile number, and e

- mail address of a corporate contact person. (d) For foreign refiners, the small refiner or small volume refinery status application must contain all of the elements required in paragraph (b) or (c), as applicable, of this section, must demon strate compliance with §80.1620, and must be submitted by

March 31, 201 4 to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (g) of this section. (e) A refiner who qualifies as a small refiner or small volume refinery under this subpart and subsequentl y fails to meet all of the qualifying criteria as set out in §§80.1620 and 80.1621 will be disqualified pursuant to §80.1620(f) or §80.1621(d).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 521 of 888 (1) In the event such disqualification occurs, the refiner shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 day s following the disqualifying event. (2) Disqualification under this paragraph (e) shall not apply in the case of a merger between two approved small refiners. (3) An y refiner that acquires a refinery from another refiner with approved small refiner or small volume ref inery status under this subpart shall notify EPA in writing no later than 20 day s following the acquisition. (f) If EPA finds that a refiner provided false or inaccurate information in its small refiner status or small volume refinery status application under this subpart, the refiner's small refiner or small volume refinery status will be void as of the effective date of this subpart. (g) Small refiner and small volume refinery status applications, and any other correspondence required by this section, § 80.1620, and/or §80.1621 shall be sent to one of the following addresses: (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA

— Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier ser vices: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (Small Refiner/Small Volume Refinery), 6406J, 1310 L Street, NW, 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. **§§80.1623**

**— 80.1624**  **[Reserved] §80.1625**  **Hardship provisions.** EPA may , at its discretion, grant a refiner of gasoline that processes crude oil through refinery processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the provisions of this subpart. (a) Extreme hardship circumstances
. (1) EPA may , at its discretion, grant a refiner of ga soline that processes crude oil through refinery

processing units, for one or more of its refineries, temporary relief from some or all of the provisions of this subpart. EPA may grant such relief provided that the refiner demonstrates all of the followin g:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 522 of 888 (i) Unusual circumstances exist that impose extreme hardship and significantly affect the refiner's ability to comply by the applicable date. (ii) It has made best efforts to comply with the requirements of this subpart. (2) The application must spec ify the factors that demonstrate a significant economic hardship and must provide a detailed discussion regarding the inability of the refinery to produce gasoline meeting the requirements of §80.1603. Such an application must include, at a minimum, all of the following information: (i) Documentation of efforts made to obtain necessary financing, including all the following: (A) Copies of loan applications for the necessary financing of the construction of appropriate sulfur reduction technology and other equipment procurements or improvements. (B) If financing has been disapproved or is otherwise unsuccessful, documents supporting the basis for that disapproval and evidence of efforts to pursue other means of financing. (ii) A detailed anal ys is of the r easons the refinery is unable to produce gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart O in 2017, including costs, specification of equipment still needed, potential equipment suppliers, and efforts already completed to obtain the necessary

equipment. (i ii) If unavailability

of equipment is part of the reason for the inability to comply , a discussion of other options considered, and the reasons these other options are not feasible. (iv) If relevant, a demonstration that a needed or lower cost technology is immediately

unavailable, but will be available in the near future, and full information regarding when and from what sources it will be available. (v) Schematic drawings of the refinery configuration as of January 1, 2011, and as of the date of the hardship extension application, and any planned future additions or changes. (vi) If relevant, a demonstration that a temporary unavailability

exists of engineering or construction resources necessary for design or installation of the needed equipment.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 523 of 888 ( vii) A detailed anal ys is of the reasons the refinery is unable to use credits to meet the gasoline standards of this subpart O, including all avenues pursued to generate and/or procure credits, their cost, and ability to finance them. (viii) A discussion of an y sulfur reductions that can be achieved from current levels. (ix) The date the refiner anticipates compliance with the standards in §80.1603 can be achieved at its refinery (x) An analy sis of the economic impact of compliance on the refiner's busi ness (including financial statements from the last 5 years, or for any time period up to 10 ye ars, at EPA's request). (xi) Any other information regarding other strategies considered, including strategies or components of strategies that do not involve in stallation of equipment, and why meeting the standards in §80.1603 beginning in 2017 (or 2020 for approved small refiners and small volume refineries) is infeasible. (3) Hardship applications under this paragraph (a) must be submitted to EPA by March 31, 201 4 to one of the addresses listed in paragraph (d) of this section. (b) Extreme unforeseen circumstances hardship. (1) In appropriate extreme, unusual, and unforeseen circumstances (for example, natural disaster or refinery fire) which are clearl y outs ide the control of the refiner or importer and which could not have been avoided by the exercise of prudence, diligence, and due care, EPA may

permit a refiner or importer, for a brief period, to distribute gasoline which does not meet the requirements of this subpart for all of the following reasons: (i) It is in the public interest to do so (e.g., distribution of the nonconforming gasoline is necessary

to meet projected shortfalls which cannot otherwise be compensated for). (ii) The refiner or importer exercised prudent planning and was not able to avoid the violation and has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the extent of the nonconformity
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 524 of 888 (iii) The refiner or importer can show how the requirements for making compliant gasoline, and/or purchasing credits to partiall y or completely offset the nonconformity, will be expeditiously

achieved. (iv) The refiner or importer agrees to make up an y air quality detriment associated with the nonconforming gasoline, where practicable. (v) The refiner or importer pay s to the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity minus the amount expended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, in making up the air qualit y detriment. (2) The hardship application must meet all other applicable requirements of this section, except paragraph (a) of this section. (c) The hardship extension application must contain a letter signed b y the president or the chief operating or chief executive officer of the company, or his/her designe e, stating that the information contained in the application is true to the best of his/her knowledge. (d) Hardship applications under this section must be submitted in writing to one of the following addresses: (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA

— Attn: Tier 3 P rogram (Hardship Application), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (Hardship Application), 6406J, 1310 LStreet, NW, 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. **§ 80.16**  **30 Sampling and testing requirements**  **for refiners and importers .**  (a) Sample and test each batch of gasoline. (1) Refiners and importers shall collect a representative sample from each batch of gasoline produced or imported and test each sample to determine its sulfur content for compliance with requirements under this subpart prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility , using the sampling and testing methods provided in this section or §§80.8 (sampling) and 80.47 (testing)
. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the requirements of this section apply

beginning January

1, 20 17.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 525 of 888 ( 3 )(i) Beginning January

1, 20 17 , any

refiner who produces gasoline using computer - controlled in

- line blending equipment is exempt from the req uirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section to obtain the test results required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery , provided that the refiner obtains an exemption from this requirement from EPA. To obtain su ch exemption, the refiner must: (A) Have been granted an in

- line blending exemption under §80.65(f)(4); or (B) If the refiner has not been granted an exemption under §80.65(f)(4), submit to EPA all of the information required under §80.65(f)(4)(i)(A). A letter signed by the president, chief operating or chief executive officer of the compan y, or his/her designee, stating that the information contained in the submission is true to the best of his/her belief must accompan y an y submission under this paragra ph (a)( 3 )(i)(B). (ii) Refiners who seek an exemption under paragraph (a)( 3 )(i) of this section must comply with an y request by

EPA for additional information or any other requirements that EPA includes as part of the exemption. (iii) Within 60 day s of EPA ’ s receipt of a submission under paragraph (a)( 3 )(i)(B) of this section, EPA will notify the refiner if the exemption is not approved or of an y deficiencies in the refiner's submission, or if an y additional information is required or other requirements are included in the exemption pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section. In the absence of such notification from EPA, the effective date of an exemption under paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section for refiners who do not hold an exemption under §80.6 5(f)(4) is 60 day s from EPA ’ s receipt of the refiner's submission under paragraph (a)(4)(i)(B) of this section. (iv) EPA reserves the right to modify the requirements of an exemption under paragraph (a)( 3 )(i) of this section, in whole or in part, at any t ime, if EPA determines that the refiner ’ s operation does not effectivel y or adequately control, monitor or document the sulfur content of the refinery 's gasoline production, or if EPA determines that any other circumstances exist which merit modification o f the requirements of an exemption, such as advancements in the state of the art for in

- line blending measurement which allow for additional control or more accurate monitoring or documentation of sulfur content. If EPA finds that a refiner provided false or inaccurate information in any submission required for an exemption under this section, upon notification from EPA, the refiner ’ s exemption will be void ab initio
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 526 of 888 (b) Sampling methods. For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall sample each batch of gasoline b y using one of the methods specified in 40 CFR 80.8. (c) Test method for measuring sulfur content of gasoline. (1) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, refiners and importers shall use the method provided in §80.47, as applicable, to measure the sulfur content of gasoline they produce or import
. (2) Sulfur content shall be reported to the nearest ppm. **§ 80.16**  **31 Sample retention requirem**  **ents.** (a) Sample retention requirements. Beginning January 1, 2017, or January

1 of the first year credits are generated under §80.1615, whichever is earlier, any refiner or importer shall do all of the following: (1) Collect a representative portion o f each sample anal yz ed under §80.1630, of at least 330 milliliters in volume. (2) Retain sample portions for the most recent 20 samples collected, or for each sample collected during the most recent 21 day period, whichever is greater, not to exceed 90 days for any

given sample. (3) Comply

with the gasoline sample handling and storage procedures under §80.1630 for each sample portion retained. (4) Comply

with an y request by

EPA to: (i) Provide a retained sample portion to the Administrator's authorized representative; and (ii) Ship a retained sample portion to EPA, within 2 working day s of the date of the request, b y an overnight shipping service or comparable means, to the address and following procedures specified b y EPA, and accompanied with the sulfur test result for the sample determined under §80.1630. (b) Sample retention requirement for samples subject to independent analysis requirements.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 527 of 888 (1) An y refiner or importer who meets the independent anal ys is requirements under §80.65(f) for an y batch of reformulated gasoline or RBOB will have met the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, provided the independent laboratory meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section for the gasoline batch; except that the retained RBOB sample f

or purposes of this subpart O must be a sample of the RBOB prior to hand blending with oxygenate. (2) For samples retained by an independent laboratory under this paragraph (b), the test results required to be submitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall be the test results determined under §80.65(e). (c) Sampling compliance certification. Any refiner or importer shall include with each annual report filed under §80.1652, the following statement, which must accuratel y reflect the facts and must be signed and dated b y the same person who signs the annual report: I certify

that I have made inquiries that are sufficient to give me knowledge of the procedures to collect and store gasoline samples, and Ifurther certify that the procedures meet the req

uirements of the ASTM procedures required under 40 CFR 80.1630. (d) Prior to January

1, 2017, for purposes of complying with the requirements of this section, refiners who anal yz e composited samples under §80.1630 must retain portions of the composited samples. Portions of samples of each batch comprising the composited samples are not required to be retained. (e) For purposes of complying with the requirements of this section for RBOB, a sample of each RBOB batch produced must be retained. **§ 80.16**  **40 S**  **tan dards and requirements**  **that apply to refiners producing gasoline by**  **blending blendstocks into PCG .**  (a) An y refiner who produces gasoline b y blending blendstock into PCG, as defined at §80.2(d), must meet the requirements of §80.1630 to sample and test e very batch of gasoline as follows: (1) Exclude the PCG for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O. ( 2 ) To accomplish the exclusion required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur content of the PCG used at the refinery and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 528 of 888 the volume of and sulfur content of the gasoline produced at the refinery , and use the compliance calculation procedures in paragraphs (a)(1 )(iii) and (a)( 1 )(iv) of this section. ( 3 ) For each batch of PCG that is used to produce gasoline the refiner must include the volume and sulfur content of the PCG as a negative volume and a positive sulfur content in the refiner’s compliance c alculations in accord with the requirements at §80. 1603
. ( 4) For each batch of gasoline produced at the refinery using PCG and blendstock , the refiner must determine the volume and sulfur content of the combined product and include each batch of combined product for purposes of sulfur compliance in the refine ry ’s compliance calculations at §80. 1603 without regard to the p resence of previously

certified gasoline in the batch. ( 5 ) The refiner must use any PCG that it includes as a negative batch in its compliance calculations pursuant to §80. 1603 as a component in gasoline production during the annual averaging period in which the PCG was included as a negative batch in the refiner’s compliance calculations. (6) The refiner must also comply with §80.65(i) when producing RBOB or RFG and §80.101(g)(9) when producing conventional gasoline or CBOB. (7) An y negative annual average sulfur value shall be reported as zero and not as a negative result. (b) In the alternative, a refiner may sample and test each batch of blendstock when received at the refinery to determine the volume and sulfur content, and treat each blendstock receipt as a separate batch for purposes of compliance calculations for the annual average sulfur standard and for reporting. This alternative applies only if every batch of blendstock use d at a refinery during an averaging period has a sulfur content that is equal to, or less than, the applicable per

- gallon cap standard under §80.1603. (c) Refiners who blend only butane into PCG may meet the sampling and testing requirements of this subpart O for sulfur b y using sulfur test results of the butane supplier, provided that the requirements of §80.82 are met. **§ 80.16**  **41 A**  **lternative sulfur standards and requirements that**  **apply to importers who transport gasoline by truck**  **.** Importers who import g asoline into the United States by truck may

compl y with the following requirements instead of the requirements to sample and test every batch of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 529 of 888 gasoline under §80.1630, and the annual sulfur average and per

- gallon cap standards otherwise applicable to imp orters under §80.1603: (a) Alternative standards. The imported gasoline must comply with the standard in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section as follows: (1) The annual average standard of 10 ppm and the per

- gallon standard of 80 ppm as provided b y §80.1603; or (2) A per
- gallon standard of 10 ppm. (b) Terminal testing. The importer may use test results for sulfur content testing conducted b y the terminal operator, for gasoline contained in the storage tank from which trucks used to transport g asoline into the United States are loaded, for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the standards in paragraph (a) of this section, provided all the following conditions are met: (1) The sampling and testing shall be performed after each receipt of gasoline into the storage tank, or immediately before each transfer of gasoline to the importer's truck. (2) The sampling and testing shall be performed using the methods specified in §§80.8 and 80.47, respectively
. (3) At the time of each transfer of ga soline to the importer's truck for import to the U.S., the importer must obtain a cop y of the terminal test result that indicates the sulfur content of the truck load (or each compartment if fuel was loaded from different storage tanks). (c) Quality

assur ance program. The importer must conduct a quality assurance program, as specified in this paragraph, for each truck loading terminal. (1) Qualit y assurance samples must be obtained from the truck

- loading terminal and tested b y the importer, or b y an indep endent laboratory , and the terminal operator must not know in advance when samples are to be collected. (2) The sampling and testing must be performed using the methods specified in §§80.8 and 80.47, respectively
. (3) The qualit y assurance test results f or sulfur must differ from the terminal test result by no more than the ASTM International (ASTM) reproducibility of the terminal's test results, as determined by the following equation:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 530 of 88 8 R = 105 × ((S +2)/10 4 ) 0.4 Where: R = ASTM reproducibility. S = Sulfur content based on the terminal's test result. (4) The frequency

of the quality

assurance sampling and testing must be at least one sample for each fift y of an importer's trucks that are loaded at a terminal, or one sample per month, whichever is mo re frequent. (d) Part y required to conduct quality assurance testing. The qualit y assurance program under paragraph (c) of this section shall be conducted b y the importer. In the alternative, this testing may be conducted by

an independent laboratory that meets the criteria under §80.65(f)(2)(iii), provided the importer receives, no later than 21 day s after the sample was taken, copies of all results of tests conducted. (e) Assignment of batch numbers. The importer must treat each truck load of imported gasoline as a separate batch for purposes of assigning batch numbers and maintaining records under §80.1653, and reporting under §80.1652. (f) EPA inspections of terminals. EPA inspectors or auditors, and auditors conducting attest engagements under §80.1 667, must be given full and immediate access to the truck

- loading terminal and any laboratory

at which samples of gasoline collected at the terminal are anal yz ed, and must be allowed to conduct inspections, review records, collect gasoline samples, and per form audits. These inspections or audits may be either announced or unannounced. (g) Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. This section does not apply to Certified Sulfur

FRGAS. (h) Reporting requirements. Any importer who elects to comply with the alternative standards in paragraph (a) of this section shall comply with the following requirements: (1) All importer recordkeeping and reporting requirements under §§80.1653 and 80.1652, except as provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this section. (2) An importer who elects to comply with the alternative standards in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must certify in the annual report whether it is in compliance with the applicable per

- gallon batch standard set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, in lieu of***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 531 of 888 providing the information required b y §80.1652 regardi ng annual average sulfur content and compliance with the average standard under §80.1603. (i) Effect of noncompliance. If an y of the requirements of th is section are not met, all gasoline imported by the truck importer during the time an y requirements are not met is deemed in violation of the gasoline sulfur average and per

- gallon cap standards in §80.1603. Additionally , if any requirement is not met, E PA may notify the importer of the violation and, if the requirement is not fulfilled within 10 day s of notification, the truck importer may

not in the future use the sampling and testing provisions in this section in lieu of the provisions in §80.1630. **§ §**  **80.1642 -**  **§ 80.1649 [Reserved]**  **§ 80.16**  **50 Registration.**  The following registration requirements appl y under this subpart: (a) Registration with the Administrator of EPA is required for any : (1) Gasoline refiner or importer having an y refinery or import facility

subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O. (2) Ox ygenate producer or importer having an y ox ygen ate production facility or import facility

subject to the oxygenate sulfur standards under §80.1610 unless already registered under §80.1450. (3) Ox ygenate blender who has an y ox ygenate blending facility that blends oxygenate into RBOB where the resulting gasoline is subject to the gasoline sulfur standards under this subpart O. (b) Registration dates. (1) An y gasoline refiner or importer required to register shall do so by March 31, 2013, or at least thirty

day s in advance of the first date that such person will produce or import reformulated gasoline, conventional gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB, whichever is later. (2) An y ox ygenate producer or importer required to register shall do so by December 1, 2017, or at least thirty day s in advance of the first date that such person will produce or import ox ygenate, whichever is later.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 532 of 888 (3) An y ox ygenate blender required to register shall do so by March 31, 2013, or at least thirty

day s in advance of the first date that such person will blend oxygenate into RBOB, whichever is later. (c) Refiner registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall includ e all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number of the refiner. (ii) For each separate refinery , the facility name, phy sical location, contact name, e - mail address, telephone number, and ty pe of facility
. (iii) For each separate refinery : (A) Whether records are kept on

- site or off

- site of the refinery
. (B) If records are kept off

- site, the primary

off

- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e

- mail address, and tel ephone number. (iv) For each separate refinery that produces reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number of the independent laboratory

used to meet the independent anal ys is requirements of §80.6 5(f). (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each refiner, and a facility registration number for each refinery that is identified. These registration numbers shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. (i) An y refiner shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty

day s of an y occasion when the registration information previously supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate; except that (ii) EPA must be notified in writing of an y change in designated independent laboratory

under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section at least thirty day s in advance of such change. (d) Gasoline importer registration.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 533 of 888 (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number of the importer. (ii) For each importer’s operations in a single PADD: (A) Whether records are kept on

- site at the registered address or off

- site. (B) If records are kept off

- site, the primary

off

- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number. (C) For importers that import reformulated gasoline and/or RBOB, the name, address, contact name and telephone number of the independent laboratory used to meet the independent anal ys is requirements of §80.65(f). (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each importer. This registration number shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. (i) An y importer shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty day s of any

occasion when the registration information previously

supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate ; except that (ii) EPA must be notified in writing of an y change in designated independent laboratory

under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(C) of this section at least thirty day s in advance of such change. (e) Ox ygenate producer registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number of the ox ygenate producer. (ii) For each separate ox ygenate production facility, the facility name, phy sical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of facility
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 534 of 888 (iii) For each separate oxygenate production facility : (A) Whether records are kept on

- site or off

- site of the refinery
. (B) If records are kept off

- si te, the primary

off

- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, and telephone number. (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each oxygenate producer, and a facility

registration number for each ox ygenate production facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those provided under §80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to registration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty day s of any

occasion when the registration information previously supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate. (f) Ox ygenate importer registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the fol lowing information: (i) The name, business address, contact name, and e

- mail address, telephone number of the importer. (ii) For each importer’s operations in a single PADD: (A) Whether records are kept on

- site at the registered address or off

- site. (B) If records are kept off

- site, the primary

off

- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number. (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each importer. This registration number shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (g) Ox ygenate blender registration. (1) Registration shall be on forms prescribed by the Administrator, and shall include all the following information:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 535 of 888 (i) The name, business address, contact name, and e

- mail a ddress, telephone number of the ox ygenate blender. (ii) For each separate ox ygenate blending facility, the facility name, ph ys ical location, contact name, telephone number, and type of facility
. (iii) For each separate oxygenate blending facility : (A) Whether records are kept on

- site or off

- site of the refinery
. (B) If records are kept off

- site, the primary

off

- site storage facility

name, phy sical location, contact name, e

- mail address, and telephone number. (2) EPA will supply

a company

registration number to each ox ygenate blender, and a facility

registration number for each ox ygenate blending facility that is identified. These registration numbers or those provided under §80.1450 shall be used in all reports to the Administrator. (3) Updates to reg istration. Any oxygenate producer shall submit updated registration information to the Administrator within thirty day s of any

occasion when the registration information previously supplied becomes incomplete or inaccurate. **§ 80.16**  **51 Product transfer docu**  **ment requirements.** (a) On each occasion that any person transfers custody

or title to any

gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or ox ygenate other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser

- consumer facility, the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which include all the following information: (1) The name and address of the transferor. (2) The name and address of the transferee. (3) The volume of gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate which is being transferred. (4) The location of the gasoline, RBOB, CBOB, or oxygenate at the time of the transfer. (5) The date of the transfer.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 536 of 888 (b) On each occasion when an y person transfers custody or title to an y gasoline for export or with an exemption under §§80.1654, 80.1655, 80.1656, and/or 80.1658 , an y of the following statements must be included on the product transfer document: (1) For gasoline with a national security exemption under §80.1655, “This gasoline is for use in vehicles , engines, or equipment under an EPA

- approved national securit y exemption only .”
. (2) For gasoline with a research, development, or testing exemption under §80.1656, “This gasoline is for research, development, or testing purposes only .”
. (3) For gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under §80.1658, “This is gasoline for use only in Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Is lands.”. (4) For gasoline for export purposes, “ This gasoline is for export onl y.”. (5) For gasoline for racing purposes, “This gasoline is for racing purposes only .”. (6) For California gasoline, pursuant to §80.1654, “California gasoline.”. (c) On each occasion when any person transfers custody

or title to any

gasoline additive intended to be used at less than 1 volume percent, other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser

consumer facility , the transferor shall provide to the transferee documents which include i nformation on the maximum recommended treatment level. **§ 80.16**  **52 Reporting requirements.**  Beginning with the 2017 averaging period or the first year credits are generated under §80.1615 (whichever is earlier), and continuing for each averaging period thereafter, any refiner or importer, and any oxygenate producer or importer, shall submit to EP A annual reports that contain the information required in this section, and an y other information as EPA may require. (a) Refiner and importer annual reports. An y refiner, for each of its refineries, and an y importer for the gasoline it imports, shall s ubmit a report for each calendar year averaging period that includes all the following information: (1) The EPA importer, or refiner and refinery facility registration numbers.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 537 of 888 (2) The average standard under §80.1603, reported to two (2) decimal places. (3) The total volume of gasoline produced or imported, reported to the nearest whole number. (4) The annual average sulfur level of the gasoline produced or imported, reported to two (2) decimal places. (5) The annual average sulfur level after inclusio n of any credits, reported to two (2) decimal places. (6) Separatel y provided information for credits, and separately b y ye ar of creation, as follows: (i) The number of credits at the beginning of the averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number. (ii) The number of credits generated, reported to the nearest whole number. (iii) The number of credits used, reported to the nearest whole number. (iv) If an y credits were obtained from or transferred to other parties; and for each other part y, its name and EPA refiner or importer registration number, and the number of credits obtained from or transferred to the other party
. (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number. (vi) Th e number of credits that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period, reported to the nearest whole number. (7) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported during the averaging period, all of the following: (i) The batch number assigned under §80.65(d)(3); except that if composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple batches produced subsequent to December 31, 2003, are tested under §80.101(i)(2) for anti

- dumping compliance purposes, for purposes of this subpart a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch using the batch numbering procedures under §80.65(d)(3). (ii) The date the batch was produced.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 538 of 888 (iii) The volume of the batch, reported to the nearest whole number. (iv) The sulfur content of the batch, repo rted to two (2) decimal places, along with identification of the test method used to determine the sulfur content of the batch, as determined under §80.1630. (8) All values measured or calculated pursuant to the requirements of this paragraph (a) shall be in accordance with the rounding procedure specified in §80.9. (9) When submitting reports under this paragraph (a) from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, any importer shall exclude Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. (b) Additional reporting requirements f or importers. From January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019, importers shall report all of the following information for Sulfur

- FRGAS imported during an annual averaging period: (1) The EPA refiner and refinery registration numbers of each foreign refin er and refinery where the Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS was produced. (2) The total gallons of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS and Non

- Certified Sulfur

FRGAS imported from each foreign refiner and refinery , reported to one (1) decimal place. (c) Ox ygenate producer repor ts. On an annual basis, the producer of DFE or other oxygenate must submit a summary report to EPA which includes all of the following: (1) The facility

identification information provided pursuant to §80.1650. (2) The total volume of all batches of DFE and other oxygenate produced. (3) An attestation that all of the batches of DFE and other oxygenate produced during the compliance period were in compliance with the requirements of this subpart. (d) Report submission. Any annual report required under this section shall be: (1) Signed and certified as meeting all of the applicable requirements of this subpart by

the owner or a responsible corporate officer of the refiner or importer; and (2) Submitted to EPA no later than the March 31 each ye ar for the prior calendar ye ar averaging period.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 539 of 888 (e) Attest reports. Attest reports for refiner and importer attest engagements required under §80.1667 shall be submitted to the Administrator by Ma y 31 of each ye ar for the prior calendar ye ar averaging period. **§ 80.16**  **53 Recordkeeping.**  (a) Records that must be kept. Beginning January 1, 2017 or January 1 of the first ye ar that credits are generated, an y person who produces, imports, sells, offers for sale, dispenses, distribute s, supplies, offers for supply , stores, or transports gasoline, shall keep records that contain all of the following information: (1) The product transfer document information required under §80.1651. (2) All of the following information for an y s ampling and testing for sulfur content required under this subpart O: (i) The location, date, time, and storage tank or truck identification for each sample collected. (ii) The name and title of the person who collected the sample and the person who performed the test. (iii) The results of the test as originall y printed b y the testing apparatus, or where no printed result is produced, the results as originally recorded b y the person who performed the test. (iv) An y record that contains a test result for the sample that is not identical to the result recorded under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. (v) The test methodology used. (b) Additional records that refiners and importers must keep. Beginning January 1, 2014, or January

1 of the first year credits are generated under §80.1615, whichever is earlier, an y refiner for each of its refineries and any importer for the gasoline it imports, shall keep records that include all of the followin g information: (1) For each batch of gasoline produced or imported: (i) The batch volume.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 540 of 888 (ii) The batch number assigned under §80.65(d)(3) and the appropriate designation under paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section; except that for composite samples of conventional gasoline representing multiple batches , that are tested under §80.101(i)(2) for purposes of this subpart, a separate batch number must be assigned to each batch using the batch numbering procedures under §80.65(d)(3). (iii) The date of production or importation. (iv) If appropriate, the designation of the batch as California gasoline under §80.1654, exempt gasoline for national security purposes under §80.1655, exempt gasoline for research and development under §80.1656, or for export o utside the United States. (v) The test methodology used. (2) Information regarding credits, separatel y kept according to the ye ar of creation; and for credit generation or use starting in 2014. Information shall be kept separately for different t ypes of credits generated under §80.1615: (i) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's possession at the beginning of the averaging period. (ii) The number of credits generated. (iii) The number of credits used. (iv) If an y credits were obtained f rom or transferred to other parties, all the following for each other party : (A) The part y’s name. (B) The part y’ s EPA refiner or importer registration number. (C) The number of credits obtained from, or transferred to, the part y. (v) The number of credits that expired at the end of the averaging period. (vi) The number of credits in the refiner's or importer's possession that will carry over into the subsequent averaging period.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 541 of 888 (vii) Contracts or other commercial documents that establish each transfer of credits from the transferor to the transferee. (3) The calculations used to determine compliance with the applicable sulfur average standards of §80.1603, or §80.1604. (4) The calculations used to determine the number of credits generated under § 80.1615. (5) A cop y of all reports submitted to EPA under §80.1652. (6) In the case of parties who process transmix, records of an y s ampling and testing required under §80.1607. (c) Additional records importers must keep. An y i mporter shall keep record s that identify and verify

the source of each batch of certified Sulfur

- FRGAS and non

- certified Sulfur

- FRGAS imported and demonstrate compliance with the requirements for importers under §80.1666. (d) Records that producers of denatured fuel ethanol and o ther ox ygenates must keep
. (1) The date each batch was produced. (2) The batch volume and an identification of the test methodology used. (3) The test results on the sulfur content of each batch and the test methodology used. (4) The volume percent denaturant used in each batch if the oxygenate is denatured fuel ethanol. (5) The t ype and source of the denaturant used in each batch if the ox ygenate if denatured fuel ethanol. (e) Records that parties that take custody of ox yg enates must keep. All parties that take custody of ox yg enate from the ox ygenate producer through to the ox ygen ate blender must keep a cop y of the product transfer document for each batch of ox ygenate. (f) Length of time records must be kept. The records required under this subpart O shall be kept for five years from the date they were created; except in the following cases:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 542 of 888 (1) Transfers of credits. Except as provided in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, records relating to credit transfers shall be kept b y the transfe ror for 5 years from the date the credits are transferred; and shall be kept b y the transferee for 5 ye ars from the date the credits were transferred, used, or terminated, whichever is later. (2) Earl y credits. (i) Where the part y generating the credits does not transfer the credits, records must be kept for 5 years from the date of creation, use, or termination, whichever is later. (ii) Where earl y credits are transferred, records relating to such credits shall be kept by the transferor for 5 y ears from the date the credits are transferred; and shall be kept by the transferee for 5 years from the date the credits were transferred, used, or terminated, whichever is later. (g) Make records available to EPA. On request by EPA the records required in this section shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized representative. For records that are electronically generated or maintained, the equipment and software necessary to read the records shall be made available; or, if requested by EPA, electronic records shall be converted to paper documents which shall be provided to the Administrator's authorized representative. **§80.1654 California gasoline requirements**  **.** (a) California gasoline exemption. California gasoline that complies with all the requirem ents of this section is exempt from all other provisions of this subpart O. (b) Requirements for California gasoline. (1) Each batch of California gasoline must be designated as such b y its refiner or importer. (2) Designated California gasoline must be kept segregated from gasoline that is not California gasoline, at all points in the distribution sy stem. (3) Designated California gasoline must ultimately be used in the State of California and not used elsewhere.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 543 of 888 (4) For California gasoline produced o utside the State of California, the transferors and transferees must meet the product transfer document requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this section. (5)(i) An y refiner that operates a refinery located outside the State of California at which Californ ia gasoline (as defined in §80.1600) is produced must provide to any person to whom custody or title of such gasoline has transferred, and each transferee must provide to any

subsequent transferee, documents which include all the following information: (A ) The name and address of the transferor. (B) The name and address of the transferee. (C) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred. (D) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer. (E) The date and time of the transfer. (F) The identification of the gasoline as California gasoline. (ii) Each refiner and transferee of California gasoline must maintain copies of the product transfer documents required to be provided by paragraph (b)(5)(i) o f this section for a period of five ye ars from the date of creation and shall deliver such documents to the Administrator or to the Administrator's authorized representative upon request. (6) Gasoline that is ultimately used in any

part of the United States outside of the State of California mus t comply with the standards and requirements of this subpart, regardless of an y designation as California gasoline. (d) Use of California test methods and offsite sampling procedures. In the case of any gasoline that is not California gasoline and that i s either produced at a refinery located in the State of California or is imported from outside the United States into the State of California, the refiner or importer may , with regard to such gasoline: (1) Use the sampling and testing methods approved in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations instead of the sampling and testing methods required under §80.1630; and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 544 of 888 (2) Determine the sulfur content of gasoline at offsite tankage (which would otherwise be prohibited under §80.65(e)(1)). (i) Note that the requirements of §80.65(e)(1), regarding when the properties of a batch of reformulated gasoline must be determined, specify that the properties of a batch of gasoline be determined prior to the gasoline leaving the refinery or import facility ; howeve r, under this section, a refiner of California gasoline may determine the properties of gasoline as specified under §80.65(e)(1) at offsite tankage provided that: (A) The samples are properly collected under the terms of a current and valid protocol agree ment between the refiner and the California Air Resources Board with regard to sampling at the offsite tankage and consistent with the requirements prescribed in Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2250 et seq. (May 1, 2003); and (B) The ref

iner provides a copy

of the protocol agreement to EPA upon request. **§ 80.16**  **55 National security exemptions.**  (a) The standards of §80.1603 do not apply to gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for suppl y, stored, di spensed, or transported for use in an y of the following: (1) Tactical military

vehicles, engines, or equipment having an EPA national securit y exemption from the gasoline emission standards under 40 CFR part 86. (2) Tactical military

vehicles, engines, o r equipment that are not subject to a national securit y exemption from vehicle or engine emissions standards as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section but, for national security purposes (for purposes of readiness for deplo ym ent oversees), need to b e fueled on the same gasoline as the vehicles, engines, or equipment for which EPA has granted such a national security exemption. (b) The exempt fuel must meet all the following conditions: (1) It must be accompanied by product transfer documents as req uired under §80.1651. (2) It must be segregated from non

- exempt gasoline at all points in the distribution sy stem.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 545 of 888 (3) It must be dispensed from a fuel pump stand, fueling truck, or tank that is labeled with the appropriate designation of the fuel. (4) It may not be used in any

vehicles, engines, or equipment other than those referred to in paragraph (a) of this section. **§ 80.16**  **56 Exemptions for gasoline used for research, development, or testing**  **purposes.** (a) Written request for a research and developm ent exemption. Any person may receive an exemption from the provisions of this subpart for gasoline used for research, development, or testing (“R&D”) purposes b y submitting the information listed in paragraph (c) of this section to EPA. Applications for R&D exemptions must be submitted to one of the addresses in paragraph (h) of this section. (b) Criteria for a research and development exemption. For a research and development exemption to be granted, the person requesting an exemption must do all of the following: (1) Demonstrate a purpose that constitutes an appropriate basis for exemption. (2) Demonstrate that an exemption is necessary
. (3) Design a research and development program that is reasonable in scope. (4) Have a degree of control consist ent with the purpose of the program and EPA's monitoring requirements. (c) In formation required to be submitted. To demonstrate each of the elements in paragraph (b) of this section, the person requesting an exemption must include all of the following i nformation: (1) A concise statement of the purpose of the program demonstrating that the program has an appropriate research and development purpose. (2) An explanation of why the stated purpose of the program cannot be achieved in a practicable manner w ithout performing one or more of the prohibited acts under this subpart O. (3) All of the following, to demonstrate the reasonableness of the scope of the program:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 546 of 888 (i) An estimate of the program’s beginning and ending dates. (ii) An estimate of the maxi mum number of vehicles or engines involved in the program and the number of miles and engine hours that will be accumulated on each. (iii) The sulfur content of the gasoline expected to be used in the program. (iv) The quantit y of gasoline which does not comply with the requirements of §80.1603. (v) The manner in which the information on vehicles and engines used in the program will be recorded and made available to the Administrator upon request. (4) With regard to control, a demonstration that the pro gram affords EPA a monitoring capability , including all the following: (i) A description of the technical and operational aspects of the program. (ii) The site(s) of the program (including facility name, street address, cit y, county , State, and zip code). (iii) The manner in which information on the fuel used in the program (including quantity , fuel properties, name, address, telephone number and contact person of the supplier, and the date received from the supplier), will be recorded and made avai lable to the Administrator upon request. (iv) The manner in which the part y will ensure that the research and development fuel will be segregated from gasoline meeting the standards of this subpart and how fuel pumps will be labeled to ensure proper use o f the research and development fuel. (v) The name, address, telephone number, and title of the person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption from whom further information on the application may be obtained. (vi) The name, address, telephone numbe r, and title of the person(s) in the organization requesting an exemption who is responsible for recording and making available the information specified in this paragraph (c), and the location where such information will be maintained. (d) Additional requirements.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 547 of 888 (1) The product transfer documents associated with research and development gasoline must compl y with requirements of §80.1651(c). (2) The research and development gasoline must be designated b y the refiner or supplier, as applicable, as exemp t research and development gasoline. (3) The research and development gasoline must be kept segregated from non

exempt gasoline at all points in the distribution sy stem. (4) The research and development gasoline must not be sold, distributed, offered for sale or distribution, dispensed, supplied, offered for supply , transported to or from, or stored by a fuel retail outlet, or by

a wholesale purchaser

- consumer facility , unless the wholesale purchaser

- consumer facilit y is associated with the research and d evelopment program that uses the gasoline. (5) At the completion of the program, an y emission control sy stems or elements of design which are damaged or rendered inoperative shall be replaced on vehicles remaining in service, or the responsible person wil l be liable for a violation of the Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 7522 (a)(3)) unless sufficient evidence is supplied that the emission controls or elements of design were not damaged. (e) Memorandum of exemption. The Administrator will grant an R&D exemption upon a demonstration that the requirements of this section have been met. The R&D exemption will be granted in the form of a memorandum of exemption signed by the applicant and the Administrator (or delegate), which may include such term s and conditions as the Administrator determines necessary to monitor the exemption and to carry out the purposes of this section, including restoration of emission control sy stems. (1) The volume of fuel subject to the approval shall not exceed the estim ated amount under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, unless EPA grants a greater amount in writing. (2) An y exemption granted under this section will expire at the completion of the test program or three ye ars from the date of approval, whichever occurs fi rst, and may only be extended upon re

- application consistent will all requirements of this section. (3) EPA may

elect at an y time to review the information contained in the request, and where appropriate may notify the responsible person of disapproval of the exemption.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 548 of 888 (4) In granting an exemption the Administrator may include terms and conditions, including replacement of emission control devices or elements of design, that the Administrator determines are necessary for monitoring the exemption and for assuring that the purposes of this subpart are met. (5) An y violation of a term or condition of the exemption, or of any requirement of this section, will cause the exemption to be void ab initio. (6) If an y information required under paragraph (c) of th is section should change after approval of the exemption, the responsible person must notify EPA in writing immediately . Failure to do so may result in disapproval of the exemption or may make it void ab initio, and may

make the part y liable for a violati on of this subpart O. (f) Effects of exemption. Gasoline that is subject to a research and development exemption under this section is exempt from other provisions of this subpart O provided that the fuel is used in a manner that complies with the purpos e of the program under paragraph (c) of this section and all other requirements of this section. (g) Notification of completion. The part y shall notify EPA in writing within 30 day s after completion of the research and development program. (h) Requests for research and development exemptions shall be sent to one of the following addresses: (1) For U.S. Mail: U.S. EPA

— Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. (2) For overnight or courier services: U.S. EPA, Attn: Tier 3 Program (R&D Exemption Request), 6406J, 1310 LStreet, NW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20005. **§80.1657 [R**  **e served]**  **§ 80.16**  **58 Requirements for gasoline for use in American Samoa, Guam, and the**  **Commonwealth of the Northern Ma riana Islands.**  The gasoline sulfur standards of this subpart O do not apply to gasoline that is produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, supplied, offered for supply , stored, dispensed, or transported for use in the Territories of Guam, American Samoa or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, provided that such gasoline meets all of the following requirements:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 549 of 888 (a) The gasoline is designated by the refiner or importer as high sulfur gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (b) The gasoline is used only in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (c) The gasoline is accompanied by documentation that complies with the product transfer document requirem ents of §80.1651(c)(3). (d) The gasoline is segregated from non

- exempt high sulfur gasoline at all points in the distribution sy stem from the point the fuel is designated as gasoline only for use in Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Norther n Mariana Islands, while the fuel is in the United States but outside these Territories. **§80.1659 [R e**  **served] §80.**  **16 60**  **Prohibited acts.** No person shall: (a) Averaging violation. Produce or import gasoline that does not comply with the applicable sulfur average standard under §80.1603. (b) Cap standard violation. Produce, import, sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply , offer for suppl y, store or transport gasoline or ox ygenate (including an y denaturant) that does not comply

with the applicable sulfur cap standards under §80.1603, §80.1604, or §80.1610. (c) Caus i ng an averaging or cap standard violation. Cause another person to commit an act in violation of paragraph (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of this section. (d) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem. Cause gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem which does not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard under §80.1603, §80.1604, or §80.1610. (e) Ox ygenate violation. Starting March 1, 2017, blend into gasoline, RBOB, or CBOB an y ox ygenate, including but not limited to denatured ethanol, that has a sulfur content higher than 10 ppm.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 550 of 888 (f) Additive blender violation. Unless acting in the capacit y of a gasoline refiner or importer under §80.1613, introduce an additive other than an ox ygenate compound into gasoline, CBOB, or RB OB which contributes more than 3 ppm to the sulfur content of the finished gasoline, CBOB, or RBOB. (g) Additive manufacturer violation . Cause or contribute to the introduction into commerce of a gasoline additive intended to be used at less than 1 volum e percent which does not comply

with the requirements of §80.1613. (h) Credit violation. Generate, transfer, or use invalid credits or improperl y transfer or use credits. (i) Failure to meet a requirement
. No person shall fail to meet a requirement that applies to that person under this subpart. **§ 80.16**  **61 What evidence may be used to determine compliance with the prohibitions**  **and requirements of this subpart and liability for violations of this subpart?** (a) Compliance with the sulfur standards of this subpart O shall be determined based on the sulfur level, measured using the methodologies specified in §§80.1630 and 80.47. Any

evidence or information, including the exclusive use of such evidence or information, may

be used to establish the sulfur level of gasoline if the evidence or information is relevant to whether the sulfur level would have been in compliance with the standards if the appropriate sampling and testing methodology had been correctly performed. Such evidence may be obtained from any

s ource or location and may include, but is not limited to, test results using methods other than those specified in §§80.1630 and 80.47, business records, and commercial documents. (b) Determinations of compliance with the requirements of this subpart othe r than the sulfur standards, and determinations of liability for any violation of this subpart, may be based on information obtained from an y source or location. Such information may include, but is not limited to, business records and commercial document s. **§ 80.16**  **62 Liability for violations under subpart**  **O .**  The following persons are liable for violations under this subpart: (a) Persons liable for violations of prohibited acts
. (1) Averaging violation. Any refiner or importer who violates §80.1660(a) is liable for the violation.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 551 of 888 (2) Causing an averaging violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser

- consumer, or oxygenate blender who causes another party to violate §80.1660(a), is liable for a violation of §80.1660(c). (3) Cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, retailer, wholesale purchaser

- consumer, ox ygenate producer, ox ygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facilit y where a violation of §80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of §80.1660(b). (4) Causing a cap standard violation. Any refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, car rier, retailer, wholesale purchaser

- consumer, oxygenate producer, ox yg enate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender who produced, imported, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, supplied, offered for suppl y, stored, transported, or caused the tran sportation or storage of gasoline that violates §80.1660(b), is deemed in violation of §80.1660(c). (5) Branded refiner/importer liability
. An y refiner or importer whose corporate, trade, or brand name, or whose marketing subsidiary ’s corporate, trade, o r brand name appeared at a facility

where a violation of §80.1660(b) occurred, is deemed in violation of §80.1660(b). (6) Causing violating gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem. An y refiner, importer, distributor, reseller, carrier, ox ygenate produc er, ox ygenate blender, additive manufacturer, or additive blender who owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised a facilit y from which gasoline was released into the distribution sy stem which does not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard or a sulfur averaging standard is deemed in violation of §80.1660(d). (7) Carrier causation. In order for a carrier to be liable under paragraph (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), or (a)(6) of this section, EPA must demonstrate, b y reasonably specific showing b y dir ect or circumstantial evidence, that the carrier caused the violation. (8) Ox ygenate blender violation. Any oxygenate blender who violates §80.1660(e) is liable for the violation. (9) Additive manufacturer violation. Any additive manufacturer who viol ates §80.1660(g) is deemed liable for the violation. (10) Additive blender violation . Any additive blender who violates §80.1660(f) is deemed liable for the violation.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 552 of 888 (11) Credit violation. Any refiner or importer who violates §80.1660(h) is liabl e for the violation. (12) Parent corporation liability
. An y parent corporation is liable for an y violations of this subpart that are committed b y any of its wholl y - owned subsidiaries. (13) Joint venture and joint owner liability
. Each partner to a joint venture, or each owner of a facility

owned by

two or more owners, is jointly and severally

liable for any violation of this subpart that occurs at the joint venture facility or facility

owned by the joint owners, or is committed by the joint venture oper ation or an y of the joint owners of the facility
. (b) Persons liable for failure to meet other provisions of this subpart. Any person who: (1) Fails to comply with a provision of this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section is liable for a violation of that provision. (2) Caused another person to fail to meet a requirement of this subpart not addressed in paragraph (a) of this section, is liable for causing a violation of that provision. **§ 80.16**  **63 Defenses for a violation of a prohibited act under subpart**  **O .**  (a) An y person deemed liable for a violation of a prohibition under §80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10), will not be deemed in violation if the person demonstrates all the following: (1) The violat ion was not caused b y the person or the person's emplo ye e or agent. (2) In cases where product transfer document requirements under this subpart apply , the product transfer documents account for the fuel found to be in violation and indicate that the viol ating product was in compliance with the applicable requirements while in that person’s control; and (3) The person conducted a quality assurance sampling and testing program, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. A carrier may rel y on the quali ty

assurance program carried out b y another part y, including the part y who owns the gasoline in question, provided that the quality assurance program is carried out properly . Retailers***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 553 of 888 and wholesale purchaser

- consumers are not required to conduct sampling and testing of gasoline as part of their quality assurance programs. (b) In the case of a violation found at a facility operating under the corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner or importer, or a refiner's or importer's marketing subsidiary , the re finer or importer must show, in addition to the defense elements required under paragraphs (a)(1)through (a) ( 3) of this section, that the violation was caused b y an y of the following: (1) An act in violation of law (other than the Clean Air Act or this part 80), or an act of sabotage or vandalism. (2) The action of an y refiner, importer, retailer, distributor, reseller, ox ygenate blender, carrier, retailer or wholesale purchaser

- consumer in violation of a contractual agreement between the branded refiner or importer and the person designed to prevent such action, and despite periodic sampling and testing b y the branded refiner or importer to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation. (3) The action of an y carrier or other distributor not subject to a contract with the refiner or importer, but engaged for transportation of gasoline, despite specifications or inspections of procedures and equipment which are reasonabl y calculated to prevent such action. (c) Under paragraph (a) of this section, for an y person to show that a violation was not caused b y that person, or under paragraph (b) of this section to show that a violation was caused b y any of the specified actions, the person must demonstrate by reasonabl y specific showings, b y direct or circums tantial evidence, that the violation was caused or must have been caused b y another person and that the person asserting the defense did not contribute to that other person's causation. (d) Qualit y assurance and testing program. To demonstrate an acceptable quality assurance and testing program under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a person must present evidence of all of the following: (1) A periodic sampling and testing program to ensure the gasoline the person sold, dispen sed, supplied, stored, or transported, meets the applicable sulfur standard. (2) On each occasion when gasoline is found not in compliance with the applicable sulfur standard:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 554 of 888 (i) The person immediately ceases selling, offering for sale, dispensing, supp lying, offering for supply , storing or transporting the non

- complying product; and (ii) The person promptly

remedies the violation and the factors that caused the violation (for example, by removing the non

- complying product from the distribution sy stem until the applicable standard is achieved and taking steps to prevent future violations of a similar nature from occurring). (3) For an y carrier who transports gasoline in a tank truck, the quality assurance program required under this paragraph (d) need n ot include periodic sampling and testing of gasoline in the tank truck, but in lieu of such tank truck sampling and testing, the carrier shall demonstrate evidence of an oversight program for monitoring compliance with the requirements of this subpart relating to the transport or storage of gasoline b y tank truck, such as appropriate guidance to drivers regarding compliance with the applicable sulfur standard and product transfer document requirements, and the periodic review of records received in the ordi nary course of business concerning gasoline quality and delivery
. **§ 80.16**  **64 [Reserved]**  **§ 80.16**  **65 Penalties.**  (a) An y person liable for a violation under §80.1662 is subject to civil penalties as specified in section 205 of the Clean Air Act for every day of each such violation and the amount of economic benefit or savings resulting from each violation. (b) An y person liable under §80.1662(a)(1) or (2) for a violation of the applicable sulfur averaging standard or causing another part y to violate that stan dard during an y averaging period, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period. An y person liable under §80.1662(a)(11) or §80.1662(b) for a failure to fulfill any

requirement for credit generation, transfer, us e, banking, or deficit correction, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day in the averaging period in which invalid credits are generated or used. (c)(1) An y person liable under §80.1662(a)(3) through (a)(10) for a violation of an applicable sulfur per gallon cap standard under this subpart O or of causing another party to violate a cap standard, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day the non

- compl yi ng gasoline remains an y place in the gasoline distributio n sy stem. (2) An y person liable under §80.1662(a)(6) for causing gasoline to be in the distribution sy stem which does not comply with an applicable sulfur cap standard, or a***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 555 of 888 sulfur averaging standard, is subject to a separate day of violation for each and every day that the non

- complying gasoline remains any place in the gasoline distribution sy stem. (3) For purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, the length of time the gasoline in question remained in the gasoline distribution sy stem is deemed to be twenty - five day s, unless a person subject to liability or EPA demonstrates by reasonabl y specific showings, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that the non

- complying gasoline remained in the gasoline distribution sy stem for fewer than or more than twent y - five day s. (d) An y person liable under §80.1662(b) for failure to meet, or causing a failure to meet, a provision of this subpart is liable for a separate day of violation for each and every day such provision remains unfulfilled. **§ 80.16**  **66 Additional**  **requirements for foreign small refiners and foreign small volume refineries.**  The provisions of this section apply to certain foreign refiners and importers during the period January

1, 2017 through December 31, 2019. After December 31, 2019, foreign refi ners are not subject to compliance requirements under subparts O or H of this part 80; instead, the importer of any foreign

- produced gasoline shall be responsible for compliance with the standards and requirements of subpart O that relate to importers. (a) Definitions. (1) Foreign small refiner is a foreign refiner that meets the definition of a small refiner under §80.1620. (2) Foreign small volume refinery is a foreign refinery that meets the definition of a small volume refinery

under §80.1621. (3) Sulfur

- FRGAS , for this subpart, means gasoline produced from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2019 at a foreign refinery of a refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or a small volume refinery under §80.1622, and that is imported into the Un ited States. (4) Non
- Sulfur

- FRGAS means gasoline that is produced at a foreign refinery that has not been approved as a small refiner refinery or small volume refinery under §80.1622, gasoline produced at a foreign refinery of an approved small refiner or at an approved small volume refinery under §80.1622 that is not imported into the United States, and gasoline produced at a foreign refinery that is approved during a year when***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 556 of 888 the foreign refiner has opted to not participate in the Sulfur

- FRGAS program under paragraph (c)(3) of this section. (5) Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS means Sulfur

- FRGAS the foreign refiner intends to include in the foreign refinery 's sulfur compliance calculations under §§80.195 and 80.205 and does include in these compliance calculation s when reported to EPA. (6) Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS means Sulfur

- FRGAS that is not Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. (b) Petition for approval of small refiner or small volume refinery status. To be approved for small refiner status or small volume refinery status a foreign refiner must submit a petition for approval as provided under §80.1622 and th is section. If small refiner status or small volume refinery status is approved, the foreign refiner may produce gasoline for export to the United States, during the period starting January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2019, that is subject to the sulfur content standards of subpart H of this part at §80.195 that were applicable to refiners from 2006 through 2016. A foreign refiner is not eligible to generate sulfur credits under subpart H or subpart O of this part , as this occurs through the importer. (c) General requirements for foreign refiners approved as small refiners or small volume refinery

status. A foreign refiner of a refinery that has been approved as a small refiner refinery

or a small volume refinery must designate all gasoline produced at the foreign refinery

that is exported to the United States as either Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, except as provided in paragrap h (c)(3) of this section. (1) In the case of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, the foreign refiner must meet the sulfur standards of subpart H as described in paragraph (b) of this section and the requirements of this section. (2) In the case of Non

- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, the foreign refiner shall meet all the following provisions, except the foreign refiner shall substitute the name Non

Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS for the names “reformulated gasoline” or “RBOB” wherever they appear in the following provisions: (i ) The designation requirements in this section. (ii) The recordkeeping requirements under §80.1653. (iii) The reporting requirements in §80.1652 and this section §80.1666.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 557 of 888 (iv) The product transfer document requirements in this section and §80.1651. (v ) The prohibitions in this section and §80.1660. (vi) The independent audit requirements under § 80.415, paragraph (h) of this section, and the attest engagement provisions of §§80.125 through 80.127, §80.128(a), (b), (c), (g) through (i), and §80.130. ( 3)(i) An y foreign refiner that has been approved as a small refiner or whose refinery has been approved as a small volume refinery under this subpart O may elect to classify no gasoline imported into the United States as Sulfur

- FRGAS, provided the foreign refiner notifies EPA of the election no later than November 1 of the prior calendar year . (ii) An election under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section shall meet all of the following requirements: (A) Appl y to an entire calendar ye ar averaging period, and apply to all gasoline produced during the calendar year at the foreign refinery that is used in the United States. (B) Remain in effect for each succeeding calendar year averaging period, unless and until the foreign refiner notifies EPA of a termination of the election. The change in election shall take effect at the beginning of the next calendar year. (d) Designation, product transfer documents, and foreign refiner certification. (1) An y approved foreign small refiner or any foreign refiner having an approved small volume refinery

under this subpart O must designate each batch of Sulfur

- FRGAS as such at the time the gasoline is produced, unless the refinery has elected to classify

no gasoline exported to the United States as Sulfur

- FRGAS under paragra ph (c)(3)(i) of this section
. (2) On each occasion when an y person transfers custody or title to an y Sulfur

FRGAS prior to its being imported into the United States , it must include all the following information as part of the product transfer document information in this section:(i) Identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 558 of 888 (ii) The name and EPA refinery registration number of the refinery where the Sulfur

- FRGAS was produced
. (3) On each occasion when Sulfur

- FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel or other transportation mode for transport to the United States, the foreign refiner shall prepare a certification for each batch of the Sulfur

- FRGAS that meets all of the following requirements: (i) The certification shall include the report of the independent third party under paragraph (f) of this section, and all of the following additional information: (A) The name and EPA registration number of the refinery that produced the Sulfur

- FRGAS. (B) The identification of the gasoline as Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. (C) The volume of Sulfur

- FRGAS being transported, in gallons. (D) In the case of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS: ( 1 ) The sulfur content as determined under paragraph (f) of this section; and ( 2 ) A declaration that the Sulfur

- FRGAS is being included in the compliance calculations under § 80.205 for the refinery that produced the Sulfur

- FRGAS. (ii) The certification shall be made part of the product transfer documents for the Sulfur

- FRGAS. (e) Transfers of Sulfur

- FRGAS to non
- United States markets. The foreign refiner is responsible to ensure that all gasoline classified as Sulfur

- FRGAS is imported into the United States. A foreign refiner may remove the Sulfur

- FRGAS classification, and the gasoline need not be imported into the United States, but only if: (1)(i) The foreign refiner excludes the volume and sulfur content of the gasoline from the compliance calculations under §80.205. (ii) The exclusions under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section shall be on the basis of the sulfur content and volumes determined under paragraph (f) of this section; and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 559 of 888 (2) The foreign refiner obtains sufficient evidence in the form of documentation that the gasoline was not imported into the United States. (f) Load port independent sampling, testing and refinery identification
. (1) On each occasion Sulfur

- FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an independent third party do all of the following: (i) Inspect the vessel prior to loading and determine the volume of any tank bottoms. (ii) Determine the volume of Sulfur

- FRGAS loaded onto the vessel (exclusive of any tank bottoms present before vessel loading). (iii) Obtain the EPA

- assigned registration number of the foreign refinery
. (iv) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel used to transport the Sulfur

- FRGAS to the United States. (v) Determine the date and time the vessel departs the port serving the foreign refinery
. (2) On eac h occasion Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS is loaded onto a vessel for transport to the United States a foreign refiner shall have an independent third party: (i) Collect a representative sample of the Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS from each vessel compartment subsequent to loading on the vessel and prior to departure of the vessel from the port serving the foreign refinery. (ii) Prepare a volume

- weighted vessel composite sample from the compartment samples, and determine the value for sulfur in accordance with the metho dology and requirements specified in §80.1630, by either of the following: (A) The third part y anal yzing the sample. (B) The third part y observing the foreign refiner analyzing the sample. (iii) Review original documents that reflect movement and storage of the certified Sulfur

- FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, and from this review determine all of the following:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 560 of 888 (A) The refinery

at which the Sulfur

- FRGAS was produced. (B) That the Sulfur

- FRGAS remained segregated from all of the followin g: ( 1 ) Non
- Sulfur

- FRGAS and Non

- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. ( 2 ) Other Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS produced at a different refinery
. (3) The independent third party shall submit a report: (i) To the foreign refiner containing the information required under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, to accompan y the product transfer documents for the vessel; and (ii) To the Administrator containing the information required under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, within thirty day s following the date of the independent third party ’s inspection. This report shall include a description of the method used to determine the identit y of the refinery at which the gasoline was produced, assurance that the gasoline remained segregated as specified in paragraph (m) (1) of this section, and a description of the gasoline's movement and storage between production at the source refinery and vessel loading. (4) The independent third party must do all of the following: (i) Be approved in advance b y EPA, based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures required in this paragraph (f). (ii) Be independent under the criteria specified in §80.65(f)(2)(iii). (iii) Sign a commitment that contains the provisions specified in paragraph (i) of this section with regard to activities, facilities and documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (f). (g) Comparison of load port and port of entry testing. (1)(i) Except as described in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this section, any foreign refiner and an y United States importer of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS shall compare the results from the load port testing under paragraph (f) of this section, with the port of entry testing as reported under paragraph (o) of this section, for the volume of gas oline and the sulfur value.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 561 of 888 (ii) Where a vessel transporting Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS off loads this gasoline at more than one United States port of entry , and the conditions of paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section are met at the first United States port of entry , the requirements of paragraph (g)(2) of this section do not apply at subsequent ports of entry if the United States importer obtains a certification from the vessel owner, that meets the requirements of paragraph (r) of this section, that the vessel has not loaded any gasoline or blendstock between the first United States port of entry and the subsequent port of entry
. (2)(i) The requirements of this paragraph (g)(2) apply if: (A) The temperature

- corrected volumes determined at the port of entry an d at the load port differ b y more than one percent; or (B) The sulfur value determined at the port of entry is higher than the sulfur value determined at the load port, and the amount of this difference is greater than the reproducibility

amount specified for the port of entry test result by

ASTM International (ASTM). (ii) The United States importer and the foreign refiner shall treat the gasoline as Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, and the foreign refiner shall exclude the gasoline volume and properties from its gasoline sulfur compliance calculations under §80.205. (h) Attest requirements. All of the following additional procedures shall be carried out by

any foreign refiner of Sulfur

- FRGAS as part of the applicable attest engagement for each foreign refine ry under §80.415: (1) The inventory

reconciliation analy sis under the attest engagement provisions of §80.128(b) and the tender anal ys is under §80.128(c) shall include Non

- Sulfur

- FRGAS in addition to the gasoline ty pes listed in §80.128(b) and (c). (2) O btain separate listings of all tenders of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, and of Non

Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory

reconciliation analy sis in the attest engagement provisions of §80.128(b), and to the volumes determined by the third party

under paragraph (f)(1) of this section. (3) For each tender under paragraph (h)(2) of this section where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel, report as a finding the name and country of registration of each vessel, and the volumes of Sulfur

- FRGAS loaded onto each vessel.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 562 of 888 (4) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guideli nes in §80.127, and for each vessel selected perform all of the following: (i) Obtain the report of the independent third part y, under paragraph (f) of this section, and of the United States importer under paragraph (n) of this section. (A) Agree the information in these reports with regard to vessel identification, gasoline volumes and test results. (B) Identify , and report as a finding, each occasion the load port and port of entry parameter and volume results differ b y more than the amounts allowed in paragraph (g) of this section, and determine whether the foreign refiner adjusted its refinery calculations as required in paragraph (g) of this section. (ii) Obtain the documents used by the independent third party to determine transportation and sto rage of the Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS from the refinery to the load port, under paragraph (f) of this section. Obtain tank activity records for any

storage tank where the Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS is stored, and pipeline activity records for any pipeline used t o transport the Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, prior to being loaded onto the vessel. Use these records to determine whether the Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS was produced at the refinery

that is the subject of the attest engagement, and whether the Certified Sulfur

- FR GAS was mixed with any Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, Non
- Sulfur

FRGAS, or an y Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS produced at a different refinery
. (5) Select a sample from the list of vessels identified in paragraph (h)(3) of this section used to transport certified an d Non

- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, in accordance with the attest engagement guidelines of §80.127, and for each vessel selected perform the following: (i) Obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that i ncludes the port and date of departure of the vessel, and the port of entry and date of arrival of the vessel. (ii) Agree the vessel's departure and arrival locations and dates from the independent third part y and United States importer reports to the information contained in the commercial document. (6) Obtain separate listings of all tenders of Non

- Sulfur

- FRGAS, and perform all of the following:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 563 of 888 (i) Agree the total volume of tenders from the listings to the gasoline inventory reconciliation analy sis in §80.128(b). (ii) Obtain a separate listing of the tenders under paragraph (h)(6) of this section where the gasoline is loaded onto a marine vessel. Select a sample from this listing in accordance with the guidelines in §80.127, and obtain a commercial document of general circulation that lists vessel arrivals and departures, and that includes the port and date of departure and the ports and dates where the gasoline was off loaded for the selected vessels. Determine and report as a finding the country where the gasoline was off loaded for each vessel selected. (7) In order to complete the requirements of this paragraph (h) an auditor must: (i) Be independent of the foreign refiner. (ii) Be licensed as a Certified Public Accountant in the United State s and a citizen of the United States, or be approved in advance b y EPA based on a demonstration of ability to perform the procedures required in the attest engagement provisions of §§80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h). (iii) Sign a commi tment that contains the provisions specified in paragraph (h) of this section with regard to activities and documents relevant to compliance with the requirements of the attest engagement provisions of §§80.125 through 80.130, 80.415 and this paragraph (h)
. (i) Foreign refiner commitments. Any foreign refiner shall commit to and comply with the provisions contained in this paragraph (i) as a condition to being approved for small refiner status or small volume refinery status
. (1) An y United States Environmental Protection Agency inspector or auditor will be given full, complete and immediate access to conduct inspections and audits of the foreign refinery
. (i) Inspections and audits may be either announced in advance b y EPA, or unannounced. (ii) A ccess will be provided to an y location where: (A) Gasoline is produced;***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 564 of 888 (B) Documents related to refinery operations are kept; (C) Gasoline or blendstock samples are tested or stored; and (D) Sulfur

- FRGAS is stored or transported between the foreign re finery and the United States, including storage tanks, vessels and pipelines. (iii) In spections and audits may be b y EPA employees or contractors to EPA. (iv) An y documents requested that are related to matters covered b y inspections and audits will be p rovided to an EPA inspector or auditor on request. (v) Inspections and audits by EPA may

include review and cop yi ng of any documents related to all of the following: (A) Approval of the refiner as a small refiner or approval of the refinery as a small vo lume refinery
. (B) The volume and sulfur content of Sulfur

- FRGAS. (C) The proper classification of gasoline as being Sulfur

- FRGAS or as not being Sulfur

- FRGAS, or as Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS. (D) Transfers of title or custody to Sulfur

- FRGAS. (E) Sampling and testing of Sulfur

- FRGAS. (F) Work performed and reports prepared by independent third parties and by independent auditors under the requirements of this section and §80.415, including work papers. (G) Reports pr epared for submission to EPA, and any work papers related to such reports. (vi) Inspections and audits by EPA may

include taking samples of gasoline or blendstock, and interviewing emplo ye es. (vii) Any employee of the foreign refiner must be made availab le for interview by the EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within a reasonable time period.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 565 of 888 (viii) English language translations of an y documents must be provided to an EPA inspector or auditor, on request, within 10 working days. (ix) English languag e interpreters must be provided to accompan y EPA inspectors and auditors, on request. (2) An agent for service of process located in the District of Columbia will be named, and service on this agent constitutes service on the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner for an y action b y EPA or otherwise b y the United States related to the requirements of this subpart O. (3) The forum for any

civil or criminal enforcement action related to the provisions of this section for violations of the Cle an Air Act or regulations promulgated thereunder shall be governed by the Clean Air Act, including the EPA administrative forum where allowed under the Clean Air Act. (4) United States substantive and procedural laws shall apply to an y civil or criminal e nforcement action against the foreign refiner or any employee of the foreign refiner related to the provisions of this section. (5) Submitting a petition for approval as a small refiner or for small volume refinery status, producing and exporting gasoline under such approval, and all other actions to comply

with the requirements of this subpart O constitute actions or activities that satisfy

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(2), but solely with respect to actions instituted against the foreign re finer, its agents and employees in any court or other tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart O, including conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2)
. (6) The foreign refiner, or its agents or emplo yees, must not seek to detain or to impose civil or criminal remedies against EPA inspectors or auditors, whether EPA employees or EPA contractors, for actions performed within the sco pe of EPA employ ment related to the provisions of this section. (7) The commitment required by this paragraph (i) must be signed by the owner or president of the foreign refiner business. (8) In an y case where FRGAS produced at a foreign refinery is stored or transported b y another company between the refinery and the vessel that transports the Sulfur

- FRGAS to the United States, the foreign refiner shall obtain from each such other***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 566 of 888 compan y a co mmitment that meets the requirements specified in paragraphs ( i )(1) through ( 7) of this section. (j) Sovereign immunity
. By submitting a petition for approval as a small refiner or approval of a small volume refinery under this subpart O and this section , or by producing and exporting gasoline to the United States under such an approval under this section, the foreign refiner, its agents and emplo yees, without exception, become subject to the full operation of the administrative and judicial enforcement p owers and provisions of the United States without limitation based on sovereign immunity , with respect to actions instituted against the foreign refiner, its agents and employ ees in any court or other tribunal in the United States for conduct that violates the requirements applicable to the foreign refiner under this subpart O, including conduct that violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 or Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2). (k) Bond posting. An y foreign refiner must meet the requirements of this paragraph (k) as a condition to being approved for small refiner or small volume refinery status. (l) The foreign refiner shall post a bond of the amount calculated using the following equation: Bond=G×$ 0. 01 Where: Bond = Amount of the bond in U. S. dollars. G = The largest volume of gasoline produced at the foreign refinery and exported to the United States, in gallons, during a single calendar year among the most recent of the following calendar years, up to a maximum of three calendar ye ars : the calendar year immediately

preceding the date the approval petition is submitted, the calendar year the approval petition is submitted, and each succeeding calendar year . (2) Bonds shall be posted by performing an y of the following: (i) Paying the amount of the bond to the Treasurer of the United States. (ii) Obtaining a bond in the proper amount from a third party suret y agent that is payable to satisfy

United States administrative or judicial judgments against the foreign refiner, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the third party and the nature of the suret y agreement. (iii) An alternative commitment that results in assets of an appropriate liquidity and value being readil y available to the United States, provided EPA agrees in advance as to the alternative comm itment.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 567 of 888 (3) If the bond amount for a foreign refinery increases, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the shortfall within 90 days of the date the bond amount changes. If the bond amount decreases, the foreign refiner may reduce the amount of the bond beginning 90 day s after the date the bond amount changes. (4) Bonds posted under this paragraph (k) shall: (i) Be used to satisfy

an y judicial judgment that results from an administrative or judicial enforcement action for conduct in violation of this subpart O, including where such conduct violates Title 18 U.S.C. section 1001 and Clean Air Act section 113(c)(2); (ii) Be provided b y a corporate suret y that is listed in the United States Department of Treasury

Circular 570 “Companies Holding Certificates of Authority as Acceptable Sureties on Federal Bonds and Acceptable Reinsuring Companies” (Available from the U.S. Department of the Treasury , Financial Management Service, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East

- West Highway , Room 6A04, Hyattsv ille, MD, 20782. Also available on the internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/c570.html ); and (iii) In clude a commitment that the bond will remain in effect for at least five (5) ye ars following the end of latest averaging period that the foreign refi ner produces gasoline pursuant to the requirements of this Subpart O. (5) On an y occasion a foreign refiner bond is used to satisfy an y judgment, the foreign refiner shall increase the bond to cover the amount used within 90 day s of the date the bond is u sed. (l) English language reports. Any report or other document submitted to EPA by any foreign refiner must be in English, or must include an English language translation. (m) Prohibitions. (1) No person may

combine Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS with any Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or Non
- Sulfur

- FRGAS, and no person may combine Certified Sulfur

FRGAS with an y Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS produced at a different refinery, until the importer has met all the requirements of paragraph (n) of this section, except as prov ided in paragraph (e) of this section. (2) No foreign refiner or other person may cause another person to commit an action prohibited in paragraph (m)(1) of this section, or that otherwise violates the requirements of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 568 of 888 (n) United States impo rter requirements. An y United States importer shall meet the following requirements: (1) Each batch of imported gasoline shall be classified by the importer as being Sulfur

- FRGAS or as Non
- Sulfur

- FRGAS, and each batch classified as Sulfur

- FRGAS shall be further classified as Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or as Non
- certified Sulfur

- FRGAS
. (2) Gasoline shall be classified as Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS or as Non
- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS according to the designation b y the foreign refiner if this designation is supported by

product transfer documents prepared by the foreign refiner as required in paragraph (d) of this section, unless the gasoline is classified as Non

- Certified Sulfur

FRGAS under paragraph (g) of this section
. (3) For each gasoline batch classified as Sul fur

- FRGAS, any United States importer shall perform the following procedures : (i) In the case of both Certified and Non

- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, have an independent third part y : (A) Determine the volume of gasoline in the vessel. (B) Use the foreign refiner’s Sulfur

- FRGAS certification to determine the name and EPA

- assigned registration number of the foreign refinery that produced the Sulfur

FRGAS. (C) Determine the name and country of registration of the vessel used to transport the Sulfur

- FRGAS to the United States. (D) Determine the date and time the vessel arrives at the United States port of entry
. (ii) Inthe case of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, have an independent third part y: (A) Collect a representative sample from each vessel compartment subse quent to the vessel’s arrival at the United States port of entry and prior to off loading any gasoline from the vessel. (B) Prepare a volume

- weighted vessel composite sample from the compartment samples.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 569 of 888 (C) Determine the sulfur value using the methodolo gies specified in §80.1630, by : ( 1 ) The third party

anal yzing the sample; or ( 2 ) The third party

observing the importer anal yz ing the sample. (4) An y importer shall submit reports within thirty day s following the date any vessel transporting Sulfur

- FRGA S arrives at the United States port of entry : (i) To the Administrator containing the information determined under paragraph (n)(3) of this section; and (ii) To the foreign refiner containing the information determined under paragraph (n)(3) of this sect ion. (5) An y United States importer shall meet the applicable requirements of subpart O, including sulfur content standards specified in §80.1603, for any imported gasoline that is not classified as Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS under paragraph (n)(2) of this se ction. (o) Truck imports of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS produced by a foreign small refiner or foreign small volume refinery
. (1) An y refiner whose Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS is transported into the United States by truck may

petition EPA to use alternative procedures to meet all of the following requirements: (i) Certification under paragraph ( d)(5) of this section. (ii) Lo ad port and port of entry sampling and testing under paragraphs ( f ) and ( g ) of this section. (iii) Attest under paragraph (h ) of this section. (iv) Importer testing under paragraph ( n )(3) of this section. (2) These alternative procedures must ensure Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS remains segregated from Non

- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS and from Non

- Sulfur

- FRGAS until it is imported into the United S tates. The petition will be evaluated based on whether it adequatel y addresses all of the following:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 570 of 888 (i) Provisions for monitoring pipeline shipments, if applicable, from the refinery , that ensure segregation of Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS from that refinery f rom all other gasoline. (ii) Contracts with an y terminals and/or pipelines that receive and/or transport Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS, that prohibit the commingling of such Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS with any of the following: (A) Other Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS from other refineries
. (B) All Non

- Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS
. (C) All Non

- Sulfur

- FRGAS (iii) Procedures for obtaining and reviewing truck loading records and United States import documents for Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS to ensure that such gasoline is only loaded into trucks making deliveries to the United States. (iv) Attest procedures to be conducted annuall y by an independent third party that review loading records and import documents based on volume reconciliation, or other criteria, to confirm that all Certified Sulfur

- FRGAS remains segregated throughout the distribution sy stem and is only loaded into trucks for import into the United States
. (3) The petition required by this section must be submitted to EPA along with the application for small refiner status or small volume refinery status under §80.1622 and this section. (p) Withdrawal or suspension of a foreign refinery ’ s small refiner or small volume refinery status approval
. EPA may withdraw or suspend approval where any of the following occur: (1) A foreign refiner fails to meet an y requirement of this section. (2) A foreign government fails to allow EPA inspections as provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. (3) A foreign refiner asserts a claim of, or a right to claim, sovereign immunity in an action to enforce the requirements in this subpart O. (4) A foreign refiner fails to pay a civil or criminal penalty that is not satisfied using the foreign refiner bond specified in paragraph (k) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 571 of 888 (q) [Reserved] (r) Additional r equirements for petitions, reports and certificates. An y petition for approval, an y alternative procedures under paragraph (o) of this section, and any certification under paragraph (d)(3) of this section shall be: (1) Submitted in accordance with proced ures specified by

the Administrator, including use of an y forms that may be specified by the Administrator; and (2) Be signed b y the president or owner of the foreign refiner company, or by that person's immediate designee, and shall contain the following declaration: I hereb y certify : (1) that I have actual authorit y to sign on behalf of and to bind [insert name of foreign refiner] with regard to all statements contained herein; (2) that I am aware that the information contained herein is being certifie d, or submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency , under the applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 80, subparts H and O, and that the information is material for determining compliance under these regulations; and (3) that I have read a nd understand the information being certified or submitted, and this information is true, complete and correct to the best of m y knowledge and belief after I have taken reasonable and appropriate steps to verify the accuracy

thereof. I affirm that I have read and understand the provisions of 40 CFR Part 80, subpart O, including 40 CFR 80.1666 [insert name of foreign refiner]. Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 113(c) and Title 18, United States Code, section 1001, the penalty for furnishing false, incomple te or misleading information in this certification or submission is a fine of up to $10,000, and/or imprisonment for up to five years. **§ 80.16**  **67 Attest engagement requirements.**  In addition to the requirements for attest engagements that apply to refiners and importers under §§80.125 through 80.130, and 80.1666, the attest engagements for importers and refiners must include the following procedures and requirements each ye ar. (a) Refiners subject to national standards and Small refiner and Small Volume Re finery Status
. (1) If the refiner asserts small refinery status or small volume refinery status for the refinery , obtain the EPA approval letter for the refinery to determine the refinery ’s applicable annual average standard and credit generation status.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 572 of 888 (2) Determine whether the refinery applied the correct annual average sulfur standard and whether it was eligible to generate credits and report the finding. (3) If the annual average sulfur standard is incorrect or credit generation was inappropriate , recalculate compliance using the appropriate sulfur standard and using appropriate credits and report as a finding. (b) EPA reports
. (1) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery 's or importer's annual sulfur reports filed with EPA for the ye ar. (2) Agree the ye arl y volume of gasoline reported to EPA in the sulfur reports with the inventory

reconciliation anal ys is under the attest engagement provisions of §80.128. (3) Calculate the annual average sulfur level for all gasoline and agree that value wi th the value reported to EPA. (4) Obtain and read a copy of the refinery 's or importer's sulfur credit report. (5) Agree the information in the refinery 's or importer's batch reports filed with EPA under §§80.75 and 80.105, and an y laboratory test result s, with the information contained in the annual sulfur report required under §80.1652. (c) Credit generation before 2017
. In the case of a refinery that generates credits during 2014 through 2016: (1) Obtain a written representation from the company representative stating the refinery produces gasoline from crude oil. (2) Obtain the annual average sulfur level from paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur credits generated, and agree this value with the value reported to EPA. (d) Credit generation in 20 17 and thereafter. The following procedures shall be completed for a refinery

or importer that generates credits in 2017 and thereafter: (1) Obtain the annual average sulfur level for gaso line from paragraph (b)(3) of this section.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 5 73 of 888 (2) If the sulfur value under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is less than 10 ppm, compute and report as a finding the difference between the sulfur level under paragraph (d)(1) of this section and 10 ppm. (3) Compute and report as a finding the total number of sulfur credits generated, and agree this number with the number reported to EPA. (e) Credit purchases and sales. The following attest procedures shall be completed for a refinery

or importer that is a transferor or transferee of credits during an averaging period: (1) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits transferred to another refinery or importer during the year being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the number and ye ar of creation of credits represented in these documents as being transferred away ; and agree with the report to EPA. (2) Obtain contracts or other documents for all credits received during the year being reviewed; compute and report as a finding the number and ye ar of creation of credits represented in these documents as being received; and agree with the report to EPA. (f) Credit expiration. A refinery or importer that possesses credits during an averaging period must obtain a list of all credits in the refiner' s or importer's possession at any time during the year being reviewed, identified by the ye ar of creation of the credits. (g) Credit reconciliation. The following attest procedures shall be completed each ye ar credits were in the refiner's or importer's possession at any time during the ye ar: (1) Obtain the credits remaining or the credit deficit from the previous ye ar from the refiner's or importer's report to EPA for the previous y ear. (2) Compute and report as a finding the net credits remaining at the conclusion of the year being reviewed by totaling: (i) Credits remaining from the previous year; plus (ii) Credits generated under in an averaging period; plus (iii) Credits purchased; minus (iv) Credits sold; minus***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 574 of 888 (v) Credits used; minus (vi) Credits expiring; minus (vii) Credit deficit from the previous ye ar. (3) Agree the credits remaining or the credit deficit at the conclusion of the year being reviewed with the report to EPA. (4) If the refinery

or importer had a credit deficit for both the previous year and the year being reviewed, report this fact as a finding. **§§80.1668 -**  **80.1674 [Reserved] §**  **80.1675 Incorporation by reference.**  (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Fed eral Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce an y edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must publish notice of change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability

of this material at NARA, call 202

– 741

– 6030 or go to: http://www/archives.gov/federal_register/co de_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . This material is also available for inspection at the EPA Docket Center, Docket No. EPA

–HQ

– OAR

–2005

– 0161, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington DC. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

– 1742. Also, this material is available from the source listed in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C

– 700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 (1

– 800

–262

– 1373, www.astm.org ). (1) ASTM D 4814

– 11 (“ASTM D 4814”), Standard Specification for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel, Approved 2011; IBR approved for §80.177. (2) ASTM D 4057

– 95 (“ASTM D 4507”), Approved 1995; IBR approved for §80.1630. (3) ASTM D 4177

– 95 (“ASTM D 4177”), Approved 1995; IBR approved for §80.1630.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 575 of 888 (4) ASTM D 5842

– 95 (“ASTM D 5842”), Approved 1995; IBR approved for §80.1630.
**PART 85**

**— CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM MOBILE SOURCES**  38. The authorit y citation for part 85 continues to read as fol lows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart F** 

**— [Amended]**  39. Section 85.510 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9) to read as follows: **§ 85.510**  **Exemption provisions for new**  **and relatively new vehicles/engines.** * * * * * (b) * * * (9) OBD requirements
. (i) The OBD s ys tem must properl y detect and identify malfunctions in all monitored emission

- related powertrain s ys tems or components including an y new monitoring capability necessary to identify potential emission problems associated with the new fuel. ( ii) Conduct all OBD testing necessary to demonstrate compliance with 40 CFR 86.010

- 18 or 86.1806
- 05
. (iii) Submit the applicable OBD reporting requirements set forth in 40 CFR part 86 , subparts A and S , and submit the following statement of compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD

- equipped : The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD s ys tems and therefore meets the OBD requirements specified in 40 CFR 86 when operating on the alternative fuel. * * * * * 40. Section 85.515 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(9)(iii) to read as follows: **§ 85.515 Exemption provisions for intermediate age vehicles/engines.** * * * * * (b) * * * (9) * * * (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described i n this paragraph (b)(9), you must submit to EPA the following statement of compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD

- equipped : The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD s ys tems and therefore meets the OBD requirements specified in 40 CFR 86 when operating on the alternative fuel. * * * * * 41. Section 85.520 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4)(iii) to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 576 of 888 **§ 85.520 Exemption provisions for outside useful life vehicles/engines.** * * * * * (b) * * * (4) * * * (iii) In addition to conducting OBD testing described in this paragraph (b)(4), you must submit to EPA the following statement of compliance if the OEM vehicles/engines were required to be OBD

- equipped : The test group/engine family converted to an alternative fuel has fully functional OBD s ys tems and therefore meets the OBD requirements specified in 40 CFR 86 when operating on the alternative fuel. * * * * * **Subpart P** 

**— [Amended]**  42. Section 85.1515 is revised to read as follows: **§ 85.1515**  **Emission standards and test procedures applicable to imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.**  (a) Notwithstanding an y other requirements of this subpart, an y motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conditionally imported pursuant to §85.1505 or §85.1509 and required to be emission tested shall be tested using the FCT at 40 CFR part 86 applicable to c urrent model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines at the time of testing or reduced testing requirements as follows: (1) ICIs are eligible for reduced testing under this paragraph (a) subject to the following conditions : (i) The OEM must have a v alid certificate of conformity covering the vehicle. (ii) The vehicle must be in its original configuration as certified b y the OEM. This applies for all emission

- related components, including the electronic control module, engine calibrations, and all ev aporative/refueling control hardware. It also applies for OBD software and hardware, including all sensors and actuators. (iii) The vehicle modified as described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section must fully compl y with all applicable emission stand ards and requirements. (iv) Vehicles must have the proper OBD sy stems installed and operating. When faults are present, th e IC I must test and verify the sy stem’s abilit y to find the fault s (such as disconnected components ), set codes, and illuminate the l ight , and set readiness codes as appropriate for each vehicle. When no fault is present, the IC I must verify

that after sufficient prep driving (typically one FTP test cycle) , all OBD readiness codes are set and the OBD s ys tem does not indicate a malfunc tion (i.e., no codes set and no light illuminated)
. (v) The ICI may

not modify

more than 300 vehicles in any given model year using reduced testing provisions in this paragraph (a). (vi) The ICI must state in the application for certification that it wil l meet all the conditions in this paragraph (a)(1).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 577 of 888 (2) The following provisions allow for ICIs to certify vehicles with reduced testing: (i) In addition to the test waivers specified in 40 CFR 86.1829, you may provide a statement in the application for ce rtification , supported by engineering analy sis, that vehicles compl y with any of the following standards that appl y instead of submitting test data: (A) Cold temperature CO and NMHC emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811. (B) SFTP emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816 for all pollutants. (C) For an ything other than diesel

- fueled vehicles, PM emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811 and 86.1816. (D ) An y r unning loss, refueling, spitback, bleed emissions, and leak st andards specified in 40 CFR part 86, subparts A and S. (ii) You must perform testing and submit test data as follows to demonstrate compliance with emission standards: (A) Exhaust and fuel economy tests . You must measure emissions over the FTP driving cycle and the highway fuel econom y driving cycle as specified in 40 CFR 600.109 to meet the fuel econom y requirements in 40 CFR part 600 and demonstrate compliance with the exhaust emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 (other than PM). Measure exhaust emissi ons and fuel economy with the same test procedures used by the original manufacturer to test the vehicle for certification . However, you must use an electric dy namometer meeting the requirements of §86.108 or 40 CFR part 1066, subpart B, unless we approve a different dy

namometer based on excessive compliance costs. If you certify based on testing with a different dy namometer, you must state in the application for certification that all vehicles in the emission family will comply with emission standards if tested on an electric dy namometer. (B) Evaporative emission test . You may measure evaporative emissions as specified in this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) to demonstrate compliance with the evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR part 86 instead of the other wise specified procedures. Use measurement equipment for evaporative measurements specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, except that the evaporative emission enclosure does not need to accommodate varying ambient temperatures. The evaporative measurement procedure is integral to the procedure for measuring exhaust emissions over the FTP driving cycle as described in paragraph (a)(ii)(2)(A) of this section. Perform canister preconditioning using the same procedure used b y the original manufacturer to certify the vehicle; perform this canister loading before the initial preconditioning drive. Perform a diurnal emission test at the end of the stabilization period before the exhaust emission test by heating the fuel from 60 to 84°F, either b y exposing the v ehicle to increasing ambient temperatures***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 578 of 888 or by appl yi ng heat directly

to the fuel tank. Measure hot soak emissions as described in 40 CFR 86.138

- 96(k). We may approve alternative measurement procedures that are equivalent to or more stringent than the s pecified procedures if the specified procedures are impractical for particular vehicle models or measurement facilities. The sum of the measured diurnal and hot soak values must meet the appropriate emission standard as specified in this section. (b) Th e emission standards applicable to nonconforming light

- duty vehicles and light

duty trucks imported pursuant to this subpart are outlined in tables 1 and 2 of this section, respectivel y. The useful life as specified in tables 1 and 2 of this section is app licable to imported light

- dut y vehicles and light

- dut y trucks, respectivel y. (c)(1) Nonconforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines of 1994 OP y ear and later conditionally

imported pursuant to §85.1505 or §85.1509 shall meet all of the emission stand ards specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP y ear of the vehicle or motor vehicle engine. The useful life specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP y ear of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine is applicable where useful life is not designated in this subp art. (2)(i) Nonconforming light

- duty vehicles and light light

- duty trucks (LDV/LLDTs) originally manufactured in OP years 2004, 2005 or 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 9 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 and the evapor ative emission standards for light

- dut y vehicles and light light

- duty trucks specified in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 01(e)(5). (ii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium

- duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP y ears 2004 through 2006 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 and the applicable evaporative emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e)(5). For 2004 OP year HLDTs and MDPVs where modifications commence on th e first vehicle of a test group before December 21, 2003, this requirement does not apply to the 2004 OP year. ICIs opting to bring all of their 2004 OP y ear HLDTs and MDPVs into compliance with the exhaust emission standards of bin 10 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04, may use the optional higher NMOG values for their 2004

–2006 OP year LDT2s and 2004

–2008 LDT4s. (iii) Nonconforming LDT3s and LDT4s (HLDTs) and medium

- dut y passenger vehicles (MDPVs) originally manufactured in OP y ears 2007 and 2 008 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin 8 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 and the applicable evaporative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e)(5). (iv) Nonconforming LDV/ L LDTs originally manufactured in OP y ears 2007 through 2021 and nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originall y manufactured in OP year 2009 through 2021 must meet the FTP exhaust emission standards of bin***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 579 of 888 5 in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04, and the evaporative standards specified in 40 CFR 86.181 1
- 04 (e)(1) through (4). (v) ICIs are exempt from the Tier 2 and the interim non

- Tier2 phase

- in intermediate percentage requirements for exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions described in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04. (vi) In cases where multiple standards exi st in a given model year in 40 CFR part 86 due to phase

- in requirements of new standards, the applicable standards for motor vehicle engines required to be certified to engine

- based standards are the least stringent standards applicable to the engine type for the OP ye ar. (vii) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP y ears 2009 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e). However, LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP y ears 2009 and 2010 and imported by I CI s who qualify

as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838

– 01 are exempt from the LDV/LLDT evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative emission standards in Table S04

– 3 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e). (viii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP years 2010 through 2021 must meet the evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e). However, HLDTs and MDPVs originall y manufactured in OP years 2010 and 2011 and imported by I CI s, who qualify

as small volume manufacturers as defined in 40 CFR 86.1838

– 01, are exempt from the HLDTs and MDPVs evaporative emission standards in Table S09

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 09(e), but must comply with the Tier 2 evaporative emission standards in Table S04

– 3 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(e). (ix) Nonconforming LDV s, LD Ts , MDPVs, and complete heav y - duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR originally manufactured in OP y ears 2022 and later must meet the Tier 3 exhaust and evaporative emission standards in 40 CFR 86.1811 through 86.1816
. (3)(i) As an option to the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, independent commercial importers may elect to meet lower bins in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 than specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and bank or sell NOx credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860

– 04 and 40 CFR 86.1861

– 04. An I CImay not meet higher bins in Tables S04

– 1 and S04

–2 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 than specified in paragra ph (c)(2) of this section unless it demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it has obtained appropriate and sufficient NOx credits from another manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the current model ye ar and not transferred them to another manufacturer or used them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1860

– 04 and 40 CFR 86.1861

– 04.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 580 of 888 (ii) Where an ICI desires to obtain a certificate of conformity using a bin higher than specified in para graph (c)(2) of this section, but does not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles produced under such certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the I CIhas also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified using a bin l ower than that required under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The I CImay then produce vehicles to the higher bin only to the extent that it has generated sufficient credits from vehicles certified to the lower bin during the same model year. (4) [Reserv ed] (5) Except for the situation where an ICI desires to bank, sell or use NOx credits as described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, the requirements of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04 related to fleet average NOx standards and requirements to comply with such stand ards do not appl y to vehicles modified under this subpart. (6) ICIs using bins higher than those specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section must monitor their production so that they do not produce more vehicles certified to the standards of such bins than their available credits can cover. ICIs must not have a credit deficit at the end of a model year and are not permitted to use the deficit carryf orward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1860

– 04(e). (7) The Administrator may condition the certificates of conformit y issued to I CI s as necessary to ensure that vehicles subject to paragraph (c) of this section comply with the appropriate average NOx standard for each model year. (8)(i) Nonconforming LDV/LLDTs originally manufactured in OP y ears 2010 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission standards in Table S10

– 1 in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10(g). (ii) Nonconforming HLDTs and MDPVs originally manufactured in OP y ears 2012 and later must meet the cold temperature NHMC emission standards in Table S10

– 1 in 4 0 CFR 86.1811

– 10(g). (iii) I CI s, which qualify

as small volume manufacturers, are exempt from the cold temperature NMHC phase

- in intermediate percentage requirements described in 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10(g)(3). See 40 CFR 86.1811

– 04(k)(5)(vi) and (vii). (iv) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, I CI s may

elect to meet a cold temperature NMHC family emission level below the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standards specified in Table S10

– 1 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10 and bank or sell credits as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864

– 10. An I CImay not meet a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than the fleet average standards in Table S10

– 1 of 40 CFR 86.1811

– 10 as specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this s ection, unless it demonstrates to the Administrator at the time of certification that it has obtained appropriate and sufficient NMHC credits from another manufacturer, or has generated them in a previous model year or in the current model ye ar and not***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 581 of 888 tra ded them to another manufacturer or used them to address other vehicles as permitted in 40 CFR 86.1864

– 10. (v) Where an IC I desires to obtain a certificate of conformity using a higher cold temperature NMHC family emission level than specified in paragraph s (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section, but does not have sufficient credits to cover vehicles imported under such certificate, the Administrator may issue such certificate if the IC I has also obtained a certificate of conformity for vehicles certified using a cold temperature NMHC family emission level lower than that required under paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section. The I CImay then import vehicles to the higher cold temperature NMHC famil y emission level only to the extent that it has generated sufficient credits from vehicles certified to a famil y emission level lower than the cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard during the same model year. (vi) I CI s using cold temperature NMHC famil y emission levels higher than the cold temperature NMH C fleet average standards specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section must monitor their imports so that they do not import more vehicles certified to such family emission levels than their available credits can cover. ICIs must not have a c redit deficit at the end of a model year and are not permitted to use the deficit carry forward provisions provided in 40 CFR 86.1864

– 10. (vii) The Administrator may condition the certificates of conformit y issued to IC Is as necessary

to ensure that vehicle s subject to this paragraph (c)(8) comply with the applicable cold temperature NMHC fleet average standard for each model year. (d) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, I CI 's must not participate in emission

- related programs for emissions averaging, banking and trading, or nonconformance penalties.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 582 of 888 T able 1 to §85.1515

—Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light

- Duty Motor Vehicles 1,2,3 OP Year Hydrocarbon Carbon

mo noxide Oxides of

nitrogen Diesel

Particulate Evaporative

hydrocarbon Useful life

(years/miles) 1968

– 76 1.5 gpm 15 gpm 3.1 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 1977

– 79 1.5 gpm 15 gpm 2.0 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 1980 0.41 gpm 7.0 gpm 2.0 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 1981 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 1982

– 86 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 0.60 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 1987

– 93 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 0.20 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 1994 and later ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) ( 4 ) 1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light

- duty vehicles. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non

- diesel fueled light

- duty vehicles. For alternative fueled light

- duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable. 2No crankcase em issions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non

- diesel fueled light

duty vehicle. 3 All light

- duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high

- altitudes according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing. 4 Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 583 of 888 Table 2

—Emission Standards Applicable to Imported L ight

- Duty Trucks 1,2,3,4,5 OP y ear Hydrocarbon Carbon

mo noxide Oxides of

nitrogen Diesel

Particulate Evaporative

hydrocarbon Useful life

(years/miles) 1968

– 78 2.0 gpm 20 gpm 3.1 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 1979

– 80 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 1981 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 1982

– 83 1.7 gpm (2.0) 18 gpm

(26) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.60 gpm

(0.60) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 5/50,000 1984 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.60 gpm

(0.60) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 5/50,000 1985

– 86 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.60 gpm

(0.60) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 1987 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm

(2.3) 0.26 gpm

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 1988

– 89 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.2 gpm6

(1.2) 0.26 gpm7

(2.0) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.7 gpm6

(1.7) 0.45 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 2.3 gpm6

(2.3) 0.45 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 1990

– 93 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.2 gpm 8

(1.2) 0.26 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 0.80 gpm (1.0) 10 gpm

(14) 1.7 gpm 8

(1.7) 0.45 gpm7

(0.26) 2.0 g/test

(2.6) 11/120,000 1994 and later ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) ( 9 ) 1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light

- duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non - diesel fueled light

- duty trucks. For alternative fueled light

- duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable. 2No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non

- diesel fueled light

duty truck. 3 A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later mo del year light

- duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at other than a designated high

- altitude location. This requirement is effective for light

- duty trucks sold to, or ow ned by an importer for principal use at a designated high

- altitude location beginning with the 1988 model year. 4 All 1982 OP year and later light

- duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high

- altitude location shall meet high

- altitude emission standards according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light

- duty trucks at the time of testing. 5 Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high

- altitude location. These standards must be met at high

- altitude according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 584 of 888 6 The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light

- duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR . The 1.7 gpm standard applies to light

- duty trucks above 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR ; the 2.3 gpm standard applies to light

- duty

trucks above 6,00 0 pounds GVWR
. 7 The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies t o light

- duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard applies to light

- duty trucks above 3,75 0 pounds loaded vehicle weight. 8 The NOx standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light

- duty trucks at or below 3,750 pounds loaded vehic le weight; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to light

- duty trucks above 3,75 0 pounds loaded vehicle weight. 9 Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, as described in paragraph (c) of this section
. **Subpart W**

**— [Amended]**  43. Subpart W, consisting of §§ 85.2201, 85.2207, 85.2222, 85.2223, and 85.2231, is revised to read as follows: Sec. 85.2201 Applicability
. 85.2207 Onboard diagnostic test standards. 85.2222 Onboard diagnostic test procedures. 85.2223 Onboard diagnostic test report. 85.2231 Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements. **§ 85.2201 Applicability.** (a) This subpart describes the test provisions to be employed in conjunction with the Emissions Performance Warrant y in subpart V of this part
. These provisions general ly rely on a vehicle’s onboard diagnostic s ys tem (OBD) to indicate whether a vehicle passes or fails the test. (b) T he provisions of this subpart may be used to establish warrant y eligibility for light

duty vehicle s, light

- dut y truck s, and medium

- dut y passenger vehicles when tested during the useful life as prescribed in subpart V of this part. **§ 85.2207**  **Onboard diagnostic test standards.** (a) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if it is a 1996 or newer vehicle and the vehicle connector is missing, has been tampered with, or is otherwise inoperable. (b ) A vehicle shall fail the OBD test if the malfunction indicator light (MIL) is commanded to be illuminated and it is not visually illuminated according to visual inspection. ( c ) A vehicle shall fail the OB D test if the MIL is commanded to be illuminated for one or more diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), as described in 40 CFR 86.1806. **§ 85.2222**  **Onboard diagnostic test procedures.** The test sequence for the OBD inspection shall consist of the following step s:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 585 of 888 (a) The OBD inspection shall be conducted with the key

- on/engine running, with the exception of inspecting for MIL illumination as required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section, during which the inspection shall be conducted with the key

- on/engine off. (b) The inspector shall locate the vehicle connector and plug the test sy stem into the connector. (c) The test sy stem shall send a Mode $01, PID $01 request in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the OBD evaluation status. The test sy stem shall dete rmine what monitors are supported by the OBD sy stem, and perform the readiness evaluation for applicable monitors in accordance with the requirements and specifications in 40 CFR 86.1806. (1) Coincident with the beginning of mandatory testing, repair, and retesting based upon the OBD test , if the readiness evaluation indicates that an y onboard tests are not complete , the customer shall be instructed to return after the vehicle has been run under conditions that allow completion of all applicable onboard tes ts. If the readiness evaluation again indicates that an y onboard test is not complete , the vehicle shall be failed. (2) An exception to paragraph (c)(1) of this section is allowed for MY 1996 to MY 2000 vehicles, inclusive, with two or fewer unset readines s monitors, and for MY 2001 and newer vehicles with no more than one unset readiness monitor. Vehicles from those model y ears which would otherwise pass the OBD inspection, but for the unset readiness code in question , may be issued a passing certificate w ithout being required to operate the vehicle in such a way as to activate those particular monitors. Vehicles from those model years with an unset readiness code that also have a DTC stored resulting in an illuminated MI L must be failed, though setting the unset readiness flag in question shall not be a prerequisite for passing the retest. (d) The test s ys tem shall evaluate the MI L status bit and record status information in the vehicle test record. (1) If the MI L status bit indicates that the MIL has been commanded to be illuminated , the test sy stem shall send a Mode $03 request in accordance with 40 CFR 86.1806 to determine the stored DTCs. The system shall repeat this cycle until the number of codes reported equals the number expected based on the Mode $0 1 response. All DTCs resulting in MIL illumination shall be recorded in the vehicle test record and the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection. (2) If the MI L bit is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle shall pass the OBD inspection, even if DTCs are present. (3) If the MI L bit is commanded to be illuminated, the inspector shall visually inspect the MI L to determine if it is illuminated. If the MIL is commanded to be illuminated but is not, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection. (4) If the M IL doe s not illuminate at all when the vehicle is in the key

- on/engine

- off condition, the vehicle shall fail the OBD inspection, even if no DTCs are present and the MIL has not been commanded on.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 586 of 888 **§ 85.2223**  **Onboard diagnostic test report.** (a) Motorists whose v ehicles fail the OBD test described in §85.2222 shall be provided with the OBD test results, including the codes retrieved, the name of the component or sy stem associated with each fault code, the status of the MIL illumination command, and the customer al ert statement as stated in paragraph (b ) of this section. (b) In addition to an y codes that were retrieved, the test report shall include the following language: Your vehicle's computerized self

- diagnostic system (OBD) registered the fault s listed below. Th e fault s are probably an indication of a malfunction of an emission component. However, multiple and/or seemingly unrelated faults may be an indication of an emission

- related problem that occurred previously , but upon further evaluation by the OBD system was determined to be only temporary. Therefore, proper diagnosis by a qualified technician is required to positively identify the source of any emission

- related problem. **§ 85.2231**  **Onboard diagnostic test equipment requirements.** (a) The t est sy stem interface to the vehicle shall include a plug that conforms to the requirements and specifications of 40 CFR 86.1806. (b) The test s ys tem shall be capable of communicating with the standard data link connector of vehicles with certified OBD s y stems. (c) The test sy stem shall be capable of checking for OBD monitors and the evaluation status of supported monitors (test complete/test not complete) in Mode $01 PID $01, as well as be able to request the DTCs , consistent with the requirements and spe cifications of 40 CFR 86.1806.
**Part 86**

**— Control of Emissions from New and In**  **- use Highway Vehicles and**  **Engines** 44. The authorit y citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. 45. Section 86. 1 is amended by revising paragraph s (d) and (g)(2) to read as follows: **§ 86.1 Reference materials.** * * * * * (d) California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA, 95812, (916) 322

– 2884, http://www.arb.ca.gov. (1) California Requirements Applicable to the LEV III Program, Title 13, §1961.2 and § 1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of Regulations , approved on March 22, 2012, IBR approved for §86.1803

- 01
. (2) California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, October 1996, IBR approved for §§ 86.113

– 04 and 86.612

– 97.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 587 of 888 (3) California Regulatory Requirements known as On

- board Diagnostics II (OBD

– II), Approved on April 21, 2003, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic Sy stem Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model

- Year Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks, and Medium

- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD

– II), IBR approved for § 86.1806

– 05. (4) California Regulatory Requirements known as On

- board Diagnostics II (OBD

– II), Approved on November 9, 20 07, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic S ys tem Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model

- Year Passenger Cars, L ight

- Dut y Trucks, and Medium

- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD

– II), IBR approved for §§ 86.007

– 17, 86.1806

– 05. (5) California Regulatory Requirements known as On

- board Diagnostics II (OBD

- II), Approved on June 17, 2010, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1968.2, Malfunction and Diagnostic Sy stem Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent Model

- Year Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks, and Medium

- Duty Vehicles and Engines (OBD

- II), IBR approved for § 86.1806

- 17. * * * * * (g) * * * (2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, Battery Electric Vehicle Energy

Consumption and Range Test Procedure, IBR approved for § 86.1811
- 04(n). * * * * * **Subpart A**

**— [Amended]**  **§ §**  **86.000 -**  **8, 86.0**  **00 -**  **9, 86.000 -**  **16, 86.000 -**  **26, 86.000 -**  **28, 86.0**  **01 -**  **9, 86.001 -**  **22, 86.001 -**  **25, 86.001**  **- 26, 86.001**  **- 28,**  **86.0 01**  **- 30**  **, 86.004 -**  **9, 86.007**  **- 38,**  **86.079 -**  **36, 86.085 -**  **20, 86.087**  **- 2**  **, 86.094**  **- 13,**  **86.094 -**  **16 ,**  **86.094 -**  **26, 86.094 -**  **28, 86.095**  **- 23, 86.095**  **- 26, 86.095**  **- 30, 86.096**  **- 7,**  **86.096 -**  **8, 86.096 -**  **21, 86.096 -**  **26, 86.096**  **- 30,**  **86.096 -**  **35 , 86.096**  **- 38, 86.097**  **- 9, 86.098**  **- 24,**  **86.098 -**  **25, 86.098 -**  **26, 86.098 -**  **28, 86.098 -**  **30, 86.098 -**  **35, 86.099 -**  **8, 86.099 -**  **9, 86.099 -**  **17**

**– [Removed]**  46. Subpart A is amended by removing the following sections: §§86.000

- 8 , 86.000
- 9, 86.000
- 16, 86.000
- 26, 86.000
- 28, 86.001
- 9, 86.001
- 22, 86.001
- 25, 86.001
- 26, 86.001
- 28, 86.001
- 30, 86.004
- 9 , 86.007
- 38, 86.079
- 36, 86.085
- 20, 86.087
- 2, 86.094
- 13, 86.094
- 16, 86.094
- 2 6, 86.094
- 28, 86.095
- 23, 86.095
- 26, 86.095
- 30, 86.096
- 7, 86.096
- 8, 86.096
- 21, 86.096
- 26, 86.096
- 30, 86.096
- 35, 86.096
- 38, 86.097
- 9, 86.098
- 24, 86.098
- 25, 86.098
- 26, 86.098
- 28, 86.098
- 30, 86.098
- 35, 86.099
- 8, 86.099
- 9, 86.099
- 17
. 47. Section 86.000

- 7 is amended as follows: a. B y revising the introductory text
. b. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1). c. By revising paragraph (h)(6). d. By removing paragraph (h)(7). **§ 86.000 -**  **7 Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right of entry.** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 588 of 888 Section 86.000

– 7 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.091

– 7 or §86.094

– 7. Where a paragraph in §86.091

– 7 or §86.094

– 7 is identical and applicable to §86.000

– 7, this may

be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.091

– 7.” or “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.094

– 7.” * * * * * (h) * * * (6) EPA may

void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective e vaporative and/or refueling test procedure and accompan yi ng evaporative and/or refueling standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in §86.098

– 10 for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon request. * * * * * **§86.0 00**  **- 24** 

**— [Amended]**  48. Section 86.0 00
- 2 4 is amended as follows: a. B y removing the introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraph ( a )
. c. By removing paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1) introductory text. d. By removing paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (b)(1)(xii). e. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2). f. By removing paragraph (b)(3). g. By removing paragraphs (c) through (f). h. By removing paragraph (g) introductory text. i. By r emoving and reserving paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2). j. By removing paragraph (h). 49. Section 86.00 1
- 2 3 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (c) introductory

text and removing and reserving paragraph s (c)(1), (f), and (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.00 1**  **- 23 Required data.**  Section 86.001

–23 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.098

–23. Where a paragraph in §86.098

–23 is identical and applicable to §86.001

–23, this may be indicated b y specif

yi ng the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.098

–23.” ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (c) Emission data

— * * * * * 50. Section 86.004

- 21 is amended as follows: a. By revising the introductory text***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 589 of 888 b. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i)
. c. By removing paragraph (b)(5)(v)
. d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l). **§ 86.004 -**  **21 Application for certification.** Section 86.004

–21 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.094

–21. Where a paragraph in §86.094

–21 is identical an d applicable to §86.004

–21, this may be indicated b y specif

yi ng the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.094

–21.” * * * * * **§86.0 04**  **- 25** 

**— [Amended]**  51. Section 86.004

- 2 5 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)( i i) and (b)( 4 )( i v). 52. Section 86.00 4
- 2 6 is amended as follows: a. B y removing the introductory text. b. By removing and reserving paragraph s ( a ) and ( b )
. c. By revising paragraph (d). **§86.0 04**  **- 26**  **Mileage and service accumulation; emission measurements.**  * * * * * (d)(1) This p aragraph (d) applies for heavy

- dut y engines. (2)(i) The results of all emission testing shall be supplied to the Administrator. The manufacturer shall furnish to the Administrator explanation for voiding an y test. The Administrator will determine if voiding the test was appropriate based upon the explanation given b y the manufacturer for the voided test. Tests between test points may

be conducted as required b y the Administrator . Data from all tests (including voided tests) may be submitted weekly

to the Administrator, but shall be delivered to the Administrator within 7 day s after completion of the test. In addition, all test data shall be compiled and provided to the Administrator in accordance with §86. 007

–23. Where the Administrator conducts a test on a durability data vehicle at a prescribed test point, the results of that test will be used in the calculation of the deterioration factor. (ii) The results of all emission tests shall be recorded and reported to the Administrator. These test results shall be rounded as specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to the number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure. (3) Whenever a manufacturer intends to operate and test a vehicle (or engine) that may be used for emission data, the manufacturer shall retain in its records all information concerning all emission tests and maintenance, including vehicle (or engine) alte rations to represent other vehicle (or engine) selections. This information shall be submitted, including the vehicle (or engine) description and specification***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 590 of 888 information required b y the Administrator, to the Administrator following the emission data test
. ( 4 ) Emission testing of any t ype with respect to any certification vehicle or engine other than that specified in this subpart is not allowed except as such testing may be specificall y authorized by the Administrator. **§86.0 04**  **- 28** 

**— [Amended]**  53. Section 86.004

- 28 is amended b y removing the introductory text and by removing and reserving paragraphs (a), (b), (f), and (g)
. 54. Section 86.00 4
- 30 is amended as follows: a. By revising the introductory text. b. B y removing and reserving paragraph s ( a )( 4 ) , (a)(5), ( a)( 10 )(i) , and (a)(11)(i) and (a)(12) through (a)(16). c. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21). d. By removing and reserving paragraph (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii). e. By removing paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) and (b)(1)(ii) (D). f. By removin g and reserving paragraph (b )( 4 )
. **§ 86.004 -**  **30 Certification.** Section 86.004

– 30 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.094

– 30. Where a paragraph in §86.094

– 30is identical and applicable to §86.004

– 30, this may be indicated b y speci fying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.094

– 30.” 55. Section 86.004

- 3 8 is amended b y removing the introductory text, removing and reserving paragraph (g) , and adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: **§86.0 04**  **- 38**  **Maintenance instructions.** * * * * * (i) For each new diesel

- fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed in §86.007

– 11, as applicable, the manufacturer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser a statement that “This engine must be operated onl y with ultra low

- sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).” 56. Section 86.005

- 10 is amended b y revising the introductory text and paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§86.005 -**  **10 Emission standards for 2005 and later model year Otto**  **- cycle heavy**  **** **duty engines and vehicles.** Section 86.005

– 10 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.099

– 10. Where a paragraph in §86.099

– 10 is identical and applicable to §86.005

– 10, this may be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 591 of 888 indicated b y specif

yi ng the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.099

– 10.” * * * * * (c) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from an y new 1998 or later model year Otto
- cycle heav y - duty engine. * * * * * 57. Section 86.007

- 17 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.007**  **- 17**  **On -**  **board d**  **iagnostics for engines used in applications less than or equal to 14,000 pounds GVWR.**  Heav y - dut y engines intended to be installed in heavy dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to standards under this subpart must meet on

- board diagnostic requirements as specified in §86.1806
- 17(a), ( c ), and ( d)
. **§86.0 07**  **- 21** 

**— [Amended]**  58. Section 86.00 7
- 21 is amended as follows: a. B y removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4)(i)
. b. By removing paragraphs (b)(9) and (b)(10). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (k) and (l). 59. Section 86.00 7
- 2 3 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph s (b)( 2 ) , (f), (g), and (l) and revising the i ntroductory text and paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§ 86.007 -**  **23 Required data.** Section 86.007

–23 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.098

–23 or §86.001

–23. Where a paragraph in §86.098

–23 or §86.001

–23 is identical and applicable to §86.007

–23, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.098

–23.” or “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.001

–23.”. * * * * * (b) * * * (2) [Reserved] * * * * * (c) Emission data from c ertification vehicles and engines. The manufacturer shall submit emission data for each applicable emission standard from vehicles and engines tested in accordance with applicable test procedures and in such numbers as specified. These data shal l include zero

- mile or zero

- hour data, if generated, and emission data generated for certification as required under §86.004

- 26. However, m anufacturer s may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles and engines comply with the f ollowing standard s instead of submitting test data , provided that the statement is supported by previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information , and good engineering judgment:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 592 of 888 (1) Idle CO, smoke, or particulate matter emissions from methanol

- fueled or gaseous

fueled diesel

- cycle certification engines. (2) Particulate matter emissions from Otto

- cycle certification engines or gaseous

fueled certification engines. (3) CO emissions from diesel

- cycle certification engines. (4) Formal deh yde emissions from petroleum

- fueled engines. (5) Particulate matter and formaldeh yde emissions when conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing of Otto

- cycle engines. (6) Smoke from methanol

- fueled or petroleum

- fueled diesel

- cycle certification engi nes. (7) Smoke when conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing of diesel

- cycle engines. (8) Evaporative emissions from vehicles fueled b y natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, or hydrogen
. * * * * * (f) through (g) [Reserved] * * * * * (l) [Reserved] * * * * * **§86.0 07**  **- 30** 

**— [Amended]**  60. Section 86.00 7
- 30 is amended as follows: a. B y removing and reserving paragraph s ( a )( 4 ) , (a)(5), ( a)( 7 ) , ( a )( 10 )(i) , (a)(11)(i), and (a)(12) through (a)(16). b. By removing paragraphs (a)(19) through (a)(21). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1) (i) , (b)(1)(ii), and (b )( 4 )
. d. By removing paragraph (f). 61. Section 86.007

- 35 is amended as follows: a. B y revising paragraph (a) introductory text
. b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) c. By revising paragraph (c). d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (f), and (i)
. **§86.0 07**  **- 35 Labeling.**  * * * * * (a) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) subject to the applicable emission standards (and family emission limits, as appropriate) of this subpart, shall, at the time of manufacture, affix a permanent legible label, of the type and in the manner described below, containing the information hereinafter provided, to all production models of such vehicles (or engines) avai lable for sale to the public and covered b y a Certificate of Conformity under §86. 007

– 30(a).***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 593 of 888 * * * * * (c) Vehicles powered b y model year 2007 through 2013 diesel

- fueled engines must include permanent, readily visible labels on the dashboard (or instrument panel) and near all fuel inlets that state “Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only”; or “Ultra L ow Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only”. * * * * * 62. Section 86.008

- 10 is amended b y removing the introductory text and revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (e) to read as follows: **§86.00 8**  **- 10 Emission standards for 200**  **8 and later model year Otto**  **- cycle heavy**  **** **duty engines and vehicles.** * * * * * (b) This paragraph (b) applies through model ye ar 2013. See 40 CFR 1037.103 for provisions that apply

in 2014 and later model years. Evaporative emissions from heav y duty vehicles shall not exceed the following standards when measured using the test proce dures specified in 40 CFR 1037.501 . The standards appl y equally to certification and in

- use vehicles. The spitback standard also applies to newly assembled vehicles. For certification vehicles only , manufacturers may conduct testing to quantify a level of nonfuel background emissions for an individual test vehicle. Such a demonstration must include a description of the source(s) of emissions and an estimated decay rate. The demonstrated level of nonfuel background emissions may be subtracted from emission t est results from certification vehicles if approved in advance b y the Administrator. * * * * * (e) The standards described in this section do not apply to Otto
- cycle medium

- duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs) that are subject to regulation under subpart S of this part, except as specified in subpart S of this part. The standards described in this section also do not apply

to Otto
- cycle engines used in such MDPVs, except as specified in subpart S of this part. The term “medium

- duty passenger vehicle” is defined in §86.1803. * * * * * 63. Section 86.0 10
- 3 8 is amended b y revising paragraph s (g) and (i) to read as follows: **§ 86.010 -**  **38 Maintenance instructions.** * * * * * (g) Emission control diagnostic service information . Manufacturers are subject to the requirements of §86.1808

- 01(f) beginning in the 2005 model year for manufacturers of heav y - dut y vehicles and heav y - dut y engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that are subject to the OBD requirements of this part. * * * * * (i) Through model ye ar 2013, the manufacturer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the ultimate purchaser the following statement f or each new diesel

- fueled engine subject to the standards prescribed in §86.007

– 11, as applicable : “This engine must be oper ated***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 594 of 88 8 only with ultra low

- sulfur diesel fuel (meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).” * * * * * 64. Section 86.016

- 1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) and adding paragraph s (g) and (h) to read as follows: **§ 86.016 -**  **1 General applicability.** (a) Applicability . The provisions of this subpart apply for certain ty

pes of new heavy

duty engines and vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Note that this subpart does not apply for light

- dut y vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, or medium

- duty passenger vehicles (see subpart S of this part for requirements that apply for those vehicles). In some cases, manufacturers of heav y - duty engines and vehicles can choose whether to meet the requirements of this subpart or the requirements of subpart S of this part; those provisio ns are therefore considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers comply with the other set of requirements. In cases where a provision applies only for a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, engine t yp e, or other distinguishing characteristics, the limited applicability is cited in the appropriate section. The provisions of this subpart appl y for certain heavy

- duty engines and vehicles as follows: (1) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust em ission standards apply for diesel

- cycle and Otto

- cycle heavy

- dut y engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. (2) The provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards apply as follows for engines that will be installed in inco mplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR: (i) These provisions apply for diesel

- cycle engines. (ii) These provisions are optional for Otto

- cycle engines. (3) Diesel

- cycle and Otto

- cycle complete heavy

- duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR and the corresponding engines are not subject to the provisions of this subpart related to exhaust emission standards, except that these provisions are optional for diesel

- cycle engines installed in such vehicles through model year 2018. (4) The provisions of this subpart related to evaporative emission standards apply for diesel

- cycle and Otto

- cycle heav y - dut y vehicles as follows: (i) These provisions do not apply for complete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. (ii) Vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR and all sizes of incomplete heavy

- dut y vehicles must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in §86.008

- 10 through model ye ar 2017, and as specified in 40 CFR part 1037 in later model ye ars. (iii) Note that diesel

- fueled vehicles are not subject to ev aporative emissions under this part.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 595 of 888 (5) The provisions of this subpart related to onboard diagnostics appl y for diesel

cycle and Otto

- cycle heavy

- dut y engines and vehicles as follows: (i) Engines installed in vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet th e onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.010

- 18. (ii) Engines installed in vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may optionally

compl y with the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.007

- 17, in which case those vehicles are not subjec t to separate onboard diagnostic requirements under this part. (b) Relationship to subpart S of this part . Unless specified otherwise, if engines are not subject to provisions of this subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, those engines must be installed in vehicles me eting the corresponding requirements under subpart S of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine compl y with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart S of this part, the vehicle must be certified under subpart S of this part , and the engine does not need to be certified separatel y . (c) Greenhouse gas emission standards . See 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 for greenhouse gas emission standards that apply for heavy

- dut y engines and vehicles. * * * * * (g) Clean alternative fuel conversions

. The provisions of this subpart also apply for clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this section. (h) Turbine engines . Turbine engines are deemed to be compression

- ignition engines for purposes of this part. 65. Section 86.0 82
- 2 is amended by adding definitions for “Round” and “United States” in alphabetical order to read as follows. **§ 86.082 -**  **2 Definitions.** * * * * * Round has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001, unless otherwise specified
. * * * * * United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. * * * * * **§86.0 85**  **- 37** 

**— [Amended]**  66. Section 86.0 85
- 37 is amended b y removing paragraph (b) and the Effective Date Note and the end of the section. **§86.0 91**  **- 29** 

**— [Amended]**  67. Section 86.0 91
- 29 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (a). 68. Section 86.0 94
- 7 is amended as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 596 of 888 a. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(1). b. By adding paragraph (h)(6). **§ 86.094 -**  **7 Maintenance of records; submittal of information; right of entry.**  * * * * * (h) * * * (6) EPA may

void ab initio a certificate for a vehicle certified to Tier 1 certification standards or to the respective evaporative and/or refueling test procedure and accompan yi ng evaporative and/or refueling standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in §86.098

– 10 for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section or to provide such information to the Administrator upon request. * * * * * **§86.0 94**  **- 14** 

**— [Amended]**  69. Section 86.0 94
- 14 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(7)(i)(A)( 1 ). **§86.0 94**  **- 21** 

**— [Amended]**  70. Section 86.094

- 21 is amended b y r emoving paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) and b y removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(iii)(B), (b)(8), (d), and (g). **§86.094 -**  **25**

**— [Amended]**  71. Section 86.094

- 25 is amended as follows: a. B y r emoving and reserving paragraphs (a), (b)(3)(i)(A), (b)(3)(ii)
. b. By removing paragraphs (b)(3)( ii i) through (b)(3)(vii). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(4) through (b)(6), (d), and (g). **§86.094 -**  **30**

**— [Amended]**  72. Section 86.094

- 30 is amended as follows: a. B y removing and reserving paragraph s ( a )( 1 )( i i) , ( a)( 4 ) , (a)(5), and ( a )( 7 )
. b. By removing paragraphs (a)(9) through (a)(14). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1) (i) , (b)(1)(ii), and (b )( 4 )
. d. By removing and reserving paragraph (d). 73. Section 86.0 95
- 35 is amended as follows: a. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). b. By revising paragraph (a)(4) introductory text. c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d), (e), and (f). d. By revising paragraph (g) introductory text. **§86.0 95**  **- 35 Labeling.**  (a) * * * (1)

– (2) [Reserved]***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 597 of 888 * * * * * (4) Heavy
- dut y vehicles employing a fuel or fuels covered b y evaporative emission standards
. This paragraph (a)(4) applies through model year 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years. * * * * * (d)

– (f) [Reserved] (g) Incomp lete vehicle fuel tank capacity
. This paragraph (g) applies through model ye ar 2013. See 40 CFR part 1037 for provisions that apply in 2014 and later model years. * * * * * **§86.0 96**  **- 24** 

**— [Amended]**  74. Section 86.0 96
- 2 4 is amended as follows: a. B y removing and reserving paragraph s ( a )( 8 ) through (a)(11) b. By removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(14)(ii), (a)(14)(iii), and (a)(14)(vii). c. By removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (d). d. By removing paragraphs (g) and (h). **§86.0 98**  **- 2**  **3**

**— [Amended]**  75. Section 86.0 98
- 23 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph s (b )( 1 ) (i), (e)(2), and (e)(3)
. **Subpart B** 

**— [Amended]**  76. Section 86. 102 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.102 Definitions.** The definitions in §86.1803 apply to this subpart. **§§ 86.106**  **- 00,**  **86.108 -**  **79, 86.110**  **- 90, 86.111**  **- 90, 86.115**  **- 00,**  **86.118 -**  **78, 86.127 -**  **96, 86.128**  **- 00, 86.130**  **- 00, 86.131**  **- 00, 86.135**  **- 00, 86.135**  **- 94, 86.137**  **- 90, 86.137**  **- 96,**  **86.162 -**  **00 , 86.167**  **- 17** 

**– [Removed]**  77. Subpart B is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 86.106
- 00, 86.108
- 79, 86.110
- 90, 86.111
- 90, 86.115
- 00, 86.118
- 78, 86.127
- 96, 86.128
- 00, 86.130
- 00, 86.131
- 00, 86.135
- 00, 86.135
- 94, 86.137
- 90, 86.137
- 96, 86.162
- 00 , 86.167
- 17
. 78. Section 86. 101 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.101 Genera l applicability.**  (a) General provisions . This subpart describes test procedures for measuring exhaust, evaporative, and refueling emissions from motor vehicles subject to emission standards under subpart S of this part. This generally includes light

- dut y vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and complete heavy

- dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. The following provisions apply for all testing under this subpart:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 598 of 888 (1) Provisions of this subpart appl y to tests performed by both the Administrator and manufacturers. (2) References in this subpart to engine families and emission control sy stems are deemed to appl y to durability groups and test groups as applicable. (3) Except as noted, heavy

- dut y vehicles are subject to all the same provisions of this subpart that appl y to light

- duty trucks. (4) The procedures in this subpart appl y for testing vehicles powered b y any fuel, except as specified in subpart S of this part. (5) All emission control sy stems designed for production vehicles must be functioning d

uring testing. Maintenance to correct component malfunction or failure must be authorized in accordance with §86.1834. (6) Evaporative emission measurement procedures of this subpart include specifications for testing methanol

- fueled vehicles. For vehicl es fueled with other oxygenated fuels, use good engineering judgment to apply these procedures. For example, if you are testing an ethanol

- fueled vehicle, calibrate your evaporative emission enclosure with ethanol and propane. (b) Migration to 40 CFR part 1066 . This subpart transitions to rely on the test procedure specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as follows: (1) Through model ye ar 2021, manufacturers may use the test procedures specified in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section. For an y EPA testing before model year 2022, EPA will use the manufacturer's selected procedures for determining road load parameters and appl yi ng cycle

- verification criteria. For an y other parameters, EPA may conduct testing using either of the specified procedures. As allowed under this part, manufacturers may

use carryover data from previous model years to demonstrate compliance with emission standards, without regard to the provisions of this section. (2) Manufacturers must use the following procedures before model ye ar 2022: (i) For vehicles certified to any of the Tier 3 emission standards specified in subpart S of this part, verif y overall driver accuracy based on driven cycle energy and report information as described in 40 CFR 1066.430(j). (ii) The equipment specifications and measurement procedures related to PM emissions from 40 CFR part 1066 appl y for an y vehicles certified to the Tier 3 PM emission standards specified in subpart S of this part. ( 3 ) For model years 2022 and later, manufacturers must use the test procedures specified in paragraph (d) of this section. (c) Interim procedures . Test vehicles as described in this sub part for the appropriate model year, through model year 2021, as follows: (1) Sections 86.106 through 86.115 set forth general testing specifications and equipment requirements. Sections 86.116 through 86.126 discuss calibration methods and frequency . Se ctions 86.127 through 86.145 describe procedures for measuring exhaust and evaporative emissions. Sections 86.146 through 86.157 lay out refueling test procedures. Sections 86.158 through 86.166 cover procedures related to the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 599 of 888 Supplemental Federal Test P rocedure and testing related to air conditioning sy stems. T he test procedure for measuring fuel s ys tem leaks is described in 40 CFR 1066.840
. (2) Alternate equipment, procedures, and calculation methods may be used if shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved in advance by the Administrator. (d) Long
- term procedures . Test vehicles as described in this subpart and in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as follows: (1) Use fuel for testing and service accumulation as specified in §86.113. (2) For exhaust emission testing, measure emissions for all pollutants with an applicable emission standard. Calculate emission results as described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart G. (3) The test sequence for the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) includes steps to prec ondition vehicles for evaporative emission measurements; these steps are required for exhaust testing whether or not testing includes evaporative emission measurements. (4) Perform evaporative emission test s as follows: (i) Use evaporative testing equipment meeting the specifications in §86.107. This equipment must meet calibration requirements as specified in §86.117. (ii) Generate fuel test temperature profiles as described in §86.129

- 94(d). (iii) Follow the general provisions and driving schedules described in 40 CFR part 1066, subpart I, . Evaporative testing consists of vehicle preconditioning as described in § 86.132, diurnal measurement as described in §86.133, running loss testing as de scribed in §86.134, and hot soak testing as described in §86.138. (iv) Calculate emission results as described in §86.143. (v) Test fuel s ys tems for leaks as described in 40 CFR 1066.840. (5) Keep records as described in §86.142 (6) Perform refueling emi ssion tests, calculate emission results, and keep associated records as described in §86.146 through 86.157. 79. Section 86. 106
- 96 is amended b y revising paragraph ( a) (3) to read as follows: **§86.106 -**  **96 Equipment required; overview.**  (a) * * * (3) Fuel, anal yt ical gas, and driving schedule specifications . Fuel specifications for exhaust and evaporative emission testing and for mileage accumulation for petroleum

fueled and methanol

- fueled vehicles are specified in §86.113. Analy tical gases are specified i n §86.114. The Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS), US06, and SC03 driving schedules, for use in exhaust emission tests, and the New York City Cycle (NYCC), for use with the UDDS in running loss tests, are specified in §§86.115, 86.130, 86.159, 86.1 60, and appendix Ito this part. * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 600 of 888 **§86. 107**  **- 96** 

**— [Amended]**  80. Section 86. 107
- 96 is amended b y removing paragraph ( e)
. 81. Section 86. 110
- 94 is amended b y revising paragraph ( d) to read as follows: **§ 86.110 -**  **94 Exhaust gas sampling system; diesel**  **- cycle vehicles, and Otto**  **- cycle**  **vehicles requiring particulate emissions measurements.** * * * * * (d) Filters, particulate sampling. Use fluorocarbon

- coated glass fiber filters or fluorocarbon

- based (membrane) filters to collect particulate matter, as follows: (1) Use primary

and back

- up test filters as follows for particulate measurements : (i) During each phase of the UDDS, sample dilute exhaust simultaneously with paired primary

and back

- up test filters. (ii) Position the back

- up filter holder 3 to 4 inches downstream of the primary filter holder. (iii) Determine the net weight of particulate material collected on each primary test filter and each back

- up test filter using the procedure described in § 86.139. (iv) Determine a ratio of net weights usin g the following formula:
(v) If the ratio is greater than 0.95, base the particulate emission calculations on the net weight of the primary filter onl y. (vi) If the ratio is less than 0.95, base the particulate emission calculations on the combined net w eights of the back

- up test filter and the primary test filter. (2) The particulate filter must have a 47 mm diameter (37 mm stain area). **§86. 113**  **- 94** 

**— [Amended]**  82. Section 86. 113
- 94 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph ( a)
. 83. Section 86.113

- 04 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3)(i) to read as follows: **§ 86.113 -**  **04 Fuel specifications.** * * * * * (a) * * * (2) Manufacturers may

use California test fuels, as follows: (i) For model year 2014 and earlier vehicles certified for 50

- state sale, manufacturers may perform exhaust emission tests using California Phase 2 gasoline as specified in Chapter 4 of the California Regulatory Requirements Applicable to the National L ow Emission Vehicle Program , October 1996 ( incorporated by reference in §86.1)
. However , the Administrator may use or require the use of test fuel meeting the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 601 of 888 specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for certification confirmatory testing, selectiv e enforcement auditing and in

- use testing
. (ii) For model ye ar 2015 and later, manufacturers may certify 50
- state vehicles based on testing used to meet California’s LEV III standards, including the use of California Phase 3 gasoline (E10), subject to the following provisions: (A) T he Administrator will also use this E10 fuel for any testing to confirm that vehicles meet the LEV III standards. Note that all evaporative testing with the E10 fuel must be conducted with temperatures meeting the specifications adopted by the California Air Resources Board. (B) The manufacturer must also use this E10 fuel for fuel econom y measurements, with an y appropriate corrections related to ethanol content in the fuel. (C) The vehicles must also meet standards at high

- altitude conditions. The high

altitude standards for a given vehicle are the LEV III standards that appl y for low

altitude testing, except that testing is based on the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of thi s section. Note that heav y - dut y vehicles certified under this paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(C) are not subject to SFTP standards at high

- altitude conditions. Manufacturers may

alternatively

use the E15 test fuel specified in §86.113

- 07 for high

- altitude testing. (D) The vehicle must meet the applicable cold

- temperature standards using the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (E) Such vehicles are considered to be Tier 2 vehicles for EPA certification; however, manufacturers must exclude them from th e fleet

- average NOx calculation in subpart S of this part. (3) * * * (i) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator, unleaded gasoline representative of commercial gasoline that will be generally available through retail outlets must be used in service accumulation. Unless otherwise approved b y the Administrator, where the vehicle is to be used for evaporative emission durability demonstration, such fuel must contain ethanol as required b y §86.1824

– 08(f)(1) . Leaded gasoline must not be used in service accumulation. * * * * * 84. Section 86.113

- 07 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§86.113 -**  **07 Fuel specifications.** Section 86.113

– 07 includes text that specifies requirements that differ from §86.113

– 94. Where a paragraph in §86.113

– 94 is identical and applicable to §86.113

– 07, this may be indicated b y specif

yi ng the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.113

– 94.”***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 602 of 888 (a) Gasoline fuel . This paragraph (a) describes how to transition to an ethanol

- blend test fuel for vehicles certified under subpart S of this part. You may use the test fuels specified in §86.113

- 04(a) for vehicles that are not yet subject to testing with the new fuel. You may

use the specified ethanol

- blen d test fuel any time earlier than we specify
. Manufacturers must certify using service accumulation fuel and E15 test fuel as specified in 40 CFR 1065, subpart H, on the following schedule: (1) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards as specified in §86.1813. Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards as specified in §86.1811 and 86.1816. Where testing with E15 test fuel is required, this applies for all testing for demonstrating compliance with exhaust emission standards and fuel economy requirements. For vehicles certified for 50

- state sale through model year 2019, you may instead use California Phase 3 gasoline (E10) as adopted in California’s LEV III program for exhaust and evaporative emission testing at low

- altitude conditions; the Administrator will also use this E10 fuel for an y l ow - altitude testing with such vehicles. In the case of evaporative emission tests with California Phase 3 gasoline, pe rform tests based on the temperatures specified by the California Air Resources Board
. (2) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the evaporative emission standards specified in §86.1811

- 10 starting in model year 2020. You may not certify th ese vehicles using carryover data based on measurements with E0 test fuel
. (3) Use the E15 test fuel to demonstrate compliance with the refueling emission standards for an y vehicles that must be certified to meet the diurnal plus hot soak standards with E1 5 test fuel under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. (4) For an y vehicles that require testing to demonstrate compliance with the refueling spitback standard, use the E15 test fuel starting in model y ear 2022. (5) If a vehicle uses E15 test fuel for evapo rative emission testing and E0 or E10 is the applicable test fuel for exhaust emission testing, or vice versa, exhaust measurement and reporting requirements appl y over the course of the evaporative emission test, but the vehicle need not meet the exhaust emission standards during the evaporative emission test run. (6) Use service accumulation fuel as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, with the additional provisions specified in §86.113

- 04(a)(3). * * * * * 85. Section 86. 115
- 78 is amended b y revising the section heading and paragraph s ( a) and (b) introductory

text to read as follows: **§86.115 -**  **78 EPA dynamometer driving schedules.**  (a) The driving schedules for the Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule, US06, SC03, and the New York City

Cycles are specified in appendix I of this part. The driving schedules are defined b y a smooth trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 603 of 888 relationships. They

each consist of a distinct non

- repetitive series of idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes of various time sequences and rates. (b) The driver should attempt to follow the target schedule as closel y as possible (refer to §86.128 for additional cycle driving instructions). The speed tolerance at any given time for these schedules, or for a drive r's aid chart approved by the Administrator, are as follows: * * * * * 86. Section 86.117

- 96 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (c)(1)(vii) and (c)(1)(ix) to read as follows: **§ 86.117**  **- 96**  **Evaporative emission enclosure calibrations.** The calibration of evaporative emission enclosures consists of three parts: initial and periodic determination of enclosure background emissions (hydrocarbons and methanol); initial determination of enclosure internal volume; and periodic h ydrocarbon and methanol retention check and calibration. Ethanol retention checks may be performed instead of methanol retention checks. Alcohol retentions may be omitted if no alcohol

- fueled vehicles will be tested in the evaporative enclosure. Alternate calibration m ethods may be used if shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved in advance by the Administrator; specificall y, more extreme temperatures may be used for determining calibration without affecting the validity of test results. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (vii) Inject into the enclosure 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure methanol at a recommended temperature of at least 150 °F (65 °C) and/or 0.5 to 1.0 grams of pure propane at lab ambient temperature. The injected quantity ma y be measured b y volum e flow or by mass measurement. The method used to measure the quantity of methanol and propane must have an accuracy

of ± 0.5 percent of the measured value (less accurate methods may be used with the advance approval of the Administrator). * * * (ix) To verify

the enclosure calibration, calculate the mass of propane and the mass of methanol using the measurements taken in paragraphs (c)(1)(vi) and (viii) of this section. See paragraph (d) of this section. This quantity must be within ± 5 percent of that measured in paragraph (c)(1)(vii) of this section. Evaluate long

- term trends using good engineering judgment to minimize measurement bias. Keep records to document such evaluations and make them available to EPA upon request. * * * * * 87. Section 86. 128
- 79 is amended b y revising paragraph ( d) to read as follows: **§86.128 -**  **79 Transmissions.**  * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 604 of 888 (d) The vehicle shall be driven with appropriate accelerator pedal movement necessary to achieve the speed versus time relationship prescribed by the driving s chedule. Both smoothing of speed variations and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided. * * * * * **§86. 129**  **- 80** 

**— [Amended]**  88. Section 86. 129
- 80 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph ( a)
. 89. Section 86. 130
- 96 is amended b y revising the introductory text and paragraph (e) and adding paragraph ( f) to read as follows: **§ 86.130 -**  **96 Test sequence; general requirements.**  Paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section are applicable to vehicles tested for the FTP test. Paragraph (e) o f this section is applicable to vehicles tested for the SFTP supplemental tests of air conditioning (SC03) and aggressive driving (US06). Paragraph (f) of this section is applicable to all emission testing. * * * * * (e) The supplemental tests for exhaust emissions related to aggressive driving (US06) and air conditioning (SC03) use are conducted as stand

- alone tests as described in §§86.158 through 86.160. These tests may be performed in any

sequence that maintains the appropriate preconditioning requireme nts as specified in §86.132. (f) If tests are invalidated after collection of emission data from previous test segments, the test may

be repeated to collect only those data points needed to complete emission measurements. Compliance with emission standards may be determined b y combining emission measurements from different test runs. If any emission measurements are repeated, the new measurements supersede previous values. 90. Section 86. 131
- 96 is amended b y adding paragraphs ( f) and (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.131 -**  **96 Vehicle preparation.** * * * * * (f) For vehicles to be tested for aggressive driving emissions (US06), provide a throttle position sensing signal that is compatible with the test dy namometer. This signal provides the input information that co ntrols dy namometer dy

namic inertia weight adjustments (see §§ 86.108
- 00(b)(2)(ii) and 86.129

- 00(f)(2)). If a manufacturer chooses not to implement dy namic inertia adjustments for a portion or all of their product line, this requirement is not applicable. ( g) You may

disable any

AECDs that have been approved solel y for emergency vehicle applications under paragraph (4) of the definition of defeat device. The emission standards do not appl y when an y of these AECDs are active. **§86. 132**  **- 96** 

**— [Amended]** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 605 of 888 91. Section 86. 132
- 96 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph ( k). 92. Section 86.133

- 96 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: **§ 86.133**  **- 96**  **Diurnal emission test.** (a) * * * (4) Manufacturers may

use a pressurized fuel s ys tem if they demonstrate that fuel vapor would not be vented to the atmosphere if there is a leak in the fuel s ys tem or if the fuel cap is removed. Without this demonstration, tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of water during the diurnal emission test. * * * * * 93. Section 86.134

- 96 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(1)(xvi) and adding paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows: **§ 86.134 -**  **96 Running loss test.** * * * * * (g) * * * (1) * * * (xvi) Manufacturers may use a pressurized fuel s ystem if they demonstrate that fuel vapor would not be vented to the atmosphere if there is a leak in the fuel s ys tem or if the fuel cap is removed. Without this demonstration, tank pressure must not exceed 10 inches of water d uring the running loss test, except that temporary exceedances are allowed for vehicles whose tank pressure remained below 10 inches of water during the entire outdoor driving period specified in § 86.129. These temporary pressure exceedances may not occur for more than 10 percent of the total driving time. * * * * * (4) High

- altitude testing . For testing under high

- altitude conditions, decrease the target ambient and fuel temperatures by 5°F. For example, the fuel temperature profile should be adjusted downward based on a nominal starting temperature of 90°F, and the nominal temperature in the enclosure should be 90°F. * * * * * 94. Section 86. 135
- 90 is amended b y revising paragraph s ( a) and (d) to read as follows: **§86.135 -**  **90 Dynamometer procedure.** (a) The dyn amometer run consists of two tests

— a “cold” start test, after a minimum 12

- hour and a maximum 36

- hour soak according to the provisions of §§86.132 and 86.133, and a “hot” start test following the “cold” start by 10 minutes. Engine startup (with all accessories turned off), operation over the UDDS and engine shutdown make a complete cold start test. Engine startup and operation over the first 505 seconds of the driving schedule complete the hot start test. The exhaust emissions are diluted with ambient air in the dilution tunnel as shown in Figure B94

- 5 and Figure B94

- 6. A dilution tunnel is not required for testing vehicles waived from the requirement to measure particulate matter.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 606 of 888 Six particulate samples are collected on filters for weighing; th e first sample plus backup is collected during the first 505 seconds of the cold start test; the second sample plus backup is collected during the remainder of the cold start test (including shutdown); the third sample plus backup is collected during the h ot start test. Continuous or batch proportional samples of gaseous emissions are collected for anal ys is during each test phase. Use the following measurement procedures for each type of engine: (1) For gasoline

- fueled, natural gas

- fueled and liquefied petroleum gas

- fueled Otto

- cycle vehicles, the composite samples collected in bags are anal yz ed for THC, CO, CO 2 , CH 4 , and NOx. (2) For petroleum

- fueled diesel

- cycle vehicles (optional for natural gas

- fueled, liquefied petroleum gas

- fueled and methanol

- fueled diesel

- cycle vehicles), THC is sampled and anal yz ed continuously

according to the provisions of §86.110. Parallel samples of the dilution air are similarly

anal yz ed for THC, CO, CO 2 , CH 4 , and NOx. (3) For natural gas

- fueled, liquefied petroleum gas

- fuele d and methanol

- fueled vehicles, bag samples are collected and anal yz ed for THC (if not sampled continuously), CO, CO 2 , CH 4 , and NOx. (4) For methanol

- fueled vehicles, methanol and formaldehyde samples are taken for both exhaust emissions and dilution air (a single dilution air formaldeh yd e sample, covering the total test period may

be collected). Parallel bag samples of dilution air are anal yz ed for THC, CO, CO 2 , CH 4 , and NOx. * * * * * (d) Practice runs over the prescribed driving schedule may be perform ed at test point, provided an emission sample is not taken, for the purpose of finding the appropriate throttle action to maintain the proper speed

- time relationship, or to permit sampling sy stem adjustment. Both smoothing of speed variations and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations are to be avoided. When using two

- roll dy namometers a truer speed

- time trace may be obtained by minimizing the rocking of the vehicle in the rolls; the rocking of the vehicle changes the tire rolling radius on each roll. Th is rocking may be minimized by restraining the vehicle horizontally (or nearl y s o) by

using a cable and winch. * * * * * 95. Section 86. 137
- 94 is amended b y revising paragraph s (b)(16) through (b)(24) to read as follows: **§ 86.137 -**  **94 Dynamometer test run, gaseous and particulate emissions.**  * * * * * (b) * * * (16) Immediatel y after the end of the sample period, turn off the cooling fan and close the engine compartment cover. (17) Turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the tailpipe(s) of the vehicle. (18) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)( 1 2) of this section for the hot start test, except only

two evacuated sample bags, two methanol sample impingers, two***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 607 of 888 formaldeh yde sample impingers, and one pair of particulate sample filters, a s appropriate, are required. The step in paragraph (b)(9) of this section shall begin between 9 and 11 minutes after the end of the sample period for the cold start test. (19) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur at 505 seconds, simultaneously turn off gas flow measuring device No. 1 (and the petroleum

- fueled diesel hydrocarbon integrator No. 1 ; mark the petroleum

- fueled diesel hydrocarbon recorder chart and turn off the No. 1 particulate sample pump, if applicable) and position the sample sele ctor valve to the “standb y” position. (Engine shutdown is not part of the hot start test sample period.) Record the measured roll or shaft revolutions (and the No. 1 gas meter reading or flow measurement instrument). Carefull y remove the third pair of part iculate sample filters from the holder and place in a clean petri dish and cover, if applicable. (20) As soon as possible, transfer the hot start “transient” exhaust and dilution air samples to the anal yt ical sy stem and process the samples according to § 8 6.140, obtaining a stabilized reading of the exhaust bag sample on all anal yz ers within 20 minutes of the end of the sample collection phase of the test. Obtain methanol and formaldeh yde sample analyses, if applicable, within 24 hours of the end of the sample period. If it is not possible to perform anal ys is on the methanol and formaldehyde samples within 24 hours, the samples should be stored in a dark , cold (4

- 10 °C) environment until analy sis. Analyze the samples within fourteen day s. (21) As soon as pos sible, and in no case longer than one hour after the end of the hot start phase of the test, transfer the six particulate filters to the weighing chamber for post

- test conditioning, if applicable. (22) Disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe( s) and drive the vehicle from dy namometer. (23) The CVS or CFV may be turned off, if desired. (24) Vehicles to be tested for evaporative emissions proceed according to §86.134; vehicles to be tested with the supplemental two

- diurnal test sequence for evaporative emissions proceed according to §86.138

- 96(k). For all others , this completes the test sequence. 96. Section § 86.142

- 90 is amended b y revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§ 86.142 -**  **90 Records required.** * * * * * (d) Test results. Also inclu de a comparison of drive cycle energy and target cycle energy relative to both inertia and road load forces as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate. * * * * * 97. Section § 86.143

- 96 is amended b y revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: **§ 86.143 -**  **96 Calculations; evaporative emissions.** * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 608 of 888 (c) If the test fuel contain s at least 25 % ox ygenated compounds by volume , use the following equation to calculate a h ydrocarbon equivalent mass for comparing to the standard:

THCE HC i

14.3 i n M m MW

   

## 
Where: M THCE = the C 1 - equivalent sum of the concentration of carbon mass contributions of non

oxygenated h ydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldeh yd es. m HC = the mass contribution from nonoxygenated hydrocarbon s. n i = the number of carbon atoms in the molecular representation of the ox ygenated emis sion component i . For example, for methanol (CH 3 OH), n = 1 and for ethanol (C 2 H 5 OH), n = 2. MW i = the molecular weight of the ox ygenated emission component i , as described in 40 CFR 1065.1005. * * * * * **Subpart C** 

**– [Amended]**  98. Subpart C, consisting of §§ 86.201 and 86.213, is revised to read as follows: Sec. 86.201 General applicability
. 86.213 Fuel specifications. **§ 86.201 General applicability.** (a) Vehicles are subject to cold

- testing requirements as described in subpart S of this part and 40 CFR part 600. Perform testing to measure CO and NMHC emissions and determine fuel econom y as described in 40 CFR part 1066; see especiall y 40 CFR 1066.710. (b) Manufacturers may

certify vehicles using carryover data based on previously published cold

- testing procedures. In addition, we may approve the use of previously published cold

- testing procedures as an alternative procedure under 40 CFR 1066.10(c). (c) Se ction 86.213 describes special provisions related to test fuel specifications. **§86.213 Fuel specifications.** (a) Gasoline . Use a gasoline test fuel with ethanol (low

- level blend onl y) or without ethanol as follows: (1) You must certify

using service accumulation fuel and E15 test fuel as specified in §86.113 for an y vehicles required to use an ethanol

- blend test fuel for measuring exhaust emissions. You may use this test fuel any time earlier than we specify
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 609 of 888 (2) You may

use the test fuel specified in this paragraph (a)(2) for vehicles that are not yet subject to exhaust testing with an ethanol

- blend test fuel under §86.113. Manufacturers may

certify based on this fuel using carryover data until testing with the e thanol

- blend test fuel is required. The following specifications appl y for gasoline test fuel without ethanol: Table 1 of §86.213

– Cold temperature test fuel specifications for gasoline without ethanol Item Regular Premium 1 Reference Procedure 2 (RON+MON)/2 3 87.8±0.3 92.3±0.5 ASTM D2699 Sensitivity 3 7.5 7.5 Distillation Range (°F): Evaporated initial boiling point 10% evaporated 50% evaporated 90% evaporated Evaporated final boiling point 76

– 96 98
- 118 179
- 214 316
- 346 413 Maximum 76

– 96

105
- 125 195
- 225 316
- 346 413 Maximum ASTM D86
Hydrocarbon composition (vol %): Olefins Aromatics Saturates 12.5±0.5 26.4±4.0 Remainder 10.5±0.5

32.0±4.0 Remainder ASTM D1319
Lead, g/gallon 0.01, Maximum 0.01,

Maximum ASTM D3237 Phosphorous, g/gallon 0.005 Maximum 0.005

Maximum ASTM D3231 Total sulfur, wt. % 0.0015

– 0.008 0.0015

– 0.008 4 ASTM D3120 RVP, psi 11.5±0.3 11.5±0.3 ASTM D4953 1 The premium fuel specifications apply for vehicles designed to use high

- octane premium fuel. 2 ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in §86.1. 3 Octane specifications are optional for manufacturer testing. 4 Sulfur concentration will not exceed 0.0045 w eight percent for EPA testing. (3) Manufacturers may

use the E0 gasoline test fuel specified in §86.113 for certification instead of the fuel specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as long as the chan ge in test fuel does not cause cold NMHC, CO, or CO 2 emissions to decrease; manufacturers must keep records documenting these emission effects and make them available to EPA upon request. (4) We may

approve alternate fuel specifications that are substanti all y equivalent to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for a manufacturer’s testing. (b) Diesel fuel . Diesel fuel for testing under this subpart must meet the specifications for low

- temperature test fuel in 40 CFR 1065.703. **Subpart D** 

**— [Removed]** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 610 of 888 99. Subpart D , consisting of §§ 86.301

- 79 through 86.348

- 79, is removed. **Subpart F** 

**— [Amended]**  **§ 86**  **. 505**  **- 78** 

**– [Removed]**  100. Subpart F is amended b y removing § 86.505
- 78
. **§86. 513**  **- 94** 

**— [Amended]**  101. Section 86.513

- 94 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (a) and by removing paragraphs (e) and (f). 102. Section 86.51 5
- 78 is amended b y revising paragraph s (a) and (d) to read as follows: **§ 86.515 -**  **78 EPA urban dynamometer driving schedule.** (a) The dyn amometer driving schedules are listed in appendix I . The driving schedules are defined b y a smooth trace drawn through the specified speed vs. time relationships. They consist of a nonrepetitive series of idle, acceleration, cruise, and deceleration modes of various time sequences and rates. Appropriate driving schedules are as follows: (1) Class I

—

Appendix I (b). (2) Class II

—

Appendix I (a)(2). (3) Class III

—

Appendix I (a)(2). * * * * * (d) For motorcycles with an engine displacement less than 50 cc and a top speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), the speed indicat ed for each second of operation on the applicable Class Idriving trace (speed versus time sequence) specified in appendix I (b) shall be adjusted downward b y the ratio of actual top speed to specified maximum test speed. Calculate the ratio with three sign ificant figures by dividing the top speed of the motorcycle in km/hr by

58.7. For example, for a motorcycle with a top speed of 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), the ratio would be 48.3/58.7 = 0.823. The top speed to be used under this section shall be indicated in the manufacturer's application for certification, and shall be the highest sustainable speed of the motorcycle with an 80 kg rider on a flat paved surface. If the motorcycle is equipped with a permanent speed governor that is unlikely to be removed in actual use, measure the top speed in the governed configuration; otherwise measure the top speed in the ungoverned configuration. **Subpart G** 

**— [Amended]**  103. Section 86. 608
- 98 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 86.608 -**  **98 Test procedures.** (a) The prescribed test procedures are the Federal Test Procedure, as described in subpart B of this part, and the cold temperature CO test procedure as described in subpart C of this part. For purposes of Selective Enforcement Audit testing, the manufact urer shall***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 611 of 888 not be required to perform any of the test procedures in subpart B of this part relating to evaporative emission testing, other than refueling emissions testing, except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (1) The Administrator may omit any of the testing procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section. Further, the Administrator may , on the basis of a written application by

a manufacturer, approve optional test procedures other than those in subparts B and C of this part for any motor vehicle which is not susceptible to satisfactory

testing using the procedures in subparts B and C of this part. (2) The following exceptions to the test procedures in subpart B of this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing: (i ) For mileage accumulation, the manufacturer may use test fuel meeting the specifications for mileage and service accumulation fuels of §86.113. Otherwise, the manufacturer may

use fuels other than those specified in this section only with the advance approval of the Administrator. (ii) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel at other than the approximate mid

- volume of the fuel tank, as specified in §86.131

– 96(a) with only a single temperature sensor, and may drain the test fuel from o ther than the lowest point of the tank, as specified in §§86.131

– 96(b) and 86.152

– 98(a), provided an equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by

the manufacturers and shall be made available to the Administrator upon request . Additionally , for any test vehicle that has remained under laboratory

ambient temperature conditions for at least 6 hours prior to testing, the vehicle soak described in §86.132

– 96(c) may be eliminated upon approval of the Administrator. In such cases, the vehicle shall be operated through the preconditioning drive described in §86.132

– 96(c) immediately following the fuel drain and fill procedure described in §86.132

– 96(b). (iii) The manufacturer may perform additional preconditioning on Selective Enforce ment Audit test vehicles other than the preconditioning specified in §86.132 only

if the additional preconditioning was performed on certification test vehicles of the same configuration. (iv) [Reserved] (v) The manufacturer may substitute slave tires for the drive wheel tires on the vehicle as specified in §86.135

– 90(e): Provided, that the slave tires are the same size. (vi) [Reserved] (vii) In performing exhaust sample anal ys is under §86.140

– 94. (A) When testing diesel vehicles, or methanol

- fueled Otto

- cycle vehicles, the manufacturer shall allow a minimum of 20 minutes warm

- up for the HC anal yz er, and for diesel vehicles, a minimum of two hours warm

- up for the CO, CO2. and NOx analyzers. (Power is normally left on infrared and chemiluminescent anal yz ers . When not in use, the chopper motors of the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 612 of 888 infrared anal yz ers are turned off and the phototube high voltage supply to the chemiluminescent anal yz ers is placed in the standby position.) (B) The manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from con densing in the sample collection bags. (viii) The manufacturer need not compl y with §86.142 or §86.155, since the records required therein are provided under other provisions of this subpart G. (ix) I f a manufacturer elects to perform the background determ ination procedure described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi) of this section in addition to performing the refueling emissions test procedure, the elapsed time between the initial and final FID readings shall be recorded, rounded to the nearest second rather than m inute as described in §86.154

– 98(e)(8). In addition, the vehicle soak described in §86.153

– 98(e) shall be conducted with the windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle open. (x) The Administrator may elect to perform a seal test, described in §86.153

– 9 8(b), of both integrated and non

- integrated sy stems instead of the full refueling test. When testing non

- integrated s ys tems, a manufacturer may conduct the canister purge described in §86.153

– 98(b)(1) directly following the preconditioning drive described in §86.132

– 96(e) or directl y following the exhaust emissions test described in §86.137

– 96. (xi) In addition to the refueling test, a manufacturer may elect to perform the following background emissions determination immediately prior to the refueling measurement procedure described in §86.154, provided EPA is notified of this decision prior to the start of testing in an SEA. (A) The SHED shall be purged for several minutes immediately prior to the background determination. Warning: If at an y time the concentration of hydrocarbons, of methanol, or of methanol and hydrocarbons exceeds 15,000 ppm C, the enclosure should be immediately purged. This concentration provides a 4:1 safety

factor against the lean flammability limit. (B) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon anal yz er shall be zeroed and spanned immediately

prior to the background determination. If not already on, the enclosure mixing fan and the spilled fuel mixing blower shall be turned on at this time. (C) Place the vehicle in the SHED. The ambient temperatur e level encountered b y the test vehicle during the entire background emissions determination shall be 80 °F ±3 °F. The windows and luggage compartment of the vehicle must be open and the gas cap must be secured. (D) Seal the SHED. Immediatel y anal yz e the ambient concentration of hydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the initial background hydrocarbon concentration. (E) Soak the vehicle for ten minutes ±1 minute.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 613 of 888 (F) The FID (or HFID) hydrocarbon anal yz er shall be zeroed and spanned immediately

prior to the end of the background determination. (G) Anal yz e the ambient concentration of h ydrocarbons in the SHED and record. This is the final background h ydrocarbon concentration. (H) The total h ydrocarbon mass emitted during the background determination is calculated according to §86.156. To obtain a per

- minute background emission rate, divide the total hydrocarbon mass calculated in this paragraph by the duration of the soak, rounded to the nearest second, described in paragraph (a)(2)(xi)(G) of this sectio n. (I) The background emission rate is multiplied by the duration of the refueling measurement obtained in paragraph (a)(2)(ix) of this section. This number is then subtracted from the total grams of emissions calculated for the refueling test according to §86.156

– 98(a) to obtain the adjusted value for total refueling emissions. The final results for comparison with the refueling emission standard shall be computed by dividing the adjusted value for total refueling mass emissions by

the total gallons of fue l dispensed in the refueling test as described in §86.156

– 98(b). (xii) In addition to the requirements of subpart B of this part, the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline

- fueled and methanol

- fueled vehicles as follows prior to emission testing: (A) The manu facturer shall inspect the fuel s ys tem to ensure the absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a pressure of 14.5±0.5 inches of water (3.6±0.1 kPa) to the fuel sy stem, allowing the pressure to stabilize, and isolating the fuel s ys tem from the pressure source. Following isolation of the fuel s ys tem, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this s ection and report this action in accordance with §86.609

– 98(d). (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling emission control sy stems. (C) The manufacturer may not modi fy the test vehicle's evaporative or refueling emission control sy stems by component addition, deletion, or substitution, except to comply with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section if approved in advance b y the Administrator. (3) The following exceptions t o the test procedures in subpart C of this part are applicable to Selective Enforcement Audit testing: (i) The manufacturer may measure the temperature of the test fuel at other than the approximate mid

- volume of the fuel tank, as specified in §86. 107
- 96( e), and may drain the test fuel from other than the lowest point of the fuel tank, provided***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 614 of 888 an equivalent method is used. Equivalency documentation shall be maintained by the manufacturer and shall be made available to the Administrator upon request. (ii) Inperforming exhaust sample anal ys is under §86.140, the manufacturer shall exercise care to prevent moisture from condensing in the sample collection bags. (iii) The manufacturer need not comply with §86.142 since the records required therein are provided under other provisions of this subpart G. (iv) In addition to the requirements of subpart C of this part, the manufacturer shall prepare gasoline

- fueled vehicles as follows prior to exhaust emission testing: (A) The manufacturer shall inspect the fuel s ys tem to ensure the absence of any leaks of liquid or vapor to the atmosphere by applying a pressure of 14.5±0.5 inches of water (3.6±0.1 kPa) to the fuel sy stem allowing the pressure to stabilize and isolating the fuel sy stem from the pressure source. Follo wing isolation of the fuel s ys tem, pressure must not drop more than 2.0 inches of water (0.5 kPa) in five minutes. If required, the manufacturer shall perform corrective action in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section and report this action in acco rdance with §86.609

– 98(d). (B) When performing this pressure check, the manufacturer shall exercise care to neither purge nor load the evaporative or refueling emission control s ys tem. (C) The manufacturer shall not modify the test vehicle's evaporative or refueling emission control sy stem by component addition, deletion, or substitution, except if approved in advance b y the Administrator, to comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section. * * * * * 104. Section 86. 609
- 98 is amended b y revising paragraph s (a) , (b), and (c) to read as follows: **§ 86.609 -**  **98 Calculation and reporting of test results.** (a) Initial test results are calculated following the test procedures specified in §86.608

– 98(a). Round the initial test results to th e number of decimal place s contained in the applicable emission standard expressed to one additional significant figure. (b) Final test results for each test vehicle are calculated by summing the initial test results derived in paragraph (a) of this section for each test vehicle, dividing b y the number of times that specific test has been conducted on the vehicle, and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable standard expressed to one additional significant figure. (c) Final deteriorated test resul ts

— (1) For each test vehicle . The final deteriorated test results for each light

- duty vehicle tested for exhaust emissions and/or refueling emissions according to subpart B, subpart C, or subpart R of this part are calculated by first multiplying or addin g, as appropriate, the final test results by or to the appropriate deterioration factor derived from the certification process for the engine or evaporative/refueling family and model year to which the selected configuration belongs,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 615 of 888 and then b y multiplyin g by the appropriate reactivity adjustment factor, if applicable, and rounding to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard. For the purpose of this paragraph (c), if a multiplicative deterioration factor as computed d

uring the certification process is less than one, that deterioration factor is one. If an additive deterioration factor as computed during the certification process is less than zero, that deterioration factor will be zero. (2) Exceptions . There are no det erioration factors for light

- dut y vehicle emissions obtained during spitback testing in accordance with §86.146

– 96. Accordingly , for the fuel dispensing spitback test, the term “final deteriorated test results” means the final test results derived in paragraph (b) of this section for each test vehicle, rounded to the same number of decimal places contained in the applicable emission standard. * * * * * **§86. 610**  **- 98** 

**— [Amen**  **ded]** 105. Section 86.610

- 98 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2). 106. Section 86.612

- 97 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.612**  **- 97**  **Suspension and revocation of certificates of conformity.** (a) The certificate of conformity is immediatel y suspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to §86.610

- 98 (b) effective f rom the time that testing of that vehicle is completed. (b) The Administrator may suspend the certificate of conformit y for a configuration that does not pass a selective enforcement audit pursuant to §86.610

– 98(c) based on the first test, or all tests, co nducted on each vehicle. This suspension will not occur before ten day s after failure to pass the audit. (c) If the results of vehicle testing pursuant to the requirements of this subpart indicates the vehicles of a particular configuration produced at mor e than one plant do not conform to the regulations with respect to which the certificate of conformity was issued, the Administrator may

suspend the certificate of conformity with respect to that configuration for vehicles manufactured b y the manufacturer in other plants of the manufacturer. (d) The Administrator will notify the manufacturer in writing of any suspension or revocation of a certificate of conformity in whole or in part: Except, that the certificate of conformity

is immediately

suspended with respect to any vehicle failing pursuant to §86.610
- 98(b) and as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section. (e) The Administrator may revoke a certificate of conformity for a configuration when the certificate has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b ) or (c) of this section if the proposed remedy for the nonconformity, as reported by the manufacturer to the Administrator, is one requiring a design change(s) to the engine and/or emission control sy stem as described in the Application for Certification of the affected configuration.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 616 of 888 (f) Once a certificate has been suspended for a failed vehicle as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following actions: (1) Before the certificate is reinstated for that failed vehic le

— (i) Remedy the nonconformity ; and (ii) Demonstrate that the vehicle's final deteriorated test results conform to the applicable emission standards or family particulate emission limits, as defined in this part 86 by

retesting the vehicle in accordance with the requirements of this subpart. (2) Submit a written report to the Administrator within thirty day s after successful completion of testing on the failed vehicle, which contains a description of the remedy and test results for the vehicle in addition to other information that may be required b y this subpart. (g) Once a certificate has been suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, the manufacturer must take the following actions before the Administrator will consider reinstating such certificate: (1) Submit a written report to the Administrator which identifies the reason for the noncompliance of the vehicles, describes the proposed remedy, including a description of an y proposed quality control and/or quality assurance measures to be taken b y the manufacturer to prevent the future occurrence of the problem, and states the date on which the remedies will be implemented. (2) Demonstrate that the engine famil y or configuration for which the certificate of conformity

has been suspended do es in fact comply with the requirements of this subpart by

testing vehicles selected from normal production runs of that engine family or configuration at the plant(s) or the facilities specified by the Administrator, in accordance with: the conditions spe cified in the initial test order pursuant to §86.603 for a configuration suspended pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. (3) If the Administrator has not revoked the certificate pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and if the manufacture r elects to continue testing individual vehicles after suspension of a certificate, the certificate is reinstated for an y vehicle actually determined to have its final deteriorated test results in conformance with the applicable standards through testing i n accordance with the applicable test procedures. (h) Once a certificate for a failed engine famil y or configuration has been revoked under paragraph (e) of this section and the manufacturer desires to introduce into commerce a modified version of that eng ine famil y or configuration, the following actions will be taken before the Administrator may issue a certificate for the new engine family or configuration: (1) If the Administrator determines that the proposed change(s) in vehicle design may have an effe ct on emission performance deterioration and/or fuel econom y, he/she shall notify

the manufacturer within five working day s after receipt of the report in paragraph (g)(1) of this section whether subsequent testing under this subpart will be***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 617 of 888 sufficient to evaluate the proposed change(s) or whether additional testing will be required. (2) After implementing the change(s) intended to remedy the nonconformity, the manufacturer shall demonstrate, if the certificate was revoked pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, that the modified vehicle configuration does in fact conform with the requirements of this subpart by testing vehicles selected from normal production runs of that modified vehicle configuration in accordance with the conditions specified in the i nitial test order pursuant to §86.603. The Administrator shall consider this testing to satisfy the testing requirements of §86.079

– 32 or §86.079

– 33 if the Administrator had so notified the manufacturer. If the subsequent testing results in a pass decision pursuant to the criteria in §86.610

– 98(c), the Administrator shall reissue or amend the certificate, if necessary , to include that configuration: Provided, that the manufacturer has satisfied the testing requirements specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section. If the subsequent audit results in a fail decision pursuant to the criteria in §86.610

- 98(c), the revocation remains in effect. Any design change approvals under this subpart are limited to the modification of the configuration specified b y the te st order. (i) A manufacturer may

at any time subsequent to an initial suspension of a certificate of conformity

with respect to a test vehicle pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, but not later than fifteen (15) days or such other period as may be al lowed b y the Administrator after notification of the Administrator's decision to suspend or revoke a certificate of conformity

in whole or in part pursuant to paragraph (b), (c) or (e) of this section, request that the Administrator grant such manufacturer a hearing as to whether the tests have been properl y conducted or an y sampling methods have been properly applied. (j) After the Administrator suspends or revokes a certificate of conformity pursuant to this section or notifies a manufacturer of his intent to suspend, revoke or void a certificate of conformit y under §86.007

- 30(e) or § 86.1850, and prior to the commencement of a hearing under §86.614, if the manufacturer demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that the decision to suspend, revoke or void the certificate was based on erroneous information, the Administrator shall reinstate the certificate. (k) To permit a manufacturer to avoid storing non

- test vehicles when conducting testing of an engine family

or configuration subsequent to suspension or revocation of the certificate of conformity

for that engine family

or configuration pursuant to paragraph (b), (c), or (e) of this section, the manufacturer may request that the Administrator conditionally

reinstate the certificate for that e ngine family or configuration. The Administrator may

reinstate the certificate subject to the condition that the manufacturer consents to recall all vehicles of that engine family or configuration produced from the time the certificate is conditionally rei nstated if the engine family or configuration fails the subsequent testing and to remedy an y nonconformity at no expense to the owner. **Subpart H** 

**— [**  **Remove d]** ***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 618 of 888 107. Subpart H, consisting of §§ 86.701

- 94 through 86.709

- 99, is removed. **Subpart M** 

**— [Removed]**  108. Subpart M , consisting of §§ 86.1201

- 90 through 86.1246

- 96, is removed. **S ubpart**  **N --**  **E xhaust**  **T est**  **P rocedures**  **for Heavy -**  **duty Engines** 109. The subpart heading is revised as set forth above. **Subpart N** 

**— [Amended]**  **§§ 86.1301, 86.1302 -**  **84, 86.1303**  **- 84, 86.1304, 86.1305**  **- 90, 86.1305**  **- 2004, 86.1306**  **- 07,**  **86.1306 -**  **96, 86.1308 -**  **84, 86.1309 -**  **90, 86.1310 -**  **90, 86.1310 -**  **2007, 86.1311 -**  **94, 86.1312 -**  **88, 86.1312 -**  **2007, 86.1313 -**  **94, 86.1313 -**  **98, 86.1313 -**  **2004, 86.1313 -**  **2007, 86.1314 -**  **94, 86.1316**  **- 94, 86.1318**  **- 84, 86.1319**  **- 9**  **0, 86.1320 -**  **90, 86.1321 -**  **94, 86.1322 -**  **84, 86.1323 -**  **84, 86.1323**  **- 2007, 86.1324**  **- 84, 86.1325**  **- 94, 86.1326**  **- 90, 86.1327**  **- 96, 86.1327**  **- 98, 86.1330**  **- 90, 86.1332**  **- 90, 86.1333**  **- 90, 86.1334**  **- 84, 86.1335**  **- 90, 86.1336**  **- 84, 86.1337**  **- 96, 86.1337**  **- 2007, 86.1338**  **- 84, 86.1338**  **- 2007, 86.1339**  **- 90, 86.1340**  **- 90, 86.1340**  **- 94, 86.1341**  **- 90,**  **86.1341 -**  **98, 86.1342 -**  **90, 86.1342 -**  **94, 86.1343 -**  **88, 86.1344 -**  **94, 86.1362 -**  **2007, 86.1363 -**  **2007, 86.1375 -**  **2007, 86.1380 -**  **2004**

**– [Removed]**  110. Subpart N is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 86.1301, 86.1302

- 84, 86.1303
- 84, 86.1304, 86.1305
- 90, 86.1305
- 2004, 86.1306
- 07, 86.1306
- 96, 86.1308
- 84, 86.1309
- 90, 86.1310
- 90, 86.1310
- 2007, 86.1311
- 94, 86.1312
- 88, 86.1312
- 2007, 86.1313
- 94, 86.1313
- 98, 86.1313
- 2004, 86.1313
- 2007, 86.1314
- 94, 86.1316
- 94, 86.1318
- 84, 86.1319
- 9 0, 86.1320
- 90, 86.1321
- 94, 86.1322
- 84, 86.1323
- 84, 86.1323
- 2007, 86.1324
- 84, 86.1325
- 94, 86.1326
- 90, 86.1327
- 96, 86.1327
- 98, 86.1330
- 90, 86.1332
- 90, 86.1333
- 90, 86.1334
- 84, 86.1335
- 90, 86.1336
- 84, 86.1337
- 96, 86.1337
- 2007, 86.1338
- 84, 86.1338
- 2007, 86.1339
- 90, 86.1340
- 90, 86.1340
- 94, 86.1341
- 90, 86.1341
- 98, 86.1342
- 90, 86.1342
- 94, 86.1343
- 88, 86.1344
- 94, 86.1362
- 2007, 86.1363
- 2007, 86.1375
- 2007, 86.1380
- 2004. **§§ 86.1305 -**  **2010, 86.1333 -**  **2010, 86.1360 -**  **2007, 86.1362 -**  **2010, 86.1370 -**  **2007, 86.1372 -**  **2007**

**— [Redesignate**  **d as §§ 86.1305, 86.1333, 86.1360, 86.1362, 86.1370, 86.1372]** 111. Redesignate specific sections in subpart N as follows: old section new section 86.1305
- 2010 86.1305 86.1333
- 2010 86.1333 86.1360
- 2007 86.1360 86.1362
- 2010 86.1362 86.1370
- 2007 86.1370 86.1372
- 2007 86.1372 112. Newl y redesignated § 86.1305 is revised to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 619 of 888 **§ 86.1305 Introduction; structure of subpart.** (a) This subpart specifies the equipment and procedures for performing exhaust

- emission tests on Otto
- cycle and diesel

- cycle heavy

- dut y engines. Subpart A of this part sets forth the emission standards and general testing requirements to comply with EPA certification procedures. (b) Use the applicable equipment and procedures for spark

- ignition or compression

ignition engines in 40 CFR part 1065 to determine whether engines meet the duty

- cycle emission standards in subpart A of this part. Measure the emissions of all regulated pollutants as specified in 40 CFR part 1065. Use the duty cycles and procedures specified in §§ 86.1333, 86.1360, and 86.1362. Adjust emission results from engines using aftertreatment technology with infrequent regeneration events as described in § 86.004

– 28. (c) The provisions in §§86.1370 and §§86.1372 apply for determining whe ther an engine meets the applicable not

- to - exceed emission standards. (d) Measure smoke using the procedures in subpart Iof this part for evaluating whether engines meet the smoke standards in subpart A of this part. (e) Use the fuels specified in 40 CFR part 1065 to perform valid tests, as follows: (1) For service accumulation, use the test fuel or any commerciall y available fuel that is representative of the fuel that in

- use engines will use. (2) For diesel

- fueled engines, use the ultra low

- sulfur diesel fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065 for emission testing. (3) For gasoline

- fueled engines, use the appropriate E0 fuel specified in 40 CFR part 1065, except that the sulfur concentration must be between 0.0015 and 0.008 weight percent and research octane must be at least 93. (f) You may

use special or alternate procedures to the extent we allow them under 40 CFR 1065.10. Inaddition, for 2010 and earlier model year engines, you may use modified test procedures as needed to conform to the procedures that were specified at the time of emission testing for the model ye ar in question. (g) This subpart applies to you as a manufacturer, and to anyone who does testing for yo u. (h) For testing conducted with engines installed in vehicles, including field testing conducted to measure emissions under Not

- To
- Exceed test procedures, use the test procedures and equipment specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart J. 113. Newl y redes ignated § 86.1333 is amended by revising paragraph s (a)(1) and (d) to read as follows: **§ 86.1333 Transient test cycle generation.**  (a) * * * (1) To unnormalize rpm, use the following equations: (i) For diesel engines:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 620 of 888 

##   % 112 rpm Max Test Speed Curb Idle Speed Actual rpm Curb Idle Speed

    Where: Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 1065. (ii) For Otto

- cycle engines:



##   % 100 rpm Max Test Speed Curb Idle Speed Actual rpm Curb Idle Speed

    Where: Max Test Speed = the maximum test speed as calculated in 40 CFR part 1065. * * * * * (d) Determine idle speeds as specified in 40 CFR 1065.510. 114. Newl y redes ignated § 86.1360 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c), and (f)(3) to read as follows: **§ 86.1360**  **Supplemental emission test; test cycle and procedures.** * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Perform testing as described in §86.1362 for determining whether an engine meets the applicable standards when measured over the supplemental emission test. * * * * * (c) The engine speeds A, B and C, referenced in the table in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must be determined as follows: Speed A = n lo + 0.25 × (n hi −n lo ) Speed B = n lo + 0.50 × (n hi −n lo ) Speed C = n lo + 0.75 × (n hi −n lo ) Where: nhi = High speed as determined b y calculating 70% of the maximum power. The highest engine speed where this power value occurs on the power curve is defined as n hi . n lo = Low s peed as determined by calculating 50% of the maximum power. The lowest engine speed where this power value occurs on the power curve is defined as n lo . Maximum power = the maximum observed power calculated according to the engine mapping procedures defined in 40 CFR 1065.510
. * * * * * (f) * * * (3) If the Maximum Allowable Emission L imit for any point, as calculated under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section, is greater than the applicable Not

- to - Exceed limit (if within the Not

- to - Exceed control area defined in §86.1370(b)), then the Maximum Allowable Emission L imit for that point shall be defined as the applicable Not
- to - Exceed limit.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 621 of 888 * * * * * 115. Newl y redesignated § 86.1362 is amended by revising the introductory text and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: **§ 86.1362 Steady -**  **state testing with a ramped -**  **modal cycle.** This section describes how to test engines under steady - state conditions. ***** * * * * (f) For 2007 through 2010 model years, manufacturers may follow the mode order described in th is paragraph (f) instead of the mode order specified in paragraph (a) of this section. An y EPA testing with these engines will rely on the same procedure used b y the manufacturer for certification. RMC Mode Time in Mode

(seconds) Engine

Speed 1,2 Torque (percent) 2,3 1a Steady

- state 170 Warm Idle 0 1b Transition 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 2a Steady

- state 170 A 100 2b Transition 20 A Linear Transition 3a Steady

- state 102 A 25 3b Transition 20 A Linear Transition 4a Steady

- state 100 A 75 4b Transition 20 A Linear Transition 5a Steady

- state 103 A 50 5b Transition 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 6a Steady

- state 194 B 100 6b Transition 20 B Linear Transition 7a Steady

- state 219 B 25 7b Transition 20 B Linear Transition 8a Steady

- state 220 B 75 8b Transition 20 B Linear Transition 9a Steady

- state 219 B 50 9b Transition 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 10a Steady

- state 171 C 100 10b Transition 20 C Linear Transition 11a Steady

- state 102 C 25 11b Transition 20 C Linear Transition 12a Steady

- state 100 C 75 12b Transition 20 C Linear Transition 13a Steady

- state 102 C 50 13b Transition 20 Linear Transition Linear Transition 14 Steady

- state 168 Warm Idle 0 1 Speed terms are defined in 40 CFR part 1065. 2 Advance from one mode to the next within a 20

- second transition phase. During the transition phase, command a linear progression from the speed or torque setting of the current mode to the speed or torque setting of the next mode. 3 The percent torque is relative to maximum torque at the commanded engine speed.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 622 of 888 116. Newl y redesignated § 86.1370 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(3), (b)(6), and (f) introductory text to read as follows: **§ 86.1370**  **Not -**  **To -**  **Exceed test procedures.** (a) General. The purpose of this test procedure is to measure in

- use emissions of heavy

duty diesel engines while operating within a broad range of speed and load points (the Not
- To
- Exceed Control Area) and under conditions which can reasonably be expect ed to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use. Emission results from this test procedure are to be compared to the Not

- To
- Exceed L imits specified in §86.007

– 11(a)(4), or to later Not

- To
- Exceed Limits. The Not

- To
- Exceed Limits do not apply for en gine

- starting conditions. Tests conducted using the procedures specified in this subpart are considered valid Not

- To
- Exceed tests (Note: duty cycles and limits on ambient conditions do not apply

for Not

- To
- Exceed tests). (b) * * * (3) Notwithstanding the p rovisi ons of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, all operating speed and load points with brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) values within 5% of the minimum BSFC value of the engine. For the purposes of this requirement, BFSC must be calculated under the general test cell conditions specified in 40 CFR part 1065 . The manufacturer may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude such points if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points in n ormal vehicle operation and use. Engines equipped with drivelines with multi

- speed manual transmissions or automatic transmissions with a finite number of gears are not subject to the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3). * * * * * (6)(i) For petroleum

- fueled diesel cycle engines, the manufacturer may identify particular engine

- vehicle combinations and may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the Not

- to - Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not capable of operating at such points when used in the specified engine

- vehicle combination(s). (ii) For diesel cycle engines that are not petroleum

- fueled, the manufacturer may petition the Administrator at certification to exclude operating points from the Not

- to - Exceed Control Area defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the engine is not expected to operate at such points in normal vehicle operation and use. * * * * * (f) NTE cold temperature operating exclusion. Engines equipped with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) whose operation within the NTE control area specified in paragraph (b) of this section when operating during cold temperature conditions as specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section are not subject to the NTE emission limits during the specified cold temperature operation conditions. * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 623 of 888 **Subpart O** 

**— [**  **Remove d]**  117. Subpart O, consisting of §§ 86.1401 through 86.1442, is removed. **Subpart R** 

**— [**  **Remove d]**  118. Subpart R, consisting of §§ 86.1701

- 99 through 86.1780

- 99, is removed. **Subpart S** 

**– [Amended]**  **§ §**  **86.1805 -**  **01, 86.1806 -**  **01, 86.1806 -**  **04, 86.1808 -**  **07, 86.1811 -**  **01, 86.1812**  **- 01, 86.1813**  **- 01, 86.1814**  **- 01,**  **86.1814 -**  **02, 86.1815 -**  **01, 86.1815 -**  **02 , 86.1845**  **- 01** 

**– [Removed]**  119. Subpart S is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 86.1805
- 01 , 86.1806
- 01, 86.1806
- 04, 86.1808
- 07, 86.1811
- 01 , 86.1812
- 01, 86.1813
- 01, 86.1814
- 01, 86.1814
- 02, 86.1815
- 01, 86.1815
- 02 , 86.1845
- 01
. 120. Section 86.1801

- 12 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a) through (e) to read as follows: **§ 86.1801**  **- 12**  **Applicability.** (a) Applicability. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain ty

pes of new vehicles as described in this paragraph (a). Where the provisions apply for a t ype of vehicle, they apply for vehicles powered by

any fuel. In some cases, manufacturers of heav y - dut y engines and vehicles can choose whether to meet th e requirements of this subpart or the requirements of subpart A of this part; those provisions are therefore considered optional, but only to the extent that manufacturers compl y with the other set of requirements. In cases where a provision applies only to a certain vehicle group based on its model year, vehicle class, motor fuel, engine ty pe, or other distinguishing characteristics, the limited applicability

is cited in the appropriate section. The provisions of this subpart apply to certain vehicles as follows: (1) The provisions of this subpart appl y for light

- duty vehicles, and light

- duty

trucks, (2) The provisions of this subpart appl y for medium

- duty passenger vehicles. The provisions of this subpart also apply for other complete heavy

- dut y vehicl es at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, except as follows: (i) The provisions of this subpart are optional for diesel

- cycle vehicles through model ye ar 2018. (ii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not apply if engines meet the onboard diagn ostic requirements specified in §86.007

- 17. (iii) Greenhouse gas emission standards appl y as specified in 40 CFR parts 1036 and 1037 instead of the standards specified in this subpart. (3) The provisions of this subpart generally do not apply

to incomplete heavy

- dut y vehicles or to complete vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR (see subpart A of this part and 40 CFR part 1037). However, this subpart applies to such vehicles in the following cases:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 624 of 888 (i) Incomplete heav y - duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GV WR may be optionally

certified to the exhaust emission standards in this subpart that apply for complete heav y - duty

vehicles. (ii) The evaporative and refueling emission standards apply for incomplete heavy

duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR starting with model year 2018. Evaporative emission standards also appl y for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in 40 CFR part 1037. (iii) The onboard diagnostic requirements in this subpart do not apply for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR; thes e requirements apply for incomplete vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR only if the installed engine does not meet the onboard diagnostic requirements specified in §86.007

- 17. (b) Relationship to subpart A of this part . Unless specified otherwise, if heavy

- duty vehicles are not subject to provisions of this subpart or if manufacturers choose not to meet optional provisions of this subpart as described in paragraph (a) of this section, the engines installed in those vehicles must meet the corresponding requirements under subpart A of this part. If a vehicle and its installed engine compl y with a mix of provisions from this subpart and from subpart A of this part, the vehicle must be certified under this subpart , and the engine does not need to be certif ied separatel y . ( c ) Clean alternative fuel conversions. The provisions of this subpart also apply to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502 of all vehicles described in paragraph (a) of this section. (d) Small volume manufacturers. Special certification procedures are available for small

volume manufacturers as described in §86.1838. (e) You . The term “you” in this subpart refers to manufacturers subject to the emission standards and other requirements of this subpart. * * * * * 121. Section 86.1803

- 01 is amended as follows: a. By removing the definition for “ Certification Short Test (CST) ”. b. By adding definitions for “Class 2b” and “Class 3” in alphabetical order. c. By revising the definitions for “Family e mission limit”, “Heavy

- dut y vehicle”, and “H ybrid electric vehicle (HEV)”. d. By adding definitions for “LEV III” and “Low

- altitude conditions” in alphabetical order. e. By removing the definition for “L ow altitude conditions”. f. By adding a definition fo r “Rated power” in alphabetical order. g. By revising the definition for “Round, rounded or rounding”. h. By adding definitions for “Section 177 states”, “Tier 3”, and “United States” in alphabetical order. i. By revising the definition for “U.S. sales”.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 625 of 888 j . By adding definitions for “Volatile liquid fuel” and “We (us, our)” in alphabetical order. **§ 86.1803**  **- 01 Definitions.**  * * * * * Class 2b means relating to heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR. Class 3 means relating to heav y - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. * * * * * Family emission limit (FEL) means a bin standard or emission level selected by the manufacturer that serves as the applicable emission standard f or the vehicles in the family or test group in the context of fleet

- average standards or emission credits. * * * * * Heavy

- duty vehicle means any motor vehicle rated at more than 8,500 pounds GVWR or that has a vehicle curb weight of more than 6,000 pounds or that has a basic vehicle frontal area in excess of 45 square feet. Note that MDPVs are heavy

- dut y vehicles that are in man y cases subject to requirements that apply for light

- dut y trucks. * * * * * Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a motor vehic le which draws propulsion energy from onboard sources of stored energy that are both an internal combustion engine or heat engine using consumable fuel, and a rechargeable energy storage s ys tem such as a battery , capacitor, h ydraulic accumulator, or fl ywh e el
. * * * * * LEV III means relating to the LEV III emission st andards in Title 13, §§1961.2 and 1976(b)1)(G) of the California Code of Regulations, as adopted b y the California Air Resources Board (incorporated b y reference in §86.1). * * * * * Low

- altitude conditions means a test altitude less than 549 meters (1,800 feet). * * * * * Rated power means an engine’s maximum power output in an installed configuration, as determined b y using SAE J1349 (incorporated by reference in §86.1). * * * * * Roun d, rounded or rounding has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1065.1001 , unless otherwise specified. * * * * * Section 177 states means the states that have adopted California’s motor vehicle standards for a particular model year under section 177 of the Clean A ir Act (42 U.S.C. 7507). * * * * * Tier 3 means relating to the Tier 3 emission standards described in §§86.1811

- 17, 86.1813
- 17, and 86.1816

- 18. * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 626 of 888 United States has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1068.30. * * * * * U.S. sales means, unless otherwise specified, sales in any state of the United States except for California or the section 177 states. Sale location is based on the point of first sale to a dealer, distributor, fleet operator, broker, or other entity. * * * * * Volatile liquid fuel means any fuel other than diesel or biodiesel that is a liquid at atmospheric pressure and has a Reid Vapor Pressure higher than 2.0 pounds per square inch. * * * * * We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and any authorized representatives. * * * * * 122. A new §86.1805
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1805 -**  **17 Useful life.**  (a) General provisions . The useful life values specified in this section apply for all exhaust, evaporative, refueling, and OBD emission requirements described in this subpart, except for standards that are specified to apply onl y at certification. These useful life requirements also apply to all air conditioning leakage credits, air conditioning eff iciency credits, and other credit programs used by the manufacturer to comply with the fleet

- average CO 2 emission standards in §86.1818. Useful life values are specified as a given number of calendar years and miles of driving, whichever comes first. (b) Greenhouse gas pollutants . The emission standards in §86.1818 appl y for a useful life of 10 years or 120,000 miles for LDVs and LLDTs and 11 years or 120,000 miles for HLDTs, MDPVs, and heavy

- duty vehicles . Manufacturers may alternatively

certify based o n a longer useful life as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) Criteria pollutants . The useful life provisions of this paragraph (c) apply for all emission standards not covered b y paragraph (b) of this section. Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section and in §§ 86.1811, 86.1813, and 86.1816, the useful life for LDT2s, HLDTs, MDPVs, and HDVs is 15 years or 150,000 miles. The useful life for LDV and LDT1 is 10 ye ars or 120,000 miles. Manufacturers may optionally

certify LDVs and LDT 1s to a useful life of 15 years or 150,000 miles, in which case the longer useful life would appl y for all the standards and requirements. LDVs and LDT1s certified to the longer useful life are subject to higher numerical FTP emission standard for NMOG+NO x as specified in §86.1811

- 17(b). (d) Intermediate useful life . Where exhaust emission standards are specified for an intermediate useful life, these standards appl y for five years or 50,000 miles. (e) Interim provision s . The useful life provisions of §86. 1805
- 12 appl y for vehicles not ye t subject to Tier 3 requirements. For example, vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR are not subject to the useful life provisions in this section until model year 2019 unless***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 627 of 888 manufacturers voluntarily certify to the Tier 3 requirements earlier than the regulations require. Also, where the transition to Tier 3 standards involves a phase

- in percent age for a given standard, vehicles not included as part of the phase

- in portion of the fleet continue to be subject to the useful lif e provisions of §86.1805

- 12 with respect to that standard. 123. Section 86.1806
- 05 is amended b y revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (j) and adding par agraph (k)(7) to read as follows: **§ 86.1806 -**  **05 On -**  **board diagnostics for vehicles less than or e qual to 14,000 pounds**  **GVWR.** * * * * * (b) Malfunction descriptions. The OBD sy stem must detect and identify malfunctions in all monitored emission

- related powertrain s ys tems or components according to the following malfunction definitions as measured and calculated in accordance with test proc edures set forth in subpart B of this part (chassis

- based test procedures), excluding those test procedures defined as “Supplemental” test procedures in §86.004

–2 and codified in §§86.158, 86.159, and 86.160. For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers, your OBD sy stem is expected to detect and identify malfunctions in all monitored emission

- related powertrain s ys tems or components according to the malfunction definitions described in this paragraph (b) as measured and calculated in accordance with the chassis

- based test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part to the extent feasible, excluding the elements of the Supplemental FTP (see §86.1803). However, at a minimum, sy stem s must detect and identify malfunctions as described in paragraph ( k)(7) of this section. * * * * * (j) California OBDII compliance option. Manufacturers may comply with California’s OBD requirements instead of meeting the requirements of this section as follows: (1) Through the 2006 model year, demonstration of complianc e with California OBDII requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations § 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), as modified, approved and filed on April 21, 2003 (incorporated b y reference, see § 86.1), shall satisfy

the requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(i) do not apply . In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(16.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of proper alignment between the camshaft and crankshaft, applies onl y to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. (2) For 2007 through 2012 model year vehicles, demonstration of compliance with California OBD II requirements (Title 13 California Code of Regulations § 1968.2 (13 CCR 1968.2)), approved on November 9, 2007 (incorporated b y reference, see § 86.1), shall satisfy

the requirements of this section, except that compliance with 13 CCR***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 628 of 888 1968.2(e)(4.2.2)(C), pertaining to 0.02 inch evaporative leak detection, and 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4), pertaining to tampering protection, are not required to satisfy the requirements of this section. Also, the deficiency provisions of 13 CCR 1968.2(k) do not apply . In addition, demonstration of compliance with 13 CCR 1968.2(e)(15.2.1)(C), to the extent it applies to the verification of proper alignment between the camsh aft and crankshaft, applies onl y to vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. (3) Beginning with the 20 13 model year , manufacturers may demonstrate compliance with California’s 2010 OBD requirements as described in §86.1806

- 17(a). (4) For all model years, the deficiency provisions of paragraph (i) of this section and the evaporative leak detection requirement of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, if applicable, apply to manufacturers selecting this paragraph for demonstrating compliance. (k) * * * (7) For clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers (e.g., natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, ethanol), in lieu of the requirements specified for other manufacturers in this paragraph (k) , you may demonstrate that the malfunction indicator light will illuminate, at a minimum, under any of the following circumstances when the vehicle is operated on the applicable alternative fuel: (i) Otto

- cycle. A catal ys t is replaced with a defective catal ys t sy stem where the catal ys t brick for the monitor ed volume has been removed (i.e., empty cataly st sy stem) resulting in an increase of 1.5 times the NMOG (or NMOG+NOx) standard or FEL above the NMOG (or NMOG+NOx) emission level measured using a representative 4000 mile catal ys t sy stem. (ii)(A) Diesel. I f monitored for emissions performance

— a catal ys t is replaced with a defective catal ys t sy stem where the catal ys t brick for the monitored volume has been removed (i.e., empty catal ys t can) resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable st andard or FEL for NO X (or NM OG+NOx) or PM. (B) If monitored for performance

— a particulate trap is replaced with a trap that has catastrophically

failed. (iii) (A) Otto

- cycle. An engine misfire condition is induced that completely disables one or more cylin ders, either through mechanical or electrical means, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standards or FEL for CO , NMOG, or NO X (or NMOG+NOx). (B) Diesel. An engine misfire condition resulting in complete lack of cylinder firin g is induced and is not detected. (iv) If so equipped, an y ox ygen sensor is replaced with a completel y defective ox ygen sensor, or an electronic simulation of such, resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable standard or FEL for CO, N MOG, or NO X (or NMOG+NOx). (v) If so equipped and applicable, a vapor leak is introduced in the evaporative and/or refueling s ys tem (excluding the tubing and connections between the purge valve and the intake manifold) greater than or equal in magnitude to a leak caused b y a 0.040 inch diameter orifice, or the evaporative purge air flow is blocked or otherwise***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 629 of 888 eliminated from the complete evaporative emission control sy stem. At a minimum, gas cap removal or complete venting of the evaporative and/or refuel ing s ys tem may be introduced resulting in a gross leak of the complete evaporative emission control sy stem. (vi) A malfunction condition is induced resulting in complete disablement in any emission

- related powertrain sy stem or component, including but not necessarily limited to, the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) s ys tem, if equipped, the secondary air sy stem, if equipped, and the fuel control s ys tem, singularl y resulting in exhaust emissions exceeding 1.5 times the applicable emission standard or FEL for P M, CO, NMOG, or NO X (or NMOG+NOx). (vii) A malfunction condition is induced that completely disables an electronic emission

- related powertrain sy stem or component not otherwise described in this paragraph (k) that either provides input to or receives commands from the on

- board computer resu lting in a measurable impact on emissions. At a minimum, manufacturers may

be required to perform this disablement on critical inputs and outputs where lack of the input and output disables an entire monitor as described in this paragraph (k)(7)(vii) , dis ables multiple monitors (e.g., two or more) used by the on - board computer , or renders the entire on

- board computer and its functions inoperative. (viii) Clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturers must use good engineering judgment to induce malfunct ions and may perform more stringent malfunction demonstrations than described in this paragraph (k) (7). In addition, the Administrator reserves the right to request a clean alternative fuel conversion manufacturer to perform stricter demonstration require ments, to the extent feasible, on clean alternative fuel conversions. * * * * * 124. A new § 86.18 06
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1806 -**  **17 On**  **- board diagnostics.**  Model year 2017 and later vehicles must have onboard diagnostic (OBD) sy stems as described in this section. OBD s ys tems must generally detect malfunctions in the emission control sy stem, store fault codes corresponding to detected malfunctions, and alert operators appropriately
. (a) Vehicles must comply with the 2010 OBD requireme nts adopted for California as described in this paragraph (a). California’s 2010 OBD requirements are part of Title 13, §1968.2 of the California Code of Regulations, approved on June 17, 2010 (incorporated by reference in §86.1). The following clarifications and exceptions apply for vehicles certified under this subpart: (1) For vehicles not certified in California, references to vehicles meeting certain California Air Resources Board emission standards are understood to refer to the corresponding EPA em ission standards for a given family , where applicable. Use***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 630 of 888 good engineering judgment to correlate the specified standards with the bin standards that apply under this subpart. (2) Vehicles must comply with OBD requirements throughout the useful life as specified in §86.1805. If the specified useful life is different for evaporative and exhaust emissions, the useful life specified for evaporative emissions applies for monitoring related to fuel

- sy stem leaks and the useful life specified for exhaust emiss ions applies for all other parameters. (3) The purpose and applicability statements in 13 CCR 1968.2(a) and (b) do not apply
. (4) The anti

- tampering provisions in 13 CCR 1968.2(d)(1.4) do not appl y. (5) The requirement to verify proper alignment between th e camshaft and crankshaft described in 13 CCR 1968.2 (e)(15.2.1)(C) applies only for vehicles equipped with variable valve timing. (6) The deficiency

provisions described in paragraph (c) of this section apply instead of 13 CCR 1968.2(k). (b) The following additional provisions apply : (1) OBD s ys tems must record in computer memory the result of the most recent successfull y completed diagnostic check for a 0.020 inch leak. The required data records include the miles driven since the last check occurred and the pass/fail result. The sy stem may

be designed to keep data only from the previous 750 miles of driving. The leak check results must be scan readable, and must be retained in sy stem memory even if codes are cleared or the vehicle loses battery power. (2 ) For every

famil y selected for making the full OBD demonstration for certification, that demonstration must also include a test showing that the OBD s ys tem is capable of detecting an implanted 0.020 inch leak in the fuel sy stem. Manufacturers may separat ely perform this test with any number of additional families. For any untested families, the statement specified in §86.1844

- 01(d)(8) applies with regard to this leak monitoring requirement. (3) For vehicles with fuel tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal f uel tank capacity , you may request our approval for a leak threshold greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. We will generally approve a leak threshold equal to the standard that applies under §86.1813. (c) You may

ask us to acc ept as compliant a vehicle that does not fully meet specific requirements under this section. Such deficiencies are intended to allow for minor deviations from OBD standards under limited conditions. We expect vehicles to have functioning OBD s ys tems that meet the objectives stated in this section. The following provisions apply

regarding OBD s ys tem deficiencies: (1) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, we will not approve a deficiency

that involves the complete lack of a major diagnostic monitor , such as monitors related to exhaust aftertreatment devices, oxygen sensor s , air

- fuel ratio***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 631 of 888 sensor s , NO x sensor s , engine misfire, evaporative leaks, and diesel EGR ( if applicable). (2) We will approve a deficiency onl y if you show us that full c ompliance is infeasible or unreasonable considering an y relevant factors , such as the t echnical feasibility of a given monitor , or the lead time and production cycles of vehicle designs and programmed computing upgrades
. (3) Our approval for a given deficiency applies only

for a single model year, though yo u may continue to ask us to extend a deficiency approval in renewable one

- year increments. We may

approve an extension if you demonstrate an acceptable level of effort toward compliance and show that the necessary hardware or software modifications would pose an unreasonable burden. (d) For alternative

- fuel vehicles , m anufacturers may request a waive r from specific requirements for which monitoring may not be reliable for operation with the alternative fuel. However, we will not waive requirements that we judge to be feasible for a particular manufacturer or vehicle model. (e) For alternative

- fuel conversions, manufacturers may meet the requirements of §86.1806
- 05 inst ead of the requirements of this section. **§86.1807 -**  **01**

**— [Reserved]**  125. Section 86.1807
- 01 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3)(ix). 126. Section 86. 1808
- 01 is amended as follows: a. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(3) introductory text, (f)(6)(ii)(D), (f)(7)(i) introductory

text, (f)(7)(ii)(B), (f)(10)(ii), (f)(13) introductory text, (f)(13)(iv), and (f)(16)(i). b. By adding paragraph (g). **§ 86.1808 -**  **0 1**  **Maintenance instructions .**  * * * * * (f) * * * (1) Applicability
. Manufacturers are subject to the provisions of this paragraph ( f) beginning in the 1996 model year for manufacturers of light

- duty vehicles and light

- dut y trucks, and beginning in the 2005 model year for manufacture rs of heav y - duty vehicles and heav y - dut y engines weighing 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW) and less that are subject to the OBD requirements of this part. * * * * * (3) Information dissemination . By December 24, 2003, each manufacturer shall provid e or cause to be provided to the persons specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section and to any other interested parties a manufacturer

- specific World Wide Web site containing the information specified in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section for 1996 and later model ye ar vehicles which have been offered for sale; this requirement does not apply to indirect information, including the information specified in paragraphs (f)(12) through***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 632 of 888 (f)(16) of this section. Upon request and approval of the Administrato r, manufacturers who can demonstrate significant hardship in complying with this provision within four months after the effective date may request an additional six months lead time to meet this requirement. Each manufacturer Web site shall: * * * * * (6) * * * (ii) * * * (D) An y alternative means proposed b y a manufacturer must be available to aftermarket technicians at a fair and reasonable price. * * * * * (7) * * * (i) All information required to be made available by this section shall be made available at a fair and reasonable price. In determining whether a price is fair and reasonable, consideration may

be given to relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: * * * * * (ii) * * * (B) The Administrator will act on the request within 180 day s following receipt of a complete request or following receipt of an y additional information requested by the Administrator. * * * * * (10) * * * (ii) Provide on the manufacturer ’s Web site an index of all emissions

- related training information available for purchase b y aftermarket service providers for 1994 and newer vehicles. For model years subsequent to 2003, the required information must be made available for purchase within 3 months of model introduction and then must be made available at the same time it is made available to manufacturer

- franchised dealerships, whichever is earlier. The index shall describe the title of the course or instructional session, the cost of the vide o tape or duplicate, and information on how to order the item(s) from the manufacturer Web site. All of the items available must be shipped within 24 hours of the order being placed and are to be made available at a fair and reasonable price as described i n paragraph (f)(7) of this section. Manufacturers unable to meet the 24 hour shipping requirement under circumstances where orders exceed supply and additional time is needed b y the distributor to reproduce the item being ordered may exceed the 24 hour shi pping requirement, but in no instance can take longer than 14 day s to ship the item. * * * * * (13) Generic and enhanced information for scan tools . By September 25, 2003, manufacturers shall make available to equipment and tool companies all generic and e nhanced service information including bi

- directional control and data stream***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 633 of 888 information as defined in paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section. This requirement applies for 1996 and later model ye ar vehicles. * * * * * (iv) Manufacturers can satisfy the requi rement of paragraph (f)(13)(iii) of this section by making available diagnostic trouble trees on their Web sites in full

- text. * * * * * (16) * * * (i) Manufacturers who have developed special tools to extinguish the malfunction indicator light (MIL) for M odel Years 1994 through 2003 shall make available the necessary information to equipment and tool companies to design a comparable generic tool. This information shall be made available to equipment and tool companies no later than September 23, 2003. * * * * * (g) Through model ye ar 2013, , the manufacturer shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the purchaser the following statement f or each new diesel

- fueled Tier 2 vehicle (certified using a test fuel with 15 ppm sulfur or less) : “This vehicle must be operated only with ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (that is, diesel fuel meeting EPA specifications for highway diesel fuel, including a 15 ppm sulfur cap).” 127. Section 86.1810

- 01 is amended b y removing paragraph (m) and revising paragraph (f)(1) to read as fol lows: **§ 86.1810 -**  **0 1**  **General standards; increase in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers.** * * * * * (f) Altitude requirements. (1) Unless otherwise specified, emission standards apply at low

- altitude conditions and at high

- altitude conditions . T he following exceptions apply : (i) The supplemental exhaust emission standards as described in § 86.1811

– 04(f) appl y only at low

- altitude conditions; (ii) The cold temperature NMHC emission standards as described in § 86.1811

– 10(g) apply onl y at low

- altitude conditions; (iii) The evaporative emission standards specified in § 86.1811
- 09(e) apply at low

altitude conditions. The evaporative emission standards specified in § 86.1811
- 04(e) continue to apply

at high

- altitude conditions for 2009 and later model ye ar vehicles. * * * * * 128. A new §86.1810
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1810 -**  **17 General standards;**  **increase in emissions; unsafe condition; waivers.** The foll owing provisions apply to all vehicles certified under this subpart: (a) An y device, s ys tem or element of design installed on or incorporated in a new motor vehicle to enable such vehicle to conform to the standards imposed b y this subpart:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 634 of 888 (1) Shall not in its operation or function cause the emission into the ambient air of any no xious or toxic substance that would not be emitted in the operation of such vehicle without such sy stem, except as specifically permitted by

regulation; and (2) Shall not in its operation, function or malfunction result in any unsafe condition endangering the vehicle, its occupants, or persons or property in close proximity to the vehicle. (b) In establishing the phy sicall y adjustable range of each adjustable parameter on a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer shall ensure that, taking into consideration the production tolerances, safe vehicle drivability characteristics are available within that range. (c) Unless otherwise specified, the emission standards of this subpart appl y equally for certification and for in

- use vehicles throughout the specified usefu l

- life period. Also, manufacturers must use good engineering judgment to determine that all of a vehicle’s emission

- related components are designed to operate properly throughout the specified useful

- life period. (d) Crankcase emissions prohibited. Vehicl es may not discharge crankcase emissions into the ambient atmosphere
. (e) On

- board diagnostics. All vehicles must have an on

- board diagnostic sy stem as described in §86.1806. (f) Altitude requirements. Emission standards apply at low

- altitude conditions an d at high

- altitude conditions, except as noted in this subpart. (g) The cold CO and cold NMHC standards in this subpart refer to test procedures set forth in subpart C of this part and 40 CFR 1066 , subpart H
. All other emission standards in this subpart rely

on test procedures set forth in subpart B of this part. These procedures rel y on the test specifications in 40 CFR parts 1065 and 1066 as described in subparts B and C of this part. (h) Multi

- fueled vehicles (including dual

- fueled and flexible

- fuele d vehicles) shall comply with all requirements established for each consumed fuel (or blend of fuels in the case of flexible fueled vehicles). In the case of flexible

- fueled vehicles operating on ethanol and gasoline , this involves additional exhaust emis sion measurements using the fuel specified in 40 CFR 1065.725. No additional evaporative emission testing is required. 129. Section 86.1811

- 04 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (h) and revising paragraphs (j) and (n) to read as follows: **§ 86.181**  **1 -**  **04**

**– Emission standards for light**  **- duty vehicles, light**  **- duty trucks and**  **medium -**  **duty passenger vehicles. ]**  * * * * * (j) Highway NO X exhaust emission standard. The NOx emissions measured on the federal Highway

Fuel Economy

Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, must not be greater than 1.33 times the applicable FTP NOx standard to which the manufacturer certifies the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 635 of 888 test group. Both the measured emissions and the product o f the NOx standard and 1.33 must be rounded to the nearest 0.01 g/mi before being compared. * * * * * (n) R equirements for vehicles with rechargeable energy storage system s . M anufacturers must test electric vehicles according to the procedures specified i n SAE J1634 (incorporated b y reference in § 86.1). Manufacturers must measure emissions from hy brid electric vehicles (including plug

- in hy brid electric vehicles) according to the procedures specified in SAE J1 711 (incorporated by reference in §86.1) , exc ept that these procedures do not appl y for plug

- in hy brid electric vehicles during charge

- depleting operation , * * * * * 130. A new §86.1811
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1811**  **- 17**  **Exhaust e mission standards for light**  **- duty vehicles,**  **light -**  **duty trucks and medium**  **- duty passenger vehicles.**  (a) Applicability

and general provisions . This section describes exhaust e mission standards that appl y for model year 2017 and later light

- dut y vehicles , light

- duty trucks , and medium

- duty

passenger veh icles. MDPVs are subject to all the same provisions of this section that apply

to LDT4s. Some of the provisions of this section also apply to heav y - dut y vehicles as specified in §86.1816. See §86.1818 for greenhouse gas emission standards. See §86.1813 for evaporative and refueling emission standards. This section may apply to vehicles from model years earlier than 2017 as specified in paragraph (b)(9) of this section. (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards . Exhaust emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows: (1) Measure emissions using the chassis dy namometer procedures of subpart B of this part, as follows: (i) E stablish appropriate load settings based on loaded vehicle weight (see §86.1803)
. (ii) Use appropriate driving schedules. Measurements involve testing over multiple driving schedules. The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dy

namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS). The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) involves testing with the UDDS, the US06 driving schedule, and the SC03 driving schedule. See 40 CFR 1066.801 for further information on these test cycles. SFTP emissions in particular are calculated as a composite of test results over these driving schedules based on the f ollowing calculation: SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35 ∙ FTP + 0.28 ∙ US06 + 0.37 ∙SC03 (i ii ) For vehicles that qualify for the derived 5

- cycle method for determining fuel econom y label values and are therefore not required to operate over the SC03 driving schedule under 40 CFR 600.115, you may alternativel y use FTP emission***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 636 of 888 results to substitute for the SC03 value in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section for a given vehicle for any testing under this section. (iv) Use E15 test fuel as required in §86.113 , except as specified in this section. (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, for certain vehicles you may

measure exhaust emissions based on nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG as described in 40 CFR 1066 .665
. (vi) M easure e missions from hy brid electric vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 standards according to the procedures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated b y reference in § 86.1 )
. (2) Table 1 of this section describes full y phased

- in Tier 3 standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet

- average basis using discrete bin standards as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards include additio nal emission standards for high

- altitude testing and for CO emissions when testing over the FTP driving schedule. The SFTP standards for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet

average basis as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §86.1811

- 17

– Fully Phased

- in Tier 3 Exhaust Emission Standards (g/mile) NMOG+NOx PM CO Formaldehyde FTP 1 SFTP FTP US06 2 SFTP FTP 0.030 0.050 0.003 0.010 4.2 0.004 1 The fleet

- average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is 0.026 g/mile for LDV and LDT1 if a manufacturer certifies one or mo re test groups based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model year. 2 The US06 emission standard for PM is 0.020 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. (3) The FTP standards specified in this section apply for testing at low

- altitude conditions and high

- altitude conditions as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The SFTP standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section apply onl y for tes ting at low

- altitude conditions. (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is based on a fleet average for a given model ye ar. You must specify a famil y em ission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test grou p with respect to all required FTP testing. Calculate your fleet

- average emission level as described in §86.1860 based on the FELthat applies for low

- altitude testing to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi

- fueled vehicles, calculate fle et - average emission levels based onl y on emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 6 37 of 888 §86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. You comply with the emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that your fleet

- average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange FTP credits between or among any test grou ps subject to standards under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP credits. (i) You may

specify an y of the FELs from Table 2 of this section for demonstrating that your fleet

- average emission level complies with the FTP emission standard for NM OG+NOx under low

- altitude conditions. These FEL values define emission bins that also determine corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOx emissions under high

- altitude conditions, and for CO emissions, as follows: Table 2 of §86.1811

- 17

— Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards (g/mile) FEL Name NMOG+NOx

FELs for Low Altitude NMOG+NOx for

High Altitude CO for Low and High Altitude Bin 160 0.160 0.160 4.2 Bin 125 0.125 0.160 2.1 Bin 70 0.070 0.105 1.7 Bin 50 0.050 0.070 1.7 Bin 30 0.030 0.050 1.0 Bin 20 0.020 0.030 1.0 Bin 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 (ii) Manufacturers earn a compliance credit of 0.005 g/mile NMOG+NOx for vehicles that are certified for a useful life of 150,000 mil es or 15 years and that are covered b y an extended warrant y over the same period for all components whose failure triggers MIL illumination. Manufacturers may appl y the compliance credit as follows: (A) You may

subtract your official FTP emission result for certificati on by the amount of the compliance credit if that allows you to certify to a more stringent bin. In that case, you may use the more stringent bin standard for calculating the fleet

- average NMOG+NOx emission level. For any compliance testing with these ve hicles, the applicable FTP bin standard for NMOG+NOx is higher than the specified bin standard b y the amount of the compliance credit. For example, if the official FTP emission result for NMOG+NOx is 0.052 g/mile, this qualifies for an FEL of 0.050 g/mile for calculating the fleet average and the vehicle is subject to an FTP bin standard of 0.055 g/mile.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 638 of 888 (B) If the amount of the compliance credit does not allow you to certify to a more stringent bin, calculate the fleet

- average NMOG+NOx emission level us ing an FEL for these vehicles that is smaller than the bin standard b y the amount of the compliance credit. For an y compliance testing with these vehicles, the specified bin standard applies. For example, if the official FTP emission result for NMOG+NOx is 0.038 g/mile, calculate the fleet

- average NMOG+NOx emission level b y specif yi ng an FEL of 0.045 g/mile; these vehicles are subject to the specified FTP bin standard of 0.050 g/mile. (iii) If you qualify for a compliance credit for direct ozone reductio n under the LEV III program, you may appl y the compliance credit approved for California vehicles as described in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. (iv) You may

combine the adjustments in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section if you qualify

for them separately
. (5) The SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is also based on a fleet average in a given model year. You must specify FELs as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet

- average emission level to show that you meet the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx, except that you may specify FELs in any

even increment of 0.010 g/mile up to a maximum value of 0.180 g/mile. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, and trading as described in §86.1860 for demonstrating c ompliance with the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. You comply with the emission standard for a given model year if you have enough credits to show that your fleet

- average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange SFTP c redits between or among any test groups subject to standards under this section. You may not exchange FTP and SFTP credits. The SFTP standards described in this section apply onl y for testing at low

altitude conditions. (6) The full Tier 3 program includ es new emission standards for NMOG+NOx, PM, CO, and formaldeh yd e; it also includes measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life (for some vehicles). Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several years. The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards: (i) You must meet the FTP and the US06 PM standards with 20, 20, 40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to this section in model years 2017 through 2021, respectively . Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet th e Tier 3 US06 standard for PM. In model year 2017, the phase

- in requirement applies only for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR; however, if you certify these vehicles to the Tier 3 PM standards in the model ye ar 2017, you may count those projected U. S. sales toward your calculation for meeting the phase

- in percentage for that year***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 639 of 888 (numerator onl y). (ii) You may

disregard the phase

- in percentages specified in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section if you instead comply with an indexed PM phase

- in schedu le as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January

1, 2017, and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase

- in schedule. You compl y with the indexed phase

- in schedule by calculating a PM phase

- in index at or above 540 using the following equation for model years 2017 through 2021: PM phase

- in index = 5 ∙APP 2017 + 4 ∙APP 2018 + 3 ∙APP 2019 + 2 ∙APP 2020 + APP 2021 Where: APP = The actual phase

- in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, as described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section. (iii) You may

alternatively

ask us to approve calculation of the annual percentage for a given model ye ar based on production volumes instea d of sales volumes. (iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet those standards over the useful life as specified in §86.1805

- 17. Note that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for PM emission standards than for other emission standards. (v) An y vehicles not included for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 PM phase

- in requirement must instead comply with an FTP emission standard for PM of 0.010 g/mile, and a composite SFTP emission standard for PM of 0.070 g/mile. (vi) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same test fuel used for measuring NMOG+NOx emissions. (vii) You may

certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover data. (viii) You may

use the alternative phase

- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different schedule. (7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2025 and earlier model y ears: (i) FTP phase

- in . The fleet

- average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx phases in over several y ears as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(i). You must identify FELs as described in para graph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet

average emission level to show that you meet the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx that applies for each model year. For model ye ar 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator). Through model year 2019, you may also certify to transitional Bin 85 or Bin 110 standards, which consist of all

- altitude FTP emission standards for NMOG+NOx of 0.085 or 0.110 g/mile, res pectivel y; additional FTP standards for PM, CO, and formaldeh yde appl y as specified in this section for vehicles certified to Bin 125***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 640 of 888 standards. Fleet

- average FTP emission standards decrease through th e phase

- in period as shown in the following table: Table 3 of §86.1811

- 17

— Declining Fleet

- Average Tier 3 FTP Emission Standards for NMOG+NOx (g/mile) Model Year LDV, LDT1 1 LDT2, HLDT 2017 2 0.086 0.101 2018 0.079 0.092 2019 0.072 0.083 2020 0.065 0.074 2021 0.058 0.065 2022 0.051 0.056 2023 0.044 0.047 2024 0.037 0.038 2025 0.030 0.030 1 If a manufacturer certifies one or more LDV or LDT1 test groups based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years in a given model year, calculate the adjusted fleet

- average standard by multiplying the specified value by 0.85 and rounding to the nearest 0.001 g/mile. Through model year 2019, apply this adjustment only if one or more test groups is certified to Bin 70 or lower standards based on a useful life of 120,000 miles and 10 years. 2 Vehicles abo ve 6,000 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards starting with the 2018 model year. (ii) SFTP phase

- in . The fleet

- average SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx phases in over several y ears as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(ii). You must identify FELs as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section and calculate a fleet

average emission level to show th at you meet the SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx that applies for each model year. (A) Calculate the fleet

- average emission level together for all your light

- duty vehicles and light

- dut y trucks, except for those certified using the provisions of paragraph (b)(7)(ii)(C) of this section. For model year 2017, do not include vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR (in the numerator or denominator). (B) Fleet

- average FTP emission standards decrease through the phase

- in period as shown in the following table:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 641 of 888 Table 4 of §86.1811

- 17

— Declining Fleet

- Average Tier 3 SFTP Emission Standards Model Year NMOG+NOx

(g/mile) 2017 1 0.103 2018 0.097 2019 0.090 2020 0.083 2021 0.077 2022 0.070 2023 0.063 2024 0.057 2025 0.050 1 Vehicles above 6,00 0 pounds GVWR must meet the Tier 3 standards starting with the 2018 model year. (C) You may

use the Option 1 provisions specified in the L EV III program to demonstrate compliance with EPA’s SFTP standards instead of the phased

- in fleet

- average SFTP standar ds specified in this paragraph (b)(7)(ii). ( i i i ) Interim provisions . (A) For LDT2 and HLDT certified to Bin 125 or Bin 160 standards under this section through model year 2019, the Tier 2 useful life period applies as specified in §86.1805

- 12
. (B) You may

alternatively

use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 through model year 2019 for vehicles certified to bins higher than Bin 70 . You may not certify

these vehicles in model year 2020 using carryover data. (iv) You may

use the alternative phase

- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different schedule. (8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to phasing in the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to this section according to this schedule. Under this alternative phase

- in, you must meet all the FTP and SFTP emission stand ards as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section with 40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to this section in model years 2019 through 2021, respectivel y. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 s tandards during the phase

- in period must continue to comply with the Tier 2 standards in §86.1811

- 04(c) and (f), including the Tier 2 SFTP emission standards for NMHC+NOx and CO for 4,000

- mile testing as specified in §86.1811

- 04(f)(1). Vehicles subject to Tier 2 standards under this paragraph (b)(8) are subject to the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 642 of 888 useful life provisions in §86.1805

- 12. Each vehicle counting toward the phase

- in percentage under this paragraph (b)(8) must meet all the standards that apply based on the useful life provis ions of §86.1805

- 17, and must use the Tier 3 test fuel specified in §86.113

- 07. Vehicles certified under this paragraph (b)( 8 ) may not generate or use emission credits. (9) You may

not use credits generated from Tier 2 vehicles for demonstrating compli ance with the Tier 3 standards except as specified in this paragraph (b)(9). You may generate earl y credits with U.S. sales of Tier 2 vehicles in the two model ye ars before the Tier 3 standards start to appl y for a given vehicle model. Separate from an y Tier 2 demonstrations, c alculate early Tier 3 emission credits as described in §86.1861 by

determining a fleet

- average value for FTP emissions of NMOG+NOx based on the applicable bin standards and subtracting this value from 0.160 g/mile. C alculate your f

leet

- average value for the model year based on vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2015, on all sizes of vehicles in 2016, and on vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR in 2017. Vehicles certified to the Tier 2 standards must meet all the Tier 2 requireme nts in §86.1811

- 10. You must also continue to meet the fleet

average Tier 2 standards as long as they appl y. You may use these earl y credits as described in §86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx; however, start ing in model year 2018, use of earl y credits is subject to a limitation based on credits generated in California, as follows: (i) For the applicable model years in which you generate emission credits relative to California’s LEV III fleet

- average NMOG+NOx standard, determine the actual California sales of light

- duty vehicles and light

- duty

trucks and the actual nationwide sales of those same vehicles. In 2015, count sales only from vehicle models at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each model y ear, multipl y the credits generated under the California program b y the ratio of nationwide sales to California sales to calculate an effective nationwide quantity . Sum these results for model years 2015 through 2017. (ii) You may

not use more earl y credits generated under this paragraph (b)(9) to meet Tier 3 emission standards than the calculated value of the effective nationwide credit quantity summed in paragraph (b)(9)(i) of this section. If your generated credits are greater than this threshold, determine the pe rcentage of your generated earl y credits that exceed the threshold. Calculate an adjusted quantity of earl y credits generated under this paragraph (b)(9) by decreasing the generated quantity from each model year b y the calculated percentage that exceed th e applicable threshold. This adjusted quantity of credits may

be used for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards, subject to the five

- ye ar credit life described in §86.1861. (10) The following alternate standards apply for in

- use testing with 2021 and earlier model year vehicles: (i) The alternate in

- use PM emission standard for FTP testing is 0.006 g/mile.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 643 of 888 (ii) The alternate in

- use PM emission standards for SFTP testing are 0.015 g/mile for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and 0.025 g/mile for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. (iii ) Alternate in

- use NMOG+NOx emission standards for FTP testing apply for vehicles certified to Bin 70 and lower. Calculate these alternate standards by multiplying the applicable FEL b y 1.4. Th e s e alternate standards appl y only for testing at low

- altitude conditions. (11) Keep records as needed to show that you meet the requirements specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for complying with declining fleet

- average average standards. (c) Highway NMOG+NOx exhaust emission standard

. NMOG+NOx emissions measured on the federal Highway

Fuel Economy

Test in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable NMOG+NOx bin standard for FTP testing. Demonstrate compliance with this standard for low

- mileage vehicles by applying the appropriate deterioration factor. (d) Special provisions for Otto
- cycle engines . The following special provisions apply for vehicles with Otto

- cycle engines: (1) Enrichment limits
. The nominal air

- fuel ratio throughout the US06 cycle may not be richer than the leanest air

- fuel mixture required for lean best torque, except as allowed under paragraph (d) ( 2 ) of this section . Unless we approve otherwise in advance, lean best torque is the leanest air

- fuel ratio required at an y speed and load point with a fixed spark advance to make peak torque . The allowable tolerance around the nominal value for an y given speed and load point over the US06 cycle for a particular vehicle is 4 percent, which is calculated as the nominal mass

- based air

fuel ratio for lean best torque divided by 1.04. (2) Engine protection
. AECDs that use commanded enrichment to protect the engine or emission control hardware must not use enrichment more frequently or to a greater degree than is needed for this purpose. For purposes of this section, c ommanded enrichment includes intended engine operation at air

- fuel ratios rich of stoichiometry , except the following: (i) Cycling back and forth in a narrow window between rich and lean operation as a result of feedback controls targeted to maintain overall engine operation at stoichiometry
. (ii) S mall changes in the target air

- fuel ratio to optimize vehicle emissions or drivability . This may

be called “ c losed

- loop biasing
. ” (iii) T emporary enrichment in response to rapid throttle motion. (iv) Enrichment during cold

- start and warm

- up conditions. (v) Temporary

enrichment for running OBD checks to comply with §86.1806. ( 3 ) A/C

- on specific calibrations. (i) A/C

- on specific cali brations (e.g. , air

- fuel ratio, spark timing, and exhaust gas recirculation) that differ from A/C

- off calibrations may

be used for a given set of engine operating conditions (e.g.,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 644 of 888 engine speed, manifold pressure, coolant temperature, air charge temperatu re, and any other parameters). Such calibrations must not unnecessarily reduce emission control effectiveness during A/C

- on operation when the vehicle is operated under conditions that may

reasonably

be expected during normal operation and use. If emissi on control effectiveness decreases as a result of such calibrations, the manufacturer must describe in the Application for Certification the circumstances under which this occurs and the reason for using these calibrations. ( i i) For AECDs involving commanded enrichment, these AECDs must not operate differently

for A/C

- on operation than for A/C

- off operation, except as provided under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. This includes both the sensor inputs for triggering enrichment and the degree of enrichment employed. ( 4 ) “ Lean

- on - cruise” calibration strategies. Manufacturers may use “lean

- on - cruise” strategies subject to the following specifications : (i) A “lean

- on - cruise” strategy is defined as the use of an air

- fuel ratio sign ificantl y leaner than stoichiometry during non

- deceleration conditions at speeds above 40 mph. (ii) You must not employ “ l ean - on - cruise” strategies during vehicle operation in normal driving conditions, including A/C usage, unless at least one of the follo wing conditions is met: (A) Such strategies are substantially employed during the FTP , US06, or SC03 duty

cycle. (B) Such strategies are demonstrated not to significantly reduce vehicle emission control effectiveness over the operating conditions in which they are employed
. (C) Such strategies are demonstrated to be necessary to protect the vehicle occupants, engine, or emission control hardware. (ii i ) If you propose to use a “lean

- on - cruise” strategy , you must describe in the application for certification the circumstances under which such a calibration would be used and the reasons for using it. (e) through (f) [Reserved] ( g ) Cold temperature exhaust emission standards . The following standards apply for vehicles tested over the test procedures specified in subpart C of this part: (1) Cold temperature CO standards . These cold temperature CO standards are applicable onl y to gasoline

- fueled vehicles
. These standards apply for testing at low

altitude conditions and high

- altitude conditions. Cold temperature C O exhaust emission standards apply when measured using the test procedures specified in subpart C of this part, as follows: ( i ) For LDVs and LDT1s, the standard is 10.0 g/mile CO. ( ii ) For LDT2s, LDT3s and LDT4s, the standard is 12.5 grams per mile CO. ( 2 ) Cold temperature NMHC standards

. F leet average cold temperature NMHC standards are applicable only to gasoline

- fueled vehicles , and appl y equally to***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 645 of 888 certification and in

- use except as otherwise specified in §86.1811
- 10 (u) for in

- use standards for applicable phase

- in models. Testing with other fuels such as E85, or testing on diesel vehicles, is not required. Multi

- fuel, bi

- fuel or dual

- fuel vehicles must comply

with requirements using gasoline only
. ( i ) The standards are shown in the following table: Table 5 of §86.1811

- 17

—Fleet Average Cold Temperature NMHC Exhaust Emission Standards Vehicle weight category Cold temperature NMHC sales

- weighted fleet average standard (g/mile) LDVs & LLDTs ( < 6,000 lbs GVWR) 0.3 HLDTs >6,000 lbs GVWR 0.5 ( ii ) The manufacturer must calculate its fleet average cold temperature NMHC emission level(s) as described in §86.1864

– 10(m). (iii) The standards specified in this paragraph (g)(2) apply only for testing at low

altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluation indicating that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitudes. Any

deviation from low altitude emission control practices must be included in the auxiliary

emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. An y AECD specific to high altitude must require engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD. (h) Small

- volume manufacturers
. Small

- volume manufactur ers meeting the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 may delay compl yi ng with the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 through model year 202 2
. If meeting the T ier 3 standards in model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency criterion does not apply

and there is no max imum duration of the hardship relief. 131. A new §86.1813
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.**  **1813 -**  **17 Evaporative and refueling e**  **mission standards.** V ehicles must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in this section. The emission standards appl y for total hydrocarbon equivalent (THCE) measurements using the test procedures specified in subpart B of this part, as appropriate. Note that § 86.1829 allow s you to certify wi thout testing in certain circumstances. Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, e vaporative and refueling emission standards do not app ly

for diesel

- fueled vehicles. Unless otherwise specified , MDPVs***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 646 of 888 are subject to all the same provisions o f this section that apply to LDT4s. (a) Tier 3 evaporative emission standard s . Vehicles may not exceed the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards, as follows: (1) Measure emissions using the test procedures of subpart B of this part, as follows: (i) Follow the vehicle preconditioning and exhaust testing procedures as described in subpart B of this part. (ii) Measure diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emissions as shown in §86.130. (iii) Use E15 test fuel as required in §86.113, except as specified in this section. ( iv ) Emissions are measured as total h ydrocarbon; however, in the case of E15 test fuel, multiply

measured values by

1.1 to convert values to total hydrocarbon equivalent. (2) Diurnal and hot soak emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 emission standards, as follows: (i) The emission standard for the sum of diurnal and hot soak measurements from the two

- diurnal test sequence and the three

- diurnal test sequence is based on a fleet average in a given model year. You must specify a family emission l imit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test group with respect to all required diurnal and hot soak testing. Calculate your fleet average emission level as described in §86.1860 based on the FEL that applies for l ow - altitude testing to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi

- fueled vehicles, calculate fleet

- average emission levels based only on emission levels for testing with gasoline. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading for vehicles required to meet the Tier 3 standards, other than electric vehicles and gaseous

- fueled vehicles, as described in §86.1861 for demonstrating compliance with the hot soak plus diurnal emission standard starting in the 2017 model year . You comply with the emission standard for a given model ye ar if you have enough credits to show that your fleet

- average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange credits between or among test groups within an averaging set as described in §86.1861. Separate diurnal plus hot soak emission standard s apply as shown for high

altitude conditions. The sum of diurnal and hot soak measurements may not exceed the following fleet

- average Tier 3 standards:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 647 of 888 Table 1 of §86.1813

- 17

— Tier 3 Diurnal Plus Hot Soak Emission Standards (grams per test) Vehicle category Lo w - altitude conditions High

- altitude

conditions LDV , LDT1 0.300 0.65 LDT2 0.400 0.85 HLDT 0.500 1.15 1 HDV 0.600 1.75 1 1.25 g/test for MDPVs. (ii) Specify

FELs as follows: (A) You may

specify the low

- altitude FEL in increments of 0.025 g above or below the otherwise applicable Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak standard, up to the maximum values specified in the following table: Table 2 of §86.1813

- 17

— Tier 3 FEL Caps for Low

- Altitude Testing Vehicle category FEL caps LDV 0.500 LLDT 0.650 HLDT 0.900 MDPV 1.000 HDV 1.4 (B) Calculate the FEL for testing at high

- altitude conditions based on the difference between the low

- altitude FEL and the standard. For example, if a light

- duty vehicle was certified with an FEL of 0.400 g instead of the 0.300 g standard, the FEL for tes ting under high

- altitude conditions would be 0.75 g (0.65+0.10). (iii) Hydrocarbon emissions must not exceed 0.020 g for LDVs and LDTs and 0.030 g for HDVs when tested using the Bleed Emission Test Procedure adopted by the California Air Resources Board (incorporated by reference in §86.1). This procedure quantifies diurnal emissions without measuring hot soak emissions. The standards in this paragraph (a)(2)(iii) do not apply for testing at high

- altitude conditions. For vehicles with non

- integrated re fueling emission control sy stems, the bleed emission test and standard do not appl y to the refueling canister. (3) R unning losses may

not exceed 0.05 g per mile when measured using the test procedures specified in § 86.134. ( 4 ) Fuel sy stems for vehicles o perating on one or more volatile liquid fuels may not exceed an effective leak diameter of 0.02 inches when measured using the procedure***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 648 of 888 specified in 40 CFR 1066.840. For vehicles with fue l tanks exceeding 25 gallons nominal fuel tank capacity , you may re quest our approval for a leak standard greater than 0.020 inches, up to a maximum value of 0.040 inches. ( 5 ) T he Tier 3 evaporative emission standards start to phase in with model year 2017 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and with model y ear 20 18 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. Table 3 of this section specifies the minimum percentage of each manufacturer’s sales in each model year that must be certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards. Calculate annual percentages based on a ctual nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to standards under this paragraph (a) for the applicable model year ; however, if all your FELs for Tier 3 test groups are at the applicable standard (neither generating nor using emission credits), the phase

- i n requirements are based on projected sales. Also, if you certify vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in model year 2017, you may count projected U.S. sales of those vehicles toward your calculation for meeting th e 40 percent requirement in 2017 (numerator only). Manufacturers may meet this requirement using the additional alternative phase

- in provisions in paragraph (g) of this section. Vehicles from the identified model years not certified to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards continue to be subject to the evaporative emission standards specified in § 86.1811

- 09(e) or § 86.1816
- 08(d) , including the useful life provisions of §86.1805

- 12. Note that this subjects LDVs and LDT1s to a 150,000 mile useful lif

e for evaporative emissions if the vehicles are subject to a 150,000 mile useful life for exhaust emissions. Keep records as needed to show that you meet the phase

- in requirements specified in this section. Table 3 of §86.1813

- 17

— Default Phase

- in Schedu le for Tier 3 Evaporative Emission Standards Model year Minimum percentage

of vehicles subject to the Tier 3 standards 2017 40% 1 ,2 2018 60% 2019 60% 2020 80% 2021 80% 2022 100% 1 The phase

- in percentage for model year 2017 applies only for v ehicles at or below 6,00 0 pounds GVWR
. 2 The leak standard specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section does not apply for model year 2017.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 649 of 888 (6) For model year 2017, exclude vehicle sales from California and section 177 states from the calculation to demonstrate compliance with the phase

- in schedule in paragraph (a)(5) or (g) of this section, and from the credit calculation in §86.1860. (b ) Refuel ing emissions
. Vehicles must meet the refueling emission standards in this paragraph (b) when measured over the procedure specified in §86.150. These standards apply starting with model year 2018 for vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR. The following refue ling standards appl y: (1) 0.20 g THCE per gallon of fuel dispensed for gasoline

- fueled, diesel

- fueled and methanol

- fueled vehicles. (2) 0.15 g THC per gallon of fuel dispensed for liquefied petroleum gas

- fueled vehicles. (c) Fuel spitback
. For vehicles fueled b y volatile liquid fuels, f uel spitback emissions may not exceed 1.0 g THCE when measured using the test procedures specified in § 86.146. The fuel spitback standard applies onl y t o newly assembled vehicles. (d) [Reserved] ( e ) Auxiliary

engines and separate fuel s ys tems . The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.103(f) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This includes any engines installed i n the final vehicle configuration that contribute no motive power through the vehicle’s transmission. (f) Refueling provisions for g aseous fuel vehicles . The following provisions apply specificall y for gaseous fuel vehicles: (1) Refueling receptacles on natural gas

- fueled vehicles must comply with the receptacle provisions of the ANSI/AGA NGV1

– 1994 standard ( incorpor ated by reference in §86.1 ). ( 2 ) With our advance approval, l iquefied petroleum gas

- fueled vehicles with gauges or valves that can be opened to release fuel or fuel vapor during refueling (such as fixed liquid level gauges ) may be tested for refue ling emissions without opening such gauges or valves, as outlined in §86.157

– 98(d)(2) . We will approve your request if yo u can show that such gauges or valves will not be open during in

- use refueling due to inaccessibility

or other design features that wo uld prevent them from opening or make this very

unlikel y. (g) Alternative phase

- in options for Tier 3 evaporative emission standards . You may use any of the following alternative methods to transition to the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards: (1) Starting in model ye ar 2015, you may earn an “allowance” for each vehicle at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that you certify early to the Tier 3 standards in paragraph (a) of this section, as long as the vehicle is not sold in California or any of the section 177 states. This applies in model y ears 2015 and 2016 for vehicles at or below 6,000 pounds GVWR and in model y ears 2015 through 2017 for vehicles above 6,000 pounds GVWR. For each allowance you earn, you may count it as one compliant vehicle in a later mod el year during the phase

- in period. As an example, selling 100,000 Tier 3 vehicles in 2016 and a total of 400,000 vehicles at or below***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 650 of 888 14,000 pounds GVWR in 2017 would allow a manufacturer to “spend” up to 40,000 allowances in both 2017 and 2018, leaving a total of 20,000 allowances for 2019 through 2022. Calculate the total phase

- in percentage in each model year by adding the allowances to the number of compliant vehicles (in the numerator), without increasing total sales (in the denominator). For each allowance you earn, you may alternativel y count it as one compliant vehicle for model y ear 2018 under the phase

- in schedule described in paragraph (g)(5) of this section; however, you may not use those allowances to increase the value of APP in any model year b y more than 10 percentage points. V ehicles earning allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) may not have an FEL above the applicable Tier 3 standard, and may not generate emission credits. Allowances may not be traded to another company . You may earn additional allowances under this paragraph (g)(1) as follows: (i) To the extent that you over - compl y with the 40

- percent phase

- in requirement in model year 2017, you may count your actual U.S. sales exceeding the required number of Tier 3 vehicles as allowances toward meeting the phase

- in requirement in 2018 and later model years. (ii) For vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR that you certify to the refueling emission standards in paragraph (b) of this section in model y ears 201 5 through 2017, a single ve hicle may produce two allowances if it is certified to the Tier 3 diurnal plus hot soak standard and the refueling standard. Allowances earned under this paragraph ( g )( 1 ) (ii) may alternatively

be used in model years 2018 through 2022 to phase in the refue ling standard. (2) [Reserved] (3) You may

disregard the percentage phase

- in specified in paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section for 2017 if you choose 50

- state certification for all your vehicles meeting the LEV III PZ EV evaporative standards in 2017 . Under this option, you may not produce a higher

- emitting version of those vehicle models for sale outside of California or the section 177 states. Such vehicles may be certified using carryover data under the California program; however, they may gener ate or use emission credits only

if they are certified to meet the emission standards of paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Vehicles that comply under this paragraph (g)(3) may not generate allowances under paragraph (g)(1) of this section , regardless of the calculated percentage of compliant vehicles in model year 2017. (4) If you certify model year 2019 or earlier vehicles to the LE V III emission standards in California, you may certify those as Tier 3 vehicles that count toward meeting the phase

- in requi rements of this section. Such vehicles must still be certified to the leak standard specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the high

altitude standards in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. You may not certify

vehicles under this paragraph (g)(4 ) after model year 20 19
. Vehicles meeting the LEV III standards may

also generate allowances under paragraph (g)(1) of this section; however, these vehicles may generate or use emission credits under this subpart only***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 651 of 888 if they are not used to generate allo wances and if they are certified using the Option 2 procedures under the LEV III program (including the bleed emission test). ( 5 ) You may

disregard the phase

- in percentages specified in paragraph (a)( 5 ) of this section for 201 8 through 2022 if you instead comply with the alternate phase

- in schedule described in this paragraph (g)(5). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January

1, 2018, and include a detailed plan for complying with the alternate phase

- in schedule. You comply with the alte rnate phase

- in schedule by calculating an evaporative phase

- in index at or above 1,040 using the following equation for model ye ars 2018 through 2022: Evaporative phase

- in index = 5 ∙APP 201 8 + 4 ∙APP 201 9 + 3 ∙APP 20 20 + 2 ∙APP 20 21 + APP 20 22 Where: APP = The actual phase

- in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 evaporative emission standards for the indicated model ye ar, based on actual sales; you may instead ask us to calculate the annual percentage based on actual production volumes. (6) You may alternatively use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 through model ye ar 2019 for vehicles certified to emission standards comparable to the standards in this section based on testing specified b y the California Air Resources Board. You may not certify these vehicles in model year 2020 using carryover data. (h) Small

- volume manufacturers
. Small

- volume manufacturers meeting the eligibility requirements in § 86.1838 may delay compl yi ng with the requirements in this section until model year 2022. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency criterion does not appl y and there is no maximum duration of the hardship relief. 132. A new §86.1816
- 18 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1816**  **- 18**  **Emission standards for heavy -**  **duty vehicles.** (a) Applicability

and general provisions . This section describes exhaust e mission standards that appl y for model year 2018 and later complete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR
. These standards are optional for incomplete heav y - dut y vehicles and for heav y duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR as described in §86.1801. Greenhouse gas emission standards are specified in §86.1818 for MDPVs and in 4 0 CFR 1037.104 for other HDVs. See §86.1813 for evaporative and refueling emission standards. This sectio n may appl y to vehicles before model year 201 8 as specified in paragraph (b)(10) of this section. Separate requirements appl y for MDPVs as specifie d in §86.1811. See subpart A of this part for requirements that apply for incomplete heav y - dut y vehicles and for heav y - duty engines certified independent of the chassis. The following general provisions apply : (1) Test all vehicles as described in this se ction using a chassis dynamometer;***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 652 of 888 establish appropriate load settings based on adjusted loaded vehicle weight (see §86.1803)
. (2) Some provisions apply differentl y depending on the vehicle’s power

- to - weight ratio. Determine a vehicle’s power

- to - weight ratio by dividing the engine’s rated power b y the vehicle’s GVWR (in hp/pound). For purposes of this section, if a test group includes multiple configurations, use the vehicle with the highest power

- to weight ratio to characterize the test group. (3) Use E1 5 test fuel as required in §86.113, except as specified in this section. (4) M easure emissions from hy brid electric vehicles to demonstrate compliance with the standards of this section according to the procedures specified in SAE J1711 (incorporated b y re ference in § 86.1 )
. (b) Tier 3 exhaust emission standards . Exhaust emissions may not exceed the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards, as follows: (1) Measure emissions using the procedures of subpart B of this part, using specific driving schedules and addit ional procedures as follows: (i) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP) is based on testing with the Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix I of th is part. (ii) The Heav y - Dut y Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (HD

- SFTP) involves testing with the UDDS, the SC03 driving schedule specified in paragraph (h) of Appendix Iof this part, and one of the following additional driving schedules: (A) For Class 2b vehicles, the US06 driving schedule specified in paragraph (g ) of Appendix Iof this part. (B) F or Class 2b vehicles with a power

- to - weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified to optional standards under paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) of this section, the highway portion of the US06 driving schedule characterized as the “ second bag ” in §86.159

- 08(a). (C) For Class 3 vehicles, the LA
- 92 driving schedule as specifie d in paragraph (c) of Appendix Iof this part. (iii) HD

- SFTP emissions are calculated as a composite of test results over these driving schedules based on the following calculation: HD
- SFTP (g/mi) = 0.35 ∙ FTP + 0.28 ∙HDSIM + 0.37 ∙SC03 Where: HDSIM = the a

ppropriate driving schedule specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. (iv) You may

alternatively

use FTP emission results to substitute for the SC03 value in the calculation under paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section for a given ve hicle for an y testing under this section. (v) Hydrocarbon emission standards are expressed as NMOG; however, y ou may measure exhaust emissions based on nonmethane hydrocarbon instead of NMOG***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 653 of 888 as described in 40 CFR 1066 .665. (2) Table 1 of this section describes full y phased

- in Tier 3 standards that apply as specified in this paragraph (b) for the identified driving schedules. The FTP standards for NMOG+NOx apply on a fleet

- average basis using discrete bin standards as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. The bin standards include additional emission standards for CO emissions, and for NMOG+NOx standards when testing over the HD

- SFTP driving schedule. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §86.1816

- 18 Fully Phased

- in Tier 3 HDV Exhaust Emission Standards (g/mile) HDV Class Fleet

- average

NMOG+NOx PM F ormaldehyde FTP FTP HD
- SFTP FTP 2b 0.178 0.008 0.010 1 0.006 3 0.247 0.010 0.007 0.006 1 For vehicles with a pow er - to - weight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section , the HD

- SFTP standard for PM is 0.007 g/mile instead of the value specified in the table. (3) The F TP standards specified in this section apply equally for testing at low

altitude conditions and high

- a ltitude conditions. The HD

- SFTP standards described in this section apply

onl y for testing at low

- altitude conditions. (4) The FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx is based on a fleet average in a given model ye ar. You must specify a famil y em ission limit (FEL) for each test group. The FEL serves as the emission standard for the test group with respect to all required FTP testing. Calculate your fleet

- average emission level as described in §86.1860 to show that you meet the specified standard. For multi

- fueled vehicles, calculate fleet

- average emission levels based only on emission levels for testing with gasoline or diesel fuel. You may generate or use emission credits for averaging, banking, or trading as described in §86.1860 for demonstrating compli ance with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. You comply with the emission standard for a given model year if yo u have enough credits to show that your fleet

- average emission level is at or below the applicable standard. You may exchange credits betw een or among an y test groups subject to standards under this section. You may specify an y of the FELs from Table 2 or Table 3 of this section for demonstrating that yo ur fleet

- average emission level complies with the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx. T hese FEL values define emission bins that also determine corresponding emission standards for NMOG+NOx emissions over the HD

- SFTP driving schedule and for CO emissions, as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 654 of 888 Table 2 of §86.1816

- 18 Tier 3 Bin Standards

— Class 2b (g/mile) FEL Name NMOG+NOx CO

FTP (FEL) HD
- SFTP 1 FTP HD
- SFTP Bin 250 0.250 0.800 6.4 22.0 Bin 200 0.200 0.800 4.2 22.0 Bin 170 0.170 0.450 4.2 12.0 Bin 150 0.150 0.450 3.2 12.0 Bin 0 2 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 1 Vehicles with a power

- to - we ight ratio at or below 0.024 hp/pound that are certified using the driving schedule described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the following HD

- SFTP bin standards for NMOG+NOx apply instead of those identified in the table: 0.350 g/mile for Bin 150 and Bin 170; and 0.550 g/mile for Bin 200 and Bin 250. 2 Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Table 3 of §86.1816

- 18 Tier 3 Bin Standards

— Class 3 (g/mile) FEL Name NMOG+NOx CO

FTP (FEL) HD
- SFTP FTP HD
- SFTP Bin 400 0.400 0.550 7.3 6.0 Bin 270 0.270 0.550 4.2 6.0 Bin 230 0.230 0.350 4.2 4.0 Bin 200 0.200 0.350 3.7 4.0 Bin 0 1 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 1 Vehicles certified to Bin 0 must also meet PM and formaldehyde standards of 0.000 g/mile instead of the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (5) [Reserved] (6) The full Tier 3 program includes new emission standards for NMOG+NOx, PM, CO, and formaldeh yd e; it also includes measurement with a new test fuel and a longer useful life. Vehicles meeting all these requirements are considered Final Tier 3 vehicles. Vehicles that do not meet all the Tier 3 requirements are considered Interim Tier 3 vehicles. The Tier 3 PM standards phase in over several years. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 PM standards during the phase

- in period must continue to comply

with the PM standards in §86.1816

- 08 . Paragraph (b)(7) of this section describes how to transition to Tier 3 standards for emissions other than PM. The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 PM standards: (i) You must meet the FTP emission standard for PM with 20, 40, 70, and 100 percent of your projected nationwide sales of all vehicles subject to this section in***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 655 of 888 model years 2018 through 2021, respectivel y. Each vehicle meeting the Tier 3 FTP standard for PM must also meet the Tier 3 HD

- SFTP standard for PM. (ii) You may disregard the phase

- in percentages specified in paragraph (b )( 6 ) (i) of this section if you instead comply with an indexed PM phase

- in schedule as described in this paragraph (b)(6)(ii). To do this, you must notify us of your intent before January

1, 2018, and include a detailed plan for complying with the indexed phase

- in schedule. You compl y with the indexed phase

- in schedule by calculating a PM phase

- in index at or above 440 using the following equation f or model years 2018 through 2021: PM phase

- in index = 4 ∙APP 201 8 + 3 ∙APP 201 9 + 2 ∙APP 20 20 + APP 20 21 Where: APP = The actual phase

- in percentage of vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards for the indicated model year, based on actual sales, as described in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this section. (iii) You may alternatively ask us to approve calculation of the annual percentage for a given model ye ar based on production volumes instead of sales volumes. (iv) Vehicles meeting the Tier 3 PM standards must meet tho se standards over the useful life as specified in §86.1805

- 17. Note that Interim Tier 3 vehicles may have different useful life values for PM emission standards than for other emission standards. (v) Measure PM emissions from all vehicles using the same t est fuel used for measuring NMOG+NOx emissions. ( vi ) You may

certify Interim Tier 3 vehicles based on carryover data. (vii) You may

use the alternative phase

- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different schedule. (7) The following provisions describe the primary approach for phasing in the Tier 3 standards other than PM in 2022 and earlier model y ears: (i) The fleet

- average FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx phases in over several ye ars as described in this paragraph (b)(7)(i). You must identify FEL s as described in paragraph (b)(4) of this section and calculate a fleet

- average emission level to show that you meet the FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx that applies for each model year. You may certify using transitional bin standards specified in Table 5 of this section through model ye ar 2021; include these vehicles in the fleet

- average calculation by treating the sum of the NMOG and NOx emission standards as the Famil y Emission Limit under §86.1860. You may alternativel y use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 for vehicles certified to the transitional bins; the useful life period for these vehicles is 120,000 miles or 11 ye ars. Fleet

- average FTP emission standards decrease as shown in the following table:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 656 of 888 Table 4 of §86.1816

- 18 Declining Fleet

- Average FTP Emission Standards for NMOG+NOx (g/mile) Model Year Class 2b Class 3 2016 1 0.333 0.548 2017 1 0.310 0.508 2018 0.278 0.451 2019 0.253 0.400 2020 0.228 0.349 2021 0.203 0.298 2022 0.178 0.247 1 Fleet

- average standards are shown for 2016 and 2017 for purposes of voluntary early com

pliance as described in paragraph (b)( 10 ) of this section. Table 5 of §86.1816

- 18 Transitional Tier 3 FTP Bin Standards (g/mile) 1 Class FEL Name NMOG NOx PM CO formaldehyde 2b Bin 395 0.195 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032 Bin 340 0.140 0.200 0.012 6.4 0.032 3 Bin 630 0.230 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040 Bin 570 0.170 0.400 0.012 7.3 0.040 1 Vehicles certified to Transitional Tier 3 FTP bins are not subject to HD

- SFTP standards. (ii) You may

use the alternative phase

- in provisions described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section to transition to the Tier 3 exhaust emission standards on a different schedule. (8) This paragraph (b)(8) describes an alternative approach to phasing in a ll the Tier 3 emission standards. If you choose this approach, you must phase in the Tier 3 standards for all your vehicles subject to this section according to this schedule. You may meet the standards specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section according to the phase

- in schedule specified in Table 6 of this section based on the indicated percentage of your projected nationwide sales in each model ye ar. These vehicles must meet the applicable FTP emission standard for CO and the HD

- SFTP emissions standards for NMOG+NOx and CO that apply for Class 2b Bin 170 and Class 3 Bin 230 as de scribed in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. You may use averaging, banking, and trading relative to the Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx during the phase

- in peri od, but only if all the vehicles certified under §86.1816

- 08 have FE Ls that are at or below the applicable NMHC and NOx standards. Any vehicles not subject to Tier 3 standards during the phase

- in period must continue to comply with the gaseous exhaust emi ssion standards in §86.1816

- 08 . Each vehicle***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 657 of 888 counting toward the PM phase

- in percentage under this paragraph (b)(8) in model ye ars 2019 and 2020 must also be included in the portion of the fleet meeting the Tier 3 standards for pollutants other than PM. Each vehicle counting toward the phase

- in percentage for an y pollutant must use the Tier 3 test fuel specified in §86.113

- 07. To generate emission credits during the phase

- in period, all pre

- Tier 3 vehicles must have FE Ls at or below the NOx and NMHC stan dards in §86.1816

- 08. Determine emission credits by

calculating fleet

- average emission levels for Tier 3 and pre - Tier 3 vehicles together; for pre

- Tier 3 vehicles us e an NMOG+NOx equivalent FELof 0.395 g/mile for Class 2b vehicles and 0.630 g/mile for Cl ass 3 vehicles. You may optionally

meet the Tier 3 standards before model year 2019. Table 6 of §86.1816

- 18 Alternative Phase

- in Schedule Model Year Class 2b Class 3

PM Other than

PM PM Other than PM 2019 40 65% 40 60% 2020 70 77% 70 73% 2021 100 88% 100 87% 2022 100 100% 100 100% (9) You may

not use credits generated from vehicles certified under §86.1816

- 08 for demonstrating compliance with the Tier 3 standards. (10) [Reserved] (11) You may

voluntarily

certify your vehicles under this section in model years 2016 and 2017. If you do this, the fleet

- average FTP emission standards for NMOG+NOx apply to all your complete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR as specified in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section. Use any of the available bin standards as described in this section . Vehicles certified under this paragraph (b)(10) must comply with the PM standards specified in §86.1816

- 08 instead of the Tier 3 PM standards specified in this section. (12) Keep records as needed to s how that you meet the requirements specified in this paragraph (b) for phasing in standards and for complying with declining fleet

- average average standards. (c) Highway NMOG+NOx exhaust emission standard

. NMOG+NOx emissions measured on the highway

test cycle in 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, may not exceed the applicable NMOG+NOx bin standard for FTP testing. Demonstrate compliance with this standard for low

- mileage vehicles by appl yi ng the appropriate deterioration factor. (d) P rovisions for Otto

- cycle engi nes . The special provisions described in §86.1811

- 17(d) apply to vehicles with Otto

- cycle engines that are certified under this section. (e) Small

- volume manufacturers
. Small

- volume manufacturers meeting the eligibility***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 658 of 88 8 requirements in § 86.1838 may delay compl yi ng with the requirements in this section until model year 2022. This also applies for continuing to use the E0 test fuel specified in §86.113 through model year 2021. If meeting the Tier 3 standards in model year 2022 would cause severe economic hardship, such manufacturers may ask us to approve an extended compliance deadline under the provisions of 40 CFR 1068.250, except that the solvency criterion does not apply

and there is no maximum duration of the hardship relief. 133. Section §86.1817

- 08 is amended b y revising the introductory text to read as follows: **§ 86.1817 -**  **08 Complete heavy -**  **duty vehicle averaging, trading, and banking program.**  Section 86.1817

– 08 includes tex t that specifies requirements that differ from §86.1817

– 05. Where a paragraph in §86.1817

– 05 is identical and applicable to §86.1817

– 08, this may be indicated by

specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement “[Reserved]. For guidance see §86.181 7

– 05.” This section does not apply for NOx or NMOG+NOx emissions for vehicles certified to the Tier 3 standards in §86.1816

- 18, including those vehicles that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018. * * * * * 134. Section 86.1818

- 12 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 86.1818 -**  **12 Greenhouse gas emission standards for light -**  **duty vehicles, light -**  **duty trucks, and medium**  **- duty passenger vehicles.**  (a) Applicability . (1) This section contains standards and other regulati ons applicable to the emission of the air pollutant defined as the aggregate group of six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This section applies to 2012 and later model year LDVs, LDTs and MDPVs, including multi

- fuel vehicles, vehicles fueled with alternative fuels, hy brid electric vehicles, plug

- in hy brid electric vehicles, electric vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. Unless otherwise specified, multi

- fuel vehicles must co mply with all requirements established for each consumed fuel. The provisions of this section, except paragraph (c), also apply

to clean alternative fuel conversions as defined in 40 CFR 85.502, of all model ye ar light

- dut y vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and medium

- duty passenger vehicles. Manufacturers that qualify as a small business according to the requirements of §86.1801

– 12(j) are exempt from the emission standards in this section. Manufacturers that have submitted a declaration for a model year accordi ng to the requirements of §86.1801

– 12(k) for which approval has been granted by the Administrator are conditionally

exempt from the emission standards in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section for the approved model year. (2) The standards specified in this section apply only for testing at low

- altitude conditions. However, manufacturers must submit an engineering evaluation indicating***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 659 of 888 that common calibration approaches are utilized at high altitude. Any deviation from low altitude emission control pra ctices must be included in the auxiliary emission control device (AECD) descriptions submitted at certification. Any AECD specific to high altitude requires engineering emission data for EPA evaluation to quantify any emission impact and determine the vali dity of the AECD. * * * * * 135. Section §86.1821

- 01 is amended b y adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: **§ 86.1821 -**  **01 Evaporative/refueling family determination.** * * * * * (f) For vehicles to be classed in the same leak family , they must be similar with r espect to the items listed in paragraph (b) of this section and use the same OBD method for detecting leaks. 136. Section §86.1823

- 08 is amended b y revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.1823 -**  **08 Durability demonstration procedures for exhaust emissions.**  * * * * * (g) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good engineering judgment to determine that all emission

- related components are designed to operate properl y for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. * * * * * 137. Section §86.1824

- 08 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a), (f)(1), and (h) to read as follows: **§ 86.1824 -**  **08 Durability demonstration procedures for evaporative emissions.** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** (a) Durability

program objective

. The durability program must predict an expected in

- use emission deterioration rate and emission level that effectivel y represents a significant majority of the distribution of emission levels and deterioration in actual use over the full useful life of candidate in

- use vehicles of each vehic le design which uses the durability program. This requirement applies for all SHED

- based measurements. It does not apply for spitback or leak standards. * * * * * (f) * * * (1) For gasoline fueled vehicles certified to meet the evaporative emission stand ards set forth in this subpart, any

mileage accumulation method for evaporative emissions must employ gasoline fuel for the entire mileage accumulation period which contains ethanol in, at least, the highest concentration permissible in gasoline under fede ral law and that is commerciall y available in any state in the United States. Unless otherwise approved b y the Administrator, the manufacturer must determine the appropriate ethanol concentration by selecting the highest legal concentration commerciall y av ailable during the calendar***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 660 of 888 ye ar before the one in which the manufacturer begins its mileage accumulation. The manufacturer must also provide information acceptable to the Administrator to indicate that the mileage accumulation method is of sufficient desi gn, duration and severit y to stabilize the permeability of all non

- metallic fuel and evaporative s ys tem components to the mileage accumulation fuel constituents. * * * * * (h) Emission component durability . The manufacturer shall use good engineering judgm ent to determine that all emission

- related components are designed to operate properl y for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. * * * * * 138. Section §86.1825

- 08 is amended b y revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: **§ 86.1825 -**  **08 Durability demonstration procedures for refueling emissions.**  * * * * * (h) Emission component durability. The manufacturer shall use good engineering judgment to determine that all emission

- related components are designed to operate properl y for the full useful life of the vehicles in actual use. * * * * * 139. Section §86.1826

- 01 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1826**  **- 01**  **Assigned deterioration factors for small -**  **volume manufacturers and small**  **- volume test groups.**  (a) Applicability. This program is an option available for small

- volume manufacturers and small

- volume test groups as described in §86.1838
. (b) Determination of deterioration factors. No service accumulation method or vehicle/component selection method is required. Deterioration factors for all ty pes of regu lated emissions are assigned using the provisions in this paragraph (b) . A separate assigned deterioration factor is required for each durability group. Manufacturers shall use good engineering judgment in appl yi ng deterioration factors. Manufacturers may use assigned deterioration factors that the Administrator determines and prescribes. ( 1 ) The deterioration factors will be the Administrator's estimate, periodically updated and published in a guidance document, of the 70th percentile deterioration facto rs calculated using the industry

- wide database of previousl y completed durability data vehicles or engines used for certification. ( 2 ) The Administrator may use discretion to develop assigned deterioration factors using alternative methods i f there is insu fficient information to calculate an appropriate industry

- wide deterioration factor (for example: a new engine technology coupled with a proven emission control sy stem)
. These methods may include the use of assigned deterioration factors based on similar durability vehicles.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 661 of 888 (3) Alternativel y, with advance approval from the Administrator , a manufacturer may use deterioration factors developed b y another manufacturer. The manufacturer seeking to use these deterioration factors must

— (i) Demonstrate that the engines from the two manufacturers share technical parameters to the degree that would support the conclusion that a common deterioration factor should apply for both vehicle configurations as defined in § 86.1803
. (ii) P rovide sup porting information , such as histograms of exhaust temperature data, comparisons of vehicle weight and road load horsepower, or comparisons of powertrains and emission control sy stems. 140. Section 86.1828
- 01 is amended b y removing and reserving paragraph (d) and adding paragraph ( g ) to read as follows: **§ 86.1828 -**  **01 Emission data vehicle selection.** * * * * * (g) Cold temperature NMHC testing . For cold temperature NMHC exhaust emission compliance for each durability group, the manufacturer must select the vehicle expected to emit the highest NMHC emissions at 20 °F on candidate in

- use vehicles from the test vehicles specified in paragraph (a) of this section . When the expected worst

- case cold temperature NMHC vehicle is als o the expected worst

- case cold temperature CO vehicle as selected in paragraph (c) of this section, then cold testing is required onl y for that vehicle; otherwise, testing is required for both the worst

- case cold temperature CO vehicle and the worst

- case c old temperature NMHC vehicle. 141. Section 86. 1829
- 01 is amended as follows: a. B y removing and reserving paragraph (b)( 1 )( ii i) (C). b. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i). c. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv). d. By revising paragraph (b)(4). f. B y removing and reserving paragraph (d). **§ 86 .1829**  **- 01 Durability and emission testing requirements; waivers.**  * * * * * (b) * * * (2) * * * (i) Testing at low altitude . One EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and evaporative/refueling emission control sy stem combination must be tested in accordance with the evaporative/refueling test procedure requirement of subpart B of this part. The configuration of the EDV will be determined under the provisions of §86.1828

– 01. The EDV must also be tested for exhaust emission compliance using the FTP and SFTP procedures of subpart B of this part. In lieu of testing natural gas or hydrogen fueled vehicles to demonstrate complianc e with the evaporative and***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 662 of 888 refueling emission standards specified in this subpart , a manufacturer may provide a statement in its application for certification that, based on the manufacturer's engineering evaluation of appropriate testing and/or design parameters, all light

- dut y vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and complete heav y - duty vehicles comply

with applicable emission standards. This same testing exemption applies for vehicles fueled by liquefied petroleum gas, except that refueling tests are required f or sy stems that allow venting during the refueling operation. * * * * * (iv) For diesel

- fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data . Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information , and good engineering judgment
. * * * * * (4) Electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles . For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehi cles, m anufacturer s may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with all the requirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data . Such a statement must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information , and good engineering judgment
. * * * * * 142. A new §86.1829
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§86.1829 -**  **1 7**  **Durability and emission testing requirements; waivers.** This section describes general testing requirements for certifying vehicles under this subpart, and includes several provisions allowing for statements of compliance instead of testing in certain circumstances. Where a manufacturer provide s a statement in stead of test data under this section, it must be based on previous emission tests, development tests, or other appropriate information , and good engineering judgment
. (a) One durability

demonstration is required for each durability group. The configurati on of the DDV is determined according to §86.1822. The DDV shall be tested and accumulate service mileage according to the provisions of §§86.1823, 86.1824, 86.1825, and 86.1831. Small volume manufacturers and small volume test groups may optionall y use the alternative durability provisions of §86.1838. (b) The manufacturer must test EDVs as follows to demonstrate compliance with emission standards: (1) Test one EDV in each durability group using the test procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 to demonstrate compl iance with cold temperature CO and NMHC exhaust emission standards. (2) Test one EDV in each test group using the FTP and SFTP test procedures in 40 CFR part 1066 and the HFET test procedures of 40 CFR part 600, subpart B, to demonstrate compliance with o ther exhaust emission standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 663 of 888 (3) Test one EDV in each evaporative/refueling family and evaporative/refueling emission control sy stem combination using the test procedures in subpart B of this part to demonstrate compliance with evaporative and refueli ng emission standards. (c) The manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with emission standards at low

altitude conditions as described in paragraph (b) of this section. For standards that apply at high

- altitude conditions, the manufacturer may either per form the same tests or provide a statement in the application for certification that, based on an engineering evaluation of appropriate testing to measure or simulate high

- altitude emissions, all vehicles comply with applicable emission standards at high a ltitude. (d) Manufacturers may

omit exhaust testing for certification in certain circumstances as follows: ( 1 ) For vehicles subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in §§86.1811, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that v ehicles comply with applicable PM standards instead of submitting PM test data for a certain number of vehicles as follows: (i) Except as noted in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, manufacturers must submit PM test data for at least 25 percent of its d urability data groups that are subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in §86.1811

- 17. For example, if a manufacturer has a mix of light

- dut y vehicles and light

- duty trucks divided over a total of nine durability

data groups in a given model year, three of the m would need PM data for certification in that model year. EPA will work with the manufacturer to select durability data groups for testing, with the general expectation that testing will rotate to cover all of a manufacturer’s product line over time. If a durability data group has been certified in an earlier model year based on submitted PM data, and that durability data group is eligible for certification using carryover test data, that carryover data may count toward meeting the requirements of this p aragraph (d)(1)(i), subject to the selection of durability data groups. (ii) In every

model year that manufacturers have only one or two durability

data groups subject to the Tier 3 PM standards, they must submit PM test data for certifying all their durability data groups. If manufacturers have three durability data groups subject to the Tier 3 PM standards in a given model ye ar, they must submit PM test data for at least two of those durability data groups. (2) Small

- volume m anufacturer s may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with the applicable PM standard instead of submitting test data
. ( 3 ) Manufacturers may

omit PM measurements for fuel economy and GHG testing conducted in addition to the testing needed to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission standards.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 664 of 888 ( 4 ) M anufacturer s may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with the applicable formaldehyde standard instead of submitting test data
. ( 5 ) When conducting Selective Enforcement Audit testing , a manufacturer may petition the Administrator to waive the requirement to measure PM emissions and formaldeh yde emissions
. (e) Manufacturers may

omit evaporative or refueling testing for c ertification in certain circumstances as follows: (1) For diesel

- fueled vehicles, a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with the refueling emission standard instead of submitting test data
. (2) Fo r vehicles fueled by natural gas , a manufacturer may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with evaporative emission standard s instead of submitting test data . Vehicles fueled b y liquefied petroleum gas are similarl y exempted from submitting test data for the evaporative and refueling emission standards, except that refueling tests are required for s ys tems that allow venting during the refueling operation. (3) M anufacturer s may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with the leak standard in §86.1813 instead of submitting test data
. (4) For vehicles certified to the refueling emission standards in §§86.1811 or 86.181 3, a manufacturer may

provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles compl y with the fuel dispensing spitback standard instead of submitting test data
. ( 5 ) In lieu of testing vehicles for the supplemental two

- diurnal test sequence, a manufacturer may

optionally

provide a statement of compliance in its application for certification that, based on the manufacturer's good engineering judgment, all vehicles in the evaporative/refueling emission family comply with the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two

- diurnal test sequence. ( i ) Th e option to provide a statement of compliance in lieu of 2

- diurnal evaporative certification test data is limited to vehicles with conventional evaporative emission control sy stems (as determined by the Administrator). EPA may perform confirmatory

2
- diurna l evaporative emission testing on test vehicles certified using this option. If data shows noncompliance, it will be addressed through §86.1851. Also, if data shows noncompliance, EPA will generall y disallow subsequent waivers for the applicable evaporativ e family
. ( ii ) Manufacturers shall supply information if requested by EPA in support of the statement of compliance described in this paragraph ( d)(1 2 ). This information shall include evaporative calibration information for the emission

- data vehicle and fo r other vehicles in the evaporative/refueling family , including, but not limited to, canister ty

pe, canister volume, canister working capacity , fuel tank volume, fuel tank geometry , the t yp e of fuel delivery s ys tem (return, returnless,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 665 of 888 variable flow fuel p ump, etc.), a description of the input parameters and software strategy used to control the evaporative canister purge, the nominal purge flow volume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 2

- diurnal (FTP) driving cycle, the nominal purge flow v olume (in bed volumes) when vehicles are driven over the 3

- diurnal (FTP + running loss) driving cycle, and other supporting information as necessary

to demonstrate that the purge flow rate calibration on the 2
- diurnal test sequence is adequate to comply wi th the evaporative emission standard for the supplemental two

- diurnal test sequence. (6) Where a California evaporative emission standard is at least as stringent as a comparable federal evaporative emission standard for a vehicle , we may accept test data demonstrating compliance with the California standard as demonstrating compliance with the comparable standard under this subpart
. We may require you to provide test data clearl y demonstrating that a vehicle tested using the California

specified test proce dures will meet the comparable standard under this subpart when tested using the test procedures specified in this part. (7) Through model ye ar 2019, we may accept test data demonstrating compliance with the California refueling emission standard as demons trating compliance with the analogous refueling emission standard under this subpart if all the following conditions apply : (i) You certified the vehicles in model year 2016 to California’s refueling emission standards. (ii) You are certifying the vehicles to refueling standards for the new model year based on carryover data instead of performing new testing. (iii) You are also certifying the vehicles for evaporative emissions based on California test procedures under the provisions of paragraph (e)(6) of t his section, (f) For electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, m anufacturer s may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with all the requirements of this subpart instead of submitting test data
. 143. Section §86.1837

- 01 is amended b y revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 86.183**  **7 -**  **01 Rounding of emission measurements**  **.** (a) Unless otherwise specified, the results of all emission tests shall be rounded to the number of places to the right of the decimal point indicate d by expressing the applicable emission standard of this subpart to one additional significant figure, in accordance with 40 CFR 1065.20. * * * * * 144. Section §86.1838

- 01 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1838**  **- 01**  **Small -**  **volume manufacturer certification procedures.**  (a) The small

- volume manufacturer certification procedures described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are optional. Small

- volume manufacturers may use these optional***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 666 of 888 procedures to demonstrate compliance with the general standards and s pecific emission requirements contained in this subpart. (b) Eligibility requirements

— (1) Small

- volume manufacturers. (i) O ptional small

volume manufacturer certification procedures apply for vehicles produced by manufacturers with the following number of combined sales of vehicles subject to standards under this subpart in all states and territories of the United States in the model year for which certification is sought, including all vehicles and engines imported under the provisi ons of 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509 : (A) 5,000 units for the Tier 3 standards described in §§ 86.1811

- 17, 86.1813
- 17, and 86.1816

- 18. This is based on average nationwide sales volumes for model years 2012 through 2014 for manufacturers that sell vehicles in model ye ar 2012. The provision allowing delayed compliance with the Tier 3 standards applies for qualifying companies even if sales after model year 2014 increase beyond 5,000 units. Manufacturers with no sales in model year 2012 may instead rel y on pro

jected sales volumes; however, if nationwide sales exceed an average value of 5,000 units in any three consecutive model years, the manufacturer is no longer eligible for provisions that apply to small

volume manufacturers after two additional model years. For example, if actual sales in model ye ars 2015 through 2017 exceed 5,000 units, the small

volume provisions would no longer appl y starting in model year 2020. (B) 15,000 units for all other requirements. (ii) If a manufacturer’s aggregated sales in the United States, as determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are fewer than the number of units specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section , the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an aggregated relationship) may ce rtify under the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. (iii) A manufacturers that qualifies as a small business under the Small Business Administration regulations in 13 CFR part 121 is eligible for all the provisions that apply for small

- volume manu facturers under this subpart. See §86.180 1
- 12 (j) to determine whether companies qualify as small businesses. (iv) The sales volumes specified in this section are based on actual sales, unless otherwise specified. (v) Except for delayed implementation of new emission standards, an eligible manufacturer must transition out of the special provisions that apply for small

volume manufacturers as described in §86.1801

- 12(k)(2)(i) through (iii) if sales volumes increase above the applicable threshold. (2) Small

- volume test groups. (i) If the aggregated sales in all states and territories of the United States, as determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are equal to or greater than 15,000 units, then the manufacturer (or each manufacturer in the case of manufacturers in an aggregated relationship) will be allowed to certify a number of units under the small

- volume test group certification procedures in***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 667 of 888 accordance with the criteria identified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section. (ii) If the re are no additional manufacturers in an aggregated relationship meeting the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, then the manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including heav y - duty engines) are less than 15,00 0 units using the small

- volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. (iii) If there is an aggregated relationship with another manufacturer which satisfies the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this section, then the following provisions shall apply : (A) If none of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then each manufacturer may certify whole test groups whose total aggregated sales (including heav y - duty engines) are less than 15,000 units us ing the small

- volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. (B) If an y of the manufacturers own 50 percent or more of another manufacturer in the aggregated relationship, then the limit of 14,999 units must be shared among the manufacturers in such a relationship. In total for all the manufacturers involved in such a relationship, aggregated sales (including heav y - dut y engines) of up to 14,999 units may be certified using the small

volume provisions of paragraph (c) of this section. Only whole test gr oups shall be eligible for small

- volume status under paragraph (c) of this section. (iv) In the case of a joint venture arrangement (50/50 ownership) between two manufacturers, each manufacturer retains its eligibility for 14,999 units under the small

- volume test group certification procedures, but the joint venture must draw its maximum 14,999 units from the units allocated to its parent manufacturers. Only whole test groups shall be eligible for small

- volume status under paragraph (c) of this section. (3) Sales aggregation for related manufacturers. The projected or actual sales from different firms shall be aggregated in the following situations: (i) Vehicles and/or engines produced b y two or more firms, one of which is 10 percent or greater part owned b y another; (ii) Vehicles and/or engines produced b y an y two or more firms if a third party has equity

ownership of 10 percent or more in each of the firms; (iii) Vehicles and/or engines produced b y two or more firms having a common corporate officer(s) who is (are) responsible for the overall direction of the companies; (iv) Vehicles and/or engines imported or distributed by all firms where the vehicles and/or engines are manufactured b y the same entity and the importer or distributor is an authorized agent of the entity
.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 668 of 888 (c) Small

- volume manufacturers and small

- volume test groups shall demonstrate compliance with all applicable sections of this subpart , except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. Small

- volume manufacturers and small

- volume test groups may optionall y meet the following requirements: (1) Durability demonstration . Use the provisions of §86.1826 rather than the requirements of §§86.1823, 86.1824, and 86.1825. (2) In

- use verification testing. Requirements for testing in

- use vehicles apply as described in §86.1845 , subject to the following additional provisions for small

volume manufacturers and small

- volume test groups : (i) Small

- volume in

- use verification test vehicles may be procured from cus tomers or may

be owned by , or under the control of the manufacturer, provided that the vehicle has accumulated mileage in ty pical operation on public streets and has received ty pical maintenance. (ii) In lieu of procuring small

- volume in

- use verification t est vehicles that have a minimum odometer reading of 50,000 miles, a manufacturer may demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Agency that, based on owner survey data, the average mileage accumulated after 4 years for a given test group is less than 50,000 m iles. The Agency

may approve a lower minimum odometer reading based on such data. (iii) The provisions of § 86.1845

– 04(c)(2) that require one vehicle of each test group during high mileage in

- use verification testing to have a minimum odometer mileage do n ot apply
. (iv) Manufacturers intending to use the provisions of paragraphs (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section shall submit to the Agency , prior to the certification of the subject vehicles, a plan detailing how these provisions will be met. 145. Section 86.1843

- 01 is amended b y revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§ 86.1843 -**  **01 General information requirements.** * * * * * (g) Recordkeeping . (1) This sub part includes various requirements to record data or other information. Unless we specify otherwise, store these records in any format and on any media and keep them readily available for eight year s after you send an associated application for certificati on, or eight ye ar s after you generate the data if they do not support an application for certification. You must promptly send us organized, written records in English upon request. We may review them at any

time. (2) Upon written request by the Administrator, a manufacturer shall submit any information as described in §86.1844

– 01 within 15 business day s. A manufacturer may request the Administrator to grant an extension. The request must clearl y indicate the circumstances necessitating the extension. * * * * ****** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 669 of 888 146. Section 86.1844

- 01 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a), (d)(7), (d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(11), and (d)(16)(i) introductory text, removing paragraph (d)(16)(iv), and adding paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: **§ 86.1844 -**  **01 Information requirements: Appl ication for certification and submittal**  **of information upon request.** (a) All the information listed in this section must be submitted to the Agency according to the requirements specified in §86.1843; however, we may ask you to include less information than we specify , as long as you keep the specified records. * * * * * (d) * * * (7) A comprehensive list of all test results, including official certification levels, and the applicable intermediate and full useful life emission standards to which the test group is to be certified as required in §86.1829

– 01. Also include a comparison of drive cycle energy and target cycle energy

relative to both inertia and road load forces as specified in 40 CFR 1066.430 for each drive cycle or test phase, as appropriate. (8) A statement that all applicable vehicles will conform to the emission standards for which emission data is not being provided, as allowed under §86.1806 or §86.1829. The statement shall clearl y identify the standards for which emission testing was not completed. (9) Information describing each emission control diagnostic s ys tem required by §86.1806, including all of the following: (i) A description of the functional operation characteristics of the diagnostic sy stem, with additional information demonstr ating that the sy stem meets the requirements specified in §86.1806. Include all testing and demonstration data submitted to the California Air Resources Board for certification. (ii) The general method of detecting malfunctions for each emission

- related p owertrain component. (iii) Any deficiencies, including resolution plans and schedules. (iv) A statement that the diagnostic s ys tem is adequate for the performance warranty test described in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W. (v) For vehicles certified to meet th e leak standard in §86.1813, a description of the anticipated test procedure. The description must include, at a minimum, a method for accessing the fuel s ys tem for measurements, and a method for pressurizing the fuel sy stem to perform the procedure speci fied in 40 CFR 1066.840 without involving the fuel cap or filler neck. * * * * * (11) A list of all auxiliary emission control devices (AECD) installed on any applicable vehicles, including a justification for each AECD, the parameters they sense and control, a detailed justification of each AECD that results in a reduction in effectiveness of the emission control sy stem, and rationale for why it is not a defeat device as defined under §86.1809. The following specific provisions appl y for AECDs:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 670 of 888 (i) Fo r any

AECD uniquely

used at high altitudes, EPA may request engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity of the AECD. (ii) For an y AECD uniquely used on multi

- fuel vehicles when operated on fuels other than gasoline, EPA may

requ est engineering emission data to quantify any emission impact and validity

of the AECD. (iii) For Tier 3 vehicles with spark

- ignition engines, describe how AECDs are designed to comply

with the requirements of §86.1811

- 17(d). Identify which components nee d protection through enrichment strategies; describe the temperature limitations for those components; and describe how the enrichment strategy corresponds to those temperature limitations. We may also require manufacturers to submit this information for certification related to Tier 2 vehicles. * * * * * (16) * * * (i) A statement indicating that the manufacturer has conducted an engineering analy sis of the complete exhaust sy stem to ensure that the exhaust sy stem has been designed: * * * * * (e) * * * (7 ) The results of an y production vehicle evaluation testing required for OBD systems under §86.1806. * * * * * 147. Section 86.1845
- 04 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3) introductory text, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), and (c) to read as follows : **§ 86.1845**  **- 04**  **Manufacturer in -**  **use verification testing requirements.** (a) * * * (3) The following provisions apply regarding the possibility

of residual effects from varying fuel sulfur levels: (i) Vehicles certified to Tier 3 standards under §86.1811 must alway s measure emissions over the FTP, then over the HFET (if applicable), then over the US06 portion of the SFTP. If a Tier 3 vehicle meets all the applicable emission standards except the FT P or HFET emission standard for NMOG+NOx, and a fuel sample from the tested vehicle (representing the as

- received condition) has a measured fuel sulfur level exceeding 15 ppm when measured as described in 40 CFR 1065.710, the manufacturer may repeat the FT P and HFET measurements and use the new emission values as the official results for that vehicle. For all other cases of testing Tier 3 vehicles, measured emission levels from the first test will be considered the official results for the test vehicle, re gardless of an y test results from additional test runs. Where repeat testing is allowed, the vehicle may operate for up to two US06 cycles (with or without measurement) before repeating the FTP and HFET measurements. The repeat measurements must include both FTP and HFET, even if the vehicle failed only one of those tests,***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 671 of 888 unless the HFET is not required for a particular vehicle. Tier 3 vehicles may not undergo an y other vehicle preconditioning to eliminate fuel sulfur effects on the emission control sy s tem, unless we approve it in advance. (ii) Upon a manufacturer's written request, prior to in

- use testing, that presents information to EPA regarding pre

- conditioning procedures designed solel y to remove the effects of high sulfur in gasoline from vehicles produced through the 2007 model year, EPA will consider allowing such procedures on a case

- by

- case basis. EPA's decision will apply to manufacturer in

- use testing conducted under this section and to any

in

- use testing conducted b y EPA. Such procedures are not available for complete HDVs. For model ye ar 2007 and later Tier 2 vehicles , this provision can be used only in American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and then onl y if low sulfur gasoline is determined by the Admini strator to be unavailable in that specific location. (b) * * * (3) Number of test vehicles

. For each test group, the minimum number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 of this paragraph (b)(3). After testing the mi nimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04

– 06 or S04

– 07 of this paragraph (b)(3), a manufacturer may

test additional vehicles upon request and approval by the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. Any ad ditional testing must be completed within the testing completion requirements shown in §86.1845

– 04(b)(4). The request and Agency approval (if any) shall apply to test groups on a case b y case basis and apply onl y to testing under this paragraph. Separate a pproval will be required to test additional vehicles under paragraph (c) of this section. In addition to any testing that is required under Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07, a manufacturer shall test one vehicle from each evaporative/refueling family for evap orative/refueling emissions. I f a manufacturer believes it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the required number of vehicles in a test group, the manufacturer may request, subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size fo r that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods the manufacturer has used to procure the required number of vehicles. The approval of any such request, and the substitution of an alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based on a review of the procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the required test group size. Tables S04

– 06 and S04

– 07 follow: * * * * * (4) Completion of testing . Testing o f the vehicles in a test group and evaporative/refueling family must be completed within 12 months of the end of production of that test group (or evaporative/refueling famil y) for that model year.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 672 of 888 (5) T esting . (i) Each test vehicle of a test group shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to applicable exhaust CO 2 emission standards under this subpart shall also be tested in accordance with the highway fuel econom y test as described in part 600, subpart B, of this chapter. (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicles, manufacturers must demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in §86.1813, if applicable, as described in this paragraph (b)(5)(iii). Manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one vehicle from each lea k family for a given model ye ar. Manufacturers may rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as follows: (A) A vehicle is considered to pass the leak test if the OBD s ys tem completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving without showing a leak fault code. (B) Whether or not a vehicle’s OBD s ys tem has completed a leak check within the previous 750 miles of driving, the manufacturer may operate the vehicle as needed to force the OBD s ys tem to perform a leak check. If the OBD leak check does not show a leak fault, the vehicle is considered to pass the leak test. (C) If the most recent OBD leak check from paragraph (b)(5)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section shows a fault code, the vehicle is presumed to have failed the leak test. Manufacturers may perform the leak measurement procedure described in 40 CFR 1066.840 for an official result to replace the finding from the OBD leak check. (D) Manufacturers may

not perform repeat OBD checks or leak measurements to over - ride a failure under paragraph (b)(5 )(iii)(C) of this section. (iv) For non

- gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the supplemental 2

- diurnal

- plus

- hot

- soak evaporative emission and refueling emission procedures descri bed in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be test ed in accordance with the 3

- diurnal

- plus

- hot

- soak evaporative emission and refueling emission***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 673 of 888 procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in p aragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section only if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section. (6) Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as

- received condition. (7) A manufacturer may

conduct subsequent diagnostic maintenance and/or testing of an y vehicle. Any such maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified in §86.1847. (c) High

- mileage testing

— (1) Test groups . Testing must be conducted for each test group. (2) Vehicle mileage
. All test vehicles must have a minimum odometer mileage of 50,000 miles. At least one vehicle of each test group must have a minimum odometer mileage of 105,000 miles or 75 percent of the full useful life mileage, whichever is less. See §86.1838

– 01(c)(2) for small volume manufacturer mileage requirements. (3) Number of test vehicles . For each test group, the minimum number of vehicles that must be tested is specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. After testing the minimum number of vehicles of a specific test group as specified in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of th is section, a manufacturer may test additional vehicles upon request and approval b y the Agency prior to the initiation of the additional testing. Any additional testing must be completed within the testing completion requirements shown in §86.1845

– 04(c)(4 ). The request and Agency approval (if an y) shall apply to test groups on a case b y case basis and apply onl y to testing under this paragraph (c). In addition to any testing that is required under Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07, a manufacturer shall test on e vehicle from each evaporative/refueling family for evaporative/refueling emissions. If a manufacturer believes it is unable to procure the test vehicles necessary to test the required number of vehicles in a test group as specified in Table S04

– 06 or Tab le S04

– 07, the manufacturer may request, subject to Administrator approval, a decreased sample size for that test group. The request shall include a description of the methods the manufacturer has used to procure the required number of vehicles. The approv al of any such request, and the substitution of an alternative sample size requirement for the test group, will be based on a review of the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 674 of 888 procurement efforts made by the manufacturer to determine if all reasonable steps have been taken to procure the req uired test group size. (4) Initiation and completion of testing . Testing of a test group (or evaporative refueling family) must commence within 4 years of the end of production of the test group (or evaporative/refueling family) and be completed within 5 years of the end of production of the test group (or evaporative/refueling famil y). (5) T esting . (i) Each test vehicle shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test Procedure and the US06 portion of the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure as described in subpart B of this part when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. Test vehicles subject to applicable exhaust CO 2 emission standards under this subpart shall also be tested in accordan ce with the highway fuel econom y test as described in part 600, subpart B of this chapter. One test vehicle from each test group shall receive a Federal Test Procedure at high altitude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is not required to be one of the same test vehicles tested at low altitude. The test vehicle tested at high altitude is counted when determining the compliance with the requirements shown in Table S04

– 06 and Table S04

– 07 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section or the expanded sample size as provided for in this paragraph (c). (ii) Manufacturers must measure PM emissions over the FTP and US06 driving schedules for at least 50 percent of the vehicles tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. (iii) Starting with model year 2018 vehicl es, manufacturers must evaluate each vehicle tested under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the Tier 3 leak standard specified in §86.1813. In addition, manufacturers must evaluate at least one vehicle from each leak famil y for a given model ye ar. Manufacturers may rely on OBD monitoring instead of testing as described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section. (iv) For non

- gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in acc ordance with the supplemental 2

- diurnal

- plus

- hot

- soak evaporative emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. For gaseous fueled vehicles, one test vehicle of each evaporative/refueling family shall be tested in accordance with the 3

- diurnal

plus

- hot

- soak evaporative emission procedures described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for complian ce with applicable evaporative emission and refueling standards under this subpart. The test vehicles tested to fulfill the evaporative/refueling testing requirement of this paragraph (b)(5)(ii) will be counted when determining compliance with the minimum number of vehicles as specified in Table S04

– 06 and table S04

– 07***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 675 of 888 in paragraph (b)(3) of this section for testing under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section only

if the vehicle is also tested for exhaust emissions under the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i ) of this section. (6) Test condition . Each test vehicle not rejected based on the criteria specified in appendix II to this subpart shall be tested in as

- received condition. (7) Diagnostic maintenance . A manufacturer may conduct subsequent diagnostic ma intenance and/or testing on an y vehicle. An y s uch maintenance and/or testing shall be reported to the Agency as specified in §86.1847

– 01. * * * * * 148. Section 86.1846

- 01 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1846**  **- 01**  **Manufacturer in -**  **use confirmatory testing r equirements.**  (a) General requirements. (1) Manufacturers must test, or cause testing to be conducted, under this section when the emission levels shown by a test group sample from testing under §86.1845 exceeds the criteria specified in paragraph (b) of th is section. The testing required under this section applies separatel y to each test group and at each test point (low and high mileage) that meets the specified criteria. The testing requirements appl y s eparately for each model year. These provisions appl y to heav y duty vehicles and heavy

- duty

engines starting with model year 2007. These provisions do not apply

to emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O. (2) [Reserved] (3) [Reserved] (4) The provisions of §86.1845

- 04(a)(3) regarding fuel sulfur effects apply equally to testing under this section. (b) Criteria for additional testing. (1) A manufacturer shall test a test group or a subset of a test group as described in paragraph (j) of this section when the results from testing conducted under §86.1845 show mean exhaust emissions for that test group of an y pollutant(s) (except CO 2, CH 4 , and N 2 O) to be equal to or greater than 1.30 times the applicable in

- use standard and a failure rate, among the test group vehicles, for the corresponding pollutant(s) of fifty percent or greater. (i) This requirement does not apply to Supplemental FTP testing or evaporative/refueling testing. Testing conducted at high altitude under the requirements of §8 6.1845 will be included in determining if a test group meets the criteria triggering testing required under this section. (ii) The vehicle tested under the requirements of §86.1845

– 04(c)(2) with a minimum odometer miles of 75% of useful life will not be in cluded in determining if a test group meets the triggering criteria. (iii) The SFTP composite emission levels shall include the IUVP FTP emissions, the IUVP US06 emissions, and the values from the SC03 Air Conditioning EDV certification test (without DFs a pplied). The calculations shall be made using the equations prescribed in §86.164. If more than one set of certification SC03 data***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 676 of 888 exists (due to running change testing or other reasons), the manufacturer shall choose the SC03 result to use in the calculat ion from among those data sets using good engineering judgment. (2) If fewer than 50 percent of the vehicles from a leak famil y pass the leak test under §86.1845, EPA may

require further leak testing under this paragraph (b)(2). Testing under this section must include five vehicles from the family . If all five of these vehicles fail the test, the manufacturer must test five additional vehicles. EPA will determine whether to require further leak testing under this section after providing the manufacturer an opportunit y to discuss the results, including consideration of an y of the following information, or other items that may be relevant: (i) D etailed s ys tem design, calibration, and operating information, technical explanations as to why

the individual vehicles tested fai led the leak emission standard. (ii) C omparison of the subject vehicles to other similar models from the same manufacturer. (iii) D ata or other information on owner complaints, technical service bulletins, service campaigns, special pol icy warrant y programs, warrant y repair data, state I/M data, and data av ailable from other manufacturer

- specific programs or initiatives
. (iv) E vaporative emission test data on an y individual vehicles that did not pass leak testing during IUVP. (c) Useful life. Vehicles tested under the provisions of this section must be within the useful life specified for the emission standards which were exceeded in the testing under §86.1845. Testing should be within the useful life specified, subject to sections 207(c)(5) and (c)(6) of the Clean Air Act where applicable. (d) Number of test vehicles. A manufacturer must test a minimum of ten vehicles of the test group or Agency
- designated subset. A manufacturer may , at the manufacturer's discretion, test more than ten vehicles under this paragraph for a specific test group or Agency
- designated subset. I f a manufacturer chooses to test more than the required ten vehicles, all testing must be completed within the time designated in the testing completion requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. An y vehicles which are eliminated from the sample either prior to or subsequent to testing, or any vehicles for which test results are determined to be void, must be replaced in order that the final sample of vehicles for which test results acceptable to the Agency are available equals a minimum of ten vehicles. A manufacturer may cease testing with a sample of five vehicles if the results of the first five vehicles tested show mean emissions for each pollutant to be less than 75.0 percent of the applicable standard, with no vehicles exceeding the applicable standard for an y pollutant. (e) Emission testing. Each test vehicle of a test group or Agency

- designated subset shall be tested in accordance with the Federal Test Proc edure and/or the Supplemental Federal***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 677 of 888 Test Procedure (whichever of these tests performed under §86.1845 produces emission levels requiring testing under this section) as described in subpart B of this part, when such test vehicle is tested for compliance w ith applicable exhaust emission standards under this subpart. (f) Geographical limitations. (1) Test groups or Agency

- designated subsets certified to 50
- state standards: For low altitude testing no more than 50 percent of the test vehicles may

be procured from California. The test vehicles procured from the 49 state area must be procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or greater than 4000. (2) Test groups or Agency

- designated subsets certified to 49 state standards : For low

altitude testing all vehicles shall be procured from a location with a heating degree day 30 year annual average equal to or greater than 4000. (3) Vehicles procured for high altitude testing may be procured from any area provided that the vehicl e's primary area of operation was above 4000 feet. (g) Testing. Testing required under this section must commence within three months of completion of the testing under §86.1845 which triggered the confirmatory testing and must be completed within seven mo nths of the completion of the testing which triggered the confirmatory

testing. Any

industry review of the results obtained under §86.1845 and any additional vehicle procurement and/or testing which takes place under the provisions of §86.1845 which the in dustry believes may

affect the triggering of required confirmatory

testing must take place within the three month period. The data and the manufacturers reasoning for reconsideration of the data must be provided to the Agency within the three month period. (h) Limit on manufacturer conducted testing. For each manufacturer, the maximum number of test group(s) (or Agency

- designated subset(s)) of each model y ear for which testing under this section shall be required is limited to 50 percent of the total number of test groups of each model y ear required to be tested by each manufacturer as prescribed in §86.1845rounded to the next highest whole number where appropriate. For each manufacturer with onl y one test group under §86.1845, such manufacturer shall have a maximum potential testing requirement under this section of one test group (or Agency

designated subset) per model year. (i) Testing plan . Prior to beginning in

- use confirmatory testing the manufacturer must, after consultation with the Agency , submit a written plan describing the details of the vehicle procurement, maintenance, and testing procedures (not otherwise specified b y regulation) it intends to use. EPA must approve the test plan before the manufacturer may start further testing. (j) Testing a s ubset. EPA may designate a subset of the test group based on transmission ty pe for testing under this section in lieu of testing the entire test group when the results for the entire test group from testing conducted under §86.1845 show mean emissions and a failure rate which meet these criteria for additional testing.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 678 of 888 149. Section 86. 1848
- 10 is amended b y revising paragraph ( c )( 7) to read as follows: **§ 86.1848**  **- 10**  **Compliance with emission standards for the purpose of certification.** * * * * * (c) * * * (7) A ll certificates of conformity issued are conditional upon compliance with all the provisions of §§86.1811 through 86.1816 and 86.1860 through 86.1862 both during and after model ye ar production. The manufacturer bear s the burden of establishing to the sat isfaction of the Administrator that the terms and conditions upon which each certificate was issued were satisfied. For recall and warranty purposes, vehicles not covered b y a certificate of conformit y will continue to be held to the standards stated or re ferenced in the certificate that otherwise would have applied to the vehicles. (i) Failure to meet the applicable fleet average standard will be considered to be a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the ve hicles sold in violation of the fleet average standard will not be covered by the certificate. (ii) Failure to comply

fully with the prohibition against selling credits that it has not generated or that are not available, as specified in §86.1861, will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold in violation of this prohibition will not be covered b y the certificate. (iii) Failure to compl y fully with the phase

- in requirements of § § 86.1811 through 86.1816 will be considered a failure to satisfy the terms and conditions upon which the certificate was issued and the vehicles sold that do not comply with the applicable standards , up to the number needed to compl y, will not be covered b y the certificate. * * * * * 150. A new §86.1860
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows: **§ 86.1860**  **- 17**  **How to comply with the Tier 3**  **fleet -**  **average standards.** (a) You must show that you meet the applicable fleet

- average NMOG+NOx standards from §§ 86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet

- average evaporative emission standards from §86.1813 as described in this section. Note that separate fleet

- average calculations are required for the FTP and SFTP exhaust emission standards under §86.1811. (b) Calculate your fleet

- average value for each model year for all vehicle models subject to a separate fleet

- average standard using the following equation, rounded to the nearest 0. 001 g/mile for NMOG+NOx emissions and the nearest 0.001 g/test for evaporative emissions:

i i i 1 total ( ) b N F EL Fleet average value N  
 

## 
Where: i = A counter associated with each separate Tier 3 test group. b = The number of separate Tier 3 test groups to which you certify your vehicles.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 679 of 888 N i = The actual sales for the model y ear for test group i
. FEL i = The FEL selected for test group i . Disregard any separate standards that apply for in

- use testing or for testing under high

- altitude conditions. N total = The actual nationwide sales for the m odel year for all your Tier 3 vehicles, except as described in paragraph (c) of this section. The pool of vehicle models included in N

total may vary by model year, and it may

be different for evaporative standards, FTP exhaust standards, and SFTP exhaust standards in a given model year. (c) Do not include an y of the following vehicles to calculate your fleet

- average value: (1) Vehicles that you do not certify to the standards of this part because they are permanentl y exempted under 40 CFR part 85 or part 1068. (2) Exported vehicles. (3) Vehicles excluded under § 86.1801. (d) Except as specified in paragraph (e) of this section, your calculated fleet

- average value may

not exceed the corresponding fleet

- average standard for the model year. (e) You may

gener ate or use emission credits related to your calculated fleet

- average value as follows: (1) You may

generate emission credits as described in §86.1861 if your fleet

- average value is below the corresponding fleet

- average standard. (2) You may

use emission cr edits as described in §86.1861 if your fleet

- average value is above the corresponding fleet

- average standard. Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, you must use enough credits for each model ye ar to show that yo ur adjusted fleet average value does not exceed the fleet

- average standard. (3) If you do not have enough emission credits to demonstrate compliance with a fleet

- average standard in a given model year, you may carry forward a credit deficit for up to three model ye ars. You may no t bank emission credits with respect to a given emission standard during a model year in which you have a credit deficit in the same averaging set. If you fail to meet the fleet

- average standard for four consecutive model years, the vehicles causing yo u t o exceed the fleet

- average standard will be considered not covered by the certificate of conformity . You will be subject to penalties on an individual

- vehicle basis for sale of vehicles not covered b y a certificate of conformity
. (f) If the applicable bin standards and FELs for all your vehicle models are at or below a corresponding fleet

- average standard for a given model year, and you do not want to generate emission credits, you may omit the calculations described in this section. ( g ) T he deadline for o ffsetting debits as specified i n paragraph (e)(3) of this section serves as the starting date for calculating the statute of limitations with respect to violating the requirements of paragraph ( e ) (3) of this section, failing to satisfy the conditions upon which a certificate was issued , and selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering into U.S. commerce, or importing vehicles not covered b y a certificate. 151. A new §86.1861
- 17 is added to subpart S to read as follows:***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 680 of 888 **§ 86.1861**  **- 17**  **How do the NMOG+NOx and evaporative emission credit programs**  **work?** You may use emission credits for purposes of certification to show compliance with the applicable fleet

- average NMOG+NOx standards from §§ 86.1811 and 86.1816 and the fleet

- average evaporative emissio n standards from §86.1813 as described in 40 CFR part 1037, subpart H, with certain exceptions and clarifications as specified in this section. MDPVs are subject to the same provisions of this section that apply to LD T4s. (a) Calculate emission credits as described in this paragraph (a) instead of using the provisions of 40 CFR 1037.705. C alculate positive or negative emission credits relative to the applicable fleet

- average standard. Calculate positive emission credits if your fleet

average level is bel ow the standard. Calculate negative emission credits if your fleet

average value is above the standard. Calculate credits separatel y for each type of standard and for each averaging set. Calculate emission credits using the following equation, rounded t o the nearest whole number: 

### [ ] Emission credit Volume Fleet average standard Fleet average value

   Where: Emission credit = The positive or negative credit for each discrete fleet

- average standard, in units of vehicle

- grams per mile for NMOG+NOx and vehicle

- grams per test for evaporative emissions. Volume = Sales volume in a given model year from the collection of test groups covered b y the fleet

- average value, as described in §86.1860. (b) The following restrictions apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.740: (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this sect ion, emission credits may be exchanged only

within an averaging set, as follows: (i) HDVs represent a separate averaging set with respect to all emission standards. (ii) LDVs and LDTs together represent a single averaging set with respect to NMOG+NOx emission standards. Note that FTP and SFTP credits are not interchangeable. (iii) The following separate averaging sets appl y for evaporative emission standards: (A) LDV and LDT1 together represent a single averaging set. (B) LDT2 represents a single aver aging set. (C) HLDT represents a single averaging set. (D) HDV represents a single averaging set. (2) You may

exchange evaporative emission credits across averaging sets as follows if you need additional credits to offset a deficit in the final year of mai ntaining deficit credits as allowed under paragraph (c) of this section: (i) You may

exchange LDV/LDT1 and LDT2 emission credits. (ii) You may

exchange HLDT and HDV emission credits. (3) Credits expire after five years. For example, credits you generate i n model year 2018 may be used onl y through model year 2023.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 681 of 888 (c) The credit

- deficit provisions 40 CFR 1037.745 apply without modification to the NMOG+NOx and evaporative emission standards for Tier 3 vehicles. (d) The reporting and recordkeeping provisions of §86. 1862 apply instead of those specified in 40 CFR 1037.730 and 1037.735. (e) The provisions of 40 CFR 1037.645 do not apply
. 152. Section 86.1862

- 04 is revised to read as follows: **§ 86.1862**  **- 04**  **Maintenance of records and submittal of information relevant to**  **compliance with fleet -**  **average standards.** (a) Overview . This section describes reporting and recordkeeping requirements for vehicles subject to the following fleet

- average or fleet

- average standards: (1) Tier 2 NOx emission standard for light

- dut y vehicles and light

- dut y trucks in §86.1811
- 04. (2) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx for light

- duty vehicles and light

duty trucks in §86.1811

- 17. (3) Tier 3 SFTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx for light

- duty vehicles and light

duty trucks in §86 .1811
- 17. (4) Tier 3 evaporative emission standards in §86.1813

- 17. (5) Tier 3 FTP emission standard for NMOG+NOx for heavy

- dut y vehicles in §86.1816
- 18. (6) Cold

- temperature NMHC standards in §86.1811

- 10. (b ) Maintenance of records. (1) The manufactur er producing an y vehicles subject to a fleet

- average standard under this subpart must establish and maintain all the following information in organized and indexed records for each model y ear: (i) Model year . (ii) Applicable fleet

- average standard
. (iii) Calculated f

leet

- average value
. (iv) All values used in calculating the fleet

- average value achieved. (2) The manufacturer producing an y vehicle subject to the provisions in this section must keep all the following information for each vehicle: (i) Model year . (ii) Applicable fleet

- average standard
. (iii) EPA test group
. (iv) Assembly

plant
. (v) Vehicle identification number
. (vi) The FEL and the fleet

- average standard to which the vehicle is certified
. (vii) Information on the point of first sale, includin g the purchaser, cit y, and state. (3) The manufacturer must retain all records required to be maintained under this section for a period of eight ye ars from the due date for the annual report. Records may be stored in an y format and on an y media, as long a s manufacturers can promptly send EPA organized written records in English if we ask for them.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 682 of 888 Manufacturers must keep records readil y available as EPA may review them at any time. (4) The Administrator may require the manufacturer to retain additional rec ords or submit information not specificall y required b y this section. (5) EPA may

void ab initio a certificate of conformity for a vehicle certified to emission standards as set forth or otherwise referenced in this subpart for which the manufacturer fails to retain the records required in this section , to provide such information to the Administrator upon request , or to submit the reports required in this section in the specified time period
. ( c ) Reporting. (1) Each manufacturer must submit an annual report. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the annual report must contain, for each applicable fleet average standard, the fleet average value achieved, all values required to calculate the fleet

- average value, the number of credits generat ed or debits incurred, all the values required to calculate the credits or debits , and sufficient information to show compliance with all phase

- in requirements, if applicable . The annual report must also contain the resulting balance of credits or debits. (2) When a manufacturer calculates compliance with the fleet

- average standard using the provisions in §86.1860

– 04(c)(2) or §86.1860
- 17(f) , the annual report must state that the manufacturer has elected to use such provision and must contain the fleet

avera ge standard as the fleet

- average value for that model year. (3) For each applicable fleet

- average standard, the annual report must also include documentation on all credit transactions the manufacturer has engaged in since those included in the last report. Information for each transaction must include all the following information : (i) Name of credit provider
. (ii) Name of credit recipient
. (iii) Date the transfer occurred
. (iv) Quantity

of credits transferred
. (v) Model year in which the credits wer e earned. (4) Unless a manufacturer reports the data required by this section in the annual production report required under §86.1844

– 01(e) and subsequent model year provisions, a manufacturer must submit an annual report for each model ye ar after production ends fo r all affected vehicles produced by the manufacturer subject to the provisions of this subpart and no later than May 1 of the calendar ye ar following the given model ye ar. Annual reports must be submitted to: Director, Compliance Division, U.S. Environment al Protection Agency , 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. (5) Failure b y a manufacturer to submit the annual report in the specified time period for all vehicles subject to the provisions in this section is a violation of Clean Air Act section 203( a)(1) (42 U.S.C 7522(a)(1)) for each subject vehicle produced by that manufacturer.***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 683 of 888 (6) If EPA or the manufacturer determines that a reporting error occurred on an annual report previousl y submitted to EPA, the manufacturer's credit or debit calculations w ill be recalculated. EPA may void erroneous credits, unless transferred, and must adjust erroneous debits. In the case of transferred erroneous credits, EPA must adjust the selling manufacturer's credit or debit balance to reflect the sale of such credits and any

resulting generation of debits. ( d) Notice of opportunity for hearing. Any voiding of the certificate under paragraph (a)(6) of this section will be made onl y after EPA has offered the manufacturer concerned an opportunity

for a hearing conducted i n accordance with §86.614 for light

- duty vehicles and light

- dut y trucks and with 40 CFR part 1068, subpart G, for heavy

- duty vehicles. 153. Section 86.1863

- 07 is amended b y adding introductory text to read as follows: **§ 86.186**  **3 -**  **07 Optional chassis certifica**  **tion for diesel vehicles.** This section does not apply for vehicles certified to the Tier 3 standards in §86.1816

- 18, including those vehicles that certify to the Tier 3 standards before model year 2018. * * * * * 154. Section 86.1864

- 10 is amended b y revising paragraph (p) to read as follows: **§ 86.1864 -**  **10 How to comply with the fleet average cold temperature NMHC standards.**  * * * * * (p) Reporting and recordkeeping . Keep records and submit information for demonstrating compliance with the fleet average cold temperature NMHC standard as described in §86.1862

- 04. 155. Section 86.1868

- 12 is amended b y revising paragraphs ( f )( 1 ) and ( g ) (1) t o read as follows: **§ 86.1868**

**– 12 CO**  **2 credits for improving the efficiency of air conditioning systems.**  * * * * * (f) * * * (1) The manufacturer shall perform the AC17 test specified in 40 CFR 1066.840 on each unique air conditioning sy stem design and vehicle platform combination for which the manufacturer intends to accrue air conditioning efficiency credits . The manufacturer must test at least one unique air conditioning s ys tem within each vehicle platform in a model ye ar, unless all unique air conditioning s ys tems within a vehicle platform have been previously

tested. A unique air conditioning s ys tem design is a s ys tem with unique or substantially

different component designs or t ypes and/or system control strategies (e.g., fixed displacement vs. variable displacement compressors, orifice tube vs. thermostatic expansion valve, single vs. dual evaporator, etc. ). In the first year of such testing, the tested vehicle configuration shall be the highest production vehicle configuration within***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 684 of 888 each platform. In subsequent model y ears the manufacturer must test other unique air conditioning sy stems within the vehicle platform, proceeding from the highest production untested sy stem until all unique air conditioning sy stems within the platform have been tested, or until the vehicle platform experiences a major redesign. Whenever a new unique air conditioning system is t ested, the highest production configuration using that sy stem shall be the vehicle selected for testing. Air conditioning s ys tem designs which have similar cooling capacity , component t ypes, and control strategies, yet differ in terms of compressor pulley ratios or condenser or evaporator surface areas will not be considered to be unique system designs. The test results from one unique sy stem design may represent all variants of that design. Manufacturers must use good engineering judgment to identify

the unique air conditioning system designs which will require AC17 testing in subsequent model years. Results must be reported separatel y for all four phases (two phases with air conditioning off and two phases with air conditioning on) of the test to the Envir onmental Protection Agency , and the results of the calculations required in 40 CFR 1066.840 must also be reported. In each subsequent model year additional air conditioning sy stem designs, if such s ys tems exist, within a vehicle platform that is generating air conditioning credits must be tested using the AC17 procedure. * * * * * (g) * * * (1) For each air conditioning s ys tem selected by the manufacturer to generate air conditioning efficiency

credits, the manufacturer shall perform the AC17 Air Conditioni ng Efficiency Test Procedure specified in 40 CFR 1066.840 , according to the requirements of this paragraph (g). * * * * * 156. Appendix Ito Part 86 is amended b y revising the appendix heading , paragraph (a) before the table , and paragraphs (b) , (c), and (d) introductory text t o read as follows: **Appendix I to Part 86**

**— Dynamometer Schedules**  (a) EPA light

- duty

urban dy namometer driving schedule (UDDS) . This driving schedule is also known as the LA

- 4 cycle. (1) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) appl ies for light

- dut y vehicles, light

duty trucks, and heav y - duty

vehicles certified under subpart S of this part. (2) The driving schedule in this paragraph (a) applies for motorcycles with engine displacement at or above 170 cc. Calculate the speed

- versus - time sequence in kilometers per hour b y multiplying the listed speed by 1.6 and rounding to the nearest 0.1 kilometers per hour. (3) The driving schedule follows: * * * * * (b) EPA driving schedule for motorcycles with engine displacement below 170 cc
. Use the driving schedule specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this appendix, except that the***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 685 of 888 schedule specified in this paragraph (b) applies for the portion of the driving schedule from 164 to 332 seconds. Speed Versus Time Sequence Time (sec .) Speed (kph ) 164 3.4 165 6.8 166 10.3 167 13.7 168 17.1 169 20.5 170 23 .0 171 25.2 172 26.7 173 27.4 174 26.6 175 26 .0 176 25.6 177 25.9 178 26.1 179 26.3 180 26.7 181 28.2 182 27.5 183 24.9 184 23.5 185 20.1 186 18.3 187 17.8 188 18.8 189 19.3 190 20.7 191 23 .0 192 25.4 193 28.3 194 31.6 195 34.7 196 37.5 197 38.6 198 40.7 199 42 .0 200 43.6 201 45.1 202 46.7 203 47.7 204 48.5 205 49.2 206 49.2 207 49 .0 208 48.9 209 48.7 210 48.7 211 48.7 212 48.7 213 48.7 214 48.9 215 49.1 216 49.6 217 50.2 218 50.9 219 51.3 220 51.8 221 52.4 222 52.8 223 53.4 224 54.1 225 55.1 226 56 .0 227 56.6 228 56.9 229 57 .0 230 56.9 231 56.6 232 56.6 233 56.8 234 57.1 235 57.5 236 57.7 237 58.1 238 58.3 239 58.6 240 58.7 241 58.7 242 58.5 243 58.5 244 58.5 245 58.5 246 58.5 247 58.5 248 58.4 249 58.1 250 57.8 251 57.1 252 56.6 253 56.2 254 55.9 255 55.6 256 55.5 257 55.8 258 55.9 259 56 .0 260 56 .0 261 55.7 262 55.3 263 54.9 264 54.5 265 54 .0 266 54.3 267 53.9 268 53.8 269 53.6 270 53.4 271 53.5 272 53.7 273 54 .0 274 54.4 275 54.9 276 55.4 277 55.9 278 56.9 279 57.4 280 57.6 281 58 .0 282 58 .0 283 57.8 284 57.2 285 56.5 286 55.5 287 54.4 288 53.4 289 53.4 290 53.4 291 52.9 292 51.9 293 51.8 294 51.9 295 51.8 296 51.4 297 51.3 298 51.3 299 51.3 300 50.9 301 50.3 302 49.8 303 48.9 304 47.8 305 46.6 306 45.4 307 44.1 308 43 .0 309 41.8 310 39.9 311 38.3 312 36.5 313 35 .0 314 33.7 315 32.6 316 31.7 317 31.6 318 31.1 319 30 .0 320 28.5 321 25.7 322 22.3 323 20.8 324 19.8 325 19.2 326 17.6 327 16.1 328 12.9 329 11.2 330 8.3 331 4.9 332 1.5***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 686 of 888 (c) EPA driving schedule for class 3 heavy

- dut y vehicles
. This driving schedule is also known as the LA

- 92 cycle. Time (sec.) Speed (mph) 1 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 4 0.0 5 0.0 6 0.0 7 0.0 8 0.0 9 0.0 10 0.0 11 0.0 12 0.0 13 0.0 14 0.0 15 0.0 16 0.0 17 0.0 18 0.0 19 0.0 20 0.0 21 1.2 22 4.2 23 7.3 24 8.8 25 10.8 26 12.3 27 13.1 28 12.3 29 12.3 30 11.5 31 11.5 32 11.1 33 11.1 34 11.1 35 13.1 36 15.0 37 16.9 38 16.9 39 16.1 40 15.7 41 15.4 42 15.0 43 13.8 44 10.8 45 8.4 46 6.1 47 4.2 48 3.5 49 3.5 50 1.5 51 0.0 52 0.0 53 0.0 54 0.0 55 0.0 56 0.0 57 0.0 58 0.0 59 0.0 60 0.0 61 0.0 62 0.0 63 1.2 64 3.5 65 7.7 66 11.1 67 13.8 68 16.5 69 18.4 70 20.4 71 20.7 72 19.6 73 17.3 74 12.3 75 8.1 76 6.1 77 9.6 78 12.7 79 15.7 80 18.0 81 20.4 82 21.9 83 23.4 84 23.8 85 24.6 86 25.0 87 26.1 88 26.1 89 26.9 90 26.9 91 26.9 92 26.5 93 25.7 94 21.9 95 16.5 96 10.0 97 4.6 98 1.5 99 0.4 100 0.0 101 0.0 102 0.0 103 0.0 104 0.0 105 0.0 106 0.0 107 0.0 108 0.4 109 1.2 110 1.9 111 3.8 112 7.7 113 11.5 114 14.6 115 18.0 116 21.5 117 25.0 118 28.4 119 30.7 120 31.9 121 32.3 122 32.3 123 31.9 124 30.3 125 28.0 126 24.2 127 20.0 128 16.1 129 11.5 130 8.1 131 5.0 132 3.5 133 1.9 134 0.0 135 0.0 136 0.0 137 0.0 138 0.0 139 0.0 140 0.0 141 0.0 142 0.0 143 1.5 144 6.9 145 12.7 146 16.5 147 20.0 148 23.0 149 25.7 150 28.0 151 30.7 152 32.6 153 34.2 154 35.3 155 36.9 156 36.9 157 37.2 158 37.6 159 37.6 160 37.6 161 37.2 162 37.2 163 36.9 164 36.5 165 36.5 166 34.9 167 33.4 168 31.9 169 29.2 170 25.0 171 25.0 172 26.1 173 27.6***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 687 of 888 174 29.2 175 31.1 176 32.3 177 34.2 178 34.9 179 35.7 180 36.5 181 36.9 182 36.9 183 37.2 184 37.6 185 37.2 186 37.6 187 38.0 188 38.4 189 39.2 190 39.6 191 39.9 192 40.7 193 40.3 194 41.1 195 41.1 196 40.7 197 31.9 198 23.9 199 15.9 200 7.9 201 2.7 202 0.4 203 0.4 204 2.7 205 3.8 206 3.8 207 1.5 208 0.0 209 0.0 210 0.0 211 0.0 212 0.0 213 0.0 214 0.0 215 0.0 216 0.0 217 0.0 218 0.0 219 0.0 220 0.0 221 0.0 222 0.0 223 0.0 224 0.0 225 0.0 226 0.0 227 0.0 228 0.0 229 0.0 230 0.0 231 0.0 232 0.0 233 0.0 234 0.0 235 0.0 236 0.0 237 0.0 238 1.5 239 5.0 240 8.8 241 11.5 242 14.2 243 15.4 244 16.1 245 16.1 246 16.9 247 16.5 248 16.9 249 18.0 250 19.2 251 20.4 252 20.4 253 21.1 254 21.1 255 22.3 256 23.0 257 23.8 258 24.2 259 24.6 260 25.0 261 25.7 262 25.7 263 26.5 264 27.6 265 28.4 266 29.2 267 30.3 268 31.1 269 31.1 270 30.7 271 31.1 272 29.6 273 29.2 274 29.2 275 28.8 276 28.0 277 23.0 278 21.1 279 21.5 280 20.7 281 20.7 282 19.6 283 16.5 284 13.1 285 9.6 286 7.3 287 3.8 288 0.8 289 0.0 290 0.0 291 0.0 292 0.0 293 0.0 294 0.0 295 0.0 296 0.0 297 0.0 298 0.0 299 0.0 300 0.0 301 0.0 302 0.0 303 0.0 304 0.0 305 0.0 306 0.0 307 0.0 308 0.0 309 0.0 310 0.0 311 0.0 312 0.0 313 0.4 314 2.7 315 7.3 316 11.5 317 15.4 318 18.4 319 20.7 320 24.2 321 26.9 322 29.6 323 31.1 324 32.6 325 33.8 326 34.9 327 36.9 328 39.2 329 41.1 330 43.0 331 43.8 332 44.5 333 45.3 334 45.3 335 44.9 336 44.5 337 43.8 338 43.4 339 42.6 340 41.9 341 41.5 342 40.7 343 40.3 344 41.1 345 41.5 346 42.6 347 43.4 348 44.2 349 44.9 350 45.7 351 46.5 352 46.8 353 47.2 354 48.0 355 47.6 356 48.4 357 48.0 358 47.2 359 46.1 360 45.7 361 44.9 362 44.2 363 43.8***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 688 of 888 364 44.5 365 44.9 366 45.3 367 46.5 368 48.0 369 48.8 370 49.5 371 49.9 372 49.9 373 49.9 374 49.5 375 49.5 376 48.8 377 48.8 378 48.8 379 48.4 380 48.8 381 49.5 382 50.3 383 50.7 384 51.8 385 52.6 386 53.4 387 54.1 388 55.3 389 55.3 390 56.1 391 56.4 392 56.4 393 56.4 394 57.2 395 56.8 396 57.6 397 57.6 398 57.6 399 58.0 400 58.0 401 58.4 402 58.4 403 58.8 404 59.1 405 58.8 406 58.8 407 58.0 408 58.0 409 57.6 410 57.6 411 57.6 412 57.6 413 57.6 414 59.1 415 59.5 416 59.9 417 60.3 418 60.3 419 61.1 420 60.3 421 59.9 422 59.5 423 59.1 424 59.1 425 59.5 426 59.5 427 59.5 428 59.9 429 60.3 430 60.7 431 60.7 432 61.4 433 61.8 434 61.8 435 61.8 436 61.8 437 61.1 438 60.7 439 60.3 440 60.3 441 60.3 442 59.5 443 58.8 444 59.1 445 58.8 446 58.8 447 58.8 448 58.4 449 58.0 450 58.0 451 58.0 452 58.4 453 59.1 454 59.5 455 59.9 456 59.9 457 60.3 458 61.1 459 61.1 460 61.1 461 61.4 462 61.4 463 61.1 464 60.7 465 59.9 466 59.1 467 59.1 468 59.1 469 59.9 470 59.5 471 59.9 472 58.8 473 58.0 474 57.6 475 56.8 476 56.1 477 55.3 478 54.1 479 52.6 480 49.2 481 46.1 482 43.0 483 37.2 484 29.6 485 21.5 486 16.5 487 15.7 488 18.4 489 21.5 490 25.0 491 27.3 492 29.2 493 30.7 494 31.5 495 31.1 496 31.1 497 30.3 498 30.0 499 30.0 500 29.6 501 30.0 502 28.8 503 28.8 504 28.0 505 28.4 506 28.0 507 28.4 508 28.4 509 28.8 510 28.4 511 28.4 512 28.0 513 26.5 514 24.2 515 22.7 516 20.4 517 17.7 518 15.7 519 13.1 520 10.8 521 8.4 522 7.3 523 5.0 524 3.8 525 3.5 526 1.9 527 0.8 528 0.0 529 0.0 530 0.0 531 0.8 532 1.9 533 3.8 534 6.9 535 9.6 536 11.1 537 11.1 538 10.4 539 8.8 540 9.2 541 10.0 542 10.4 543 10.4 544 5.4 545 1.9 546 0.0 547 0.0 548 0.0 549 0.0 550 0.0 551 0.0 552 0.0 553 0.0***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 689 of 888 554 0.0 555 0.0 556 0.0 557 0.0 558 0.0 559 0.0 560 0.0 561 0.0 562 0.0 563 0.0 564 0.0 565 0.0 566 0.0 567 0.0 568 0.0 569 0.0 570 0.0 571 0.0 572 0.4 573 1.5 574 3.5 575 6.1 576 10.4 577 14.2 578 16.9 579 19.2 580 20.0 581 21.5 582 23.4 583 24.6 584 24.2 585 20.0 586 16.9 587 13.4 588 13.4 589 15.7 590 18.4 591 21.1 592 23.4 593 25.3 594 27.6 595 28.8 596 30.3 597 30.7 598 31.5 599 31.1 600 31.1 601 30.3 602 30.3 603 30.3 604 30.7 605 31.1 606 32.3 607 32.6 608 32.6 609 32.6 610 31.1 611 26.9 612 22.3 613 18.0 614 13.8 615 9.6 616 4.6 617 6.1 618 10.0 619 14.2 620 17.3 621 20.0 622 21.5 623 22.3 624 22.3 625 22.3 626 22.3 627 23.0 628 23.0 629 22.7 630 22.3 631 21.9 632 22.7 633 23.8 634 25.0 635 25.3 636 25.7 637 26.5 638 26.9 639 27.3 640 28.0 641 29.2 642 30.0 643 30.0 644 29.6 645 29.6 646 28.8 647 28.4 648 28.0 649 27.3 650 25.7 651 24.6 652 25.0 653 26.5 654 28.0 655 29.6 656 30.7 657 32.3 658 33.0 659 34.2 660 34.6 661 35.3 662 36.1 663 36.1 664 36.9 665 36.9 666 37.6 667 37.6 668 38.4 669 38.0 670 37.6 671 37.6 672 37.2 673 36.9 674 36.1 675 35.7 676 36.1 677 35.7 678 35.7 679 35.7 680 36.1 681 36.1 682 35.7 683 35.7 684 34.9 685 34.6 686 34.2 687 33.8 688 33.4 689 33.0 690 30.3 691 29.2 692 28.4 693 25.0 694 21.1 695 16.9 696 13.4 697 13.1 698 12.3 699 12.7 700 15.7 701 19.2 702 22.3 703 24.6 704 25.7 705 26.5 706 26.5 707 26.9 708 27.3 709 27.3 710 27.6 711 28.4 712 28.8 713 28.8 714 29.2 715 28.8 716 28.8 717 28.0 718 28.0 719 27.6 720 26.5 721 24.6 722 20.7 723 16.5 724 15.0 725 14.2 726 14.2 727 13.8 728 13.8 729 11.9 730 8.4 731 4.2 732 1.2 733 0.0 734 0.0 735 0.0 736 0.0 737 0.0 738 0.0 739 0.0 740 0.0 741 0.0 742 0.0 743 0.0***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 690 of 888 744 0.0 745 0.0 746 0.0 747 0.0 748 0.0 749 0.0 750 0.0 751 0.0 752 0.0 753 0.0 754 0.0 755 0.0 756 0.0 757 0.0 758 0.0 759 0.0 760 0.0 761 0.0 762 0.0 763 1.5 764 5.4 765 9.2 766 11.5 767 14.6 768 17.3 769 19.2 770 21.1 771 20.7 772 20.7 773 19.6 774 18.4 775 16.9 776 16.9 777 16.5 778 16.9 779 16.9 780 16.9 781 17.3 782 19.2 783 20.4 784 21.1 785 22.3 786 22.3 787 22.7 788 22.3 789 22.7 790 22.3 791 23.8 792 25.7 793 27.6 794 29.6 795 30.0 796 29.2 797 27.6 798 25.0 799 23.8 800 23.4 801 24.2 802 23.4 803 23.0 804 20.4 805 18.8 806 17.3 807 15.0 808 13.1 809 9.2 810 6.9 811 4.6 812 4.6 813 4.6 814 4.2 815 5.4 816 4.6 817 3.5 818 2.3 819 2.3 820 1.9 821 3.1 822 6.1 823 4.6 824 2.7 825 2.3 826 2.3 827 3.1 828 4.2 829 3.5 830 3.8 831 4.2 832 3.5 833 3.5 834 3.5 835 4.6 836 5.8 837 3.5 838 0.8 839 3.5 840 3.8 841 2.3 842 0.0 843 1.2 844 6.9 845 13.8 846 18.8 847 23.8 848 27.3 849 30.7 850 33.8 851 37.6 852 40.7 853 43.8 854 46.1 855 48.0 856 49.5 857 51.5 858 53.0 859 54.5 860 55.7 861 56.8 862 58.0 863 59.1 864 60.3 865 61.1 866 61.8 867 61.8 868 61.8 869 61.8 870 62.6 871 63.4 872 63.0 873 63.0 874 62.6 875 61.8 876 61.8 877 62.2 878 62.2 879 62.6 880 63.7 881 64.5 882 64.9 883 66.0 884 66.0 885 66.8 886 66.4 887 66.8 888 67.2 889 66.4 890 66.4 891 66.0 892 65.7 893 65.7 894 66.4 895 66.0 896 65.7 897 65.3 898 65.3 899 64.5 900 64.5 901 64.1 902 63.7 903 63.7 904 63.7 905 64.5 906 64.5 907 64.9 908 64.5 909 64.1 910 64.9 911 65.3 912 65.3 913 65.3 914 64.1 915 63.4 916 63.0 917 63.4 918 64.1 919 64.9 920 65.3 921 64.5 922 64.1 923 63.4 924 63.7 925 63.4 926 63.4 927 63.4 928 63.4 929 63.7 930 64.5 931 65.3 932 64.9 933 63.7***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 691 of 888 934 63.0 935 59.9 936 55.3 937 50.7 938 49.2 939 48.0 940 46.1 941 44.2 942 41.1 943 39.9 944 36.1 945 32.6 946 29.2 947 24.6 948 20.7 949 19.2 950 16.5 951 15.0 952 11.9 953 9.6 954 8.4 955 5.8 956 1.2 957 0.0 958 0.0 959 0.0 960 1.2 961 3.1 962 5.0 963 8.4 964 11.5 965 14.6 966 16.9 967 18.8 968 21.1 969 23.8 970 26.5 971 28.0 972 29.6 973 30.7 974 32.6 975 34.2 976 35.3 977 36.1 978 36.9 979 38.0 980 38.0 981 38.0 982 38.0 983 38.0 984 37.2 985 36.9 986 36.1 987 35.7 988 34.9 989 34.9 990 33.8 991 31.5 992 28.8 993 25.7 994 24.6 995 23.4 996 22.3 997 21.5 998 20.0 999 20.0 1000 19.2 1001 19.2 1002 18.0 1003 11.9 1004 6.9 1005 2.7 1006 0.8 1007 0.4 1008 0.0 1009 0.0 1010 0.0 1011 0.0 1012 0.0 1013 0.0 1014 0.0 1015 0.0 1016 0.0 1017 0.0 1018 0.0 1019 0.0 1020 0.0 1021 0.0 1022 0.0 1023 0.4 1024 2.7 1025 6.1 1026 9.2 1027 11.5 1028 14.2 1029 16.1 1030 18.0 1031 20.0 1032 21.5 1033 23.0 1034 24.2 1035 25.0 1036 25.7 1037 26.9 1038 27.6 1039 27.6 1040 28.4 1041 29.2 1042 29.2 1043 30.0 1044 29.6 1045 29.6 1046 28.8 1047 28.0 1048 23.8 1049 18.8 1050 11.9 1051 6.1 1052 1.5 1053 1.5 1054 4.2 1055 8.1 1056 10.4 1057 13.1 1058 15.4 1059 18.0 1060 20.4 1061 23.0 1062 25.3 1063 27.3 1064 28.8 1065 30.3 1066 31.1 1067 32.3 1068 31.9 1069 32.3 1070 31.9 1071 31.1 1072 28.8 1073 25.0 1074 22.7 1075 18.8 1076 15.4 1077 13.4 1078 11.9 1079 8.8 1080 5.0 1081 1.9 1082 2.3 1083 2.7 1084 3.5 1085 6.5 1086 10.8 1087 13.8 1088 16.1 1089 18.4 1090 20.4 1091 21.9 1092 21.9 1093 20.7 1094 17.3 1095 13.1 1096 9.6 1097 8.8 1098 10.8 1099 12.7 1100 14.2 1101 14.6 1102 13.1 1103 11.1 1104 11.1 1105 11.1 1106 13.1 1107 15.7 1108 18.4 1109 20.7 1110 23.8 1111 25.7 1112 28.0 1113 30.0 1114 31.1 1115 32.3 1116 34.2 1117 35.7 1118 36.9 1119 38.8 1120 40.3 1121 41.5 1122 42.2 1123 43.0***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 692 of 888 1124 43.8 1125 43.8 1126 43.4 1127 43.0 1128 42.2 1129 41.9 1130 41.5 1131 41.9 1132 41.9 1133 41.9 1134 42.2 1135 42.6 1136 42.6 1137 42.6 1138 42.6 1139 42.6 1140 42.6 1141 42.6 1142 42.2 1143 43.0 1144 43.4 1145 43.0 1146 42.6 1147 41.9 1148 40.7 1149 36.9 1150 32.6 1151 28.0 1152 23.4 1153 18.4 1154 14.6 1155 12.3 1156 9.2 1157 5.8 1158 1.9 1159 0.4 1160 0.0 1161 0.0 1162 0.0 1163 0.0 1164 0.0 1165 0.4 1166 4.2 1167 9.2 1168 11.9 1169 14.2 1170 15.7 1171 15.0 1172 14.2 1173 13.4 1174 13.8 1175 14.6 1176 14.6 1177 14.2 1178 16.1 1179 15.7 1180 15.7 1181 14.6 1182 13.1 1183 10.0 1184 7.3 1185 3.5 1186 0.8 1187 0.0 1188 0.0 1189 0.0 1190 0.0 1191 0.4 1192 2.7 1193 7.3 1194 11.5 1195 15.4 1196 19.2 1197 21.9 1198 23.8 1199 25.0 1200 26.1 1201 27.3 1202 28.8 1203 30.0 1204 29.6 1205 29.6 1206 28.8 1207 26.1 1208 22.3 1209 19.2 1210 16.5 1211 12.7 1212 9.6 1213 6.9 1214 4.2 1215 2.3 1216 0.8 1217 0.0 1218 0.0 1219 0.0 1220 0.0 1221 0.0 1222 0.0 1223 0.0 1224 0.0 1225 0.0 1226 0.0 1227 0.0 1228 0.0 1229 0.0 1230 0.0 1231 0.0 1232 0.0 1233 0.0 1234 0.0 1235 0.0 1236 0.0 1237 0.0 1238 0.0 1239 0.0 1240 3.5 1241 10.4 1242 15.4 1243 17.3 1244 17.3 1245 18.4 1246 21.5 1247 24.6 1248 27.3 1249 30.0 1250 31.5 1251 31.9 1252 32.6 1253 33.4 1254 34.9 1255 36.5 1256 37.6 1257 39.2 1258 40.3 1259 40.7 1260 41.1 1261 40.7 1262 40.7 1263 40.7 1264 41.5 1265 42.6 1266 43.0 1267 44.5 1268 45.3 1269 45.3 1270 44.9 1271 43.4 1272 40.3 1273 38.0 1274 36.1 1275 36.5 1276 38.0 1277 39.2 1278 40.7 1279 42.2 1280 43.4 1281 44.9 1282 45.7 1283 46.1 1284 46.8 1285 46.5 1286 46.5 1287 46.5 1288 46.1 1289 46.1 1290 46.1 1291 46.8 1292 47.6 1293 48.0 1294 48.4 1295 48.0 1296 48.0 1297 47.2 1298 46.5 1299 46.8 1300 47.2 1301 48.4 1302 48.4 1303 48.8 1304 48.4 1305 47.6 1306 46.5 1307 44.2 1308 42.2 1309 41.5 1310 41.1 1311 40.7 1312 40.3 1313 39.6***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 693 of 888 1314 39.2 1315 38.8 1316 38.0 1317 37.6 1318 37.2 1319 36.5 1320 34.6 1321 31.5 1322 29.6 1323 29.2 1324 28.8 1325 28.8 1326 28.0 1327 28.0 1328 28.4 1329 29.6 1330 30.0 1331 30.3 1332 29.2 1333 26.5 1334 25.3 1335 25.0 1336 24.6 1337 24.6 1338 25.3 1339 26.1 1340 27.3 1341 28.4 1342 29.2 1343 29.2 1344 29.6 1345 30.0 1346 31.1 1347 32.6 1348 33.8 1349 34.6 1350 34.9 1351 34.6 1352 34.9 1353 34.6 1354 34.9 1355 34.9 1356 34.9 1357 34.2 1358 33.8 1359 32.6 1360 31.5 1361 30.0 1362 28.8 1363 27.3 1364 23.8 1365 23.0 1366 23.0 1367 22.3 1368 20.4 1369 18.8 1370 17.7 1371 16.1 1372 14.6 1373 12.7 1374 11.1 1375 9.2 1376 8.8 1377 7.3 1378 6.1 1379 5.0 1380 4.2 1381 3.5 1382 2.7 1383 2.3 1384 1.5 1385 1.2 1386 0.0 1387 1.2 1388 4.2 1389 7.3 1390 8.8 1391 10.8 1392 12.3 1393 13.1 1394 12.3 1395 12.3 1396 11.5 1397 11.5 1398 11.1 1399 11.1 1400 11.1 1401 13.1 1402 15.0 1403 16.9 1404 16.9 1405 16.1 1406 15.7 1407 15.4 1408 15.0 1409 13.8 1410 10.8 1411 8.4 1412 6.1 1413 4.2 1414 3.5 1415 3.5 1416 1.5 1417 0.0 1418 0.0 1419 0.0 1420 0.0 1421 0.0 1422 0.0 1423 0.0 1424 0.0 1425 0.0 1426 0.0 1427 0.0 1428 0.0 1429 0.0 1430 0.0 1431 0.0 1432 0.0 1433 0.0 1434 0.0 1435 0.0 1436 0.0 1437 0.0 1438 0.0 1439 0.0 1440 0.0 1441 0.0 1442 0.0 1443 0.0 1444 0.0 1445 0.0 1446 0.0 1447 0.0 1448 0.0 1449 0.0 1450 0.0 1451 0.0 1452 0.0 1453 0.0 1454 0.0 1455 0.0 1456 1.2 1457 4.2 1458 7.3 1459 8.8 1460 10.8 1461 12.3 1462 13.1 1463 12.3 1464 12.3 1465 11.5 1466 11.5 1467 11.1 1468 11.1 1469 11.1 1470 13.1 1471 15.0 1472 16.9 1473 16.9 1474 16.1 1475 15.7 1476 15.4 1477 15.0 1478 13.8 1479 10.8 1480 8.4 1481 6.1 1482 4.2 1483 3.5 1484 3.5 1485 1.5 1486 0.0 1487 0.0 1488 0.0 1489 0.0 1490 0.0 1491 0.0 1492 0.0 1493 0.0 1494 0.0 1495 0.0 1496 0.0 1497 0.0 1498 1.2 1499 3.5 1500 7.7 1501 11.1 1502 13.8 1503 16.5***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 694 of 888 1504 18.4 1505 20.4 1506 20.7 1507 19.6 1508 17.3 1509 12.3 1510 8.1 1511 6.1 1512 9.6 1513 12.7 1514 15.7 1515 18.0 1516 20.4 1517 21.9 1518 23.4 1519 23.8 1520 24.6 1521 25.0 1522 26.1 1523 26.1 1524 26.9 1525 26.9 1526 26.9 1527 26.5 1528 25.7 1529 21.9 1530 16.5 1531 10.0 1532 4.6 1533 1.5 1534 0.4 1535 0.0 1536 0.0 1537 0.0 1538 0.0 1539 0.0 1540 0.0 1541 0.0 1542 0.0 1543 0.4 1544 1.2 1545 1.9 1546 3.8 1547 7.7 1548 11.5 1549 14.6 1550 18.0 1551 21.5 1552 25.0 1553 28.4 1554 30.7 1555 31.9 1556 32.3 1557 32.3 1558 31.9 1559 30.3 1560 28.0 1561 24.2 1562 20.0 1563 16.1 1564 11.5 1565 8.1 1566 5.0 1567 3.5 1568 1.9 1569 0.0 1570 0.0 1571 0.0 1572 0.0 1573 0.0 1574 0.0 1575 0.0 1576 0.0 1577 0.0 1578 1.5 1579 6.9 1580 12.7 1581 16.5 1582 20.0 1583 23.0 1584 25.7 1585 28.0 1586 30.7 1587 32.6 1588 34.2 1589 35.3 1590 36.9 1591 36.9 1592 37.2 1593 37.6 1594 37.6 1595 37.6 1596 37.2 1597 37.2 1598 36.9 1599 36.5 1600 36.5 1601 34.9 1602 33.4 1603 31.9 1604 29.2 1605 25.0 1606 25.0 1607 26.1 1608 27.6 1609 29.2 1610 31.1 1611 32.3 1612 34.2 1613 34.9 1614 35.7 1615 36.5 1616 36.9 1617 36.9 1618 37.2 1619 37.6 1620 37.2 1621 37.6 1622 38.0 1623 38.4 1624 39.2 1625 39.6 1626 39.9 1627 40.7 1628 40.3 1629 41.1 1630 41.1 1631 40.7 1632 31.9 1633 23.9 1634 15.9 1635 7.9 1636 2.7 1637 0.4 1638 0.4 1639 2.7 1640 3.8 1641 3.8 1642 1.5 1643 0.0 1644 0.0 1645 0.0 1646 0.0 1647 0.0 1648 0.0 1649 0.0 1650 0.0 1651 0.0 1652 0.0 1653 0.0 1654 0.0 1655 0.0 1656 0.0 1657 0.0 1658 0.0 1659 0.0 1660 0.0 1661 0.0 1662 0.0 1663 0.0 1664 0.0 1665 0.0 1666 0.0 1667 0.0 1668 0.0 1669 0.0 1670 0.0 1671 0.0 1672 0.0 1673 1.5 1674 5.0 1675 8.8 1676 11.5 1677 14.2 1678 15.4 1679 16.1 1680 16.1 1681 16.9 1682 16.5 1683 16.9 1684 18.0 1685 19.2 1686 20.4 1687 20.4 1688 21.1 1689 21.1 1690 22.3 1691 23.0 1692 23.8 1693 24.2***** E.O. 12866 Review**

**– Revis**  **ed 3/28**  **/13**

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

Page 695 of 888 1694 24.6 1695 25.0 1696 25.7 1697 25.7 1698 26.5 1699 27.6 1700 28.4 1701 29.2 1702 30.3 1703 31.1 1704 31.1 1705 30.7 1706 31.1 1707 29.6 1708 29.2 1709 29.2 1710 28.8 1711 28.0 1712 23.0 1713 21.1 1714 21.5 1715 20.7 1716 20.7 1717 19.6 1718 16.5 1719 13.1 1720 9.6 1721 7.3 1722 3.8 1723 0.8 1724 0.0 1725 0.0 1726 0.0 1727 0.0 1728 0.0 1729 0.0 1730 0.0 1731 0.0 1732 0.0 1733 0.0 1734 0.0 1735 0.0

(d) EPA driving schedule for testing heavy

- dut y vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR
. This driving schedule applies for testing vehicles subject to evaporative emission standards under subpart A of this part
. * * * * * **Appendix XIII through Appendix XVIII**  **to Part 86**

**— [Removed]**  157. Appendix XIII thr ough Appendix XVIII to Part 86 are removed
. **PART 600**

**— FUEL ECONOMY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EXHAUST**  **EMISSIONS OF MOTOR VEHICLES** 158. The authorit y citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority : 49 U.S.C. 32901

—23919q, Pub. L . 109

– 58. **Subpart A**

**— Gene**  **ral Provisions** 159. The heading for subpart A is revised as set forth above
. 160. Section 600.011 is amended by revising paragraph s (b) , (c)(2), and (c)(3) to read as follows: **§ 600.011 Incorporation by reference.** * * * * * (b) American Societ y for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19428

- 2959, ( 610) 832

- 9585, http://www.astm.org/
. (1) ASTM D975

– 11 Standard Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils, approved March 1, 2011, IBR approved for § 600.107

– 08(b). (2) ASTM D 1298

– 99 (Reapproved 2005) Standard Practice for Densit y, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petrol eum and Liquid Petroleum Products by

Hydrometer Method, approved November 1, 2005, IBR approved for §§ 600.113

– 12(f) and (g) and 600.510

- 12(g).Page 696 of 888 (3) ASTM D 1945

– 03 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas By

Gas Chromatography , app roved January 1, 2010, IBR approved for § 600.113
- 12(f). (4) ASTM D 3338/D 3338M

– 09 Standard Test Method for Estimation of Net Heat of Combustion of Aviation Fuels, approved April 15, 2009, IBR approved for § 600.113
- 12(f). (5) ASTM D 3343

– 05 (Reapproved 2010) Standard Test Method for Estimation of Hydrogen Content of Aviation Fuels, approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for § 600.113
- 12(f). (c) * * * (2) SAE J1634, Revised October 2012, Battery Electric Vehicle Energy

Consumption and Range Test Procedure, IBR approved for §§ 600.116

- 12(a) and 600.311

- 12(j) and (k). (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Econom y of H ybrid

- Electric Vehicles, Including Plug

- In H ybrid Vehicles, June 2010, IBR approved for §§ 600.114
- 12(c) and (f), 600.116

- 12(b) and (c), and 600.311
- 12(d), (j), and (k). * * * * * **Subpart B**

**— [Amended]**  **§§ 600.113 -**  **08 and**  **600.114 -**  **08**

**— [Removed]**  161. Subpart B is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 600.113
- 08 and 600.114
- 08. 28. Section 600. 116
- 12 is amended as follows: a. B y revising the section heading. b. By revising paragraph (a)(5). c. By redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively
. d. By adding a new paragraph (b). e. By revising the redesignated paragra phs (c) introductory

text, (c)(1) introductory

text, and (c)(2) introductory

text. **§ 600.116 -**  **12 Special procedures related to electric vehicles and**  **hybrid electric vehicles.**  (a) * * * (5) We may

approve alternate measurement procedures with respect to electric vehicles if they are necessary

or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this part. For example, we may approve the use of an earlier version of SAE J1634 for carryover vehicles, or if you show that it is equivalent for your vehicle. * * * * * (b) Determine performance values for h ybrid electric vehicles that have no plug

- in capability as specified in §§ 600.210 and 600.311 using the procedures for charge

sustaining operation from SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011)
. We may appr ove alternate measurement procedures with respect to these vehicles if that is necessary or appropriate for meeting the objectives of this part.Page 697 of 888

(c) Determine performance values for hy brid electric vehicles that have plug

- in capability as specified in §§ 6 00.210 and 600.311 using the procedures of SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in § 600.011), with the following clarifications and modifications: (1) To determine fuel economy and CREE values to demonstrate compliance with CAFE and GHG standards, calculate composite values representing combined operation during charge

- depleting and charge

- sustaining operation using the following utility factors except as specified in this paragraph (b): * * * * * (2) To determine fuel economy and CO2 emission valu es for labeling purposes, calculate composite values representing combined operation during charge

- deplet ing and charge

sustain ing operation using the following utility factors except as specified in this paragraph (b): * * * * * **Subpart C**

**— [Amended]**  **§§ 60 0.206**  **- 08, 600.207**  **- 08, 600.208**  **- 08, 600.209**  **- 08, 600.210**  **- 08** 

**— [Removed]**  162. Subpart C is amended by removing the following sections: §§ 600.206
- 08, 600.207
- 08, 600.208
- 08, 600.209
- 08, 600.210
- 08. **Subpart D**

**— [Amended]**  **§§ 600.302 -**  **08, 600.311 -**  **08**

**— [Removed]**  163. Subpart D is amended by removing the following sections: 600.302
- 08, 600.311
- 08. 164. Section 600.311

- 12 is amended b y revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§ 600.311 -**  **12 Determination of values for fuel economy labels.**  * * * * * (g) Smog rating. Establish a rating for exhaust emissions other than CO 2 b ased on the applicable emission standards for the appropriate model year as shown in Table s 1 through 3 of this section. For Independent Commercial Importers that import vehicles not subject to Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards, the vehicle's smog rating is 1. Similarly , if a manufacturer certifies vehicles to emission standards that are less stringent than all the identified standards for any reason, the vehicle’s smog rating is 1. If EPA or California emissi on standards change in the future, we may revise the emission levels corresponding to each rating for future model years as appropriate to reflect the changed standards. If this occurs, we would publish the revised ratings as described in §600.302

– 12(k), a llowing sufficient lead time to make the changes; we would also expect to initiate a rulemaking to update the smog rating in the regulation.Page 698 of 888

Table 1 of §600.311

– 12

— Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Year 2025 and Later Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3 Emission

Standard California Air Resources Board LEV III Emission Standard 1 Bin 160 LEV 160 2 Bin 125 ULEV125 4 Bin 70 ULEV70 5 Bin 50 ULEV50 6 Bin 30 SULEV30 7 Bin 20 SULEV20 8

— TZEV 10 Bin 0 ZEV Table 2 of §600.311

– 12

— Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating for Model Years 2018

- 2024 Rating U.S. EPA Tier 3

Emission Standard U.S EPA Tier 2 Emission Standard California Air Resources Board

LEV III Emission Standard 1 Bin 160 Bin 5 through Bin 8 LEV 160 3 Bin 125 Bin 4 ULEV125 5 Bin 70 Bin 3 ULEV70 6 Bin 50

— ULEV50 7 Bin 30 Bin 2 SULEV30 8 Bin 20

— SULEV20 9

— — TZEV 10 Bin 0 Bin 1 ZEV
Table 3 of §600.311

– 12

— Criteria for Establishing Smog Rating through Model Year 2017 Rating U.S. EPA Tier 2

Emission Standard California Air Resources Board

LEV II Emission Standard 1

— ULEV &LEV II large trucks 2 Bin 8 SULEV II large trucks 3 Bin 7

— 4 Bin 6 LEV II, option 1 5 Bin 5 LEV II 6 Bin 4 ULEV II 7 Bin 3

— 8 Bin 2 SULEV II 9

— PZEV 10 Bin 1 ZEV * * * * * **Subpart F**

**— [Amended]**  **§§ 600.507 -**  **08, 600.509 -**  **08, 600.510 -**  **08, 600.512 -**  **08**

**— [Removed]**  165. Subpart F is amended b y removing the following sections: 600.507
- 08, 600.509
- 08, 600.510
- 08, 600.512
- 08.Page 699 of 888

**Appendix IV and Appendix V**

**— [Removed]**  166. Part 600 is amended b y removing and reserving Appendix IV and Appendix V. **PART 1036**

**— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN**  **- USE HEAVY**  **** **DUTY HIGHWAY ENGINES** 167. The authorit y citation for part 10 36 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart B**

**— [Amended]**  168. Section 1036.115 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§ 1036.115 Other requirements.** * * * * * (b) You must design and produce your engines to comply with evaporative emission standards as follows: (1) For complete heav y - duty vehicles you produce, you must certify the vehicles to emission standards as specified in 40 CFR 1037.103. (2) For incomplete heav y - duty vehicles, and for engines used in vehicles you do not produce, you do not need to certify your engi nes to evaporative emission standards or otherwise meet those standards. However, vehicle manufacturers certifying their vehicles with your engines may depend on you to produce your engines according to their specifications. Also, your engines must meet applicable exhaust emission standards in the installed configuration. **PART 1037**

**— CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW HEAVY**  **- DUTY MOTOR**  **VEHICLES** 169. The authorit y citation for part 86 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart B**

**– [Amended]**  170. Section §1037.101 is amended b y revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: **§ 1037.101 Overview of emission standards for heavy -**  **duty vehicles.** * * * * * (b) * * * (4) Fuel evaporative emissions . These requirements are described in 40 CFR part 86 and §1037.103. (c) * * * ( 3) For evaporative and refueling emissions, vehicles are regulated based on the ty pe of fuel they use. Vehicles fueled with volatile liquid fuels or gaseous fuels are subject to evaporative emissio n standards. Vehicles up to a certain size that are fueled with gasoline, diesel fuel, ethanol, methanol, or LPG are subject to refueling emission standards. 171. A new §1037.103 is added to read as follows: **§ 1037.103 Evaporative emission standards.** Page 700 of 888

(a) Applicability . Evaporative emission standards apply to heavy

- dut y vehicles as follows: (1) Complete and incomplete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative and refueling emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, instead of the requirements specified in this section, except that incomplete heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart A through model year 2017. (2) Heav y - dut y vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR that run on volatile liquid fuel (such as gasoline or ethanol) or gaseous fuel (such as natural gas or LPG) must meet evaporative emission standards as specified in this section starting in model year 2018. (b ) E mission s tandards
. The evaporative emission standards specified in 40 CFR 86.1813 apply for vehicles subject to standards under this section based on emission measurements using the procedures specified in §1037.530. These standards phase in over model ye ars 2018 through 2022. Count vehicles subject to standards under this section the same as heavy

- dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR to comply with the phase

- in requirements specified in 40 CFR 86.1813. These vehicles may generate and use emissio n credits as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, but only for vehicles that are tested for certification (instead of relying on the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section). ( c ) Compliance demonstration
. You may provide a statement in the application for certification that vehicles comply with evaporative and refueling emission standards instead of submitting test data if you include an engineering anal ys is describing how vehicles include design parameters, equipment, operating controls, or other elements of design that adequatel y demonstrate that vehicles comply with the standards
. We would expect emission control components and sy stems to exhibit a comparable degree of control relative to vehicles that comply based on testing. For example, vehi cles that comply under this paragraph ( c ) should rel y on comparable material specifications to limit fuel permeation, and components should be sized and calibrated to correspond with the appropriate fuel capacities, fuel flow rates, purge strategies, and o ther vehicle operating characteristics. You may alternativel y s how that design parameters are comparable to those for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR certified under 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. ( d) Incomplete vehicles . If you sell incomplete vehicl es, you must identify the maximum fuel tank capacit y for which you designed the vehicle’s evaporative emission control sy stem. (e) Useful life
. Your vehicles must meet the evaporative emission standards of this section throughout their useful life, expres sed in service miles or calendar years, whichever comes first. The useful life values for the standards of this section are those that apply for criteria pollutants under 40 CFR part 86. ( f ) Auxiliary

engines and separate fuel s ys tems . The provisions of th is paragraph (g) apply for vehicles with auxiliary engines. This includes any engines installed in the final vehicle configuration that contribute no motive power through the vehicle’s transmission. (1) Auxiliary

engines and associated fuel

- sy stem compon ents must be installed when testing complete vehicles. If the auxiliary engine draws fuel from a separate fuelPage 7 01 of 888 tank, you must fill the extra fuel tank before the start of diurnal testing as described for the vehicle’s main fuel tank. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that any nonmetal portions of the fuel sy stem related to the auxiliary engine have reached stabilized levels of permeation emissions. The auxiliary engine must not operate during the running loss test or any other portion of testing un der this section. (2) For testing with incomplete vehicles, you may omit installation of auxiliary engines and associated fuel

- sy stem components as long as those components installed in the final configuration are certified to meet the applicable emission standards for Small SIequipment described in 40 CFR 1054.112 or for Large SI engines in 40 CFR 1048.105. For an y fuel

- sy stem components that you do not install, your installation instructions must describe this certification requirement. 172. Section 1037.104 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(2) to read as follows: **§ 1037.104 Exhaust emission standards for CO 2**  **, CH 4**  **, and N 2**  **O for heavy -**  **duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR.**  * * * * * (h) * * * (2) The evaporative and refueling emission standards in §1037.103. * * * * * **Subpart C** 

**— [Amended]**  173. Section 1037.230 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: **§ 1037.230 Vehicle families, sub -**  **families, and configurations.** * * * * * (e) Divide your vehicles that are subject to evaporative emission standards into groups of vehicles with similar physical features expected to affect evaporative emissions. Group vehicles in the same evaporative emission family if they are the same in all the following aspects, unless we approve a be tter way of grouping vehicles into families that have similar emission control characteristics: (1) Method of vapor storage, including the number of vapor storage devices, the working material, and the total working capacity of vapor storage (as determined under 40 CFR 86.132

- 96(h)(1)(iv)). You may consider the working capacity to be the same if the values differ b y 20 grams or less. (2) Method of purging stored vapors. (3) Material for liquid and vapor fuel lines. * * * * * 174. A new §1037.243 is added to subpart C to read as follows: **§1037.243 Demonstrating compliance with evaporative emission standards.** (a) For purposes of certification, your vehicle family is considered in compliance with the evaporative emission standards in subpart B of this part if you prepare an engineering anal ys is showing that your vehicles in the family will comply

with applicable standards throughout the useful life , and there are no test results from an emission

- data vehicle representing the famil y that exceed an e mission standard
. (b) Your evaporative emission family is deemed not to comply if your engineering anal ys is is not adequate to show that all the vehicles in the family will comply

withPage 702 of 888

applicable emission standards throughout the useful life , or if a test result from an emission

- data vehicle representing the famil y exceeds an emission standard
. (c) To compare emission levels with emission standards, appl y deterioration factors to the measured emission levels. Establish an additive deterioration factor b ase d on an engineering anal ys is that takes into account the expected aging from in

- use vehicles. ( d) Appl y the deterioration factor to the official emission result, as described in paragraph (c) of this section, then round the adjusted figure to the same number of decimal places as the emission standard. Compare the rounded emission levels to the emission standard for each emission

- data vehicle. ( e ) Your anal ys is to demonstrate compliance with emission standards must take into account your design strategy for vehicles that require testing
. Specificall y, vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR are presumed to need the same technologies that are required for heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Similarly, your anal ys is to establish a deterioration factor must take into account your testing to establish deterioration factors for smaller vehicles. **Subpart F** 

**— [Amended]**  175. Section 1037.501 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§ 1037.501 General testing and modeling provisions.** * * * * * (a) Use the equipment and procedures specified in §1037.530 to determine whether vehicles meet the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emission standards specified in § 1037.103. * * * * * 176. A new §1037.530 is added to subpart F to read as follows: **§ 1037.530**  **Evaporative emission test procedures .**  Apply the provisions of 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to demonstrate compliance with the diurnal, running loss, and hot soak emission standards as specified in §1037.103, with the following exceptions: (a) U se drive cycles for heavy

- dut y vehicles as follows: (1) The Heavy
- Duty

Urban Dy

namometer Driving Schedule (HD

- UDDS) is specified in 40 CFR part 86, Appendix I , paragraph (d). It represents about 5.6 miles of driving for a heav y - dut y vehicle in an urban area. (2) For the preconditioning drive, operate the vehicle over one HD

- UDDS instead of the drive specified in 40 CFR 86.132. (3) For the dynamometer run preceding the diurnal emission test, operate the vehicle over one HD
- UDDS instead of the FTP driving schedule. (4) For performing the running loss test and developing fuel tank temperature profiles, operate the vehicle over three consecutive HD

- UDDS cycles, each separated by two minutes if idle operation, instead of the driving specified in 40 CFR 86.134. (b) The vehicle may

be driven onto the dy

namometer , as long as the vehicle is driven at minimum throttle and the total time of engine operation in the soak period before the diurnal emission test does not exceed 3 minutes
.Page 703 of 888

(c) Testing under this subpart does not require measurement of exhaust emissions. Disregard references in 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, to procedures, equipment specifications, and recordkeeping related to measuring exhaust emissions. All references to the exhaust test under 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, are considered the “dynamometer run” as part of the evaporative testing sequence under this subpart.
**Part 1065**

**— ENGINE**  **- TESTING PROCEDURES**  177. The authorit y citation for part 1065 continues to read as follows: Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart A**

**— [Amended]**  178. Section 1065.1 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: **§1065.1 Applicability.** * * * * * (h) This part describes procedures and specifications for measuring an engine’s exhaust emissions. While the measurements are geared toward engine

- based measurements (in units of g/kW·hr), man y of these provisions appl y equally to vehicle

- based measurements (in units of g/mile or g/kilometer). 40 CFR part 1066 describes the analogous proced ures for vehicle

- based emission measurements, and in many cases states that specific provisions of this part 1065 also apply for those vehicle

- based measurements. Where material from this part 1065 applies for vehicle

- based measurements under 40 CFR part 1066, it is sometimes necessary to include parenthetical statements in this part 1065 to properl y cite secondary

references that are different for vehicle

- based testing. See 40 CFR part 1066 and the standard

- setting part for additional information. 179. Secti on 1065.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: **§1065.15 Overview of procedures for laboratory and field testing.** * * * * * (a) In the standard

- setting part, we set brake

- specific emission standards in g/(kW·hr) (or g/(hp·hr)), for the following constituents: (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NO x . (2) Hydrocarbons (HC), which may be expressed in the following way s: (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC. (ii) Nonmethane h ydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting methane (CH 4 ) from THC. (iii) Total hydrocarbon

- equivalent, THCE, which results from adjusting THC mathematically

to be equivalent on a carbon

- mass basis. (iv) Nonmethane h ydrocarbon

- equivalent, NMHCE, which results from adjusting NMHC mathematically

to be equivalent on a carbon

- mass basis. (3) Particulate mass, PM. (4) Carbon monoxide, CO. (5) Carbon dioxide, CO 2 . (6) Methane, CH 4 . (7) Nitrous oxide, N 2 O.Page 704 of 888

(b) Note that some engines are not subject to standards for all the emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section. Note also that the standard

- setting part may include standards for pollutants not listed in paragraph (a) of this section. * * * * * 180. Section 1065.20 is amended by italicizing the heading for paragraph (g) and revising paragraphs (a), (b), and ( c) to read as follows: **§1065.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.** (a) Sy stem of units . The procedures in this part generall y follow the International Sy stem of Units (SI), as detailed in NI ST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate by r eference in §1065.1010. The following exceptions apply : (1) We designate angular speed, f n , of an engine’s crankshaft in revolutions per minute (r/min), rather than the SI unit of radians per second (rad/s). This is based on the commonplace use of r/min in many engine dy

namometer laboratories. (2) We designate brake

- specific emissions in grams per kilowatt

- hour (g/(kW ∙hr)), rather than the SIunit of grams per megajoule (g/MJ). In addition, we use the s ymbol hr to identify hour, rather than the SIconvention of using h . This is based on the fact that engines are generall y subject to emission standards expressed in g/kW·hr. If we specify engine standards in grams per horsepower  hour (g/(hp ∙hr)) in the standard

- setting part, convert units as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. (3) We designate temperatures in units of degrees Celsius (°C) unless a calculation requires an absolute temperature. In that case, we designate temperatures in units of Kelvin (K) . For conversion purposes throughout this part, 0 °C equals 273.15 K. Alway s use absolute temperature values for multiplying or dividing by temperature. (b) Concentrations . This part does not rel y on amounts expressed in parts per million. Rather, we e xpress such amounts in the following SIunits: (1) For ideal gases, mol/mol, formerly ppm (volume). (2) For all substances, cm 3 /m 3 , formerly ppm (volume). (3) For all substances, mg/kg, formerl y ppm (mass). (c) Absolute pressure . Measure absolute pressur e directly or calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Alway s use absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure. * * * * * 181. Section 1065.25 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.25 Recordkeeping.** The procedures in this part include various requirements to record data or other information. Refer to the standard

- setting part and §1065.695 regarding recordkeeping requirements. You must promptly send us organi zed, written records in English if we ask for them. We may

review them at an y time. **Subpart B**

**— [Amended]**  182. Section 1065.130 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§1065.130 Engine exhaust.** (a) General . Use the exhaust sy stem installed with the engine or one that represents a ty pical in

- use configuration. This includes any applicable aftertreatment devices. WePage 705 of 888

refer to exhaust piping as an exhaust stack; this is equivalent to a tailpipe for vehicle configurations. * * * * * 183. Section 1065.140 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.140 Dilution for gaseous and PM constituents.** (a) General . You may

dilute exhaust with ambient air, purified air, or nitrogen. References in this part to “dilution air” may include any

of these. For gaseous emission measurement, the dilution air must be at least 15 °C. Note that the composition of the dilution air affects some gaseous emission measurement ins truments’ response to emissions. We recommend diluting exhaust at a location as close as possible to the location where ambient air dilution would occur in use. Dilution may occur in a single stage or in multiple stages. For dilution in multiple stages, the first stage is considered primary dilution and later stages are considered secondary dilution. (b) Dilution

- air conditions and background concentrations . Before dilution air is mixed with exhaust, you may

precondition it by

increasing or decreasing i ts temperature or humidity . You may

also remove constituents to reduce their background concentrations. The following provisions apply to removing constituents or accounting for background concentrations: (1) You may

measure constituent concentrations in the dilution air and compensate for background effects on test results. See §1065.650 for calculations that compensate for background concentrations (40 CFR 1066.620 for vehicle testing). (2) Measure these background concentrations the same way you measure diluted exhaust constituents, or measure them in a way that does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. For example, you may use the following simplifications for background sampling: (i) You may

disregard any proportional sampling requirements. (ii) You may

use unheated gaseous sampling s ys tems. (iii) You may

use unheated PM sampling s ys tems. (iv) You may

use continuous sampling if you use batch sampling for diluted emissions. (v) You may

use batch sampling if you use continuous sampling for diluted emissions. (3) For removing background PM, we recommend that you filter all dilution air, including primary

full

- flow dilution air, with high

- efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters that have an initial minimum col lection efficiency specification of 99.97 % (see §1065.1001 for procedures related to HEPA

- filtration efficiencies). Ensure that HEPA filters are installed properly so that background PM does not leak past the HEPA filters. If you choose to correct for b ackground PM without using HEPA filtration, demonstrate that the background PM in the dilution air contributes less than 50 % to the net PM collected on the sample filter. You may correct net PM without restriction if you use HEPA filtration. (c) Full

- flo w dilution; constant

- volume sampling (CVS) . You may dilute the full flow of raw exhaust in a dilution tunnel that maintains a nominally constant volume flow rate, molar flow rate or mass flow rate of diluted exhaust, as follows: (1) Construction . Use a tunnel with inside surfaces of 300 series stainless steel. Electricall y ground the entire dilution tunnel. We recommend a thin

- walled and insulated dilution tunnel to minimize temperature differences between the wall and the exhaustPage 706 of 888

gases. You may

not us e any

flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of the PM sample probe. You may

use nonconductive flexible tubing downstream of the PM sample probe and upstream of the CVS flow meter; use good engineering judgment to select a tubing material that is not prone to leak s , and configure the tubing to ensure smooth flow at the CVS flow meter. (2) Pressure control . Maintain static pressure at the location where raw exhaust is introduced into the tunnel within ±1.2 kPa of atmospheric pressure. You may u se a booster blower to control this pressure. If you test using more careful pressure control and you show by

engineering anal ys is or by test data that you require this level of control to demonstrate compliance at the applicable standards, we will maintain the same level of static pressure control when we test. (3) Mixing . Introduce raw exhaust into the tunnel by directing it downstream along the centerline of the tunnel. If you dilute directl y from the exhaust stack, the end of the exhaust stack is con sidered to be the start of the dilution tunnel. You may introduce a fraction of dilution air radially from the tunnel’s inner surface to minimize exhaust interaction with the tunnel walls. You may configure the s ys tem with turbulence generators such as o rifice plates or fins to achieve good mixing. We recommend a minimum Rey

nolds number, Re #, of 4000 for the diluted exhaust stream, where Re # is based on the inside diameter of the dilution tunnel. Re # is defined in §1065.640. (4) Flow measurement precond itioning . You may condition the diluted exhaust before measuring its flow rate, as long as this conditioning takes place downstream of any heated HC or PM sample probes, as follows: (i) You may

use flow straighteners, pulsation dampeners, or both of these
. (ii) You may

use a filter. (iii) You may

use a heat exchanger to control the temperature upstream of any flow meter, but you must take steps to prevent aqueous condensation as described in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. (5) Flow measurement . Section 1065.240 describes measurement instruments for diluted exhaust flow. (6) Aqueous condensation . This paragraph (c)(6) describes how you must address aqueous condensation in the CVS. As described below, you may meet these requirements b y preventing or limi ting aqueous condensation in the CVS from the exhaust inlet to the last emission sample probe. See that paragraph for provisions related to the CVS between the last emission sample probe and the CVS flow meter. You may heat and/or insulate the dilution tunnel walls, as well as the bulk stream tubing downstream of the tunnel to prevent or limit aqueous condensation. Where we allow aqueous condensation to occur, use good engineering judgment to ensure that the condensation does not affect your ability to d emonstrate that your engines comply with the applicable standards (see §1065.10(a)). (i) Preventing aqueous condensation . To prevent condensation, you must keep the temperature of internal surfaces, excluding an y s ample probes, above the dew point of the dilute exhaust passing through the CVS tunnel. Use good engineering judgment to monitor temperatures in the CVS. For the purposes of this paragraph (c)(6), assume that aqueous condensation is pure water condensate only , even though the definition of “aqu eous condensation” in §1065.1001 includes condensation of any constituents that contain water. No specific verification check is required under this paragraph (c)(6)(i),Page 707 of 888

but we may

ask you to show how you comply with this requirement. You may use enginee ring anal ys is, CVS tunnel design, alarm systems, measurements of wall temperatures, and calculation of water dew point to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you may use the lowest water temperature at the inlet (s) and outlet(s) to determine the minimum internal surface temperature. (ii) Li miting aqueous condensation
. This paragraph (c)(6)(ii) specifies limits of allowable condensation and requires you to verify that the amount of condensation that occurs duri ng each test interval does not exceed the specified limits. (A) Use chemical balance equations in § 1065.655 to calculate the mole fraction of water in the dilute exhaust continuously during testing. Alternativel y, you may continuously measure the mole fr action of water in the dilute exhaust prior to any condensation during testing. Use good engineering judgment to select, calibrate and verify water anal yz ers/detectors. The linearity verification requirements of §1065.307 do not apply to water anal yz ers/ detectors used to correct for the water content in exhaust samples. (B) Use good engineering judgment to select and monitor locations on the CVS tunnel walls prior to the last emission sample probe. If you are also verifying limited condensation from the last emission sample probe to the CVS flow meter, use good engineering judgment to select and monitor locations on the CVS tunnel walls, optional CVS heat exchanger, and CVS flow meter. For optional CVS heat exchangers, you may use the lowest water tempe rature at the inlet(s) and outlet(s) to determine the minimum internal surface temperature. Identify the minimum surface temperature on a continuous basis. (C) Identify

the maximum potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost on a continuous basis during the entire test interval. This value must be less than or equal to 0.02. Calculate on a continuous basis the mole fraction of water that would be in equilibrium with liquid water at the measured minimum surface temperature. Subtract this mole fracti on from the mole fraction of water that would be in the exhaust without condensation (either measured or from the chemical balance), and set any negative values to zero. This difference is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust that would be lo st due to water condensation on a continuous basis. (D) Integrate the product of the molar flow rate of the dilute exhaust and the potential mole fraction of dilute exhaust lost, and divide by the totalized dilute exhaust molar flow over the test interv al. This is the potential mole fraction of the dilute exhaust that would be lost due to water condensation over the entire test interval. Note that this assumes no re - evaporation. This value must be less than or equal to 0.005. (7) Flow compensation . M aintain nominally constant molar, volumetric or mass flow of diluted exhaust. You may maintain nominally

constant flow by

either maintaining the temperature and pressure at the flow meter or b y directly controlling the flow of diluted exhaust. You may

al so directly

control the flow of proportional samplers to maintain proportional sampling. For an individual test, verify proportional sampling as described in §1065.545. (d) Partial

- flow dilution (PFD) . You may dilute a partial flow of raw or previously d iluted exhaust before measuring emissions. Section 1065.240 describes PFD

- related flow measurement instruments. PFD may consist of constant or varying dilution ratios asPage 708 of 888

described in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section. An example of a constant di lution ratio PFD is a “secondary dilution PM” measurement sy stem. (1) Applicability . (i) You may use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous PM emission sampling over any transient duty

cy cle, an y steady state duty cycl e, or an y ramped

- modal cycle. (ii) You may

use PFD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous gaseous emission sampling over an y transient duty cycle, any

steady

- state duty cycle, or an y ramped

- modal cycle. (iii) You may

use P FD to extract a proportional raw exhaust sample for any batch or continuous field

- testing. (iv)You may

use PFD to extract a proportional diluted exhaust sample from a CVS for any batch or continuous emission sampling. (v) You may

use PFD to extract a const ant raw or diluted exhaust sample for any continuous emission sampling. (vi) You may

use PFD to extract a constant raw or diluted exhaust sample for any steady state emission sampling. (2) Constant dilution

- ratio PFD. Do one of the following for constant dilution

- ratio PFD: (i) Dilute an already proportional flow. For example, you may do this as a way of performing secondary

dilution from a CVS tunnel to achieve overall dilution ratio for PM sampling. (ii) Continuously

measure constituent concentrations. For example, you might dilute to precondition a sample of raw exhaust to control its temperature, humidity , or constituent concentrations upstream of continuous anal yz ers. In this case, you must take into account the dilution ratio before multiplying the continuous concentration by the sampled exhaust flow rate. (iii) Extract a proportional sample from a separate constant dilution ratio PFD s ys tem. For example, you might use a variable

- flow pump to proportionally fill a gaseous storage medium such as a bag from a PFD s ys tem. In this case, the proportional sampling must meet the same specifications as varying dilution ratio PFD in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. (iv) For each mode of a discrete

- mode test (such as a locomotive notch setting or a specifi c setting for speed and torque), use a constant dilution ratio for any PM sampling. You must change the overall PM sampling sy stem dilution ratio between modes so that the dilution ratio on the mode with the highest exhaust flow rate meets §1065.140(e)(2) and the dilution ratios on all other modes is higher than this (minimum) dilution ratio by the ratio of the maximum exhaust flow rate to the exhaust flow rate of the corresponding other mode. This is the same dilution ratio requirement for RMC or field transient testing. You must account for this change in dilution ratio in your emission calculations. (3) Varying dilution

- ratio PFD. All the following provisions apply for varying dilution

ratio PFD: (i) Use a control s ys tem with sensors and actuators that can maintain proportional sampling over intervals as short as 200 ms (i.e., 5 Hz control). (ii) For control input, you may use any sensor output from one or more measurements; for example, intake

- air flow, fuel flow, exhaust flow, engine speed, and intake manifold temperature and pressure. (iii) Account for an y emission transit time in the PFD s ys tem, as necessary
.Page 709 of 888

(iv) You may

use preprogrammed data if they have been determined for the specific test site, duty cycle, and test engine from which you dilute emissions. (v) We recommend that you run practice cycles to meet the verification criteria in §1065.545. Note that you must verify every emission test by

meeting the verification criteria with the data from that specific test. Data from previousl y verifie d practice cycles or other tests may

not be used to verify

a different emission test. (vi) You may

not use a PFD s ys tem that requires preparatory tuning or calibration with a CVS or with the emission results from a CVS. Rather, you must be able to indepen dentl y calibrate the PFD. (e) Dilution air temperature, dilution ratio, residence time, and temperature control of PM samples . Dilute PM samples at least once upstream of transfer lines. You may dilute PM samples upstream of a transfer line using full

- fl ow dilution, or partial

- flow dilution immediately

downstream of a PM probe. In the case of partial

- flow dilution, you may have up to 26 cm of insulated length between the end of the probe and the dilution stage, but we recommend that the length be as shor t as practical. The intent of these specifications is to minimize heat transfer to or from the emission sample before the final stage of dilution , other than the heat you may need to add to prevent aqueous condensation . This is accomplished by initially cooling the sample through dilution. Configure dilution sy stems as follows: (1) Set the dilution air temperature to (25 ±5) °C. Use good engineering judgment to select a location to measure this temperature that is as close as practical upstream of the p oint where dilution air mixes with raw exhaust. (2) For an y PM dilution system (i.e., CVS or PFD), add dilution air to the raw exhaust such that the minimum overall ratio of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust is within the range of (5:1 to 7:1) and is at lea st 2:1 for an y primary dilution stage. Base this minimum value on the maximum engine exhaust flow rate for a given test interval. Either measure the maximum exhaust flow during a practice run of the test interval or estimate it based on good engineering judgment (for example, you might rely on manufacturer

- published literature). (3) Configure an y PM dilution sy stem to have an overall residence time of (1.0 to 5. 5 ) s, as measured from the location of initial dilution air introduction to the location where PM is collected on the sample media. Also configure the sy stem to have a residence time of at least 0.50 s, as measured from the location of final dilution air introduction to the location where PM is collected on the sample media. When determining resid ence times within sampling sy stem volumes, use an assumed flow temperature of 25 °C and pressure of 101.325 kPa. (4) Control sample temperature to a (47 ±5) °C tolerance, as measured anywhere within 20 cm upstream or downstream of the PM storage media (suc h as a filter). Measure this temperature with a bare

- wire junction thermocouple with wires that are (0.500 ±0.025) mm diameter, or with another suitable instrument that has equivalent performance. 184. Section 1065.145 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), ( c), (d), and (e) to read as follows: **§1065.145 Gaseous and PM probes, transfer lines, and sampling system components.** Page 710 of 888

(a) Continuous and batch sampling . Determine the total mass of each constituent with continuous or batch sampling. Both types of samplin g s ys tems have probes, transfer lines, and other sampling sy stem components that are described in this section. * * * * * (c) Gaseous and PM sample probes . A probe is the first fitting in a sampling s ys tem. It protrudes into a raw or diluted exhaust stre am to extract a sample, such that its inside and outside surfaces are in contact with the exhaust. A sample is transported out of a probe into a transfer line, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. The following provisions apply

to sample probes : (1) Probe design and construction . Use sample probes with inside surfaces of 300 series stainless steel or, for raw exhaust sampling, use any nonreactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust temperatures. Locate sample probes where constituent s are mixed to their mean sample concentration. Take into account the mixing of any crankcase emissions that may be routed into the raw exhaust. L ocate each probe to minimize interference with the flow to other probes. We recommend that all probes remai n free from influences of boundary layers, wakes, and eddies

— especially near the outlet of a raw

- exhaust stack where unintended dilution might occur. Make sure that purging or back

- flushing of a probe does not influence another probe during testing. You may use a single probe to extract a sample of more than one constituent as long as the probe meets all the specifications for each constituent. (2) Gaseous sample probes . Use either single

- port or multi

- port probes for sampling gaseous emissions. You may orient these probes in any direction relative to the raw or diluted exhaust flow. For some probes, you must control sample temperatures, as follows: (i) For probes that extract NO x from diluted exhaust, control the probe’s wall temperature to prevent aq

ueous condensation. (ii) For probes that extract hydrocarbons for THC or NMHC anal ys is from the diluted exhaust of compression

- ignition engines, two

- stroke spark

- ignition engines, or four

stroke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW, we recommend heating the probe to minimize hydrocarbon contamination consistent with good engineering judgment. If you routinely fail the contamination check in the 1065.520 pretest check, we recommend heating the probe section to approximately 190 °C to minimize cont amination. (3) PM sample probes . Use PM probes with a single opening at the end. Orient PM probes to face directly

upstream. If you shield a PM probe’s opening with a PM pre

classifier such as a hat, you may not use the preclassifier we specify in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. We recommend sizing the inside diameter of PM probes to approximate isokinetic sampling at the expected mean flow rate. (d) Transfer lines . You may use transfer lines to transport an extracted sample from a probe to an analyz er, storage medium, or dilution sy stem, noting certain restrictions for PM sampling in §1065.140(e). Minimize the length of all transfer lines b y locating anal yz ers, storage media, and dilution sy stems as close to probes as practical. We recommend that you minimize the number of bends in transfer lines and that you maximize the radius of any unavoidable bend. Avoid using 90  elbows, tees, and cross

fittings in transfer lines. Where such connections and fittings are necessary, take steps, using good engi neering judgment, to ensure that you meet the temperature tolerances in this paragraph (d). This may involve measuring temperature at various locations withinPage 711 of 888

transfer lines and fittings. You may use a single transfer line to transport a sample of more than one constituent, as long as the transfer line meets all the specifications for each constituent. The following construction and temperature tolerances appl y t o transfer lines: (1) Gaseous samples . Use transfer lines with inside surfaces of 300 series stainless steel, PTFE, Viton TM , or an y other material that you demonstrate has better properties for emission sampling. For raw exhaust sampling, use a non

- reactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust temperatures. You may use in

- line filters if they

do not react with exhaust constituents and if the filter and its housing meet the same temperature requirements as the transfer lines, as follows: (i) For NO x transfer lines upstream of either an NO 2 - to - NO converter that meets the specifications of § 1065.378 or a chiller that meets the specifications of §1065.376, maintain a sample temperature that prevents aqueous condensation. (ii) For THC transfer lines for testing compression

- ignition engines, two

- stroke spark

ignition engines, or four

- stroke spar k

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW, maintain a wall temperature tolerance throughout the entire line of (191 ±11)  C. If you sample from raw exhaust, you may

connect an unheated, insulated transfer line directl y to a probe. Design the length and insulation of the transfer line to cool the highest expected raw exhaust temperature to no lower than 191  C, as measured at the transfer line’s outlet. For dilute sampling, you may use a transition zone between the probe and transfer line of up to 92 cm to all ow your wall temperature to transition to (191 ±11) °C. (2) PM samples . We recommend heated transfer lines or a heated enclosure to minimize temperature differences between transfer lines and exhaust constituents. Use transfer lines that are inert with r espect to PM and are electricall y conductive on the inside surfaces. We recommend using PM transfer lines made of 300 series stainless steel. Electricall y ground the inside surface of PM transfer lines. (e) Optional sample

- conditioning components for gas eous sampling . You may use the following sample

- conditioning components to prepare gaseous samples for anal ys is, as long as you do not install or use them in a way that adversel y affects your ability to show that your engines compl y with all applicable ga seous emission standards. (1) NO 2 - to - NO converter . You may use an NO 2 - to - NO converter that meets the converter conversion verification specified in §1065.378 at an y point upstream of a NO x anal yz er, sample bag, or other storage medium. (2) Sample dryer . You may use either t ype of sample dryer described in this paragraph (e)(2) to decrease the effects of water on gaseous emission measurements. You may not use a chemical dryer, or use dryers upstream of PM sample filters. (i) Osmotic

- membrane . You may use an osmotic

- membrane dryer upstream of any gaseous anal yz er or storage medium, as long as it meets the temperature specifications in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Because osmotic

- membrane dryers may deteriorate after prolonged exposure to certain exhau st constituents, consult with the membrane manufacturer regarding your application before incorporating an osmotic

- membrane dryer. Monitor the dewpoint, T dew , and absolute pressure, p total , downstream of an osmotic

- membrane dryer. You may use continuousl y recorded values of T dew and p total in the amount of water calculations specified in §1065.645. For our testing we may use average temperature and pressure values over the test interval or a nominal pressure value that we estimate as the dryer’s average pressure expected during testing as constantPage 712 of 888

values in the amount of water calculations specified in §1065.645. For yo ur testing , you may use the maximum temperature or minimum pressure values observed during a test interval or dut y c ycl e or the high alar m temperature setpoint or low alarm pressure setpoint as constant values in the calculations specified in §1065.645. For your testing, yo u may also use a nominal p total , which you may estimate as the dryer’s lowest absolute pressure expected during testin g. (ii) Thermal chiller . You may use a thermal chiller upstream of some gas analyzers and storage media. You may not use a thermal chiller upstream of a THC measurement sy stem for compression

- ignition engines, two

- stroke spark

- ignition engines, or four

s troke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW. If you use a thermal chiller upstream of an NO 2 - to - NO converter or in a sampling s ys tem without an NO 2 - to - NO converter, the chiller must meet the NO 2 loss

- performance check specified in §1065.376. Monitor the dewpoint, T

dew , and absolute pressure, p total , downstream of a thermal chiller. You may use continuously

recorded values of T dew and p total in the amount of water calculations specified in §1065.645. If it is valid to assume the degree of saturation i n the thermal chiller, you may

calculate T

dew based on the known chiller performance and continuous monitoring of chiller temperature, T chiller . If it is valid to assume a constant temperature offset between T

chiller and T

dew , due to a known and fixed amo unt of sample reheat between the chiller outlet and the temperature measurement location, you may factor in this assumed temperature offset value into emission calculations. If we ask for it, you must show by

engineering anal ys is or by data the validity

o f an y assumptions allowed by this paragraph (e)(2)(ii). For our testing we may use average temperature and pressure values over the test interval or a nominal pressure value that we estimate as the dryer’s average pressure expected during testing as const ant values in the calculations specified in §1065.645. For your testing you may use the maximum temperature and minimum pressure values observed during a test interval or duty cycle or the high alarm temperature setpoint and the low alarm pressure setpoint as constant values in the amount of water calculations specified in §1065.645. For your testing you may also use a nominal p total , which you may estimate as the dryer’s lowest absolute pressure expected during testing. (3) Sample pumps . You may use sample pumps upstream of an anal yz er or storage medium for an y gas. Use sample pumps with inside surfaces of 300 series stainless steel, PTFE, or an y other material that you demonstrate has better properties for emission sampling. For some sample pumps, you must control temperatures, as follows: (i) If you use a NO x sample pump upstream of either an NO 2 - to - NO converter that meets §1065.378 or a chiller that meets §1065.376, it must be heated to prevent aqueous condensation. (ii) For testing compression

- ignition engines, 2

- stroke spark

- ignition engines, or four

stroke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW, if you use a THC sample pump upstream of a THC anal yzer or storage medium, its inner surfaces must be heated to a tole rance of (191 ±11)  C. (4) Ammonia Scrubber . You may use ammonia scrubbers for any or all gaseous sampling s ys tems to prevent interference with NH 3 , poisoning of the NO 2 - to - NO converter, and deposits in the sampling s ys tem or anal yz ers. Follow the ammoni a scrubber manufacturer’s recommendations or use good engineering judgment in applying ammonia scrubbers.Page 713 of 888

* * * * * 185. Section 1065.170 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b), and (c)(1)(i) to read as follows: **§1065.170 Batch sampling for gaseous and PM constituents.**  * * * * * (a) * * * (1) Verify proportional sampling after an emission test as described in §1065.545. Use good engineering judgment to select storage media that will not significantly change measured emission levels (either up or down). For example, do not use sample bags for storing emissions if the bags are permeable with respect to emissions or if they off gas emissions to the extent that it affects your ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable gaseous emission standards. As another example, do not use PM filters that irreversibl y absorb or adsorb gases to the extent that it affects your ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable PM emission standard. * * * * * (b) Gaseous sample storage media . Store gas volum es in sufficiently clean containers that minimally

off

- gas or allow permeation of gases. Use good engineering judgment to determine acceptable thresholds of storage media cleanliness and permeation. To clean a container, you may repeatedly purge and evac uate a container and you may heat it. Use a flexible container (such as a bag) within a temperature

- controlled environment, or use a temperature controlled rigid container that is initially evacuated or has a volume that can be displaced, such as a piston and cylinder arrangement. Use containers meeting the specifications in the Table1 of this section, noting that you may request to use other container materials under §1065.10. Sample temperatures must stay within the following ranges for each container m aterial: (1) Up to 40 °C for TedlarTM and Ky narTM
. (2) (191 ±11) °C for TeflonTM and 300 series stainless steel used with measuring THC or NMHC from compression

- ignition engines, two

- stroke spark

- ignition engines, and four

stroke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW. For all other engines and pollutants, these materials are good for sample temperatures up to 202 °C. Table 1 of §1065.170

– Container Materials for Gaseous Batch Sampling
Emissions Engine type Com pression

- ignition Two - stroke spark

- ignition Four
- stroke spark

- ignition at or below 19 kW All other engines CO, CO 2 , O 2 , CH 4 , C 2 H 6 , C 3 H 8 , NO, NO 2 , N 2 O TedlarTM, KynarTM, TeflonTM, or 300 series stainless steel TedlarTM, KynarTM, TeflonTM, or 300 series stainless steel THC, NMHC TeflonTM or 300 series stainless steel TedlarTM, KynarTM, TeflonTM, or 300 series stainless steel (c) * * * (1) * * * (i) If you expect that a filter’s total surface concentration of PM will exceed 400 μg, assuming a 38 mm diameter filter stain area, for a given test interval, you may use filter media with a minimum initial collection efficiency of 98 %; otherwise you mus t use aPage 714 of 888

filter media with a minimum initial collection efficiency of 99.7 %. Collection efficiency must be measured as described in ASTM D2986 (incorporated b y reference in §1065.1010), though you may rel y on the sample

- media manufacturer’s measurements r eflected in their product ratings to show that you meet this requirement. * * * * * **Subpart C**

**— [Amended]**  186. Section 1065.201 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e), and (h) to read as follows: **§1065.201 Overview and general provisions.** * * * * * (b) Instrument t ypes . You may use any of the specified instruments as described in this subpart to perform emission tests. I f you want to use one of these instruments in a way that is not specified in this subpart, or if you want to use a different instrument, you must first get us to approve yo ur alternate procedure under §1065.10. Where we specify more than one instrument for a particular measurement, we may identify which instrument serves as the reference for comparing with an alternate procedure. You m ay generall y use instruments with compensation algorithms that are functions of other gaseous measurements and the engine’s known or assumed fuel properties. The target value for any compensation algorithm is 0 % (that is, no bias high and no bias low), re gardless of the uncompensated signal’s bias. * * * * * (d) Redundant s ys tems . For all measurement instruments described in this subpart, you may use data from multiple instruments to calculate test results for a single test. If you use redundant s ys tems, use good engineering judgment to use multiple measured values in calculations or to disregard individual measurements. Note that you must keep your results from all measurements. This requirement applies whether or not you actuall y use the measurements in your calculations. (e) Range . You may

use an instrument’s response above 100 % of its operating range if this does not affect your ability to show that your engines comply with the applicable emission standards. Note that we require additional testing and reporting if an anal yz er responds above 100 % of its range. Auto

- ranging anal yz ers do not require additional testing or reporting. * * * * * (h) Recommended practices . This subpart identifies a variety of recommended but not required practices for p roper measurements. We believe in most cases it is necessary to follow these recommended practices for accurate and repeatable measurements. However, we do not specifically require you to follow these recommended practices to perform a valid test, as lon g as you meet the required calibrations and verifications of measurement s ys tems specified in subpart D of this part. Similarly , we are not required to follow all recommended practices, as long as we meet the required calibrations and verifications. Our decision to follow or not follow a given recommendation when we perform a test does not depend on whether you followed it during your testing. 187. Section 1065.202 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.202 Data updating, recording, and control.**Page 715 of 888

Your test sy stem must be able to update data, record data and control sy stems related to operator demand, the dyn amometer, sampling equipment, and measurement instruments. Use data acquisition and control sy stems that can record at the specified minimum frequencies , as follows: Table 1 of §1065.202

–Data recording and control minimum frequencies Applicable Test Protocol Section Measured Values Minimum Command and Control Frequency Minimum

Recording Frequency §1065.510 Speed and torque during an engine step

- map 1 Hz 1 mean value per step §1065.510 Speed and torque during an engine sweep

- map 5 Hz 1 Hz means §1065.514 §1065.530 Transient duty cycle reference and feedback speeds

and torques 5 Hz 1 Hz means §1065.514 §1065.530 Steady

- state and ramped

- mo dal duty cycle reference

and feedback speeds and torques 1 Hz 1 Hz §1065.520 §1065.530 §1065.550 Continuous concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers N/A 1 Hz §1065.520 §1065.530 §1065.550 Batch concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers N/A 1 mean value per test interval §1065.530 §1065.545 Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS with a heat

exchanger upstream of the flow measurement N/A 1 Hz §1065.530 §1065.545 Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS without a heat

exchanger upstream of the flow measurement N/A 1 Hz means §1065.530 §1065.545 Intake

- air or raw

- exhaust flow rate N/A 1 Hz means §1065.530 §1065.545 Dilution air if actively controlled 5 Hz 1 Hz means §1065.530 §1065.545 Sam

ple flow from a CVS that has a heat exchanger 1 Hz 1 Hz §1065.530 §1065.545 Sam

ple flow from a CVS does not have a heat exchanger 5 Hz 1 Hz means 188. Section 1065.205 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows: **§1065.205 Performance specifications for measurement instruments.** Your test sy stem as a whole must meet all the calibrations, verifications, and test

validation criteria specified outside of this section for laboratory testing or field testing, as applicable. We recommend that your instruments meet the specifications in Table 1 of this section for all ranges you use for testing. We also recommend that you keep an y documentation you receive from instrument manufacturers showing that your instruments meet the specifications in Table 1 of this section. * * * * * 189. Section 1065.225 is amended by revising par agraph (a) to read as follows: **§1065.225 Intake -**  **air flow meter.** (a) Application . You may use an intake

- air flow meter in combination with a chemical balance of fuel, inlet air, and exhaust to calculate raw exhaust flow as described in §1065.655(e) and (f) , as follows:Page 716 of 888

(1) Use the actual value of calculated raw exhaust in the following cases: (i) For multiplying raw exhaust flow rate with continuously sampled concentrations. (ii) For multiplying total raw exhaust flow with batch

- sampled concentrations. (iii ) For verifying minimum dilution ratio for PM batch sampling as described in §1065.546. (iv) For calculating the dilution air flow for background correction as described in §1065.667. (2) In the following cases, you may use an intake

- air flow meter signal that does not give the actual value of raw exhaust, as long as it is linearl y proportional to the exhaust flow rate’s actual calculated value: (i) For feedback control of a proportional sampling s ys tem, such as a partial

- flow dilution sy stem. (ii) For mult iplying with continuously sampled gas concentrations, if the same signal is used in a chemical

- balance calculation to determine work from brake

- specific fuel consumption and fuel consumed. * * * * * 190. Section 1065.230 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§1065.230 Raw exhaust flow meter.** * * * * * (d) Exhaust cooling . You may cool raw exhaust upstream of a raw

- exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following provisions: (1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling. (2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 °C to decrease to below 180 °C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the cooling for compression

- ignition engines, two

stroke spark

- ignition engines, or four

- stroke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW. (3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensation. 191. Section 1065.240 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§1065.240 Dilution air and diluted exhaust flow meters.** * * * * * (d) Exhaust cooling . You may cool diluted exhaust upstream of a dilute - exhaust flow meter, as long as you observe all the following provisions: (1) Do not sample PM downstream of the cooling. (2) If cooling causes exhaust temperatures above 202 °C to decrease to below 180 °C, do not sample NMHC downstream of the cooling f or compression

- ignition engines, two

stroke spark

- ignition engines, or four

- stroke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW. (3) The cooling must not cause aqueous condensationas described in §1065.140(c)(6). 192. Section 1065.250 is amended by revising paragr aph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.250 Nondispersive infrared analyzer.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use an NDIR anal yzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that your NDIR
- based s ys tem must meet the calibration and verifications in §§1065.350 and 1065.355 and it must also meet the linearity

verification in §1065.307.Page 717 of 888 HYDROCARBON MEASUREMENTS 193. Section 1065.260 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) to read as follows: **§1065.260 Flame -**  **ioni zation detector.**  * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a FID anal yz er that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that your FID

- based s ys tem for measuring THC, THCE, or CH 4 must meet all the verifications for h ydrocarbon measurement in subpart D of this part, and it must also meet the linearity verification in §1065.307. (c) Heated FID anal yz ers . For measuring THC or THCE from compression

- ignition engines, two

- stroke spark

- ignition engines, and four

- stroke spark

- ignition engines at or below 19 kW, you must use heated FID anal yz ers that maintain all surfaces that are exposed to emissions at a temperature of (191 ±11) °C. * * * * * (e) NMHC and NMOG . For demonstrating compliance with NMHC standards, you may either measure THC and CH 4 and determine NMHC as described in §1065.660(b)(2) or (3), or you may measure THC and determine NMHC mass as described in §1065.660(b)(1). See 40 CFR 1066.665 for methods to demonstrate compliance with NMOG standards for vehicle testin g. (f) CH 4 . For reporting CH 4 or for demonstrating compliance with CH 4 standards, you may use a FID anal yz er with a nonmethane cutter as described in §1065.265 or you may use a GC
- FID as described in §1065.267. Determine CH 4 as described in §1065.660(c). 194. Section 1065.267 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.267 Gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a GC
- FI D that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205 and that the measurement be done according to SAE J1151 (incorporated by reference in §1065.1010). The GC

- FID must meet the linearity verification in §1065.307. 195. A new §1065.269 is added to subpart C to read as follows: **§1065.269 Photoacoustic analyzer for methanol and ethanol.**  (a) Application . You may use a photoacoustic analy zer to measure ethanol and/or methanol concentrations in diluted exhaust for batch sampling. (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a photoacoustic anal y zer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that your photoacoustic sy stem must meet the calibration and verifications in §1065.369 and it must also meet the linearity verification in §1065.307. Use an optical wheel configuration that gives anal yt ical priorit y to measurement of the least stable components in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds. Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when determining flush times for your instrument. NO x AND N 2 O MEASUREMENTSPage 718 of 888

196. Section 1065.270 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.270 Chemiluminescent detector.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a CLD that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065. 205. Note that your CLD
- based s ys tem must meet the quench verification in §1065.370 and it must also meet the linearit y verification in §1065.307. You may

use a heated or unheated CLD, and you may use a CLD that operates at atmospheric pressure or under a vacuum. * * * * * 197. Section 1065.272 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.272 Nondispersive ultraviolet analyzer.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use an NDUV analyzer that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that your NDUV
- based sy stem must meet the verifications in §1065.372 and it must also meet the linearity verification in §1065.307. * * * * * 198. Section 1065.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.275 N**  **2 O measurement devices.**  * * * * * (b) Instrument t ypes . You may use any of the following anal yz ers to measure N 2 O: (1) Nondispersive infrared (NDIR) anal yz er. (2) Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) anal yz er. Use appropriate anal yt ical procedures for inte rpretation of infrared spectra. For example, EPA Test Method 320 is considered a valid method for spectral interpretation (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method320.html). (3) Laser infrared anal yz er. Examples of laser infrared anal yz ers are pulse d

- mode high

resolution narrow band mid

- infrared anal yz ers, and modulated continuous wave high

resolution narrow band mid

- infrared anal yz ers. (4) Photoacoustic anal yz er. Use an optical wheel configuration that gives analy tical priority to measurement of th e least stable components in the sample. Select a sample integration time of at least 5 seconds. Take into account sample chamber and sample line volumes when determining flush times for your instrument. (5) Gas chromatograph analyzer. You may use a gas chromatograph with an electron

capture detector (GC

- ECD) to measure N 2 O concentrations of diluted exhaust for batch sampling. (i)You may

use a packed or porous layer open tubular (PLOT) column phase of suitable polarity and length to achieve adequate resolution of the N 2 O peak for analysis. Examples of acceptable columns are a PLOT column consisting of bonded poly st yrene divinylbenzene or a Porapack Q packed column. Take the column temperature profile and carrier gas selection into consideration when sett ing up your method to achieve adequate N 2 O peak resolution.Page 719 of 888

(ii) Use good engineering judgment to zero your instrument and correct for drift. You do not need to follow the specific procedures in §§1065.530 and 1065.550(b) that would otherwise appl y. For example, you may perform a span gas measurement before and after sample anal ys is without zeroing and use the average area counts of the pre

- span and post - span measurements to generate a response factor (area counts/span gas concentration), which yo u then multiply by the area counts from your sample to generate the sample concentration. * * * * * O 2 MEASUREMENTS 199. Section 1065.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.280 Paramagnetic and magnetopneumatic O 2**  **detection analyzers.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a PMD or MPD anal yz er that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that it must meet the linearity verification in §1065.307.

AIR
- TO
- FUEL RATIO MEASUREMENTS 200. Section 1065.284 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.284 Zirconia (ZrO 2**  **) analyzer.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a ZrO 2 anal yz er that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that your ZrO 2 - based s ys tem must meet the linearity

verification in §1065.307. PM MEASUREMENTS 201. Section 1065.295 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.295 PM inertial balance for field -**  **testing analysis.** * * * * * (b) Component requirements . We recommend that you use a balance that meets the specifications in Table 1 of §1065.205. Note that your balance

- based s ys tem must meet the linearity

verification in §1065.307. If the balance uses an internal calibration process for routine spanning and linearity v erifications, the process must be NI ST
- traceable. * * * * * **Subpart D**

**— [Amended]**  202. Section 1065.303 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.303 Summary of required calibration and verifications.** The following table summarizes the required and recommended cal ibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates when these have to be performed: Table 1 of §1065.303

– Summary of required calibration and verifications. Type of calibration or verification Minimum frequency 1 §1065.305: Accuracy, repeatability and noise Accuracy: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.Page 720 of 888 Repeatability: Not required, but recommended for initial installation. Noise: Not required, but recommended for initial installation.

§1065.307: Linearity verificati on Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. Torque: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. Electrical power, current, and voltage: Upon initial installatio n, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. 2 Fuel flow rate: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. Intake

- air, dilution air, diluted exhaust, and batch sampler flow rates: Upon initial in stallation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance. Raw exhaust flow rate: Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing and after major maintenance, unless flow is verified by propane check or by carbon or oxygen balance. Gas dividers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. Gas analyzers (unless otherwise noted): Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing and after major maintenance. FTIR and photoacoustic analyzers: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. GC
- ECD: Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. PM balance: Upon initial ins tallation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing and after major maintenance. §1065.308: Continuous gas analyzer system response and updating

- recording verification

— for gas analyzers not continuously compensated for other gas species Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. §1065.309: Continuous gas analyzer system

response and updating

- recordi ng verification

— for gas analyzers continuously compensated for other gas species Upon initial installation or after system modification that would affect response. §1065.310: Torque Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.315: Pressure, temperature, dewpoint Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.320: Fuel flow Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.325: Intake flow Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.330: Exhaust flow Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.340: Diluted exhaust flow (CVS) Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.341: CVS and batch sampler verification 3 Upon initial installation, within 35 days before test ing, and after major maintenance. § 1065.342 Sample dryer verification For thermal chillers: upon installation and after major maintenance. For osmotic membranes; upon installation, within 35 days of testing, and after major maintenance.
§1065.345: Vacuum leak For laboratory testing: upon initial installation of the sampling sy stem, within 8 hours before the start of the first test interval of each duty

- cycle sequence, and after maintenance such as pre

- filter changes. For field testing: after each installation of the sampling system on the vehicle, prior to the start of the field test, and after maintenance such as pre

- filter changes. §1065.350: CO 2 NDIR H 2 O interference Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.355: CO NDIR CO 2 and H 2 O interference Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.360: FID calibration THC FID optimization, and THC FID verification Calibrate all FID analyzers: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. Optimize and determine CH 4 r esponse for THC FID analyzers:Page 721 of 888 upon initial installation and after major maintenance. Verify CH 4 response for THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1065.362: Raw exhaust FID O 2 interference For all FID analyzers: upon initial installation, and after major maintenance. For THC FID analyzers: upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and after FID optimization according to §1065.360. §1065.365: Nonmethane cutter penetration Upon initial installation, within 185 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1065.369: H 2 O, CO, and CO 2 interference verification for ethanol photoacoustic analyzers Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.370 : CLD CO 2 and H 2 O quench Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.372: NDUV HC and H 2 O interference Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.375: N 2 O analyzer interference Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.376: Chiller NO 2 penetration Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1065.378: NO 2 - to - NO converter conversion Upon initial installation, within 35 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1065.390: PM balance and weighing Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. Zero, span, and reference sample verifications: within 12 hours of weighing, and after major maintenance. §1065.395: Ine rtial PM balance and weighing Independent verification: upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. Other verifications: upon initial installation and after major maintenance. 1 Perform calibrations and verifications more frequently than we specify, according to measurement system manufacturer instructions and good engineering judgment. 2 Perform linearity verification either for electrical power or for current and voltage. 3 The CVS verification described in §1065 .341 is not required for systems that agree within ±2 % based on a chemical balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and diluted exhaust. 203. Section 1065.305 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(10)(i) to read as follows: **§1065.305 Verifications for accuracy, repeatability, and noise.**  * * * * * (d) * * * (10) * * * (i) Your measurement s ystems meet all the other required calibration, verification, and validation specifications that apply as specified in the regulations. * * * * * 204. Section 1065. 307 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.307 Linearity verification.** (a) Scope and frequency . Perform linearit y verification on each measurement sy stem listed in Table 1 of this section at least as frequently as indicated in Table 1 of §1065.303, consiste nt with measurement sy stem manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering judgment. The intent of linearity verification is to determine that a measurement s ys tem responds accuratel y and proportionally over the measurement range of interest. Lineari ty

verification generally

consists of introducing a series of at least 10 reference values to a measurement s ys tem. The measurement sy stem quantifies each reference value. The measured values are then collectively compared to the reference values by usin g a least

- squares linear regression and the linearity criteria specified in Table 1 of this section.Page 722 of 88 8

(b) Performance requirements . I f a measurement sy stem does not meet the applicable linearity criteria referenced in Table 1 of this section, correct the d eficiency by re calibrating, servicing, or replacing components as needed. Repeat the linearity verification after correcting the deficiency to ensure that the measurement sy stem meets the linearity

criteria. Before you may use a measurement s ys tem that does not meet linearity criteria, you must demonstrate to us that the deficiency does not adversel y affect yo ur ability

to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. (c) Procedure . Use the following linearit y verification protocol, or use good e ngineering judgment to develop a different protocol that satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of this section: (1) In this paragraph (c), the letter “y” denotes a generic measured quantity, the superscript over

- bar denotes an arithmetic mean (such as y ), and the subscript “ ref ” denotes the known or reference quantit y being measured. (2) Use good engineering judgment to operate a measurement sy stem at normal operating conditions. This may

include any specified adjustment or periodic calibration of the measurement s ys tem. (3) If applicable, zero the instrument as you would before an emission test by introducing a zero signal. Depending on the instrument, this may be a zero

- concentration gas, a referenc e signal, a set of reference thermody namic conditions, or some combination of these. For gas analyzers, use a zero gas that meets the specifications of §1065.750 and introduce it directl y at the anal yz er port. (4) If applicable, span the instrument as you would before an emission test by introducing a span signal. Depending on the instrument, this may be a span

- concentration gas, a reference signal, a set of reference thermodyn amic conditions, or some combination of these. For gas analyzers, use a span g as that meets the specifications of §1065.750 and introduce it directl y at the anal yz er port. (5) If applicable, after spanning the instrument, check zero with the same signal you used in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. Based on the zero reading, use go od engineering judgment to determine whether or not to rezero and or re

- span the instrument before continuing. (6) For all measured quantities, use the instrument manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference values, yref i , that cover a range of values that you expect would prevent extrapolation beyond these values during emission testing. We recommend selecting a zero reference signal as one of the reference values for the linearity verification. For pressure, temperature, dewpoint, power, current, voltage, photoacoustic anal yz ers, and GC

- ECD linearit y verifications, we recommend at least three reference values. For all other linearity verifications select at least ten reference values. (7) Use the instrument manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering judgment to select the order in which you will introduce the series of reference values. For example, you may

select the reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous measurements and to avoid hy steresis; you may select reference values in ascending or descending order to avoid long settling times of reference signals; or you may select values to ascend and then descend to incorporate the effects of any instrument hy steresis into the linearity verification.Page 723 of 888

(8) Generate reference quantities as described in paragraph (d) of this section. For gas anal yz ers, use gas concentrations known to be within the specifications of §1065.750 and introduce them directly

at the anal yz er port. (9) Introduce a reference signal to the measurement instrument. (10) Allow time for the instrument to stabilize while it measures the value at the reference condition. Stabilization time may include time to purge an instrument and time to account for its response. (11 ) At a recording frequency of at least f Hz, specified in Table 1 of §1065.205, measure the value at the reference condition for 30 seconds (you may select a longer sampling period if the recording update frequency is less than 0.5 Hz) and record the arithmetic mean of the recorded values, i y . Refer to §1065.602 for an example of calculating an arithmetic mean. (12) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(9) though (11) of this section until measurements are complete at each of the reference conditions. (13) Use the arithmetic means, i y , and reference values, yrefi , to calculate least

- squares linear regression parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Use the calculations described in §1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e.( yrefi , i y )), in the linear regression calculations. (d) Reference signals . This paragraph (d) describes recommended methods for generating reference values for the linearity

- verification protocol in paragraph (c) of this section. Use reference values that simulate actual values, or introduce an actual value and measure it with a ref

erence - measurement sy stem. In the latter case, the reference value is the value reported by the reference

- measurement s ys tem. Reference values and reference

- measurement sy stems must be NIST

- traceable. We recommend using calibration reference quantities that are NIST

- traceable within 0.5 % uncertainty , if not specified elsewhere in this part 1065. Use the following recommended methods to generate reference values or use good engineering judgment to select a different reference: (1) Speed . Run the engine or d ynamometer at a series of steady - state speeds and use a strobe, photo tachometer, or laser tachometer to record reference speeds. (2) Torque . Use a series of calibration weights and a calibration lever arm to simulate engine torque. You may

instead use the engine or dy namometer itself to generate a nominal torque that is measured b y a reference load cell or proving ring in series with the torque - measurement s ys tem. In this case, use the reference load cell measurement as the reference value. Refer to §1065.310 for a torque

- calibration procedure similar to the linearity verification in this section. (3) Electrical power, current, and voltage
. You must perform linearit y verification for either electrical power, or for current and voltage. Perform li nearit y verifications using a reference meter and controlled sources of current and voltage. We recommend using a complete calibration sy stem that is suitable for the electrical power distribution industry
. (4) Fuel rate . Operate the engine at a series o f constant fuel

- flow rates or re

- circulate fuel back to a tank through the fuel flow meter at different flow rates. Use a gravimetric reference measurement (such as a scale, balance, or mass comparator) at the inlet to the fuel

- measurement s ys tem. Use a stopwatch or timer to measure the time intervals overPage 724 of 888

which reference masses of fuel are introduced to the fuel measurement s ys tem. The reference fuel mass divided by the time interval is the reference fuel flow rate. (5) Flow rates

—inlet air, dilution ai r, diluted exhaust, raw exhaust, or sample flow . Use a reference flow meter with a blower or pump to simulate flow rates. Use a restrictor, diverter valve, a variable

- speed blower or a variable

- speed pump to control the range of flow rates. Use the refe rence meter’s response as the reference values. (i) Reference flow meters . Because the flow range requirements for these various flows are large, we allow a variety of reference meters. For example, for diluted exhaust flow for a full

- flow dilution syste m, we recommend a reference subsonic venturi flow meter with a restrictor valve and a blower to simulate flow rates. For inlet air, dilution air, diluted exhaust for partial

- flow dilution, raw exhaust, or sample flow, we allow reference meters such as cri tical flow orifices, critical flow venturis, laminar flow elements, master mass flow standards, or Roots meters. Make sure the reference meter is calibrated by the flow

- meter manufacturer and its calibration is NI ST
- traceable. If you use the difference o f two flow measurements to determine a net flow rate, you may use one of the measurements as a reference for the other. (ii) Reference flow values . Because the reference flow is not absolutely constant, sample and record values of refi

n  for 30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, ref n  , as the reference value. Refer to §1065.602 for an example of calculating arithmetic mean. (6) Gas division . Use one of the two reference signals: (i) At the outlet o f the gas

- division sy stem, connect a gas analyzer that meets the linearit y verification described in this section and has not been linearized with the gas divider being verified. For example, verify the linearity

of an anal yz er using a series of reference anal yt ical gases directl y from compressed gas cylinders that meet the specifications of §1065.750. We recommend using a FID anal yz er or a PMD or MPD O 2 analyzer because of their inherent linearity . Operate this analyzer consistent with how you would ope rate it during an emission test. Connect a span gas to the gas

- divider inlet. Use the gas - division sy stem to divide the span gas with purified air or nitrogen. Select gas divisions that you t ypically use. Use a selected gas division as the measured value. Use the anal yz er response divided by the span gas concentration as the reference gas

- division value. Because the instrument response is not absolutely constant, sample and record values of xrefi for 30 seconds and use the arithmetic mean of the values, ref x , as the reference value. Refer to §1065.602 for an example of calculating arithmetic mean. (ii) Using good engineering judgment and the gas divider manufacturer’s recomm endations, use one or more reference flow meters to measure the flow rates of the gas divider and verify

the gas

- division value. (7) Continuous constituent concentration . For reference values, use a series of gas cylinders of known gas concentration or us e a gas - division sy stem that is known to be linear with a span gas. Gas cylinders, gas

- division sy stems, and span gases that you use for reference values must meet the specifications of §1065.750. (8) Temperature. You may perform the linearit y verificati on for temperature measurement s ys tems with thermocouples, RTDs, and thermistors by removing the sensor from the s ys tem and using a simulator in its place. Use a NIST

- traceable simulator that is independently calibrated and, as appropriate, cold

- junction

compensated. The simulator uncertainty scaled to absolute temperature must be less thanPage 725 of 888

0.5 % of T

max . If you use this option, you must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than 0.5 % of T max compared with their standard calibratio n curve. (9) Mass . For linearit y verification for gravimetric PM balances, use external calibration weights that that meet the requirements in §1065.790. (e) Measurement s ys tems that require linearity verification . Table 1 of this section indicates measurement sy stems that require linearity verification, subject to the following provisions: (1) Perform linearit y verification more frequentl y based on the instrument manufacturer’s recommendation or good engineering judgment. (2) The expression “

xmin ” refers to the reference value used during linearity verification that is closest to zero. This is the value used to calculate the first tolerance in Table 1 of this section using the intercept, a 0 . Note that this value may be zero, positive, or negative depend ing on the reference values. For example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure transducer vary from

- 10 to
- 1 kPa, xmin is

- 1 kPa. If the reference values used to validate a temperature device vary from 290 to 390 K, xmin is 290 K. (3) T he expression “max” generally refers to the absolute value of the reference value used during linearit y verification that is furthest from zero. This is the value used to scale the first and third tolerances in Table 1 of this section using a 0 and SEE . For example, if the reference values chosen to validate a pressure transducer vary from

- 10 to
- 1 kPa, then p max is +10 kPa. If the reference values used to validate a temperature device vary from 290 to 390 K, then T max is 390 K . For gas dividers whe re “max” is expressed as, xmax/ x span ; xmax is the maximum gas concentration used during the verification, x span is the undivided, undiluted, span gas concentration, and the resulting ratio is the maximum divider point reference value used during the verifi cation (ty pically 1). The following are special cases where “max” refers to a different value: (i) For linearit y verification with a PM balance, m max refers to the t ypical mass of a PM filter. (ii) For linearity

verification of torque on the engine’s primary output shaft, T

max refers to the manufacturer’s specified engine torque peak value of the lowest torque engine to be tested. (4) The specified ranges are inclusive. For example, a specified range of 0.98

- 1.02 for a 1 means 0.98  a 1  1.02. (5) L inearity

verification is optional for sy stems that pass the flow

- rate verification for diluted exhaust as described in §1065.341 (the propane check) or for s ys tems that agree within ±2 % based on a chemica l balance of carbon or oxygen of the intake air, fuel, and exhaust. (6) You must meet the a 1 criteria for these quantities only if the absolute value of the quantity is required, as opposed to a signal that is only linearl y proportional to the actual value
. (7) L inearity

verification is required for the following temperature measurements: (i) The following temperature measurements always require linearity verification: (A) Air intake. (B) Aftertreatment bed(s), for engines tested with aftertreatment devices subject to cold

start testing. (C) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double

- dilution, and partial

- flow sy stems.Page 726 of 888

(D) PM sample. (E) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling s ys tems that use thermal chillers to dry samples and use chiller temperature to calculate the dewpoint at the outlet of the chiller. For your testing, if you choose to use a high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to verify the accuracy

of the high alarm temperature setpoint instead of linearity verification on the chiller temperature. To verify that the alarm trip point value is no less than 2.0 °C below the reference value at the trip point , we recommend that you input a reference simulated temperature signal below the alarm trip point and increase this signal until the high alarm trips. (ii) L inearit y verification is required for the following temperature measurements if these temper ature measurements are specified by the engine manufacturer: (A) Fuel inlet. (B) Air outlet to the test cell’s charge air cooler air outlet, for engines tested with a laboratory

heat exchanger that simulates an installed charge air cooler. (C) Coolant inle t to the test cell’s charge air cooler, for engines tested with a laboratory heat exchanger that simulates an installed charge air cooler. (D) Oil in the sump/pan. (E) Coolant before the thermostat, for liquid

- cooled engines. (8) L inearity

verification is required for the following pressure measurements: (i) The following pressure measurements alway s require linearity verification: (A) Air intake restriction. (B) Exhaust back pressure. (C) Barometer. (D) CVS inlet gage pressure. (E) Sample dryer, for gaseou s sampling s ys tems that use either osmotic

- membrane or thermal chillers to dry

samples. For your testing, if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the emission sample, you may use good engineering judgment to verify

the accuracy

of the low alarm pressure setpoint instead of linearit y verification on the sample dryer pressure. To verify that the trip point value is no more than 4.0 kPa above the refe rence value at the trip point, we recommend that you input a reference pressure signal above the alarm trip point and decrease this signal until the low alarm trips. (ii) L inearit y verification is required for the following pressure measurements if these p ressure measurements are specified b y the engine manufacturer: (A) The test cell’s charge air cooler and interconnecting pipe pressure drop, for turbo

charged engines tested with a laboratory heat exchanger that simulates an installed charge air cooler. (B) Fuel outlet.Page 727 of 888

Table 1 of §1065.307

–Measurement sy stems that require linearity verification. Measurement system Quantity Linearity criteria | x min ( a 1 - 1)+ a 0 | a 1 SEE r 2 Speed f n ≤ 0.05 % ∙ nmax

f 0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ nmax f ≥ 0.990 Torque T ≤ 1 % ∙ max T 0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max T ≥ 0.990 Electrical power P ≤ 1 % ∙ max P 0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max P ≥ 0.990 Current I ≤ 1 % ∙ max I 0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max I ≥ 0.990 Voltage U ≤ 1 % ∙ max U 0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max U ≥ 0.990 Fuel flow rate m  ≤ 1 % ∙ ma x

m  0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ ma x m  ≥ 0.990 Intake

- air flow rate 1 n  ≤ 1 % ∙ max

n  0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max n  ≥ 0.990 Dilution air flow rate 1 n  ≤ 1 % ∙ max

n  0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max n  ≥ 0.990 Diluted exhaust flow rate 1 n  ≤ 1 % ∙ max

n  0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max n  ≥ 0.990 Raw exhaust flow rate 1 n  ≤ 1 % ∙ max

n  0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max n  ≥ 0.990 Batch sampler flow rates 1 n  ≤ 1 % ∙ max

n  0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ max n  ≥ 0.990 Gas dividers x/x span ≤ 0.5 % ∙ xmax /x span 0.98
- 1.02 ≤ 2 % ∙ xmax /x span ≥ 0.990 Gas analyzers for laboratory testing x ≤ 0.5 % ∙ max x 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 1 % ∙ max x ≥ 0.998 Gas analyzers for field testing x ≤ 1 % ∙ max x 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 1 % ∙ max x ≥ 0.998 PM balance m ≤ 1 % ∙ ma x m 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 1 % ∙ ma x m ≥ 0.998 Pressures p ≤ 1 % ∙ max p 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 1 % ∙ max p ≥ 0.998 Dew point for intake air, PM

stabilization and balance environments T dew ≤ 0.5 % ∙

dewmax T 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 0.5 %

∙ dewmax T ≥ 0.998
Other dew

point measurements T dew ≤ 1 % ∙ dewmax

T 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 1 % ∙ dewmax T ≥ 0.998 Analog

- to - digital conversion of tem perature signals T ≤ 1 % ∙ max T 0.99
- 1.01 ≤ 1 % ∙ max T ≥ 0.998
1 For flow meters that determine volumetric flow rate, std V  , you may substitute std V  for n  as the quantity and substitute stdmax

V  for max

n 
. 205. Section 1065.308 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: **§1065.308 Continuous gas analyzer system -**  **response and updating -**  **recording verification** 

**— for gas analyzers not continuously compensated for other gas species**  **.** * * * * * (d) Procedure . Use the following procedure to verify the response of each co ntinuous gas anal yz er: (1) Instrument setup . Follow the anal yz er manufacturer’s start

- up and operating instructions. Adjust the measurement s ys tem as needed to optimize performance. RunPage 728 of 888

this verification with the anal yz er operating in the same manner yo u will use for emission testing. If the anal yz er shares its sampling s ys tem with other anal yz ers, and if gas flow to the other anal yz ers will affect the s ys tem response time, then start up and operate the other anal yz ers while running this verification te st. You may run this verification test on multiple analy

zers sharing the same sampling s ys tem at the same time. If you use an y analog or real

- time digital filters during emission testing, you must operate those filters in the same manner during this veri fication. (2) Equipment setup . We recommend using minimal lengths of gas transfer lines between all connections and fast

- acting three

- way valves (2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases to the sample sy stem’s probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the probe. If yo u inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you may correct the transformation time, t50 , for an estimate of the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas flow rate is higher than the sample flow rate and the excess is overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to account for the dilution from ambient air dr awn into the probe. We recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being measured. You may use binary

or multi

- gas span gases. You may use a gas blending or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or mixing device is recommended when blending span gases diluted in N 2 with span gases diluted in air. You may use a multi

- gas span gas, such as NO

- CO
- CO 2 - C 3 H 8 - CH 4 , to verify multiple anal yz ers at the same time. If you use standard binary span gases, you must run separate response tests for each anal yz er. In designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to stopping the flow through the gas

- blending device. The change in gas concentration must be at l east 20 % of the analyzer's range. (3) Data collection . (i) Start the flow of zero gas. (ii) Allow for stabilization, accounting for transport delay s and the slowest anal yz er’s full response. (iii) Start recording data. For this verification you must reco rd data at a frequency greater than or equal to that of the updating

- recording frequency used during emission testing. You may not use interpolation or filtering to alter the recorded values. (iv) Switch the flow to allow the blended span gases to flow to the anal yz er. If you intend to use the data from this test to determine t50 for time alignment, record this time as t0 . (v) Allow for transport delay s and the slowest analy zer’s full response. (vi) Switch the flow to allow zero gas to flow to the anal yz e r. If you intend to use the data from this test to determine t50 for time alignment, record this time as t 100 . (vii) Allow for transport delay s and the slowest analyzer’s full response. (viii) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(3)(iv) through (vii) of thi s section to record seven full cycles, ending with zero gas flowing to the analyzers. (ix) Stop recording. * * * * * (g) Optional procedure . Instead of using a three

- way valve to switch between zero and span gases, you may use a fast

- acting two

- way valve to switch sampling between ambient air and span gas at the probe inlet. For this alternate procedure, the following provisions apply :Page 729 of 888

(1) If your probe is sampling from a continuously flowing gas stream (such as a CVS tunnel), you may

adjust the span gas flow rate to be different than the sample flow rate. (2) If your probe is sampling from a gas stream that is not continuously flowing (such as a raw exhaust stack), you must adjust the span gas flow rate to be less than the sample flow rate so ambient air is alway s drawn into the probe inlet. This avoids errors associated with overflowing span gas out of the probe inlet and drawing the span gas back in when sampling ambient air. (3) When sampling ambient air with or without span gas, all the analyzer readings must be stable within ±0.5 % of the target gas concentration step size . If an y analy zer reading is outside the specified range, you must resolve the problem and verify that all the anal yz er readings meet this specification. (4) For ox ygen anal yz ers, you may use purified N 2 as the zero gas and ambient air (plus purified N 2 if needed) as the reference gas. Perform the verification with seven repeat measurements that each consi st of stabilizing with purified N 2 , switching to ambient air and observing the anal yz er’s response rise and stabilized reading, followed by switching back to purified N 2 and observing the anal yz er’s response fall and stabilized reading. 206. Section 1065.309 i s amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2) and adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows: **§1065.309 Continuous gas analyzer system -**  **response and updating -**  **recording verification** 

**— for gas analyzers continuously compensated for other gas species.**  (a) Scope and frequency . This section describes a verification procedure for sy stem response and updating

- recording frequency for continuous gas analyzers that output a single gas species mole fraction (i.e., concentration) based on a continuous combination of multiple gas species measured with multiple detectors (i.e., gas anal yz ers continuously compensated for other gas species). See §1065.308 for verification procedures that appl y to continuous gas anal yz ers that are not continuously compensated for othe r gas species or that use only

one detector for gaseous species. Perform this verification to determine the sy stem response of the continuous gas anal yz er and its sampling s ys tem. This verification is required for continuous gas anal yz ers used for transi ent or ramped

- modal testing. You need not perform this verification for batch gas anal yz ers or for continuous gas anal yz ers that are used only for discrete

- mode testing. For this check we consider water vapor a gaseous constituent. This verification doe s not apply to an y processing of individual analyzer signals that are time

- aligned to their t 50 times and were verified according to §1065.308. For example, this verification does not apply to correction for water removed from the sample done in post

- processing according to §1065.659 (40 CFR 1066.640 for vehicle testing) and it does not appl y to NM HC determination from THC and CH 4 according to §1065.660. Perform this verification after initial installation (i.e., test cell commissioning) and after an y modifications to the sy stem that would change the sy stem response
. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Equipme nt setup . We recommend using minimal lengths of gas transfer lines between all connections and fast

- acting three

- way valves (2 inlets, 1 outlet) to control the flow of zero and blended span gases to the sample sy stem’s probe inlet or a tee near the outlet of the probe. If yo u inject the gas at a tee near the outlet of the probe, you mayPage 730 of 888

correct the transformation time, t50 , for an estimate of the transport time from the probe inlet to the tee. Normally the gas flow rate is higher than the sample flow rat e and the excess is overflowed out the inlet of the probe. If the gas flow rate is lower than the sample flow rate, the gas concentrations must be adjusted to account for the dilution from ambient air drawn into the probe. We recommend you use the final, stabilized analyzer reading as the final gas concentration. Select span gases for the species being continuously

combined, other than H 2 O. Select concentrations of compensating species that will yield concentrations of these species at the anal yz er inl et that covers the range of concentrations expected during testing. You may use binary

or multi

- gas span gases. You may use a gas blending or mixing device to blend span gases. A gas blending or mixing device is recommended when blending span gases diluted in N 2 with span gases diluted in air. You may

use a multi

- gas span gas, such as NO
- CO
- CO 2 - C 3 H 8 - CH 4 , to verify multiple anal yz ers at the same time . In designing your experimental setup, avoid pressure pulsations due to stopping the flow through the gas blending device. The change in gas concentration must be at least 20 % of the anal yz er's range. If H 2 O correction is applicable, then s pan gases must be humidified before entering the anal yz er; however, you may

not humidify

NO 2 span gas b y passing it through a sealed humidification vessel that contains water. You must humidify NO 2 span gas with another moist gas stream. We recommend humidifying your NO

- CO
- CO 2 - C 3 H 8 - CH 4 , balance N 2 blended gas b y flowing the gas mixture through a sealed vessel that humidifies the gas by bubbling it through distilled water and then mixing the gas with dry NO 2 gas, balance purified air. If your s ys tem does not use a sample dryer to remove water from the sample gas, you must humidify

y our span gas to the highest sample H 2 O content that you estimate during emission sampling. If your s ys tem uses a sample dryer during testing, it must pass the sample dryer verification check in §1065.342, and you must humidify your span gas to an H 2 O content greater than or equal to the level determined in §1065.145(e)(2). If you are humidifying span gases without NO 2 , use good engineering judgment to ensure that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the humidifying s ys tem to the probe are above the dewpoint r equired for the target H 2 O content. If you are humidifying span gases with NO 2 , use good engineering judgment to ensure that there is no condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the point where humidified gas is mixed with NO 2 span gas to the probe. We recommend that you design your setup so that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the humidifying s ys tem to the probe are at least 5 oC above the local sample gas dewpoint. Operate the measurement and s ample handling s ys tem as you do for emission testing. Make no modifications to the sample handling s ystem to reduce the risk of condensation. Flow humidified gas through the sampling s ys tem before this check to allow stabilization of the measurement sy st em’s sampling handling s ys tem to occur, as it would for an emission test. * * * * * (g) Optional procedure . Follow the optional procedures in §1065.308(g), noting that you may use compensating gases mixed with ambient air for oxygen anal yz ers. (h) Anal yz e rs with H 2 O compensation sampling downstream of a sample dryer . You may omit humidifying the span gas as described in this paragraph (h). If an anal yz er compensates onl y for H 2 O, you may appl y the requirements of §1065.308 instead of thePage 731 of 888

requirements of this section. You may omit humidifying the span gas if you meet the following conditions: (1) The anal yz er is located downstream of a sample dry er. (2) The maximum value for H 2 O mole fraction downstream of the dryer must be less than or equal to 0.010. Ve rify this during each sample dryer verification according to §1065.342. MEASUREMENT OF ENGINE PARAMETERS AND AMBIENT CONDITIONS 207. Section 1065.310 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§1065.310 Torque calibration.** * * * * * (d) Strain gage, load transducer, or proving ring calibration . This technique applies force either b y hanging weights on a lever arm (these weights and their lever arm length are not used as part of the reference torque determination) or by operating the dyn amometer at different torques. Appl y at least six force combinations for each applicable torque

measuring range, spacing the force quantities about equally over the range. Oscillate or rotate the dynamometer during calibration to reduce frictional static hystere sis. In this case, the reference torque is determined by multiplyingthe force output from the reference meter (such as a strain gage, load transducer, or proving ring) b y its effective lever

- arm length, which you measure from the point where the force me asurement is made to the dynamometer’s rotational axis. Make sure you measure this length perpendicular to the reference meter’s measurement axis and perpendicular to the dy namometer’s rotational axis. 208. Section 1065.315 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: **§1065.315 Pressure, temperature, and dewpoint calibration.** (a) * * * (2) Temperature . We recommend digital dry

- block or stirred

- liquid temperature calibrators, with data logging capabilities to minimize transcription errors. We recommend using calibration reference quantities that are NI ST
- traceable within 0.5 % uncertaint y. You may

perform linearit y verification for temperature measurement sy stems with thermocouples, RTDs, and thermistors by removing the sensor from the sy stem and using a simulator in its place. Use a NIST

- traceable simulator that is independentl y calibrated and, as appropriate, cold

- junction compensated. The simulator uncertaint y scaled to absolute temperature must be less than 0.5 % of T max . If you use this option, you must use sensors that the supplier states are accurate to better than 0.5 % of T max compared with their standard calibration curve. * * * * * 209. Section 1065.341 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) introductory

text, (d) introductory

text, and (f)(3) to read as follows: **§1065.341 CVS, PFD, and batch sampler verificati on (propane check).**  (a) A propane check serves as a CVS verification to determine if there is a discrepancy in measured values of diluted exhaust flow. You may use the same procedure to verify PFDs and batch samplers. For purposes of PFD and batch sample r verification, read thePage 732 of 888

term CVS to mean PFD or batch sampler as appropriate. A propane check also serves as a batch

- sampler verification to determine if there is a discrepancy in a batch sampling sy stem that extracts a sample from a CVS, as described in paragraph (g) of this section. Using good engineering judgment and safe practices, this check may be performed using a gas other than propane, such as CO 2 or CO. A failed propane check might indicate one or more problems that may require corrective acti on, as follows: * * * * * (d) If you performed the vacuum

- side leak verification of the HC sampling sy stem as described in paragraph (c)(8) of this section, you may use the HC contamination procedure in §1065.520(f) to verify HC contamination. Otherwise, zero, span, and verify contamination of the HC sampling s ys tem, as follows: * * * * * (f) * * * (3) Calculate total C 3 H 8 mass based on your CVS and HC data as described in §1065.650 (40 CFR 1066.610 for vehicle testing) and §1065.660, using the molar mass of C 3 H 8 , M C3H8 , instead the effective molar mass of HC, M HC . * * * * * 210. Section 1065.350 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: **§1065.350 H 2**  **O interference verification for CO 2**  **NDIR analyzers.** * * * * * (d) Procedure . Perform th e interference verification as follows: (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO 2 NDIR analyzer as you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with the dryer if it meets the requirements of §1065.342. Operate the dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may also run this verification test without the sample dry er. (2) Create a humidified test gas b y bubbling zero gas that meets the specif ications in §1065.750 through distilled H 2 O in a sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high as the maximum expected during emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high as the level determined in §1065.145(e)(2) for that dry er. (3) Introduce the humidified test gas into the sample sy st em. You may introduce it downstream of an y sample dryer, if one is used during testing. (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this verification test, m easure the H 2 O mole fraction, xH2O , of the humidified test gas, as close as possible to the inlet of the anal yz er. For example, measure dewpoint, T dew , and absolute pressure, p total , to calculate xH2O . Verify

that the H 2 O content meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify that the H 2 O content of the humidified test gas downstream of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section based on either direct measurement o f the H 2 O content (e.g., dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the H 2 O content. For example,Page 733 of 888

yo u may use previous direct measurements of H 2 O content to verify the ves sel’s level of saturation. (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the point where x H2O is measured to the analyzer. We recommend th at you design your s ys tem so the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the point where x H2O is measured to the anal yz er are at least 5 oC above the local sample gas dewpoint
. (6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabiliz e. Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to account for analyzer response. (7) While the anal yz er measures the sample’s concentration, record 30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data. The analyz er meets the interference verification if this value is within (0.0 ±0.4) mmol/mol. (e) Exceptions . The following exceptions appl y: (1) You may

omit this verification if you can show by engineering anal ys is that for your CO 2 sampling sy stem and your emission

- calculation procedures, the H 2 O interference for yo ur CO 2 NDIR anal yz er alway s affects your brake

- specific emission results within  0.5 % of each of the applicable standards. This specification also applies for vehicle t esting, except that it relates to emission results in g/mile or g/kilometer. (2) You may

use a CO 2 NDIR anal yz er that you determine does not meet this verification, as long as you try to correct the problem and the measurement deficiency does not adversely affect your ability to show that engines comply with all applicable emission standards. 211. Section 1065.355 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§1065.355 H 2**  **O and CO 2**  **interference verification for CO NDIR analyzers.** * * * * * (d) Procedure . Perform the interference verification as follows: (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the CO NDIR analyzer as you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a dryer during emission testing, you may run this verification test with the dryer if it meets the requirements of §1065.342. Operate the dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may also run this verification test without the sample dryer. (2) Create a humidified CO 2 test gas by bubbling a CO 2 span gas that meets the specifications in §1065.750 through distilled H 2 O in a sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dry er during emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high as the maximum exp ected during emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dry er during emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high as the level determined in §1065.145(e)(2) for that dryer. Use a CO 2 span gas concentration at least as high as the maximum expected during testing. (3) Introduce the humidified CO 2 test gas into the sample sy stem. You may introduce it downstream of an y sample dryer, if one is used during testing. (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this verification test, m easure the H 2 O mole fraction, xH2O , of the humidified CO 2 test gas as close as possible to the inlet of the anal yz er. For example, measure dewpoint, T dew , and absolute pressure, p total , to calculate xH2O . Verify

that the H 2 O content meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) ofPage 734 of 888

this section. I f the sample is passed through a dryer during this verification test, you must verify that the H 2 O content of the humidified test gas downstream of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section based on either direct measurement of the H 2 O content (e.g., dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based on the vessel pressure and temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the H 2 O content. For example, yo u may use previous direct measurements of H 2 O content to verify the vessel’s level of saturation. (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the point where x H2O is measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your s ys tem so that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the point where x H2O is measured to the anal yz er are at least 5 oC above the local sample gas dewpoint
. (6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize. Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to account for analyzer response. (7) While the anal yz er measures the sample’s concentration , record its output for 30 seconds. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data. (8) The anal yz er meets the interference verification if the result of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph (c) of this section
. (9) You may

also r un interference procedures for CO 2 and H 2 O separatel y. If the CO 2 and H 2 O levels used are higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, you may scale down each observed interference value by multiplying the observed interference b y the ratio of the maximum expected concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You may run separate interference concentrations of H 2 O (down to 0.025 mol/mol H 2 O content) that are lower than the maximum levels expected during testing, but you mu st scale up the observed H 2 O interference b y multiplying the observed interference b y the ratio of the maximum expected H 2 O concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the two scaled interference values must meet the tol erance in paragraph (c) of this section. * * * * *

HYDROCARBON MEASUREMENTS 212. Section 1065.360 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b), (d), (e) introductory

text , and (e)(4) to read as follows: **§1065.360 FID optimization and verification.** (a) * * * (3) Verify the CH 4 response within 185 day s before testing as described in paragraph (e) of this section. (b) Calibration . Use good engineering judgment to develop a calibration procedure, such as one based on the FID

- anal yz er manufacturer’s instructions and recommended frequency for calibrating the FID. Alternatel y, yo u may remove s ys tem components for off

- site calibration. For a FID that measures THC, calibrate using C 3 H 8 calibration gases that meet the specifications of §1065.750. For a FID that meas ures CH 4 , calibrate using CH 4 calibration gases that meet the specifications of §1065.750. We recommend FID anal yz er zero and span gases that contain approximately the flow

- weighted mean concentration of O 2 expected during testing. If yo u use a FID to me asure CH 4Page 735 of 888

downstream of a nonmethane cutter, you may calibrate that FID using CH 4 calibration gases with the cutter. Regardless of the calibration gas composition, calibrate on a carbon number basis of one (C 1 ). For example, if you use a C 3 H 8 span gas of concentration 200 mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 600 mol/mol. As another example, if you use a CH 4 span gas with a concentration of 200  mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 200 mol/mol. * * * * * (d) THC FID CH 4 response factor determination . This procedure is only for FID anal yz ers that measure THC. Since FID anal yz ers generall y have a different response to CH 4 versus C 3 H 8 , determine each THC

- FI D analyzer’s CH 4 response factor, RF CH4[THC
FID] , after FID optimization. Use the most recent RF CH4[THC
- FID] measured according to this section in the calculations for HC determination described in §1065.660 to compensate for CH 4 response. Determine RF CH4[THC
- FID] as follows, noting that you do not determine RF CH4[THC
- FID] for FIDs that are calibrated and spanned using CH 4 with a nonmethane cutter: (1) Select a C 3 H 8 span gas concentration that you use to span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span gases that meet the specifications of §1065.750. Record the C 3 H 8 concentration of the gas. (2) Select a CH 4 span gas concentration that you use to span your analyzers before emission testing. Use only span gases that meet the specifications of §1065.750. Record the CH 4 concentration of the gas. (3) Start and operate the FID anal yz er according to the manufacturer’s instructions. (4) Confirm that the FID anal yz er has been calibrated using C 3 H 8 . Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one (C 1 ). For example, if you use a C 3 H 8 span gas of concentration 200 mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 600 mol/mol. (5) Zero the FID with a zero gas that you use for emission testing. (6) Span the FID with the C 3 H 8 span gas that you selected under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (7) Introduce at the sample port of the FID analyzer, the CH 4 span gas that you selected under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. (8) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize. Stabilization time may include time to purge the anal yz er and to account for its response. (9) While the anal yz er measures the CH 4 concentration, record 30 seconds of sampled data. Calculate the arithmetic mean of these values. (10) For anal yz ers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the procedure in this paragraph (d) onl y on a single range. (11) Divide the mean measured concentration by the recorded span concentration of the CH 4 calibration gas. The result is the FID anal yz er’s response factor for CH 4 , RF CH4[THC
FID] . (e) THC FID CH 4 response verification . This procedure is onl y for FID analyzers that measure THC. If the value of RF CH4[THC
- FID] from paragraph (d) of this section is within  5 % of its most recent previously determined value, the THC FID passes the CH 4 response verification. For example, if the most recent previous value f or RF CH4[THC
- FID] was 1.05 and it changed by  0.05 to become 1.10 or it changed by

- 0.05 to become 1.00, either case would be acceptable because  4.8 % is less than  5 %. Verify RF CH4[THC
- FID] as follows:Page 736 of 888

* * * * * (4) For anal yz ers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the procedure in this paragraph (e) onl y on a single range. * * * * * 213. Section 1065.362 is amended by adding paragraph (d)(15) to read as follows: **§1065.362 Non -**  **stoichiometric raw exhaust FID O 2**  **interference verification.** * * * * * (d) * * * (15) For anal yz ers with multiple ranges, you need to perform the procedure in this paragraph (d) onl y on a single range. 214. Section 1065.365 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(1), (e)(1), (f) introductory

text, and (f)(1) to read as foll ows: **§1065.365 Nonmethane cutter penetration fractions.** (a) Scope and frequency . If you use a FID anal yz er and a nonmethane cutter (NMC) to measure methane (CH 4 ), determine the nonmethane cutter’s penetration fractions of CH 4 , PF CH4 , and ethane, PF C2H6 . As detailed in this section, these penetration fractions may be determined as a combination of NMC penetration fractions and FID anal yz er response factors, depending on yo ur particular NMC and FID anal yz er configuration. Perform this verification after in stalling the nonmethane cutter. Repeat this verification within 185 day s of testing to verify

that the catal yt ic activity of the cutter has not deteriorated. Note that because nonmethane cutters can deteriorate rapidly and without warning if they are ope rated outside of certain ranges of gas concentrations and outside of certain temperature ranges, good engineering judgment may dictate that you determine a nonmethane cutter’s penetration fractions more frequently
. (b) Measurement principles . A nonmethane cutter is a heated catal ys t that removes nonmethane h ydrocarbons from an exhaust sample stream before the FID analyzer measures the remaining hydrocarbon concentration. An ideal nonmethane cutter would have a CH 4 penetration fraction, PF CH4 , of 1.000, an d the penetration fraction for all other nonmethane h ydrocarbons would be 0.000, as represented b y PF C2H6 . The emission calculations in §1065.660 use the measured values from this verification to account for less than ideal NMC performance. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) Select CH 4 and C 2 H 6 anal yt ical gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of §1065.750. Select a CH 4 concentration that you would use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a C 2 H 6 concentration that is ty pical of the peak NMHC concentration expected at the h ydrocarbon standard or equal to the THC anal yz er’s span value. For CH 4 analyzers with multiple ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission testing. * * * * * (e) * * * (1) Sel ect CH 4 and C 2 H 6 anal yt ical gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of §1065.750. Select a CH 4 concentration that you would use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a C 2 H 6 concentration that is ty pical of the peakPage 737 of 888

NMHC concentration expected at the h ydrocarbon standard and the C 2 H 6 concentration ty pical of the peak total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration expected at the hydrocarbon standard or equal to the THC anal yz er’s span value. For CH 4 anal yz ers with multip le ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission testing. * * * * * (f) Procedure for a FID calibrated with CH 4 , by passing the NMC . If you use a FID with an NMC that is calibrated with CH 4 , by by passing the NMC, determine its combi ned ethane (C 2 H 6 ) response factor and penetration fraction, RF PF C2H6[NMC
- FID] , as well as its CH 4 penetration fraction, PF CH4[NMC
- FID ], as follows: (1) Select CH 4 and C 2 H 6 anal yt ical gas mixtures and ensure that both mixtures meet the specifications of §1 065.750. Select a CH 4 concentration that you would use for spanning the FID during emission testing and select a C 2 H 6 concentration that is ty pical of the peak NMHC concentration expected at the h ydrocarbon standard or equal to the THC anal yz er’s span value. For CH 4 analyzers with multiple ranges, perform this procedure on the highest range used for emission testing. * * * * * 215. A new §1065.369 is added to subpart D to read as follows: **§1065.369 H 2**  **O, CO, and CO 2**  **interference verification for photoacoustic alcohol analyzers.**  (a) Scope and frequency . If you measure ethanol or methanol using a photoacoustic anal yz er, veri fy

the amount of H 2 O, CO, and CO 2 interference after initial analyzer installation and after major maintenance. (b) Measurement principles . H 2 O, CO, and CO 2 can positively interfere with a photoacoustic anal yz er by causing a response similar to ethanol or methanol. I f the photoacoustic anal yz er uses compensation algorithms that utilize measurements of other gases to meet this interference verification, simultaneously conduct these other measurements to test the compensation algorithms during the anal yz er interference verification. (c) Sy stem requirements . Photoacoustic anal yz ers must have combined interference that is within (0.0 ± 0.5) μmol/mol. We strongly recommend a lower interference that is within (0.0 ± 0.25) μmol/mol. (d) Procedure . Perform the interference verification by following the procedure in §1065.375(d), comparing the results to paragraph (c) of this section. NO x AND N 2 O MEASUREMENTS 216. Section 1065.370 is amended by revising paragraph s (d)(9) and (e)(5) to read as follows: **§1065.370 CLD CO**  **2 and H**  **2 O quench verification.**  * * * * * (d) * * * * * (9) While flowing NO and CO 2 through the gas divider, stabilize the output of the gas divider. Determine the CO 2 concentration from the gas divider output, applying gas propert y correction as necess ary to ensure accurate gas division , or measure it using an NDIR . Record this concentration, x CO2act , and use it in the quench verificationPage 738 of 888

calculations in §1065.675. Alternativel y, you may use a simple gas blending device and use an NDIR to determine this CO 2 concentration. If you use an NDIR, it must meet the requirements of this part for laboratory testing and you must span it with the CO 2 span gas from paragraph (d)(4) of this section. * * * * * (e) * * * * * (5) Humidify

the NO span gas b y bubblin g it through distilled H 2 O in a sealed vessel. If the humidified NO span gas sample does not pass through a sample dry er for this verification test, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level approximately equal to the maximum mole fraction o f H 2 O expected during emission testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample does not pass through a sample dry er, the quench verification calculations in §1065.675 scale the measured H 2 O quench to the highest mole fraction of H 2 O expected during emission testing. If the humidified NO span gas sample passes through a dryer for this verification test, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high as the level determined in §1065.145(e)(2). For this case, the quench verification calculations in §1065.675 do not scale the measured H 2 O quench. * * * * * 217. Section 1065.375 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§1065.375 Interference verification for N 2**  **O analyzers.** * * * * * (d) Procedure . Perform the interference verification as follows: (1) Start, operate, zero, and span the N 2 O anal yz er as you would before an emission test. If the sample is passed through a dry er during emission testing, you may run this verification test with the dry er if it meets the requireme nts of §1065.342. Operate the dryer at the same conditions as you will for an emission test. You may also run this verification test without the sample dryer. (2) Create a humidified test gas b y bubbling a multi component span gas that incorporates the target interference species and meets the specifications in §1065.750 through distilled H 2 O in a sealed vessel. If the sample is not passed through a dryer during emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high a s the maximum expected during emission testing. If the sample is passed through a dry er during emission testing, control the vessel temperature to generate an H 2 O level at least as high as the level determined in §1065.145(e)(2) for that dry er. Use inter ference span gas concentrations that are at least as high as the maximum expected during testing. (3) Introduce the humidified interference test gas into the sample sy stem. You may introduce it downstream of an y sample dryer, if one is used during testing
. (4) If the sample is not passed through a dryer during this verification test, m easure the H 2 O mole fraction, xH2O , of the humidified interference test gas as close as possible to the inlet of the anal yz er. For example, measure dewpoint, T dew , and abso lute pressure, p total , to calculate x H2O . Verify

that the H 2 O content meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. If the sample is passed through a dry er during this verification test, you must verify

that the H 2 O content of the humidified test gas downstream of the vessel meets the requirement in paragraph (d)(2) of this section based on either direct measurement of the H 2 O content (e.g., dewpoint and pressure) or an estimate based onPage 739 of 888

the vessel pressure and temperature. Use good engineering judgment to estimate the H 2 O content. For example, you may use previous direct measurements of H 2 O content to verify the vessel’s level of saturation. (5) If a sample dryer is not used in this verification test, use good engineering judgment to prevent condensation in the transfer lines, fittings, or valves from the point where x H2O is measured to the analyzer. We recommend that you design your s ys tem so that the wall temperatures in the transfer lines, fittings, and valves from the point where x H2O i s measured to the anal yz er are at least 5 oC above the local sample gas dewpoint
. (6) Allow time for the analyzer response to stabilize. Stabilization time may include time to purge the transfer line and to account for analyzer response. (7) While the ana ly

zer measures the sample’s concentration, record its output for 30 seconds. Calculate the arithmetic mean of this data. When performed with all the gases simultaneously , this is the combined interference. (8) The anal yz er meets the interference verification if the result of paragraph (d)(7) of this section meets the tolerance in paragraph (c) of this section. (9) You may

also run interference procedures separatel y for individual interference gases. If the interference gas levels used are higher than the maximum levels expected during testing, you may scale down each observed interference value (the arithmetic mean of 30 second data described in paragraph (d)(7) of this section) b y multiplying the observed interference b y the ratio of the maximum expected concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. You may run separate interference concentrations of H 2 O (down to 0.025 mol/mol H 2 O content) that are lower than the maximum levels expected during testing, but you must scale up the obse rved H 2 O interference b y multiplying the observed interference b y the ratio of the maximum expected H 2 O concentration value to the actual value used during this procedure. The sum of the scaled interference values must meet the tolerance for combined inte rference as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. 218. Section 1065.376 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(2) to read as follows: **§1065.376 Chiller NO 2**  **penetration.** * * * * * (b) Measurement principles . A chiller removes H 2 O, which can otherw ise interfere with a NO x measurement. However, liquid H 2 O remaining in an improperly designed chiller can remove NO 2 from the sample. If a chiller is used without an NO 2 - to - NO converter upstream, it could remove NO 2 from the sample prior NO x measurement. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Equipment setup and data collection . (i) Zero and span the total NO x gas anal yz er(s) as you would before emission testing. (ii) Select an NO 2 calibration gas, balance gas of dry air, that has an NO 2 concentration within ±5 % of the maximum NO 2 concentration expected during testing. (iii) Overflow this calibration gas at the gas sampling s ys tem’s probe or overflow fitting. Allow for stabilization of the total NO x response, accounting onl y for transpo rt delay s and instrument response.Page 740 of 888

(iv) Calculate the mean of 30 seconds of recorded total NO x data and record this value as x NOxref . (v) Stop flowing the NO 2 calibration gas. (vi) Next saturate the sampling sy stem by overflowing a dewpoint generator’s output, set at a dewpoint of 50  C, to the gas sampling s ys tem’s probe or overflow fitting. Sample the dewpoint generator’s output through the sampling s ys tem and chiller for at least 10 minutes until the chiller is expected to be removing a constant rate of H 2 O. (vii) Immediatel y switch back to overflowing the NO 2 calibration gas used to establish x NOxref . Allow for stabilization of the total NO x response, accounting onl y for transport delay s and instrument response. Calculate the mean of 30 seconds of recorded total NO x data and record this value as x NOxmeas . (viii) Correct x

NOxmeas to x

NOxdry based upon the residual H 2 O vapor that passed thr ough the chiller at the chiller’s outlet temperature and pressure. * * * * * **Subpart E**

**— [Amended]**  219. Section 1065.405 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: **§1065.405 Test engine preparation and maintenance.** This part 1065 describes how to test engines for a variety of purposes, including certification testing, production

- line testing, and in

- use testing. Depending on which ty pe of testing is being conducted, different preparation and maintenance requirements apply f or the test engine. (a) If you are testing an emission

- data engine for certification, make sure it is built to represent production engines, consistent with paragraph (f) of this section. This includes governors that you normally install on production e ngines. Production engines should also be tested with their installed governors. If you do not install governors on production engines, simulate a governor that is representative of a governor that others will install on your production engines. In cert ain circumstances, you may incorporate test cell components to simulate an in

- use configuration, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, §§1065.122 and 1065.125 allow the use of test cell components to represent engine cooling and intake a ir s ys tems. * * * * * (f) This paragraph (f) defines the components that are considered to be part of the engine for laboratory

testing. See §1065.110 for provisions related to s ys tem boundaries with respect to work inputs and outputs. (1) This paragraph (f)(1) describes certain criteria for considering a component to be part of the test engine. The criteria are intended to apply broadly , such that a component would generall y be considered part of the engine in cases of uncertainty. An engine

r elated component meeting all the following criteria is considered to be part of the test engine for purposes of testing and for stabilizing emission levels, preconditioning, and measuring emission levels: (i) The component directly affects the functioning of the engine, is related to the control of emissions, or transmits engine power. This would include engine cooling s ys tems, engine controls, and transmissions.Page 741 of 888

(ii) The component is covered b y the applic able certificate of conformity
. For example, this criterion would ty

pically exclude radiators not described in an application for certification. (iii) The component is not part of the laboratory setup, or it is used for other engines. (2) Although components meeting the criteria specified in paragraphs (f)(1)( i) or (ii) of this section, but not the criterion specified in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, are not considered to be part of the test engine, you must precondition these components along with the test engine. **Subpart F**

**— [Amended]**  220. Section 1065.501 is amended as follows: a. By redesignating paragraphs (b) through (d) as paragraphs (c) through (e), respectivel y. b. By adding a new paragraph (b). c. By revising the redesignated paragraph (c)(2) introductory text. **§1065.501 Overview.** * * * * * (b) Unless we specify

otherwise, you may

control the regeneration timing of infrequentl y regenerated aftertreatment devices such as diesel particulate filters using good engineering judgment. You may control the regeneration timing using a sequence of en gine operating conditions or you may initiate regeneration with an external regeneration switch or other command. This provision would also allow you to ensure that a regeneration event does not occur during an emission test. (c) * * * (2) Steady - state c ycles . Steady

- state dut y c ycl es are t ypicall y specified in the standard

setting part as a list of discrete operating points (modes or notches), where each operating point has one value of a normalized speed command and one value of a normalized torque (or power) command. Ramped

- modal cycles for steady

- state testing also list test times for each mode and transition times between modes where speed and torque are linearly ramped between modes, even for cycles with % power. Start a steady

- state cycle as a ho t running test, where you start to measure emissions after an engine is started, warmed up and running. Run a steady

- state dut y cycle as a discrete

- mode cycle or a ramped

- modal cycle, as follows: * * * * * 221. A new §1065.516 is added to subpart E to read as follows: **§1065.516 Sample system decontamination and preconditioning.** This section describes how to manage the impact of sampling s ys tem contamination on emission measurements. Use good engineering judgement to determine if you should decontaminate and precondition your sampling s ystem. Contamination occurs when a regulated pollutant accumulates in the sample sy stem in a high enough concentration to cause release during emission tests. Hydrocarbons and PM are generall y the only regulated pollutants that contaminate sample s ys tems. A sampling s ys tem is considered decontaminated if the contaminants are in equilibrium with measured exhaust emissions. Note that although this secti on focuses on avoiding excessive contamination of sample sy stems, you must also use good engineering judgment to avoid loss of sample to aPage 742 of 888

sample sy stem that is too clean. The goal of decontamination is not to perfectly clean the sample sy stem, but rather to achieve equilibrium between the sample s ys tem and the exhaust so emission components are neither lost to nor entrained from the sample sy stem. (a) You may

p erform contamination checks as follows to determine if decontamination is needed: (1) For dilute exhaust sampling sy stems, measure hydrocarbon and PM emissions by sampling with the CVS dilution air turned on, without an engine connected to it. (2) For raw anal yz ers and sy stems that collect PM samples from raw exhaust, measure hydrocarbon and PM emiss ions by sampling purified air or nitrogen. (3) When calculating zero emission levels, apply all applicable corrections, including initial THC contamination and diluted (CVS) exhaust background corrections. (4) Sampling s ys tems are considered contaminated i f either of the following conditions applies: (i) The h ydrocarbon emission level exceeds 2 % of the flow

- weighted mean wet, net concentration expected at the HC standard. (ii) The PM emission level exceeds 5 % of the level expected at the standard and exce eds 20 μg on a 47 mm PTFE membrane filter. (b) To precondition/decontaminate sampling s ys tems, use the following recommended procedure or use good engineering judgment to select a different procedure: (1) Start the engine and use good engineering judgment to operate it at a condition that generates high exhaust temperatures at the sample probe inlet. (2) Operate an y dilution sy stems at their expected flow rates. Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution sy stems. (3) Operate an y PM sampling s ys tems at th eir expected flow rates. (4) Sample PM for at least 10 min using any sample media. You may

change sample media at an y time during this process and you may discard them without weighing them. (5) You may

purge an y gaseous sampling s ys tems that do not requir e decontamination during this procedure. (6) You may

conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle equipment or anal yz ers during this procedure. (c) If your sampling s ys tem is still contaminated following the procedures specified in paragraph (b) of th is section, you may use more aggressive procedures to decontaminate the sampling s ys tem, as long as the decontamination does not cause the sampling sy stem to be cleaner than an equilibrium condition such that artificiall y low emission measurements may

resu lt. 222. A new §1065.518 is added to subpart E to read as follows: **§1065.518 Engine preconditioning.** (a) This section applies for engines where measured emissions are affected by prior operation, such as with a diesel engine that relies on urea

- based selective cataly tic reduction. Note that §1065.520(e) allows you to run practice dut y cycles before the e mission test; this section recommends how to do this for the purpose of preconditioning the engine. We may

test your engine after completing only the minimum amount of preconditioning recommended in this section. For subsequent testing, such as steady

st ate testing following transient testing, we may consider the previous test cycle asPage 743 of 888

preconditioning. Follow the standard

- setting part if it specifies a different engine preconditioning procedure. (b) The intent of engine preconditioning is to manage the r epresentativeness of emissions over the dut y c ycl e, as described in §1065.10(c)(1), by conditioning the engine to a state where its emissions are representative of in

- use operation. (c) This paragraph (c) specifies the engine preconditioning procedures for different t ypes of duty cycles. You may measure emissions during preconditioning cycles, as long as yo u perform a predefined number of preconditioning cycles. You must identify before each dut y c yc le whether it is a preconditioning cycle or an emission test. You may not abort an emission test based on emissions measured during preconditioning. (1) Cold

- start transient cycle. Precondition the engine b y running at least one cold

- start or hot

- start transient cycle. Immediatel y after completing the last p reconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and begin the cold soak as described in §1065.530(a)(1). (2) Hot
- start transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running at least one hot

- start transient cycle. Shut down the engine after completing the last p reconditioning cycle and start the hot

- start transient test as soon as practical. (3) Hot
- running transient cycle. Precondition the engine by running at least one hot

running transient cycle. Start the official hot

- running transient cycle as soon as prac tical after completing the last preconditioning cycle. (4) Discrete

- mode cycle for steady - state testing. Precondition the engine at the same operating condition as the next test mode, unless the standard

- setting part specifies sampling time limits. (5) R amped

- modal cycle for steady - state testing. If you run the ramped

- modal cycle after a transient test, additional preconditioning is allowed, but not required. If you perform additional preconditioning, we recommend running the first non

- idle mode of the ramped

- modal cycle or a mode approximating 50 % power. (d) You may

conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle equipment or anal yz ers during engine preconditioning. 223. Section 1065.520 is amended b y removing paragraph (g) and revising paragraphs (a), (e), and (f) to read as follows: **§1065.520 Pre -**  **test verification procedures and pre -**  **test data collection.** (a) For tests in which yo u measure PM emissions, follow the procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing according to §1065.590. * * * * * (e) You may

perform a final calibration of the speed, torque, and proportional

- flow control sy stems, which may include performing practice dut y c ycl es (or portions of duty cycles). This may

be done in conjunction with the preconditioning in §1065.518. (f) Verify the amount of nonmethane h ydrocarbon contamination in the exhaust and background HC sampling s ys tems within 8 hours before the start of the first test interval of each dut y - cycle sequence for laboratory tests. You may

verify the contamination of a background HC sampling s ys tem by reading the last bag fill and purge using zero gas. For an y NMHC measurement sy stem that involves separatel y measuring CH 4 and subtracting it from a THC measurement or for any CH 4 measurement sy stem that uses an NMC, verify

the amount of THC contamination using onl y the THC analyzer response. There is no need to operate any separate CH 4 analyzer for this verification; however, youPage 744 of 888

may measure and correct for THC contamination in the CH 4 sample train for the cases wher e NMHC is determined by subtracting CH 4 from THC or, where CH 4 is determined, using an NMC as configured in §1065.365(d), (e), and (f); and using the calculations in §1065.660(b)(2). Perform this verification as follows: (1) Select the HC anal yz er range fo r measuring the flow

- weighted mean concentration expected at the HC standard. (2) Zero the HC anal yz er at the anal yz er zero or sample port. Note that FID zero and span balance gases may

be any combination of purified air or purified nitrogen that meets the specifications of §1065.750. We recommend FID anal yz er zero and span gases that contain approximately

the flow

- weighted mean concentration of O 2 expected during testing. (3) Span the HC analyzer using span gas introduced at the anal yz er span or sample po rt. Span on a carbon number basis of one (C 1 ). For example, if you use a C 3 H 8 span gas of concentration 200 mol/mol, span the FID to respond with a value of 600 mol/mol. (4) Overflow zero gas at the HC probe inlet or into a tee near the probe outlet. ( 5) Measure the THC concentration in the sampling and background sy stems as follows: (i) For continuous sampling, record the mean THC concentration as overflow zero gas flows. (ii) For batch sampling, fill the sample medium (e.g., bag) and record its mean T HC concentration. (iii) For the background system, record the mean THC concentration of the last fill and purge. (6) Record this value as the initial THC concentration, x THC[THC
- FID]init , and use it to correct measured values as described in §1065.660. (7) You may

correct the measured initial THC concentration for drift as follows: (i) For batch and continuous HC analyzers, after determining the initial THC concentration, flow zero gas to the anal yz er zero or sample port. When the anal yz er reading is stabl e, record the mean anal yz er value. (ii) Flow span gas to the anal yz er span or sample port. When the anal yz er reading is stable, record the mean analyzer value. (iii) Use mean anal yz er values from paragraphs (f)(2), (3), (7)(i), and (7)(ii) of this section to correct the initial THC concentration recorded in paragraph (f)(6) of this section for drift, as described in §1065.550. (8) If an y of the xTHC[THC
- FID]init values exceed the greatest of the following values, determine the source of the contamination a nd take corrective action, such as purging the sy stem during an additional preconditioning cycle or replacing contaminated portions: (i) 2 % of the flow

- weighted mean wet, net concentration expected at the HC (THC or NMHC) standard. (ii) 2 % of the flow

- we ighted mean wet, net concentration of HC (THC or NMHC) measured during testing. (iii) 2 mol/mol. (9) If corrective action does not resolve the deficiency , you may request to use the contaminated s ys tem as an alternate procedure under §1065.10. 224. Section 1065.526 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3) and (d)(1) to read as follows:Page 745 of 888

**§1065.526 Repeating of void modes or test intervals.** * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Precondition the engine by operating it at the mode at which the test was interrupted and continue with the duty cycle as specified in the standard

- setting part. (d) * * * * * (1) Use good engineering judgment to restart (as applicable) and precondition the engine to the same condition as would apply for normal testing. This may require you to complet e the voided test interval. For example, you may generally repeat a hot

- start test of a heav y - dut y highway engine after completing the voided hot

- start test and allowing the engine to soak for 20 minutes. * * * * * 225. Section 1065.530 is amended b y removing paragraph (b)(13) and revising paragraphs (a), (b)(12), and (c) to read as follows: **§1065.530 Emission test sequence.** (a) Time the start of testing as follows: (1) Perform one of the following if you precondition the engine as described in §1065.518: (i) For cold

- start dut y c ycles, shut down the engine. Unless the standard

- setting part specifies that you may only perform a natural engine cooldown, you may perform a forced engine cooldown. Use good engineering judgment to set up s ys tems to send cooling air across the engine, to send cool oil through the engine lubrication sy stem, to remove heat from coolant through the engine cooling s ys tem, and to remove heat from any exhaust aftertreatment sy stems. In the case of a forced aftertreatment cooldown, good engineering judgment would indicate that you not start flowing cooling air until the aftertreatment s ys tem has cooled below its catal yt ic activation temperature. For platinum

- group metal cataly sts, this temperature is about 200 °C. Once the aftertreatment sy stem has naturall y cooled below its catal yt ic activation temperature, good engineering judgment would indicate that you use clean air with a temperature of at least 15 °C, and direct the air through the aftertreatment s ys tem in the normal direction of exhaust flow. Do not use an y cooling procedure that results in unrepresentative emissions (see §1065.10(c)(1)). You may start a cold

- start duty

cycle when the temperatures of an engine's lubricant, coolant, and aft ertreatment s ys tems are all between (20 and 30) °C. (ii) For hot

- start emission measurements, immediately after completing the last preconditioning cycle, shut down the engine and as soon as practical start the official hot

start transient cycle. We will start the official hot

- start transient cycle within 1 minute of the conclusion of the preconditioning cycle where applicable. Start the hot

- start duty cycle as specified in the standard

- setting part if it is different from this procedure. (iii) For test ing that involves hot

- stabilized emission measurements, such as any steady

state testing, as soon as practical after completing the discrete

- mode preconditioning time or the last preconditioning cycle, without shutting down the engine, start the official h ot stabilized cycle. We will start the official hot

- stabilized cycle within 1 minute of the conclusion of the preconditioning cycle where applicable. If the last preconditioning cycle ends with a different operating condition than the first mode of the hot

- stabilizedPage 746 of 888

cycle, add a linear transition period of 20 s between cycles where you linearly ramp the (denormalized) reference speed and torque values over the transition period. (2) If you do not precondition the engine as described in §1065.518, perform one of the following: (i) For cold

- start dut y c ycles, prepare the engine according to paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. (ii) For hot

- start emission measurements, first operate the engine at any speed above peak

- torque speed and at (65 to 85) % of maxi mum mapped power until either the engine coolant, block, or head absolute temperature is within ±2 % of its mean value for at least 2 min or until the engine thermostat controls engine temperature. Shut down the engine. Start the duty

cycle within 20 min of engine shutdown. (iii) For testing that involves hot

- stabilized emission measurements, bring the engine either to warm idle or the first operating point of the duty cycle. Start the test within 10 min of achieving temperature stability . Determine temperature stability either as the point at which the engine coolant, block, or head absolute temperature is within ±2 % of its mean value for at least 2 min, or as the point at which the engine thermostat controls engine temperature. (b) * * * (12) Drain an y accumulated condensate from the intake air s ys tem before starting a duty cycle, as described in §1065.125(e)(1). If engine and aftertreatment preconditioning cycles are run before the duty cycle, treat the preconditioning cycles and any associated so ak period as part of the duty cycle for the purpose of opening drains and draining condensate. Note that yo u must close any intake air condensate drains that are not representative of those normally open during in

- use operation. (c) Start testing as follo ws: (1) If engine starting is not part of the dut y c ycl e, perform the following for the various duty cycles: (i) Transient and steady - state ramped

- modal cycles . Simultaneously start recording continuous data, an y electronic integrating devices, batch sampl ing, and execution of the duty cycle. (ii) Steady

- state discrete

- mode cycles . Control the engine operation to match the first mode in the test cycle. This will require controlling engine speed and load, engine load, or other operator demand settings, as specified in the standard

- setting part. Follow the instructions in the standard

- setting part to determine how long to stabilize engine operation at each mode, how long to sample emissions at each mode, and how to transition between modes. For each mode, simultaneously start recording continuous data, an y el ectronic integrating devices, and batch sampling. (2) If engine starting is part of the dut y c ycl e, simultaneously start recording continuous data, an y el ectronic integrating devices, and batch sampling before attempting to start the engine. Initiate the dut y cycle when the engine starts. (3) For batch sampling sy stems you may use good engineering judgment to advance or delay the start and stop of sampling with respect to the beginning and end of the t est interval to improve the accuracy of the batch sample. * * * * * 226. Section 1065.545 is revised to read as follows:Page 747 of 888

**§1065.545 Verification of proportional flow control for batch sampling.** For an y proportional batch sample such as a bag or PM filter, dem onstrate that proportional sampling was maintained using one of the following, noting that you may omit up to 5 % of the total number of data points as outliers: (a) For an y pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow rates, where total flow rat e means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw exhaust sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or their 1 Hz means with the statistical calculations in §1065.602. Determine the standard error of the estimate, SEE , of the sample flow rate ve rsus the total flow rate. For each test interval, demonstrate that SEE was less than or equal to 3.5 % of the mean sample flow rate. (b) For an y pair of flow rates, use recorded sample and total flow rates, where total flow rate means the raw exhaust flow rate for raw exhaust sampling and the dilute exhaust flow rate for CVS sampling, or their 1 Hz means to demonstrate that each flow rate was constant within ±2.5 % of its respective mean or target flow rate. You may use the following options instead of re cording the respective flow rate of each t ype of meter: (1) Critical

- flow venturi option . For critical

- flow venturis, you may use recorded venturi

inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. Demonstrate that the flow density at the venturi inlet was constant wi thin ±2.5 % of the mean or target density over each test interval. For a CVS critical

- flow venturi, you may demonstrate this by

showing that the absolute temperature at the venturi inlet was constant within ±4 % of the mean or target absolute temperature over each test interval. (2) Positive

- displacement pump option . You may use recorded pump

- inlet conditions or their 1 Hz means. Demonstrate that the flow density at the pump inlet was constant within ±2.5 % of the mean or target densit y over each test i nterval. For a CVS pump, yo u may demonstrate this by

showing that the absolute temperature at the pump inlet was constant within ±2 % of the mean or target absolute temperature over each test interval. (c) Using good engineering judgment, demonstrate with an engineering analy sis that the proportional

- flow control sy stem inherently ensures proportional sampling under all circumstances expected during testing. For example, you might use CFVs for both sample flow and total dilute exhaust (CVS) flow and demon strate that they alway s have the same inlet pressures and temperatures and that they alway s operate under critical

- flow conditions. 227. Section 1065.546 is amended by revising the section heading and the introductory text to read as follows: **§1065.546 Verification of minimum dilution ratio for PM batch sampling.**  Use continuous flows and/or tracer gas concentrations for transient and ramped

- modal cycles to verify

the minimum dilution ratios for PM batch sampling as specified in §1065.140(e)(2) over the t est interval. You may use mode

- average values instead of continuous measurements for discrete mode steady

- state duty cycles. Determine the minimum primary

and minimum overall dilution ratios using one of the following methods (you may

use a different method for each stage of dilution): * * * * * 228. Section 1065.550 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.550 Gas analyzer range verification and drift verification.**Page 748 of 888

(a) Range verification . If an anal yz er operated above 100 % of its range at any time during the test, perform the following steps: (1) For batch sampling, re

- anal yz e the sample using the lowest anal yz er range that results in a maximum instrument response below 100 %. Report the result from the lowest range from which the anal yz er operates below 100 % of its range. (2) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next higher analy zer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100 % of its range, repeat the test using the next higher range. Continue to repeat the test until the anal yz e r alway s operates at less than 100 % of its range. (b) Drift verification
. Gas analyzer drift verification is required for all gaseous exhaust constituents for which an emission standard applies. It is also required for CO 2 even if there is no CO 2 emissi on standard. It is not required for other gaseous exhaust constituents for which only a reporting requirement applies (such as CH 4 and N 2 O). (1) Verify drift using one of the following methods: (i) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the ma ss of a single component, perform drift verification based on the regulated constituent. For example, when NO x mass is determined with a dry sample measured with a CLD and the removed water is corrected based on measured CO 2 , CO, THC, and NO x concentrations, you must verify the calculated NO x value. (ii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the masses of multiple subcomponents, perform the drift verification based on either the regulated constituent or all the mass subcomponents. For example, when NO x is measured with separate NO and NO 2 analyzers, you must verify either the NO x value or both the NO and NO 2 values. (iii) For regulated exhaust constituents determined from the concentrations of multiple gaseous emission subcomponents prior to performing mass calculations, perform drift verification on the regulated constituent. You may not verify the concentration subcomponents (e.g., THC and CH 4 for NMHC) separately. For example, for NMHC measurements, perform drift verification on NMHC; do not verify THC and CH 4 separately
. (2) Drift verification requires two sets of emission calculations. For each set of calculations, include all the constituents in the drift verification. Calculate one set using the data before drift correcti on and calculate the other set after correcting all the data for drift according to §1065.672. Note that for purposes of drift verification , you must leave unaltered an y negative emission results over a given test interval (i.e., do not set them to zero). These unaltered results are used when verifyingeither test interval results or composite brake

- specific emissions over the entire duty cycle for drift. For each constituent to be verified, both sets of calculations must include the following: (i) Calculated m ass (or mass rate) emission values over each test interval. (ii) If you are verifying each test interval based on brake

- specific values, calculate brake

specific emission values over each test interval. (iii) If you are verifying over the entir e duty cycle, calculate composite brake

- specific emission values. (3) The dut y c ycl e is verified for drift if you satisfy the following criteria: (i) For each regulated gaseous exhaust constituent, you must satisfy one of the following: (A) For each test i nterval of the duty cycle, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected brake

- specific emission values of the regulated constituent must be withinPage 749 of 888

±4 % of the uncorrected value or the applicable emissions standard, whichever is greater. Altern ativel y, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected emission mass (or mass rate) values of the regulated constituent must be within  4 % of the uncorrected value or the composite work (or power) multiplied by the applicable emissions standard , whichever is greater. For purposes of verifying each test interval, you may use either the reference or actual composite work (or power). (B) For each test interval of the duty cycle and for each mass subcomponent of the regulated constituent, the diffe rence between the uncorrected and the corrected brake

specific emission values must be within ±4 % of the uncorrected value. Alternativel y, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected emissions mass (or mass rate) values must be within ±4 % o f the uncorrected value. (C) For the entire dut y c ycle, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected composite brake

- specific emission values of the regulated constituent must be within ±4 % of the uncorrected value or applicable emission stand ard, whichever is greater. (D) For the entire duty

cycle and for each subcomponent of the regulated constituent, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected composite brake

- specific emission values must be within ±4 % of the uncorrected value. (ii) Where no emission standard applies for CO 2 , you must satisfy one of the following: (A) For each test interval of the duty cycle, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected brake

- specific CO 2 values must be within ±4 % of the uncorrected value; or the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected CO 2 mass (or mass rate) values must be within ±4 % of the uncorrected value. (B) For the entire dut y c ycle, the difference between the uncorrected and the corrected composite brake

- specifi c CO 2 values must be within ±4 % of the uncorrected value. (4) If the test is not verified for drift as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you may consider the test results for the duty cycle to be valid only

if, using good engineering judgment , the observed drift does not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards. For example, if the drift

- corrected value is less than the standard b y at least two times the absolute difference between the uncorrected a nd corrected values, you may consider the data to be verified for demonstrating compliance with the applicable standard. **Subpart G**

**— [Amended]**  229. Section 1065.60 1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: **§1065.601 Overview.** * * * * * (b) You may

use data from multiple sy stems to calculate test results for a single emission test, consistent with good engineering judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch sample, such as multiple weighings of a PM filter or mu ltiple readings from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means where appropriate. You may discard statistical outliers, but you must report all results. ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 230. Section 1065.630 is revised to read as follows:Page 750 of 888

**§1065.630 1980 international gravity formula.** The acceleration of Earth's gravity , a g , varies depending on your location. Calculate a g at yo ur latitude, as follows: a g = 9.7803267715 ∙ [1 + 5.2790414 ∙ 10 - 3 ∙sin 2 (  ) + 2.32718 ∙ 10 - 5 ∙sin4 ( 

) + 1.262 ∙ 10 - 7 ∙sin 6 ( 

) + 7 ∙ 10 - 10 ∙sin 8 ( 

)] Eq. 1065.630
- 1 Where:  = Degrees north or south latitude. Example:  = 45 ° a g = 9.7803267715 ∙ (1 + 5.279041 4 ∙ 10 - 3 ∙sin 2 (45) + 2.32718 ∙ 10 - 5 ∙sin4 (45) + 1.262 ∙ 10 - 7 ∙sin 6 (45) + 7 ∙ 10 - 10 ∙sin 8 (45) a g = 9.8061992026 m/s 2 231. Section 1065.640 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) to read as follows: **§1065.640 Flow meter calibration calculations.** * * * * * (a) Reference meter conversions . The calibration equations in this section use molar flow rate, ref n  , as a reference quantity . If your reference meter outputs a flow rate in a different quantity , such as standard volume rate , stdref V  , actual volume rate, actref V  , or mass rate, ref m  , convert your reference meter output to a molar flow rate using the following equations, noting that while values for volume rate, mass rate, pressure, temperature, and molar mass may

change during an emission test, you should ensure that they are as constant as practical for each individual set point during a flow meter calibration:

stdref std actref act ref ref std act mi x V p V p m n T R T R M

  

    

 Eq. 1065.640
- 1 Where: ref n & = reference molar flow rate. 

### & st dre f 

### V = reference volume flow rate, corrected to a standard pressure and a standard temperature. 

### & ac tr ef 

### V = reference volume flow rate at the actual pressure and temperature of the flow rate.
ref m & = reference mass flow. p std = standard pressure. p act = actual pressure of the flow rate. T std = standard temperature. T act = actual temperature of the flow rate. R = molar gas constant. M mix = molar mass of the flow rate. Example 1:Page 751 of 888 stdref V  = 1000.00 ft 3 /min = 0.471948 m 3 /s p std = 29.9213 in Hg @ 32 °F = 101325 Pa T std = 68.0 °F = 293.15 K R = 8.314472 J/(mol ∙K)

ref 0.471948 101325 293.15 8.314472 n  

 

ref n & = 19.619 mol/s Ex ample 2: ref m & = 17.2683 kg/min = 287.805 g/s M mix = 28.7805 g/mol

ref 287.805 28.7805 n  

ref n & = 10.0000 mol/ s (b) PDP calibration calculations . For each restrictor position, calculate the following values from the mean values determined in §1065.340, as follows: (1) PDP volume pumped per revolution, V rev (m 3 /r):
ref in rev in nPDP n R T V p f   

  Eq. 1065.640
- 2 Example:
ref n & = 25.096 mol/s R = 8.314472 J/(mol ∙K)
in T = 299.5 K
in p = 98290 Pa
nPDP f = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s 25.096 8.314472 299.5 98290 20.085 rev V   

 V rev = 0.03166 m 3 /r (2) PDP slip correction factor, K s (s/r):

out in s nPDP out 1 p p K f p    Eq. 1065.640
- 3 Example:
nPDP f = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s

out p = 100.103 kPa
in p = 98.290 kPaPage 752 of 888 s 1 1 00.103 98.290 20.085 100.103 K    K s = 0.006700 s/r (3) Perform a least

- squares regression of PDP volume pumped per revolution, V rev , versus PDP slip correction factor, K s , by calculating slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , as described in §1065.602. (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section for every speed that you run your PDP. (5) The following example illustrates these calculations: Table 1 of §1065.640

– Example of PDP calibration data

nPDP f (r/min) a 1

(m3 /min) a 0

(m3 /r) 755.0 50.43 0.056 987.6 49.86
- 0.013 1254.5 48.54 0.028 1401.3 47.30
- 0.061 (6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the corresponding slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , to calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in §1065.642. * * * * * (e) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. For CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate each venturi independentl y to determine a separate discharge coefficient, C d , for each venturi, or calibrate each combination of venturis as one venturi. In the case where you calibrate a combination of venturis, use the sum of the active venturi throat areas as A t , the square root of the sum of the squares of the active venturi throat diameters as d t , and the ratio of the venturi throat to inlet diameters as the ratio of the square root of the sum of the active venturi throat diameters ( d t ) to the diameter of the common entrance to all of the venturis ( D ). To determine the C d for a single venturi or a single combination of venturis, perform the following steps: (1) Use the data collected at each calibration set point to calculate an individual C d for each point using Eq. 1065.640
- 4. (2) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the C d values according to Eqs. 1065.602
- 1 and 1065.602

- 2. (3) If the standard deviation of all the C d values is less than or equal to 0.3 % of the mean C d , use the mean C d in Eq. 1065.6 42
- 4, and use the CFV onl y up to the highest r measured during calibration using the following equation:

CFV in 1 p r p    Eq. 1065.640
- 13 Where:  p CFV = Differential static pressure; venturi inlet minus venturi outlet.Page 753 of 888

(4) If the standard deviation of all the C d values exceeds 0.3 % of the mean C d , omit the C d value corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured during calibration. (5) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take corrective action b y checking your calibration data or repeating the calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we recommend checking for leaks, appl yi ng tighter tolerances to measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize. (6) If the number of remaining C d values is seven or greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining C d values. (7) If the standard deviation of the remaining C d values is less than or equal to 0.3 % of the mean of the remaining C d , use that mean C d in Eq. 1065.642

- 4, and use the CFV va lues only

up to the highest r associated with the remaining C d . (8) If the standard deviation of the remaining C d still exceeds 0.3 % of the mean of the remaining C

d values, repeat the steps in paragraph (e)(4) through (8) of this section. 232. Section 1065.642 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: **§1065.642 SSV, CFV, and PDP molar flow rate calculations.** * * * * * (a) PDP molar flow rate . Based upon the speed at which you operate the PDP for a test interval, selec t the corresponding slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , as calculated in §1065.640, to calculate molar flow rate, 

### n  as follows:

nPDP in rev

in p V n f R T

  

  Eq. 1065.642
- 1 Where:

nPDP out in

1 rev 0 out p p a V a f p    

Eq. 1065.642
- 2 Example: a 1 = 50.43 (m 3 /min) = 0.8405 (m 3 /s) f nPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s p out = 99950 Pa p in = 98575 Pa a 0 = 0.056 (m 3 /r) R = 8.314472 J/(mol ∙K) T in = 323.5 K C p = 1000 (J/m 3 )/kPa C t = 60 s/min

rev 0.8405 99950 98575 0.056 12.58 99950 V     V rev = 0.06383 m 3 /rPage 754 of 888 98575 0.06383 12.58 8.314472 323.5 n   

 


### n & = 29.428 mol/s * * * * * (c) CFV molar flow rate . Some CFV flow meters consist of a single venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. If you use multiple venturis and you calibrated each venturi independentl y to deter

mine a separate discharge coefficient, C d (or calibration coefficient, K v), for each venturi, calculate the individual molar flow rates through each venturi and sum all their flow rates to determine 

### n  . I f you use multiple venturis and you calibrated each c ombination of venturis, calculate 

### n  using the sum of the active venturi throat areas as A t , the square root of the sum of the squares of the active venturi throat diameters as d t , and the ratio of the venturi throat to inlet diameters as the ratio of the sq uare root of the sum of the active venturi throat diameters ( d t ) to the diameter of the common entrance to all of the venturis (

D ). (1) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or one combination of venturis, use its respective mean C d and othe r constants you determined according to §1065.640 and calculate its molar flow rate 

### n  during an emission test, as follows:
t i n d f mix in

A p n C C Z M R T

   

    Eq. 1065.642
- 4 Example: C d = 0.985 C f = 0.7219 A t = 0.00456 m 2 p in = 98836 Pa Z = 1 M mix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.028780 5 kg/mol R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K) T in = 378.15 K 0.00456 98836 0.985 0.7219 1 0 .0287805 8.314472 378.15 n    

   


### n  = 33.690 mol/s (2) To calculate the molar flow rate through one venturi or a combination of venturis, you may use its respective mean K v and other constants you determined according to §1065.640 and calculate its molar flow rate 

### n  during an emission test. Note that if you choose to follow the permissible ranges of dilution air dewpoint versus calibration air dewpoint in Table 3 of §1065.64 0, you may set M mix

- cal and M

mix equal to 1. Calculate 

### n  as follows:
mix-cal

in std std in mix v M K p p n T R T M    

  Eq. 1065.642
- 5 Where:Page 755 of 888 stdref in-cal in-cal v V T K p   Eq. 1065.642
- 6 V stdref = volumetric flow of the standard at reference conditions of 293.15 K and 101.325 kPa. T in

- cal = Venturi inlet temperature during calibration

. Pin

- cal = Venturi inlet pressure during calibration

. M mix

- cal = Molar mass of gas mixture used during calibration. M mix = Molar mass of gas mixture during the emission test calculated using Equation 1065.640
- 9. Example: V stdref = 0.4895 m 3 T in

- cal = 302.52 K Pin

- cal = 99654 Pa p in = 98836 Pa p std = 101325 Pa M mix

- cal = 28.9656 g/mol = 0.0289656 kg/mol M mix = 28.7805 g/mol = 0.0287805 kg/mol T in = 353.15 K T std = 293.15 K R = 8.314472 J/(mol·K)
4 0 .5 0.4895 302.52 0.000074954 m s K kg 99654 v K      0.000074954 98936 101325 0.0289656

293.15 8.314472 353.15 0.0287805 n    

 


### n  = 16.457 mol/s 233. Section 1065.645 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: **§1065.645 Amount of water in an ideal gas.** This section describes how to determine the amount of water in an ideal gas, which you need for various performance verifications and emission calculations. Use the equation for the vapor pressure of water in paragraph (a) of this section or another appropriate equation and, depending on whether you measure dewpoint or relative humidity , perform one of the calculations in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section. Paragraph (d) of this section provides an equation for determining dewpoint from relative humidity and dry bulb temperature measurements. The equations for the va por pressure of water as presented in this section are derived from equations in “Saturation Pressure of Water on the New Kelvin Temperature Scale” (Goff, J.A., Transactions American Society of Heating and Air

- Conditioning Engineers, Vol. 63, No. 1607, pag es 347

– 354). Note that the equations were originally published to derive vapor pressure in units of atmospheres and have been modified to derive results in units of kPa by converting the last term in each equation.Page 756 of 888

(a) Vapor pressure of water . Calculat e the vapor pressure of water for a given saturation temperature condition, T sat , as follows, or use good engineering judgment to use a different relationship of the vapor pressure of water to a given saturation temperature condition: (1) For humidity

meas urements made at ambient temperatures from (0 to 100) °C, or for humidity measurements made over super

- cooled water at ambient temperatures from (

– 50 to 0) °C, use the following equation:

sat

sat 8.2969 1 4 273.16 sat 10 H2O 10 sat 273.16 4.76955 1 3 273.16 log ( ) 10.79574 1 5 .02800 log 1.50475 10 1 1 0 273.16 0.42873 10 10 1 0 .2138602 T

T T p T  

    

  
 

   

    

   
          

                    

  Eq. 1065.645
- 1 Where: p H20 = vapor pressure of water at saturation temperature condition, kPa. T sat = saturation temperature of water at measured conditions, K. Example: T sat = 9.5 °C = 282.65 K 282.65 8.2969 1 4 273.16 10 H2O 10
273.16 4.76955 1 3 282.65

273.16 282.65 log ( ) 10.79574 1 5 .02800 log 1.50475 10 1 1 0 282.65 273.16 0.42873 10 10 1 0 .2138602 p  

    

  
 

   

    

   
                           

    log 10 ( p H20 ) = 0.074297 p H20 = 10 0.074297 = 1.186581 kPa (2) Fo r humidity

measurements over ice at ambient temperatures from (

– 100 to 0) °C, use the following equation:

10 H2O 10 sat sat
sat 273.16 273.16 log ( ) 9.096853 1 3 .566506 log
0.876812 1 0 .2138602

273.16 p T T

T    
     

           
 

   

Eq. 1065.645
- 2 Example: T ice = – 15.4 °C = 257.75 KPage 757 of 888 10 H2O 10

273.16 273.16 log ( ) 9.096853 1 3 .566506 log 257.75 257.75 257.75 0.876812 1 0 .2138602

273.16 p    
     

           
 

    log 10 ( p H20 ) =

– 0.798207 p H20 = 10 –0.79821 = 0.159145 kPa * * * * * (d) Dewpoint determination from relative humidity and dry bulb temperature . This paragraph (d) describes how to calculate dewpoint temperature from relative humidity , RH %. This is based on “ITS

- 90 Formulations for Vapor Pressure, Frostpoint Temperature, Dewpoint Temperature, and Enhancement Factors in the Range

– 100 to +100 °C” (Hardy, B., The Proceedings of the Third International S ymposium on Humidity & Moisture, Teddington, London, England, April 1998). Calculate p H2 0sat as described in paragraph (a) of this section based on setting T sat equal to T

amb . Calculate p H20scaled by

multiplying p H20sat by RH %. Calculate the dewpoint, T dew , from p H20 using the following equation: 

###             2 3 2 1 1 6 H2O H2O H2O dew 2 3 1 3 5

H2O H2O H2O 2.0798233 10 2.0156028 10 ln 4.6778925 10 ln 9.2 288067 10 ln 1 1 .3319669 10 ln 5.6577518 10 ln 7.5172865 10 ln p p p T p p p  

             

         Eq. 1065.645
- 5 Where: ln( p H20 ) = the natural log of p H2Oscaled , which is the water vapor pressure scaled to the relative humidity

at the location of the relative humidity measurement, T

sat = T amb . Example: RH % = 39.61 % T sat = T amb = 20.00 °C = 293.15K Using Eq. 1065.645

- 1, p H20sat = 2.3371 kPa p H2Oscaled = (39.61 %  ) = 0.925717 kPa = 925.717 Pa 

###             2 3 2 1 1 6 dew 2 3 1 3 5 2.0798233 10 2.0156028 10 ln 925.717 4.6778925 10 ln 925.717 9.2288067 10 ln 925.717 1 1 .3319669 10 ln 925.717 5.6577518 10 ln 925.71 7 7 .5172865 10 ln 925.717 T  

             

         T dew = 279.00 K = 5.85 °C 234. Section 1065.650 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: **§1065.650 Emission calculations.** * * * * * (c) * * * (1) Concentration corrections . Perform the following sequence of preliminary calculations on recorded concentrations: (i) Correct all gaseous emission analy zer concentration readings, including continuous readings, sample bag readings, and di lution air background readings, for drift asPage 758 of 888

described in §1065.672. Note that you must omit this step where brake

- specific emissions are calculated without the drift correction for performing the drift validation according to §1065.550(b). When applying the initial THC and CH 4 contamination readings according to §1065.520(f), use the same values for both sets of calculations. You may also use as

- measured values in the initial set of calculations and corrected values in the drift

- corrected set of calculations as described in §1065.520(g)(7). (ii) Correct all THC and CH 4 concentrations for initial contamination as described in §1065.660(a), including continuous readings, sample bags readings, and dilution air background readings. (iii) Correct all concentr ations measured on a “dry” basis to a “wet” basis, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in §1065.659. (iv) Calculate all NMHC and CH 4 concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in §1065.660. (v) For emission testing with an oxygenated fuel, calculate any HC concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in §1065.665. See subpart I of this part for testing with oxygenated fuels. (vi) Correct all the NO x concentrati ons, including dilution air background concentrations, for intake

- air humidity

as described in §1065.670. * * * * * 235. Section 1065.655 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(3), (d), (e), and (f)(2) to read as follows: **§1065.655 Chemic al balances of fuel, intake air, and exhaust.**  * * * * * (c) Chemical balance procedure . The calculations for a chemical balance involve a sy stem of equations that require iteration. We recommend using a computer to solve this sy stem of equations. You must guess the initial values of up to three quantities: the amount of water in the meas ured flow, xH2Oexh , fraction of dilution air in diluted exhaust, x dil/exh , and the amount of products on a C 1 basis per dry mole of dry

measured flow, x Ccombdry . You may

use time

- weighted mean values of combustion air humidity and dilution air humidity

in the chemical balance; as long as your combustion air and dilution air humidities remain within tolerances of ±0.0025 mol/mol of their respective mean values over the test interval. For each emission concentration, x , and amount of water, xH2Oexh , you mus t determine their completel y dry concentrations, x dry and xH2Oexhdry . You must also use your fuel’s atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio,  , oxygen - to - carbon ratio,   sulfur

- to - carbon ratio, 

, and nitrogen

- to - carbon ratio,  . You may

calculate 

,  ,  , and  based on measured fuel composition as described in paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, or you may

use default values for a given fuel as described in §1065.655(d)(3). Use the following steps to complete a chemical balance: * * * * * (3) Use the following s ymbols and subscripts in the equations for this paragraph (c): x dil/exh = amount of dilution gas or excess air per mole of exhaust. xH2Oexh = amount of H 2 O in exhaust per mole of exhaust. x Ccombdry = amount of carbon from fuel in the exhaust per mole of dry exhaust. xH2dry = amount of H 2 in exhaust per amount of dry exhaust.Page 759 of 888

K H2Ogas = water - gas reaction equilibrium coefficient. You may use 3.5 or calculate your own value using good engineering judgment. xH2Oexhdry = amount of H 2 O in exhaust p er dry mole of dry

exhaust. xprod/intdry = amount of dry stoichiometric products per dry mole of intake air. x dil/exhdry = amount of dilution gas and/or excess air per mole of dry exhaust. x int/exhdry = amount of intake air required to produce actual combu stion products per mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust. xraw/exhdry = amount of undiluted exhaust, without excess air, per mole of dry (raw or diluted) exhaust
. x O2int = amount of intake air O 2 per mole of intake air. x CO2intdry = amount of intake air CO 2 per mole of dry intake air. You may use x CO2intdry = 375 μmol/mol, but we recommend measuring the actual concentration in the intake air. xH2Ointdry = amount of intake air H 2 O per mole of dry intake air. x CO2int = amount of intake air CO 2 per mole of intake air. x CO2dil = amount of dilution gas CO 2 per mole of dilution gas. x CO2dildry = amount of dilution gas CO 2 per mole of dry dilution gas. If you use air as diluent, you may

use x CO2dildry = 375 μmol/mol, but we recommend measuring the actual concentration in the intake air. xH2Odildry = amount of dilution gas H 2 O per mole of dry dilution gas. xH2Odil = amount of dilution gas H 2 O per mole of dilution gas. x [emission]meas = amount of measured emission in the sample at the respective gas anal yz er . x [emission]dry = amount of emission per dry mole of dry

sample. xH2O[emission]meas = amount of H 2 O in sample at emission

- detection location. Measure or estimate these values according to §1065.145(e)(2). xH2Oint = amount of H 2 O in the intake air, based on a humidity measurement of intake air.  = atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar consumption.  = atomic ox ygen - to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar consumptio n.  = atomic sulfur

- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted b y molar consumption.  = atomic nitrogen

- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar consumption. * * * * * (d) Carbon mass fraction and fuel composition . Determine carbon mass fraction of fuel, w c , and fuel composition represented b y α , β , γ , and δ using one of the following methods: (1) You may

calculate w c as described in this paragraph (d)(1) based on measured fuel properties. To do so, you must determine values for  and  in all cases, but you may set  and  to zero if the default value listed in Table 1 of this section is zero. Calculate w c using the following equation: C c C H O S N

1 1 M w M M M M M

   

          Page 760 of 888 Eq. 1065.655
- 19 Where: w c = carbon mass fraction of fuel. M C = molar mass of carbon.  = atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar consumption. M H = molar mass of h ydrogen.  = atomic ox ygen - to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel( s) being combusted, weighted by molar consumption. M O = molar mass of ox ygen.  = atomic sulfur

- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted b y molar consumption. M S = molar mass of sulfur.  = atomic nitrogen

- to - carbon ratio of the mixture of fuel(s) being combusted, weighted by molar consumption. M N = molar mass of nitrogen. Example:  = 1.8  = 0.05  = 0.0003  = 0.0001 M C = 12.0107Page 761 of 888

M H = 1.00794 M O = 15.9994 M S = 32.065 M N = 14.0067

c 1 1 2.0107 1 1 2.0107 1.8 1.00794 0.05 15.9994 0.0003 32.06 5 0 .0001 14.0067 w            w c = 0.8206 (2) Determine a fuel’s elemental mass fractions and values for α , β , γ , and δ as follows: (i) For gaseous fuels, use the default values for α , β , γ , and δ in Table 1 of this section or use good engineering judgment to determine those values based on mea surement. (ii) Determine mass fractions for liquid fuels as follows: (A) You may

determine the fuel carbon and hydrogen mass fractions according to ASTM D5291 (incorporated b y reference in §1065.1010). When using ASTM D5291 to determine carbon and h ydro gen mass fractions from gasoline (with or without blended ethanol), use good engineering judgment to adapt the method as appropriate. (B) Determine ox ygen mass fraction for gasoline (with or without blended ethanol) according to ASTM D5599 (incorporated b y reference in §1065.1010). For all other liquid fuels, determine the ox ygen mass fraction using good engineering judgment. (C) Determine the nitrogen mass fraction according to ASTM D4629 or ASTM D5762 (incorporated b y reference in §1065.1010) for all liq uid fuels. Select the correct method based on the expected nitrogen content. (D) Determine the sulfur mass fraction according to subpart H of this part. (iii) For liquid fuels, use the default values for α , β , γ , and δ in Table 1 of this section , or yo u m ay determine the value for any of these parameters based on measure ment. Calculate measured values using the following equations:

H C C H w M w M   

 Eq. 1065.655
- 20 O C C O w M w M   

 Eq. 1065.655
- 21 S C C S w M w M   

 Eq. 1065.655
- 22 N C C N w M w M   

 Eq. 1065.655
- 23 Where: w C = carbon mass fraction of fuel. w H = hydrogen mass fraction of fuel. w O = ox ygen mass fraction of fuel. w S = sulfur mass fraction of fuel.Page 762 of 888

w N = nitrogen mass fraction of fuel. Example: w C = 0.8206 w H = 0.1239 w O = 0.0547 w S = 0.00066 Table 1 of §1065.655

–Default values of  ,  ,  ,  , and w c , for various fuels
Fuel Atomic hydrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and nitrogen

- to - carbon ratios CH α O β S  N  Carbon mass

fraction, w c g/g Gasoline CH 1.85 O 0 S 0N 0 0.866 E10 Gasoline CH 1.92 O 0.03 S 0N 0 0.833 E15 Gasoline CH 1.95 O 0.05 S 0N 0 0.817 E85 Gasoline CH 2.73 O 0.38 S 0N 0 0.576 #1 Diesel CH 1.93 O 0 S 0N 0 0.861 #2 Diesel CH 1.80 O 0 S 0N 0 0.869 Liquefied petroleum gas CH 2.64 O 0 S 0N 0 0.819 Natural gas CH 3.78 O 0.016 S 0N 0 0.747 E100 Ethanol CH 3 O 0.5 S 0N 0 0.521 M100 Methanol CH 4 O 1 S 0N 0 0.375 Residual fuel blends Must be determined by measured fuel properties as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (e) Calculated raw exhaust molar flow rate from measured intake air molar flow rate or fuel mass flow rate . You may calculate the raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you sampled emissions, exh

n  , based on the measured intake air molar flow rate, int n  , or the measured fuel mass flow rate, fuel m  , and the values calculated using the chemical balance in paragraph (c) of this section. The chemical balance must be based on raw exhaust gas concentrations. Solve for the chemical balance i n paragraph (c) of this section at the same frequency

that you update and record int n  or fuel m  . For laboratory

tests, calculating raw exhaust molar flow rate using measured fuel mass flow rate is valid only for steady

state testing. See §1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to field testing. (1) Crankcase flow rate
. If engines are not subject to crankcase controls under the standard

- setting part, you may calculate raw exhaust flow based on int n  or fuel m  using one of the following: (i) You may

measure flow rate through the crankcase vent and subtract it from the calculated exhaust flow.Page 763 of 888

(ii) You may

estimate flow rate through the crankcase vent by engineering analy sis as lon g as the uncertainty

in your calculation does not adversel y affect your ability to show that your engines compl y with applicable emission standards. (iii) You may

assume your crankcase vent flow rate is zero. (2) Intake air molar flow rate calculation . Ca lculate exh n  based on int

n  using the following equation: 

#     int exh int/exhdry raw/exhdry H2Oexhdry 1 1 n n x x

x   

   

  




Eq. 1065.655
- 24 Where: exh n  = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you measured emissions.
int n  = intake air molar flow rate including humidity in intake air. Example: int n  = 3.780 mol/s x int/exhdry = 0.69021 mol/mol xraw/exhdry = 1.10764 mol/mol xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/mol 

##     exh 3.780

0.69021 1.10764 1 1 0 .10764 n   

   

   

exh n  = 6.066 mol/s (3) Fuel mass flow rate calculation . This calculation may be used onl y for steady

- state laboratory

testing. See §1065.915(d)(5)(iv) for application to field testing. Calculate exh n  based on fuel

m  using the following equation: 

#   fuel c H 2Oexhdry exh c C combdry

1 m w x n M x

   

 

 Eq. 1065.655
- 25 Where: exh n  = raw exhaust molar flow rate from which you measured emissio ns. fuel m  = fuel flow rate including humidity in intake air. Example: fuel m  = 7.559 g/s w c = 0.869 g/g M C = 12.0107 g/mol x Ccombdry = 99.87 mmol/mol = 0.09987 mol/mol xH20exhdry = 107.64 mmol/mol = 0.10764 mol/molPage 764 of 888 

##   exh 7.559 0.869 1 0 .10764

12.0107 0.09987 n    

 

exh n  = 6.066 mol/s (f) * * * (2) Dilute exhaust and intake air molar flow rate calculation . Calculate exh n  as follows: 

#     exh raw/exhdry int/exhdry H2Oexh dexh int 1 n x x x n n         

Eq. 1065.655
- 26 Example: int 7.930 mo l/s n   raw/exhdry 0.1544 mol/mol x  mol/mol

1451
. 0 int/exhdry  xH2Oexh 32.46 mmol/mol 0.03246 mol/mol x   dexh 49.02 mol/s n   

##     exh 

### 0.1544 0.1451 1 0 .03246 49.02 7.930 0.4411 7.93 0 8 .371 mol/s n           236. Section 1065.659 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§1065.659 Removed water correction.** (a) If you remove water upstream of a concentration measurement, x , correct for the removed water. Perform this correction based on the amount of water at the concentration measurement, xH2O[emission]meas , and at the flow meter, xH2Oexh , whose flow is used to determine the mass emission rate or total mass over a test interval. For continuous analyzers downstream of a sample dry er for transient and ramped

- modal cycles, you must appl y this correction on a continuous basis over the test interval, even if yo u use one of the options in §1065.145(e)(2) that results in a const ant value for xH2O[emission]meas because x H2Oexh varies over the test interval. For batch analyzers, determine the flow

- weighted average based on the continuous xH2Oexh values determined as described in paragraph (c) of this section. For batch anal yz ers, you may determine the flow

- weighted average x H2Oexh based on a single value of xH2Oexh determined as described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, using flow

- weighted average or batch concentration inputs. * * * * * 237. Section 1065.665 is revise d to read as follows: **§1065.665 THCE and NMHCE determination.** (a) If you measured an ox ygen ated h ydrocarbon's mass concentration, first calculate its molar concentration in the exhaust sample stream from which the sample was taken (raw or dilute d exhaust), and convert this into a C 1 - equivalent molar concentration. Add these C 1 - equivalent molar concentrations to the molar concentration of non

- oxygenated total hydrocarbon (NOTHC). The result is the molar concentration of total h ydrocarbon equival ent (THCE). Calculate THCE concentration using the following equations, notingPage 7 65 of 888

that Eq. 1065.665

- 3 is required only if you need to convert your ox ygenated hydrocarbon (OHC) concentration from mass to moles :



##   THCE NOTHC OHCi OHCi-init 1 N
i x x x x

  
 

##  Eq. 1065.665
- 1



##   

#   NOTHC THC[THC-FID]cor OHCi OHCi-init OHCi[TH C-FID] 1 N
i x x x x RF

    



##  Eq. 1065.665
- 2 dexhOHCi dexhOHCi OHCi OHCi dexh dexh

dexh m n M x m n M   Eq. 1065.665
- 3 Where: x THCE = The sum of the C 1 - equivalent concentrations of non

- oxygenated hydrocarbons, alcohols, and aldeh yd es. x NOTHC = The sum of the C 1 - equivalent concentrations of NOTHC. x OHCi = The C 1 - equivalent concentration of ox yge nated species i in diluted exhaust, not corrected for initial contamination. x OHCi

- init = The C 1 - equivalent concentration of the initial sy stem contamination (optional) o f ox ygenated species i , dry

- to - wet corrected. x THC[THC
- FID]cor = The C 1 - equivalent response to NOTHC and all OHC in diluted exhaust, HC contamination and dry

- to - wet corrected, as measured b y the THC

- FID. RF OHCi[THC

- FID] = The response factor of the FID t o species i relative to propane on a C 1 - equivalent basis. C# = the mean number of carbon atoms in the particular compound. M dexh = The molar mass of diluted exhaust as determine in §1065.340. m dexhOHCi = The mass of ox ygen ated species i in dilute exhaust. M OHCi = The C 1 - equivalent molecular weight of oxygenated species i
. m dexh = The mass of diluted exhaust n dexhOHCi = The number of moles of ox ygenated species i in total diluted exhaust flow. n dexh = The total diluted exhaust flow. (b) If we require you to determine nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent (NMHCE), use the following equation: x NMHCE = x THCE – RF CH4[THC
- FID]  x CH4 Eq. 1065.665
- 4 Where: x NMHCE = The sum of the C 1 - equivalent concentrations of nonox ygenated nonmethane hydrocarbon (NONMHC), alcohols, and aldehydes. RF CH4[THC
- FID] = response factor of THC

- FI D to CH 4 . x CH4 = concentration of CH 4 , HC contamination (optional) and dry

- to - wet corrected, as measured b y the gas chromatograph FID. (c) The following example shows how to determine NMHCE emissions based on ethanol (C 2 H 5 OH), methanol (CH 3 OH), acetaldeh yde (C 2 H 4 O), and formaldeh yd e (HCHO) asPage 766 of 888

C 1 - equivalent molar concentrations: x THC[THC
- FID]cor = 145.6 μmol/mol x CH4 = 18.9 μmol/mol x C2H5OH = 100.8 μmol/mol x CH3OH = 1.1 μmol/mol x C2H4O = 19.1 μmol/mol xHCHO = 1.3 μmol/mol RF CH4[THC
- FID] = 1.07 RF C2H5OH[THC
- FID] = 0.76 RF CH3OH[THC
- FID] = 0.74 RF H2H4O[THC
- FID] = 0.50 RF HCHO[THC
- FID] = 0.0 x NMHCE = x THC[THC
- FID]cor – ( x C2H5OH  RF

C2H5OH[THC
- FID] + x CH3OH  RF CH3OH[THC
- FID] + x C2H4O  RF

C2H4O[THC
- FID] + xHCHO  RF HCHO[THC
- FID]  + x C2H5OH + x CH3OH + x C2H4O + xHCHO

– ( RF CH4[THC
- FID]  x CH4 ) x NMHCE = 145.6

– (100.8  0
. 7 6 + 1
. 1  0.74 + 19.1  0.50 + 1.3  0  + 100.8 + 1.1 + 19.1 + 1.3

– (1.07  18.9) x NMHCE = 160.71 μmol/mol 238. Section 1065.695 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(i) and adding paragraph (c)(6)(x) to read as follows: **§1065.695 Data requirements.** * * * * * (c) * * * (4) * * * (i) L inearit y verification. * * * * * (6) * * * (x) Number and t ype of preconditioning cycles. * * * * * **Subpart H**

**— [Amended]**  239. Section 1065.701 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d), and (f) to read as follows: **§1065.701 General requirements for test fuels.** (a) General . For all emission measurements, use test fuels that meet the specifications in this sub part, unless the standard

- setting part directs otherwise. Section 1065.10(c)(1) does not apply

with respect to test fuels. Note that the standard

- setting parts generall y require that you design your emission controls to function properl y when using comme rciall y available fuels, even if they differ from the test fuel. Where we specify multiple grades of a certain fuel ty pe (such as diesel fuel with different sulfur concentrations), see the standard

- setting part to determine which grade to use. * * * * * ( d) Fuel specifications . Specifications in this section apply as follows: (1) Measure and calculate values as described in the appropriate reference procedure. Record and report final values expressed to at least the same number of decimal places asPage 767 of 888

the a pplicable limit value. The right

- most digit for each limit value is significant unless specified otherwise. For example, for a specified distillation temperature of 60 °C, determine the test fuel’s value to the nearest whole number. (2) The fuel parame ters specified in this subpart depend on measurement procedures that are incorporated b y reference. For an y of these procedures, you may instead rely

upon the procedures identified in 40 CFR part 80 for measuring the same parameter. For example, we may

i dentify different reference procedures for measuring gasoline parameters in 40 CFR 80.46. * * * * * (f) Service accumulation and field testing fuels . If we do not specify a service

accumulation or field

- testing fuel in the standard

- setting part, use an ap propriate commerciall y available fuel such as those meeting minimum specifications from the following table: Table 1 of §1065.701

–Examples of service

- accumulation and field

- testing fuels. Fuel category Subcategory Reference procedure 1 Diesel Light distillate and light blends with residual AS TM D975 Middle distillate AS TM D6985 Biodiesel (B100) AS TM D6751 Intermediate and residual fuel All See §1065.705 Gasoline Motor vehicle gasoline AS TM D4814 Motor gasoline with ethanol concentrations up to 10 volume %. AS TM D4814 Alcohol Ethanol (E51

- 83) AS TM D5798 Methanol (M70

- M85) AS TM D5797 Aviation fuel Aviation gasoline AS TM D910 Gas turbine AS TM D1655 Jet B wide cut AS TM D6615 Gas turbine fuel General AS TM D2880 1 AS TM specifications are incorporated by reference in §1065.1010. 240. Section 1065.703 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as follows: **§1065.703 Distillate diesel fuel.** * * * * *Page 768 of 888

Table 1 of §1065.703

–Test fuel specifications for distillate diesel fuel Property Unit Ultra Low Sulfur Lo w

Sulfur High

Sulfur Reference

Procedure 1 Cetane Number

— 40
- 50 40
- 50 40
- 50 ASTM D613 Distillation range: Initial boiling point 10 pct. point 50 pct. point 90 pct. point Endpoint °C 171
- 204 204
- 238 243
- 282 293
- 332 321
- 366 171
- 204

204
- 238 243
- 282 293
- 332 321
- 366 171
- 204

204
- 238 243
- 282 293
- 332 321
- 366 ASTM D86

Gravity °API 32
- 37 32
- 37 32
- 37 ASTM D4052 Total sulfur, ultra low

sulfur mg/kg 7

– 15 See 40 CFR 80.580 Total sulfur, low and high sulfur mg/kg 300
- 500 800
- 2500 ASTM D2622or alternates as allowed under 40 CFR 80.580 Aromatics, min. (Remainder shall be paraffins, naphthenes, and olefins) g/kg 100 100 100 ASTM D5186 Flashpoint, min. °C 54 54 54 ASTM D93 Kinematic Viscosity cSt 2.0
- 3.2 2.0
- 3.2 2.0
- 3.2 ASTM D445 1 ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in §1065.1010. See §1065.701(d) for other allow ed procedures. 241. Section 1065.710 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.710 Gasoline.** (a) This section specifies test fuel properties for gasoline with ethanol (low

- level blend only) and for gasoline without ethanol. Note that the “fuel type” for the fuels specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section is considered to be gasoline. In contrast, fuels with higher ethanol concentrations, such as fuel containing 82 percent ethanol, are considered to be ethanol fuels rather than gasoline. We specify some test fuel parameters that apply uniquely for low

- temperature testing and for testing at altitudes above 1,219 m. For all other testing,, use the test fuel parameters specified for general testing. Unless the standard

- setting part specifies otherwise, use the fuel specified in paragraph (c) of this section for general testing. (b) The f ollowing specifications apply for a blended gasoline test fuel that has nominally 15 % ethanol (commonl y called E15 test fuel): (1) Prepare the blended test fuel from t ypical refinery gasoline blending components. You may not use pure compounds, except as follows: (i) You may

use neat ethanol as a blendstock. (ii) You may

adjust the test fuel’s vapor pressure by adding butane. (iii) You may

adjust the test fuel’s benzene content by adding benzene. (iv) You may

adjust the test fuel’s sulfur content by adding sulfur compounds that are representative of those found with in

- use fuels. (2) Table 1 of this section identifies limit values consistent with the units in the reference procedure for each fuel property. These values are generally specified in inte rnational units. Values presented in parentheses are for information only . Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §1065.710

–Test fuel specifications for a low

- level ethanol

- gasoline blend Property Unit SPECIFICATION Reference Procedure 1Page 769 of 888 General Testing Low
Temperature Testing High Altitude

Testing Antiknock Index (R+M)/2 - 87.0
- 88.4 2 87.0 Minimum AS TM D2699 and

D2700 Sensitivity (R

- M)

- 7.5 Minimum AS TM D2699 and D2700 Dry Vapor Pressure Equivalent (

DVPE) 3 kPa (psi) 60.0
- 63.4 (8.7

- 9.2) 77.2
- 81.4

(11.2

- 11.8) 52.4
- 55.2

(7.6

- 8.0) AS TM D5191 Distillation 10% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 49
- 60 (120

- 140) 43
- 54

(110

- 130) 49
- 60

(120

- 140)
AS TM D86 50% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 77
- 88 (170

- 190) 90% evaporated ° C ( ° F) 154
- 166 (310

- 330) Evaporated final boiling point ° C ( ° F) 193
- 216 (380

- 420) Residue milliliter 2.0 Maximum Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons volume % 19.5
- 24.5

AS TM D5769 C6 Aromatics (benzene) volume % 0.6
- 0.8 C7 Aromatics (toluene) volume % 4.4
- 5.5 C8 Aromatics volume % 5.5
- 6.9 C9 Aromatics volume % 5.0
- 6.2 C10+ Aromatics volume % 4.0
- 5.0 Olefins 4 mass % 4.5
- 11.5 AS TM D6550 Ethanol blended 5 volume % 14.6
- 15.0 See paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Ethanol confirmatory6,7 volume % 14.3
- 15.3 AS TM D5599 Total Content of Oxygenates Other than Ethanol 7 volume % 0.1 Maximum AS TM D5599 Sulfur mg/kg 8.0
- 11.0 AS TM D2622, D5453 or D7039 Lead g/liter 0.0026 Maximum AS TM D3237 Phosphorus g/liter 0.0013 Maximum AS TM D3231 Copper Corrosion

- No. 1 Maximum AS TM D130 Solvent

- Washed Gum Content mg/100 milliliter 3.0 Maximum AS TM D381 Oxidation Stability minute 1000 Minimum AS TM D525 1 AS TM procedures are incorporated by reference in §1065.1010. See §1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 2 Octane specifications apply only for testing related to exhaust emissions. For engines or vehicles that require the use of premium fuel, as described in paragraph (d) of this section, the adjusted specification for antiknock index is a minimum value of 91.0; no maximum value applies. All other specifications apply for this high

octane fuel. 3 Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE , based on the measured total vapor pressure, p T , in kPa using the following equation: DVPE = 0.956 ∙ p T - 2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressure using a different test method. 4 The specified olefin concentration range equates to approximately 4

– 10 volume % when measured according to ASTM D1319.Page 770 of 888 5 The ethanol blended specification is based on the volume % ethanol content of the fuel as determined during bl ending by the fuel supplier and as stated by the supplier at the time of fuel delivery. 6 The ethanol confirmatory specification is based on the volume % ethanol as measured according to ASTM D5599. 7 The reference procedure prescribes measurement of ethanol concentration in mass %. Convert results to volume % as specified in ASTM D4815. (3) Use good engineering judgment to determine the volume % of ethanol based on the volume of each blendstock. We recommend using a flow

- based or gravimetric procedure that has an accuracy

and repeatability

of ± 0.1 %. (c) The specifications of this paragraph (c) apply for testing with neat gasoline. This is sometimes called indolene or E0 test fuel. Gasoline for testing must have octane values that represent commercia lly available fuels for the appropriate application. Test fuel specifications appl y as follows: Table 2 of §1065.710

–Test fuel specifications for neat (E0) gasoline Property Unit SPECIFICATION Reference Procedure 1 General Testing Lo w - Tem perature Testing Distillation Range: Evaporated initial boiling point 10% evaporated 50% evaporated 90% evaporated Evaporated final boiling point °C 24
- 35 2 49
- 57 93
- 110 149
- 163 Maximum, 213 24
- 36

37
- 48 82
- 101 158
- 174 Maximum, 212 ASTM D86

Hydrocarbon composition: Olefins Aromatics Saturates volume % Maximum, 0.10 Maximum, 0.35 Remainder Maximum, 0.175

Maximum, 0.304 Remainder ASTM D1319

Lead g/liter Maximum, 0.013 Maximum, 0.013 ASTM D3237 Phosphorous g/liter Maximum, 0.0013 Maximum, 0.005 ASTM D3231 Total sulfur mg/kg Maximum, 80 Maximum, 80 ASTM D2622 Dry vapor pressure equivalent2 kPa 60.0
- 63.4 3,4 77.2
- 81.4 ASTM D5191
1 ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in §1065.1010. See §1065.701(d) for other allow ed procedures. 2 Calculate dry vapor pressure equivalent, DVPE , based on the measured total vapor pressure, p T , in kPa using the following equation: DVPE = 0.956 ∙ p T - 2.39. DVPE is intended to be equivalent to Reid Vapor Pressur e using a different test method. 3 For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is (52.0 to 55.2) kPa and the specified initial boiling point range is (23.9 to 40.6) °C.Page 771 of 888 4 For testing unrelated to evaporative emissions, the specifie d range is (55.2 to 63.4) kPa. (d) Use the high

- octane gasoline specified in paragraph (b) of this section only for engines or vehicles for which the manufacturer conditions the warranty on the use of premium gasoline. 242. Section 1065.715 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§1065.715 Natural gas.** (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, n atural gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following table: Table 1 of §1065.715

–Test fuel specifications for natural gas Property Value 1 Methane, CH 4 Minimum, 0.87 mol/mol Ethane, C 2 H 6 Maximum, 0.055 mol/mol Propane, C 3 H 8 Maximum, 0.012 mol/mol Butane, C 4 H 10 Maximum, 0.0035 mol/mol Pentane, C 5 H 12 Maximum, 0.0013 mol/mol C 6 and higher Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol Oxygen Maximum, 0.001 mol/mol Inert gases (sum of CO 2 and N 2 ) Maximum, 0.051 mol/mol 1 Demonstrate compliance with fuel specifications based on the reference procedures in ASTM D1945 (incorporated by reference in §1065.1010), or on other measurement procedures using good engineering judgment. See §1065.701(d) for other allow ed procedures. * * * * * 243. Section 1065.720 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§1065.720 Liquefied petroleum gas.** (a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, liquefied petroleum gas for testing must meet the specifications in the following table: Table 1 of §1065.720

–Test fuel specifications for liquefied petroleum gas Property Value Reference Procedure 1 Propane, C 3 H 8 Minimum, 0.85 m3 /m 3 ASTM D2163 Vapor pressure at 38 °C Maximum, 1400 kPa ASTM D1267or 2598 2 Volatility residue (evaporated temperature, 35 °C) Maximum,

- 38 °C ASTM D1837 Butanes Maximum, 0.05 m3 /m 3 ASTM D2163 Butenes Maximum, 0.02 m3 /m 3 ASTM D2163 Pentenes and heavier Maximum, 0.005 m3 /m 3 ASTM D2163 Propene Maximum, 0.1 m3 /m 3 ASTM D2163 Residual matter (residue on evap. of 100) ml oil stain observ.) Maximum, 0.05 ml pass 3 ASTM D2158 Corrosion, copper strip Maximum, No. 1 ASTM D1838 Sulfur Maximum, 80 mg/kg ASTM D2784 Moisture content pass ASTM D2713 1 ASTM procedures are incorporated by reference in §1065.1010. See §1065.701(d) for other allowed procedures. 2 If these two test methods yield different results, use the results from ASTM D1267. 3 The test fuel must not yield a persistent oil ring when you add 0.3 ml of solvent residue mixture to a filter paper in 0.1 ml increments and examine it in daylight after two minutes.Page 772 of 888

* * * * * 244. A new §1065.725 is added to subpart H to read as follows: **§1065.725 High -**  **level ethanol -**  **gasoline blends.** For testing ethanol

- fueled vehicles, create a high

- level ethanol

- gasoline blend test fuel as follows: (a) Add ethanol to an E15 fuel meeting the specifications described in §1065.710 until the ethanol content of the blended fuel is between 80 and 83 volume %. (b) You may

alternatively

add ethanol to a gasoline base fuel with no ethanol if you can demonstrate that such a base fuel blended with the proper amount of ethanol would meet all the specifications for E15 test fuel described in §1065.710, other than the ethanol content. (c) The ethanol used for blending must be either denatured ethanol meeting the specifications in 40 CFR 80.1510, or fuel

- grade ethanol with no denaturant. Be sure to account for the volume of an y denaturant when calculating volumetric percentages. (d) The blended test fuel must have a dry vapor pressure equivalent between 6.0 and 6.5 when measured using the procedure specified in §1065.710. You may add commercial grade butane as needed to meet this specification. 245. Section 1065.750 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) , (a)(2) , (a)(3), and (a)(5) to read as follows: **§1065.750 Analytical Gases.** Analy tical gases must meet the accuracy and purity

specifications of this section, unless yo u can show that other specifications would not affect your ability to show that you comply with all applicable emission standards. (a) * * * (1) Use purified gases to zero measurement instruments and to blend with calibration gases. Use gases with contamination no higher than the highest of the following values in the gas c yl inder or at the outlet of a zero

- gas generator: (i) 2 % contamination, measured relative to the flow

- weighted mean concentration expected at the standard. For example, if you would expect a flow

- weighted CO concentration of 100.0 mol/mol, then you woul d be allowed to use a zero gas with CO contamination less than or equal to 2.000 mol/mol. (ii) Contamination as specified in the following table: Table 1 of §1065.750

– General specifications for purified gases 1 Constituent Purified Air Purified N 2 THC (C 1 equivalent) ≤ 0.05 mol/mol ≤ 0.05 mol/mol CO ≤ 1 mol/mol ≤ 1 mol/mol CO 2 ≤ 10 mo l/mol ≤ 10 mo l/mol O 2 0.205 to 0.215 mol/mol ≤ 2 mol/mol NO x ≤ 0.02 mol/mol ≤ 0.02 mol/mol N 2 O 2 ≤ 0.02 mol/mol ≤ 0.02 mol/mol 1 We do not require these levels of purity to be NIST

- traceable. 2 The N 2 O limit applies only if the standard

- setting part requires you to report N 2 O or certify to an N 2 O standard.Page 773 of 888

(2) Use the following gases with a FID anal yz er: (i) FID fuel . Use FID fuel with a stated H 2 concentration of (0.39 to 0.41) mol/mol, balance He or N 2 , and a stated total hydrocarbon concentration of 0.05 mol/mol or less. For GC
- FIDs that measure methane (CH 4 ) using a FID fuel that is balance N 2 , perform the CH 4 measurement as described in SAE J1151 (incorporated b y reference in §1065.1010). (ii) FID burner air . Use FID burner air that meets the specifications of purified air in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. For field testing, you may use ambient air. (iii) FID zero gas . Zero flame

- ionizat ion detectors with purified gas that meets the specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that the purified gas O 2 concentration may

be any value. Note that FID zero balance gases may be any combination of purified air and purified nitroge n. We recommend FID analyzer zero gases that contain approximately the expected flow

- weighted mean concentration of O 2 in the exhaust sample during testing. (iv) FID propane span gas . Span and calibrate THC FID with span concentrations of propane, C 3 H 8 . Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one (C 1 ). For example, if you use a C 3 H 8 span gas of concentration 200 mol/mol, span a FID to respond with a value of 600 mol/mol. Note that FID span balance gases may be any combination of purified air and purified nitrogen. We recommend FID anal yz er span gases that contain approximately

the flow

- weighted mean concentration of O 2 expected during testing. If the expected O 2 concentration in the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of purified nitrogen. (v) FI D CH 4 span gas . If you alway s span and calibrate a CH 4 FID with a nonmethane cutter, then span and calibrate the FID with span concentrations of CH 4 . Calibrate on a carbon number basis of one (C 1 ). For example, if you use a CH 4 span gas of concentration 200 mol/mol, span a FID to respond with a value of 200  mol/mol. Note that FID span balance gases may be any combination of purified air and purified nitrogen. We recommend FID anal yz er span gases that contain approximately the exp ected flow

- weighted mean concentration of O 2 in the exhaust sample during testing. If the expected O 2 concentration in the exhaust sample is zero, we recommend using a balance gas of purified nitrogen. (3) Use the following gas mixtures, with gases tracea ble within ±1 % of the NI ST
accepted value or other gas standards we approve: (i) CH 4 , balance purified air and/or N 2 (as applicable). (ii) C 2 H 6 , balance purified air and/or N 2 (as applicable). (iii) C 3 H 8 , balance purified air and/or N 2 (as applicable). (i v) CO, balance purified N 2 . (v) CO 2 , balance purified N 2 . (vi) NO, balance purified N 2 . (vii)) NO 2 , balance purified air. (viii) O 2 , balance purified N 2 . (ix) C 3 H 8 , CO, CO 2 , NO, balance purified N 2 . (x) C 3 H 8 , CH 4 , CO, CO 2 , NO, balance purified N 2 . (xi) N 2 O, balance purified air and/or N 2 (as applicable). * * * * *Page 774 of 888

(5) You may

generate your own calibration gases using a precision blending device, such as a gas divider, to dilute gases with purified N 2 or purified air. If your gas divider meet s the specific ations in §1065.248, and the gases being blended meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (3) of this section, the resulting blends are considered to meet the requ irements of this paragraph (a). * * * * * **Subpart I**

**— [Amended]**  246. Section 1065.805 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to read as follows: **§1065.805 Sampling system.** * * * * * (d) You may

bubble a sample of the exhaust through water to collect alcohols for later anal ys is. You may

also use a photo

- acoustic analyzer to quantify eth anol and methanol in an exhaust sample as described in §1065.269. * * * * * (f) You may

sample alcohols or carbonyls using "California Non

- Methane Organic Gas Test Procedures" (incorporated b y reference in §1065.1010). If you use this method, follow its calculations to determine the mass of the alcohol/carbon ylin the exhaust sample, but follow subpart G of this part for all other calculations (40 CFR part 1066, subpart G, for vehicle testing). * * * * * 247. Section 1065.845 is amended b y redesignating par agraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively , and adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows: **§1065.845 Response factor determination.** Since FID anal yz ers generall y have an incomplete response to alcohols and carbon yl s, determine each FI D analyzer’s alcohol/carbonyl response factor (such as RF MeOH ) after FID optimization to subtract those responses from the FID reading. Use the most recentl y determined alcohol/carbon ylresponse factors to compensate for alcohol/carbon ylresponse. You ar e not required to determine the response factor for a compound unless you will subtract its response to compensate for a response. (a) You may

generate response factors as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or yo u may use the following default res ponse factors, consistent with good engineering judgment: Table 1 of §1065.665

–Default values for THC FID response factor relative to propane on a C 1 - equivalent basis Compound Response factor (RF ) acetaldehyde 0.50 ethanol 0.75 formaldehyde 0.00 methanol 0.63 propanol 0.85 * * * * *Page 775 of 888

248. Section 1065.850 is revised to read as follows: **§1065.850 Calculations.** Use the calculations specified in §1065.665 to determine THCE or NMHCE and the calculations specified in 40 CFR 1066.665 to determine NMOG. **Subpart K**

**— [Amended]**  249. Section 1065.1001 is amended b y removing the definition for “Engine” and revising the definitions for “C 1 equivalent (or basis)”, “Ox ygenated fuels”, and “Precision” to read as follows: **§1065.1001 Definitions.** * * * * * C 1 equivalent (or basis) means a convention of expressing HC concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such that the C 1 equivalent of a molar HC concentration equals the molar concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms in each HC molecule. For example, the C 1 equivalent of 10 mol/mol of propane (C 3 H 8 ) is 30 mol/mol. C 1 equivalent molar values may be de noted as “ppmC” in the standard

- setting part. Molar mass may also be expressed on a C 1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from molar concentrations and molar masses is only valid where they are each expressed on the same carbon basis. * * * * * Ox yg enated fuels means fuels composed of at least 25 % oxygen - containing compounds, such as ethanol or methanol. Testing engines that use ox ygenated fuels generall y requires the use of the sampling methods in subpart Iof this part. However, yo u should read the standard

- setting part and subpart I of this part to determine appropriate sampling methods. * * * * * Precision means two times the standard deviation of a set of measured values of a single zero or reference quantity . See also the related definition s of noise and repeatability in this section. * * * * * 250. Section 1065.1005 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a) and (f)(2) to read as follows: **§1065.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure.** * * * * * (a) Sy mbols for quantities . This p art uses the following s ymbols and units of measure for various quantities: Symbol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Units in terms of SI base units  atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio mole per mole mol/mol 1 A area square meter m2 m2 A 0 intercept of least squares regression A 1 slope of least squares regression  ratio of diameters meter per meter m/m 1  atomic oxygen to carbon ratio mole per mole mol/mol 1 C# number of carbon atoms in a molecule d Diameter meter m m DR dilution ratio mole per mol mol/mol 1Page 776 of 888  error between a quantity and its

reference
e brake

- specific emission or fuel

consumption gram per kilowatt hour g/(kW ∙hr) g ∙3.6 - 1 ∙10 6 ∙m- 2 ∙kg∙s 2 F F
- test statistic f frequency hertz Hz s - 1 f n angular speed (shaft) revolutions per minute r/min 2 ∙ π ∙60 - 1 ∙m·m- 1 ·s - 1  ratio of specific heats (joule per kilogram kelvin) per (joule per kilogram kelvin) (J/(kg ∙K))/(J/(kg∙K)) 1 K correction factor 1 K v calibration coefficient m 4 ∙s∙K0.5 /kg m 4 ∙s∙K0.5 ∙kg - 1 l length meter m m  viscosity, dynamic pascal second Pa ∙s m- 1 ∙kg∙s - 1 M molar mass 1 gram per mole g/mol 10 - 3 ∙kg∙mol - 1 m mass kilogram kg kg m  mass rate kilogram per second kg/s kg ∙s - 1
 viscosity, kinematic meter squared per second m2 /s m2 ∙s - 1 N total number in series n amount of substance mole mol mol n  amount of substance rate mole per second mol/s mol ∙s - 1 P power kilowatt kW 10 3 ∙m2 ∙kg∙s - 3 PF penetration fraction p pressure pascal Pa m- 1 ∙kg∙s - 2  mass density kilogram per cubic meter kg/m3 kg ∙m- 3
r ratio of pressures pascal per pascal Pa/Pa 1 R 2 coefficient of determination Ra average surface roughness micrometer m 10 - 6 m Re # Reynolds number RF response factor RH relative humidity  non - biased standard deviation S Sutherland constant kelvin K K SEE standard estimate of error T absolute temperature kelvin K K T Celsius temperature degree Celsius ° C K
- 273.15 T torque (moment of force) newton meter N ∙m m2 ∙kg∙s - 2 t time second s s  t time interval, period, 1/frequency second s s V volume cubic meter m3 m3 V  volume rate cubic meter per second m3 /s m3 ∙s - 1 W work kilowatt hour kW ∙hr 3.6 ∙10 - 6 ∙m2 ∙kg∙s - 2 w c carbon mass fraction gram per gram g/g 1 x amount of substance mole fraction 2 mole per mole mol/mol 1 x flow

- weighted mean concentration mole per mole mol/mol 1 y generic variable 1 See paragraph (f)(2) of this section for the values to use for molar masses. Note that in the cases of NO x and HC, the regulations specify effective molar masses based on assumed speciation rather than actual speciation. 2 Note that mole fractions for T HC, THCE, NMHC, NMHCE, and NOTHC are expressed on a C 1 equivalent basis. [NOTE TO EDITOR: The current CFR has incorrect rendering of n  and m  and V 

. Please make sure the final published characters are properly displayed. Also, all the sy mbols inPage 777 of 888

the first column should be in italic font (except the subscripts); this is also incorrect for the Greek letters in the current CFR.] * * * * * (f) * * * (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar masses of chemical species: Symbol Quantity g/mol (10 - 3 ·kg·mol - 1 ) M ai r molar mass of dry air 1 28.96559 M Ar molar mass of argon 39.948 M C molar ma ss of carbon 12.0107 M CH3OH molar mass of methanol 32.04186 M C2H5OH molar mass of ethanol 46.06844 M C2H4O molar mass of acetaldehyde 44.05256 M C3H8 molar mass of propane 44.09562 M C3H7OH molar mass of propanol 60.09502 M CO molar mass of carbon monoxide 28.0101 M CH4 molar mass of methane 16.0425 M CO2 molar mass of carbon dioxide 44.0095 M H molar mass of atomic hydrogen 1.00794 M H2 molar mass of molecular hydrogen 2.01588 M H2O molar mass of water 18.01528 M HCHO molar mass of formaldehyde 30.02598 M He molar mass of helium 4.002602 M N molar mass of atomic nitrogen 14.0067 M N2 molar mass of molecular nitrogen 28.0134 M NH3 molar mass of ammonia 17.03052 M NMHC effective C 1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon 2 13.875389 M NMHCE effective C 1 molar mass of nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent2 13.875389 M NOx effective molar mass of oxides of nitrogen 3 46.0055 M N2O molar mass of nitrous oxide 44.0128 M O molar mass of atomic oxygen 15.9994 M O2 molar mass of molecular oxygen 31.9988 M S molar ma ss of sulfur 32.065 M THC effective C 1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon 2 13.875389 M THCE effective C 1 molar mass of total hydrocarbon equivalent2 13.875389 1 See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air. 2 The effective molar masses of THC, THCE, NMHC, and NMHCE are defined on a C 1 basis and are based on an atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio,  , of 1.85 (with β, γ, and δ equal to zero). 3 The effective molar mass of NO x is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO 2 . * * * * * 251. Section 1065.1010 is amended b y revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to read as follows: **§1065.1010 Reference materials.** * * * * * (a) ASTM materials . Copies of these materials may be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West C onshohocken, PA 19428

– 2959, or by

calling (877) 909

–ASTM, or at http://www.astm.org
. (1) ASTM D86

– 11b, Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure, IBR approved for §§1065.703, 1065.710.Page 778 of 888

(2) ASTM D93

– 12, Standard Tes t Methods for Flash Point by Pensky

- Martens Closed Cup Tester, IBR approved for §1065.703. (3) ASTM D445

– 12, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dy namic Viscosity), IBR approved for §1065.703. (4) ASTM D613

– 10a, Standard Test Method for Cetane Number of Diesel Fuel Oil, IBR approved for §1065.703. (5) ASTM D910

– 11, Standard Specification for Aviation Gasolines, IBR approved for §1065.701. (6) ASTM D975

– 12a, Standard Specification for Diesel Fue l Oils, IBR approved for §1065.701. (7) ASTM D1267

– 02 (Reapproved 2007), Standard Test Method for Gage Vapor Pressure of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases (LP
- Gas Method), IBR approved for §1065.720. (8) ASTM D1319

– 10, Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Ty pes in Liquid Petroleum Products by

Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption, IBR approved for §1065.710. (9) ASTM D1655

– 12, Standard Specification for Aviation Turbine Fuels, IBR approved for §1065.701. (10) ASTM D1837

– 11, Standard Test Method for Volatility of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for §1065.720. (11) ASTM D1838

– 12, Standard Test Method for Copper Strip Corrosion by L iquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for §1065.720. (12) ASTM D1945

– 03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Analy sis of Natural Gas b y Gas Chromatograph y, IBR approved for §1065.715. (13) ASTM D2158

– 11, Standard Test Method for Residues in L iquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases, IBR approved for §1065.720. (14) ASTM D2163

– 07, Standard Test Method for Analy sis of Liquefie d Petroleum (LP) Gases and Propene Concentrates b y Gas Chromatograph y, IBR approved for §1065.720. (15) ASTM D2598

– 02 (Reapproved 2007), Standard Practice for Calculation of Certain Phy sical Properties of Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases from Compositional Anal ys is, IBR approved for §1065.720. (16) ASTM D2622

– 10, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products by Wavelength Dispersive X

- ray Fluorescence Spectrometry , I BR approved for §§1065.703, 1065.710. (17) ASTM D2713

– 12, Standard Test Method for Dry ness of Propane (Valve Freeze Method), IBR approved for §1065.720. (18) ASTM D2784

– 11, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in L iquefied Petroleum Gases (Ox y - Hydrogen Burner or Lamp), IBR approved for §1065.720. (19) ASTM D2880

– 03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Specification for Gas Turbine Fuel Oils, IBR approved for §1065.701. (20) ASTM D2986

– 95a (Reapproved 1999), Standard Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay Media by

the Monodisperse DOP (Dioct ylPhthalate) Smoke Test, IBR approved for §1065.170. (21) ASTM D3 231

– 11, Standard Test Method for Phosphorus in Gasoline, IBR approved for §1065.710. (22) ASTM D3237

– 12, Standard Test Method for Lead in Gasoline By Atomic Absorption Spectroscop y, IBR approved for §1065.710.Page 779 of 888

(23) ASTM D4052

– 11, Standard Test Method for D ensity and Relative Density

of Liquids b y Digital Density Meter, IBR approved for§1065.703. (24) ASTM D4629

- 12, Standard Test Method for Trace Nitrogen in Liquid Petroleum Hydrocarbons by

Sy ringe/Inlet Oxidative Combustion and Chemiluminescence Detection, IBR approved for §1065.655. (25) ASTM D4814

– 11b, Standard Specification for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engine Fuel, IBR approved for §1065.701. (26) ASTM D4815

- 09, Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary

- Amyl Alcohol and C 1 to C 4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatograph y, IBR approved for §1065.710. (27) ASTM D5186

– 03 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for Determination of the Aromatic Content and Poly nuclear Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuels and Aviation Turbine Fue ls By

Supercritical Fluid Chromatography , IBR approved for §1065.703. (28) ASTM D5191

– 12, Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method), IBR approved for §1065.710. (29) ASTM D5291

– 10, Standard Test Method for Instrumental Det ermination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and Lubricants , IBR approved for §1065.655
. (30) ASTM D5599

– 00 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for Determination of Ox ygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatograph y and Ox ygen Selectiv e Flame Ionization Detection , IBR approved for §1065.655
. (3 1) ASTM D5762

- 12 Standard Test Method for Nitrogen in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by

Boat
- Inlet Chemiluminescence, IBR approved for §1065.655. (32) ASTM D5797

– 07, Standard Specification for F uel Methanol (M70

– M85) for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engines, IBR approved for §1065.701. (33) ASTM D5798

– 11, Standard Specification for Fuel Ethanol (Ed75

– Ed85) for Automotive Spark

- Ignition Engines, IBR approved for §1065.701. (34) ASTM D6615

– 11a, Stan dard Specification for Jet B Wide

- Cut Aviation Turbine Fuel, IBR approved for §1065.701. (35) ASTM D6751

– 12, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel Blend Stock (B100) for Middle Distillate Fuels, IBR approved for §1065.701. (36) ASTM D6985

– 04a, Standard Specification for Middle Distillate Fuel Oil

—Military Marine Applications, IBR approved for §1065.701. (37) ASTM F1471

– 09, Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High

Efficiency

Particulate Air Filter S ys tem, IBR approved for §1065.1001. * * * * * (f) SAE material . Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers International, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096

– 0001, or by

calling (724) 776

–4841, or at http://www.sae.org
. (1) SAE 770141, 1977, Op timization of Flame I onization Detector for Determination of Hydrocarbon in Diluted Automotive Exhausts, Glenn D. Reschke, IBR approved for §1065.360. (2) SAE J1151, Methane Measurement Using Gas Chromatography , Revised September 2011, IBR approved for §§1 065.267 and 1065.750. 252. A new subpart L is added to read as follows:Page 780 of 888

**Subpart L**

**— Methods for Unregulated and Special Pollutants**  Sec. 1065.1101 Applicability
. 1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC measurement. SEMI
- VOLATILE ORGANI C COMPOUNDS 1065.1105 Sampling sy stem design. 1065.1107 Sample media and sample s ys tem preparation; sampler assembly
. 1065.1109 Post
- test sampler disassembly and sample extraction. 1065.1111 Sample anal ysis. **§1065.1101 Applicability.** This subpart specifies procedures that may be used to measure emission constituents that are not measured (or not separately measured) by

the test procedures in the other subparts of this part. These procedures are included to facilitate consistent measurement of unregulated pollutants primarily for purposes other than compliance with emission standards. Unless otherwise specified in the standard

- setting part, use of these procedures is optional and does not replace an y requirements in the rest of this part.

SEMI
- VOLATILE ORGANI C COUMPOUNDS **§1065.1103 General provisions for SVOC measurement.** The provisions of §§1065.1103 through 1065.1111 specify procedures for the measurement of semi

- volatile organic compounds (SVOC) along with PM. The provisions of these sections specify how to collect a sample of the SVOCs during exhaust testing procedures, as well as how to use wet chemistry techniques to extract SVOCs from the sample media for anal ys is. Note that the precise method you use will depend on the categ ory

of SVOCs being measured. For example, the method used to measure poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will differ slightly from the method used to measure dioxins. (a) Laboratory

cleanliness is especially

important throughout the course of SVOC te sting. Thoroughl y clean all sample train components and glassware before testing to avoid sample contamination. (b) Throughout the course of your testing we recommend that media blanks be anal yz ed for each batch of media (sorbent, filters, etc.) that is p repared for testing. Blank sorbent modules with inlet and outlet covered (i.e., field blanks) should periodically accompany the test sample train throughout the course of a test, including the sample train and sorbent module disassembly , sample packaging, and storage. Use good engineering judgment to determine the frequency of field blanks. During testing, the field blank sample train should reside in close proximity to the sampler. (c) We recommend the use of isotope dilution techniques, including the u se of isotopically

labeled surrogate, internal, alternate, and injection standards. (d) If your target anal yt es degrade when exposed to ultraviolet radiation (such as nPAH), perform these procedures in the dark or with ultraviolet filters installed over th e lights. (e) Follow standard analy tic chemistry

methods for aspects of the anal ys is not specified. (f) The following definitions and abbreviations apply for SVOC measurements:Page 781 of 888

(1) Soxhlet extraction means the extraction method invented by Franz von Soxhl et, in which the sample is placed in a thimble and rinsed repeatedly with a recycle of the extraction solvent. (2) XAD

- 2 means a h ydrophobic cross linked poly sty rene copol ym er resin adsorbent known commerciall y as Amberlite ® XAD ®

- 2, or an equivalent adsorb ent. (3) Semi

- volatile organic compound (SVOC) means an organic compound that is sufficiently

volatile to exist in vapor form in engine exhaust, but that readily condenses to liquid or solid form under atmospheric conditions. Most SVOCs have at least 14 c arbon atoms per molecule and have a boiling point between 240°C and 400°C. SVOCs include dioxin, quinone, and nitro

- PAH compounds. They may be a natural by

product of combustion or created post combustion. Note that SVOCs may be detected as hydrocarbons and/or PM using the measurement procedures specified in this part; in other words, some fraction of measured mass of hydrocarbons and/or PM may be SVOCs. (4) Kuderna

- Danish concentrator means laboratory glassware known by

this name that consists of an air

- cooled condenser on top of an extraction bulb. (5) Dean

- Stark trap means laboratory glassware known by

this name that uses a reflux condenser to collect water from samples extracted under reflux. (6) PUF means poly

urethane foam. (7) Isotopicall y labeled me ans relating to a compound in which either all of the hydrogen atoms are replaced with the atomic isotope hydrogen

- 2 (deuterium) or one of the carbon atoms at a defined position in the molecule is replaced with the atomic isotope carbon

- 13. **§1065.1105 Sam pling system design.**  (a) General . We recommend that you design your SVOC batch sampler to extract sample from undiluted emissions to minimize the amount of SVOCs lost to the system. To the extent practical, adjust sampling times based on the rate of emis sion of target anal yt es from the engine to obtain anal yt e concentrations above the limit of detection. In some instances you may need to run repeat test cycles without replacing the sample media or disassembly

of the batch sampler. (b) Sample probe, trans fer lines, and sample media holder design and construction . The sampling s ys tem should consist of a sample probe, transfer line, PM filter holder, cooling coil, sorbent module, and condensate trap. Construct sample probes, transfer lines, and sample medi a holders that have inside surfaces of Nickel, Titanium or another nonreactive material capable of withstanding raw exhaust gas temperatures. All joints in the hot zone of the sy stem should be sealed with gaskets made of nonreactive material similar to th at of the sample train components. Teflon gaskets may be used in the cold zone. We recommend keeping the sampling s ys tem length as short as possible by locating all components as close to probes as practical to minimize the surface exposed to the exhaust
. (c) Sample s ys tem configuration . This paragraph (c) specifies the components necessary to collect SVOC samples, along with our recommended design parameters. Where you do not follow our recommendations, use good engineering judgment to design your samp ling s ys tem so that it does not result in loss of SVOC during sampling. The sampling s ys tem should contain the following components in series in the order listed:Page 782 of 888

(1) Sample probe . Use a sample probe similar to the PM sample probe specified in subpart B of this part. We recommend that you heat the sample probe with a set point no higher the 200 °C. Note that heat from the engine exhaust may cause the probe temperature to exceed 200°C at some points during the test. (2) Filter holder . Use a PM filter holder similar to ty pe of holder specified in subpart B of this part, although you will likely need to use a larger size to accommodate the high sample flow rates. We recommend the use of 110 mm filter for the testing of engines that ut ilize exhaust after treatment for removal of PM and 293 mm filters for engines that do not. You may

heat the filter holder, but we recommend that your set point does not exceed 200°C. Note that this differs from normal PM sampling procedures which mainta in the filter at a much lower temperature to capture a significant fraction of exhaust SVOCs on the filter. In this method SVOCs that pass through the filter will be collected on the downstream sorbent module. (3) Cooling coil . Use good engineering jud gment to design a cooling coil (to be used with the water bath described in paragraph (e) of this section) that will drop the sample temperature to approximately 5°C. Note that downstream of the cooling coil, the sample will be a mixture of a vapor phase hydrocarbons in CO 2 and air and a primarily aqueous liquid phase. (4) Sorbent and sorbent module . Use a h ydrophobic sorbent in a sealed sorbent module. Note that this sorbent module is intended to be the final stage for collecting the SVOC sample and sh ould be sized accordingly . We recommend sizing the module to hold 40 g of XAD

- 2 along with poly urethane (PUF) plugs at either end of the module. (5) Condensate trap/drain . Include a condensate trap to separate the aqueous liquid phase from the gas stream . We recommend using a peristaltic pump to remove water from the condensate trap over the course of the test to prevent build up of the condensate. Note that for some tests it may be appropriate to collect this water for anal ys is. (d) Sampler flow contro l . For testing using the recommended filter and sorbent module sizes, we recommended targeting an average sample flow rate of 70 l/min to maximize SVOC collection. The sampler must be designed to maintain proportional sampling throughout the test. Verif y proportional sampling after an emission test as described in §1065.545. (e) Water bath . Design the sample s ys tem with a water bath in which the cooling coil, sorbent module, and condensate trap will be submerged. Use a heat exchanger or ice to maintain the bath temperature at (3 to 7) °C. **§1065.1107 Sample media and sample system preparation; sampler assembly.** This section describes the ty pes of sample media to be used as well as the cleaning procedure required to prepare the media and wetted sample surfaces for sampling. (a) Sample media . The sampling s ys tem uses two ty pes of sample media in series: the first to simultaneously

capture the PM and some of the SVOCs, and a second to capture SVOCs that remain in the gas phase. Use the following sample me dia for capture of PM and gas phase SVOCs: (1) For capture of PM, use pure quartz filters that do not contain any binder. Size the filter diameter to account for the expected PM emission rate, sample flow rate, and number of repeat tests to minimize filte r change intervals. Note that when repeating test cycles to increase sample mass, you may replace the filter without replacing the sorbentPage 783 of 888

or otherwise disassembling the batch sampler. In those cases include all filters in the extraction. (2) For capture of gaseous SVOCs, utilize XAD

- 2 resin contained between two PUF plugs. (b) Sample media and sampler preparation . Prepare pre
- cleaned PM filters and pre

cleaned PUF/XAD

- 2 as needed. If the media is not to be used immediately after cleaning, store it in c ontainers protected from light and ambient air. (1) Pre

- clean the filters via Soxhlet extraction with methylene chloride for 24 hours and dry over dry nitrogen in a low temperature vacuum oven. (2) Pre

- clean PUF and XAD

- 2 via a series of Soxhlet extraction s: 8 h with water, 22 h with methanol, 22 h with methylene chloride, and 22 hours with toluene followed by drying with nitrogen. (3) Clean sampler components including the probe, filter holder, condenser, sorbent module, and condensate collection vessel b y rinsing three times with methylene chloride followed b y three rinses with toluene. Prepare pre

- cleaned aluminum foil for capping the probe inlet of the sampler after the sample train has been assembled. (c) Sorbent spiking . Use good engineering judgment to verify the extent to which your extraction methods recover SVOCs absorbed to the sample media. We recommend spiking the XAD

- 2 resin with a surrogate standard prior to testing with a carbon

- 13 or hydrogen

- 2 isotopicall y labeled standard for each of the class of anal yt es targeted for anal ys is. Perform this spiking as follows: (1) Insert the lower PUF plug into the bottom of the sorbent module. (2) Add half of one portion of XAD

- 2 resin to the module and spike the XAD

- 2 in the module with the standard. (3) Wait 1 hour for the solvent from the standard(s) to evaporate and then add the remaining 20 g of the XAD

- 2 resin to the module followed by the top PUF plug. (4) Cover the inlet and outlet of the sorbent module with pre

- cleaned aluminum foil. (d) Sample train assembly . Upon completion of the sample media and sampler preparation, assemble the condensate trap, cooling coil, filter holder with filter, and sample probe to the sorbent module and lower assembly into the reservoir. Cover the probe inlet with pre - cleaned aluminum foil. **§1065.1109 Post -**  **test sampler disassembly and sample extraction.** This section describes the process for sample train disassembly , sample train rinsing, sample extraction, and sample clean

- up. (a) Sample train disassembly
. Disassemble the sample train in a clean environment upon completion of testing. Prepare to extract the SVOCs as follows: (1) Remove the PM filter, PUF, and all of the XAD

- 2 from the sample train and place them into a Soxhlet extraction thimble. I f the sample media are to be stored, store them at ≤ 37 °C. (2) Rinse sample train wetted surfaces upstream of the condensate trap with acetone followed b y toluene (or a comparable solvent system), ensuring that all of the solvent that remains in liquid phase is c ollected (note that a fraction of the acetone and toluene will likely be lost via evaporation during mixing.) Rinse with solvent volumes that are sufficient to cover the all of the surfaces exposed to sample during testing. We recommend three fresh solve nt rinses with acetone and two with toluene. WePage 784 of 888

recommend rinse volumes of 60 mLper rinse for all sample train components except the condenser coil, of which you should use 200 mL per rinse. Keep the acetone rinsate separate from the toluene rinsate to the extent practicable. Rinsate fractions should be stored separatel y in glass bottles that have been pre

- rinsed with acetone, hexane, and toluene (or bottles purchased pre

- cleaned). (3) Use good engineering judgment to determine if you should analyze the aqueous condensate phase for SVOCs. I f you determine that anal ys is is necessary , use toluene to perform a liquid

- liquid extraction of the SVOCs from the collected aqueous condensate using a sepratory

funnel or equivalent. Add the toluene from this aqueous extraction to the toluene rinsate fraction mentioned in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (4) Reduce rinsate solvent volumes as needed using a Kuderna

- Danish concentrator or rotary evaporator and retain these rinse solvents for reuse during sample me dia extraction for the same test. Care should be taken when concentrating via rotary evaporation to avoid loss of low molecular weight anal yt es. (b) Sample extraction . Extract the SVOCs from the sorbent using Soxhlet extraction extraction as described in this paragraph (b). To accommodate the Soxhlet extractions of all SVOCs from a single sample, two 16 hour extractions are required. This will reduce the possibility

of loss of low molecular weight SVOCs and promote water removal. We recommend performin g the first extraction with acetone/hexane and the second using toluene (or an equivalent solvent sy stem). (1) We recommend equipping the Soxhlet extractor with a Dean

- Stark trap to facilitate the removal of residual water from the sample train rinse. The Soxhlet apparatus must be large enough to allow extraction of the PUF, XAD

- 2, and filter in a single batch. Include in the extractor setup a glass thimble with a coarse or extra coarse sintered glass bottom. Pre
- clean the extractor using proper glass cl eaning procedures. We recommend that the Soxhlet apparatus be cleaned with a 4 to 8 hr Soxhlet extraction with methylene chloride at a cycling rate of 3 cycles per hour. Discard the solvent used for pre

- cleaning (no anal ys is is necessary). (2) Load the ex tractor thimble before placing it in the extractor b y first rolling the PM filter around the inner circumference of the thimble with the sampled side facing in. Push one PUF plug down into the bottom of the thimble then add approximately half of the XAD
- 2 . The Then spike the XAD

- 2 in the thimble with the isotopically labeled extraction standards of known mass. Target the center of the XAD

- 2 bed for extraction standard delivery . We recommend using multiple isotopically labeled extraction standards that c over the range of target analy tes. Generally

this means that you should use isotopically

labeled standards at least for the lowest and highest molecular weight anal yt es for each category of compounds (such as PAHs and dioxins). These extraction standards monitor the efficiency of the extraction and are also used to determine anal yt e concentrations after analy sis. Upon completion of spiking, add the remaining XAD

- 2 to the thimble followed by

the remaining PUF plug. Then place the thimble into the extract or. (3) For the initial extraction, combine the concentrated acetone rinses (from the sample train in paragraph (a) of this section) with enough hexane to bring the solvent volume up to the target level of 700 mL . Assemble the extractor and turn on the he ating controls and cooling water. Allow the sample to reflux for 16 hours with the rheostat adjusted so that the extraction cycles at a rate of 3.0±0.5 cycles per hour. Drain the water from thePage 785 of 888

Dean
- Stark trap as it accrues by opening the stopcock on the trap. Discard this water unless it is to be analy

zed. In most cases, any

water present will be removed within approximately

2 hours of the start of the extraction. (4) Upon completion of the initial extraction, remove the solvent and concentrate it to 4 .0 ±0.5 mLusing a Kuderna

- Danish concentrator that includes a condenser such as a three

ball Snyder column with venting dimples and graduated collection tube. The use of this concentrator will minimize evaporative loss of lower molecular weight analy tes. (i) Rinse the round bottom flask of the extractor with 60 to 100 mLof hexane and add the rinsate to this concentrated extract. (ii) Concentrate the mixture to 4 ±0.5 mL using a Kuderna

- Danish concentrator or similar concentration apparatus. (iii) Repeat paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this section 3 times or as necessary , to remove all of the residual solvent from the extractor round bottom flask, concentrating the final rinse to 4 ±0.5 mL
. (5) For the second extraction, combine the toluene rinses (from the sample train in paragraph (a) of this section) with an y additional toluene needed to bring the solvent volume up to the target level of 700 mL. As noted in this paragraph (a) of this section, yo u may need to concentrate the rinse prior to addition to the ex traction apparatus if the rinse solvent volume is too large. Allow the sample to reflux for 16 hours with the rheostat adjusted so that the extraction cycles at a rate of 3.0 ±0.5 cycles per hour. Although little or no water should be present during this stage, check the Dean

- Stark trap during the first 2 hours of the extraction. (6) Upon completion of the second extraction, remove the solvent and concentrate it to 4 ±0.5 mLas described in paragraph (4) of this section. Using hexane from paragraph (4) o f this section as the rinse solvent, effectivel y performs a solvent exchange of toluene with hexane. (7) Combine the concentrated extract from paragraph (b)(4) of this section with the concentrated extract from paragraph (6) of this section. Divide the ex tract into a number of fractions based on the number of analy ses to be performed. Perform the separate sample clean up described in paragraph (c) of this section as needed for each fraction. (c) Sample clean up . This paragraph (c) describes how to perfor m sample cleaning to remove unwanted SVOCs (that is, those SVOCs which you are not anal yz ing for) and solids from the sample extract before anal ys is. This process, which is known as “sample clean up, reduces the potential for interference or co

- elution of peaks during anal yt ical anal ys is. Before proceeding with the sample clean up, spike the extract with an alternate standard that contains a known mass of isotopically labeled compounds that are identical (with the exception of the labeling) to the target analy tes. The number of compounds that make up the standard will be determined b y the category of the target anal yte compounds (such as PAHs or dioxin). For example, PAHs require the use of 4 compounds in the alternate standard to cover the 4 basic ring structures of PAHs (2

- ring, 3

- ring, 4

- ring, and 5
- ring structures). These alternate standards are used to monitor the efficiency of the clean up procedure. Before sample clean up, concentrate the fractionated sample to about 2 mLwith a Kuderna

- Danish co ncentrator or rotary evaporator, and then transfer the extract to an 8
- mLtest tube with hexane rinse. Concentrate to a volume of about 1 mL using a Kuderna

- Danish concentrator. Since there are several column chromatographic cleanup options available, us e good engineering judgment to select one appropriate forPage 786 of 88 8

yo ur target anal yt es. Note that these clean

- up techniques generally remove compounds based on their polarit y. The clean up procedures given in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) below are examples of clean

- up techniques for PAHs and nitropoly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (nPAHs). (1) PAH clean up . The following method is appropriate for cleaning up extracts intended for anal ys is of PAHs: (i) Pack a glass gravity

column (250 mm x 10 mm recommended) by inserting a clean glass wool plug into the bottom of the column followed by the addition of 10 grams of activated silica gel in methylene chloride. Tap the column to settle the silica gel, and then add a 1 cm layer of anhydrous sodium sulfate. Since variation s among batches of silica gel may

affect the elution volume of the various PAH, the volume of solvent required to completely

elute all of the PAH must be verified b y the anal ys t. The weight of the silica gel can then be adjusted accordingl y. (ii) Elute th e column with 40 mLof hexane. The rate for all elutions should be about 2 mL/min and you may

use dry air or N 2 to maintain the headspace slightly above atmospheric pressure to increase the elution rate. Discard the eluate just prior to exposure of the so dium sulfate layer to the air or N 2 , transfer the 1 mL sample extract onto the column using two additional 2 mL rinses of hexane to complete the transfer. Just prior to exposure of the sodium sulfate layer to the air or N 2 , begin elution of the column with 25 mLof hexane followed by 25 mL of 40 volume % methylene chloride in hexane. Collect the entire eluate and concentrate it to about 5 mLusing the Kuderna

Danish concentrator or a rotary evaporator. Make sure that you do not evaporate all of the solve nt from the extract during the concentration process. Transfer to a small sample vial using a hexane rinse and concentrate to 100 μL using a stream of nitrogen, gentle enough to not violentl y disturb the solvent. Store the extracts in a refrigerator at 4 °C or lower away

from light until analy sis. (2) nPAH clean up . The following procedure, that was adapted from “Determination and Comparison of Nitrated

- Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Measured in Air and Diesel Particulate Reference Materials” (Bamford, H.A., et al , Chemosphere, Vol. 50, I ssue 5, pages 575

– 587), is an appropriate method to clean up extracts intended for anal ys is of nPAHs: (i) Condition an aminopropyl solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridge by eluting it with 20 mLof 20 volume % methyle ne chloride in hexane before use. Transfer the extract quantitatively

to the SPE cartridge with at least two methylene chloride rinsings. Elute the extract through the SPE cartridge b y using 40 ml of 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane to minimize p otential interference of polar constituents. Then reduce the extract to 0.5 ml in hexane and subject the extract to normal

- phase liquid chromatograph y using pre

- prepared a 9.6 mm X 25 cm semi

- preparative Chromegabond ® amino/cyano column, 5 μm particle siz e to isolate the nPAH fraction. The mobile phase is 20 volume % methylene chloride in hexane at a constant flow rate of 5 ml/min. Prior to each injection, the column should be back flashed with 60 ml of methylene chloride and then conditioned with 200 ml of 20 volume % meth yl ene chloride in hexane. Collect the effluent and concentrate to about 2 mLusing the Kuderna

- Danish concentrator or a rotary evaporator. Transfer to a minivial using a hexane rinse and concentrate to 100 μLusing a gentle stream of nitrogen. Store the extracts at 4°C or lower away from light until anal ys is.Page 787 of 888

**§1065.1111 Sample analysis.** This subpart does not specify chromatographic or anal yt ical methods to analy ze extracts, because the selection of such methods is highl y dependent on the nature of the target anal yt es. However, we recommend that prior to whichever sample analy sis you choose, yo u spike the extract with an injection standard that contains a known mass of an isotopically

labeled compound that is identical (with the excep tion of the labeling) to one of the target anal yt es. This injection standard is used to monitor the efficiency of the anal yt ical process by

verifying the volume of sample injected for anal ys is. 253. Part 1066 is revised to read as follows: **Part 1066**

**—**

**Vehicle -**  **Testing Procedures Subpart A** 

**—**

**Applicability and General Provisions** 1066.1 Applicability
. 1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part. 1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the standard

- setting part. 1066.10 Other procedures. 1066.15 Overview of test procedures. 1066.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations. 1066.25 Recordkeeping. **Subpart B**

**— Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical**  **Gas Specifications** 1066.101 Overview. 1066.105 Ambient controls and vehic le cooling fans. 1066.110 Equipment specifications for emission sampling s ys tems. 1066.120 Measurement instruments. 1065.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement instruments. 1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications. 1066.137 L inearit y verification. 1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration. 1066.145 Engine fluids, test fuels, anal yt ical gases, and other calibration standards. 1066.150 Analyzer interference and quench verification limit. **Subpart C**

**— Dynamometer Specific**  **ations** 1066.201 Dy

namometer overview. 1066.210 Dy

namometers. 1066.215 Summary

of verification and calibration procedures for chassis dynamometers. 1066.220 L inearit y verification for chassis dynamometer s ys tems. 1066.225 Roll runout and diameter verification procedure. 1066.230 Time verification procedure. 1066.235 Speed verification procedure. 1066.240 Torque transducer calibration. 1066.245 Response time verification.Page 788 of 888

1066.250 Base inertia verification. 1066.255 Parasitic loss verification. 1066 .260 Parasitic friction compensation evaluation. 1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration verification. 1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification. 1066.280 Daily

dy namometer readiness verification. 1066.290 Driver’s aid. **Subpart D**

**— Coastdown**  1066.301 Overvi ew of coastdown procedures. 1066.305 Coastdown procedures for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. 1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. 1066.320 Dy

namometer road

- load setting. **Subpart E**

**— Preparing Vehicles and**  **Running an Exhaust Emission Test** 1066.401 Overview. 1066.407 Vehicle preparation and preconditioning. 1066.410 Dy

namometer test procedure. 1066.420 Vehicle operation. 1066.425 Test preparation. 1066.430 Performing emission tests. **Subpart F**

**— Hybrids and**  **Electric Vehicles** 1066.501 Overview. **Subpart G**

**— Calculations**  1066.601 Overview. 1066.610 Mass
- based and molar

- based exhaust emission calculations. 1066.620 Dilution air background correction. 1066.630 NO x intake

- air humidity correction. 1066.640 Removed w ater correction. 1066.650 Flow meter calibration calculations. 1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations. 1066.665 NMOG determination. 1066.695 Data requirements. **Subpart H**

**— Cold**  **- Temperature Test Procedures**  1066.701 Applicability

and general provisions. **Subpart I**

**— Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles**  1066.801 Applicability

and general provisions. 1066.810 Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class determination. 1066.814 Vehicle preparation. 1066.820 Exhaust emissio n test procedures for FTP emissions. 1066.822 Composite calculations for FTP exhaust emissions. 1066.830 Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.Page 789 of 888

1066.831 Exhaust emission test procedures for agressive driving. 1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions. 1066.835 AC17 Air conditioning efficiency test procedure. 1066.839 Highway

fuel economy

test procedure. 1066.840 Fuel storage s ystem leak test procedure. **Subpart J**

**— [Reserved]**  **Subpart K**

**— Definitions and Other Reference Material**  106 6.1001 Definitions. 1066.1005 Sy

mbols, abbreviations, acrony ms, and units of measure. 1066.1010 Reference materials. Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7401
- 7671q. **Subpart A**

**—**

**Applicability and General Provisions §1066.1**  **Applicability.** (a) This part describes the procedures that appl y t o testing we require for the following vehicles: (1) Model year 2014 and later heav y - dut y highway vehicles we regulate under 40 CFR part 1037 that are not subject to chassis testing for exha ust emissions under 40 CFR part 86. (2) Model year 2022 and later highway vehicles (light

- dut y and heav y - dut y) that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions under 40 CFR part 86. See 40 CFR part 86 for provisions describing how to implement th is part 1066. (b) The procedures of this part may appl y to other types of vehicles, as described in this part and in the standard

- setting part. (c) The term “you” means anyone performing testing under this part other than EPA. (1) This part is addressed p rimarily to manufacturers of vehicles, but it applies equally to anyone who does testing under this part for such manufacturers. (2) This part applies to any manufacturer or supplier of test equipment, instruments, supplies, or an y other goods or service s related to the procedures, requirements, recommendations, or options in this part. (d) Paragraph (a) of this section identifies the parts of the CFR that define emission standards and other requirements for particular t yp es of vehicles. In this part, we refer to each of these other parts generically as the “standard

- setting part.” For example, 40 CFR part 1037 is the standard

- setting part for heav y - duty highway vehicles and parts 86 and 600 are the standard

- setting parts for light

- duty vehicles. For v ehicles subject to 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, references to the standard

- setting part include subpart I of this part. (e) Unless we specify

otherwise, the terms “procedures” and “test procedures” in this part include all aspects of vehicle testing, includi ng the equipment specifications, calibrations, calculations, and other protocols and procedural specifications needed to measure emissions. (f) For additional information regarding these test procedures, visit our Web site at www.epa.gov, and in particular http://www.epa.gov/nvfel/testing/regulations.htm.Page 790 of 888

**§1066.2 Submitting information to EPA under this part.** (a) You are responsible for statements and information in your applications for certification, requests for approved procedures, selective enforcement audits, laboratory audits, production

- line test reports, or an y other statements you make to us related to this part 1066. If you provide statements or information to someone for submission to EPA, yo u are responsible for these statements and information as if you had submitted them to EPA yourself. (b) In the standard

- setting part and in 40 CFR 1068.101, we describe your obligation to report truthful and complete information and the consequences of failing to meet this obligation. See also 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(2). This obligation applies whether you submit this information directl y to EPA or through someone else. (c) We may

void an y certificates or approvals associated with a submission of information if we find that you intentionall y submitted false, incomplete, or misleading information. For example, if we find that you intentionally submitted incomplete information to mislead EPA when requesting approval to use alternate test procedures, we may void the certificates for all engine families certified based on emission data collected using the alternate procedures. This would also apply if you ignore data from incomplete tests or from repeat tests with higher emission results. (d) We may

require an authorized representative o f your company to approve and sign the submission, and to certify that all the information submitted is accurate and complete. This includes everyone who submits information, including manufacturers and others. (e) See 40 CFR 1068.10 for provisions relate d to confidential information. Note however that under 40 CFR 2.301, emission data are generally not eligible for confidential treatment. (f) Nothing in this part should be interpreted to limit our ability under Clean Air Act section 208 (42 U.S.C. 7542) to verify that vehicles conform to the regulations. **§1066.5 Overview of this part 1066 and its relationship to the standard -**  **setting part.** (a) This part specifies procedures that can apply generall y to testing various categories of vehicles. See the stand ard

- setting part for directions in applying specific provisions in this part for a particular ty pe of vehicle. Before using this part’s procedures, read the standard

- setting part to answer at least the following questions: (1) What drive schedules must I use for testing? (2) Should Iwarm up the test vehicle before measuring emissions, or do I need to measure cold

- start emissions during a warm

- up segment of the dut y cycle? (3) Which exhaust constituents do Ineed to measure? Measure all exhaust constituents that are subject to emission standards, an y other exhaust constituents needed for calculating emission rates, and an y additional exhaust constituents as specified in the standard

- setting part. See 40 CFR 1065.5 regarding requests to omit measurement of N 2 O and CH 4 for vehicles, not subject to N 2 O or CH 4 emission standards
. (4) Do an y unique specifications apply for test fuels? (5) What maintenance steps may Itake before or between tests on an emission

- data vehicle? (6) Do an y unique requirements apply to stabilizing emission levels on a new vehicle? (7) Do an y unique requirements apply to test limits, such as ambient temperatures or pressures?Page 791 of 888

(8) [Reserved] (9) Are there an y emission standards specified at particular operating conditions or ambient con ditions? (10) Do an y unique requirements appl y for durability testing? (b) The testing specifications in the standard

- setting part may differ from the specifications in this part. In cases where it is not possible to comply with both the standard

- setting part and this part, you must comply with the specifications in the standard

- setting part. The standard

- setting part may also allow you to deviate from the procedures of this part for other reasons. (c) The following table shows how this part divides testi ng specifications into subparts: Table 1 of §1066.5

—Description of Part 1066 subparts. This subpart Describes these specifications or procedures Subpart A Applicability and general provisions. Subpart B Equipment for testing. Subpart C Dynamometer specifications. Subpart D Coastdowns for testing. Subpart E How

to prepare your vehicle and run an emission test. Subpart F How

to test hybrid vehicles. Subpart G Test procedure calculations. Subpart H Cold temperature testing. Subpart I Exhaust emission test procedures for motor vehicles. Subpart J Reserved. Subpart K Definitions and reference material. **§1066.10 Other procedures.** (a) Your testing. The procedures in this part apply for all testing you do to show compliance with emission standards, with certain exceptions noted in this section. In some other sections in this part, we allow you to use other procedures (such as less precise or less a ccurate procedures) if they do not affect your ability to show that your vehicles compl y with the applicable emission standards. This generally requires emission levels to be far enough below the applicable emission standards so that any errors caused by greater imprecision or inaccuracy do not affect your ability to state unconditionally that the engines meet all applicable emission standards. (b) Our testing. These procedures generally appl y for testing that we do to determine if yo ur vehicles compl y wi th applicable emission standards. We may perform other testing as allowed b y the Act. (c) Exceptions. We may

allow or require you to use procedures other than those specified in this part as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). All the test procedures noted as exceptions to the specified procedures are considered genericall y as "other procedures." Note that the terms "special procedures" and "alternate procedures" have specific meanings; "special procedures" are those allowed by 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(2) and "alt ernate procedures" are those allowed b y 40 CFR 1065.10(c)(7). If we require you to request approval to use other procedures under this paragraph (c), you may not use them until we approve your request. **§1066.15 Overview of test procedures.** This section o utlines the procedures to test vehicles that are subject to emission standards.Page 792 of 888

(a) In the standard

- setting part, we set emission standards in g/mile (or g/km), for the following constituents: (1) Total oxides of nitrogen, NO x . (2) Hydrocarbons, HC, which may be expressed in the following way s: (i) Total hydrocarbons, THC. (ii) Nonmethane h ydrocarbons, NMHC, which results from subtracting methane (CH 4 ) from THC. (iii) Total hydrocarbon

- equivalent, THCE, which results from adjusting THC mathematically

to be equivalent on a carbon

- mass basis. (iv) Nonmethane h ydrocarbon

- equivalent, NMHCE, which results from adjusting NMHC mathematically

to be equivalent on a carbon

- mass basis. (v) Nonmethane organic gases, NMOG, which are calculated either from fully or partia lly speciated measurement of hydrocarbons including oxygenates, or b y adjusting measured NMHC values based on fuel oxygenate properties. (3) Particulate mass, PM. (4) Carbon monoxide, CO. (5) Carbon dioxide, CO 2 . (6) Methane, CH 4 . (7) Nitrous oxide, N 2 O. ( 8) Formaldeh yde, CH 2 O. (b) Note that some vehicles may not be subject to standards for all the emission constituents identified in paragraph (a) of this section. Note also that the standard

- setting part may include standards for pollutants not listed in p aragraph (a) of this section. (c) The provisions of this part appl y for chassis dynamometer testing where vehicle speed is controlled to follow a prescribed duty cycle while simulating vehicle driving through the dy namometer’s road

- load settings. We gener ally set emission standards over test intervals and/or drive schedules, as follows: (1) Vehicle operation . Testing involves measuring emissions and miles travelled while operating the vehicle on a chassis dynamometer. Refer to the definitions of “duty cycle” and “test interval” in §1066.1001. Note that a single drive schedule may have multiple test intervals and require weighting of results from multiple test intervals to calculate a composite distance

- based emission value to compare to the standard. (2) Constituent determination . Determine the total mass of each constituent over a test interval by

selecting from the following methods: (i) Continuous sampling . In continuous sampling, measure the constituent’s concentration continuously from raw or dilut e exhaust. Multiply this concentration by the continuous (raw or dilute) flow rate at the emission sampling location to determine the constituent’s flow rate. Sum the constituent’s flow rate continuously over the test interval. This sum is the total mas s of the emitted constituent. (ii) Batch sampling . In batch sampling, continuously extract and store a sample of raw or dilute exhaust for later measurement. Extract a sample proportional to the raw or dilute exhaust flow rate, as applicable. You may ex tract and store a proportional sample of exhaust in an appropriate container, such as a bag, and then measure HC, CO, and NO x concentrations in the container after the test interval. You may deposit PM from proportionally

extracted exhaust onto an appropriate substrate, such as a filter. In this case, divide the PM b y the amount of filtered exhaust to calculate the PM concentration.Page 793 of 888

Multiply batch sampled concentrations by the total (raw or dilute) flow from which it was extracted during the test interva l. This product is the total mass of the emitted constituent. (iii) Combined sampling . You may use continuous and batch sampling simultaneously during a test interval, as follows: (A) You may

use continuous sampling for some constituents and batch sampling for others. (B) You may

use continuous and batch sampling for a single constituent, with one being a redundant measurement, subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 1065.201. (d) Refer to the standard

- setting part for calculations to determine g/mile emission rates. (e) You must use good engineering judgment for all aspects of testing under this part. While the regulation highlights several specific cases where good engineering judgment is especiall y relevant, the requirement to use good engineering j udgment is not limited to those provisions where we specifically re - state this requirement. **§1066.20 Units of measure and overview of calculations.** (a) Sy stem of units . The procedures in this part follow both conventional English Units and the Internatio nal Sy stem of Units (SI), as detailed in NI ST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate b y reference in §1066.1010. Except where specified, equations work with an y s ys tem of units. Where the equations depend on the use of specific units, these units are identified. (b) Units conversion . Use good engineering judgment to convert units between measurement s ys tems as needed. For example, if you measure vehicle speed as kilometers per hour and we specify a precision requirement in terms of miles per hour , convert your measured kilometer per hour value to miles per hour before comparing it to our specification. The following conventions are used throughout this document and should be used to convert units as applicable: (1) 1 hp = 33,000 ft ∙lbf/min = 550 ft ∙lbf/s = 0.7457 kW. (2) 1 lbf = 32.174 ft ∙lbm/s 2 = 4.4482 N. (3) 1 inch = 25.4 mm. (4) 1 mile = 1609.344 m. (5) For ideal gases, 1 μmol/mol = 1 ppm. (6) For ideal gases, 10 mmol/mol = 1 %. (c) Temperauture . We generall y designate temperatures in units of degrees Celsius (°C) unless a calculation requires an absolute temperature. In that case, we designate temperatures in units of Kelvin (K). For conversion purposes throughout this part, 0 °C equals 273.1 5 K. Unless specified otherwise, alway s use absolute temperature values for multiplying or dividing by temperature. (d) Absolute pressure . Measure absolute pressure directl y or calculate it as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential pressure that is referenced to atmospheric pressure. Alway s use absolute pressure values for multiplying or dividing by pressure. (e) Rounding . The rounding provisions of 40 CFR 1065.20 apply for calculations in this part. This generally

specifies that you roun d final values but not intermediate values. Use good engineering judgment to record the appropriate number of significant digits for all measurements.Page 794 of 888

(f) Interpretation of ranges . Interpret a range as a tolerance unless we explicitly identify it as an a ccuracy , repeatability , linearity , or noise specification. See 40 CFR 1065.1001 for the definition of tolerance. In this part, we specify two typ es of ranges: (1) Whenever we specify a range b y a single value and corresponding limit values above and belo w that value (such as X ±Y), target the associated control point to that single value (X). Examples of this ty pe of range include “±10 % of maximum pressure”, or “(30 ±10) kPa”. In these examples, you would target the maximum pressure or 30 kPa, respecti vel y. (2) Whenever we specify a range b y the interval between two values, you may target an y associated control point to any value within that range. An example of this ty pe of range is “(40 to 50) kPa”. (g) Scaling of specifications with respect to an ap plicable standard . Because this part 1066 applies to a wide range of vehicles and emission standards, some of the specifications in this part are scaled with respect to a vehicle’s applicable standard or weight. This ensures that the specification will b e adequate to determine compliance, but not overly

burdensome by

requiring unnecessaril y high

- precision equipment. Many of these specifications are given with respect to a “flow

- weighted mean” that is expected at the standard or during testing. Flow

- weighted mean is the mean of a quantity after it is weighted proportional to a corresponding flow rate. For example, if a gas concentration is measured continuousl y from the raw exhaust of an engine, its flow

- weighted mean concentration is the sum of the prod ucts of each recorded concentration times its respective exhaust flow rate, divided b y the sum of the recorded flow rates. As another example, the bag concentration from a CVS s ys tem is the same as the flow

- weighted mean concentration, because the CVS sy s tem itself flow

- weights the bag concentration. **§1066.25 Recordkeeping.** The procedures in this part include various requirements to record data or other information. Refer to the standard

- setting part and §1066.695 regarding recordkeeping requirements. Y ou must promptly send us organized, written records in English if we ask for them. We may

review them at an y time.Page 795 of 888

**Subpart B**

**— Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Fuel, and Analytical Gas**  **Specifications §1066.101 Overview.**  (a) This subpart addresses equi pment related to emission testing, as well as test fuels and anal yt ical gases. This section addresses emission sampling and anal yt ical equipment, test fuels, and analy

tical gases. (b) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 specify engine

- based procedures for measuring emissions. Except as specified otherwise in this part, the provisions of 40 CFR part 1065 apply for testing required by

this part as follows: (1) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, describe equipment specifications for exhaust diluti on and sampling s ys tems; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.110. (2) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, describe specifications for measurement instrument; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.120. (3) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D, describe specifications for measurement instrument calibrations and verifications; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.130. (4) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, describe specifications for fuels, engine fluids, and analy

tical gases; these specifications apply for testing under this part as described in §1066.145. (5) The provisions of 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, des cribe specifications for testing with oxygenated fuels; these specifications appl y for NMOG determinations as described in §1066.665. (c) The provisions of this subpart are intended to specify s ys tems that can very

accuratel y and precisely

measure emission s from motor vehicles such as light

- duty vehicles. To the extent that this level of accuracy and/or precision is not necessary for testing highway motorcycles or nonroad vehicles, we may waive or modify

the specifications and requirements of this part for testing these other vehicles, consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, it may be appropriate to allow the use of a hydrokinetic dy

namometer that is not able to meet all the performance specifications described in this subpart. **§1066.105 A mbient controls and vehicle cooling fans**  **.** (a) Ambient conditions. Dy namometer testing under this part generall y requires that you maintain the test cell within a specified range of ambient temperature and humidity . Use good engineering judgment to mainta in relatively uniform temperatures throughout the test cell before testing. You are generally not required to maintain uniform temperatures throughout the test cell while the vehicle is running due to the heat generated by the vehicle. Measured humidity values must accurately represent the humidit y of intake air; other than the intake air, humidity does not affect emissions so humidity need not be uniform throughout the test cell. (b) General requirements for cooling fans . Use good engineering judgment t o select and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way that meets the specifications of paragraph (c) of this section and simulates in

- use operation. If you demonstrate that the specifiedPage 796 of 888

fan configuration is impractical for special vehicle designs , such as vehicles with rear

mounted engines, or it does not provide adequate cooling to properl y represent in

- use operation, you may ask us to approve increasing the fan’s capacity or using additional fans
. (c) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles at or be low 14,000 pounds GVWR. C ooling fan specifications for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR depend on the test cycle. Paragraph (c)(1) of this section summarizes the cooling fan specifications for the different test cycles; the detailed specifications are described in paragraphs (c)(2) through (5) of this section. See §1066.410 for instruction regarding how to use the fans during testing. (1) Cooling fan specifications for different test cycles are summarized as follows: (i) For FTP and LA

- 92 test cyc les, the allowable cooling fan configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this section. (ii) For the US06 test cycle, the allowable cooling fan configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (5) of this section. The cooling fan co nfiguration in paragraph (c)(4) of this section is also allowable with advance approval. (iii) For SC03 and AC17 test cycles, the allowable cooling fan configuration is described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. (iv) For the HFET test cycle, the allowa ble cooling fan configurations are described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this section. (2) You may

use a road

- speed modulated fan s ys tem meeting the specifications of this paragraph (c)(2) for an ything other than SC03 and AC17 testing. Use a road

- spee d modulated fan that achieves a linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and within ±6.5 mph (±2.9 m/s) of the corres ponding roll speed at higher vehicle speeds; however you may limit the fan’s maximum linear speed to 70 mph. We recommend that the cooling fan have a minimum opening of 0.2 m 2 and a minimum width of 0.8 m. (i) Verify the air flow velocity

for fan speed co rresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph using an instrument that has an accuracy of ±2 % of the measured air flow speed. (ii) For fans with rectangular outlets, divide the fan outlet into the as shown in Figure 1 of this section. As denoted by the “+” in the figure, measure flow from the center of each section; however do not measure the flow from the center section. Figure 1 of §1066.105

**—**Rectangular fan outlet grid.

(iii) For fans with circular outlets, divide the fan outlet into 8 equal sections as shown in Figure 2 of this section . As denoted b y the “+” in the figure, measure flow on the radial centerline of each section (at 22.5°) at a radius of two

- thirds of the total radius.Page 797 of 888

Figure 2 of §1066.105

**—** Circular fan outlet grid.

(iv) Verify

that the fan air flow velocit y vector perpendicular to the axial flow velocity vector is less than 15% of the mean velocity measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph. (v) Verify that the uniformity

of the fan axial flow tolerance is within ±4.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 20 mph and within ±8.0 mph at fan speeds corresponding to 40 mph. For example, at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations denoted b y the “+” across the discharge nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. Measure the fan axial air flow velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point of the discharge area grid. (3) For SC03 and AC17 testing , use a road

- speed modulated fan with a minimum air flow nozzle discharge area that is equal to or exceeds the vehicle’s fro ntal inlet area. We recommend using a fan with a discharge area of 1.7 m 2

. (i) Air flow volumes must be proportional to vehicle speed. When meeting the minimum discharge area requirements, the flow volume would vary from 0 m 3 /s at 0 mph to approximately 450 m 3 /s at 60 mph. If this fan is also the only source of test cell air circulation or if fan operational mechanics make the 0 mph air flow requirement impractical, air flow of 2 mph or less at 0 mph vehicle speed is allowed. (ii) Verify

that the fan air flow velocity vector perpendicular to the axial flow velocity vector is less than 10 % of the mean velocity measured at fan speeds corresponding to vehicle speeds between 20 and 40 mph. (iii) Verify

that the uniformity

of fan axial flow tolerance is 20 % of the fan speed corresponding to vehicle speeds of 20 and 40 mph. For example, at 20 mph, flow at all axial locations across the discharge nozzle must be between 16 and 24 mph. Measure the fan axial air flow velocity 60 cm from the nozzle outlet at each point of the discharge area grid. (iv) The instrument used to verify the air velocity

must have an accuracy

of ±2 % of the measured air flow speed. (v) In addition to the road

- speed modulated fan, we may approve the use of one or more fixed

- speed fans to provide proper cooling to represent in

- use operation, but only up to a total of 2.50 m 3 /s for all additional fans. (4) You may

use a fixed

- speed fan with a maximum capacit y up to 2.50 m 3 /s for FTP, LA
- 92, and HFET testing. (5) You may

use a fixed

- speed f

an with a maximum capacit y up to 7.10 m 3 /s for US06 testing.Page 798 of 888

(d) Allowable cooling fans for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. For all testing, u se a road

- speed modulated fan sy stem that achieves a linear speed of cooling air at the blower outlet that is within ±3.0 mph (±1.3 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed when vehicle speeds are between 5 and 30 mph (2.2 to 13.4 m/s), and within ±10 mph (±4.5 m/s) of the corresponding roll speed at higher vehicle speeds. For vehicles above 19,500 pounds GVWR, we re commend that the cooling fan have a minimum opening of 2.75 m 2 , a minimum flow rate of 60 m 3 /s at 50 mph, and a minimum speed profile across the duct, in the free stream flow, that is ±15 % of the target flow rate. **§1066.110 Equipment specifications for e mission sampling systems.**  (a) This section specifies equipment related to emission testing, other than measurement instruments. This equipment includes two broad categories

— dy namometers (described further in subpart C of this part) and emission

- sampling h ardware. Other related sections in this subpart identify

measurement instruments (§1066.120), describe how to evaluate the performance of these instruments (§§1066.130 and 1066.137), describe how to calibrate a CVS (§1066.140), specify engine fluids and anal yt ical gases (§1066.145), and specify requirements for anal yz er interference and quench verification (§1066.150). (b) The following equipment specifications appl y for testing under this part: (1) Tailpipe connections . Connect a vehicle’s exhaust sy ste m to any dilution stage as follows: (i) Minimize laboratory

exhaust tubing lengths. You may use a total length of laboratory tubing up to 4 m, without needing to heat or insulate the tubing. However, you may use a total length of laboratory

tubing up to 1 0 m if you insulate and/or heat the tubing to minimize the temperature difference between the exhaust gas and the tubing wall over the course of the emission test. The laboratory exhaust tubing starts at the end of the vehicle’s tailpipe. The laboratory exhaust tubing ends at the first sample point or the point of first dilution. You may use flexible laboratory

exhaust tubing at any

location in the laboratory

exhaust system, although we recommend that you limit the amount of flexible tubing to the extent practicable. For multiple

- tailpipe configurations where the tailpipes combine into a single flow path for emission sampling, the start of the laboratory

exhaust tubing may

be taken at the last joint where the exhaust flow first becomes a single, combined flow. (ii) You may

insulate or heat an y laboratory exhaust tubing. (iii) Use laboratory

exhaust tubing materials that are smooth

- walled and not chemically reactive with exhaust constituents. (For purposes of this paragraph (b)(1), nominally smooth spira l

- style and accordion

- st yl e flexible tubing are considered to be smooth

walled.) For measurements involving PM, tubing materials must also be electricall y conductive. Stainless steel is an acceptable material for an y measurements. You may use short sect ions of nonconductive flexible tubing to connect a PM sampling sy stem to the vehicle’s tailpipe; use good engineering judgment to limit the amount of nonconductive surface area exposed to the vehicle’s exhaust. (iv) We recommend that you use laboratory exh aust tubing that has either a wall thickness of less than 2 mm or is air gap

- insulated to minimize temperature differences between the wall and the exhaust.Page 799 of 888

(v) You must seal your system to the extent necessary to ensure that an y remaining leaks do not aff ect your ability

to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. We recommend that you seal all known leaks. (vi) Electrically

ground the entire exhaust sy stem, with the exception of nonconductive flexible tubing, as allowed under paragraph (b)(1 )(iii) of this section. (vii) For vehicles with multiple tailpipes, route the exhaust into a single flow. To ensure mixing of the multiple exhaust streams before emission sampling, you may configure the exhaust sy stem with turbulence generators, such as o rifice plates or fins, to achieve good mixing. We recommend a minimum Rey nolds number, Re #, of 4000 for the combined exhaust stream, where Re # is based on the inside diameter of the combined flow at the first sampling point. Re # is defined in 40 CFR 1065.640. (2) Provisions from 40 CFR part 1065 . Use equipment specifications in 40 CFR 1065.140 through 40 CFR 1065.190, except as follows: (i) For PM background measurement, the following provisions appl y instead of the analogous provisions in 40 CFR 1065.140(b): (A) You need not measure PM background for every test. You may appl y PM background correction using a moving

- average background value as long as your background PM sample media (e.g., filters) were all made b y the same manufacturer from the s ame material . Use good engineering judgment to determine how many background samples make up the moving average and how frequentl y to update those values. For example, you might take one background sample per week and average that sample into previous b ackground values, maintaining five observations for each calculated average value. Background sampling time should be representative of the test interval duration to which the background correction is applied. (B) You may

sample background PM from the dil ution tunnel at any time before or after an emission test using the same sample train used during the emission test. For this background sampling, the dilution tunnel blower must be turned on, the vehicle must be disconnected from the exhaust transfer tub e, and the exhaust transfer tube must be capped. (C) The duration of your background sample does not need to be the same as the test cycle in which you are applying the background correction, provided it is not inconsistent with the use of good engineering judgment. (D) Your background correction may not exceed 5 μg or 5 % of the net PM mass expected at the standard, whichever allowance is greater. (ii) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv) do not apply
. (iii) For PM samples, configure dilution sy stem s using the following limits: (A) Control the dilution air temperature as described in 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1), except that the temperature may

set to (15 to 52) °C. Use good engineering judgment to control PM sample temperature as required under 40 CFR 106 5.140(e)(4). (B) Apply

the provisions of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) instead of 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). Add dilution air to the raw exhaust such that the overall dilution factor of diluted exhaust to raw exhaust, as determined in Eq. 1066.620

- 2 or 1066.6 20
- 3, is within the range of (7:1 to 20:1). Compliance with this dilution factor range may be determined for an individual test interval or as a time

- weighted average over the entire duty cycle as determined in Eq. 1066.620

- 4. The maximum dilution factor limit of 20:1 does not apply

for plug

- in hy

brid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and hy brid electric vehiclesPage 800 of 888

(HEVs), since the dilution factor is infinite when the engine is off; however we strongly recommend that you stay under the maximum dilution factor limi t when the engine is running. For partial

- flow sampling s ys tems, determine dilution factor using Eq. 1066.620
- 3. When determining dilution factor for PM samples utilizing secondary dilution air, multiply

the dilution factor by

the dilution ratio of secon dary dilution air to primary diluted exhaust. (iv) In addition to the allowances in 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6) you may also heat the dilution air as described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) of this section to prevent or limit aqueous condensation. (v) If you choos e to dilute the exhaust by using a remote mix tee, which dilutes the exhaust at the tailpipe, you may use the following provisions consistent with good engineering judgment, provided they do not affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the standard: (A) You may

use accordion

- style or smooth

- walled flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of flow or gaseous emission measurement locations. (B) You may

use smooth

- walled electricall y conductive flexible tubing in the dilution tunnel upstream of where PM emission measurements are made. (C) Materials for inside surfaces are limited to 300 series stainless steel and poly mer based materials. (D) Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the materials you choose do not cause or contribute to signi ficant loss of PM from your sample. (vi) Paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this section applies instead of 40 CFR 1065.145(b). (c) The following table summarizes the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section: Table 1 of §1066.110

– Summary of equipment specifi cations from 40 CFR part 1065, subpart B, that appl y for chassis testing 40 CFR part 1065 references Applicability for chassis testing under this part

40 CFR 1065.140 Use all except: 40 CFR 1065.140(b) applies as described in this section. Use 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), with the additional allowance described in this section. Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(d)(2)(iv). Use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(1) as described in this section. Do not use 40 CFR 1065.140(e)(2). 40 CFR 1065.145 Use all except 40 CFR 1065.145(b). 40 CFR 1065.150 through 1065.190 Use all. **§1066.120 Measurement instruments.** The measurement instrument requirements in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart C, apply with the following exceptions: (a) The provisions of §1066.122 apply instead of 40 CFR 1065.202. (b) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.210 and 1065.295 do not apply
. **§1066.122 Data updating, recording, and control for measurement instruments.**Page 801 of 888

This section specifies criteria that your test s ys tem must meet for updating and recording data. It also specifie s criteria for controlling the systems related to driver demand, the dy namometer, sampling equipment, and measurement instruments. (a)(1) This paragraph (a)(1) applies where we specify a minimum command and control frequency that is greater than the minimum recording frequency , such as for sample flow rates from a CVS that does not have a heat exchanger. For these measurements, the rate at which you read and interpret the signal must be at least as frequent as the minimum command and control frequency . Va lues may be recorded at the same frequency . They may also be recorded as means of the values, provided the frequency of the mean values meets the minimum recording frequency . All values read must be either recorded or used to calculate the mean values. For example, if your sy stem reads and controls the sample flow rate at 10 Hz, you may record these values at 10 Hz, record them at 5 Hz by averaging pairs of consecutive points together, or record them at 1 Hz b y averaging five consecutive points together. (2) For all other measured values covered b y this section, you may record the values instantaneously

or as mean values, consistent with good engineering judgment. (3) You may

not use rolling averages of measured values where a given measured value is in cluded in more than one recorded mean value. (b) Use data acquisition and control sy stems that can command, control, and record at the following minimum frequencies: Table 1 of §1066.122

–Data recording and control minimum frequencies Applicable Section M easured Values Minimum Command and Control Frequency Minimum

Recording Frequency a §1066.310 §1066.320 Vehicle speed

— 10 Hz §1066.430 Continuous concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers — 1 Hz §1066.430 §1066.501 Power analyzer b

— 1 Hz §1066.430 Bag concentrations of raw or dilute analyzers

— 1 mean value per test interval 40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.430 Diluted exhaust flow rate from a CVS with a

heat exchanger upstream of the flow measurement — 1 Hz 40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.430 Diluted exhaust flow rate fr om a CVS without a heat exchanger upstream of the flow measurement N/A 1 Hz means 40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.430 Dilution air flow if actively controlled (for

example, a partial

- flow PM sampling system) 5 Hz 1 Hz means 40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.430 Sam ple flow from a CVS that has a heat exchanger 1 Hz 1 Hz 40 CFR 1065.545 §1066.430 Sam ple flow from a CVS that does not have a heat exchanger 5 Hz 1 Hz means §1066.425 Ambient temperature

— 1 Hz §1066.425 Ambient humidity

— 1 Hz §1066.425 Heated sample system temperatures, including

PM filter face — 1 Hz
a 1 Hz means are data reported from the instrument at a higher frequency, but recorded as a series of meanPage 802 of 888 values at a rate of 1 Hz. b For power analyzers’ sampling frequency, follow SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010). **§1066.130 Measurement instrument calibrations and verifications.** The measurement instrument calibration and verification requirements in 40 CFR 1065, subpart D, appl y with the following exceptions: (a) The calibration and verification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.303 do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section 1066.133 specifies additional calibration and verification provisions that apply specificall y for chassis testing. (b) The linearity

v erification provisions of 40 CFR 1065.307 do not apply for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow. Section 1066.137 specifies additional linearity verification provisions that apply specifically

for chassis testing. (c) The provisions of §106 6.220 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.310. (d) The provisions of 40 CFR 1065.320, 1065.325, and 1065.395 do not apply
. (e) If you are measuring flow volumetricall y (rather than b y molar), the provisions of §1066.140 apply

instead of 40 CFR 1065.340. (f) The prov isions of §1066.150 apply instead 40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c). (g) Table 1 of this section summarizes the required and recommended calibrations and verifications that are unique to testing under this part and indicates whe n these have to be performed. Perform other required or recommended calibration and verifications as described in 40 CFR 1065.303, with the exceptions noted in this section. Table 1 follows:Page 803 of 888

Table 1 of §1066.130

– Summary of required calibration and verif ications. Ty pe of calibration or verification Minimum frequencya 40 CFR 1065.303: Flow rates This calibration does not apply for testing under this part; see §1066.133 for alternative provisions. 40 CFR 1065.307: Linearity verification The linearity calibrations from 40 CFR part 1065 do not apply under this part for engine speed, torque, fuel rate, or intake air flow; the linearity verification described in §1066.137 applies for the following measurements: Dynamometer Speed: See §1066.220. Dynamometer Torque: See §1066.220. 40 CFR 1065.310: Torque This calibration does not apply for testing under this part; see §1066.220. 40 CFR 1065.320: Fuel flow This calibration does not apply for testing under this part. 40 CFR 1065.325: Intake flow This calibr ation does not apply for testing under this part. 40 CFR 1065.340: CVS calibration This calibration does not apply for CVS flow meters calibrated volumetrically as described in §1066.140. 40 CFR 1065.345: Vacuum leak Required upon initial installation of the sampling system; recommended within 35 days before the start of an emissions test and after maintenance such as pre

- filter changes. 40 CFR 1065.350(c), 1065.355(c), 1065.370(c), and 1065.375(c) These provisions do not apply for testing under this part; see §1066.150. 40 CFR 1065.395: Inertial PM balance and weighing These verifications do not apply for testing under this part.
aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently if needed to conform to the measurement system manufacturer’s instru ctions and good engineering judgment. **§1066.137 Linearity verification.** This section describes requirements for linearity verification that are unique to testing under this part. (Note: see the definition of “linearity” in 40 CFR 1065.1001, where we expl ain that linearity

means the degree to which measured values agree with respective reference values and that the term “linearity” is not used to refer to the shape of a measurement instrument's unprocessed response curve.) Perform other required or recommended calibration and verifications as described in 40 CFR 1065.307, with the exceptions noted in this section. (a) For testing under this subpart, linearity verification under 40 CFR part 1065 is not required for speed, torque, fuel flow rate, or intak e air flow. (b) For gas analyzer linearity , use one of the following options: (1) Use instrument manufacturer recommendations and good engineering judgment to select at least ten reference values, yrefi , that cover the range of values that you expect during testing (to prevent extrapolation beyond the verified range during emission testing). We recommend selecting zero as one of your reference values. For each range calibrated, if the deviation from a least

- squares best

- fit straight line is 2 % or less of the value at each data point, concentration values may be calculated b y use of a single calibration factor for that range. If the deviation exceeds 2 % at any point, use the best

- fit nonlinear equatio n that represents the data to within 2 % of each test point to determine concentration. If you use a gas divider to blend calibration gases, verify that the calibration curve produced names a calibration gas within 2 % of its certifiedPage 804 of 888

concentration. Per form this verification between 15 and 50 % of the full scale anal yz er range. (2) Use the linearit y requirements of 40 CFR 1065.307, except for CO 2 measurements used for determining fuel econom y and GHG emissions for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. If you choose this linearity option, you must drift check and drift correct your emission data according to 40 CFR 1065.672. (c) Perform linearit y verifications for the following temperature measurements instead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.30 7(e)(7): (1) Test cell ambient air. (2) Dilution air for PM sampling, including CVS, double

- dilution, and partial

- flow sy stems. (3) PM sample. (4) Chiller sample, for gaseous sampling s ys tems that use thermal chillers to dry samples and that use chiller te mperature to calculate dewpoint at the chiller outlet. For testing, if yo u choose to use the high alarm temperature setpoint for the chiller temperature as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the emission sample, yo u may verif y the accuracy

of the high alarm temperature setpoint using good engineering judgment without following the linearity verification for chiller temperature. We recommend that you input a simulated reference temperature signal below the alarm setpoint, incr ease this signal until the high alarm trips, and verify that the alarm setpoint value is no less than 2 °C below the reference value at the trip point
. (5) CVS inlet temperature. (d) Perform linearit y verifications for the following pressure measurements i nstead of those specified at 40 CFR 1065.307(e)(8): (1) Exhaust back pressure. (2) Barometric pressure. (3) CVS inlet gage pressure or absolute pressure transducer. (4) Sample dryer, for gaseous sampling s ys tems that use either osmotic

- membrane or thermal chillers to dry

samples. For your testing, if you choose to use a low alarm pressure setpoint for the sample dryer pressure as a constant value in determining the amount of water removed from the emission sample, you may verify the accuracy

of the low alarm pressure setpoint using good engineering judgment without following the linearity verification for sample dryer pressure. We recommend that you input a reference pressure signal above the alarm setpoint, decrease this signal until the low alarm trips, and verify

that the alarm setpoint value is no more than 4 kPa above the reference value at the trip point. (e) When following procedures or practices that we incorporate b y reference in §1066.1010, you must meet the linearit y requirements given b y the pr ocedure or practice for an y anal yt ical instruments not covered under 40 CFR 1065.307, such as GC

- FID or HPL C. **§ 1066.140 Diluted exhaust flow calibration.**  (a) Overview . This section describes how to calibrate flow meters for diluted exhaust constant - volume sampling (CVS) s ys tems. You may follow the molar flow calibration procedures in 40 CFR 1065.340 instead of the procedures in this section.Page 805 of 888

(b) Scope and frequency . Perform this calibration while the flow meter is installed in its permanent position, exc ept as allowed in paragraph (c) of this section. Perform this calibration after you change an y part of the flow configuration upstream or downstream of the flow meter that may affect the flow

- meter calibration. Perform this calibration upon initial CVS i nstallation and whenever corrective action does not resolve a failure to meet the diluted exhaust flow verification (i.e., propane check) in 40 CFR 1065.341. (c) Ex
- situ CFV and SSV calibration . You may remove a CFV or SSV from its permanent position for calibration as long as the flow meter meets the requirements in 40 CFR 1065.340(c). (d) Reference flow meter . Calibrate each CVS flow meter using a reference flow meter such as a subsonic venturi flow meter, a long

- radius ASME/NI ST flow nozzle, a smooth a pproach orifice, a laminar flow element, a set of critical flow venturis, or an ultrasonic flow meter. Use a reference flow meter that reports quantities that are NIST

- traceable within ±1 % uncertaint y. Use this reference flow meter’s response to flow as the reference value for CVS flow

- meter calibration. (e) Configuration . Calibrate the s ys tem with an y upstream screens or other restrictions that will be used during testing and that could affect the flow ahead of the reference flow meter. You may

not u se any

upstream screen or other restriction that could affect the flow ahead of the reference flow meter, unless the flow meter has been calibrated with such a restriction. (f) PDP calibration . Calibrate each positive

- displacement pump (PDP) to determine a flow

- versus - PDP speed equation that accounts for flow leakage across sealing surfaces in the PDP as a function of PDP inlet pressure. Determine unique equation coefficients for each speed at which you operate the PDP. Calibrate a PDP flow meter as foll ows: (1) Connect the s ys tem as shown in Figure 1 of this section. (2) Leaks between the calibration flow meter and the PDP must be less than 0.3 % of the total flow at the lowest calibrated flow point; for example, at the highest restriction and lowest PDP

- speed point. (3) While the PDP operates, maintain a constant temperature at the PDP inlet within ±2 % of the mean absolute inlet temperature, in T
. (4) Set the PDP speed to the first speed point at which you intend to calibrate. (5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide

- open position. (6) Operate the PDP for at least 3 min to stabilize the sy stem. Continue operating the PDP and record the mean values of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities: (i) T he mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, ref Q  . This may

include several measurements of different quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for calculating ref

Q 

. (ii) The mean temperature at the PDP inlet, in T
. (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet, in p . (iv) The mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet, out p . (v) The mean PDP speed, nPDP f
.Page 806 of 888

(7) Incrementall y close the restrictor valve to decrease the absolute pressure at the inlet to the PDP, in p . (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of six restrictor positions ranging from the wide

- open restrictor position to the minimum expected pressure at the PDP inlet. (9) Calibrate the PDP b y using the collected data and the equations in §1066.650(a). (10) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (e)(6) through (9) of this section for each speed at which you operate the PDP. (11) Use the equations in §1066.652(a) to determine the PDP flow equation for emission testing. (12) Verify

the calibration by

performing a CVS verification (i.e., propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341. (13) Ensure that the lowest inlet pressure tested during calibration is at least as low as the lowest PDP inlet pressure that will occur during emission testing. You may not use the PDP below the lowest inlet pressure tested during calibrat ion. (g) SSV calibration . Calibrate each subsonic venturi (SSV) to determine its discharge coefficient, C

d , for the expected range of inlet pressures as follows: (1) Configure your calibration sy stem as shown in Figure 1 of this section. (2) Verify that an y leaks between the calibration flow meter and the SSV are less than 0.3 % of the total flow at the highest restriction. (3) Start the blower downstream of the SSV. (4) While the SSV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the SSV inlet within ±2 % of the mean absolute inlet temperature, in T

. (5) Set the variable restrictor or variable

- speed blower to a flow rate greater than the greatest flow rate expected during testing. You may not extrapolate flow rates beyond calibrated v alues, so we recommend that you make sure the Rey nolds number, Re # , at the SSV throat at the greatest calibrated flow rate is greater than the maximum Re # expected during testing. (6) Operate the SSV for at least 3 min to stabilize the sy stem. Continue op erating the SSV and record the mean of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities: (i) The mean flow rate of the reference flow meter, ref Q  . This may

include several measurements of different quantities fo r calculating ref Q  , such as reference meter pressures and temperatures. (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, in T

. (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, in p

. (iv) Mean static differential pressure between the static pressure at the venturi inlet and the static pressure at the venturi throat, SSV p 

. (7) Incrementall y close the restrictor valve or decrease the blower speed to decrease the flow rate. (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (g)(6) and (7) of this section to record data at a minimum of ten flow rates.Page 807 of 888

(9) Determine an equation to quantify C d as a function of Re # by

using the collected data and the equations in §1066.650(b). Secti on 1066.650 also includes statistical criteria for validating the C

d versus Re # equation. (10) Verify

the calibration by

performing a CVS verification (i.e., propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341 using the C d versus Re # equation. (11) Use the SSV onl y between the minimum and maximum calibrated flow rates. If you want to use the SSV at a higher or lower flow rate, you must recalibrate the SSV. (12) Use the equations in §1066.652(b) to determine SSV flow during a test. (h) CFV calibration . The calibration procedure described in this paragraph (h) establishes the value of the calibration coefficient at measured values of pressure, temperature and air flow. Calibrate a critical

- flow venturi (CFV) to verify its calibration coefficient, K v , at the l owest expected static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and outlet. Calibrate a CFV flow meter as follows: (1) Configure your calibration sy stem as shown in Figure 1 of this section. (2) Verify that an y leaks between the calibration flow meter a nd the CFV are less than 0.3 % of the total flow at the highest restriction. (3) Start the blower downstream of the CFV. (4) While the CFV operates, maintain a constant temperature at the CFV inlet within ±2 % of the mean absolute inlet temperature, in T
. (5) Set the variable restrictor to its wide

- open position. In stead of a variable restrictor, yo u may alternatel y vary the pressure downstream of the CFV b y varyi ng blower speed or by introducing a controlled leak. Note that some blo wers have limitations on nonloaded conditions. (6) Operate the CFV for at least 3 min to stabilize the sy stem. Continue operating the CFV and record the mean values of at least 30 seconds of sampled data of each of the following quantities: (i) The mean f

low rate of the reference flow meter, ref Q  . This may

include several measurements of different quantities, such as reference meter pressures and temperatures, for calculating ref

Q 

. (ii) The mean temperature at the venturi inlet, in T
. (iii) The mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet, in p . (iv) The mean static differential pressure between the CFV inlet and the CFV outlet, CFV p 
. (7) Inc rementall y close the restrictor valve or decrease the downstream pressure to decrease the differential pressure across the CFV, CFV p 
. (8) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (f)(6) and (7) of this section to record mean data at a minimum of ten restrictor positions, such that you test the fullest practical range of CFV p  expected during testing. We do not require that you remove calibration components or CVS components to calibrate at the lowest possible restriction. (9) Determine K

v and the lowest allowable pressure ratio, r , according to §1066.650. (10) Use K

v to determine CFV flow during an emission test. Do not use th e CFV below the lowest allowed r , as determined in §1066.650.Page 808 of 888

(11) Verify

the calibration by

performing a CVS verification (i.e., propane check) as described in 40 CFR 1065.341. (12) If your CVS is configured to operate multiple CFVs in parallel, calibrate your CVS using one of the following methods: (i) Calibrate every

combination of CFVs according to this section and §1066.650(c). Refer to §1065.652(c) for instructions on calculating flow rates for this option. (ii) Calibrate each CFV according to this section and §1066.650. Refer to §1066.652 for instructions on calculating flow rates for this option. (i) Ultrasonic flow meter calibration . [Reserved] Figure 1 of 1066.140

— CVS calibration configurations.

reference flow meter PDP

variable restrictor 12
6 ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p out 

# p in 

## T PD

P 

## f 

# t

reference flow meter PDP

variable restrictor 12
6 ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p out 

# p in 

## T PD

P 

## f 

# t

reference flow meter PDP

variable restrictor 12
6 ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p out 

# p in 

## T PD

P 

## f 

# t

CFV reference flow m eter variable restrictor ref 

## n  in



# p in 

# T atm os 

### p dew 

### T

blower

downstream pressure control

CFV reference flow m eter variable restrictor ref 

## n  in



# p in 

# T atm os 

### p dew 

### T

blower

downstream pressure controlPage 809 of 888 SSV reference flow meter ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p in 

## T dew



## T


## p 
variable speed

blower SSV reference flow meter ref 

## n  atmos 

### p

in 

## p in 

## T dew



## T


## p 
variable speed

blower **§1066.145 Test fuel, engine fluids, analyt ical gases, and other calibration standards.**  (a) Test fuel . Use test fuel as specified in the standard

- setting part, or as specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H, if it is not specified in the standard

- setting part. (b) Lubricating oil . Use lubricating oil as specified in 40 CFR 1065.740. For two

- stroke engines that involve a specified mixture of fuel and lubricating oil, mix the lubricating oil with the fuel according to the manufacturer’s specifications. (c) Coolant . For liquid

- cooled engines, use co olant as specified in 40 CFR 1065.745. (d) Anal yt ical gases . Use anal yt ical gases that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.750. (e) Mass standards . Use mass standards that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.790. **§1066.150 Analyzer interference and qu ench verification limit.**  Analyzers must meet the interference and quench verification limits in the following table on the lowest instrument range that will be used during emission testing, instead of those specified in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart D: Table 1 of §1066.150

–Analyzer interference and quench verification limits. Verification Limit 40 CFR 1065.350 ±2 % of full scale 40 CFR 1065.355 ±2 % of full scale 40 CFR 1065.370 ±2 % of full scale 40 CFR 1065.375 ±2 % of the flow

- weighted mean concentration of N 2 O expected at the standard **Subpart C**

**— Dynamometer Specifications**  **§1066.201 Dynamometer overview.** This subpart addresses chassis dy namometers and related equipment. **§1066.210 Dynamometers.** (a) General requirements. A chassis d ynamometer typically uses electrically generated load forces combined with its rotational inertia to recreate the mechanical inertia and frictional forces that a vehicle exerts on road surfaces (known as “road load”). Load forces are calculat ed using vehicle

- specific coefficients and response characteristics. The load forces are applied to the vehicle tires b y rolls connected to motor/absorbers. ThePage 810 of 888

dy namometer uses a load cell to measure the forces the dy namometer rolls apply

to the vehicle ’s tires. (b) Accuracy

and precision. The dynamometer’s output values for road load must be NI ST
- traceable. We may determine traceabilit y to a specific international standards organization to be sufficient to demonstrate NIST

- traceability . The force

- mea surement sy stem must be capable of indicating force readings as follows: (1) For dynamometer testing of vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, the dy namometer force

- measurement s ys tem must be capable of indicating force readings during a test to a resolution of ±0.05 % of the maximum load

- cell force simulated by the dy namometer or ±9.8 N (±2.2 lbf), whichever is greater. (2) For dynamometers testing of vehicles above 20,000 pounds GVWR the force

measurement s ys tem must be capable of indicating force readings during a test to a resolution of ±0.05 % of the maximum load

- cell force simulated b y the dynamometer or ±39.2 N (±8.8 lbf), whichever is greater. (c) Test cycles. The dy

namometer must be capable of fully simulating vehicle performance over appli cable test cycles for the vehicles being tested as referenced in the corresponding standard

- setting part, including operation at the combination of inertial and road

- load forces corresponding to maximum road load conditions and maximum simulated inertia at the highest acceleration rate experienced during testing. (d) Component requirements. The following specifications apply : (1) The nominal roll diameter must be 120 cm or greater. The dy namometer must have an independent drive roll for each drive axle as tested under §1066.410(g), except that two drive axles may

share a single drive roll. Use good engineering judgment to ensure that the dy

namometer roll diameter is large enough to provide sufficient tire

- roll contact area to avoid tire overheating and po wer losses from tire

- roll slippage. (2) Measure and record force and speed at 10 Hz or faster. You may convert measured values to 1

- Hz, 2
- Hz, or 5
- Hz values before your calculations, using good engineering judgment. (3) The load applied by

the dy namometer simulates forces acting on the vehicle during normal driving according to the following equation: 2 i i -1 i i i i i -1 v v FR A B v C v M t t      

 Eq. 1066.210
- 1 Where: FR = total road

- load force to be applied at the surface of the roll. The total force is the sum of the indi vidual tractive forces applied at each roll surface
. i = a counter to indicate a point in time over the driving schedule. For a dyn amometer operating at 10

- Hz intervals over a 600

- second driving schedule, the maximum value of i should be 6,000. A = a vehi cle

- specific constant value representing the vehicle’s frictional load in lbf or newtons. See subpart D of this part. B = a vehicle

- specific coefficient representing load from drag and rolling resistance, which are a function of vehicle speed, in lbf/mph or N ∙ s/m. See subpart D of this part. v = linear speed at the roll surfaces as measured by the dy namometer, in mph or m/s. L et v i

- 1 = 0 for i = 0.Page 811 of 888

C = a vehicle

- specific coefficient representing aerody namic effects, which are a function of vehicle speed squared, in lbf/mph 2 or N ∙ s 2 /m 2 . See subpart D of this part. M = mass of the vehicle in lbm or kg. For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, d ete rmine the vehicle’s mass based on equivalent test weight (ETW) as specified in §1066.810 and set dynamometer inertia simulation as specified in §1066.410(h). For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, d etermine the vehicle’s mass based on the test weight, taking into account the effect of rotating axles, as specified in §1066.310(b)(7) and dividing the weight by the acceleration due to gravity as specified in 40 CFR 1065.630, consistent with good engineering judgment. t = elapsed time in the driving schedule as measured by the dyn amometer, in seconds. Let ti

- 1 = 0 for i = 0. (4) We recommend that a dy namometer capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR be designed to apply an actual road

- load force within ±1 % or ±9.8 N (±2.2 lbf) of the refe rence value, whichever is greater. Dy namometers that do not fully meet this specification may be used consistent with good engineering judgment. For example, slightly

higher errors may

be permissible during highl y transient operation for vehicles above 8 ,500 pounds GVWR. (e) Dy namometer manufacturer instructions . This part specifies that you follow the dy namometer manufacturer’s recommended procedures for things such as calibrations and general operation. If you perform testing with a dy namometer that yo u manufactured or if you otherwise do not have these recommended procedures, use good engineering judgment to establish the additional procedures and specifications we specify in this part, unless we specify

otherwise. Keep records to describe these recommended procedures and how they

are consistent with good engineering judgment, including any quantified error estimates. **§1066.215 Summary of verification and calibration procedures for chassis dynamometers.**  (a) Overview . This section describes the overall process for verifying and calibrating the performance of chassis dy namometers. (b) Scope and frequency . The following table summarizes the required and recommended calibrations and verifications described in this subpart and indicates when they must occur:Page 812 of 888

Table 1 of §1066.215

– Summary of required dy

namometer calibrations and verifications. Ty pe of calibration or verification Minimum frequencya §1066.220: Linearity verification Speed: Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. Torque (load): Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1066.225: Roll runout and diameter verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1066.230: Time verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1066.235: Speed measurement verification Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.240: Torque (load) transducer verification Upon initial installation, within 7 days of testin g, and after major maintenance. §1066.245: Response time verification Upon initial installation, within 370 days before testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.250: Base inertia verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1066.255: Parasitic loss verification Upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in §1066.270 or §1066.280. §1066.260: Parasitic friction compensation evaluation Upon initial installation, after major maintenan ce, and upon failure of a verification in §1066.270 or §1066.280. §1066.265: Acceleration and deceleration verification Upon initial installation and after major maintenance. §1066.270: Unloaded coastdown verification Upon initial installation, within 7 days of testing, and after major maintenance. §1066.280 Dynamometer readiness verification Upon initial installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance. aPerform calibrations and verifications more frequently, according to measurem ent system manufacturer instructions and good engineering judgment. (c) Automated dyn amometer verifications and calibrations . In some cases, dy namometers are designed with internal diagnostic and control features to accomplish the verifications and calibrations specified in this subpart. You may use these automated functions instead of following the procedures we specify in this subpart to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements, consistent with good engineering judgment. (d) Sequence of verifications and calibrations . Upon initial installation and after major maintenance, perform the verifications and calibrati ons in the same sequence as noted in Table 1 of this section, except that you may perform speed linearit y verification after the verifications in §§1066.225 and 1066.230. At other times, you may need to perform specific verifications or calibrations in a certain sequence, as noted in this subpart. If you perform major maintenance on a specific component, you are required to perform verifications and calibrations only on components or parameters that are affected by the maintenance. (e) Corrections
. Unless the regulation directs otherwise, if the dy namometer fails to meet any specified calibration or verification, make any necessary adjustments or repairs such that the dy

namometer meets the specification before running a test. Repairs required to meet spec ifications are generall y considered major maintenance under this part. **§1066.220 Linearity verification for chassis dynamometer systems.**Page 813 of 888

(a) Scope and frequency . Perform linearit y verification for dynamometer speed and torque at least as frequently as in dicated in Table 1 of §1066.215. The intent of linearity verification is to determine that the sy stem responds accuratel y and proportionally over the measurement range of interest. Linearity verification generally

consists of introducing a series of at l east 10 reference values to a measurement sy stem. The measurement s ys tem quantifies each reference value. The measured values are then collectively

compared to the reference values by using a least

- squares linear regression and the linearit y criteria spe cified in Table 1 of this section. (b) Performance requirements . I f a measurement sy stem does not meet the applicable linearity criteria in Table 1 of this section, correct the deficiency by re - calibrating, servicing, or replacing components as needed. R epeat the linearit y verification after correcting the deficiency

to ensure that the measurement sy stem meets the linearity criteria. Before you may use a measurement s ys tem that does not meet linearity criteria, yo u must demonstrate to us that the deficie ncy does not adversel y affect your ability to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards. (c) Procedure . Use the following linearit y verification protocol, or use good engineering judgment to develop a different protocol that satisfies the intent of this section, as described in paragraph (a) of this section: (1) In this paragraph (c), the letter “y” denotes a generic measured quantity, the superscript over

- bar denotes an arithmetic mean (such as y ), and the subscript “ ref ” denotes the known or reference quantit y being measured. (2) Operate the dyn amometer s ys tem at the specified operating conditions. This may include an y specified adjustment or periodic calibration of the dynamometer s ys tem. (3) Set dy namometer speed and torque to zero. (4) Verify the dynamometer speed or torque signal based on the dynamometer manufacturer’s recommendations. (5) After verification, check for zero speed and torque. Use good engineering judgment to determine whether or not to rezero or re

- verify speed and torque before continuing. (6) For both speed and torque, use the dyn amometer manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering judgment to select reference values, yrefi , that cover a range of values that you expect would prevent extrap olation beyond these values during emission testing. We recommend selecting zero speed and zero torque as reference values for the linearity verification. (7) Use the dyn amometer manufacturer’s recommendations and good engineering judgment to select the o rder in which you will introduce the series of reference values. For example, you may select the reference values randomly to avoid correlation with previous measurements and to avoid the influence of hy steresis; you may select reference values in ascendi ng or descending order to avoid long settling times of reference signals; or you may

select values to ascend and then descend to incorporate the effects of any instrument hy steresis into the linearity verification. (8) Set the dynamometer to operate at a r eference condition. (9) Allow time for the dynamometer to stabilize while it measures the reference values. (10) At a recording frequency of at least 1 Hz, measure speed and torque values for 30 seconds and record the arithmetic mean of the recorded value s, i y . Refer to 40 CFR 1065.602 for an example of calculating an arithmetic mean.Page 814 of 888

(11) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(8) though (10) of this section until you measure speeds and torques at each of the reference settings. (12) Use the arithmetic means, i y , and reference values, yrefi , to calculate least

- squares linear regression parameters and statistical values to compare to the minimum performance criteria specified in Table 1 of this section. Us e the calculations described in 40 CFR 1065.602. Using good engineering judgment, you may weight the results of individual data pairs (i.e., ( yrefi , i y )), in the linear regression calculations. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §1066.22 0

– Dy namometer measurement sy stems that require linearity verifications Measurement system Quantity Linearity criteria | ymin (a 1 - 1)+a 0 | a 1 SEE r2 Speed v <0.05 % ∙ max v 0.98
- 1.02 <2 % ∙ max v >0.990 Torque (load) T <1 % ∙ max T 0.99
- 1.01 <1 % ∙ max T >0.990 (d) Reference signals . Generate reference values for the linearit y - verification protocol in paragraph (c) of this section as described for speed and torque in 40 CFR 1065.307(d). **§1066.225 Roll runout and diameter verification procedure.**  (a) Overview. This section describes the verification procedure for roll runout and roll diameter. Roll runout is a measure of the variation in roll radius around the circumference of the roll. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform these verifications upon initial instal lation and after major maintenance that could affect roll surface finish or dimensions (such as resurfacing or polishing). (c) Roll runout procedure. Verify roll runout based on the following procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good engineering judgment: (1) Perform this verification with laboratory and dy namometer temperatures stable and at equilibrium. Release the roll brake and shut off power to the dy namometer. Remove an y dirt, rubber, rust, and debris from the roll surface. Mark measurem ent locations on the roll surface using a nominally permanent marker. Mark the roll at a minimum of four equally spaced locations across the roll width; we recommend taking measurements every 150 mm across the roll. Secure the marker to the deck plate ad jacent to the roll surface and slowl y rotate the roll to mark a clear line around the roll circumference. Repeat this process for all measurement locations. (2) Measure roll runout using an indicator with a probe that allows for measuring the position of the roll surface relative to the roll centerline as it turns through a complete revolution. The indicator must have some means of being securel y mounted adjacent to the roll. The indicator must have sufficient range to measure roll runout at all points, with a minimum accuracy of ±0.025 mm. Calibrate the indicator according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions. (3) Position the indicator adjacent to the roll surface at the desired measurement location. Position the shaft of the indicator perpen dicular to the roll such that the point of the indicator is slightly

touching the surface of the roll and can move freel y through a full rotation of the roll. Zero the indicator according to the instrument manufacturer’sPage 815 of 888

instructions. Avoid distortion of the runout measurement from the weight of a person standing on or near the mounted dial indicator. (4) Slowly

turn the roll through a complete rotation and record the maximum and minimum values from the indicator. Calculate runout as the difference betwe en these maximum and minimum values. (5) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section for all measurement locations. (6) The roll runout must be less than 0.254 mm (0.0100 inches) at all measurement locations. (d) Diameter procedure. Ve rify roll diameter based on the following procedure, or an equivalent procedure based on good engineering judgment: (1) Prepare the laboratory and the dynamometer as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (2) Measure roll diameter using a Pi Tap e®. Orient the Pi Tape® to the marker line at the desired measurement location with the Pi Tape® hook pointed outward. Temporaril y secure the Pi Tape® to the roll near the hook end with adhesive tape. Slowly turn the roll, wrapping the Pi Tape® around the roll surface. Ensure that the Pi Tape® is flat and adjacent to the marker line around the full circumference of the roll. Attach a 2.26

- kg weight to the hook of the Pi Tape® and position the roll so that the weight dangles freel y. Remove the adhesive tape without disturbing the orientation or alignment of the Pi Tape®. (3) Overlap the gage member and the vernier scale ends of the Pi Tape® to read the diameter measurement to the nearest 0.01 mm. Follow the manufacturer’s recommendation to correct the measurement to 20 °C, if applicable. (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section for all measurement locations. (5) The measured roll diameter must be within ±0.254 mm of the specified nominal value at all measurement locations. Yo u may revise the nominal value to meet this specification, as long as you use the corrected nominal value for all calculations in this subpart. **§1066.230 Time verification procedure.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy

of the dy namometer’s timing device. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. Perform this verification using one of the following procedures: (1) WWV method. You may use the time and frequency signal broadcast by

NI ST from radio station WWV as the time standard if the trigger for the dyn amometer timing circuit has a frequency

decoder circuit, as follows: (i) Contact station WWV by telephone by

dialing (303) 4 99
- 7111 and listen for the time announcement. Verify

that the trigger started the dy namometer timer. Use good engineering judgment to minimize error in receiving the time and frequency signal. (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, re

- dial station WWV and lis ten for the time announcement. Verify

that the trigger stopped the dy namometer timer.Page 816 of 888

(iii) Compare the measured elapsed time, y act , to the corresponding time standard, y ref , to determine the time error, y error , using the following equation:

a c t r e f e r r o r r e f 1 0 0 % y y y y

   Eq. 1066.230
- 1 (2) Ramping method. You may use an operator - defined ramp function to serve as the time standard as follows: (i) Set up a signal generator to output a marker voltage at the peak of each ramp to trigger the dy namomet er timing circuit. Output the designated marker voltage to start the verification period. (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, output the designated marker voltage to end the verification period. (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between marker signals , y act , to the corresponding time standard, yref , to determine the time error, y error , using Eq. 1066.230

- 1. (3) Dy namometer coastdown method. You may use a signal generator to output a known speed ramp signal to the dy namometer controller to serve as the time standard as follows: (i) Generate upper and lower speed values to trigger the start and stop functions of the coastdown timer circuit. Use the signal generator to start the verification period. (ii) After at least 1000 seconds, use the signal generator to end the verification period. (iii) Compare the measured elapsed time between trigger signals, y act , to the corresponding time standard, yref , to determine the time error, y error , using Eq. 1066.230

- 1. (d) Performance evaluation . The time error det ermined in paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed ±0.001 %. **§1066.235 Speed verification procedure.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy

of the dy namometer speed determination. When performing this verification, you mu st also verify the dy namometer speed at any

devices used to display or record vehicle speed (for example a driver’s aid) is representative of the speed input from the dy namometer speed determination. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 370 day s before testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. Use one of the following procedures to verify the accuracy

and resolution of the dy namometer speed simulation: (1) Pulse method . Connect a universal freque ncy counter to the output of the dy namometer’s speed

- sensing device in parallel with the signal to the dyn amometer controller. The universal frequency counter must be calibrated according to the counter manufacturer’s instructions and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(1). Make sure the instrumentation does not affect the signal to the dynamometer control circuits. Determine the speed error as follows: (i) Set the dy

namometer to speed

- control mode. Set the dy namometer speed to a value of approximately

4.5 m/s (10 mph); record the output of the frequency counter after 10 seconds. Determine the roll speed, v act , using the following equation:

roll act f d v n    Page 817 of 888 Eq. 1066.235
- 1 Where: f = frequency

of the dyn amometer speed sensing device, accurate to at least four significant figures. d roll = nominal roll diameter, accurate to the nearest 1.0 mm, consistent with §1066.225(d). n = the number of pulses per revolution from the dynamometer roll speed sensor. Example: f = 2.9231 Hz = 2.9231 s - 1 d roll = 904.40 mm = 0.90440 m n = 1 pulse/rev

act 2.9231 0.90440

1 v 

   v act = 8.3053 m/s (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section for the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two additional evenl y spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum speed point. (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, v act , to each corresponding speed set point, vref , to determine values for speed error at each set point, v error , using the following equation: v error = v act - vref Eq. 1066.235
- 2 Example: v act = 8.3053 m/s vref = 8.3000 m/s v error = 8.3053

– 8.3000 = 0.0053 m/s (2) Frequency

method. Install a piec e of tape in the shape of an arrowhead on the surface of the dy namometer roll near the outer edge. Put a reference mark on the deck plate in line with the tape. Install a stroboscope or photo tachometer on the deck plate and direct the flash toward the t ape on the roll. The stroboscope or photo tachometer must be calibrated according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions and be capable of measuring with enough accuracy to perform the procedure as specified in this paragraph (c)(2). Determine the speed error as follows: (i) Set the dy

namometer to speed control mode. Set the dy namometer speed to a speed value of approximately 4.5 m/s (10 mph). Tune the stroboscope or photo tachometer until the signal matches the dy namometer roll speed. Record the frequency . Determine the roll speed, y act , using Eq. 1066.235

- 1, using the stroboscope or photo tachometer’s frequency for f
. (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section for the maximum speed expected during testing and at least two a dditional evenl y spaced speed points between the starting speed and the maximum speed point. (iii) Compare the calculated roll speed, v act , to each corresponding speed set point, vref , to determine values for speed error at each set point, y error , using Eq . 1066.235
- 2.Page 818 of 888

(d) Performance evaluation . The speed error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may not exceed ±0.02 m/s at any speed set point. **§1066.240 Torque transducer verification.** Verify torque - measurement sy stems by performing the verifications described in §1066.270 and 280. **§1066.245 Response time verification.** (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the dy namometer’s response time to a tractive effort force step change. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 370 day s before testing (i.e., annually), and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. Use the dy namometer’s automated process to verify response time. You may perform this test either at two different inertia settin gs corresponding approximately to the minimum and maximum vehicle weights you expect to test or using base inertia and two acceleration rates that cover the range of acceleration rates experienced during testing (for example 0.5 and 8 mph/s). Use good eng ineering judgment to select road

load coefficients representing vehicles of the appropriate weight. Determine the dy namometer’s settling response time, ts , based on the point at which there are no measured results more than 10 % above or below the final e quilibrium value, as illustrated in Figure 1 of this section. The observed settling response time must be less than 100 milliseconds for each inertia setting. Figure 1 of §1066.245

**—**Example of a settling response time diagram.

**Ti me**  **( t**  **) t**  **s R** **e s** **p o** **n s** **e 1.1**  **1.0 0.9** 

**§1066.250 Base inertia v erification.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the dy namometer’s base inertia. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation and after major maintenance (such as maintenance that could affect roll assembl y inertia). (c) Procedure. Verify

the base inertia using the following procedure: (1) Warm up the dynamometer according to the dynamometer manufacturer’s instructions. Set the dy

namometer’s road

- load inertia to zero, turning off any electricalPage 819 of 888

simulation of road load and inertia so that the base inertia of the dynamometer is the only inertia present, and motor the rolls to 5 mph. Apply a constant force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to accelerate from 10 to 40 mph, noting the corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also determine average force over the measurement interval. (2) Starting from a steady roll speed of 45 mph, apply a constant force to the roll to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s. Measure the elapsed time to decelerate from 40 to 10 mph, noting the corresponding speed and time points to the nearest 0.01 mph and 0.01 s. Also determine average force over the measurement interval. (3) Repeat the step s in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for a total of five sets of results at the nominal acceleration rate and the nominal deceleration rate. (4) Use good engineering judgment to select two additional acceleration and deceleration rate pairs that cover the middle and upper rates expected during testing. Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section at each of these additional acceleration and deceleration rates. (5) Determine the base inertia, I b , for each measurement interval using the following equation:

b final initial F I v v

t 

  Eq. 1066.250
- 1 Where: F = average dyn amometer force over the measurement interval as measured by the dy namometer. v final = roll surface speed at the end of the measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 mph. v initial = roll surface speed at the start of the measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 mph. 

### t  = elapsed time during the measurement interval to the nearest 0.01 s. Example: F = 1.500 lbf = 48.26 ft ∙lbm/s 2 v final = 40.00 mph = 58.67 ft/s v initial = 10.00 mph = 14.67 ft/s 

### t  = 30.00 s

b 48.26 58.67 14.67 30.00 I 

 I b = 32.90 lb m (6) Calculate the base inertia error, I berror , for each of the thirty measured base inertia values, I

b , by comparing it to the manufacturer’s stated base inertia, I bref , using the following equation:

bref bact berror bref 100 % I I I I    Eq. 1066.250
- 2Page 820 of 888

Example: I bref = 32.96 lbm bact I = 32.90 lbm (from paragraph (c)(5) of this section)

berror 32.96 32.90 100 %

32.96 I    I berror = 0.18 % (7) Determine the base inertia arithmetic mean value, b I , from the ten acceleration and dece leration interval base inertia values for each of the three acceleration/deceleration rates. Then determine the base inertia arithmetic mean value, b I , from the three acceleration/deceleration rate mean base inertia values. Calcul ate base inertia mean values as described in 40 CFR 1065.602(b) (8) Calculate the inertia error for the final mean base inertia value from paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Use Eq. 1066.250

- 2, substituting the final mean base inertia value from paragraph (c)(7) of this section for the individual base inertia. (d) Performance evaluation . The dynamometer must meet the following specifications to be used for testing under this part: (1) All base inertia errors determined under paragraph (c)(6) of this section may not exceed ±1.0 %. (2) The mean base inertia error determined under paragraph (c)(8) of this section may not exceed ±0.20 %. **§1066.255 Parasitic loss verification.** (a) Overview. Verify

the dy namometer’s parasitic loss as described in this section, and correct as necessary . This procedure determines the dy namometer’s internal losses that it must overcome to simulate road load. Characterize these losses in a parasitic loss curve that the dy

namometer uses to apply

compensating forces to maintain the desired road

load force at the roll surface. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verification in either §1066.270 or §1066.280. (c) Procedure. Perform this verification by following the dy

namometer manufacturer’s specifications to establish a parasitic loss curve, taking data at fixed speed intervals to cover the range of vehicle speeds that wil l occur during testing. You may zero the load cell at a selected speed if that improves your ability to determine the parasitic loss. Parasitic loss forces may

never be negative. Note that the torque transducers must be zeroed and spanned prior to perfo rming this procedure. (d) Performance evaluation. Some dy namometers automatically updates the parasitic loss curve for further testing. If this is not the case, compare the new parasitic loss curve to the original parasitic loss curve from the dy namomete r manufacturer or the most recent parasitic loss curve you programmed into the dynamometer. You may reprogram the dy namometer to accept the new curve in all cases, and you must reprogram the dy namometer if an y point on the new curve departs from the earli er curve by more than ±9.0 N for d ynamometers capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWRPage 821 of 888

or ±36.0 N (±8.0 lbf) for dy namometers not capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR. **§1066.260 Parasitic friction compensation ev aluation.**  (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the accuracy

of the dy namometer’s friction compensation. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, after major maintenance, and upon failure of a verificatio n in either §1066.270 or §1066.280. Note that this procedure relies on proper calibration of speed and torque, as described in §§1066.235 and 1066.240. You must also first verify the dynamometer’s parasitic loss curve as specified in §1066.255. (c) Proce dure. Use the following procedure to verify the accuracy

of the dy namometer’s friction compensation: (1) Warm up the dynamometer as specified b y the dynamometer manufacturer. (2) Perform a torque verification as specified b y the dy namometer manufacturer . For torque verifications rel yi ng on shunt procedures, if the results do not conform to specifications, recalibrate the dy namometer using NI ST
- traceable standards as appropriate until the dyn amometer passes the torque verification. Do not change the dy n amometer’s base inertia to pass the torque verification. (3) Set the dynamometer inertia to the base inertia with the road

- load coefficients A, B, and C set to 0. Set the dynamometer to speed

- control mode with a target speed of 50 mph or a higher speed re commended b y the dynamometer manufacturer. Once the speed stabilizes at the target speed, switch the dynamometer from speed control to torque control and allow the roll to coast for 60 seconds. Record the initial and final speeds and the corresponding st art and stop times. I f friction compensation is executed perfectly , there will be no change in speed during the measurement interval. (4) Calculate the power equivalent of friction compensation error, FC error , using the following equation: 

#   2 2 error init final 2 I FC v v

t   

 Eq. 1066.260
- 1 Where: I = d ynamometer inertia setting. t = duration of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.01 s. v init = the roll speed corresponding to the start of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.05 mph. v final = the roll speed corresponding to the end of the measurement interval, accurate to at least 0.05 mph. Example: I = 2000 lbm = 62.16 lbf· s 2 /ft t = 60.0 s v init = 9.2 mph = 13.5 ft/s v final = 10.0 mph = 14.7 ft/s



#   2 2 error 62.16 1 3.5 14.7 2 6 0.00 FC   

Page 822 of 888

FC error = – 16.5 ft ∙lbf/s =

– 0.031 hp (5) The friction compensation error may not exceed ±0.15 hp for d ynamometers capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, or ±0.6 hp for dy namometers not capable of testing vehicles at or below 20,000 poun ds GVWR. **§1066.265 Acceleration and deceleration verification.** (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify the dy namometer’s ability

to achieve targeted acceleration and deceleration rates. Paragraph (c) of this section describes how this verif ication applies when the dynamometer is programmed directly for a specific acceleration or deceleration rate. Paragraph (d) of this section describes how this verification applies when the dy namometer is programmed with a calculated force to achieve a tar geted acceleration or deceleration rate. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification or an equivalent procedure upon initial installation and after major maintenance that could affect acceleration and deceleration accuracy . Note that this procedur e relies on proper calibration of speed as described in §1066.235. (c) Verification of acceleration and deceleration rates. Activate the dynamometer’s function generator for measuring roll revolution frequency . If the dy namometer has no such function gen erator, set up a properly calibrated external function generator consistent with the verification described in this paragraph (c). Use the function generator to determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as the dyn amometer traverses speeds betwe en 10 and 40 mph at various nominal acceleration and deceleration rates. Verify

the dynamometer’s acceleration and deceleration rates as follows: (1) Set up start and stop frequencies specific to your dy namometer by

identifying the roll

revolution frequenc y, f

, in revolutions per second (or Hz) corresponding to 10 mph and 40 mph vehicle speeds, accurate to at least four significant figures, using the following equation:

roll v n f d   

 Eq. 1066.265
- 1 Where: v = the target roll speed, in inches per second (corresponding to drive speeds of 10 mph or 40 mph). n = the number of pulses from the dynamometer’s roll

- speed sensor per roll revolution. d roll = roll diameter, in inches. (2) Program the dy

namometer to acc elerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate for each run, a act , using the following equation:

final init act v v a t

  Eq. 1066.265
- 2 Where: a act = acceleration rate (decelerations have negative values).Page 823 of 888

v final = the target value for the final roll speed. v init = the setpoint value for the initial roll speed. t = time to accelerate from v init to v final . Example: v final = 40 mph v init = 10 mph t = 30.003 s

act 40.00 10.00 30.03 a   a act = 0.999 mph/s (3) Program the dyn amometer to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, a act , using Eq. 1066.265

- 2 (4) Repeat the steps in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section for additional acceleration and deceleration rates in 1 mph/s increments up to and including one increment above the maximum acceleration rate expected during testing. Average the five repeat runs to calculate a mean acceleration rate, act a , at each setting. (5) Compare each mean acceleration rate, act a , to the corresponding nominal acceleration rate, a ref , to determine values for acceleration error, a error , using the following equation:
act ref error ref 100 % a a a a

   Eq. 1066.265
- 3 Example:
act a = 0.999 mph/s a ref = 1 mph/s

error 0.999 1 100 % 1 a    a error = – 0.100 % (d) Verification of forces for controlling acceleration and deceleration. Program the dy namometer with a calculated force value and determine actual acceleration and deceleration rates as the dy namometer traverses speeds between 10 and 40 mph at various nominal acceleration and deceleration rates. Verify the dyn amometer’s abil ity to achieve certain acceleration and deceleration rates with a given force as follows: (1) Calculate the force setting, F , using the following equation:
b F I a  Eq. 1066.265
- 4 Where: I b = the dy namometer manufacturer’s stated base ine rtia, in lbf·s 2 /ft. a = nominal acceleration rate, in ft/s 2

.Page 824 of 888

Example: I b = 2967 lbm = 92.217 lbf· s 2 /ft a = 1 mph/s = 1.4667 ft/s 2 92.217 1.4667 F   F = 135.25 lbf (2) Set the dynamometer to road

- load mode and program it with a calculated force to accelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 10 mph to 40 mph. Measure the elapsed time to reach the target speed, to the nearest 0.01 s. Repeat this measurement for a total of five runs. Determine the actual acceleration rate, a act , for each run using Eq. 1066.265
- 2. Repeat this step to determine measured “negative acceleration” rates using a calculated force to decelerate the roll at a nominal rate of 1 mph/s from 40 mph to 10 mph. Average the five repeat runs to c alculate a mean acceleration rate, act a , at each setting. (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(2) of this section for additional acceleration and deceleration rates as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. (4) Compare each m ean acceleration rate, act a , to the corresponding nominal acceleration rate, a ref , to determine values for acceleration error, a error , using Eq. 1066.265

- 3 (e) Performance evaluation . The acceleration error from paragraphs (c)(5) and (d)(4) of this section may

not exceed ±1.0 %. **§1066.270 Unloaded coastdown verification.** (a) Overview. Use force measurements to verify the dy namometer’s settings based on coastdown procedures. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 7 day s of testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. This procedure verifies the dy namometer’s settings derived from coastdown testing. For dynamometers that have an automated process for this procedure, perform thi s evaluation by setting the initial speed, final speed, inertial coefficients, and road

- load coefficients as required for each test, using good engineering judgment to ensure that these values properl y represent in

- use operation. Use the following procedure if your d yn amometer does not perform this verification with an automated process: (1) Warm up the dy

namometer as specified by the dy namometer manufacturer. (2) With the dy

namometer in coastdown mode, set the dy namometer inertia for the smallest vehicle weight that you expect to test and set A, B, and C road

- load coefficients to values ty

pical of those used during testing. Program the dy namometer to coast down over the dynamometer operational speed range (typically from a speed of 80 mph through a minimum speed at or below 10 mph). Perform at least one coastdown over this speed range, collecting data over each 10 mph interval. (3) Repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(2) of this section with the dy namometer inertia and road

- load coefficients set for the larg est vehicle weight that you expect to test
. (4) Determine the average coastdown force, F , for each speed and inertia setting for each of the coastdowns performed using the following equation:Page 825 of 888



##   init final I v v F t    Eq. 1066.270
- 1 Where: F = the average force measured during the coastdown for each speed interval and inertia setting, expressed in lbf· s 2 /ft and rounded to four significant figures. I = the dynamometer’s inertia setting, in lbf· s 2 /ft. v init = the speed at the start of the coastdown, expres sed in ft/s and rounded to four significant figures. v final = the speed at the end of the coastdown interval, rounded to four significant figures. t = coastdown time for each speed and inertia setting, accurate to at least 0.01 s. Example: I = 2000 lbm = 65.17 lbf · s 2 /ft v init = 25 mph = 36.66 ft/s v final = 15 mph = 22.0 ft/s t = 5.00 s 

##   65.17 36.66 22.0 5.00 F    F = 191.1 lbf (5) Calculate the target value of coastdown force, F ref , based on the applicable dy namometer parameters for each speed and inertia setting. (6) Compare the mean value of the coastdown force measured for each speed and inertia setting, act F , to the corresponding F ref to determine values for coastdown force error, F error , using the following equation:

act ref error ref 100 % F F F F

   Eq. 1066.270
- 2 Example: F ref = 192 lbf
act 

### F = 191 lbf

error 191 192 100 % 192 F    F error = 0.5 % (d) Performance evaluation . The coastdown force error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may

not exce ed the following: (i) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, calculate F errormax from the following formula: F errormax (%) = (2.2 lbf/

F ref )·100 Eq. 1066.270
- 3Page 826 of 888

Example: F ref = 192 lbf F errormax (%) = (2.2/192)·100 = 1.14% (ii) For vehicles above 20,0 00 pounds GVWR, the maximum allowable error, F errormax , for all speed and inertia settings is ± 1.0 % or ±39.2 N, whichever is greater
. (e) If the dynamometer is not able to meet this requirement, diagnose and repair the dy namometer before continuing with emission testing. Diagnosis should include performing the verifications in §1066.255 and §1066.260. **§1066.280 Daily dynamometer readiness verification.** (a) Overview. This section describes how to verify that the dy

namometer is ready

for emission testing. (b) Scope and frequency . Perform this verification upon initial installation, within 1 day before testing, and after major maintenance. (c) Procedure. For d yn amome ters that have an automated process for this verification procedure, perform this evaluation by setting the initial speed and final speed and the inertial and road

- load coefficients as required for the test, using good engineering judgment to ensure that these values properl y represent in

- use operation. Use the following procedure if your dynamometer does not perform this verification with an automated process: (1) With the dy

namometer in coastdown mode, set the dy namometer inertia to the base inertia with the road

- load coefficient A set to 20 lbf (or a force that results in a coastdown time of less than 10 minutes) and coefficients B and C set to 0. Program the dy namometer to coast down for one 10 mph interval from 55 mph down to 45 mph. I f yo ur d yn amome ter is not capable of performing one discrete coastdown, then coast down with preset 10 mph intervals that include a 55 mph to 45 mph interval. (2) Perform the coastdown. (3) Determine the coastdown force and coastdown force error using Eqs. 1066.270

- 1 and 1066.270
- 2. (d) Performance evaluation . The coastdown force error determined in paragraph (c) of this section may

not exceed the following: (1) For vehicles at or below 20,000 pounds GVWR, ± 1.0 % or ±9.8 N (±2.2 lbf), whichever is greater
. (2) For vehic les above 20,000 pounds GVWR, ± 1.0 % or ±39.2 N (±8.8 lbf), whichever is greater
. (e) If the verification results fail to meet the performance criteria in paragraph (d) of this section, perform the procedure up to two additional times. I f the dyn amometer is consistently

unable to meet the performance criteria, diagnose and repair the dy namometer before continuing with emission testing. Diagnosis should include performing the verifications in §1066.255 and §1066.260. **§1066.290 Driver’s aid.** Use good engin eering judgment to provide a driver’s aid that facilitates compliance with the requirements of §1066.430. Verify the speed accuracy

of the driver’s aid as described in §1066.235.Page 827 of 888

**Subpart D**

**— Coastdown**  **§1066.301 Overview of coastdown procedures.** (a) The c oastdown procedures described in this subpart are used to determine the load coefficients (A, B, and C) for the simulated road

- load equation in §1066.210(d)(3). (b) The general procedure for performing coastdown tests and calculating load coefficients is d escribed in SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010). This subpart specifies certain deviations from those procedures for certain applications. (c) Use good engineering judgment for all aspects of coastdown testing. For example, minimize the effects of grade b y performing coastdown testing on reasonably level surfaces and determining coefficients based on average values from vehicle operation in opposite directions over the course. **§1066.305 Coastdown procedures for motor vehicle s at or below 14,000 pounds**  **GVWR.** For motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, develop representative road

- load coefficients to characterize each test vehicle. Calculate road

- load coefficients by performing coastdowns using the provisions of SAE J12 63 and SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010). Perform coastdowns at a starting speed as specified in SAE J2263, or at the highest speed from the range of applicable duty cycles. Use the same road

- load coefficients for all duty cycles. Howe ver, if your test conditions are substantially

different from the conditions represented by your road

- load coefficients, such as cold

- temperature testing, you may use good engineering judgment to develop separate road

- load coefficients. **§1066.310 Coastdown procedures for vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR.**  This section describes coastdown procedures that are unique to vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR. These procedures are valid for calculating road

- load coefficients for chassis and post

- transmissi on powerpack testing and for calculating drag area ( C D A ) for use in the GEM simulation tool under 40 CFR part 1037. (a) Determine load coefficients by performing a minimum of 16 valid coastdown runs (8 in each direction). (b) Follow the provisions of Sect ions 1 through 9 of SAE J1263, and SAE J2263 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010), except as described in this paragraph (b). The terms and variables identified in this paragraph (b) have the meaning given in SAE J1263 or J2263 unless specified other wise. (1) The test condition specifications of SAE J1263 apply except as follows for wind and road conditions: (i) We recommend that you do not perform coastdown testing on days for which winds are forecast to exceed 6.0 mph. (ii) The grade of the test tra ck or road must not be excessive (considering factors such as road safety

standards and effects on the coastdown results). Road conditions should follow Section 7.4 of SAE J1263, except that road grade may exceed 0.5%. If road grade is greater than 0.02% over the length of the test surface, then the road grade as a function of distance along the length of the test surface must be incorporated into the anal ys is. To calculate the force due to grade use Section 11.5 of SAE J2263.Page 828 of 888

(2) Operate the vehicle at a top speed above 70 mph, or at its maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mph. If a vehicle is equipped with a vehicle speed limiter that is set for a maximum speed below 70 mph, you must disable the vehicle speed limiter. Start the test at or a

bove 70 mph or at the vehicle’s maximum achievable speed if it cannot reach 70 mph. Collect data through a minimum speed at or below 15 mph. Data analysis for valid coastdown runs must include a maximum speed as described in this paragraph (b)(2) and a m inimum speed of 15 mph. (3) Gather data regarding wind speed and direction, in coordination with time

- of

- day data, using at least one stationary electro

- mechanical anemometer and suitable data loggers meeting the specifications of SAE J1263, as well as the following additional specifications for the anemometer placed adjacent to the test surface: (i) Calibrate the equipment by running the zero

- wind and zero

- angle calibrations within 24 hours before conducting the coastdown procedures . If the coastdown proc edures are not complete 24 hours after calibrating the equipment, repeat the calibration for another 24 hours of data collection. (ii) Record the location of the anemometer using a GPS measurement device adjacent to the test surface (approximately) at the midway distance along the test surface used for coastdowns. (iii) Position the anemometer such that it will be at least 2.5 but not more than 3.0 vehicle widths from the test vehicle’s centerline as the test vehicle passes the location of that anemometer. (iv) Mount the anemometer at a height that is within 6 inches of half the test vehicle’s maximum height. (v) Place the anemometer at least 50 feet from the nearest tree and at least 25 feet from the nearest bush (or equivalent roadside features). (vi) The height of the grass surrounding the stationary anemometer may

not exceed 10% of the anemometer’s mounted height, within a radius equal to the anemometer’s mounted height. (4) You may

split runs as per Section 9.3.1 of SAE J2263, but we recommend whole runs . If you split a run, analyze each portion separately, but count the split runs as one run with respect to the minimum number of runs required. (5) You may

perform consecutive runs in a single direction, followed by consecutive runs in the opposite direct ion, consistent with good engineering judgment. Harmonize starting and stopping points to the extent practicable to allow runs to be paired. (6) All valid coastdown run times in each direction must be within 2.0 standard deviations of the mean of the vali d coastdown run times (from 70 mph down to 15 mph) in that direction. Eliminate runs outside this range. After eliminating these runs you must have at least eight valid runs in each direction. You may use coastdown run times that do not meet these stand ard deviation requirements if we approve it in advance. In yo ur request, describe why the vehicle is not able to meet the specified standard deviation requirements and propose an alternative set of requirements. (7) Anal yz e data for chassis and post

- trans mission powerpack testing or for use in the GEM simulation tool as follows: (i) Follow the procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 11 of SAE J2263 to calculate coefficients for chassis and post

- transmission powerpack testing.Page 8 29 of 888

(ii) Determ ine drag area, C D A , as follows instead of using the procedure specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263: (A) Measure vehicle speed at fixed intervals over the coastdown run (generally at 10 Hz), including speeds at or above 15 mph and at or below 70 mph. Estab lish the height or altitude corresponding to each interval as described in SAE J2263 if you need to incorporate the effects of road grade. (B) Calculate the vehicle’s effective mass, M e , in kg by

adding 56.7 kg to the measured vehicle mass for each tire making road contact. This accounts for the rotational inertia of the wheels and tires. (C) Calculate the road

- load force for each measurement interval, F i , for values of i ≥ 1 using the following equation:

i i 1 i e v v F M t 

     Eq. 1066.310
- 1 Where: M e = the vehicle’s effective mass, expressed to at least the nearest 0.1 kg. v = vehicle speed at the beginning and end of the measurement interval. Δ t = elapsed time over the measurement interval, in seconds. (D) Plot the data from all the coastdown runs on a single plot of F i vs. v i 2 to determine the slope correlation, D , based on the following equation: 2 i e m i

h F M g A D v

s 

       Eq. 1066.310
- 2 Where: g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s 2

. Δ h = change in height or altitude over the measur ement interval, in m. Assume Δh = 0 if yo u are not correcting for grade. Δs = distance the vehicle travels down the road during the measurement interval, in m. A m = the calculated value of the y

- intercept based on the curve

- fit. (E) Calculate drag area , C D A , in m 2 using the following equation: adj D 2 D C A    Eq. 1066.310
- 3 Where: ρ = air densit y at reference conditions = 1.17 kg/m 3

. adj B

98.21 293 T D D p

   
           Eq. 1066.310
- 4 T = average ambient absolute temperature during testing, in K.
B p = average ambient pressuring during the test, in kPa. (8) Determine the A, B, and C coefficients identified in §1066.210 as follows:Page 830 of 888

(i) For chassis and post - transmission powerpack testing, follow the procedures specified in Section 10 of SAE J1263 or Section 12 of SAE J2263. (ii) For the GEM simulation tool, use the following values: A = A m B = 0 C = D adj **§1066.320 Dynamometer road -**  **load setting.** Determin e d ynamometer road

- load settings for chassis testing by following SAE J2264 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010). **Subpart E**

**— Preparing Vehicles and Running an Exhaust Emission Test**  **§1066.401 Overview.** (a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart t o measure vehicle emissions over a specified drive schedule. Different procedures may appl y for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions as described in subpart I of this part or the standard

- setting part. This subpart describes how to: (1) Deter mine road

- load power, test weight, and inertia class. (2) Prepare the vehicle, equipment, and measurement instruments for an emission test. (3) Perform pre

- test procedures to verify proper operation of certain equipment and anal yz ers and to prepare them fo r testing. (4) Record pre

- test data. (5) Sample emissions. (6) Record post

- test data. (7) Perform post

- test procedures to verify proper operation of certain equipment and anal yz ers. (8) Weigh PM samples. (b) The overall test generally consists of prescribe d sequences of fueling, parking, and driving at specified test conditions. An exhaust emission test generally consists of measuring emissions and other parameters while a vehicle follows the drive schedules specified in the standard

- setting part. There are two general ty pes of test cycles: (1) Transient cycles . Transient test cycles are t ypically specified in the standard

- setting part as a second

- by

- second sequence of vehicle speed commands. Operate a vehicle over a transient cycle such that the speed follows the target values. Proportionally sample emissions and other parameters and use the calculations in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, or subpart G of this part to calculate emissions. The standard

- setting part may specify three t ypes of transient test ing based on the approach to starting the measurement, as follows: (i) A cold

- start transient cycle where you start to measure emissions just before starting an engine that has not been warmed up. (ii) A hot

- start transient cycle where you start to measure emissions just before starting a warmed

- up engine. (iii) A hot running transient cycle where you start to measure emissions after an engine is started, warmed up, and running. (2) Cruise cycles . Cruise test cycles are t ypicall y specified in the standard

- setting part as a discrete operating point that has a single speed command.Page 831 of 888

(i) Start a cruise cycle as a hot running test, where you start to measure emissions after the engine is started and warmed up and the vehicle is running at the target test speed. (ii) Sample emissions and other parameters for the cruise cycle in the same manner as a transient cycle, with the exception that the reference speed value is constant . Record instantaneous and mean speed values over the cycle. **§1066.407 Vehicle preparati on and preconditioning.**  Prepare the vehicle for testing (including measurement of evaporative and refueling emissions, as required) as described in the standard

- setting part. **§1066.410 Dynamometer test procedure.**  (a) D yn amometer testing may consist of mul tiple drive cycles with both cold

- start and hot

- start portions, including prescribed soak times before each test interval. The standard

- setting part identifies the driving schedules and the associated sample intervals, soak periods, engine startup and shutdown procedures, and operation of accessories, as applicable. Not every

test interval includes all these elements. (b) Place the vehicle onto the dy namometer without starting the engine (for cold

- start test cycles) or drive the vehicle onto dy namometer ( for hot

- start and hot

- running cycles onl y) and position a fan that directs cooling air to the vehicle during dyn amometer operation as described in this paragraph (b). This generally requires squarel y positioning the fan in front of the vehicle and directi ng the airflow to the vehicle’s radiator. Use good engineering judgment to design and configure fans to cool the test vehicle in a way that properl y simulates in

- use operation, consistent with the specifications of §1066.105. Except for the following spe cial cases, use a road

- speed modulated fan meeting the requirements of §1066.105(c)(2) or (d) that is placed within 90 cm of the front of the vehicle and ensure that the engine compartment cover is closed: (1) For SC03 and AC17 testing , use a road

- speed modulated fan meeting the requirements of §1066.105(c)(3). Position the discharge nozzle such that its lowest point is not more than 16 cm above the floor of the test cell. (2) For FTP, LA

- 92, US06, or HFET testing of vehicles at or bel ow 14,000 pounds GVWR, you may use a fixed

- speed fan meeting the requirements of §1066.105(c)(4) or (c)(5) as specified in the following table, with the engine compartment cover open: Table 1 of §1066.410

–Fixed

- speed fan capacity and position specification s. Test cycle Maximum fan capacity Approximate distance from the front of the vehicle FTP Up to 2.50 m3 /s 0 to 30 cm US06 2.50 m3 /s to 7.10 m3 /s 0 to 60 cm LA
- 92 Up to 2.50 m3 /s 0 to 30 cm HFET Up to 2.50 m3 /s 0 to 30 cm (c) Record the vehicle’s speed trace based on the time and speed data from the dy namometer. Record speed to at least the nearest 0.01 mph and time to at least the nearest 0.01 s. (d) You may

perform practice runs for operating the vehicle and the dy namometer controls to meet the driving tolerances specified in §1066.430 or adjust the emission sampling equipment. Verify that the accelerator pedal allows for enough control to closely follow the prescribed driving schedule. We recommend that you verify yourPage 832 of 888

ability to meet the mini mum dilution factor requirements of §1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B) during these practice runs. (e) Inflate tires on drive wheels according to the vehicle manufacturer’s specifications. The tire pressure for drive wheels must be the same for dynamometer operation and for dy namometer coastdown procedures used for determining road

- load coefficients. Report these tire pressure values with the test results. (f) Tie down or load the test vehicle as needed to provide a normal force at the tire and dy namometer roll interface to prevent wheel slip. For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , report this force with the test results. (g) For vehicles which provide four

- wheel drive or all

- wheel drive operation, utilize the vehicle’s normal (default) mode of operation. (For purposes of this paragraph (g), the term four

- wheel drive includes other multiple drive axle configurations.) This may involve testing four

- wheel drive or all

- wheel drive on a dy namometer with a separate dy namometer roll for each drive axle. Alternatively , two drive axles may use a single roll, as described in §1066.210(d)(1). You may also test the vehicle on a single roll by deactivating the second set of drive wheels, but only if this mode of operation does not decrease emissions or energy consumption rel ative to normal in

- use operation. We may test such vehicles in four

- wheel or all

- wheel mode on one or more rolls to confirm that the alternate dyn amometer procedures did not decrease emissions. (h) Determine test weight as follows: (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine ETW as described in §1066.810. Set dy

namometer vehicle inertia, I , based on dy

namometer type, as follows: (i) For two

- wheel drive dy namometers, set I = ETW. (ii) For four

- wheel drive dy namometers, set I = 0.985 ∙ETW. (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, determine the vehicle’s effective mass as described in 1066.310. This is the test weight. (i) Warm up the dy

namometer as recommended by the dy namometer manufacturer. (j) Following the test, determine the actual d riving distance b y counting the number of dy namometer roll or shaft revolutions, or by integrating speed over the course of testing from a high

- resolution encoder s ys tem. **§1066.420 Vehicle operation.** This section describes how to test a conventionally con figured vehicle (vehicles with transmission shifters, foot pedal accelerators, etc). You may ask us to modify

these procedures for vehicles that do not have these control features. (a) Start the vehicle as follows: (1) At the beginning of the test cycle, start the vehicle according to the procedure described in the owners manual. In the case of hybrid vehicles, this would generall y involve activating vehicle sy stems such that the engine will start when the vehicle’s control algorithms determine that the engine should provide power instead of or in addition to power from the rechargeable energy storage s ys tem (RESS). Unless we specify otherwise, engine starting throughout this part generall y refers to this step of activating the s ys tem on hy brid vehicles, whether or not that causes the engine to start running.Page 833 of 888

(2) Place the transmission in gear as described b y the test cycle in the standard

- setting part. During idle operation, apply the brakes if necessary

to keep the drive wheels from turning. (b) If the vehicle does not start after your recommended maximum cranking time, wait and restart cranking according to your recommended practice. If you do not recommend such a cranking procedure, stop cranking after 10 seconds, wait for 10 seconds, then start cranking again for up to 10 seconds. You may repeat this for up to three start attempts. If the vehicle does not start after three attempts, you must determine and record the reason for failure to start. Shut off sampling s ys tems and either turn the CVS off or disconnect the exhaust tube from the tailpipe during the diagnostic period to prevent flow through the exhaust sy stem. Reschedule the vehicle for testing. This may require performing vehicle preparation and preconditioning if the testing needs to be rerun from a cold start. If failure to start occurs during a hot

- start test, you may reschedule the hot

start test without repeating the cold

- start test, as long as you bring the vehicle to a hot

start condition before starting the hot

- start test. (c) Rep eat the recommended starting procedure if the engine has a false start (i.e., an incomplete start). (d) Take the following steps if the engine stalls: (1) If the engine stalls during an idle period, restart the engine immediately and continue the test. If you cannot restart the engine soon enough to allow the vehicle to follow the next acceleration, stop the driving schedule indicator and reactivate it when the vehicle restarts. (2) Void the test if the vehicle stalls during vehicle operation. If this happ ens, remove the vehicle from the dyn amometer, take corrective action, and reschedule the vehicle for testing. Record the reason for the malfunction (if determined) and an y corrective action. See the standard

- setting part for instructions about reporting these malfunctions. (e) Operate vehicles during testing as follows: (1) Where we do not give specific instructions, operate the vehicle according to the recommendations in the owners manual, unless those recommendations are unrepresentative of what may re asonably

be expected for in

- use operation. (2) If vehicles have features that preclude dynamometer testing, you may modify these features as necessary

to allow testing, consistent with good engineering judgment, as long as it does not affect your ability t o show that your vehicles compl y with standards. Send us written notification describing these changes along with supporting rationale. (3) Operate vehicles during idle as follows: (i) For vehicles with automatic transmission, operate at idle with the tra nsmission in “Drive” with the wheels braked, except that you may shift to “Neutral” for the first idle period and for an y idle period longer than one minute. If you put the vehicle in “Neutral” during an idle, you must shift the vehicle into “Drive” with the wheels braked at least 5 seconds before the end of the idle period. Note that this does not preclude vehicle designs involving engine operation with stop

- start functions where the engine stops when the brake is applied below a certain threshold speed and restarts upon release of the brake. (ii) For vehicles with manual transmission, operate at idle with the transmission in gear with the clutch disengaged, except that you may shift to “Neutral” with the clutch engaged for the first idle period and for any idle period longer than one minute. If youPage 834 of 888

put the vehicle in “Neutral” during idle, you must shift to first gear with the clutch disengaged at least 5 seconds before the end of the idle period. Note that this does not preclude vehicle designs involvi ng engine operation with stop

- start functions where the engine stops when the clutch is disengaged below a certain threshold speed and restarts upon reengagement of the clutch. (4) Operate the vehicle with the appropriate accelerator pedal movement necessa ry to achieve the speed versus time relationship prescribed by the driving schedule. Avoid smoothing speed variations and excessive accelerator pedal perturbations. (5) Operate the vehicle smoothly , following representative shift speeds and procedures. Fo r manual transmissions, the operator shall release the accelerator pedal during each shift and accomplish the shift with minimum time. If the vehicle cannot accelerate at the specified rate, operate it at maximum available power until the vehicle speed re aches the value prescribed for that time in the driving schedule. (6) Decelerate as follows: (i) For vehicles with automatic transmission, use the brakes or accelerator pedal as necessary , without manually changing gears, to maintain the desired speed. (ii ) For vehicles with manual transmission, shift gears in a way that represents reasonable shift patterns for in

- use operation, considering vehicle speed, engine speed, and any other relevant variables. Disengage the clutch when the speed drops below 15 mph , when engine roughness is evident, or when good engineering judgment indicates the engine is likely to stall. Manufacturers may recommend shift guidance in the owners manual that differs from the shift schedule during testing as long as both shift schedules are included in the application for certification. In this case, we may use the shift schedule based on the shift pattern described in the owners manual. **§1066.425 Test preparation.** (a) Follow the procedures for PM sample preconditioning and tare weighing as described in 40 CFR 1065.590 if you need to measure PM emissions. (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR with compression

- ignition engines, v erify the amount of nonmethane hydrocarbon contamination as described in 40 CFR 1065.520(g). (c) Unl ess the standard

- setting part specifies different tolerances, verify at some point before the test that ambient conditions are within the tolerances specified in this paragraph (c). For purposes of this paragraph (c), “before the test” means any time from a point just prior to engine starting (excluding engine restarts) to the point at which emission sampling begins. (1) Ambient temperature must be (20 to 30) °C. See §1066.430(i) for circumstances under which ambient temperatures must remain within this r ange during the test. (2) Dilution air conditions must meet the specifications in §1066.110(b)(2). We recommend verifying dilution air conditions just before starting each test interval. (d) Control test cell ambient air humidity as follows: (1) For veh icles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow the humidity requirements in Table 1 of this section, unless the standard

- setting part specifies otherwise. When complying with humidity requirements in the table, where no tolerance is specified, use good engi neering judgment to maintain the humidity level near the specified value within the limitations of your test facility
.Page 835 of 888

(2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, you may test vehicles at an y humidity
. Table 1 of §1066.425

–Test cell humidity requirements. Test cycle Humidity requirement

(grains H 2 O per pound dry air) Tolerance (grains H 2 O per pound dry air) AC17 69 ± 5 average, ± 10 instantaneous FTP 1 and LA

- 92 50 HFET 50 SC03 100 ± 5 US06 50 1 FTP humidity requirement does not apply for cold (

- 7°C), intermediate (10 °C), and hot (35 °C) temperature testing. (e) You may

perform a final calibration of proportional

- flow control s ys tems, which may include performing practice runs. (f) You may

perform the following procedure to precondition sampling s ys tems: (1) Operate the vehicle over the test cycle. (2) Operate an y dilution sy stems at their expected flow rates. Prevent aqueous condensation in the dilution sy stems as described in 40 CFR 1065.140(c)(6), taking into account allowances given in §1066.110(b)(2)(iv). (3) Operate an y PM sampling s ys tems at their expected flow rates. (4) Sample PM using an y sample media. You may change sample media during preconditioning. You must discard preconditioning samples without weighing them. (5) You m ay

purge an y gaseous sampling s ys tems during preconditioning. (6) You may

conduct calibrations or verifications on any idle equipment or anal yz ers during preconditioning. (g) Take the following steps before emission sampling begins: (1) For batch sampling, connect clean storage media, such as evacuated bags or tare

weighed filters. (2) Start all measurement instruments according to the instrument manufacturer’s instructions and using good engineering judgment. (3) Start dilution sy stems, sample pumps, and the data

- collection sy stem. (4) Pre

- heat or pre

- cool heat exchangers in the sampling sy stem to within their operating temperature tolerances for a test. (5) Allow heated or cooled components such as sample lines, filters, chillers, and pumps to stabilize at their operating temperatures. (6) Adjust the sample flow rates to desired levels using b ypass flow, if desired. (7) Zero or re

- zero an y electronic integrating devices before the start of an y test interval. (8) Select gas anal yz er ranges. You may not swi tch the gain of an anal yz er’s analog operational amplifier(s) during a test. However, you may switch (automatically or manually) gas analyzer ranges during a test if such switching changes onl y the range over which the digital resolution of the instrument is applied. (9) Zero and span all continuous gas analyzers using gases that meet the specifications of 40 CFR 1065.750. For FID anal yz ers, you may account for the carbon number of your span gas either during the calibration process or when calculating yo ur final emission value. For example, if you use a C 3 H 8 span gas of concentration 200 ppm ( mol/mol), yo u may span the FID to respond with a value of 600 ppm ( mol/mol) of carbon or 200Page 836 of 888

ppm of propane. However, if your FID response is equivalent to propane, include a factor of three to make the final calculated h ydrocarbon mass consistent with a molar mass of 13.875389. When utilizing an NMC

- FID, span the FID anal yz er consistent with the determination of their respective response factors, RF , and penetration fractions, PF , according to 40 CFR 1065.365. (10) We recommend that you verify gas anal yz er responses after zeroing and spanning by sampling a calibration gas that has a concentration near one

- half of the span gas concentration. Based on the results, use good engineering judgment to decide whether or not to re - zero, re - span, or re - calibrate a gas analyzer before starting a test. (11) If you correct for dilution air background concentrations of associated engine exhaust constituents, start sampling and recording background concentrations at the same time you start sampling exhaust gases. (12) Turn on cooling fans immediately before starting the test. (h) Proceed with the test sequence described in §1066.430. **§1066.430 Performing emission tests.** (a) See the standard

- setting part for drive schedules. These are defined b y a smooth fit of a specified speed vs. time sequence. (b) The driver must attempt to follow the target schedule as closel y as possible, consistent with the specifications in paragraph (b) of this section. Instantaneous speeds must stay within the following tolerances: (1) The upper limit is 2.0 mph higher than the highest point on the trace within 1.0 s of the given point in time. (2) The lower limit is 2.0 mph lower than the lowest point on the trace within 1.0 s of the given time. (3) The same limits apply for vehicle operation without exhaust measurements, such as vehicle preconditioning and warm

- up, except that the upper and lower limits for speed values are ±4.0 mph. In addition, up to three occurrences of speed variations greater than the tolerance are acceptable for vehicle operation without exhaust measurements, as long as they occur for less than 15 seconds on any occasion and are clearl y documented as to the time and speed at that point of the driving schedule. (4) Void the test if you do not maintain speed values as specified in this paragraph (b), except as allowed b y this paragraph (b)(4). Speed variations (such as may occur during gear changes or braking spikes) may occur as follows, provided that such variations are clearl y documented, including the time and speed values and the reason for the deviation: (i) Speed variations greater than the specified limits are acceptable for up to 2.0 seconds on any occasion. (ii) For vehic les that are not able to maintain acceleration as specified in §1066.420(e)(5), do not count the insufficient acceleration as being outside the specified limits. (5) We may

approve an alternate test cycle and cycle

- validation criteria for vehicles that do not have enough power to follow the specified driving trace. The alternate driving specifications must be based on making best efforts to maintain acceleration and speed to follow the specified test cycle. We must approve these alternate driving specific ations before you perform this testing. (c) Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this section show the range of acceptable speed tolerances for ty pical points during testing. Figure 1 of this section is ty pical of portions of the speedPage 837 of 888

curve that are increasing or de creasing throughout the 2

- second time interval. Figure 2 of this section is ty

pical of portions of the speed curve that include a maximum or minimum value. Figure 1 of §1066.430

—Example of the allowable ranges for the driver’s trace.

**1 .0**  **s**

**Time S** **p e** **e d**  **Allowable Range** **2 .** **0 m** **p h** **2 .** **0 m** **p h** 

**1 .0**  **s**Page 838 of 888 Figure 2 of §1066.430

—Example of the allowable ranges for the driver’s trace.

(d) Start testing as follows: (1) If a vehicle is already running and warmed up, and starting is not part of the test cycle, operate the vehicle as follows: (i) For transient test cycles, control vehicle speeds to follow a drive schedule consisting of a series of idles, accelerations, cruises, and decelerations. (ii) For cruise test cycles, control the vehicle operation to match the speed of the first interval of the test cycle. Follow the instructions in the standard

- setting part to determine how long to stabilize the vehicle during each interval, how long to sample emissions at each interval, and how to transition between intervals. (2) If engine starting is part of the test cycle, start recording continuous data, an y electronic integrating devices, and batch sampling before starting the engine. Initiate the driver’s trace when the engine starts. (e) Perform the following at the end of each test interval, except as specified in subpart I of this part: (i) Shut down the vehicle if it is part of the test cycle or if testing is complete. (ii) Continue to operate all sampling and dilution systems to allow the response times to elapse. Then stop all sampling and recording, including background sampling. Finall y, stop any integrating devices and indicate the end of the duty cycle in the recorded data. (f) If testing involves engine shutdown followed by another test interval, start a timer for the vehicle soak when the engine shuts down. Turn o ff cooling fans, close the vehicle hood (if applicable), and turn off the CVS or disconnect the exhaust tube from the tailpipe(s) of the vehicle unless otherwise instructed in the standard

- setting part. If testing is complete, disconnect the exhaust tube from the vehicle tailpipe(s) and drive the vehicle from dyn amometer. (g) Take the following steps after emission sampling is complete: **1 .0**  **s**

**Time S** **p e** **e d**  **Allowable**

**Range 2** **. 0** **m p** **h 2** **. 0** **m p** **h**

**1 .0**  **s**Page 839 of 888

(1) For an y proportional batch sample, such as a bag sample or PM sample, verify that proportional sampling was maintaine d according to 40 CFR 1065.545. Void any samples that did not maintain proportional sampling according to those specifications. (2) Place an y used PM samples into covered or sealed containers and return them to the PM
- stabilization environment. Follow th e PM sample post

- conditioning and total weighing procedures in 40 CFR 1065.595. (3) As soon as practical after the interval or test cycle is complete, or optionally during the soak period if practical, perform the following: (i) Begin drift check for all continuous gas anal yz ers as described in paragraph (g)(6) of this section and zero and span all batch gas anal yz ers as soon as practical prior to an y batch sample analy sis. You may perform this batch anal yz er zero and span prior to the end of the test cyc le or interval. (ii) Anal yz e any

conventional gaseous batch samples (HC, CH 4 , CO, NO x , and CO 2 ) no later than 30 minutes after an interval or test cycle is complete, or during the soak period if practical. Anal yz e background samples no later than 60 minut es after the test cycle is complete. (iii) Analyze nonconventional gaseous batch samples (including background), such as NMHCE, N 2 O, or NMOG sampling with ethanol, as soon as practicable using good engineering judgment. (4) Range validation . If an anal yz e r operated above 100 % of its range at any time during the test, perform the following steps: (i) For batch sampling, re

- anal yz e the sample using the lowest anal yz er range that results in a maximum instrument response below 100 %. Report the result from the lowest range from which the anal yz er operates below 100 % of its range. (ii) For continuous sampling, repeat the entire test using the next higher analy zer range. If the analyzer again operates above 100 % of its range, repeat the test using the next h igher range. Continue to repeat the test until the anal yz er consistently operates at less than 100 % of its range. Keep records of an y tests where the anal yz er exceeds its range. We may consider these results to be failures, consistent with good engineer ing judgment. (5) After quantifying exhaust gases, verify drift as follows: (i) For batch and continuous gas anal yz ers, record the mean analyzer value after stabilizing a zero gas to the anal yz er. Stabilization may include time to purge the anal yz er of an y s ample gas, plus any additional time to account for anal yz er response. (ii) Record the mean analyzer value after stabilizing the span gas to the analyzer. Stabilization may

include time to purge the anal yz er of an y s ample gas, plus any additional time to account for anal yz er response. (iii) Use these data to validate that anal yz er drift does not exceed 2.0 % of the anal yz er full scale. (h) [Reserved] (i) Measure and record ambient pressure. Measure and record ambient temperature continuously

to verify that it remains within the temperature range specified in §1066.425(c)(1) throughout the test. Also measure humidity if required, such as for correcting NO x emissions, or meeting the requirements of §1066.425(d). (j) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pound s GVWR , determine overall driver accuracy as follows:Page 840 of 888

(1) Compare the following drive cycle metrics, based on measured vehicle speeds, to a reference value based on the target cycle that would have been generated by driving exactly to the target trace as d escribed in SAE J2951 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010). (i) Determine the Energy Economy Rating as described in Section 5.4 of SAE J2951. (ii) Determine the Absolute Speed Change Rating as described in Section 6.1.2 of SAE J2951. (iii) Calculate the Inertia Work Rating, IR, using the both the sums of the incremental driven and the target inertia work as described in Eq. 1066.430

- 1.

i i j j

j j ID D I T T i=1 j=1

IT T j=1 100 n m

m F D F D IR F D  

    

 

   

##    Eq. 1066.430
- 1 Where:

i ID F = the driven inertial force over an interval i , as described b y Equation 18 of SAE J2951.

j ID 

### F = the target inertial force over an interval j , as described by Equation 19 of SAE J2951.

i D D = the incremental drive n distance over an interval i , as described b y Equation 12 of SAE J2951.

j D 

### D = the incremental target distance over an interval j , as described b y Equation 13 of SAE J2951. (2) The standard

- setting part may require you to provide to u s 10 Hz data to characterize both target and actual values for cycle energy . Calculate target values based on the vehicles speeds from the specified test cycle. **Subpart F**

**— Hybrids and Electric Vehicles**  **§1066.501 Overview.** For HEV, PHEV, and pure electric vehicle (EV), use the following procedures: (a) Correct the results for Net Energy Change of the RESS as follows: (1) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J1711 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010) except as noted in this paragraph (a). Use ±1 % of reading or ±0.3 % of full scale, whichever is greater, in place of the current measurement accuracy in Section 4.2a of SAE J1711. (2) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, follow SAE J2711 (incorporated b y reference in §1066.1010) for r equirements related to charge

- sustaining operation. (3) For pure EVs, irrespective of GVWR, follow SAE J1634 (incorporated by reference in §1066.1010). (b) This paragraph (b) applies for vehicles that include an engine

- powered generator or other auxiliary power unit that provides motive power. For example, this would include a vehicle that has a small gasoline engine that generates electricity to charge batteries. Unless we approve otherwise, measure emissions for all test cycles when such an enginePage 841 of 888

is op erating. For each test cycle for which emissions are not measured, you must validate that such engines are not operating at an y time during the test cycle. **Subpart G**

**— Calculations**  **§1066.601 Overview.** (a) This subpart describes calculations used to determi ne emission rates. See the standard setting part and the other provisions of this part to determine which equations apply for yo ur testing. This subpart describes how to

– (1) Use the signals recorded before, during, and after an emission test to calculate distance

- specific emissions of each regulated pollutant. (2) Perform calculations for calibrations and performance checks. (3) Determine statistical values. (b) You may

use data from multiple sy stems to calculate test results for a single emissio n test, consistent with good engineering judgment. You may also make multiple measurements from a single batch sample, such as multiple weighing of a PM filter or multiple readings from a bag sample. Although you may use an average of multiple measurements from a single test, you may not use test results from multiple emission tests to report emissions. We allow weighted means where appropriate, such as for sampling onto a PM filter over the FTP. You may discard statistical outliers, but you must report all results. **§1066.610 Mass -**  **based and molar -**  **based exhaust emission calculations.** (a) Calculate your total mass of emissions over a test cycle as specified in paragraph (c) of this section or in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart G, as applicable. (b) For composit e emission calculations over multiple test intervals and corresponding weighting factors, see the standard

- setting part
. (c) To calculate total mass emissions, multiply a concentration by

its respective flow and density as specified in Eq. 1066.610

- 1. Before calculating mass emissions as specified in paragraph (d) and (e) of this section, perform the following sequence of preliminary calculations to correct recorded concentration measurements: (1) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , correct all THC and CH 4 concentrations for initial contamination as described in 40 CFR 1065.660(a), including continuous readings, sample bag readings, and dilution air background readings. This correction is optional for vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. (2) Corr ect all concentrations measured on a “dry” basis to a “wet” basis, including dilution air background concentrations. (3) Calculate all NMHC and CH 4 concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in 40 CFR 1065.660. (4) For v ehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, calculate HC concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in this section and §1066.665 for NMOG. For emission testing of vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR, with fuels that contain 25% or more ox ygenated compounds by volume, calculate HC concentrations, including dilution air background concentrations, as described in 40 CFR part 1065, subpart I, for THCE and NMHCE. (5) Correct all NO x emission values for test cell ambient air humidi ty as described in §1066.630.Page 842 of 888

(6) Correct all gaseous concentrations for dilution air background as described in §1066.620. (7) Correct all PM filter masses for sample media buoyancy as described in 40 CFR 1065.690. (d) Calculate the emission mass of each gaseous pollutant using the following equation: [emission] mix [emission] [emission] m V x c

    

Eq. 1066.610
- 1 Where: m [emission] = emission mass over the test interval. V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval at standard reference conditions, corrected fo r an y volume removed for emission sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air (if applicable). ρ [emission] = density

of the appropriate chemical species as given in §1066.1005(f). x [emission] = measured emission concentration in the sample, after d ry - to - wet and background corrections. c = 10 - 2 for emission concentrations % and 10 - 6 for emission concentrations in ppm. Example : V mix = 170.878 m 3 (from paragraph (f) of this section) ρ NOx = 1913 g/m 3 x NOx = 0.9721 ppm c = 10 - 6 6 NOx 170.878 1913 0.9721 10 0.3177 g m       (e) The calculation of PM is dependent on how many PM filters are used (for example as described in §1066.822(b)), as follows: (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, calculate m PM using the following equation: 

#  

mi x PM PMfil PMbkgnd

PMstd sdastd V m m m V V  
    

   Eq. 1066.610
- 2 Where: m PM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the test interval, as described in §1066.820(b)(1), (2), and (3). V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval at standard reference conditions , corrected for an y volume removed for emissions sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air (if applicable). V sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air flow sampled through the filter over the test phase at standard temperature and pressure
. m PMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the filter over the test interval. m PMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background filter. Example : V mix = 170.878 m 3 (from paragraph (f) of this section) V PMstd = 0.925 m 3 (from paragraph (f) of this section) V sdastd = 0.527 m 3 (from paragraph (f) of this section)Page 843 of 888

m PMfil = 0.0000045 g m PMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

##   PM 170.878 0.0000045 0.0000014 0.00133 g 0.925 0.527 m  
     

   (2) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in §1066.820(b)(4), calculate m PM using the following equati on: 

##       

#   mix PM PMfil PMbkgnd

ct-PMstd ct-sdastd ht-PMstd ht-sdastd s-PMstd s-sdastd 0.43 0.57

V m m m V V V V

V V    

  

      

Eq. 1066.610
- 3 Where: m PM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the entire FTP as sampled according to §1066.820(b)(4). V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval at standard reference conditions, corrected for an y volume removed for emissions sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air (if applicable). V [interval]

- PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard reference conditions. V [interval]

- sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold transient, s = stabilized, ht = hot transient) at standard reference conditions. m PMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the filter over the test interval. m PMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background filter. Example : V mix = 633.691 m 3 V ct - PMstd = 0.925 m 3 V ct - sdastd = 0.527 m 3 V s - PMstd = 1.967 m 3 V s - sdastd = 1.121 m 3 V ht

- PMstd = 1.122 m 3 V ht

- sdastd = 0.639 m 3 m PMfil = 0.0000106 g m PMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

##         PM 633.691 0.0000106 0.0000014 0.925 0.527 1.122 0.639

1.967 1.121 0.43 0.57 m    

  

       m PM = 0.00222 g (3) If you sample PM onto a single filter as described in §1066.820(b)(5), calculate m PM using the following equation:Page 844 of 888 

###         

##   mix PM PMfil PMbkgnd

ct-PMstd ct-sdastd cs-PMstd cs-sdastd ht-PMs td ht-sdastd hs-PMstd hs-sdastd

0.43 0.57

V m m m V V V V V V V V    

  

 
      

Eq. 1066.610
- 4 Where: m PM = mass of particulate matter emissions over the entire FTP as sampled according to §1066.820(b)(5). V mix = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval at standard reference conditions, corrected for an y volume removed for emissions sampling and the addition of secondary dilution air (if applicable). V [interval]

- PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold transient, cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = hot stabilized) at standard reference conditions. V [interval]

- sdastd = total volume of secondary diluti on air sampled through the filter over the test interval (ct = cold transient, cs = cold stabilized, ht = hot transient, hs = hot stabilized) at standard reference conditions. m PMfil = mass of particulate matter emissions on the filter over the test interval. m PMbkgnd = mass of particulate matter on the background filter. Example : V mix = 972.121 m 3 V ct - PMstd = 0.925 m 3 V ct - sdastd = 0.529 m 3 V cs - PMstd = 1.968 m 3 V cs - sdastd = 1.123 m 3 V ht

- PMstd = 1.122 m 3 V ht

- sdastd = 0.641 m 3 V hs

- PMstd = 1.967 m 3 V hs

- sdastd = 1.121 m 3 m PMfil = 0.0000229 g m PMbkgnd = 0.0000014 g 

###           PM 972.121 0.0000229 0.0000014 0.925 0.529 1.968 1.123 1.122 0.641 1.967 1.121

0.43 0.57 m    

  

 
       m PM = 0.00155 g (f) This paragraph (f) describes how to correct flow and flow rates to standard reference conditions and provides an example for determining V mix based on CVS total flow and the removal of sample flow from the dilute exhaust gas. (1) Correct flow and flow rate s to standard reference conditions as needed using the following equation:

[flow]act in std [flow]std std in V p T V p T

  

 Eq. 1066.610
- 5Page 845 of 888

Where: V [flow]std = total volume of flow at the flow meter at standard reference conditions. V [flow]act = total volume of flow at the f low meter at test conditions. p in = absolute static pressure at the flow meter inlet, measured directly or calculated as the sum of atmospheric pressure plus a differential pressure referenced to atmospheric pressure. T std = standard temperature. p std = st andard pressure. T in = average temperature of the dilute exhaust sample at the flow meter inlet. Example : V PMact = 1.071 m 3 p in = 101.7 kPa T std = 293.15 K p std = 101.325 kPa T in = 340.5 K 3 PMstd 1.071 101.7 293.15 0.925 m 101.325 340.5 V    

 (2) The following example provides a determination of V mix based on CVS total flow and the removal of sample flow from one dilute exhaust gas anal yz er and one PM sampling sy stem that is utilizing secondary dilution. Note that your V mix determination may

v ary from Eq. 1066.610

- 6 based on the number of flows that are removed from your dilute exhaust gas and whether your PM sampling sy stem is using secondary dilution. For this example, V

mix is governed by

the following equation: mix CVSstd gasstd PMstd sdastd V V V V V     Eq. 1066.610
- 6 Where: V CVSstd = total dilute exhaust volume over the test interval at the flow meter at standard reference conditions. V gasstd = total volume of sample flow through the gaseous emission bench over the test interval at standard reference c onditions. V PMstd = total volume of dilute exhaust sampled through the filter over the test interval at standard reference conditions. V sdastd = total volume of secondary dilution air flow sampled through the filter over the test interval at standard refer ence conditions. Example : Using Eq. 1066.610

- 5 V CVSstd = 170.451 m 3 , where V CVSact = 170.721 m 3 , p in = 101.7 kPa, and T in = 294.7 K Using Eq. 1066.610

- 5 V gasstd = 0.028 m 3 , where V gasact = 0.033 m 3 , p in = 101.7 kPa, and T in = 340.5 K Using Eq. 1066.610

- 5 V PMstd = 0.925 m 3 , where V PMact = 1.071 m 3 , p in = 101.7 kPa, and T in = 340.5 K Using Eq. 1066.610

- 5 V sdastd = 0.527 m 3 , where V sdaact = 0.531 m 3 , p in = 101.7 kPa, and T in = 296.3 KPage 846 of 888

V mix = 170.451 + 0.028 + 0.925

– 0.527 = 170.878 m 3 (g) Total sample volume over a test interval . Calculate total flow, V [flow] , for a CVS or exhaust gas sampler as follows: (1) Varying versus constant flow rates . The calculation methods depend on differentiating varying and constant flow, as follows: (i) We consider the following to be examples of varying flows that require a continuous multiplication of concentration times volumetric flow rate: raw exhaust, exhaust diluted with a constant flow rate of dilution air, and CVS dilution with a CVS flow meter that does not hav e an upstream heat exchanger or electronic flow control. (ii) We consider the following to be examples of constant exhaust flows: CVS diluted exhaust with a CVS flow meter that has an upstream heat exchanger, an electronic flow control, or both. (2) Continuous sampling . For continuous sampling, you must frequently record a continuously

updated flow signal. This recording requirement applies for both varying and constant flow rates. (i) Varying flow rate . If you continuousl y sample from a varying exhaust flow rate, calculate V

[flow] using the following equation:

[flow] i

i 1 N V Q t

    

##   Eq. 1066.610
- 7 Where: ∆t = 1/ f record Eq. 1066.610
- 8 Example: N = 505
CVS1 Q  = 0.276 m 3 /s
CVS2 Q  = 0.294 m 3 /s f record = 1 Hz Using Eq. 1066.610
- 8 ,  t = 1/1 = 1 s
CVS CVS505 (0.276 0.294
... ) 1 V Q     

 V CVS = 170.721 m 3 (ii) Constant flow rate . If you continuously sample from a constant exhaust flow rate, use the same calculation described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section or calculate the mean flow recorded over the test interval and treat the mean as a batch sample, as described in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section. (3) Batch sampling . For batch sampling, calculate total flow by integrating a varying flow rate or b y dete rmining the mean of a constant flow rate, as follows: (i) Varying flow rate . If you proportionally collect a batch sample from a varying exhaust flow rate, integrate the flow rate over the test interval to determine the total flow from which you extracted the proportional sample, as described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section. (ii) Constant flow rate . If you batch sample from a constant exhaust flow rate, extract aPage 847 of 888

sample at a proportional or constant flow rate and calculate V [flow] from the flow f

rom which you extract the sample by multiplying the mean flow rate by the time of the test interval using the following equation: [flow] 

### V Q t     Eq. 1066.610
- 9 Example:
CVS Q  = 0.338 m 3 /s  t = 505 s CVS 0.338 505 V   V CVS = 170.69 m 3 **§1066.620 Dilution air background correction.** (a) Correct the emissions in a gaseous sample for background using the following equation:
[emission] [emission]dexh [emission]bkgnd 1 1 x x x DF    
            Eq. 1066.620
- 1 Where: x [emission]dexh = measured emission conce ntration in dilute exhaust (after dry

- to - wet correction for dry

measurements). x [emission]bkgnd = measured emission concentration in the dilution air (after dry

- to - wet correction for dry

measurements). DF = dilution factor determined in paragraph (b) of th is section. Example : x NOxdexh = 1.08305 ppm x NOxbkgnd = 0.12456 ppm DF = 9.14506

NOx 1 1.08305 0.12456 1 0 .97211 ppm

9.14506 x    
           (b) Determine the dilution factor, DF , over the test interval using the following equation:

E q. 1066.620
- 2 Where: x CO2 = amount of CO 2 measured in the sample over the test interval. x NMHC = amount of C 1 - equivalent NMHC measured in the sample over the test interval. x CH4 = amount of CH 4 measured in the s ample over the test interval. x CO = amount of CO measured in the sample over the test interval. CO2 NMHC CH4 CO 1 1 3 .76 1 ( ) 2 4 2 DF x x x x

     

          

   

   Page 848 of 888

 = atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio of the test. You may measure  or use default values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.655.  = atomic ox ygen - to - carbon ratio of the test fuel. You may measure  or use default values from Table 1 of 40 CFR 1065.655. Example : x CO2 = 1.456 % = 0.01456 x NMHC = 0.84 ppm = 0.00000084 x CH4 = 0.26 ppm = 0.00000026 x CO = 80.4 ppm = 0.0000804  = 1.92  = 0.03 

##   1 9.14506 1.92 1.92 0.03 1 3 .76 1 0 .01456 0.00000084 0.00000026 0.00008 04 2 4 2 DF    

        

   

    (c) Determine the dilution factor, DF , over the test interval for partial

- flow dilution sample sy stems that measure PM using the following equation:

PMstd exhstd V DF V  Eq. 1066.620
- 3 Where: V PMstd = total dilute exhaust volume sampled through the filter over the test interval at standard reference conditions. V exhstd = total exhaust volume sampled from the vehicle at standard reference conditions. Example : V PMstd = 170.9 m 3 V exhstd = 15.9 m 3 170.9 11.1 15.4 DF   (d) Determine the time

- weighted dilution factor, DF w , over the dut y c ycl e using the following equation:

i i 1 w i i 1 i 1 N

N t DF t

DF 

 

 

##   Eq. 1066.620
- 4 Where: N = number of test intervals. i = test interval number t = duration of the test interval. DF = dilution factor over the test interval.Page 849 of 888

Example : N = 3 DF 1 = 14.40 t 1 = 505 s DF 2 = 24.48 t 2 = 867 s DF 3 = 17.28 t3 = 505 s

w 505 867 505 18.82 111 505 867 505 14.40 24.48 17.28 DF                            **§1066.630 NO x**  **intake -**  **air humidity correction.** See the standard

- setting part to determine if you may correct NO x emissions for the effects of intake

- air humidity . Correct NO x emissions for intake

- air humidity as described in this section. See §1066.610(c)(1) for the proper sequence for applying the NO x intake

- air humidity

correction. (a) For vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR , a pply a correction for any reciprocating engines for the following test cycles: (1) Calculate a humidity

correction using a time

- weighted mean value for ambient humidity over the test interval. Calculate absolute ambient humi dity in grams H 2 O vapor per kilogram of dry

air using the following equation: 

##   H2O d air atmos d 1000 % 0 .01

% 0 .01 M p RH H M p p RH

    

    Eq. 1066.630
- 1 Where: M H2O = molar mass of H 2 O, in g/mol. p d = saturated vapor pressure at the ambient dry bulb temperature, in kPa. RH% = relative humidity of ambient air, in %. M air = molar mass of air, in g/mol. p atmos = atmospheric pressure, in kPa. Example: M H2O = 18.01528 g/mol p d = 2.93 kPa RH % = 37.5 % M air = 28.96559 g/mol p atmos = 96.71 kPa



##   2 1000 18.01528 2.93 37.5 0.01 7.14741 gH O vapor kg dry air 28.96559 96.71 2.93 37.5 0.01 H      

    (2) Use the following equation to correct measured concentrations to a reference condition of 10.71 grams H 2 O vapor per kilogram of dry air for the FTP, US06, LA
- 92, SC03, and HFET test cycles:Page 850 of 88 8 

##   s NOxdexhcor NOxdexh 1 0 .0329 10.71 H x x H  

  

Eq. 1066.630
- 2 Where: x NOxdexh = measured dilute NO x emissions. H s = humidity

scale. Set = 1 for FTP, US06, LA

- 92, and HFET test cycles. Set = 0.8825 for the SC03 test cycle. H = absolute humidity , from paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Example: H = 7.14741 g H2O vapor/kg dry air x NOxdexh = 1. 21 ppm 

##   NOxdexhcor 1

1.21 1.08305 ppm 1 0 .0329 7.14741 10.71 x   

   (b) For vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR , apply correction factors as described in 40 CFR 1065.670. **§1066.640 Removed water correction.** Correct for removed water if water removal occurs upstream of a concentration measurement and downstream of a flow meter used to determine mass emissions over a test interval. Perform this correction based on the amount of water at the concentration measurement and on the amount of water at the flow meter. **§1066.650 Flow meter calibration calculations.**  This section describes how to calibrate various flow meters based on mass flow rates. Calibrate your flow meter according to 40 CFR 1065.640 instead if you calculate emissions based on molar flow rates. (a) PDP calibration calcul ations . Perform the following steps to calibrate a PDP flow meter: (1) Calculate PDP volume pumped per revolution, V rev , for each restrictor position from the mean values determined in §1066.140:

ref in std rev nPDP in std Q T p V f p T

  

   Eq. 1066.650
- 1 Where:
ref Q  = mean flow rate of the reference flow meter.
in T = mean temperature at the PDP inlet

. p std = standard pressure = 101.325 kPa.
nPDP f = mean PDP speed.
in p = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet. T std = standard temperature = 293.15 K.Page 851 of 888

Example:
ref Q  = 0.1651 m 3 /s
in T = 299.5 K p std = 101.325 kPa
nPDP f = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s
in p = 98.290 kPa T std = 293.15 K 0.1651 299.5 101.3 20.085 98.290 293.15 rev V   

  V rev = 0.00866 m 3 /r (2) Calculate a PDP slip correction factor, K s for each restrictor position from the mean values determined in §1066.140:

out in s nPDP out 1 p p K f p    Eq. 1066.650
- 2 Where:
nPDP f = mean PDP speed.

out p = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet

. in p = mean static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet. Example:
nPDP f = 1205.1 r/min = 20.085 r/s

out p = 100.103 kPa
in p = 98.290 kPa

s 1 1 00.103 98.290 20.085 100.103 K    K s = 0.006700 s/r (3) Perform a least

- squares regression of V rev , versus PDP K s , by calculating slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , as described in 40 CFR 1065.602. (4) Repeat the procedure in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section for every speed that you run your PDP. (5) The following example illustrates a range of typical values for different PDP speeds: Table 1 of §1066.650

– Example of PDP calibration data

nPDP f (r/s) a 1

(m3 /s) a 0

(m3 /r) 12.6 0.841 0.056 16.5 0.831
- 0.013 20.9 0.809 0.028Page 852 of 888 23.4 0.788
- 0.061 (6) For each speed at which you operate the PDP, use the appropriate regression equation from this paragraph (a) to calculate flow rate during emission testing as described in §1066.652. (b) SSV calibration . The equations governing SSV flow assume one

- dimensional isentropic inviscid flow of an ideal gas, except that the equations can account for compressible flow. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section describes other assumptions that may apply . If good engineering judgment dictates that you account for gas compressibility , you may either use an appropriate equation of state to determine values of Z as a function of measured pressure and t emperature, or you may develop your own calibration equations based on good engineering judgment. Note that the equation for the flow coefficient, C f , is based on the ideal gas assumption that the isentropic exponent,  , is equal to the ratio of specific heats, C p / C v . I f good engineering judgment dictates using a real gas isentropic exponent, you may either use an appropriate equation of state to determine values of  as a function of measured pressure and temperature, or you may develop your own calibration equations based on good engineering judgment. (1) Calculate volumetric flow rate, Q  , as follows : t i n s td d f std mix in

A R p T Q C C p Z M R T

     

     Eq. 1066.650
- 3 Where: C d = discharge c oefficient, as determined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. C f = flow coefficient, as determined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section. A t = cross - sectional area at the venturi throat. R = molar gas constant. p in = static absolute pressure at the v enturi inlet. T std = standard temperature. p std = standard pressure. Z = compressibility

factor. M mix = molar mass of gas mixture. T in = absolute temperature at the venturi inlet. (2) Perform the following steps to calibrate an SSV flow meter: (i) Using the data collected in §1066.140, calculate C d for each flow rate using the following equation:

std mix in d ref f t in std p Z M R T C Q C A R p T

     

     Eq. 1066.650
- 4 Where:
ref Q  = measured volumetric flow rate from the reference flow meter. (ii) Use the following equation to calculate C f for each flow rate:Page 853 of 888



#     

#   1

2 1

2
f 4 2 1 1 r C r  

   



  

    


    

Eq. 1066.650
- 5 Where:  = isentropic exponent. For an ideal gas, this is the ratio of specific heats of the gas mixture, C

p / C v . r = pressure ratio, as determined in par agraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.  = ratio of venturi throat diameter to inlet diameter. (iii) Calculate r using the following equation:

in 1 p r p    Eq. 1066.650
- 6 Where:  p = differential static pressure, calculated as venturi inlet pressure minu s venturi throat pressure. (iv) You may

appl y an y of the following simplifying assumptions or develop other values as appropriate for your test configuration, consistent with good engineering judgment: (A) For raw exhaust, diluted exhaust, and dilution ai r, you may assume that the gas mixture is incompressible and therefore behaves as an ideal gas (Z =1). (B) For raw exhaust, you may assume =1.385. (C) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume =1.399. (D) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume M mix is a function only

of the amount of water in the dilution air or calibration air, xH2O , as follows: 

##   2 mix air H2 O H O H 2O



### 1 M M x M x     

Eq. 1066.650
- 7 Where: M air = 28.964 g/mol xH2O = amount of H 2 O in the dilution air, determined as described in 40 CFR 1065.645. M H20 = 18.015 g/mol Example: xH2O = 0.0169 mol/mol



##   mi x 

### 28.964 1 0 .0169 18.015 0.0169 M      M mix = 28.7789 g/mol (E) For diluted exhaust and dilution air, you may assume a constant molar mass of the mixture, M

mix , for all calibration and all testing if you control the amount of water in calibration air and in dilution air, as shown in the following table: Table 2 of §1066.650

– Examples of dilution air and calibration air dewpoints at which you may assume a constant M mix .Page 854 of 888 If calibration T dew (  C) is... assume the following

constant M

mix ( g/mol)... for the following ranges of

T dew (  C) during emission tests a < 0 28.96559 < 18 0 28.89263 < 21 5 28.86148 < 22 10 28.81911 < 24 15 28.76224 < 26 20 28.68685
- 8 to 28 25 28.58806 12 to 31 30 28.46005 23 to 34
a The specified ranges are valid for all calibration and emission testing over the atmospheric pressure range (80.000 to 103.325) kPa. (v) The following example illustrates the use of the governing equations to calculate C d of an SSV flow meter at one reference flow meter value: Example:
ref Q  = 2.395 m 3 /s Z = 1 M mix = 28.7789 g/mol = 0.0287789 kg/mol R = 8.314472 J/(mol ∙K) = 8.314472 (m 2 ∙kg)/(s 2 ∙mol∙K) T in = 298.15 K A t = 0.01824 m 2 p in = 99.132 kPa = 99132 Pa = 99132 kg/(m ∙s 2 )  = 1.399  = 0.8  p = 2.312 kPa 2.312 1 0 .977 99.132 r    

#     

#   1.399 1 1.399
2

1.399 1 2 f 4 2 1 .399 0.977 1 1.399 1 0 .8 0.977 C 

  

     

    
C f = 0.274

d 101.325 1 0 .0287789 8.314472 298.15 2.395 0.274 0.01824 8.314472 99132 293.15 C      

    C d = 1.695 (vi) Calculate the Rey

nolds number, Re # , for each reference volumetric flow rate, ref Q 
, using the throat diameter of the venturi, d t , and the uncorrected air density , . Because the dy namic viscosity , , is needed to compute Re # , you may use your own fluidPage 855 of 888

viscosity model to determine for your calibration gas (usually air), using good engineering judgment. Alternatively , you may u se the Sutherland three

- coefficient viscosity model to approximate , as shown in the following sample calculation for Re # : # ref

t 4 Q Re = d     

  Eq. 1066.650
- 8 Where, using the Sutherland three

- coefficient viscosity model: 3 2 in 0 0 0 i n T T S T T S      

       

     Eq. 1066.650
- 9 Whe re:  0 = Sutherland reference viscosity
. T 0 = Sutherland reference temperature. S = Sutherland constant. Table 3 of §1065.640

–

Sutherland three

- coefficient viscosity model parameters

Gas a 

0 T

0 S Tem p range within ±2 % error

b Pressure limitb kg /(m ∙s) K K K kPa Air 1.716 ∙10 - 5 273 111 170 to 1900 ≤ 1800
CO 2 1.370 ∙10 - 5 273 222 190 to 1700 ≤ 3600
H 2 O 1.12 ∙10 - 5 350 1064 360 to 1500 ≤ 10000
O 2 1.919 ∙10 - 5 273 139 190 to 2000 ≤ 2500
N 2 1.663 ∙10 - 5 273 107 100 to 1500 ≤ 1600

aUse tabulated parameters only for the pure gases, as listed. Do not combine parameters in calculations to calculate viscosities of gas mixtures. b The model results are valid only for ambient conditions in the specified ranges. Example:  0 = 1.716 ∙10 - 5 kg/(m ∙s) T 0 = 273 KPage 856 of 888

S = 111 K 3 2 5 298.15 273 111 1.716 10 273. 298.15 111   

   
   

   

      = 1.838 ∙10 - 5 kg/(m ∙s) T in = 298.15 K d t = 152.4 mm = 0.1524 m  = 1.1508 kg/m 3
# 5 4 1 .1508 2.395 3.14159 0.1524 1.838 10 Re =



 

   Re # = 1.253 1 ∙10 6 (vii) Calculate ρ using the following equation:

in mix in p M W R T   

 Eq. 1066.650
- 10 Example: 99132 0.0287789 8.314472 298.15   

 ρ = 1.1508 kg/m 3 (viii) Create an equation for C d as a function of Re #

, using paired values of the two quantitites. The equation may involve any

mathematical expression, including a poly nomial or a power series. The following equation is an example of a commonly used mathematical expression for relating C d and Re # : 6 d 0 1 #

10 C a a Re    Eq. 1066.650
- 11 (ix) Perform a least

- squares regression anal ys is to determine the best

- fit coefficients for the equation and calculate the equation’s regression statistics, SEE and r 2, according to §1065.602. (x) I f the equation meets the criteria of SEE ≤ (0.5 % · refmax n  ) and r

2 ≥ 0.995, you may use the equation to determine C d for emission tests, as described in §1065.642. (xi) I f the equation does not meet the spe cified statistical criteria, you may use good engineering judgment to omit calibration data points; however, you must use at least seven calibration data points to demonstrate that you meet the criteria. For example, this may involve narrowing the range o f flow rates for a better curve fit. (xii) Take corrective action if the equation does not meet the specified statistical criteria even after omitting calibration data points. For example, select another mathematical expression for the C d versus Re # equat ion, check for leaks, or repeat the calibration process. If you must repeat the calibration process, we recommend appl yi ng tighter tolerances to measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize. (xiii) Once you have an equation that meets the sp ecified statistical criteria, you may use the equation only

for the corresponding range of flow rates. (c) CFV calibration. Some CFV flow meters consist of a single venturi and some consistPage 857 of 888

of multiple venturis, where different combinations of venturis ar e used to meter different flow rates. For CFV flow meters that consist of multiple venturis, either calibrate each venturi independentl y to determine a separate calibration coefficient, K v , for each venturi, or calibrate each combination of venturis as on e venturi by determining K

v for the sy stem. (1) To determine K v for a single venturi or a combination of venturis, perform the following steps: (i) Calculate an individual K v for each calibration set point for each restrictor position using the following e quation:

refstd in v in Q T K = p   Eq. 1066.650
- 12 Where:
refstd Q & = mean flow rate from the reference flow meter, at standard reference conditions.
in T = mean temperature at the venturi inlet

. in p = mean static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet. (ii) Calculate the mean and standard deviation of all the K v values (see 40 CFR 1065.602). Verify

choked flow by

plotting K

v as a function of in

p . K v will have a relativel y cons tant value for choked flow; as vacuum pressure increases, the venturi will become unchoked and K v will decrease. Paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) through (viii) of this section describe how to verify your range of choked flow. (iii) If the standard deviation of all the K v values is less than or equal to 0.3 % of the mean K

v , use the mean K v in Eq. 1066.652

- 7, and use the CFV onl y up to the highest venturi pressure ratio, r , measured during calibration using the following equation:

CFV in 1 p r p    Eq. 1066.650
- 13 Where:  p CFV = di fferential static pressure; venturi inlet minus venturi outlet. (iv) If the standard deviation of all the K v values exceeds 0.3 % of the mean K v , omit the K v value corresponding to the data point collected at the highest r measured during calibration. (v) If the number of remaining data points is less than seven, take corrective action b y checking your calibration data or repeating the calibration process. If you repeat the calibration process, we recommend checking for leaks, appl yi ng tighter tolerances to measurements and allowing more time for flows to stabilize. (vi) If the number of remaining K v values is seven or greater, recalculate the mean and standard deviation of the remaining K v values. (vii) If the standard deviation of the remaining K v values is less than or equal to 0.3 % of the mean of the remaining K v , use that mean K v in Eq 1066.652

- 7, and use the CFV values only

up to the highest r associated with the remaining K v .Page 858 of 888

(viii) If the standard deviation of the remaining K v still exceeds 0.3 % o f the mean of the remaining K

v values, repeat the steps in paragraph (c)(1)(iv) through (vii) of this section. (2) During exhaust emission tests, monitor sonic flow in the CFV b y monitoring the CFV pressure ratio. Based on the calibration data selected to meet the criteria for paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (vii) of this section, in which K v is constant, select the data values associated with the calibration point with the lowest absolute venturi inlet pressure to determine the r limit. Calculate r during the exhaust emission test using Eq. 1066.650

- 8 to demonstrate that the value of r during all emission tests is less than or equal to the r limit derived from the CFV calibration data. **§1066.652 PDP, SSV, and CFV flow rate calculations.** This section describes the equations for calculating flow rates from various flow meters. After you calibrate a flow meter according to §1066.650, use the calculations described in this section to calculate flow during an emission test. Calculate flow according to 40 CFR 1065. 642 instead if you calculate emissions based on molar flow rates. (a) PDP volumetric flow rate . Based upon the speed at which you operate the PDP for a test interval, select the corresponding slope, a 1 , and intercept, a 0 , as calculated in §1066.650(a), to calculate volumetric flow rate, Q & as follows:

nPDP rev std in

in std V T p Q f T p

   

  Eq. 1066.652
- 1 Where: f nPDP = pump speed. V rev = PDP volume pumped per revolution. T std = standard temperature = 293.15 K. p in = static absolute pressure at the PDP inlet. T in = pump inlet absolute temperature

. p std = standard pressure= 101.325 kPa.
out p = static absolute pressure at the PDP outlet.

nPDP out in 1 rev 0 out p p a V a f p    

Eq. 1066.652
- 2 Example: a 1 = 50.43 m 3 /min = 0.8405 m 3 /s f nPDP = 755.0 r/min = 12.58 r/s p out = 99.950 kPa p in = 98.575 kPa a 0 = 0.056 m 3 /r T in = 323.5 K

rev 0.8405 99.950 98.575 0.056 12.58 99.950 V     V rev = 0.063 m 3 /rPage 859 of 888 0.06383 293.15 98.575 12.58 323.5 101.3 Q    

  Q & = 0.7079 m 3 /s (b) SSV volumetric flow rate . Calculate SSV volumetric flow rate during an emission test, Q  , as follows:

t i n s td d f std mix in

A R p T Q C C p Z M R T

     

     Eq. 1066.652
- 3 Where: C d = discharge coefficient, as determined based on the C d versus Re # equation in §106 6 .650(b)(2)(viii). C f = flow coefficient, as determined in §106 6 .650 (b)(2)(ii). A t = venturi throat cross

- sectional area. R = molar gas constant. p in = static absolute pressure at the venturi inlet. T std = standard temperature. p std = standard pressure. Z = compressibility

fa ctor. M mix = molar mass of gas mixture. T in = absolute temperature at the venturi inlet. Example: C d = 0.890 C f = 0.274 A t = 0.01824 m 2 R = 8.314472 J/(mol ∙K) = 8.314472 (m 2 ∙kg)/(s 2 ∙mol∙K) p in = 98.496 kPa T std = 293.15 K p std = 101.325 kPa Z = 1 M mix = 28.7789 g/mol = 0.0287789 kg/mol T in = 296.85 K 0.01824 8.314472 98.496 293.15 0.89 0.274 101.325 1 0 .0287789 8.314472 296.85 Q      

     Q  = 1.252 m 3 /s (c) CFV volumetric flow rate . Some CFV flow meters consist of a single venturi and some consist of multiple venturis, where different combinations of venturis are used to meter different flow rates. If you use multiple venturis and you calibrated each venturi independentl y to deter

mine a separate calibration coefficient, K v , for each venturi, calculate the individual volumetric flow rates through each venturi and sum all their flow rates to determine Q

& . If yo u use multiple venturis and you calibrated each co mbination of venturis, calculate Q

& using the K

v that was determined for that combination of venturis.Page 860 of 888

(1) To calculate volumetric flow rate through one venturi or a combination of venturis, use the mean K

v you determined according t o §1066.650(c) and calculate the appropriate volumetric flow rate, Q

& , during an emission test as follows:

v i n in K p Q = T   Eq. 1066.652
- 7 Where: Q & = air flow rate of flow meter, in m 3 /s. K v = flow meter calibration coefficient, in m 3 ∙K 1/2 /(kPa ∙s). T in = temperature at the venturi inlet, in K

. p in = absolute static pressure at the venturi inlet, in kPa. Example: K v = 0.074954 m 3 ∙K 1/2 /(kPa ∙s) p in = 99.654 kPa T in = 353.15 K 0.074954 99.654 353.15 Q    Q  = 0.39748 m 3 / s **§1066.665 NMOG determination.** For vehicles subject to an NMOG standard, determine NMOG as described in paragraph (a) of this section. Except as specified in the standard

- setting part, you may alternativel y calculate NMOG results based on measured NMHC emissions as described in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section. (a) Determine NMOG b y independentl y measuring alcohols and carbon yl s as described in 40 CFR 1065.805 and 1065.845. Use good engineering judgment to determine which alcohols and carbon yl s you need to measure. This would ty picall y require you to measure all alcohols and carbon yl s that you expect to contribute 1% or more of total NMOG emissions. Calculate NMOG with the following equation, using density values specified in §1066.1005(f): OHCi NMOG NMHC NMHC OHCi[THC-FID] OHCi 1 1 OHCi N N
i i m m m RF m

 

      



#   Eq. 1066.665
- 1 Where: m NMOG = the sum of the mass of NMOG in the exhaust. m NMHC = the mass of NMHC and all ox ygenated hydrocarbons (OHCs) in the exhaust, as determined using Eq. 1066.610

- 1. Calculate NMHC mass based on ρ NMHC . ρ NMHC = the effective C 1 - equivalent density of NMHC as specified in §1066.1005(f):. m OHCi = the mass of ox ygenated species i in the exhaust calculated using Eq. 1066.610

- 1. ρ OCHi = the C 1 - equivalent density of ox ygenated species i
. RF OHCi[THC

- FID] = The res ponse factor of a THC

- FID to oxygenated species i relative to propane on a C 1 - equivalent basis as determined in 40 CFR 1065.665.Page 861 of 888

(b) The following example shows how to determine NMOG emissions as described in paragraph (a) of this section for (OHC) compoun ds including ethanol (C 2 H 5 OH), methanol (CH 3 OH), acetaldeh yde (C 2 H 4 O), and formaldeh yde (C 2 HO) as C 1 - equivalent concentrations: m NMHC = 0.0125 g m CH3OH = 0.0002 g m C2H5OH = 0.0009 g m HCHO = 0.0001 g m C2H4O = 0.00005 g RF CH3OH[THC
- FID] = 0.63 RF C2H5OH[THC
- F ID] = 0.75 RF HCHO[THC
- FID] = 0.00 RF C2H4O[THC
- FID] = 0.50 ρ NMHC
- liq = 576.816 g/m 3 ρ CH3OH = 1332.02 g/m 3 ρ C2H5OH = 957.559 g/m 3 ρ HCHO = 1248.21 g/m 3 ρ C2H4O = 915.658 g/m 3

NMOG 0.0002 0.0009 0.63 0.75 1332.02 957.559 0.0125 576.816 0.0001 0.00005 0.00 0.5 1248.21 915.658 0.0002 0.0009 0.0001 0.00005 m        

            m NMOG = 0.013273 (c) For ethanol

- gasoline blends less than 25 % ethanol by volume, you may calculate NMOG emissions from measured NMHC emissions as follows: (1) For hot

- start and hot running test cycles or intervals other than the FTP, you may determine NMOG based on the test cycle NMHC emission rate using th e following equation: NMOGhot NMHChot 1.03 e e   Eq. 1066.665
- 2 Where: eNMOGhot = mass emission rate of NMOG over the hot running test cycle. eNMHChot = mass emission rate of NMHC over the hot running test cycle, calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq . Example: eNMHC hot = 0.025 g/mi NMOGhot 0.025 1.03 0.026 g/mi e    (2) You may

determine weighted composite NMOG for FTP testing based on the weighted composite NMHC emission rate and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:



##   NMOGcomp NMHCcomp EtOH



### 1.0302 0.0071 e e VP    Page 862 of 888 Eq. 1066.665
- 3 Where: eNMOGcomp = weighted composite mass emission rate of NMOG. eNMHCcomp = weighted composite mass emission rate of NMHC, calculated using ρ NMHC
liq . VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. Use good engineering judgment to determine this value either as specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 or based on blending volumes, taking into account any denaturant. Example: eNMHCcomp = 0.025 g/mi VPEtOH = 15.1 % 

##   NMOGcomp 

### 0.025 1.0302 0.0071 15.1 0.0284 g/mi e      (3) You may

determine NMOG for the complete FTP cold

- start test interval for use in fuel econom y and CREE calculations based on the NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:



##   NMOG-FTPct NMHC-FTPct EtOH



### 1.0246 0.0079 e e VP

    Eq. 1066.665
- 4 Where: eNMOG
- FTPct = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP cold start test interval. eNMHC
- FTPct = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP cold

- start test interval, calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq . VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. Example: eNMHC
- FTPct = 0.052 g/mi VPEtOH = 15.1 % 

##   NMOG-FTPct 

### 0.052 1.0246 0.0079 15.1 0.0595 g/mi e      (4) You may

determine NMOG for the FTP stabilized test interval for either the cold

- start or hot

- start test f

or use in fuel econom y and CREE calculations based on the NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using the following equation 

##   NMOG-FTPcs-hs NMHC-FTPcs-hs EtOH 

### 1.1135 0.001 e e VP

    Eq. 1066.665
- 5 Where: eNMOG
- FTPcs
- hs = mass emission r ate of NMOG over the FTP stabilized test interval. eNMHC
- FTPcs
- hs = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP stabilized test interval, calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq . VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. (5) You may

determine NMOG for the complete FTP hot

- start test interval for use in fuel econom y and CREE calculations based on the NMHC emission rate for the test interval and the volume percent of ethanol in the fuel using the following equation:Page 863 of 888 

##   NMOG-FTPht NMHC-FTPht EtOH



### 1.0195 0.0031 e e VP

    Eq. 1066.665
- 6 Where: eNMOG
- FTPht = mass emission rate of NMOG over the FTP hot

- start test interval. eNMHC
- FTPht = mass emission rate of NMHC over the FTP hot

- start test interval, calculated using ρ NMHC
- liq . VPEtOH = volume percentage of ethanol in the test fuel. (d) You may

take the following additional steps when determining fuel economy and CREE under 40 CFR part 600: (1) Calculate NMOG b y interval using Eq. 1066.665

- 3 for individual bag measurements from the FTP. (2) Calculate NMOG for two

- bag FTPs using Eq. 1066.665

- 3 for h ybrid

- electric vehicles as described in 40 CFR 600.114. (e) We consider NMOG emission values for diesel

- fueled vehicles, CNG

- fueled vehicles, and LPG
- fueled vehicles to be equivalent to NMHC emission values for all test cycles. (f) For all fuels not covered by paragraphs (c) and (e) of this section, manufacturers may propose a methodology

to calculate NMOG results from measured NMHC emissions. We will approve adjustments based on comparative testing that demonstrates how to properl y represent NMOG b ased on measured NMHC emissions. **§1066.695 Data requirements.**  Record the following information for each test: (a) Test number. (b) A brief description of the test vehicle (or other sy stem/device tested). (c) Date and time of day

for each part of the test sequence. (d) Test results. Also include a validation of driver accuracy as described in §1066.430(j). (e) Driver and equipment operators. (f) Vehicle information as applicable, including identification number, model year, applicable emission standards, v ehicle model, vehicle class, carline, test group, durability group, engine family , evaporative/refueling emission family , basic engine description (including displacement, number of cylinders, turbocharger/supercharger used, and catal ys t ty

pe), fuel sy stem (ty

pe of fuel injection and fuel tank capacity and location), engine code, gross vehicle weight rating, equivalent test weight, inertia weight class, actual curb weight at zero miles, actual road load at 50 mph, transmission class and configuration, axle ratio, odometer reading, idle rpm, and drive wheel tire pressure. (g) Dy namometer identification, inertia weight setting, indicated power absorption setting, and records to verify compliance with the driving distance and cycle

- validation criteria as calcul ated from measured roll or shaft revolutions. (h) Anal yz er bench identification, anal yz er ranges, recordings of anal yz er output during zero, span, and sample readings. (i) Associate the following information with the test record: test number, date, vehicle identification, vehicle and equipment operators, and identification of the measurements recorded.Page 864 of 888

(j) Test cell barometric pressure and humidity . You may use a central laboratory barometer if the barometric pressure in each test cell is shown to be withi n ±0.1 % of the barometric pressure at the central barometer location. (k) Records to verify

compliance with the ambient temperature requirements throughout the test procedure and records of fuel temperatures during the running loss test. (l) [Reserved] (m) For CVS s ys tems record, dilution factor for each interval of the exhaust test and the following additional information : (1) CFV and SSV V mix for each interval of the exhaust test. (2) PDP

. Test measurements required to calculate V mix for each interval of the exhaust test. (n) The humidity

of the dilution air if you remove H 2 O from an emission sample before measurement. (o) Temperature of the dilute exhaust mixture and secondary dilution air (in the case of a double

- dilution sy stem) at the inlet to the r espective gas meter or flow instrumentation used for particulate sampling. (p) The maximum gas temperature over the course of the test within 20 cm upstream or downstream of the sample media (e.g., filter). (q) If applicable, the temperature of the heated FID, the gas in the heated sample line, and the heated filter. (r) Gas meter or flow measurement instrumentation readings at the start and end of each test interval. (s) The stabilized pre

- test weight and post

- test weight of each particulate sample media ( e.g., filter). (t) Continuous temperature and humidity of the ambient air in which the particulate sample media (e.g., filter) are stabilized. (u) For vehicles fueled by natural gas, the test fuel composition, including all carbon

containing compounds (exc ept CO); e.g. CO 2 , of the natural gas

- fuel used during the test. Record C 1 and C 2 compounds individually . You may record C 3 through C 5 hydrocarbons together, and you may record C 6 and heavier h ydrocarbon compounds together. (v) Additional required record s for liquefied petroleum gas

- fueled vehicles

. For vehicles fueled b y liquefied petroleum gas, the test fuel composition, including all carbon

containing compounds (except CO); e.g. CO 2 . Each hydrocarbon compound present, through C 4 compounds, shall be individually reported. C 5 and heavier h ydrocarbons may be reported as a group. Record C 1 and C 4 compounds individually . You may record C 5 and heavier h ydrocarbon compounds together. **Subpart H**

**— Cold**  **- Temperature Test Procedures**  **§1066. 701 Applicability and general provisions.**  (a) The procedures of this part 1066 may be used for testing at an y ambient temperature. Section 1066.710 describes the provisions that apply for testing testing motor vehicles at a nominal temperature of 20 °C (68 °F); these procedures appl y for motor vechicles as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and 40 CFR part 600. For other vehicles, see the standard

- setting part to determine if your vehicle is required to meet emission standards outside the normal (2 0 to 30) °C (68 to 86 °F) temperature range. (b) Do not appl y the humidity correction factor in §1066.630(a) for cold

- temperaturePage 865 of 888

testing. **§1066.710 Cold**  **- testing procedures for measuring CO and NMHC emissions and**  **determining fuel economy**
. This section des cribes procedures for measuring carbon monoxide (CO) and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions and determining fuel econom y on a cold day using the FTP driving schedule (see §1066.801). (a) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified i n §§1066.410 through 1066.430 and §1066.820(d), subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) Measure and control ambient conditions as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Precondition and stabilize the vehicle as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Ensure that there is no precipitation or dew on the vehicle before the emission test. (3) For dynamometers that have independentl y heated bearings, start the emission test within 20 minutes after the en d of d yn amometer warm up; for other dynamometers, start the emission test within 10 minutes after the end of dy namometer warm up. (5) Anal yz e samples for NMHC, CO, and CO 2 . You do not need to anal yze samples for other pollutants. (b) Maintain ambient cond itions as follows instead of following the specifications in subpart E of this part: (1) Ambient temperature for emission tests . Measure and record ambient temperature in the test cell at least once every 60 seconds during the sampling period. The averag e temperature during the sampling period must be ( −7.0 ±1.7) °C
. In stantaneous temperature values may

be above −4.0 °C or below −9.0 °C, but not for more than 3 minutes at a time. (2) Ambient temperature for preconditioning . Ambient temperatures must be between (

− 14 .0 and −1.0) °C throughout the preconditioning period. The average ambient temperature during preconditioning must be ( −7.0 ±2.8) °C. You may precondition vehicles at temperatures above −7.0 °C or with a temperature tolerance greater than that described in this section (or both) if you determine that this will not cause NMHC, CO, or CO 2 emissions to decrease; if you modify the temperature specifications for vehicle preconditioning, adjust the procedures described in this section appropriately for your testing. Use good engineering judgment to demonstrate that you meet the specified temperature tolerances specified in this paragraph (b)(2). (3) Ambient humidity . Maintain humidity low enough to prevent condensation on the dy namometer rolls duri ng testing. (c) Take the following steps to prepare and precondition vehicles for testing under this section: (1) Prepare the vehicle as described in §1066.814(a). (2) Fill the fuel tank to approximately 40 % of the manufacturer’s nominal fuel tank capac ity with the appropriate test fuel for low

- temperature testing specified 40 CFR part 1065, subpart H. If the leftover fuel in the fuel tank before the refueling eventPage 866 of 888 does not meet these specifications, drain the fuel tank before refueling. The temperature of the dispensed test fuel must be at or below 15.5 °C. (3) You may

start the preconditioning drive once the fuel in the fuel tank reaches ( −7.0 °C ±5.6) °C. Precondition the vehicle as follows: (i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the dynamometer. (ii) Operate the vehicle over one UDDS. You may perform additional vehicle preconditioning with repeated driving over the UDDS, subject to our advance approval. (iii) Turn off the test vehicle and an y cooling fans within 5 minutes after completing the preco nditioning drive. Ambient temperature must be between ( −12.0 to −1.0) °C in the 5 minutes following the preconditioning drive. (iv) Do not manuall y purge or load the evaporative canister. (d) Soak the vehicle for (12 to 36) hours to stabilize it at test temperatures before starting the emission test as described in this paragraph (d). If you move a stabilized vehicle through a warm area when transporting it to the dynamometer for testing, you must restabilize the vehicle b y holding it at an ambient tempe rature within the range specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section for at least six times as long as the vehicle was exposed to warmer temperatures. Use one of the following methods to reach a stabilized condition: (1) Cold storage
. Measure and record ambient temperature in the test cell at least once every

60 seconds during the soak period; use these measured values to calculate an hourly average temperature. Each hourl y average temperature must be ( −7.0 °C ±2.8) °C. Instantaneous ambient temperature s during the soak period may be above −1.0 °C or below −12.0, but not for more than 3 minutes at a time. (2) Forced

- cooling or warming . Position fans to blow temperature

- controlled air onto the vehicle to stabilize the vehicle at the specified temperatur es for emission testing. Position fans to target the vehicle’s drive train, engine block, and radiator rather than the oil pan. You may

not place fans under the vehicle. You may consider the vehicle to be stabilized at the test temperature when the bulk oil temperature reaches ( −7 ±1.7) °C; measure oil temperature at one or more points away from the side or bottom surfaces of the oil pan. Each oil temperature measurement must be within the specified range before stabilization is complete. Once the vehi cle reaches this stabilized condition, hold the vehicle within the stabilized temperature range for at least one hour before starting the emission test. During this time, keep the ambient temperature within the range specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. **Subpart I**

**— Exhaust Emission Test Procedures for Motor Vehicles**  **§1066.801 Applicability and general provisions.** This subpart I specifies how to apply the test procedures of this part for motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, including light

- duty vehicles, light

- dut y trucks, and heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR that are subject to chassis testing for exhaust emissions. For these vehicles, references in this part 1066 to the standard

setting part include this subpart I. ( a) Use the procedures detailed in this subpart to measure vehicle emissions over a specified drive schedule in conjunction with subpart E of this part. Where the proceduresPage 867 of 888

of subpart E of this part differ from this subpart I, the provisions in this subpart I take precedence. (b) Collect samples of every pollutant for which an emission standard applies, unless specified otherwise. (c) This subpart covers the following test procedures: (1) The Federal Test Procedure (FTP), which includes the general driving cycle. This procedure is also used for measuring evaporative emissions. This may be called the conventional test since it was adopted with the earliest emission standards. (i) The FTP consists of one Urban Dy namometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) as specifie d in paragraph (a) of Appendix Iof 40 CFR part 86, followed by a 10
- minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. Note that the UDDS represents about 7.5 miles of driving in an urban area. Engine startup ( with all accessories turned off), operation over the initial UDDS, and engine shutdown make a complete cold

- start test. The hot

- start test consists of the first 505 seconds of the UDDS following the 10

- minute soak and a hot

- running portion of the UDDS aft er the first 505 seconds. The first 505 seconds of the UDDS is considered the transient portion; the remainder of the UDDS is considered the stabilized (or hot

- stabilized) portion. The hot

stabilized portion for the hot

- start test is generall y measured d uring the cold

- start test; however, in certain cases, the hot

- start test may involve a second full UDDS following the 10

- minute soak, rather than repeating only the first 505 seconds. See §§1066.820 and 1066.822. (ii) Evaporative emission testing includes a preconditioning drive with the UDDS and a full FTP cycle, including exhaust measurement, followed by evaporative emission measurements. In the three

- day diurnal test sequence, the exhaust test is followed by a running loss test consisting of a UDDS, then two New York Cit y C yc les as specified in paragraph (f) of Appendix Iof 40 CFR part 86, followed by another UDDS; see 40 CFR 86.134
- 96. Note that the New York Cit y C yc le represents about 1.7 miles of driving in a city center. The running loss test is followed by a high

- temperature hot soak test as described in 40 CFR 86.138

- 96 and a three

- day diurnal emission test as described in 40 CFR 86.133
- 96. In the two

- day diurnal test sequence, the exhaust test is follo wed by a low

- temperature hot soak test as described in 40 CFR 86.138

- 96(k) and a two

- day diurnal emission test as described in 40 CFR 86.133

- 96(p). (iii) Refueling emission tests for vehicles that rel y on integrated control of diurnal and refueling emissi ons includes vehicle operation over the full FTP test cycle corresponding to the three

- day

diurnal test sequence to precondition and purge the evaporative canister. For non
- integrated s ys tems, there is a preconditioning drive over the UDDS and a refueling event, followed by repeated UDDS driving purge the evaporative canister. The refueling emission t est procedures are described in 40 CFR 86.150 through 86.157. (2) The Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP) measures the emission effects from aggressiv e driving and operation with the vehicle’s air conditioner. The SFTP is based on a composite of three different test elements. In addition to the FTP, vehicles generall y operate over the US06 and SC03 driving schedules as specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of Appendix Iof 40 CFR part 86, respectivel y. In the case of heav y - duty vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR and at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, SFTP testing involves additional driving over the LA

- 92 driving schedule specified in paragraph (c) of 40 C FR part 86, Appendix I , instead of the US06 driving schedule. Note that the US06 drivingPage 868 of 888

schedule represents about 8.0 miles of relatively aggressive driving; the SC03 driving schedule represents about 3.6 miles of urban driving with the air conditioner o perating; and the LA

- 92 driving schedule represents about 9.8 miles of relativel y aggressive driving for commercial trucks. See §§1066.820 and 1066.822. (3) The Highway

Fuel Economy

Test (HFET). The HFET is specified in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 600. No te that the HFET represents about 10.2 miles of rural and freeway driving with an average speed of 48.6 mph and a maximum speed of 60.0 mph. See §1066.839. (4) Cold

- temperature testing. Cold

- temperature standards appl y for CO and NMHC emissions when vehi cles operate over the FTP at a nominal temperature of

- 7 °C. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart C. (5) Emission measurement to determine air conditioning credits for greenhouse gas standards. In this optional procedure, manufacturers operate vehicles over repeat runs of the AC17 test sequence to allow for calculating credits as part of demonstrating compliance with CO 2 emission standards. The AC17 test sequence consists of a UDDS preconditioning drive, followed by emission measurements over the SC03 and HFET dri ving schedules. See §1066.835. (d) The following provisions apply for all testing: (1) Ambient temperatures encountered by the test vehicle must be (20 to 30) °C, unless otherwise specified. Where ambient temperature specifications appl y before or between test measurements, the vehicle may be exposed to temperatures outside of the specifie d range for up to 10 minutes to account for vehicle transport or other actions to prepare for testing. The temperatures monitored during testing must be representative of those experienced b y the test vehicle. For example, do not measure ambient temperat ures near a heat source. (2) Do not operate or store the vehicle at an incline if good engineering judgment indicates that it would affect emissions. (3) If a test is void after collecting emission data from previous test segments, the test may be repeated to collect only those data points needed to complete emission measurements. You may combine emission measurements from different test runs to demonstrate compliance with emission standards. (4) Prepare vehicles for testing as described in §1066.814. (e) The following figure illustrates the FTP test sequence for measuring exhaust and evaporative emissions:Page 869 of 888

Figure 1 of §1066.801

–FTP test sequence.

Fu el drai n an d f ill Veh ic le Soak Precon di ti on ing dri ve 1 h

ou r MAX Fu el drai n an d f ill Precon di ti on can is ter Precon di ti on can is ter Col d start ex ha us t test Col d start ex ha us t test 10 m inutes 10 m inutes Hot start ex

ha us t test Hot start ex ha us t test 1-5 h ou rs 7 m inutes MAX Runni ng lo ss test Hot so ak test

7 m inutes m ax 68 - 86 °F am bi en t Hot soak test 90- 100 °F am

bi en t Veh ic le soak Veh ic le soak Di ur na l em is si on test 2 h eat bu ild s i n 48 h ou rs Di ur na l em is si on test 3 h eat bu ild s i n 72 h ou rs 6-36 h

ou rs

12-36 h ou rs

1 h ou r
6-36 h ou rs 1 h ou r
6-36 h ou rs Sta rt

En d En d Diesel On ly

**§1066.810 Road load power, test weight, and inertia weight class determination.** (a) Simulate a vehicle’s test weight on the dyn amometer using the appropriate equivalent test weight shown in Table 1 of this section. Equivalent test weights are established according to each vehicle’s test weight basis, as described in paragraph (b) of this section. Table 1 also specifies the inertia weight class corresponding to each equivalent test weight; the inertia weight class allows for grouping vehicles with a range of equivalent test weights. Table 1 follows: Table 1 of §1066.810

–Equivalent test weights (pounds) Test weight basis Equivalent test

weight Inertia weight

class Up to 1062 1000 1000 1063 to 1187 1125 1000 1188 to 1312 1250 1250 1313 to 1437 1375 1250 1438 to 1562 1500 1500 1563 to 1687 1625 1500 1688 to 1812 1750 1750 1813 to 1937 1875 1750 1938 to 2062 2000 2000 2063 to 2187 2125 2000 2188 to 2312 2250 2250 2313 to 2437 2375 2250Page 870 of 888 2438 to 2562 2500 2500 2563 to 2687 2625 2500 2688 to 2812 2750 2750 2813 to 2937 2875 2750 2938 to 3062 3000 3000 3063 to 3187 3125 3000 3188 to 3312 3250 3000 3313 to 3437 3375 3500 3438 to 3562 3500 3500 3563 to 3687 3625 3500 3688 to 3812 3750 3500 3813 to 3937 3875 4000 3938 to 4125 4000 4000 4126 to 4375 4250 4000 4376 to 4625 4500 4500 4626 to 4875 4750 4500 4876 to 5125 5000 5000 5126 to 5375 5250 5000 5376 to 5750 5500 5500 5751 to 6250 6000 6000 6251 to 6750 6500 6500 6751 to 7250 7000 7000 7251 to 7750 7500 7500 7751 to 8250 8000 8000 8251 to 8750 8500 8500 8751 to 9250 9000 9000 9251 to 9750 9500 9500 9751 to 10250 10000 10000 10251 to 10750 10500 10500 10751 to 11250 11000 11000 11251 to 11750 11500 11500 11751 to 12250 12000 12000 12251 to 12750 12500 12500 12751 to 13250 13000 13000 13251 to 13750 13500 13500 13751 to 14000 14000 14000 (b) The test weight basis for non

- MDPV heavy

- duty vehicles is “adjusted loaded vehicle weight”. For all other vehicles, the test weight basis for establishing equivalent test weight is “loaded vehicle weight”. These load terms are defined in 40 CFR 86.1803. (c) For FTP and SFTP testing, determine road load forces for each test vehicle at speeds between 10 and 70 miles per hour. The road load force must represent vehicle operation on a smooth, level road with no wind or calm winds, no precipitation, an ambient temperature of approximately 20 °C, and atmospheric pressure of 98.21 kPa. You may extrapolate road load force for speeds below 10 mph. **§1066.814 Vehicle preparation.**  (a) Include additional fittings and adapters, as required, to accommodate a fuel drai n at the lowest point possible in the tank(s) as installed on the vehicle. (b) For preconditioning that involves loading an evaporative emission canister with butane, provide valving or other means as necessary to allow purging and loading of the canister. (c) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions (40 CFR 86.134), prepare the fuel tank for measuring temperature and pressure as specified in 40 CFR 86.107

– 98(e) and (f)Page 871 of 888

and 40 CFR 86.134. Vapor temperature measurement is optional during the running loss test. (d) For vehicles to be tested for running loss emissions, prepare the exhaust sy stem by sealing or plugging all detectable sources of exhaust gas leaks. Inspect or test the exhaust sy stem to ensure that there are no leaks that would cause exhaust hydrocarbon emissions to be detected as running losses. (e) The following provisions apply for preconditioning steps to reduce nonfuel emissions to normal vehicle background levels for vehicles subject to Tier 3 evaporative emission standards under 40 CFR 86.1813: (1) You must notify

us in advance if you plan to perform such preconditioning. This notice must include a detailed description of the intended procedures and any measurements or thresholds for determining when stabilization is complete. You need not repeat this notification for additional vehicle testing in the same or later model years as long as your preconditioning practice conforms to these procedures. (2) You may

precondition a vehicle as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section only within 12 months after the vehicle’s original date of manufacture, except that you may remove the spare tire for any testing. **§1066.820 Exhaust emission test procedures for FTP testing** 
. (a) General . The FTP exhaust emission test sequence consists o f a cold

- start test and a hot

- start test as described in §1066.801. (b) PM sampling options . Collect PM using an y of the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section and use the corresponding equation in §1066.822 to calculate FTP composite emissions. Testing must meet the requirements related to filter face velocity as described in 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi), except as specified in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. For procedures involving flow weighting, set the filter face velocity to a weighting target of 1.0 to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 1065.170(c)(1)(vi). Allow filter face velocity to decrease as a percentage of the weighting factor if the weighting factor is less than 1.0. Use the appropriate equations in § 1066.620 to show that you meet the dilution factor requirements of §1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B). (1) You may

collect a separate PM sample for transient and stabilized portions of the cold

- start UDDS and the hot

- start UDDS. This may either be done by

sampling w ith 3 bags or 4 bags. You may omit the stabilized portion of the hot

- start test (bag 4) and use the stabilized portion of the cold

- start test (bag 2) in its place. (2) You may

collect PM on one filter over the cold

- start UDDS and on a separate filter over the hot

- start UDDS. (3) You may

collect PM on one filter over the cold

- start UDDS (bag 1 and bag 2) and on a separate filter over the 867 seconds of the stabilized portion of the cold

- start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot

- start UDDS (bag 2 and b ag 3). Note that this option involves duplicate measurements during the stabilized portion of the cold

- start UDDS. (4) You may

collect PM on a single filter over the cold

- start UDDS and the first 505 seconds of the hot

- start UDDS. If you use this method, adjust your sampling s ys tem flow rate to weight the filter face velocity over the three intervals of the FTP based on weighting targets of 0.43 for bag 1, 1.0 for bag 2, and 0.57 for bag 3.Page 872 of 888

(5) You may

collect PM on a single filter over the cold

- start UDD S and the full hot

- start UDDS. If you use this method, adjust your sampling s ys tem flow rate to weight the filter face velocit y based on weighting targets of 0.75 for the cold

- start UDDS and 1.0 for the hot

- start UDDS. (c) Gaseous sampling options . Colle ct gaseous samples using an y of the following procedures: (1) You may

collect a single sample for a full UDDS (cold

- start or hot

- start). (2) You may

sample emissions separatel y for transient and stabilized portions of an y UDDS. (3) You may

omit the stabili zed portion of the hot

- start test (bag 4) and use the stabilized portion of the cold

- start test (bag 2) in its place. (4) You may

appl y the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section for an y gaseous batch measurement, consistent with good engineering judgment. (d) Test sequence . Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in §§1066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) Take the following steps for the cold

- start test: (i) Precondition the vehicle as described in 40 CFR 86.132. Initiate the cold

- start test following the 12 to 36 hour soak period. (ii) Start sampling and recording simultaneousl y with starting the vehicle. Fifteen seconds after the engine starts, place the transmission in g ear. Twent y seconds after the engine starts, begin the initial vehicle acceleration of the driving schedule. (iii) At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur 505 seconds into the cold

- start UDDS, simultaneously

switch all the sample flows from the cold

- start transient interval to the stabilized interval, stopping all cold

- start transient interval sampling and recording, including background sampling. Reset integrating devices for the stabilized interval and indicate the end of the cold

- start interv al in the recorded data. Operate the vehicle over the remainder of the UDDS. Turn the engine off 2 seconds after the end of the last deceleration in the stabilized interval (1,369 seconds after the start of the driving schedule). (iv) Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all stabilized interval sampling and recording, including background sampling. Stop any integrating devices for the stabilized interval and indicate the end of the stabilized interval in the recorded data. Note that the 5 s econd delay is intended to account for sampling s ys tem transport. (2) Take the following steps for the hot

- start test: (i) Initiate the hot

- start test (9 to 11) minutes after the end of the sample period for the cold

- start UDDS. (ii) Repeat the steps in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. Operate the vehicle over the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. At the end of the deceleration scheduled to occur 505 seconds into the hot

- start UDDS, turn off the engine and simultaneously stop all hot

- start sampling an d recording, including background sampling, and an y integrating devices. (iii) For tests that do not include bag 4 operation, turn the engine off. To include bag 4 measurement, operate the vehicles over the remainder of the UDDS and conclude the testing a s described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section. (3) This completes the procedure for measuring FTP exhaust emissions. See 40 CFR part 86, subpart B, and §1066.801 for continuing to evaporative or refueling tests.Page 873 of 888

**§1066.822 Composite cal culations for FTP exhaust emissions.**  (a) Determine the mass of exhaust emissions of each pollutant for each FTP test interval as described in §1066.610. (b) Calculate the final composite gaseous test results as a mass

- weighted value, e [emission]

- FTPcomp , i n grams per mile using the following equation:

c h [emission]-FTPcomp ct cs ht hs

0.43 0.57 m m e D D D D

   
              Eq. 1066.822
- 1 Where: m c = the combined mass emissions determined from the cold

- start UDDS test interval (generally known as bag 1 and bag 2), in grams. D ct = the measured driving distance from the transient portion of the cold

- start test (bag 1), in miles. D cs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized portion of the cold

- start test (bag 2), in miles. m h = the combined mass emissions determined from the hot

- start UDDS test interval in grams. This is the hot

- stabilized portion from either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, unless you measure bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3). D ht = the measured driving distance from the transient portion of the hot

- start test (bag 3), in miles. D hs = the measured driving distance from the stabilized portion of the hot

- start test (bag 4), in miles. Set D hs = D cs for testing where the hot

- stabilized portion of the UDDS is not run. (c) Calculate the final composite PM test results as a mass

- weighted value, e PM
- FTPcomp , in grams per mile as follows: (1) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in §1066.820(b)(1), (2), or (3):
PM-cUDDS PM- hUDDS PM- FTPcomp ct cs ht hs

0.43 0.57 m m e D D D D

   
             

Eq. 1066.822
- 2 Where: m PM
- cUDDS = the combined PM mass emissions determined from the cold

- start UDDS test interval (bag 1 and bag 2), in grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610

- 2. m PM
- hUDDS = the combined PM mass emissions determined from the hot

- start UDDS test interval (bag 3 and bag 4), in grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610

- 2. This is the hot

stabilized portion from either the first or second UDDS (bag 2, unless you measure bag 4), in addition to the hot transient portion (bag 3). (2) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in §1066.820(b)(4): 

##    

PM PM-FTPcomp ct cs ht

0.43 0.57

m e D D D

    

Eq. 1066.822
- 3 Where:Page 874 of 888

m PM = the combined PM mass emissions determined from the cold

- start UDDS tes t interval and the first 505 seconds of the hot

- start UDDS test interval (bag 1, bag 2, and bag 3), in grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610

- 3. (3) Use the following equation for PM measured as described in §1066.820(b)(5):



##    

PM PM-FTPcomp ct cs ht hs

0.43 0.57

m e D D D D

     

Eq . 1066.822
- 4 Where: m PM = the combined PM mass emissions determined from the cold

- start UDDS test interval and the hot

- start UDDS test interval (bag 1, bag 2, bag 3, and bag 4), in grams, as calculated using Eq. 1066.610

- 4. **§ 1066.830**  **Supplemental Federal Test Procedures; overview.**  Sections 1066.831 and 1066.832 describe the detailed procedures for the Supplemental Federal Test Procedure (SFTP). This testing applies for all vehicles subject to the SFTP standards in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. The SFTP test p rocedure consists of FTP testing and two additional test elements

— a sequence of vehicle operation with more aggressive driving and a sequence of vehicle operation that accounts for the impact of the vehicle’s air conditioner. (a) The SFTP standard applie s as a composite representing the three test elements. The emission results from the aggressive driving test element (§1066.831), the air conditioning test element (§1066.832), and the FTP test element (§1066. 820) are anal yz ed according to the calculatio n methodology and compared to the applicable SFTP emission standards as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. (b) The test elements of the SFTP may be run in any

sequence that includes the specified preconditioning steps. **§1066.831 Exhaust emission test**  **procedures for aggressive driving.** (a) This section describes how to test using the US06 or LA

- 92 driving schedule. The US06 driving schedule can be divided into two test intervals

—the US06 City cycle comprises the combined portions of the cycle from 1 t o 130 seconds and from 495 to 596 seconds, and the US06 Highway cycle comprises the portion of the cycle between 130 and 495 seconds. See §1066.801 for further information on the driving schedules. (b) Take the following steps to precondition vehicles for testing under this section: (1) Drain and refill the vehicle’s fuel tank(s) in any of the following cases: (i) For aggressive

- driving tests that do not follow FTP or HFET testing. (ii) For a test element that starts more than 72 hours after the most recent FTP or HFET measurement (with or without evaporative emission measurements). (iii) For testing in which the test vehicle has not remained in an area where ambient temperatures were within the range specified for testing since the previous FTP or HFET. (2 ) Keep ambient temperatures within the ranges specified for test measurements throughout the preconditioning sequence. (3) Warm up the vehicle to a stabilized condition as follows: (i) Push or drive the vehicle onto the dynamometer. (ii) Operate the vehicle one time over one of the driving schedules specified in this paragraph (b)(3)(iii). You may ask us to use a particular preconditioning drivingPage 875 of 888

schedule if that is related to fuel effects on adaptive memory s ys tems. For our testin g, we will generall y operate the vehicle over the same preconditioning cycle that will be used for testing in this section. You may exercise your sampling equipment, but you may not determine emissions results during preconditioning. Choose from the foll owing driving schedules: (A) The first 505 seconds of the UDDS (bag 1) (B) The last 866 seconds of the UDDS (bag 2). (C) The HFET driving schedule. (D) US06 driving schedule or, for heav y - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR, just the highway

portion of the US06 driving schedule. (E) The SC03 driving schedule. (F) The LA

- 92 driving schedule. (4) Allow the vehicle to idle for (1 to 2) minutes. This leads directl y into the test measurements described in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) For testing inv olving the full US06 driving schedule, you may collect emissions from separate cit y and highway test intervals (see 40 CFR part 600), or you may collect emissions over the full US06 driving schedule as a single test interval. Take the following steps for to measure emissions over separate city and highway

test intervals: (1) At 130 seconds, simultaneously stop all US06 City , and start all US06 Highway sampling, recording, and integrating (including background sampling). At 136 seconds (before the acceleration), record the measured dy namometer roll revolutions. (2) At 495 seconds, simultaneously stop all US06 Highway , and start all US06 City sampling, recording, and integrating (including background sampling). At 500 seconds (before the acceleration), record the measured dy namometer roll revolutions. (3) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, treat the emissions from the first and second portions of the US06 City test interval as a single sample. (4) I f you collect gaseous emissions over separate city and highway

test intervals, you may still collect PM over the full US06 driving schedule as a single test interval. If y ou do this, calculate a composite dilution factor based on city and highway

emissions using Eq. 1066.620
- 4 to show that you meet the dilution factor requirements of §1066.110(b)(2)(iii)(B). (d) For diesel

- fueled vehicles, measure THC emissions on a continuous basis as described in 40 CFR part 1065. For separate measurement of the city and highway

test intervals as described in paragraph (c) of this section, perform separate calculations for each portion of the test cycle. (f) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in §§1066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following exceptions and additional provisi ons: (1) Following the preconditioning specified in §1066.830, place the vehicle in gear and simultaneously

start sampling and recording. Begin the first acceleration 5 seconds after placing the vehicle in gear. (2) Operate the vehicle over the full US06 driving schedule, except as follows: (i) For heav y - dut y vehicles above 10,000 pounds GVWR, operate the vehicle over the LA
- 92 driving schedule. (ii) Heav y - dut y vehicles at or below 10,000 pounds GVWR may be certified using onl y the highway

portion of the U S06 driving schedule. See 40 CFR 86.1816.Page 876 of 888

(3) Turn the engine off 2 seconds before the end of the driving schedule. Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all sampling and recording, including background sampling. Stop any

integrating device s and indicate the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. (4) Correct calculated NO x emissions as described in §1066.630(a)(1). **§1066.832 Exhaust emission test procedure for SC03 emissions.**  This section describes how to test using the SC03 driving s chedule (see §1066.801). This procedure is designed to determine gaseous exhaust emissions while simulating an urban trip on a hot summer day . The provisions of 40 CFR part 86 and 40 CFR part 600 waive SC03 testing for some vehicles; in those cases, cal culate SFTP composite emissions by

adjusting the weighting calculation as specified in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S. (a) Keep the vehicle in an environment meeting the conditions described in paragraph (e) of this section throughout the preconditioning seque nce. (b) Warm up the vehicle to a stabilized condition as follows: (1) Push or drive the test vehicle onto the dynamometer. (2) Operate the test vehicle one time over the first 505 seconds of the UDDS (bag 1), the last 867 seconds of the UDDS (bag 2), or the SC03 driving schedule. If the air conditioning test sequence starts more than 2 hours after a different exhaust emission test, yo u may instead operate the vehicle one time over the full UDDS. (3) Following the preconditioning drive, turn off the te st vehicle and the vehicle cooling fan(s) and allow the vehicle to soak for (9 to 11) minutes. (c) Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in §§1066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) Close the vehicle’s windows before testing. (2) The test cell and equipment must meet the specifications in paragraph (d) of this section. Measure and control ambient conditions as specified in paragraph (e) of this section. (3) Set the vehicle’s air conditioning controls by selecting A/C mode and “maximum”, setting airflow to “recirculate” (if so equipped), selecting the highest fan setting, and turning the A/C temperature to full cool (or 72 °F for automatic s ys tems). Turn the control to the “on” po sition before testing so the air conditioning s ys tem is active whenever the engine is running. (4) Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine starting. Follow the SC03 driving schedule. (5) Turn the engine off 2 seconds before the end of the driv ing schedule. Five seconds after the engine stops running, stop all sampling and recording, including background sampling. Stop any

integrating devices any

indicate the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. Note that the 5 second delay is intended to account for sampling s ys tem transport. (6) Correct calculated NO x emissions as described in §1066.630(a)(2). (d) The following requirement apply for the test cell and cooling fan configuration: (1) Minimum test cell size . The test cell must be at least 20 feet wide, 40 feet long, and 10 feet high, unless we approve the use of a smaller test cell. We will approve this onlyPage 877 of 888

if you demonstrate that the smaller test cell is capable of meeting all the requirements of this sec tion. (2) Vehicle frontal air flow
. Verify that the fan configuration meets the requirements of §1066.105(c)(3) before each test. (e) Maintain ambient conditions as follows: (1) Ambient temperature . Measure and record ambient temperature in the test cell at least once every

30 seconds during the sampling period. Control ambient temperature during emission sampling to 3 5.0 ±3.0 °C throughout the test and (33.6 to 36.4) °C on average. (2) Ambient humidity . Measure and record ambient humidity in the test cell at least once every 30 seconds during the sampling period. Control ambient humidity during emission sampling as described in §1066.425(d). (3) Conditions before and after testing
. Use good engineering judgment to demonstrate that you meet the speci fied instantaneous temperature and humidity tolerances in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section at all times before and between emission measurements. (4) Solar heat load
. Simulate solar heating as follows: (i) You may

use a metal halide lamp, a sodium lamp, or a quartz halogen lamp with dichroic mirrors as a radiant energy emitter. We may

also approve the use of a different ty pe of radiant energy

emitter if you demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this section. (ii) We recommend achieving ra diant heating with spectral distribution characteristics as described in the following table: Table 1 of §1066.832

–Recommended Spectral Distribution Band width (nm) Percent of total spectrum Lo wer limit (%) Upper limit (%) <320 a

— 0 320

–400 0 7 400

–780 45 55 >780 35 53
a Note that you may need to filter the UV region between 280 and 320 nm. (iii) Determine radiant energy intensity experienced by

the vehicle as the average value between two measurements along the vehicle’s centerline, one at the base of the windshield and the other at the bottom of the rear window (or equivalent location for vehicles without a rear window). This value must be 850 ±45 W/m 2 . Instruments for measuring radiant energy intensity must meet the following minimum spe cifications: (A) Sensitivity

of 9 microvolts per W/m 2

. (B) Response time of 5 seconds. For purposes of this requirement, “response time” means the time for the instrument to reach 95 percent of its equilibrium response after a step change in radiant inten sity
. (C) L inearit y of ± 0.5 %. (D) Cosine response error of no more than ± 1 % for 0

– 70 degree zenith angles. The cosine response error is the percentage difference between the intensity measured at a given angle and the intensity predicted from the zero

- degree intensit y and the cosine of the incident angle.Page 878 of 888

(iv) Check the uniformity of radiant energy

intensity at least every

500 hours of emitter usage or every

6 months, whichever is sooner, and after any major modifications affecting the solar simulation . Determine uniformity by measuring radiant energy intensity as described in paragraph (e)(4)(iii) of this section at each point of a 0.5 m grid over the vehicle’s full footprint, including the edges of the footprint, at an elevation 1 m above the floor. Measured values of radiant energy intensity must be between (722 and 978) W/m 2 at all points. **§1066.835 AC17 air conditioning efficiency test procedure.**  (a) Overview
. This section describes a voluntary procedure for measuring the net impact of air condi tioner operation on CO 2 emissions. See 40 CFR 86.1868 for provisions describing how to use these procedures to calculate credits and otherwise comply with emission standards. (b) Test cell . Operate the vehicle in a test cell meeting the specifications described in §86.832(d). You may

add airflow up to at a maximum of 4 miles per hour during engine idling and when the engine is off if that is needed to meet ambient temperature or humidity requirements. (c) Ambient conditions . Measure and control ambient conditions as specified in §86.832(e), except that you must control ambient temperature during emission sampling to 2 5.0 ±3.0 °C throughout the test and (23.6 to 26.4) °C on average. Note that solar heating is disabled for certain test intervals as desc ribed in this section. (d) Interior air temperature measurement
. Measure and record the vehicle’s interior air temperature at least once every 5 seconds during the sampling period. Measure temperature at the outlet of the center

- most duct on the dashboar d and approximately 30 mm behind the driver and passenger’s headrests. (e) Air conditioning s ys tem settings . For testing that requires the air conditioning to be operating, set the vehicle’s air conditioning controls as follows: (1) For automatic s ys tem s, set the temperature control to 72 °F. (2) For manual s ys tems, select A/C mode and “maximum”, set airflow to “recirculate” (if so equipped), and select the highest fan setting. During the first idle period of the SC03 driving schedule (between 186 and 2 04 seconds), reduce the fan speed to nominally 50 % of maximum fan speed, set airflow to “fresh air” (if so equipped), and adjust the temperature setting to target a temperature of 55° F at the dashboard air outlet. (f) Test procedure . Follow the exhaust e mission measurement procedures specified in §§1066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (1) Prepare the vehicle for testing according to 40 CFR 86.132

- 00 (a) through (g). (2) Open the vehicle’s windows and o perate the vehicle over a preconditioning UDDS with no solar heating and with the air conditioning off. At the end of the preconditioning drive, turn off the test vehicle and all cooling fans. (3) Turn on solar heating within one minute after turning of f the engine. Once the solar energy intensit y reaches 805 W/m2 , let the vehicle soak for 30 ±1 minutes. You may alternativel y rel y on prior measurements to start the soak period after a defined period of warming up to the specified solar heat load. Clos e the vehicle’s windows at the start of the soak period; ensure that the windows are adequately closed where instrumentation and wiring pass through to the interior.Page 879 of 888

(4) Turn the air conditioning control to the “on” position before testing so the air condi tioning sy stem is active whenever the engine is running. Follow the SC03 driving schedule. Place the vehicle in gear 15 seconds after engine starting. At the end of the driving schedule, simultaneously switch all the sampling, recording, and integrating from SC03 to HFET, including background sampling. Indicate the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. Record the measured dynamometer roll revolutions corresponding to the SC03 driving schedule. (5) Directly

following the SC03 driving schedule, ope rate the vehicle over the HFET driving schedule. Turn the vehicle off at the end of the driving schedule and simultaneously

stop all sampling, recording, and integrating, including background sampling. Indicate the end of the test cycle in the recorded d ata. Record the measured dy namometer roll revolutions corresponding to the HFET drive schedule. Turn off the solar heating. (6) Allow the vehicle to remain on the dy namometer for (10 to 15) minutes after emission sampling has concluded. Repeat the testi ng described in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section, but leave the vehicle’s windows open and turn off the vehicle’s air conditioner and the solar heating throughout the test run. (g) Calculations . (1) Determine the mass of CO 2 emissions for eac h of the two test intervals as described in §1066.610. (2) Calculate the composite mass

- weighted emissions of CO 2 , e [CO2]
- AC17comp , representing the average of the SC03 and HFET emissions, in grams per mile using the following equation:
SC 03 HFET CO 2- AC17comp SC03 HFET

0.5 0.5 m m e D D

   
       

    Eq. 1066.835
- 1 Where: m SC03 = mass emissions from the SC03 test interval, in grams. m HFET = mass emissions from the HFET test interval, in grams. D SC03 = measured driving distance during the SC03 test interval, in miles. D HFET = measured driving distance during the HFET test interval, in miles. (h) Recordkeeping . In addition to the information specified in §1066.695, you must record the following information for each vehicle tested: interior volume, climate control sy stem t ype an d characteristics, refrigerant used, compressor ty pe, and evaporator/condenser characteristics. **§1066.839 Highway fuel economy test procedure.** This section describes the procedure for the highway fuel econom y test (HFET). This test involves emission sampling and fuel economy measurement for certain vehicles as described in 40 CFR part 86, subpart S, and in 40 CFR part 600. See §1066.801 for further information on the driving schedules. Follow the exhaust emission measurement procedures specified in §§1 066.410 through 1066.430, subject to the following exceptions and additional provisions: (a) Perform the HFET immediately following the FTP when this is practical. I f the HFET procedure starts more than 3 hours after an FTP (including evaporative emissio nPage 880 of 888

measurements, if applicable), operate it over one UDDS to precondition the vehicle. We may approve additional preconditioning in unusual circumstances. (b) Operate the vehicle over the HFET driving schedule for preconditioning. Allow the vehicle to idl e for 15 seconds (with the vehicle in gear), then start a repeat run of the HFET driving schedule and simultaneously start sampling and recording. (c) Turn the engine off at the end of the HFET driving schedule and stop all sampling and recording, includ ing background. Stop any integrating devices and indicate the end of the test cycle in the recorded data. **§1066.840 Fuel storage system leak test procedure.** (a) Scope . Perform this test as required in the standard

- setting part to verify that there are n o significant leaks in your fuel storage s ys tem. (b) Measurement principles . Leaks are detected by measuring pressure, temperature, and flow to calculate an equivalent orifice diameter for the sy stem. Use good engineering judgment to develop and implement leak test equipment. Your leak test equipment must meet the following requirements: (1) Pressure, temperature, and flow sensors must be calibrated with NIST

- traceable standards. (2) Correct flow measurements to standard reference conditions. (3) Leak test equipment must have the ability to pressurize fuel storage s ys tems to at least 4.1 kPa and have an internal leak rate of less than 0.20 standard liters per minute. (4) You must be able to attach the test equipment to the vehicle without permanent alte ration of the fuel storage or evaporative emission control sy stems. (5) The point of attachment to the fuel storage s ys tem must allow pressurization to test sy stem integrit y of the fuel tank and of fuel lines and vapor lines reaching up to and including th e gas cap and the evaporative canister. The evaporative s ys tem test port available on some vehicles is an example of an effective attachment point. (c) Leak test procedure . Test a vehicle’s fuel storage s ys tem for leaks as follows: (1) Refuel vehicle to 40 % of its nominal fuel tank capacity
. (2) Soak the vehicle for 6 to 24 hours at a temperature between (20 and 30) °C; record this setpoint temperature and maintain temperatures throughout the leak test at this setpoint temperature within a tolerance ± 2 °C. (3) Before performing the test, purge the fuel storage s ys tem of an y residual pressure, bringing the s ys tem into equilibrium with ambient pressure. (4) Seal the evaporative canister’s vent to atmosphere and ensure that the vehicle’s purge valve is clos ed. (5) Attach the leak test equipment to the vehicle. (6) Pressurize the fuel storage s ys tem with N 2 or another inert gas to at least 2.4 kPa. Use good engineering judgment to avoid overpressurizing the s ys tem. (7) Maintain gas flow through the s ys tem fo r at least 180 seconds, ensuring that the flow reading is stable for an effective leak diameter of ± 0.002 inches. (8) Use the following equation, or a different equation you develop based on good engineering judgment, to calculate the effective leak diame ter, D eff:Page 881 of 888 

##     0.5057

gas eff 1 2 1 2 7.844 V D p p p p

G T    

 

  

   Where: D eff = effective leak diameter, in inches. V gas = volumetric flow of gas, in m 3 /s. p 1 = inlet pressure to orifice, in kPa. p 2 = atmospheric pressure, in kPa. G = specific gravit y of N 2 at atmospheric pressure and 15.5 °C T = temperature of flowing medium, in K. (9) You may

perform any

number of replicate tests, but all the tests for a vehicle must use the same attachment point. The average value of replicate tests is the official result for a given vehicle. (10) You may

use special or alternative test procedures as described in 40 CFR 1065.10(c). (d) Equipment calibration . Use good engineering judgment to calibrate the leak check device. **Subpart J**

**— [Reserved]**  **Subpart K**

**— Definitions and**  **Other Reference Material §1066.1001 Definitions.**  The definitions in this section apply to this part. The definitions apply to all subparts unless we note otherwise. Other terms have the meaning given in 40 CFR part 1065. The definitions follow: Bag 1 means relating to the first 505 s of the FTP cold

- start test interval. Note that the term bag 1 may

also apply

to measurement of constituents that are not collected in a bag, such as PM and continuously measured THC. Bag 2 means relating to the last 867 s of the FTP cold

- start test interval. Bag 3 means relating to the first 505 s of the FTP hot

- start test interval. Bag 4 means relating to the last 867 s of the FTP hot

- start test interval, if run. Note that bag 2 is generally used in place of bag 4. Base inertia means a value expressed in mass units to represent the rotational inertia of the rotating dyn amometer components between the vehicle driving tires and the dy namometer torque - measuring device, as specified in §1066.250. C 1 - equivalent means a convention of expressing HC concentrations based on the total number of carbon atoms present, such that the C 1 - equivalent of an HC concentration equals the concentration multiplied by the mean number of carbon atoms in each HC molecule. For example, the C 1 - equivalent of 10 ppm of propane (C 3 H 8 ) is 30 ppm. C 1 - equivalent concentration values may be denoted as “ppmC” in the standard

- setting part. Densities may

also be expressed on a C 1 basis. Note that calculating HC masses from concentrations and densitie s is only valid where they

are each expressed on the same carbon basis.Page 882 of 888 Driving schedule means a series of vehicle speeds that a vehicle must follow during a test. Driving schedules are specified in the standard

- setting part. A driving schedule may

consi st of multiple test intervals. Duty cycle means a set of weighting factors and the corresponding test cycles, where the weighting factors are used to combine the results of multiple test intervals into a composite result. FTP means one of the following: ( 1) The test cycle consisting of one UDDS as specified in paragraph (a) of Appendix Iof 40 CFR part 86, followed by a 10
- minute soak with the engine off and repeat driving through the first 505 seconds of the UDDS. See §1066.801(c)(1). (2) The entire test procedure for measuring exhaust and/or evaporative emissions as described in §1066.801(c). Footprint has the meaning given in the standard

- setting part. HFET means the test cycle specified in Appendix I of 40 CFR part 600. LA
- 92 means the test cycle spe cified in Appendix I, paragraph (c), of 40 CFR part 86. Nonmethane organic gas (NMOG) means the combination of organic gases other than methane as calculated in §1066.665. Note that for this part, the organic gases are summed on a mass basis without any a djustment for photochemical reactivity
. Parts
- per - million (ppm) means ppm on a molar basis. For h ydrocarbon concentrations including HC, THC, NMHC, and NMOG, ppm means ppm on a C 1 - equivalent molar basis. Road

- load coefficients means sets of A, B, and C road

- load force coefficients that are used in the dyn amometer road

- load simulation, where road

- load force at speed v equals A + B ∙ v + C ∙ v2

. SC03 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (h), of 40 CFR part 86. SF TP means the collection of test cycles as given in 1066.801(c)(2). Standard reference conditions means the following: (1) Pressure at 101.325 kPa. (2) Temperature at 293.15 K. Test interval means a period over which a vehicle’s emission rates are determi ned separately . For man y standards, compliance with the standard is based on a weighted average of the mass emissions from multiple test intervals. For example, the standard

setting part may

specify a complete dut y c ycl e as a cold

- start test interval and a hot

- start test interval. In cases where multiple test intervals occur over a duty c yc le, the standard

setting part may

specify additional calculations that weight and combine results to arrive at composite values for comparison against the applicable s tandards. Test weight has the meaning given in §1066.810. UDDS means the test cycle specified in Appendix I , paragraph (a), of 40 CFR part 86. US06 means the test cycle specified in Appendix I, paragraph (g), of 40 CFR part 86. Unloaded coastdown means a d ynamometer coastdown run with the vehicle wheels removed from the roll surface.Page 883 of 888 We (us, our) means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and an y authorized representatives. **§1066.1005 Symbols, abbreviations, acronyms, and units of measure.**  The procedures in this part generally follow either the International S ys tem of Units (SI) or the United States customary units, as detailed in NI ST Special Publication 811, which we incorporate b y reference in §1066.1010. See 40 CFR 1065.20 for specific provisions related to these conventions. This section summarizes the way we use sy

mbols, units of measure, and other abbreviations. (a) Sy mbols for quantities . This part uses the following s ymbols and units of measure for various quantities: Sym bol Quantity Unit Unit symbol Unit in terms of SI base units α atomic hydrogen to carbon ratio mole per mole mol/mol 1 a acceleration feet per second squared or meters per second squared ft/s 2 or m/s 2 m ∙s - 2 β atomic oxygen to carbon ratio mole per mole mol/mol 1 c conversion factor C d discharge coefficient d diameter meters m m DF dilution factor 1 e mass weighted emission result grams/mile g/mi F force pound force or newton lbf or N kg ∙s - 2 f frequency hertz Hz s - 1 I inertia pound mass or kilogram lbm or kg kg I current am pere A A i indexing variable m mass pound mass or kilogram lbm or kg kg N total number in series n total number of pulses in a series ρ mass density kilogram per cubic meter kg/m3 kg ∙m- 3 R dynamometer roll revolutions revolutions per minute rpm 2 ∙ π ∙60 - 1 ∙ m·m- 1 ·s - 1 Re # Reynolds number Q flow cubic feet or cubic meter Q  flow rate cubic feet per minute or cubic meter per second p pressure pascal Pa m - 1 ∙kg∙s - 2 T Celsius temperature degree Celsius ° C K

– 273.15 T torque (moment of force) newton meter N ∙m m2 ∙kg∙s - 2 t time second s s Δt time interval, period, 1/frequency second s s U voltage volt V m2 ∙kg∙s - 3 ∙A - 1
v speed miles per hour or meters per second mph or m/s m ∙s - 1 VP volume percent
x mass of emission over a test

interval kilogram kg kg y generic variable (b) Sy mbols for chemical species . This part uses the following s ymbols for chemical species and exhaust constituents: Symbol Species CH 4 methane CO carbon monoxidePage 884 of 888 CO 2 carbon dioxide NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbon NMHCE nonmethane hydrocarbon equivalent NMOG nonmethane organic gas NO nitric oxide NO 2 nitrogen dioxide NO x oxides of nitrogen N 2 O nitrous oxide O 2 molecular oxygen OHC oxygenated hydrocarbon PM particulate matter THC total hydrocarbon THCE total hydrocarbon equivalent (c) Superscripts . This part uses the following superscripts to define a quantity : Superscript Quantity overbar (such as y ) arithmetic mean (d) Subscripts . This part uses the following subscripts to define a quantity :

Subscript Quantity abs absolute quantity act actual or measured condition actint actual or measured condition over the speed interval atmos atmospheric b base c coastdown comp composite cor corrected dexh dilute exhaust quantity dil dilute e effective emission emission specie error error exh raw exhaust quantity exp expected quantity fil filter final final flow flow measurement device type i an individual of a series int intake init initial quantity, typically before an emission test max the maximum (i.e. peak) value expected at the standard over a test

interval; not the maximum of an instrument range meas measured quantity ref reference quantity rev revolution roll dynamometer roll s settling sat saturated condition span span quantity std standard conditions test test quantity uncor uncorrected quantity w weighted zero zero quantityPage 885 of 888

(e) Other acrony

ms and abbreviations . This part uses the following additional abbreviations and acron yms:

A/C air conditioning ALVW adjusted loaded vehicle weight CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFV critical

- flow venturi CVS constant - volume sampler EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETW equivalent test weight EV electric vehicle FID flame

- ionization detector FTP Federal test procedure GC gas chromatograph GHG greenhouse gas (including CO 2 , N 2 O, and CH 4 ) GVWR gross vehicle weight rating HEV hybrid electric vehicle HFET highway fuel economy test HLDT heavy light

- duty truck HPLC high pressure liquid chromatography IBR incorporated by reference MDPV medium

- duty passenger vehicle NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology PD P positive

- displacement pump PHEV plug

- in hybrid electric vehicle PM particulate matter RESS rechargeable energy storage system SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SC03 air conditioning driving schedule SEA selective enforcement audit SFTP supplemental federal test procedure SSV subsonic venturi UDDS urban dynamometer driving cycle US06 aggressive driving schedule U.S.C. United States Code (f) This part uses the following densities of chemical species: Symbol Quantity 1,2 g/m3 g/ft 3 ρ CH4 density of methane 666.905 18.8847 ρ CH3OH density of methanol 1332.02 37.7185 ρ C2H5OH C 1 - equivalent density of ethanol 957.559 27.1151 ρ C2H4O C 1 - equivalent density of acetaldehyde 915.658 25.9285 ρ C3H8 density of propane 611.035 17.3026 ρ C3H7OH C 1 - equivalent density of propanol 832.74 23.5806 ρ CO density of carbon monoxide 1164.41 32.9725 ρ CO2 density of carbon dioxide 1829.53 51.8064 ρ HC
- gas effective density of hydrocarbon

- gaseous fuel 3 (see 3) (see 3) ρ HCHO density of formaldehyde 1248.21 35.3455 ρ HC
- liq effective density of hydrocarbon

- liquid fuel 4 576.816 16.3336 ρ NMHC
- gas effective density of nonmethane hydrocarbon

- gaseous fuel 3 (see 3) (see 3) ρ NMHC
- liq effective density of nonmethane hydrocarbon

- liquid fuel 4 576.816 16.3336 ρ NMHCE
- gas effective density of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon

-

gaseous fuel 3 (see 3) (see 3) ρ NMHCE
- liq effective density of nonmethane equivalent hydrocarbon

-

liquid fuel 4 576.816 16.3336Page 886 of 888 ρ NOx effective density of oxides of nitrogen 5 1912.5 54.156 ρ N2O density of nitrous oxide 1829.66 51.8103 1 Densities are given at 20 °C and 101.325 kPa. 2 Densities for all hydrocarbon containing quantities are given in kg/m3

- carbon atom and g/ft 3

- carbon atom. 3 The effective density for natural gas fuel and liquefied petroleum gas fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio,  , of the hydrocarbon components of the test fuel. ρ HCgas = 0.04157 ∙(12.011 + (  ∙1.008)). 4 The effective density for gasoline and diesel fuel are defined by an atomic hydrogen

- to - carbon ratio,  , of 1.85. 5 The effective density of NO x is defined by the molar mass of nitrogen dioxide, NO 2 . (g) Constants . (1) This part uses the following constants for the composition of dry air: Symbol Quantity mol/mol xArair amount of argon in dry air 0.00934 x CO2air amount of carbon dioxide in dry air 0.000375 x N2ai r amount of nitrogen in dry air 0.78084 x O2ai r amount of oxygen in dry air 0.209445 (2) This part uses the following molar masses or effective molar masses of chemical species: Symbol Quantity g/mol (10 - 3 ·kg·mol - 1 ) M ai r molar mass of dry air 1 28.96559 M H2O molar mass of water 18.01528 1 See paragraph (g)(1) of this section for the composition of dry air. (h) Prefixes . This part uses the following prefixes to define a quantit y: Symbol Quantity Value  micro 10 - 6 m milli 10 - 3 c centi 10 - 2 k kilo 10 3 M mega 10 6 **§1066.1010 Reference materials.** (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce an y edition other than that specified in this section, the Environmental Protection Agency must publish a notice of the change in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 202

- 1744, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202

– 741

– 6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html. (b) Societ y of Automotive Engin eers, 400 Commonwealth Dr., Warrendale, PA 15096

– 0001, (877) 606

– 7323 (U.S. and Canada) or (724) 776

–4970 (outside the U.S. and Canada), http://www.sae.org.Page 887 of 888

(1) SAE J1263, Road L oad Measurement and Dynamometer Simulation Using Coastdown Techniques, Revise d March 2010, IBR approved for §§1066.301(b) and 1066.310(b). (2) SAE J1634, Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure, Revised October 2012, IBR approved for §1066.501. (3) SAE J1711, Recommended Practice for Measuring the Exhaust Emiss ions and Fuel Economy of Hy brid

- Electric Vehicles, Including Plug

- In Hy brid Vehicles, Revised June 2010, IBR approved for §§1066.122 and 1066.501. (4) SAE J2263, Road L oad Measurement Using Onboard Anemometry and Coastdown Techniques, Revised December 2008 , IBR approved for §§1066.301(b) and 1066.310(b). (5) SAE J2264, Chassis Dy namometer Simulation of Road Load Using Coastdown Techniques, Issued April 1995, IBR approved for §1066.320. (6) SAE J2711, Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Econom y and Emiss ions of Hy brid

- Electric and Conventional Heavy

- Duty Vehicles, Issued September 2002, IBR approved for §1066.501.Page 888 of 888

**Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards**  **Page 1002 of 1002** (7) SAE J2951, Drive Quali ty Evaluation for Chassis Dy namometer Testing, Revised November 2011, IBR approved for §1066.430. (c) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899

- 1070, (301) 975

- 6478, www.nist.gov, or inquiries@nis t.gov. (1) NIST Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition, Guide for the Use of the International Sy stem of Units (SI), March 2008, IBR approved for §§1066.20(a) and 1066.1005. (2) [Reserved]
Dated: _______________________

_____________________________________________________ Bob Perciasepe Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency