Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36135 

Dated: June 11, 2013. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14321 Filed 6–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1039, 

1042, 1048, 1054, 1065, 1066, 1068 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0102; FRL 9772–2] 

RIN 2060–AR48 

Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle, and 

Nonroad Technical Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend 

provisions in the Medium- and HeavyDuty Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Fuel Efficiency final rule issued on 

September 15, 2011. These proposed 

amendments would eliminate 

duplicative reporting requirements, 

reduce inadvertent minor differences 

between the EPA and NHTSA programs 

regarding such matters as voluntary 

early model year compliance, better 

align testing procedures to market 

realities, and reduce unnecessary testing 

burdens. EPA is also proposing to 

amend several regulations by: Adjusting 

the provisions of the replacement 

engine exemption; expanding EPA’s 

discretion to allow greater flexibility 

under the Transition Program for 

Equipment Manufacturers related to the 

Tier 4 standards for nonroad diesel 

engines; specifying multiple versions of 

the applicable SAE standard for 

demonstrating that fuel lines for 

nonroad spark-ignition engines above 19 

kilowatts meet permeation 

requirements; and allowing for the use 

of the ethanol-based test fuel specified 

by the California Air Resources Board 

for nonroad spark-ignition engines at or 

below 19 kilowatts. Some of the 

individual provisions of this action may 

have minor impacts on the costs and 

emission reductions of the underlying 

regulatory programs amended in this 

action, though in most cases these are 

simple technical amendments. For those 

provisions that may have a minor 

impact on the costs or benefits of the 

amended regulatory program, any 

potential impacts would be small and 

we have not attempted to quantify the 

potential changes. 

DATES: Comments on all aspects of this 

proposal must be received on or before 

July 17, 2013. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section on ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ for more information 

about written comments. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0102, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Docket, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0102. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0102. See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section on ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ for additional 

instructions on submitting written 

comments. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., information claimed as 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the EPA Docket 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 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela Cullen, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, 

Assessment and Standards Division, 

2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, 

Michigan 48105; telephone number: 

734–214–4419; email address: 

cullen.angela@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposed action would affect 

companies that manufacture, sell, or 

import into the United States new 

heavy-duty engines and new Class 2b 

through 8 vehicles, including 

combination tractors, school and transit 

buses, vocational vehicles such as 

utility service trucks, as well as 3⁄4-ton 

and 1-ton pickup trucks and vans. The 

heavy-duty category incorporates all 

motor vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating of 8,500 pounds or greater, 

and the engines that power them, except 

for medium-duty passenger vehicles 

already covered by the greenhouse gas 

emissions standards and corporate 

average fuel economy standards issued 

for light-duty model year 2012–2016 

vehicles (75 FR at 25324, May 7, 2010). 

This proposed action also would 

affect nonroad engine manufacturers. 

Regulated categories and entities 

would include the following: 

Category NAICS Code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ......................................................................... 336111 

336112 

333618 

336120 

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Engine and Truck Manufacturers. 

Industry ......................................................................... 541514 

811112 

811198 

Commercial Importers of Vehicles and Vehicle Components. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36136 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Category NAICS Code a Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ......................................................................... 336111 

336112 

422720 

454312 

541514 

541690 

811198 

336510 

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Converters. 

Industry ......................................................................... 811310 Engine Repair, Remanufacture, and Maintenance. 

Note: 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely 

covered by this proposed rule. This 

table lists the types of entities that the 

agency is aware may 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 by 

this proposed action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in the referenced regulations. 

You may direct questions regarding the 

applicability of this proposed action to 

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

Direct your comments to Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0102. 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 any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

(1) Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified in the DATES section 

above. 

(2) How do I submit confidential 

business information? 

Do not submit CBI to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a 

disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

as CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

(3) Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

EPA will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

practicable, we will also consider 

comments received after that date. If 

interested persons believe that any new 

information the agency places in the 

docket affects their comments, they may 

submit comments after the closing date 

concerning how the agency should 

consider that information for the final 

rule. However, the agency’s ability to 

consider any such late comments in this 

rulemaking will be limited due to the 

time frame for issuing the final rule. 

If a comment is received too late for 

us to practicably consider in developing 

the final rule, we will consider that 

comment as an informal suggestion for 

future rulemaking action. 

(4) How can I read the comments 

submitted by other people? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the dockets for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

EPA Docket Center by going to the street 

addresses given above under 

ADDRESSES. 

I. Direct Final Rule 

In addition to this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, EPA is also publishing a 

Direct Final Rule (DFR) addressing 

provisions described in Sections III and 

IV of this document. We are doing this 

to expedite the regulatory process to 

allow the amendments to occur as soon 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36137 

1See U.S. EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/climate/regs-heavy-duty.htm. 

2Hicks, M. and A. Cullen. Memorandum to 

Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0102. Heavy-Duty 

Engine and Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Fuel Consumption Regulatory Changes. May 2013. 

as possible. However, if we receive 

relevant adverse comment on distinct 

elements of any of the provisions in this 

proposal by July 17, 2013, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register indicating which 

provisions we are withdrawing. Any 

provisions of the DFR that are not 

withdrawn will become effective on 

August 16, 2013, notwithstanding 

adverse comment on any other 

provision. We will address all public 

comments in the final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 

As noted above, EPA is publishing the 

DFR to expedite the regulatory process 

to allow engine and vehicle 

certifications and engine replacements 

to occur as soon as possible according 

to the clarified regulations. We request 

that commenters identify in your 

comments any portions of the proposed 

action described in Sections II and III 

below with which you agree and 

support as proposed, in addition to any 

comments regarding suggestions for 

improvement or provisions with which 

you disagree. In the case of a comment 

that is otherwise unclear whether it is 

adverse, EPA would interpret relevant 

comments calling for more flexibility or 

less restrictions for engines or vehicles 

as supportive of the direct final rule. In 

this way, EPA will be able to adopt 

those elements of the DFR that are fully 

supported and most needed today, 

while considering and addressing any 

adverse comments received on the 

proposed rule, in the course of 

developing the final rule. See the DFR 

for the regulatory text associated with 

this proposal. 

Note that Docket Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0102 is being used for both 

the DFR and this NPRM. 

II. Proposed Amendments to the HeavyDuty Engine and Vehicle Greenhouse 

Gas Emission Standards Rule 

EPA and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

developed the first-ever program to 

reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

and fuel consumption in the heavy-duty 

(HD) highway vehicle sector. The 

rulemaking was developed as a single, 

national program with both EPA and 

NHTSA promulgating complementary 

standards that allow manufacturers to 

build one set of vehicles to comply with 

both agencies’ regulations. This broad 

heavy-duty sector—ranging from large 

pickups to sleeper-cab tractors— 

together represent the second largest 

contributor to oil consumption and GHG 

emissions from the mobile source 

sector, after light-duty passenger cars 

and trucks. The final rule was published 

in the Federal Register on September 

15, 2011 (76 FR 57106). 

A. Background of the HD GHG and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards and Amendments 

EPA’s GHG standards and NHTSA’s 

fuel consumption standards apply to 

manufacturers of the following types of 

heavy-duty vehicles and their engines: 

• Heavy-duty Pickup Trucks and Vans 

• Combination Tractors 

• Vocational Vehicles 

The rules include separate standards 

for the engines that power combination 

tractors and vocational vehicles. Certain 

parts of the program are exclusive to 

EPA’s GHG standards. These include 

EPA’s final hydrofluorocarbon 

standards to control leakage from air 

conditioning systems in combination 

tractors and in pickup trucks and vans. 

Also exclusive to the EPA rules are 

standards for nitrous oxide (N2O) and 

methane (CH4) emissions standards that 

apply to all heavy-duty engines and to 

pickup trucks and vans. 

EPA’s final greenhouse gas emission 

standards for heavy-duty vehicles under 

the Clean Air Act will begin with model 

year 2014. NHTSA’s final fuel 

consumption standards under the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 will be voluntary in model years 

2014 and 2015, becoming mandatory 

with model year 2016 for most 

regulatory categories. Both agencies 

allow manufacturers to comply early in 

model year 2013 and promote early 

compliance by providing incentives to 

do so. 

In the final rulemaking, EPA 

established all-new regulations in 40 

CFR parts 1036, 1037, and 1066. EPA 

also included changes to existing 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 85, 86, 1039, 

1065, and 1068. Similarly, NHTSA 

modified its existing regulations in 49 

CFR parts 523 and 534, and established 

an all-new regulation in 49 CFR part 

535. 

After publication of the heavy-duty 

rule, EPA and NHTSA began an 

extensive outreach effort to aid in the 

rule’s implementation. For example, 

EPA and NHTSA held public 

workshops on November 3, 2011 and 

August 10, 2012. In the course of these 

efforts, the agencies received a series of 

comments on specific aspects of the 

rules and prepared question and answer 

responses.1 In some cases, it became 

clear that minor changes to the rules 

would better clarify the rule’s intent, or 

amend the rule to make it more 

effective. The amendments proposed in 

this rule are largely based on these 

implementation discussions. 

The proposed revisions related to the 

heavy-duty GHG emissions regulations 

in this proposal are unique to EPA’s 

regulations. Thus, this section is further 

divided into subsections related to 

specific parts of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

B. Proposed Amendments to the HeavyDuty GHG Regulations 

The following proposed amendments 

correct minor, technical inconsistencies 

and add clarifications to the current 

regulatory text. EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR parts 85, 86, 1036, 1037, 1065, 

and 1066 to correct typographical errors, 

clarify test procedures and certification 

procedures, and correct the regulations 

to make them consistent with the intent 

expressed in the preamble to the final 

rules (76 FR 57106). A comparison of 

the original and proposed regulatory 

text is provided in a memorandum to 

the docket for this rulemaking.2

(1) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 

CFR part 1036 

EPA proposes to amend portions of 

the regulations in 40 CFR part 1036, as 

described below. 

• Hybrid Testing: §§ 1036.525 and 

1036.615 specify requirements for 

testing hybrid engines and engines with 

Rankine cycle waste heat recovery. The 

regulatory text includes references for 

testing ‘‘post-transmission’’ and ‘‘pretransmission’’ hybrid systems in these 

sections. In a pre-transmission hybrid, 

the energy from both the engine and 

motor is input into the drive shaft prior 

to the transmission. In a posttransmission hybrid, the engine energy 

is input into the drive shaft prior to the 

transmission, but the motor energy is 

input into the drive shaft after the 

transmission. Since post-transmission 

hybrid architecture is incompatible with 

engine testing, EPA proposes to remove 

the reference to post-transmissions 

systems in the hybrid engine test 

requirements in 40 CFR part 1036. 40 

CFR 1037.525, 1037.550, and 1037.615 

include requirements for testing posttransmission hybrids using a vehicle 

test. EPA anticipates that there would be 

no impact on manufacturers by the 

deletion of this text, since the vehicle 

test procedures set out in the regulations 

specify how to test post-transmission 

systems. 

• EPA proposes to revise §§ 1036.5, 

1036.150, and 1036.615 to address 

typographical issues to correct 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36138 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Advanced technology credits may be increased 

by a 1.5 multiplier and applied to any heavy-duty 

vehicle or engine subcategory with certain 

maximum limits applying. See 40 CFR 1036.740, 

1037.740 and 49 CFR 535.7(e) for description of 

advanced technology credit program. 4See 40 CFR 1037.15(l). 

regulatory citations within the 

regulations. 

• EPA proposes to correct 

§ 1036.150(g)(2) and (3) to change the 

assigned additive deterioration factor 

(DF) for nitrous oxide (N2O) and 

methane (CH4) emissions from 0.02 to 

0.020 g/hp-hr to account for the 

appropriate number of significant digits. 

• EPA proposes to amend § 1036.225 

to clarify that the CO2 family emission 

limit (FEL) is not required on the 

emission control information (ECI) label 

according to the provisions in 

§ 1036.135. 

• EPA proposes to clarify that the CH4

and N2O emission standards apply to all 

testable configurations in § 1036.205. 

• EPA proposes to add a definition of 

‘‘preliminary approval’’ to § 1036.801. 

(2) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 

CFR Part 1037 

EPA also proposes to revise portions 

of the regulations in 40 CFR Part 1037 

to correct technical errors and provide 

additional clarity in the regulations. 

(a) Hybrid Testing 

Sections 1037.525, 1037.550, and 

1037.615 describe or reference the 

procedure to be used for testing hybrid 

vehicles with power take off (PTO) 

devices on a whole vehicle test. Both 

pre- and post-transmission hybrid 

architectures can be used with power 

take off (PTO) devices. The current rule 

text states that manufacturers could test 

post-transmission hybrids on the 

vehicle test procedure to quantify CO2

and fuel consumption improvements 

resulting from running PTO equipment, 

but inadvertently excluded pretransmission hybrid architecture from 

being tested on a vehicle test. Since PTO 

devices can also be used in hybrid 

vehicles with pre-transmission 

architecture, EPA is proposing to amend 

the language to allow these pretransmission hybrid vehicles with PTO 

to be tested on the whole vehicle test 

procedure. 

(b) Advanced Technologies 

Improvement Factor 

Section 1037.615 describes the 

procedure for measuring CO2

improvements from vehicles with 

hybrid and other advanced technologies 

(such as Rankine engines, electric 

vehicles and fuel cell vehicles), in order 

to generate advanced technology 

credits.3 Section 1037.615 specifies how 

manufacturers can measure the 

effectiveness of the advanced system by 

chassis-testing a vehicle equipped with 

the advanced system and an equivalent 

conventional vehicle using the test 

procedures in 40 CFR Part 1037, subpart 

F. 

The effectiveness of the advanced 

system is calculated by measuring the 

CO2 output from chassis tests of the 

vehicle with the advanced system and 

an equivalent conventional vehicle, 

thereby obtaining the relative marginal 

improvement between the two vehicles 

(the ‘‘improvement factor’’). The 

‘‘benefit’’ associated with the advanced 

system is then calculated by multiplying 

the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model 

(GEM) result for the vehicle with 

advanced technology by the 

dimensionless improvement factor. The 

benefit is then converted to advanced 

technology credits in a model year for 

each vehicle family within an averaging 

set. 

The final rule specified the procedure 

for applying an improvement factor in 

simulating a chassis test with a posttransmission hybrid system for A to B 

testing (§ 1037.550), but did not allow 

the improvement factor to be applied to 

multiple vehicle configurations having 

the same advanced technology 

(§ 1037.615). The post-transmission 

system test procedure specifically 

allows the application of an 

improvement factor or test results to 

multiple vehicle configurations, as long 

as the values used for the calculations 

‘‘represent the vehicle configuration 

with the smallest potential reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions as a result of 

the hybrid capability’’ and are 

consistent with good engineering 

judgment. EPA proposes to amend the 

regulatory text that describes the 

measurement of advanced technology 

improvement to include this 

specification as well. 

EPA proposes to revise § 1037.615 to 

allow manufacturers to generate 

advanced technology credits from 

multiple heavy-duty vehicle 

configurations within a vehicle family 

group by testing a single vehicle of that 

group, provided the vehicle tested has 

the smallest potential reduction in fuel 

consumption of the vehicles with 

advanced technology capability. EPA 

anticipates that this proposed change 

may reduce testing and reporting costs 

for manufacturers while still allowing 

flexibility in choosing to test additional 

configurations within the family group. 

By limiting the use of this testing option 

to vehicles with the smallest potential 

reduction in emissions (or fuel 

consumption), emission reductions 

would not be compromised. 

(c) Optional Certification for Up to Class 

6 Spark-Ignition Engine Vehicles 

Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans 

are pickup trucks and vans with a gross 

vehicle weight rating between 8,501 

pounds and 14,000 pounds (Class 2b 

through 3 vehicles) manufactured as 

complete vehicles by a single or final 

stage manufacturer or manufactured as 

incomplete vehicles as designated by a 

manufacturer. Under the GHG rule, 

these vehicles are certified on a chassis 

dynamometer test, as opposed to the 

GEM simulation tool used to certify the 

vocational and tractor categories. 

NHTSA’s current regulations allow 

Classes 4 and 5 spark-ignition vehicles 

the option of certifying on a chassis 

dynamometer test, as those vehicles 

may have more similar characteristics to 

a Class 2b–3 pickup or van than they do 

other vehicles in their class. At the time 

of the final rule, NHTSA was unaware 

of any higher class spark ignition 

vehicles that would be similarly 

appropriate to test on a chassis 

dynamometer. EPA’s current regulations 

allow spark-ignition vehicles of all 

classes the option of certifying on a 

chassis dynamometer test.4

This proposed amendment would 

align the regulatory texts by closing the 

current gap between NHTSA and EPA’s 

optional certification provisions. EPA 

therefore proposes to allow 

manufacturers of complete or cabcomplete vehicles up to and including 

Class 6 that have spark-ignition engines 

the option of chassis dynamometer 

certification. See references in 

§§ 1037.104 and 1037.150. 

(d) Configuration and Subconfiguration 

Definitions 

The existing EPA regulations contain 

definitions for ‘‘configuration’’ and 

‘‘subconfiguration,’’ which define how 

to group vehicles by similar 

characteristics within a test group when 

conducting testing to determine CO2

emissions for heavy-duty pickup trucks 

and vans. ‘‘Configuration’’ means a 

subclassification within a test group that 

is based on engine code, transmission 

type and gear ratios, final drive ratio 

and other parameters that EPA 

designates. Likewise, 

‘‘subconfiguration’’ means a unique 

combination within a vehicle 

configuration of equivalent test weight, 

road-load horsepower, and any other 

operational characteristics or parameters 

that EPA determines may significantly 

affect CO2 emissions within a vehicle 

configuration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36139 

5U.S. EPA and NHTSA. Final Rulemaking to 

Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and 

Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy- Duty Engines and Vehicles—Regulatory Impact 

Analysis. August 2011. Page 2–48. 

The current definitions could be 

specified further according to 

established principles to prevent any 

ambiguity for manufacturers in 

conducting testing for heavy-duty 

pickup trucks and vans. The terms 

‘‘transmission type’’ and ‘‘engine code’’ 

can be further defined in the definition 

for ‘‘configuration,’’ to reflect common 

industry understanding of the terms. In 

addition, the term ‘‘equivalent test 

weight’’ could be further defined in the 

definition for ‘‘subconfiguration’’ to 

carryover the existing definition 

included in § 1037.104(d)(11). 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to add 

these further details to clarify these 

terms in § 1037.104(d)(12). 

(e) Vocational Tractor Vehicle Families 

The regulatory text in 40 CFR 

1037.230 related to vocational tractor 

families is unintentionally ambiguous, 

and is inconsistent with, the preamble 

and other regulatory text. In the 

vocational tractor provisions of 

§ 1037.630(b)(2), EPA requires that 

tractors ‘‘reclassified under this 

provision must be certified as a separate 

vehicle family. However, they remain 

part of the vocational regulatory 

subcategory and averaging set that 

applies to their weight class.’’ Although 

§ 1037.630(b)(2) requires two vocational 

tractor families dependent on the GVWR 

of the vehicle, the text in 

§ 1037.230(a)(1) implies only a single 

vocational tractor family default. This 

inconsistency is the result of an 

oversight when provisions were added 

allowing tractors to certify as vocational 

vehicles, and it is inconsistent with the 

way vehicle families are treated 

throughout the program, where they are 

split by weight class (76 FR at 57240, 

September 15, 2011). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to revise § 1037.230(a)(1) to 

be consistent with § 1037.630(b)(2) by 

splitting the vocational vehicles families 

into two groups, those above 33,000 

pounds GVWR and those above 26,000 

pounds GVWR and at or below 33,000 

pounds GVWR. 

(f) 40 CFR Part 1037 Aerodynamic 

Assessment 

A vehicle’s design impacts the 

amount of power that is required to 

move the vehicle down the road. 

Depending on the vehicle speed, two of 

the largest impacts on GHG emissions 

and fuel consumption are aerodynamics 

and tire rolling resistance. As part of the 

Heavy-Duty GHG and Fuel Efficiency 

rule, manufacturers are required to meet 

vehicle-based GHG emissions and fuel 

efficiency standards. Compliance with 

the vehicle standard for combination 

tractors is determined based on a 

vehicle simulation tool called the 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model 

(GEM). Various characteristics of the 

vehicle are measured and these 

measurements are used as inputs to the 

model. These characteristics relate to 

key technologies appropriate for this 

subcategory of truck—including 

aerodynamic features, weight 

reductions, tire rolling resistance, the 

presence of idle-reducing technology, 

and vehicle speed limiters. See 

generally 76 FR 57135. 

The aerodynamic drag of a vehicle is 

determined by the vehicle’s coefficient 

of drag (Cd), frontal area, air density and 

speed. As noted in the Heavy-Duty GHG 

and Fuel Efficiency rule, quantifying 

truck aerodynamics as an input to the 

GEM presents technical challenges 

because of the proliferation of vehicle 

configurations, the lack of a clearly 

preferable standardized test method, 

and subtle variations in measured 

aerodynamic values among various test 

procedures (76 FR 57148–57151). Class 

7 and 8 tractor aerodynamics are 

currently developed by manufacturers 

using a range of techniques, including 

wind tunnel testing, computational 

fluid dynamics, and constant speed 

tests. 

We developed a broad approach that 

allows manufacturers to use these 

multiple different test procedures to 

demonstrate aerodynamic performance 

of the tractor fleet given that no single 

test procedure is superior in all aspects 

to other approaches. Allowing 

manufacturers to use multiple test 

procedures and modeling coupled with 

good engineering judgment to determine 

aerodynamic performance is consistent 

with the current approach used in 

determining representative road load 

forces for light-duty vehicle testing (40 

CFR 86.129–00(e)(1)). However, we also 

recognize the need for consistency and 

a level playing field in evaluating 

aerodynamic performance. 

EPA and NHTSA developed a bin 

structure to group aerodynamic test 

results for the proposed rulemaking, and 

adjusted the method used to determine 

the bins in the final rule. The agencies, 

while working with industry, developed 

an approach for the final rulemaking 

which identified a reference 

aerodynamic test method and a 

procedure to align results from other 

aerodynamic test procedures with the 

reference method, an enhanced 

coastdown procedure. Manufacturers 

are able to use any aerodynamic 

evaluation method in demonstrating a 

vehicle’s aerodynamic performance as 

long as the method is aligned to the 

reference method. 

As discussed in the final rule, the 

agencies adopted aerodynamic 

technology bins which divide the wide 

spectrum of tractor aerodynamics into 

five bins (i.e., categories) for high roof 

tractors (see 76 FR 57149). The first high 

roof category, Bin I, is designed to 

represent tractor bodies that prioritize 

appearance or special duty capabilities 

over aerodynamics. These Bin I trucks 

incorporate few, if any, aerodynamic 

features and may have several features 

that detract from aerodynamics, such as 

bug deflectors, custom sunshades, Bpillar exhaust stacks, and others. The 

second high roof aerodynamics category 

is Bin II, which roughly represents the 

aerodynamic performance of the average 

new tractor sold today. The agencies 

developed this bin to incorporate 

conventional tractors that capitalize on 

a generally aerodynamic shape and 

avoid classic features which increase 

drag. High roof tractors within Bin III 

build on the basic aerodynamics of Bin 

II tractors with added components to 

reduce drag in the most significant areas 

on the tractor, such as integral roof 

fairings, side extending gap reducers, 

fuel tank fairings, and streamlined grill/ 

hood/mirrors/bumpers, similar to 

SmartWay trucks today. The Bin IV 

aerodynamic category for high roof 

tractors builds upon the Bin III tractor 

body with additional aerodynamic 

treatments such as underbody airflow 

treatment, down exhaust, and lowered 

ride height, among other technologies. 

And finally, Bin V tractors incorporate 

advanced technologies that are currently 

in the prototype stage of development, 

such as advanced gap reduction, 

rearview cameras to replace mirrors, 

wheel system streamlining, and 

advanced body designs. 

EPA and NHTSA developed the 

aerodynamic drag area, CdA, bin values 

for the tractor categories based on 

coastdown testing conducted by EPA 

using the enhanced coastdown test 

procedures adopted for the final HD 

GHG and Fuel Efficiency rulemaking. 

EPA tested high roof sleeper cab 

combination tractors from each of the 

manufacturers in order to represent the 

aerodynamic performance that we 

would expect from a Bin III vehicle. The 

test results used for the HD GHG and 

Fuel Efficiency final rule are included 

in Table II–1 below.5

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36140 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II–1—TRACTOR CDA VALUES USED IN HD GHG FINAL RULE

[Class 8 high roof sleeper cab] 

Truck Expected bin Source CdA (m2) 

B–3JM2–2H–TXCR ............................................... Bin III ............................. EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.4 

B–3JM2–4N–TXCR ............................................... Bin III–IV ....................... EPA Test Program ............................................... 5.7 

B–3JM2–2K–TXCR ............................................... Bin III ............................. EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.3 

C–3JM2–1B–TXCR ............................................... Bin III ............................. EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.2 

C–3JE2–1F–TXCR ................................................ Bin II–III ......................... EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.7 

As part of EPA’s quality checks to the 

enhanced coastdown test program, EPA 

supplied OEMs with the coastdown test 

data for their individual trucks. Through 

post-rulemaking work with one OEM, 

EPA found an error in the data 

attributable to a testing contractor. The 

contractor had entered the same 

coastdown run twice into the dataset 

provided to EPA for one of the trucks 

tested (one of 20 repeat runs was 

entered twice). As a result the truck 

appeared to have a CdA value of 5.7, 

rather than its actual value of 6.6. As 

such, the data that should have been 

used to establish the aerodynamic bins 

for the high roof sleeper cabs are listed 

in Table II–2. 

TABLE II–2—TRACTOR CDA VALUES USED IN THIS NPRM 

[Class 8 high roof sleeper cab] 

Truck Expected bin Source CdA (m2) 

B–3JM2–2H–TXCR ............................................... Bin III ............................. EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.4 

B–3JM2–4N–TXCR ............................................... Bin III ............................. EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.6 

B–3JM2–2K–TXCR ............................................... Bin III ............................. EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.3 

C–3JM2–1B–TXCR ............................................... Bin III–IV ....................... EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.2 

C–3JE2–1F–TXCR ................................................ Bin II–III ......................... EPA Test Program ............................................... 6.7 

Since the coastdown test is an input 

into the aerodynamic bins, EPA 

proposes to correct the CdA range for 

the affected bin levels. The proposed 

adjustment to the ranges would allow 

Bin III, which represents a SmartWay 

truck, to still mean exactly what was 

intended in the HD GHG and Fuel 

Efficiency final rule. The proposed Bins 

IV and V adjustments would require the 

same level of improvement we expected 

in the HD GHG and Fuel Efficiency final 

rule. This proposed amendment is a 

correction, so will not change the 

standards or the costs or projected 

emissions reductions. The HD GHG and 

Fuel Efficiency rulemaking estimates of 

technology costs and the resulting 

aerodynamic efficiency improvements 

were made separately from the test 

procedure normalization reflected in the 

bin tables. Those cost and technical 

feasibility assessments set the absolute 

values of the steps in the table, where 

the testing results of the five tractors in 

Table II–2 set the range of Bin III against 

which the rest of the aerodynamic bins 

are defined. Since EPA is not proposing 

to change either the technical 

descriptions of the bins or the estimates 

of the aerodynamic loss or benefits in 

moving between bins in the table, EPA 

is estimating no change in HD GHG and 

Fuel Efficiency final rulemaking costs or 

benefits. EPA is also not proposing to 

change the input into GEM related to 

each aerodynamic bin; therefore, this 

proposed change would have no impact 

on the GHG or on fuel consumption 

standards. 

EPA proposes to make the 

adjustments shown in Table II–3 to 

correct the technical error in the 

coastdown data used in the HD GHG 

and Fuel Efficiency final rule. The 

proposed bin value adjustments would 

be used by manufacturers to certify their 

vehicles in their 2013 MY and later end 

of year reports. 

TABLE II–3—PROPOSED TABLE IN

§ 1037.520(b) 

[High-roof sleeper cabs] 

If your measured CDA 

(m2) is . . . 

Then your 

bin level 

is . . . 

Then your CD

input is . . . 

≥ 7.6 ............ Bin I ............. 0.75 

6.8–7.5 ........ Bin II ............ 0.68 

6.3–6.7 ........ Bin III ........... 0.60 

5.6–6.2 ........ Bin IV .......... 0.52 

≤5.5 ............. Bin V ........... 0.47 

(g) Other 40 CFR Part 1037 Proposed 

Amendments 

• Heavy-Duty Pickup Truck and Van 

Regulations: EPA proposes to amend 

several provisions in §§ 1037.15 and 

1037.104 to specify which parts of 40 

CFR part 86 apply to these vehicles and 

to specifically reference portions of 40 

CFR part 86 in 40 CFR part 1037. EPA 

also proposes to revise the language in 

§ 1037.150(a)(2) to make it consistent 

with the preamble to the final rule, 

which stipulates that the entire heavyduty pickup truck and van fleet must be 

certified to qualify for early credits (see 

76 FR 57245). Also, EPA proposes to 

clarify how heavy-duty pickup truck 

and van subconfigurations are selected 

for testing in § 1037.104(d)(9)(i) through 

(iii). EPA is also proposing to revise 

§ 1037.104(g)(2)(ii), (g)(2)(iv), and (g)(5) 

to clarify the approach for estimating 

analytically derived CO2 emission rates 

(ADCs). 

• Air Conditioning (A/C) Leakage 

Provisions: The MY2017–2025 LightDuty GHG and Fuel Economy Rule 

separated 40 CFR 86.1866 into four 

sections for clarity. The A/C leakage 

section moved to 40 CFR 86.1867–12. 

Thus, EPA proposes to amend 

§ 1037.115 to reflect this change. In 

addition, EPA proposes to revise 

§ 1037.115 because the procedure for 

determining the hydrofluorocarbon 

(HFC) leakage rate for air conditioning 

systems with alternate refrigerants is 

already addressed in SAE J2727, which 

is incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 

86.1, and therefore does not need to be 

included in § 1037.115. 

• Labeling clarification: EPA 

proposes to clarify in § 1037.135 that the 

emission control label for the vehicle 

only requires a statement regarding the 

size of the fuel tank for vehicles that 

contain an evaporative canister for 

controlling emissions. 

• Typographical fixes: EPA proposes 

to address the typographical errors in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36141 

6The basis for the lifetime mileage assumption 

for heavy-duty tractors is discussed in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Rule on 

page 2–69. Available in Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0162–3634. 

7Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking 

to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards 

and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles. August 2011. 

Available in Docket # EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0162– 

3634. 

§ 1037.135 relative to labeling, 

§ 1037.501 related to the trailer 

specification, and § 1037.520 which 

includes a weight reduction 

explanation. 

• EPA proposes to clarify that the 

general requirements for obtaining a 

certificate of conformity and EPA’s 

authority to perform confirmatory 

testing on vehicles, including the 

vehicles used to determine Falt-aero (see 

§ 1037.201). 

• EPA proposes to revise § 1037.550 

to change the nomenclature used for the 

vehicle speed variable from S to v to be 

consistent with 40 CFR part 1065. EPA 

is also proposing to remove the torque 

control option for testing posttransmission hybrid systems because it 

causes testing issues when the vehicle is 

shifting and braking and by removing 

the torque control mode from the 

dynamometer control options it would 

reduce lab-to-lab variability. 

• EPA proposes to clarify the 

regulatory text in § 1037.620(a)(3) for 

instances where the secondary 

manufacturer who would hold the 

vehicle GHG certificate may be a small 

business that would be exempted from 

the GHG regulations. 

• EPA proposes to revise § 1037.660 

related to the automatic engine 

shutdown (AES) provisions. 

§ 1037.660(c) currently allows 

manufacturers to obtain a discounted 

credit for installing AES systems that 

expire prior to the end of the vehicle’s 

life based on the ratio of the set point 

relative to 1,259,000 miles.6 EPA is not 

revising that provision, except to change 

the regulatory provision numbering 

from § 1037.660(c) to § 1037.660(c)(1). 

EPA is not revising that provision. 

However, similar to the reasons which 

supported the development of vehicle 

speed limiter flexibilities, an automatic 

engine shutdown system could be 

developed to alleviate other potential 

concerns that impede its adoption. For 

example, some amount of idling may be 

needed for truckers who experience 

significant ambient temperature 

excursions that would necessitate 

extended idling or for idle reduction 

technologies, such as auxiliary power 

units, that malfunction and necessitate 

extended idling. A remedy to these 

concerns would be to design the AES 

such that it allows for a predetermined 

number of hours per year of idling. EPA 

is proposing to add § 1037.660(c)(2) to 

appropriately quantify the CO2

emissions and fuel consumption of a 

partial AES system by discounting the 

AES input to GEM. EPA is using an 

assumption of 1,800 hours as the annual 

idling time in the calculation, which is 

consistent with the final rule (76 FR 

57154). EPA used 1,800 hours as the 

annual idling time for sleeper cabs 

because it reasonably reflects the 

available range of idling time cited in 

several studies, as discussed in the 

preamble to the final rule and in the 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (pages 

2–67 and 2–68).7 The 1,800 hours of 

idling was used in the final rule to 

determine the credit of 5 grams of CO2

per ton-mile for the use of AES systems 

(page 2–68 of the Final Regulatory 

Impact Analysis). 

• EPA proposes to add a provision to 

§ 1037.745. This new proposed 

provision would clarify manufacturers’ 

liability for offsetting debits (or deficit 

credits) after certifying with emissions 

above the standards for three years. We 

want to avoid claims that the statute of 

limitations starts to apply in the first 

year of using debits, since this could 

significantly limit our ability to 

adequately enforce the requirement. We 

have generally adopted this approach in 

other rules that allow debits to be 

carried forward a given number of 

model years and are later offset with 

credits (40 CFR 86.1861–04(e), 86.1864– 

10(o), and 86.1865–12(k)). 

• EPA proposes to add a definition of 

‘‘preliminary approval’’ to § 1037.801. 

• EPA proposes to revise the 

‘‘Regulatory Sub-category’’ definitions 

in § 1037.801 to match the definition of 

‘‘Class’’ in 40 CFR 1037.801, be 

consistent with DOT’s Gross Vehicle 

Weight Rating Classes in Table II of 49 

CFR 565.15, and aggregate the heavyduty pickup truck and van sub-category 

to match the definition in 49 CFR 535.4. 

(3) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 

CFR parts 1065 and 1066 

EPA proposes to restore text to 

§ 1065.610(c)(3)(i) through (iii) which 

was inadvertently removed in the final 

rule for Category 3 marine diesel 

engines (75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). 

This text was most recently published 

in the final rule adopting standards for 

locomotive engines and Category 1 and 

Category 2 marine diesel engines (73 FR 

37325, June 30, 2008). 

EPA is also proposing to revise 

portions of the regulations in 40 CFR 

part 1066 to clarify test procedures. 

Specifically, we propose to revise 

§ 1066.310(b) to clarify the coastdown 

process and simplify the anemometer 

calibration process. 

(4) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 

CFR Part 85 

EPA proposes to revise § 85.525 to 

separate the light-duty and heavy-duty 

fuel conversion regulations to provide 

clarity regarding the applicability of the 

fuel conversion regulations to heavyduty pickup trucks and vans. 

(5) Proposed Regulatory Changes to 40 

CFR Part 86 

EPA is also proposing to revise 

portions of the regulations in 40 CFR 

part 86. First, EPA is revising § 86.010– 

18(q) to provide a mechanism for engine 

manufacturers to identify engines which 

are only suitable for installation in 

hybrid applications due to the on-board 

diagnostics (OBD) calibration. 

Manufacturers who opt to produce a 

unique set of engines for hybrid 

applications will include a compliance 

statement on the ECI label that states 

‘‘for use in hybrid applications only.’’ 

Second, EPA proposes to revise 

portions of § 86.1865–12 to clarify the 

provisions that specifically apply to the 

heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans 

subject to 40 CFR 1037.104. 

Third, EPA proposes to remove 

§§ 86.007–23(n) and 86.1844–01(j), 

which describe how to report CO2, N2O, 

and CH4 emissions. There is no need or 

benefit for manufacturers to submit 

greenhouse gas emission data in the 

model years before emission standards 

apply for those pollutants. 

(6) Summary of Proposed Heavy-Duty 

GHG Amendments 

EPA does not expect that these 

proposed revisions to 40 CFR parts 85, 

86, 1036, 1037, 1065, and 1066 would 

have any adverse cost impact to the 

manufacturers. There are no testing 

costs associated with the proposed 

revisions. There would be no 

environmental impact associated with 

this regulatory action because this 

proposed rulemaking would not change 

the heavy-duty engine and vehicle 

greenhouse gas emission standards that 

manufacturers have to meet; it simply 

makes some minor amendments to the 

regulations. 

III. Other Technical Amendments 

A. Replacement Engines 

In 1996, EPA adopted a provision 

allowing manufacturers in limited 

circumstances to produce new, exempt 

engines for replacing failed engines (61 

FR 58102, November 12, 1996). With 

this approach, manufacturers have been 

able to make new, exempt engines in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36142 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

cases where engines certified to current 

standards do not have the physical or 

performance characteristics needed to 

power the equipment with the old 

engine. Without this provision, some 

equipment owners would have been 

forced to prematurely scrap otherwise 

working equipment (sometimes worth 

millions of dollars), because no engine 

meeting current emission standards 

could be adapted for installation in the 

space occupied by the original engine. 

EPA later added language to the 

replacement engine exemption to 

address the complications related to 

producing partially complete engines 

for replacement purposes, and to 

address the need to produce and sell 

replacement engines such that they 

would be available to operators with a 

critical need to avoid extended 

downtime in the case of engine failure 

(73 FR 59034, October 8, 2008). This 

expanded approach allowed 

manufacturers to sell a limited number 

of new, exempt replacement engines 

without taking the steps that would 

otherwise be required to document the 

need for the exemption and to arrange 

for the proper disposition of the old 

engine. Along with this expanded 

approach, EPA added circumvention 

language to describe the overall purpose 

of the replacement engine exemption in 

an attempt to prevent manufacturers 

and operators from using exempted 

engines in ways that were unnecessary 

and/or detrimental to the environment. 

In particular, this text states that the 

provisions § 1068.240 are ‘‘intended to 

allow for replacement of engines that 

fail prematurely . . .’’ This language has 

been interpreted to mean that 

replacement engines may be used for no 

other purpose. 

Since then, EPA has found that the 

circumvention language has had some 

unintended consequences. For example, 

California has adopted requirements for 

operators to reduce emissions from inuse equipment, which has led to a 

desire to install new replacement 

engines that are cleaner than the old 

engines. It is often the case that it is 

infeasible or impractical to install 

replacement engines certified to current 

standards, but suitable replacement 

engines designed to meet an 

intermediate level of emission standards 

are available. The circumvention 

language may prevent operators in 

California from achieving overall 

emission reductions that would result 

from upgrading their existing equipment 

with cleaner engines in this manner. It 

may also be the case that an engine will 

simply wear out, rather than 

experiencing premature failure, well 

before the equipment in which it is 

installed is at the end of its life. Under 

the current regulation, an operator 

under these circumstances would need 

to install a new engine certified to 

current standards, or find a used engine, 

to keep the equipment operating. 

EPA continues to believe that new, 

exempt replacement engines should 

only be used in cases where a currently 

certified engine cannot practically be 

installed to power the old equipment. 

EPA believes the regulatory language 

without our description of intent to 

prevent circumvention serves this 

purpose without the unintended 

consequences described above. EPA is 

therefore proposing to remove the 

circumvention provisions from the 

regulations in § 1068.240. EPA expects 

manufacturers and operators following 

the regulations to continue to use the 

exemption provisions appropriately and 

not for the purpose of circumventing the 

emission standards. EPA is proposing to 

add language to explicitly limit this 

provision to equipment that has been in 

service 25 years or less (at the point of 

installation) so that manufacturers and 

operators do not use this provision to 

keep in operation older dirtier, 

equipment beyond the normal lifetime 

of the equipment, by continually using 

new engines to replace old engines. EPA 

has adopted this same restriction for 

stationary engines under 40 CFR 

60.4210(i), except that the maximum 

equipment age is 15 years. EPA will 

continue to monitor compliance with 

the exemption provisions and will 

consider any appropriate changes to the 

regulation in the future to ensure that 

the exemption is properly used toward 

this purpose. This proposed 25-year 

limit would not apply for marine diesel 

engines, since those engines are subject 

to separate replacement engine 

provisions. 

The proposed tracked option 

specified in § 1068.240(b) also includes 

an additional step to qualify for the 

replacement engine exemption for 

equipment not experiencing premature 

engine failure. In particular, 

manufacturers would need to make a 

determination that the replacement 

engine is designed with the greatest 

degree of emission control that is 

available for the particular application. 

For example, if the engine being 

replaced was built before the Tier 1 

standards started to apply and engines 

of that size are currently subject to Tier 

2 standards, the manufacturer would 

need to also consider whether it 

produces any Tier 1 or Tier 2 engines 

with the appropriate physical and 

performance characteristics for 

replacing the old engine. If the 

manufacturer produces a Tier 1 engine 

with the appropriate physical and 

performance characteristics, engines 

emitting at levels above the Tier 1 

standards would not qualify for an 

exemption. The proposed requirement 

to use the cleanest available engine fits 

with the intent of facilitating voluntary 

incentive programs involving 

replacement engine upgrades toward the 

goal of reducing emissions from in-use 

equipment, but without imposing a 

requirement that would involve new 

technology development or impractical 

equipment design changes. This 

provision has already been in place for 

marine diesel engines in § 1042.615. In 

the case of equipment experiencing 

premature engine failure, we would 

continue to apply the simpler 

requirement that the replacement engine 

must meet emission standards that are 

the same as or better than the standards 

that apply to the old engine. 

EPA is also proposing to adjust the 

provisions related to the disposition of 

the old engine in § 1068.240(b). To be 

re-introduced into U.S. commerce, the 

old engine must either meet current 

emission standards or qualify for an 

exemption as if it were a new engine. 

The old engine could be re-used as a 

replacement engine for a different piece 

of equipment. Under this proposed 

approach, an engine made from all new 

parts and an engine built with a used 

engine block and any mix of new or 

used additional parts would be treated 

the same way. For example, the recycled 

replacement engine would be subject to 

all the demonstrations and 

documentation requirements of 

§ 1068.240(b), and it would count 

toward the allowance to produce a 

limited number of replacement engines 

under § 1068.240(c). For engines that are 

not re-introduced into U.S. commerce, 

manufacturers must destroy the old 

engine or confirm that it has been 

destroyed. These proposed changes 

would further address the concern 

expressed in the circumvention 

language described above; in particular, 

EPA believes it is necessary to prevent 

the possibility of these old engines 

being installed in new equipment. 

EPA is also proposing some 

clarification to the regulations to 

address questions that have arisen, as 

well as making the following changes: 

• Proposing revision of the labeling 

requirements to account for the 

possibility of using a new replacement 

engine to replace a previously exempted 

replacement engine. To the extent that 

the proposed revised label statement 

differs from that specified by California 

ARB, we would expect to approve an 

adjusted statement that allows for a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36143 

single, 50-state label under 

§ 1068.201(c). 

• Proposing to adjust the reporting 

deadline for untracked replacement 

engines under § 1068.240(c). This 

proposed change would allow 

manufacturers some time after the end 

of the calendar year to make the 

determinations and to take the required 

steps to fulfill the tracking requirements 

for replacement engines under 

§ 1068.240(b). Any engines for which 

these steps and determinations are 

incomplete by the deadline for the 

report would need to be counted as 

untracked replacement engines. Further, 

to account for prevailing practices and 

typical timelines for replacement 

engines, we would move back the 

deadline for this report from February 

15 to March 31. 

• Proposing to revise § 1068.240(c)(1) 

to specify that manufacturers may base 

sales limits for the untracked option on 

total U.S. production of certified and 

exempted engines together (including 

stationary engines). 

• Proposing to add language to clarify 

that § 1068.240(e) applies only for 

engines produced under a current, valid 

certificate. An exemption under 

§ 1068.240(b) or (c) would be required to 

produce an engine that is identical to 

one that is no longer certified, even if 

the engine was formerly certified to 

standards (or a Family Emission Limits) 

that are at least as stringent as the 

current standards. 

• Proposing clarifications to the 

provisions in § 1068.240(d) related to 

partially complete engines also apply 

for ‘‘current-tier’’ replacement engines 

exempted under § 1068.240(e). 

• Proposing to add a statement to 

§ 1042.615 for marine diesel engines to 

clarify our pre-determination that 

certified Tier 4 engines do not have the 

appropriate physical and performance 

characteristics for replacing older 

engines in marine vessels. This policy 

was established in our June 30, 2008 

final rule (see 73 FR 37157). 

In addition, we are proposing to 

revise § 1068.1 to correct two errors 

regarding the applicability of part 1068. 

First, we propose to restore highway 

motorcycles to the list of categories that 

are not subject to part 1068. This was 

added, but then inadvertently removed, 

when we were completing two parallel 

rulemakings. Second, we are proposing 

to add a reference to 40 CFR part 85 to 

identify how part 1068 applies in 

certain circumstances for heavy-duty 

highway engines. These proposed 

changes are intended to clarify and 

reinforce existing requirements without 

modifying the underlying programs in 

any way. 

B. Nonroad Diesel Engine Technical 

Hardship Program 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

nonroad diesel engine technical 

hardship program to facilitate EPA 

granting exemptions to address certain 

hardship circumstances that were not 

considered when the original 2004 final 

rule was published. EPA adopted Tier 4 

standards for nonroad diesel engines 

under 40 CFR part 1039 in 2004 (69 FR 

38958, June 29, 2004). To meet these 

standards, engine manufacturers are 

pursuing development of advanced 

technologies, including new approaches 

for exhaust aftertreatment. Equipment 

manufacturers will need to modify their 

equipment designs to accommodate 

these new engine technologies and the 

corresponding changes to engine 

operating parameters (such as operating 

temperatures and heat rejection rates). 

To provide flexibility for equipment 

manufacturers in their efforts to respond 

to these engine design changes, the Tier 

4 standards included the Transition 

Program for Equipment Manufacturers. 

Flexibilities allowed under this program 

include delaying compliance with 

small-volume equipment models for 

several years or using allowances in the 

first year to manage the transition to the 

Tier 4 engines. 

The Transition Program for 

Equipment Manufacturers is intended to 

allow nonroad equipment 

manufacturers wide discretion to 

manage their product development 

timeline. Equipment manufacturers may 

comply either based on a percent of 

their production (generally for highvolume manufacturers, as described in 

§ 1039.625(b)(1)), or based on a 

maximum number of exempted pieces 

of equipment (generally for low-volume 

manufacturers, as described in 

§ 1039.625(b)(2)). At the same time, the 

regulations include at § 1039.625(m) an 

acknowledgement that equipment 

manufacturers might face a wide range 

of circumstances, including cases where 

engine manufacturers might be late in 

providing compliant engines to 

nonintegrated equipment manufacturers 

such that the specified allowances are 

insufficient to avoid a disruption in the 

equipment manufacturer’s production 

schedule. The technical hardship 

provision at § 1039.625(m) allows EPA 

to make a judgment that an equipment 

manufacturer that buys engines from 

another company, through no fault of its 

own, needs additional allowances to 

manage the transition to Tier 4 

products. The regulation specifies a 

maximum allowance of 150 percent of 

a manufacturer’s annual production 

(relative to § 1039.625(b)(1)), or a total of 

1,100 allowances (relative to 

§ 1039.625(b)(2)). The regulation also 

provides economic hardship provisions 

under § 1068.255; however, eligibility 

depends on manufacturers showing that 

their solvency is in jeopardy without 

relief. Economic hardship therefore 

serves as a flexibility provision of last 

resort. 

As the compliance dates for the Tier 

4 standards approach, equipment 

manufacturers have described several 

scenarios where the technical hardship 

provisions are too restrictive to address 

their circumstances. For example, 

engine manufacturers have in some 

cases delayed delivery of Tier 4 engines 

until six or even twelve months after the 

Tier 4 standards start to apply, which 

could force equipment manufacturers to 

use up all their allowances under 

§ 1039.625(b) in the first year of the new 

standards. The maximum number of 

allowances under § 1039.625(m) would 

cover a good portion of the second year 

of the Tier 4 standards, but we have 

heard how this too is inadequate to 

allow equipment manufacturers to 

respond to late deliveries of compliant 

engines. 

As another example where additional 

flexibility may be warranted, corporate 

acquisitions can cause equipment 

manufacturers to find themselves 

disadvantaged with respect to 

allowances because two companies have 

become a single company for purposes 

of regulatory compliance. Taken to an 

extreme, the combined company could 

exceed its allowances under 

§ 1039.625(b) on the day of the merger 

because each of the separate companies 

may have used allowances that, taken 

together, exceed the specified 

thresholds for a single company. The 

combined company may apply for 

technical hardship under § 1039.625(m), 

but we have seen that this too can 

provide insufficient relief for equipment 

manufacturers trying to incorporate Tier 

4 engines into their equipment. 

In these cases, the maximum 

allowable relief under § 1039.625(m) is 

insufficient to allow equipment 

manufacturers to transition to meeting 

Tier 4 requirements without disrupting 

their ability to continue producing their 

equipment models. There have also 

been cases where a company would 

meet the criteria to qualify for 

consideration for technical hardship 

under § 1039.625(m) except that the 

regulation disallows technical hardship 

relief for all engines above 560 kW and 

provides only limited relief for engines 

above 37 kW. The regulation also 

provides only limited relief for 

companies that are not small businesses. 

In these cases, no additional relief is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36144 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

available under § 1039.625(m), which 

again leaves equipment manufacturers 

unable to continue producing their 

equipment models. 

We are proposing to amend the 

Transition Program for Equipment 

Manufacturers in three ways to address 

these concerns. First, we propose to 

remove the qualifying criteria so that 

any equipment manufacturer may apply 

for technical hardship relief under 

§ 1039.625(m) for any size engine, rather 

than limiting the technical hardship 

relief to small businesses and to engines 

within certain power categories. We 

believe it is more appropriate to rely on 

our discretion to evaluate each hardship 

application on its merits rather than 

automatically precluding hardship relief 

based on certain characteristics of the 

engine or the company. If hardship 

relief is not appropriate because of an 

engine’s power rating or a company’s 

size or financial standing, we would not 

approve the request. 

Second, we propose to remove the 

maximum number of allowances we can 

approve under § 1039.625(m), for both 

percent-of-production (currently 150 

percent) and small-volume allowances 

(currently 1,100 units), and we propose 

to remove the deadlines for exercising 

those additional allowances. We have 

learned that the specified restrictions on 

hardship allowances are in some cases 

too limiting to address the legitimate 

concerns raised by equipment 

manufacturers. Again, we believe it is 

most appropriate to resolve issues of 

extent of relief once an equipment 

manufacturer has demonstrated that 

relief is appropriate, rather than limiting 

it a priori. We would not approve a 

greater number of technical hardship 

allowances than is needed to meet the 

established objectives. Finally, we are 

proposing additional small-volume 

allowances under § 1039.625(b)(2) and 

(m)(4), where we may waive the annual 

limits on the number of allowances 

instead of or in addition to granting 

additional hardship allowances. There 

may be times when manufacturers only 

need approval to use up their regular 

allowances at a faster pace than the 

regulations currently allow. 

An additional concern has come to 

our attention as it relates to marine 

engines. Vessel manufacturers may use 

certified land-based engines in marine 

vessels as long as the engines are not 

modified from their certified 

configuration (see § 1042.605). We 

adopted this provision with the 

understanding that, given the additional 

technological challenges of operating 

engines in a marine environment, 

marine standards are set to be no more 

stringent than land-based standards and 

are often set at a level somewhat less 

stringent than the standards that apply 

to the land-based engines. Vessel 

manufacturers have used these 

provisions extensively to access a wide 

range of engine models that are not 

available in a certified marine 

configuration. The part 1039 Tier 4 

standards have made this more 

complicated. The Tier 4 standards for 

land-based engines are much more 

stringent than the Tier 3 marine 

standards, which will continue to apply 

for many Category 1 engines. Engine 

distributors supplying product to vessel 

manufacturers have reported that 

several engine models will not be 

available to them in the transition 

period. In that way, vessel 

manufacturers are much like nonroad 

equipment manufacturers, except that 

the vessels are not actually required to 

use engines meeting the more stringent 

standards now or, for engines below 600 

kW, in the foreseeable future. It would 

be a natural solution to use allowances 

under § 1039.625, but the regulations 

specifically require that vessel 

manufacturers may use only certified 

land-based engines under § 1042.605. 

There is a risk that this gap would 

significantly limit their ability to 

continue producing vessels in the near 

term. We are proposing to address this 

by revising 40 CFR part 1042 to 

specifically allow vessel manufacturers 

to use allowances under § 1039.625 for 

certain model year 2013 engines 

installed in marine vessels. This 

proposed provision would not apply for 

engines at or below 19 kW, since the 

land-based and marine standards for 

those engines are very similar. This 

proposed provision also would not 

apply for engines above 600 kW because 

the dynamic for designing and certifying 

those high-power engines allows for a 

greater expectation that they will be 

certified in a marine configuration. We 

expect no negative environmental 

impact because the engines will be 

meeting the nonroad Tier 3 standards, 

which will continue to be at least as 

stringent as the standards that currently 

apply for marine engines. It is important 

to note that this is only a temporary 

measure; once allowances are no longer 

available under § 1039.625, vessel 

manufacturers will either need to use 

Tier 4 land-based engines or find 

certified Tier 3 marine engines. 

There are further minor proposed 

changes to the regulations to clarify 

some of the detailed transition 

provisions for nonroad diesel engines, 

as follows: 

• Proposing to revise § 1039.104(g) to 

remove the limitations on the number of 

engines using the specified alternate 

FEL caps. Manufacturers have pointed 

out that this expanded flexibility would 

address the same concerns as described 

in this section for transitioning to the 

Tier 4 standards, but there would be no 

net environmental impact since 

manufacturers would need to produce 

low-emission engines that generate 

emission credits to offset the additional 

credits used by transition engines 

certified to with higher FELs. We are 

also proposing to revise the regulation 

to specify that the same Temporary 

Compliance Adjustment Factor is the 

same whether an engine is subject to 

NOx+NMHC standards or NOx-only 

standards. The proposed revision also 

addresses Tier 3 carry-over engines that 

would need to certify to the alternate 

FEL caps after the Tier 4 final standards 

take effect. 

• Proposing to add text to 

§ 1039.625(e) to clarify that exempted 

engines may meet standards that are 

more stringent than those specified in 

the regulation. This proposed change is 

intended only to avoid the unintended 

consequence of disallowing a 

manufacturer from making an engine 

that was cleaner than it needed to be. 

Even though these engines are cleaner 

than they need to be under the 

replacement-engine exemption, it is still 

the case that these engines are being 

exempted from the standards that apply 

for certified engines; as such, it would 

be inappropriate for these engines to 

generate emission credits. 

• Proposing to clarify § 1039.625(e) 

which alternate standards apply to 

exempted engines in cases where there 

is more than one set of standards in a 

given model year. For example, the 

appropriate standards for 19–56 kW 

engines are the Option 1 standards 

specified in § 1039.102, and the 

appropriate standards for bigger engines 

are the phase-out standards specified in 

§ 1039.102. 

• Proposing to adjust the provision 

for using interim Tier 4 engines under 

§ 1039.625(a)(2) to require that 

manufacturers use engines that are 

identical to previously certified engines, 

rather than requiring that the exempt 

engines be certified for the new model 

year. This addresses an administrative 

complication related to certifying 

exempted engines, without changing the 

requirements that apply. 

C. Large SI Fuel Line Permeation 

EPA is proposing to amend the 

required version of the SAE procedure 

for testing large SI fuel line permeation. 

In 2002 we adopted evaporative 

emission standards for nonroad sparkignition engines above 19 kW (Large SI 

engines) (67 FR 68242, November 8, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36145 

8See EPA Dear Manufacturer Letter CD–12–17 

(NRSSI), October 29, 2012. 

2002). This rule included a requirement 

that engines meet a permeation control 

standard, that could be demonstrated by 

using fuel lines compliant with SAE 

J2260, the latest version of which had 

been completed in 1996 (see 40 CFR 

1048.105). This SAE standard 

effectively established a level of 

permeation control that had been 

widely used with automotive products. 

In adopting this requirement, we 

expected manufacturers to find ‘‘off-theshelf’’ automotive-grade products for the 

nonroad engines and equipment. 

In 2008, we revised this requirement 

by changing the regulation to reference 

the 2004 version of SAE J2260, which 

had been finalized after the initial 

rulemaking (73 FR 59034, October 8, 

2008). As noted in our proposed rule, 

we understood the purpose and effect of 

the change in the SAE standard to be 

substantive with regard to the 

permeation measurement procedure, but 

not necessarily with regard to the 

stringency of the standard. The revised 

SAE protocol specifies a tighter 

numerical standard, but this 

corresponded to an offsetting change 

from a methanol-based test fuel to an 

ethanol-based test fuel. Switching to 

ethanol improves the representativeness 

of the procedure, and it is widely 

understood that ethanol permeates 

through fuel-system materials less 

aggressively than methanol. It is also 

clear the fuel change would have a nonuniform effect on different fuel-system 

materials, but our overall expectation 

was that fuel lines meeting the 1996 

version of the standard would also meet 

the 2004 version of the standard. 

Following the proposed rule, we 

received no comments either supporting 

or contradicting our understanding that 

updating to the new standard would 

have no significant effect on the 

stringency or practicability of the 

standard. 

Since completing the 2008 

rulemaking, we have received 

information indicating that the revision 

of the regulation to refer to the newer 

version of SAE J2260 was having a 

substantive effect on manufacturers’ 

ability to meet the standard. First, it 

seems that automotive manufacturers 

have moved beyond the SAE J2260 

standard to develop their own 

proprietary methods of sourcing fuel 

lines from their suppliers. Since the 

evaporative emission standards for 

automotive products involve wholevehicle measurements in an enclosure, 

manufacturers have the option to pursue 

different strategies of balancing 

emissions from fuel-line permeation 

with emissions from other sources. In 

effect, there is no longer a level of 

emission control or a type of fuel line 

that we can characterize simply as 

‘‘automotive-grade’’. It is also the case 

that motor vehicle manufacturers buy 

fuel lines in large quantities of preformed parts, rather than buying large 

spools of fuel line that can be cut and 

formed for a particular application. 

Second, it appears that fuel line 

suppliers have a very limited ability or 

willingness to supply fuel lines that 

they will describe as meeting the 2004 

version of SAE J2260. It is not clear 

whether this is a result of a difference 

in stringency between the two versions 

of the standard, or merely that fuel-line 

suppliers have moved beyond the SAE 

standard to conform to separate 

specifications from individual 

automotive manufacturers. In any case, 

Large SI equipment is not manufactured 

in sufficient numbers to greatly 

influence the fuel line manufacturers’ 

activities, which has prevented Large SI 

equipment manufacturers from being 

able to find and use fuel lines meeting 

the exact specification in the 

regulations. 

We are proposing to address this by 

again revising the regulation, this time 

to specify that either the 1996 or 2004 

version of SAE J2260 provides an 

acceptable level of control for producing 

compliant Large SI engines and 

equipment. We do not believe this 

would have a significant effect on the 

stringency of the standard. However, to 

the extent that this would modify the 

stringency of the existing fuel-line 

permeation standards at all, it only 

revises it back to the level of permeation 

control that we adopted originally in 

2002. We note also that the regulations 

from the California Air Resources Board 

continue to rely on the 1996 version of 

SAE J2260. This proposed change 

therefore would allow for a unified 

national approach to fuel-line 

permeation standards. 

D. Small SI Proposed Amendments 

Since the first emission standards for 

small spark-ignition (SI) engines 

(< 19kW), EPA and the California ARB 

have required the same basic exhaust 

emission test procedures and durability 

aging requirements. Both agencies have 

accepted exhaust emission test results 

on either agency’s test fuel for purposes 

of certification. This has traditionally 

meant that for small SI engines used in 

either handheld or non-handheld 

equipment, EPA would accept exhaust 

emission test results based on either its 

Indolene test fuel (specified at 40 CFR 

1065.710) or on California test fuel 

(specified at section 2262 in the 

California Code of Regulations (13 CCR 

2262)). In 2008, when EPA promulgated 

the current small SI exhaust emission 

standards, the California test fuel, 

commonly referred to as California 

Phase 2 gasoline or CA RFG 2, was a 

seven pound per square inch (psi) Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline which 

had approximately 11 percent methyl 

tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as an 

oxygenate additive. This test fuel had 

been used in the California small off 

road emission (SORE) program since 

1995. 

Our 2008 final rule included 

provisions at § 1054.145(k) indicating 

that EPA would not accept carryover 

exhaust emission certification data on 

CA RFG 2 after the 2012 model year (73 

FR 59034, October 8, 2008). However, 

we left open the possibility of 

continuing to accept carryover exhaust 

emission test data on CA RFG 2 subject 

to the provisions of 40 CFR 1065.10, 

1065.12 and 1065.701, which would 

permit EPA to approve its continued use 

if it does not affect the manufacturers’ 

ability to show that the affected engines 

would comply with all applicable 

emission standards using the fuel 

specified by EPA in 40 CFR 1065.710. 

Manufacturers have recently provided 

emissions data meeting the regulatory 

requirements listed above and EPA has 

permitted the use of CA RFG 2 

(California Phase 2 gasoline) for 

certification for the 2013 model year.8

Recently, California adopted new 

requirements for their gasoline 

certification test fuel for nonroad 

engines. Over the period from 2013– 

2020, manufacturers must transition 

from CA RFG 2 to a gasoline 

certification test fuel that contains 10 

percent ethanol (E10) and has a seven 

psi RVP (commonly referred to as 

California Phase 3 gasoline or CA RFG 

3). This new requirement aligns 

California test fuels with their current 

in-use gasoline. 

Considering this background and 

recent developments, EPA is proposing 

to make two changes to its current 

regulatory provisions. First, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to propose to 

extend its current practice of accepting 

exhaust emission test results for small 

SI engines to include CA RFG 3. For the 

2013–2019 model years (inclusive), EPA 

would accept exhaust emission 

certification data generated using CA 

RFG 3 test fuel. Harmonization with 

California on test procedures and test 

fuel requirements for small sparkignition engines has significant value to 

the engine and equipment 

manufacturers and users of those 

products. It allows for development and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36146 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9EPA already requires a ten percent ethanol 

blend for evaporative emissions testing. 

certification of only one engine for a 

given model or application by the 

manufacturer and allows for greater 

model availability and lower overall 

cost due to 50-state production. In 

addition, E10, which is used in CA RFG 

3, is common in gasoline sold across the 

U.S. today. Therefore, permitting the 

use of CA RFG 3 in emissions 

certification would allow test fuel to 

more closely match the in-use fuel used 

across the U.S. Accounting for the 

ethanol in the fuel is likely to enhance 

engine emissions in-use durability, 

because the presence of oxygen in the 

ethanol in the test fuel would need to 

be accommodated in the engine 

calibrations. This would reduce engine 

operating temperatures in-use relative to 

engines calibrated on a test fuel without 

oxygen. 

While EPA is proposing to accept 

manufacturer use of CA RFG 3 for the 

purposes of testing, EPA is not prepared 

to propose to accept use of CA RFG 3 

as a fully permissible replacement test 

fuel for Indolene. Test data indicate that 

NMHC+NOX exhaust emissions using 

CA RFG 3 will be comparable relative to 

results on Federal certification fuel. 

However, due to the presence of an 

oxygenate (approximately 3 percent) 

caused by the inclusion of E10 in CA 

RFG 3, tested CO emissions would be 

reduced when an engine is tested using 

CA RFG 3, compared to Indolene which 

includes no oxygenates (see 40 CFR 

1065.710). EPA’s official test fuel is 

Indolene and the level of the CO 

emission standards for small SI engines 

(see 40 CFR 1054.103 and 1054.105) is 

based on the use of that fuel. Therefore, 

EPA cannot fully accept test results 

using CA RFG 3 as showing compliance 

with EPA CO standards, because CO test 

emissions showing compliance using 

CA RFG 3 do not guarantee that an 

engine will be able to comply with 

EPA’s CO standard using Indolene. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to retain the 

option to conduct any production line, 

confirmatory, and selective enforcement 

audit (SEA) testing on EPA test fuel as 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.710.9

However, as an option for the 

manufacturers, to bring some uniformity 

and certainty to the engine development 

and calibration, emissions testing, and 

emissions durability assessment 

processes, EPA proposes to use CA RFG 

3 test fuel for any production line, 

confirmatory, and SEA testing if a 

manufacturer(s) agree to meet a lower 

CO emission standard. These values, 

which substantially address the effect of 

oxygenate content on CO emission rates, 

are 549 g/kW-hr for Classes I and II (non 

handheld engines) and 536 g/kW-hr for 

Classes III–V (handheld engines). These 

values are the same as California’s 

current CO emission standards (based 

on the use of CA RFG 2); they are 10– 

33 percent lower (depending on Class) 

than EPA’s CO emission standards (see 

40 CFR 1054.103 and 1054.105) because 

they account for oxygenate content in 

that fuel. This would not represent a 

proposed change in stringency, as the 

engine designs and calibration would 

not change, but CO emissions would 

decrease due to the oxygenate content of 

the California test fuel. This proposed 

option would be available for Class I 

and II marine generators at a CO 

emission standard of 4.5 g/kW-hr. This 

value was derived based on the ratio of 

the California CO emission standards to 

the Federal emission standards for other 

Class I and II marine generators. This 

option would be available on a familyby-family basis for all Classes of small 

SI engines. We consider these CO 

emission standards to be interim values 

for purposes of this option only. EPA 

may revise the level of its CO emission 

standard in the future if we propose to 

change the Federal test fuel 

specifications. 

Second, EPA proposes to continue 

accepting exhaust emissions data on CA 

RFG 2 after the 2012 model year (see 40 

CFR 1054.145(k)). Manufacturers have 

provided data for both handheld and 

nonhandheld engines showing 

equivalent exhaust emission levels 

between CA RFG 2 and the gasoline 

specified in 40 CFR 1065.710 

(Indolene). Furthermore, the move to 

CA RFG 3 sets in motion a process to 

eliminate CA RFG 2 certifications in the 

future as would have been required 

under 40 CFR 1054.145(k). Thus, to help 

enable an orderly and cost effective 

transition, EPA believes it is appropriate 

for us to continue to accept exhaust 

emission test data using CA RFG 2 for 

certification through the 2019 model 

year. We would expect engine families 

certified using CA RFG 2 carryover 

exhaust emission data to meet emissions 

standards on both CA RFG 2 and EPA 

certification test fuel as specified in 40 

CFR 1065.710 for any production line, 

SEA, or confirmatory testing. 

Both of these proposed actions would 

apply for certification for model years 

2013 to 2019, inclusive. EPA expects to 

revisit these provisions before 2020 to 

determine if they should be extended or 

otherwise modified. The primary EPA 

program using Indolene test fuel and 

meeting the current EPA emission 

standards remains in place for Federal 

certification for 2013 and beyond unless 

and until these provisions are otherwise 

modified. 

We are also taking the opportunity to 

propose to revise the regulatory 

provision in § 1054.145(c) describing 

requirements related to altitude kits for 

handheld engines. We adopted those 

specifications based on the expectation 

that the Phase 3 exhaust standards were 

unchanged from the Phase 2 exhaust 

standards. As such, the emission 

standards do not apply at altitudes for 

which the manufacturer would need to 

rely on an altitude kit. The regulation 

should therefore be revised to no longer 

refer to the manufacturer relying on an 

altitude kit ‘‘to meet emission 

standards.’’ This proposed change in the 

regulations is not intended to change 

current requirements, but rather simply 

clarifies the proper relationship of the 

altitude kit to the certified 

configuration. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘significant regulatory action’ because it 

raises issues that may have a potential 

effect on actions taken or planned by 

another agency. Accordingly, 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 any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

This proposal merely clarifies and 

corrects existing regulatory language. 

EPA does not believe there will be costs 

associated with this rule because the 

costs in this program were previously 

accounted for under the existing rules 

(69 FR 38958, June 29, 2004; 73 FR 

59034, October 8, 2008; and 76 FR 

57106, September 15, 2011). This 

proposed rule is not anticipated to 

create additional burdens to the existing 

requirements. As such, a regulatory 

impact evaluation or analysis is 

unnecessary. EPA also does not expect 

this rule to have substantial 

Congressional or public interest. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

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

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

The information collection requirements 

to ensure compliance with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 36147 

provisions in these rules were covered 

under ICR (2394.02). 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing heavy-duty 

greenhouse gas emissions regulations 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

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

and has assigned OMB Control Number 

2060–0678. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations are listed in 

40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (Pub. L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 857), 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by Small Business 

Administration regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, we conclude that this proposed 

action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

This proposal would merely correct 

and clarify regulatory provisions. In 

particular, as already adopted in the 

heavy-duty vehicle GHG and fuel 

efficiency rules, EPA is deferring 

standards for manufacturers meeting the 

Small Business Administration’s 

definition of small business as described 

in 13 CFR 121.201. 

There would be no costs and therefore 

no regulatory burden associated with 

this proposed rule. We have therefore 

concluded that this proposed rule 

would not increase regulatory burden 

for affected small entities. We continue 

to be interested in the potential impacts 

of the proposed rule on small entities 

and welcome comments on issues 

related to such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

proposed action would impose no 

enforceable duty on any State, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this proposed action is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This proposed action is also not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of UMRA because it contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

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. This notice of 

proposed rulemaking merely corrects 

and clarifies regulatory provisions. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). This notice of 

proposed rulemaking merely corrects 

and clarifies regulatory provisions. 

Tribal governments would be affected 

only to the extent they purchase and use 

regulated vehicles. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

proposed action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

notice of proposed rulemaking merely 

corrects and clarifies regulatory 

provisions. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. This notice of proposed 

rulemaking merely corrects and clarifies 

regulatory provisions. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs agencies to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed action would slightly 

expand the use of voluntary consensus 

standards by adding a reference 

standard under 40 CFR 1048.105. Other 

amendments in this proposed rule do 

not involve application of new technical 

standards. However, the underlying 

regulations in many cases rely on 

voluntary consensus standards. For 

example, EPA included several 

voluntary consensus standards in the 

development of the Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Standards and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (76 

FR 57106, September 15, 2011). 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

36148 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 116 / Monday, June 17, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 merely would correct 

provisions for manufacturers to use to 

demonstrate compliance of heavy-duty 

engines and vehicles. 

V. Statutory Authority 

Statutory authority for the vehicle 

controls is found in Clean Air Act 

section 202(a) (which authorizes 

standards for emissions of pollutants 

from new motor vehicles which 

emissions cause or contribute to air 

pollution which may reasonably be 

anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare), sections 202(d), 203–209, 216, 

and 301 (42 U.S.C. 7521(a), 7521(d), 

7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 

7543, 7550, and 7601). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 85 

Confidential business information, 

Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 86 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 1036 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Confidential business information, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1037 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Confidential business information, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Labeling, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1039 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1042 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, Labeling, 

Penalties, Vessels, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1048 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Part 1054 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Confidential 

business information, Imports, Labeling, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1066 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Research. 

40 CFR Part 1068 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Imports, Motor vehicle pollution, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Warranties. 

Dated: May 9, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11979 Filed 6–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90 

[WT Docket Nos. 06–150, 01–309, 03–264, 

06–169, 96–86, 07–166, CC Docket No. 94– 

102, PS Docket No. 06–229; Report No. 

2978] 

Petition for Reconsideration of Action 

in Rulemaking Proceeding 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: In this document, a Petition 

for Reconsideration (Petition) has been 

filed in the Commission’s Rulemaking 

proceeding by Dennis P. Corbett on 

behalf of Council Tree Investors, Inc. 

and Bethel Native Corporation. 

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must 

be filed on or before July 2, 2013. 

Replies to an opposition must be filed 

on or before July 12, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

D. Michaels, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418– 

7583. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of Commission’s document, 

Report No. 2978, released May 23, 2013. 

The full text of Report No. 2978 is 

available for viewing and copying in 

Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC or may be purchased 

from the Commission’s copy contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1– 

800–378–3160). The Commission will 

not send a copy of this document 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this 

document does not have an impact on 

any rules of particular applicability. 

Subject: Service Rules for the 698– 

746, 747–762, and 777–792 MHz Bands; 

Revision of the Commission’s Rules to 

Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 

911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 

68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules 

Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible 

Telephones; Biennial Regulatory 

Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 

27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize 

Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio 

Services; Former Nextel 

Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz 

Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to 

Part 327 of the Commission’s Rules; 

Implementing a Nationwide, 

Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety 

Network in the 700 MHz Band; 

Development of Operational, Technical 

and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting 

Federal, State, and Local Public Safety 

Requirements Public Safety 

Communications Requirements Through 

the Year 2010; Declaratory Ruling on 

Reporting Requirement under 

Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion 

Rule, Memorandum Opinion and Order 

on Reconsideration, FCC 13–29, 

published at 78 FR 19424, April 1, 2013, 

in WT Docket Nos. 06–150, 01–309, 03– 

264, 06–169, 96–86, 07–166, CC Docket 

No. 94–102, PS Docket No. 06–229, and 

published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e) 

of the Commission’s rules. See also 47 

CFR 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules. 

Number of Petitions Filed: 1. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of 

Managing Director. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14280 Filed 6–14–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS