Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0017-0099
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-05-09T04:00Z

1
April
18,
2005
Additional
Comments
on
Tech
Amendments
Issues
1.
Delaying
implementation
of
ramped­
modal
testing
until
2010/
Changing
the
dates
to
allow
early
testing
with
part
1065
procedures.

Our
October
29,
2004
comments
(
page
57­
58)
have
comments
on
86.1362­
2007(
a),
wherein
EMA
requested
that
manufacturers
have
the
option
to
use
the
ramped
modal
cycle
prior
to
the
2007
model
year,
but
that
the
regulatory
language
not
mandate
use
of
the
ramped
modal
test
until
2010.
Manufacturers
need
this
for
flexibility,
in
order
to
take
advantage
of
improved
procedures
where
they
are
able
to
implement
then.
This
is
consistent
also
with
our
comments
on
86.1301,
which
we
most
recently
stated
in
our
April
5,
2005,
phone
conversation
as
follows:

86.1301(
a)
For
model
years
1990
through
2004
[
not
2003],
manufacturers
must
use...
86.1301(
b)
For
model
years
2005
through
2009
[
not
2004
through
2007],
manufacturers
may
use...
86.1301(
c)
For
model
years
2010
and
later
[
not
2008
and
later],
manufacturers
must
use...

We
supported
this
also
on
pages
56­
57
of
our
October
29
comments,
including
the
attachment
to
our
comments
which
was
the
Greg
Green
December
3,
2002
letter
to
Jed
Mandel
allowing
for
early
use
of
the
new
procedures.
It
is
our
understanding
further
that
Matt
Spears
has
agreed
that
the
new
procedures
won't
be
mandatory
until
2010.
The
foregoing
date
changes
are
meant
to
clarify
that
flexibility.

2.
Increasing
the
flexibility
of
making
noncompliant
engines
for
marine
diesel
applications
(
94.1103).

EMA's
October
29
comments,
page
43,
address
this
issue.
A
requirement
that
the
Administrator
(
under
(
b)(
4))
or
the
manufacturer
(
under
(
b)(
3))
determine
that
there
is
not
an
appropriate
certified
replacement
engine
from
any
manufacturer
will
require
an
exhaustive
search
that
can
require
significant
time
and
create
significant
financial
burdens.
It
is
unreasonable
and
burdensome
to
require
manufacturers
to
have
to
find
out
whether
any
of
their
competitors
have
appropriate
engines
if
a
customer
comes
to
them
requesting
a
replacement.
Rather
than
require
a
determination
that
no
certified
engine
is
available,
the
language
of
94.1103(
b)
should
be
revised
to
be
consistent
with
the
provisions
for
nonroad
replacement
engines
in
89.1003(
b)(
7)(
i)
or
1068.240(
b)(
3)
as
follows:

(
3)
Where
the
Administrator
determines
that
no
engine
produced
by
the
manufacturer
requesting
the
replacement
or
by
the
manufacturer
of
the
engine
that
is
being
replaced,
if
Two
North
LaSalle
Street
Suite
2200
Chicago,
Illinois
60602
Tel:
312/
827­
8700
Fax:
312/
827­
8737
www.
enginemanufacturers.
org
2
different,
and
certified
to
the
requirements
of
this
part,
is
available
with
the
appropriate
physical
or
performance
characteristics
.
.
.
.

*
*
*
(
4)
An
engine
manufacturer
may
make
the
determination
related
to
replacement
engines
described
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section
instead
of
the
Administrator,
if
the
new
engine
is
needed
to
replace
an
engine
that
has
experienced
catastrophic
failure.
The
engine
manufacturer
must
keep
records
explaining
why
no
new
engine
produced
by
itself
or
by
the
manufacturer
of
the
engine
that
is
being
replaced,
if
different,
and
certified
to
the
requirements
of
this
part
could
be
used
to
replace
.
.
.
.

3.
Adopting
the
labeling
provisions
for
marine
engine
shortened
useful
life
(
94.9).

The
useful
life
should
be
required
on
the
label
only
if
a
manufacturer
has
opted
to
define
a
shorter
useful
life.
This
is
consistent
with
the
requirements
for
labeling
of
nonroad
engines
under
1039.135(
11).
EPA
indicated
they
would
be
willing
to
add
language
in
94.212
that
is
consistent
with
the
default
language
of
1039.135,
and
we
recommend
the
following:

94.212
(___).
State
the
useful
life
if
we
approve
a
shortened
useful
life
under
section
94.9(
a)(
3).

4.
Expanding
the
staged­
assembly
exemption
for
parts
89
and
92.

Manufacturers
request
that
the
language
added
to
94.913,
1068.260(
h)
and
85.1713(
k)
also
be
included
specifically
in
Part
89
and
in
Part
92,
to
remain
consistent
across
all
applications,
as
follows:

89.____
and
92.____.
You
may
ask
us
to
provide
a
temporary
exemption
to
allow
you
to
complete
production
of
your
engines
at
different
facilities,
as
long
as
you
maintain
control
of
the
engines
until
they
are
in
their
certified
configuration.
We
may
require
you
to
take
specific
steps
to
ensure
that
such
engines
are
in
their
certified
configuration
before
reaching
the
ultimate
purchaser.
You
may
request
an
exemption
under
this
section
in
your
application
for
certification,
or
in
a
separate
submission
to
the
Designated
Compliance
Officer.

5.
Fuel
Labeling
for
2006/
2007
MY
Highway
Engines
and
Vehicles
The
light
duty
regulatory
text
for
vehicle
labeling
(
86.1807­
07)
requires
that
model
year
2007
and
later
diesel­
fueled
vehicles
certified
with
15
ppm
or
less
sulfur
fuel
include
labels
on
the
dash
and
near
fuel
filler
that
read
"
Use
Low­
sulfur
Diesel
Fuel
Only".

The
Heavy
Duty
on
highway
regulations
for
labeling
(
86.007­
35
c)
were
revised
as
part
of
the
final
rule
published
for
the
non­
road
Tier
IV
rule
published
June
29,
2004
to
include
labels
on
the
dash
and
near
all
fuel
inlets
that
read
"
Use
Ultra
Low
Sulfur
Diesel
Fuel
Only".
3
There
is
a
slightly
different
pump
labeling
requirement
as
part
of
the
fuel
regulation.
The
15
ppm
sulfur
standard
fuel
requires
a
pump
label
that
reads
"
Ultra­
Low
Sulfur
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
(
15
ppm
Sulfur
Maximum)".
The
500
ppm
sulfur
standard
fuel
requires
a
pump
label
that
reads
"
Low
Sulfur
Highway
Fuel
(
500
ppm
Sulfur
Maximum)".

The
concern
is
that
the
current
light
duty
requirement
will
cause
vehicles
to
be
labeled
with
the
wrong
fuel
type
based
on
what
is
going
to
be
stated
on
the
fuel
dispensing
pumps.

EMA
recommends
that
EPA
make
the
needed
changes
to
86.1807­
07
to
correct
this
error.

EMADOCS:
6711.1